" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

111–709 

Union Calendar No. 432 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH 

CONGRESS 

SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING’S 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

99–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2011

111–709 

Union Calendar No. 432 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH 

CONGRESS 

SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
(III)

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND

GLOBAL WARMING, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2011. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: Pursuant to H. Res. 5, section 4(a)(5), I 

hereby transmit to you the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming’s Final Staff Report for the 111th Congress. This report summarizes the Select Committee’s work during 

this Congress, the historic achievements on energy and climate 

issues, and recommendations for actions in the 112th Congress. 

As we move into the 112th Congress, I want to thank you for 

your historic and continued leadership and vision on the critical 

issues of energy security and climate change. I hope and trust that 

the work of the Select Committee, reflected in this Report, will assist the next Congress as we press forward to meet these urgent 

challenges and opportunities. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

Chairman. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 

The Energy and Climate Challenge ....................................................................... 3 

I. Energy Independence ................................................................................... 3 

II. The Climate Crisis ...................................................................................... 19 

III. The Economic Challenge: Jobs and Clean Tech Growth ........................ 47 

Select Committee Activities .................................................................................... 51 

I. Investigation into the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ............................ 51 

II. Accomplishments ......................................................................................... 55 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 61 

Appendix A: Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee on Energy 

and Global Warming ............................................................................................ 65 

Appendix B: BP Deepwater Horizon Correspondence .......................................... 73 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
1 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010. Available at http:// 

www.worldenergyoutlook.org/. 

Union Calendar No. 432 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–709 

FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MARKEY, from the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

INTRODUCTION

We are at a watershed moment in the history of energy production—and the choices we make at this juncture will determine the 

fate of our planet and the national security and economic future of 

the United States. Between now and 2030, roughly $26 trillion will 

be invested in energy infrastructure worldwide. Clean energy will 

likely make up an increasing share of this investment with every 

passing year. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates 

that $5.7 trillion will be invested in renewable electricity generation alone between 2010 and 2035.1 This new infrastructure is 

long-lived and costly, and the decisions made in the next decade 

will set the course of the global and U.S. energy system—and of the 

global climate—for the next century and beyond. This transition 

also presents an unprecedented opportunity for economic growth 

and job creation in the clean energy technology sector. Other countries are taking the lead in clean energy and the United States 

must act now if it is to remain competitive in this rapidly developing global market. 

Global climate change presents one of the gravest threats to our 

planet’s health, and to America’s economy, its national security, 

and its public health. Scientists warn that we may be approaching 

a tipping point, after which it will become increasingly difficult, or 

perhaps impossible, to halt global warming and its catastrophic effects. The United States confronts this issue at the same time it 

faces a deepening energy crisis—characterized by skyrocketing 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
2 

prices, high dependence on foreign oil, and continued reliance on 

high-carbon fuels that worsen the climate crisis. 

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming was created by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 

2007 to examine and make recommendations on the interrelated 

issues of energy independence, national security, America’s economic future and global warming. 

During its four years, the Select Committee held 80 hearings and 

briefings, conducted investigations, led fact finding trips with Congressional members, and contributed to the most active four years 

in energy and climate policy development and debate in the United 

States Congress. 

As a result of the Select Committee’s work in raising the profile 

of energy and climate issues, and spurring increased debate, the 

House of Representatives passed several pieces of legislation that 

will reduce our nation’s consumption of foreign oil, increase energy 

efficiency, and create new jobs in the clean energy sector. 

In 2007, the first year of the Select Committee, the House passed 

the Energy Independence and Security Act, which included fuel 

economy provisions co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Select Committee. The bill also increased America’s use 

of advanced biofuels, and updated energy efficiency standards for 

appliances and lighting systems. 

The Select Committee also was instrumental in pushing for increased investment in clean energy technologies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invested $90 billion in clean 

energy, which jump-started new domestic industries like advanced 

electric batteries, boosted household energy efficiency, and helped 

key renewable energy sectors like wind and solar avoid collapse 

during the recession. 

In June of 2009, the House passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, the first passage of a comprehensive energy and climate bill in the history of the U.S. Congress. The bill set ambitious carbon reduction targets, which were 

used by U.S. negotiators to craft the Copenhagen Accord. It also 

created a roadmap to create clean energy jobs and the next generation of clean energy technologies. 

These legislative achievements happened as historic events indicated that swift action was needed to address a strained energy 

system and a dangerously destabilized climate. The years 2007– 

2010 are all in the top ten warmest years on record, according to 

NASA. Oil and gasoline prices peaked to record levels in 2007 and 

are on the rise again as the country emerges from the recession. 

As the Select Committee ends its tenure of progress, it is clear 

that there is much left to be done to stabilize our global climate, 

and spur the development of clean energy technology and jobs here 

in America. 

This report summarizes the results and findings of the Select 

Committee’s hearings and investigations, highlights legislative accomplishments that flow from the information it has developed and 

makes recommendations for steps moving forward. We begin with 

a discussion of the key issue of energy independence. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
3 

2 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2008. Available at http://www.iea.org/ 

textbase/nppdf/free/2008/weo2008.pdf. 3 Energy Information Administration; World Oil Balance: Second Quarter 2010 and U.S. Consumption by Sector. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oillgas/petroleum/analysisl publications/oillmarketlbasics/demandltext.htm#Global Oil Consumption. 4 Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review November 2010, Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade: Overview. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec3l7.pdf. 5 Energy Information Administration Weekly United States Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Import Volume (Dollars per Barrel) (November 2010) Available at http://www.eia.gov/ 

dnav/pet/petlprilwcolklw.htm. 6 Id. 

7 As calculated by Select Committee staff, from census data. See U.S. Census Bureau Foreign 

Trade, Exhibit 9—Petroleum and Non-petroleum End-Use Category Totals (Sept 2010) Available 

at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2010pr/10/exh9.pdf. 

I. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

INTRODUCTION

The United States is confronting a deepening energy security crisis—characterized by escalating and volatile energy prices, unacceptably high dependence on foreign oil, and increasing global demand for limited energy resources. At the same time, an unprecedented economic and job creation opportunity has developed in the 

clean energy sector. According to the IEA, roughly $26 trillion in 

investment will be needed through 2030 to meet the world’s energy 

demand, a significant share of which will be made in the rapidly 

growing clean energy sector.2 Nations that move aggressively now 

will position their domestic companies and workers to disproportionately benefit in this key growth sector. 

The Oil Challenge 

The United States’ continuing addiction to oil presents a serious 

threat to our national security and economy. The United States is 

the largest consumer of oil in the world, accounting for 22 percent 

of global demand—principally to power our transportation system, 

which is 95 percent dependent on oil.3 About half of all U.S. oil 

consumption in 2010—3.5 billion barrels—came from foreign 

sources. Imports have declined from their peak of 60 percent of 

total consumption in 2005 but are still up from 42 percent in 1990 

and 27 percent in 1985.4

Oil and gasoline prices have been on a roller coaster ride over 

the past four years, and are predicted to remain at historically high 

levels for the foreseeable future, primarily as a result of rising 

global demand. Crude oil prices have increased by 250 percent over 

the last decade while gasoline prices have more than doubled.5 In 

just the last 3 years, the price of a barrel of oil has soared to $147, 

dropped to $36, and climbed back above $90 by the close of 2010.6

Experts agree that rapidly growing oil demand from developing 

countries is likely to result in sustained high prices for the foreseeable future. China, for example, alone is expected to grow its vehicle fleet from 40 million vehicles today to 350 million by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). 

Soaring petroleum prices have been a drain on the economy and 

have a crippling effect on American consumers. Nearly $1.3 trillion 

has been sent overseas to import oil over the past four years, while 

oil imports have grown to account for nearly half the U.S. trade 

deficit.7 Each $1 per gallon increase in the average cost of gasoline 

adds nearly $600 to an average American’s annual transportation 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
4 

8This is based on EPA estimates of fuel economy and miles driven by an average U.S. passenger vehicle. See Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, Fact Sheet EPA420–F–05–004 (Feb. 2005) Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm. 9 According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. cars, vans, pickups, and SUVs in 2005 

traveled an average of 11,856 miles and used 594 gallons of gasoline over the course of the year. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Annual Vehicle Distance 

Traveled in Kilometers and Related Data—2005, By Highway Category and Vehicle Type (Table 

VM–1M) (Nov. 2006) Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/pdf/vm1m.pdf. Based 

on those figures, with gasoline prices at $3.75 per gallon, the average consumer would spend 

$2,227.50. 10 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, December 2010—Table 

WF01. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/wf-table.pdf. 11 Energy Information Administration, International Petroleum Monthly (November 2010) 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html; and Oil and Gas Journal—World Proved 

Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates, (March 2, 2009) Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html. 12 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010 at 48 (2010). 13David Baker, ‘‘Big Oil has trouble finding new fields,’’ San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 1, 

2008. Available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/BUMDUOD7S.DTL. 14 Amy Myers Jaffe & Ronald Soligo, The International Oil Companies at 3 (Nov. 2007) 

(The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy) Available at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/ 

publications/NOClIOCslJaffe-Soligo.pdf. 

fuel bill.8 At mid-2008 gasoline prices, fuel expenses were eating up 

nearly 10 percent of an average American worker’s pre-tax income.9

In addition, nearly 8 million American households rely on heating oil to warm their homes during the winter. These households 

face an expected average heating bill of $2,146 during the 2010– 

11 winter, 61 percent more than households spent on average 6 

winters ago.10

OPEC countries control 70 percent of estimated global oil reserves and account for 40 percent of global production.11 OPEC’s 

share of global production is projected to continue to increase, 

reaching more than 50 percent by 2035.12 Moreover, investorowned companies control only about 6 percent of the world’s known 

oil reserves. By contrast, government-owned and operated companies in oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia or the National Iranian Oil Company in Iran, control most of 

the rest.13 Of the top 20 oil producing companies in the world, 14 

are national oil companies (NOCs) or newly privatized NOCs.14 Although Canada and Mexico supply a substantial proportion of U.S. 

imports, OPEC countries control virtually all of the world’s marginal production capacity and therefore have the ability to set the 

global price for this commodity. As a result, the United States’ national security and economy is increasingly threatened by the potential for a supply disruption or market manipulation by sometimes unfriendly foreign governments. 

Despite increasing calls to open the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, 

the facts make clear that we cannot drill our way out of this problem. While the United States consumes 22 percent of the world’s 

oil, it has less than 3 percent of global reserves. More drilling will 

have little or no impact on prices consumers pay for gasoline and 

will not substantially reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. 

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) estimates that, even if the entire lower 48 OCS were opened 

to drilling, this would increase cumulative U.S. oil production by 

only 1.6 percent by 2030 and would have an ‘‘insignificant’’ impact 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
5 

15 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html. 16 Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge (May 2008). Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html. 17 Id, p. 11. 18Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, All Reported Royalty Revenues, Fiscal Year 2004. Available at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/MRMWebStats/Disbursementsl Royalties.aspx?report=TotalLeasesbyCategory&yeartype=FY&year=2007&asOfDate=10-26-2007. 19Department of Interior. Mineral Management Service, Table 1. All Lease Offerings. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/lsesale/swiler/Tablel1.PDF. 20Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service, Report to Congress: Comprehensive 

Inventory of U.S. OCS Oil and Natural Gas Resources (Feb. 2006). Available at http:// 

www.mms.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/FinalInvRptToCongress050106.pdf. Figures are adjusted to account for the estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 79.96 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Gulf 

of Mexico that were made accessible following this inventory by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. 21 Conventional oil is crude oil and natural gas liquids produced from underground reservoirs 

by means of conventional wells. Non-conventional oil includes oil shales, oil sands, and extraheavy crude. 22 Energy Information Administration, Long-term Global Oil Scenarios: Looking Beyond 2030 

(Slide presentation by Glen Sweetnam from EIA 2008 Energy Conference, April 7, 2008) (EIA 

uses 20.6 trillion barrels as its base case.). 23 Energy Information Administration, World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most 

Recent Estimates, Oil and Gas Journal, (March 3, 2009) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

emeu/international/reserves.html. 

on prices.15 As to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, EIA estimates that if the Refuge were opened for drilling, production would 

likely peak in 2027 at just 0.78 million barrels per day—reducing 

world oil prices by 78 cents per barrel in EIA’s average price and 

resource case.16 EIA notes that ‘‘the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal 

amount.’’ 17

In addition, there is currently no shortage of opportunities for 

drilling on federal lands in the United States. Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal 

lands and offshore areas on which they are not currently producing.18 From 2000 through 2009, the federal government has offered more than 517 million acres for lease offshore and leased 

more than 8,700 tracts.19 Onshore, more than 40,000 permits have 

been approved for drilling. Nearly 83 percent of technically recoverable offshore oil reserves offshore in the United States are located 

in areas already available for leasing and drilling.20

Finally, regardless of U.S. oil production trends, there are serious 

questions about how increasing global demand will be met—and 

whether it can be met at all. Estimates of the total petroleum resources currently in the ground—both conventional and unconventional 21—vary from 14 to 24 trillion barrels.22 However, actual 

‘‘proven reserves’’ that have already been discovered and are expected to be economically producible are much lower—estimated at 

between 1.2 and 1.3 trillion barrels worldwide. Chevron Corporation has estimated that humanity has consumed 1 trillion barrels 

of oil during the past 125 years, but that it will take just 30 years 

to burn through another trillion barrels. Proven U.S. reserves are 

estimated at 21 billion to 30 billion barrels, enough to meet U.S. 

demand for 3 or 4 years.23

Generating new oil supply is proving increasingly difficult. The 

fields that oil companies find are generally in hard-to-reach places 

like deep water areas in the Gulf of Mexico, where drilling and 

pumping costs far more than it does on land. Much of these companies’ current oil supplies come from old giant fields which are now 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
6 

24Matthew R. Simmons, Simmons & Company International, The 21st Century Energy Crisis 

Has Arrived (Presentation to the CFA Society of Atlanta: April 16, 2008). 25 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 90. 26 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010 at 48. 27 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/electricity.html. 28 American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report, Year Ending 2009 Available at http://e360.yale.edu/images/digest/AnnuallMarketlReportlWind.pdf. 29 Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2008 Available at ftp:// 

ftp.eia.doe.gov/electricity/034808.pdf; and Energy Information Administration, Electric Power 

Annual 2009, See table 1.5 Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy Source, 

2009 at 19. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile1l5.pdf. 

in decline and deepwater fields which may have shorter lifespans 

than traditional fields.24 The 87 day BP Deepwater Horizon oil and 

gas spill illustrates the inherent risk and increased environmental 

and safety challenges of pursuing ever more remote, highly pressurized, and difficult to extract hydrocarbon deposits. 

Further, a growing share of reserve additions are coming from 

revised appraisals of existing fields, not the discovery of new fields. 

Even with advances in technology, the average size of discoveries 

per exploratory well is around 10 million barrels, which is half the 

output of wells dug between 1965 and 1979.25 As a result, the IEA 

believes that crude oil output will not exceed the all-time peak production level of 70 million barrels per day (mb/d) reached in 2006. 

Instead, crude output plateaus around 68–69 mb/d over the next 

decade, while production of natural gas liquids and unconventional 

oil grows.26

In short, the shrinking margin between stagnant supply and 

soaring demand provides yet another reason that the United States 

and the world need to begin to look beyond oil to meet our growing 

energy needs. 

PART II: THE ELECTRICITY CHALLENGE

Even with the recession reducing economic growth and electricity 

demand in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. power sector is facing rapid 

and sustained growth in demand over the coming decades. Additionally, our electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure 

is outdated and overtaxed, and uncertainty about climate regulation is stalling new investment. 

U.S. electricity demand is predicted to increase by 30 percent by 

2035, requiring the construction of 250,000 megawatts of new generating capacity—or equivalent increases in efficiency.27 Many regions of the country are predicted to see declining levels of reserve 

capacity—putting the reliability of the grid at greater risk. 

More than 10,000 megawatts of new wind generating capacity 

was installed in the United States in 2009,28 making it the second 

consecutive year in which more wind capacity was installed than 

natural gas, coal, or any other resource.29 While coal remains the 

single largest source of electricity in the country (45 percent), fuelswitching to natural gas contributed to a 12 percent decline in coalfired generation in 2009, its lowest share of the electricity market 

since 1978. Longer-term, the massive contribution of coal-fired 

power plants to global warming pollution and uncertainty regarding climate policy are making it increasingly inadvisable and difficult to build new conventional coal-fired plants. 

Beginning January 1, 2011, EPA will phase in permitting requirements for new plants with greenhouse gas emissions. Power 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
7 

30The well-head price is the price charged by the producer for petroleum or natural gas without transportation costs. 31Solar Energy Industry Association, U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review 2009 (April 15, 

2010), Available at http://seia.org/galleries/default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in 

%20Review.pdf. 32See generally North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2007 Long-term Reliability 

Assessment (Oct. 2007). 33 Energy Information Administration, Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/ 

table5l3.html. 34Peter Spotts, ‘‘Trade-off looms for arid US regions: water or power?’’ The Christian Science 

Monitor, April 17, 2007. 

plants will also face new air toxics regulations in the next several 

years. Meanwhile, discoveries of domestic shale gas deposits and 

advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, 

have led to expanded domestic gas reserves and production and the 

lowest well-head prices 30 in seven years. U.S. solar electric capacity grew 37 percent in 2009 31 as the price of photovoltaic modules 

has declined 50 percent in price over the last two years. While 

many advocate nuclear power, massive expansion would be necessary even for it to maintain its current share of U.S. generation, 

and there are very substantial financial, market, and other obstacles to such an expansion. 

Rapidly growing demand, security challenges, and underinvestment in transmission infrastructure have created concerns about 

the reliability of the electrical grid. A number of steps have been 

taken to increase grid reliability in the wake of the 2003 blackouts 

in the northeast. However, transmission congestion remains a 

problem and the margin between capacity and demand is growing 

thinner in many regions of the country—notably the Midwest, 

Southwest, and California—creating concerns about the potential 

for brownouts or blackouts in the next several years.32 The grid’s 

increasing reliance on automation and two-way communications, 

especially with the rise of advanced metering and other ‘‘smart 

grid’’ capabilities, has increased the grid’s vulnerability to remote 

cyber attacks. 

Retail electricity prices have seen a steady upward march over 

the last decade due to rising fuel and infrastructure costs. Prices 

have increased from a nationwide average of 6.64 cents per kilowatt hour in 1999 to 9.89 cents in 2009, a 49 percent rise.33 However, electricity represents a much less price volatile form of energy, as average annual electricity rates are projected by the EIA 

to stay relatively steady, increasing to 10.2 cents per kilowatt hour 

in real dollars through 2035. 

Electricity generation is heavily dependent on water, and growing water scarcity due to climate change will constrain power generation in many areas here in the United States and abroad. Power 

plants that convert thermal energy into electricity—primarily coal, 

natural gas, oil, and nuclear power plants—currently produce 90 

percent of U.S. electricity and consume massive amounts of the 

country’s fresh water supply for steam generation and cooling. 

Hydroelectric power, which typically accounts for another 6–9 

percent of U.S. power generation, is of course highly dependent on 

water flow. Water used by electric utilities accounts for 20 percent 

of all non-farm water use in the United States.34 This figure could 

rise to 60 percent by 2030, with fast-growing regions like the 

Southwest and Southeast hit the hardest. In recent years, decreased river flow and increased water temperatures already have 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
8 

35 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, Table 7.8 Coal Prices, Selected Years, 1949–2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec7l19.pdf. 36 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, Total Recoverable 

Coal. Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6. 37 National Research Council, Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy 

Policy (2007). 38 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, at 87. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf. 39 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010. Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf. 40 As calculated by Select Committee Staff. See Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf. 41Source Watch ‘‘Coal plants cancelled in 2009,’’ available at http://www.sourcewatch.org/ 

index.php?title=Coallplantslcancelledlinl2009. 

led to shut-downs of nuclear power plants in the southeastern 

United States and across Europe. These problems will be exacerbated as global warming increases temperatures and water scarcity. 

Coal 

Coal has not been immune to the increase in fossil fuel costs, as 

domestic prices have soared nearly 60 percent between 2000 and 

2009.35 These higher prices drove a decline in coal-fired generation 

to its lowest share of the domestic electricity market since 1978. 

Yet coal remains a key fuel for the electric power sector, both for 

the United States and the rest of the world. Often referred to as 

the Saudi Arabia of coal, the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world (28 percent of global reserves 36) and produces 

more than 10 billion short tons of coal annually. More than 90 percent of U.S. coal consumption is used for electricity generation. It 

is frequently asserted that U.S. reserves are sufficient to last 250 

years at current rates of consumption, though a 2007 National Research Council report emphasized that this estimate could not be 

confirmed and some question whether full recovery is feasible.37

China and India, two of the largest, fastest growing economies in 

the world, have large reserves and rely on coal for most of their 

electricity generation (80 percent for China and 71 percent for 

India).38

Coal presents a serious challenge from the perspective of global 

warming, and the successful development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies will be crucial to reconciling our 

continued reliance on coal with the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of coal’s high-carbon content, coalfired power plants emit roughly twice as much carbon dioxide per 

unit of electricity as natural gas-fired plants. Existing coal-fired 

plants account for about a third of U.S. CO2 emissions, and projected business-as-usual expansion in conventional coal-fired power 

plants would make achieving science-based reductions of carbon 

emissions impossible. Globally, coal-fired generation is expected to 

nearly double between 2007 and 2035, with the lion’s share of new 

capacity being built in China and India.39 If built without carbon 

controls, these new coal plants alone would increase global greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 19 percent above current levels.40

Here in the United States, construction of new coal-fired power 

plants has slowed. According to one tally, more than 100 coal-fired 

power plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold between 

2007 and 2009.41 While 2009 saw more new coal capacity come online in the United States in a single year since 1991, it was far less 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
9 

42 Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009, Table 1.5. Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy Source (2009). Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile1l5.pdf. 43 National Energy Technology Laboratories, Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants, January 

8, 2010. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf. 44See, e.g., Jeffrey Ball, ‘‘Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over Coal: Banks Push Utilities To 

Plan for Impact of Emissions Caps,’’ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 4, 2008, at A6. 45 Energy Information Administration, World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most 

Recent Estimates (March 3, 2009), Oil and Gas Journal data. Available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html. 46 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035, 

May 11, 2010. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html. 47 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Consumption by End Use (November 

2010). Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/nglconslsumldculnuslm.htm. 48 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035, 

May 11, 2010, at 1. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html. 

than new wind (9,410 MW) and natural gas (9,403 MW) capacity 

added that year.42 In fact, more than four times as much planned 

coal capacity was cancelled or abandoned (14,900 MW) as was completed (3,200 MW) in 2009.43 This slowdown was due in large part 

to public and regulatory opposition related coal plants’ emissions of 

CO2 as well as conventional pollutants, such as mercury. This opposition, together with uncertainty about future climate regulation, 

is making it increasingly difficult for new coal-fired power plants 

to secure financing. For example, in February 2008, three of what 

were then Wall Street’s biggest investment banks issued standards 

requiring utilities seeking financing for coal-fired power plants to 

demonstrate that the plants will be economically viable even with 

stringent federal controls on CO2 emissions.44

Natural Gas 

Two qualities make natural gas an important bridge fuel in the 

U.S. energy system: it emits roughly half the carbon as coal in producing the same amount of energy, and it is found and produced 

in the United States. Although the United States consumes 23 percent of the world’s natural gas and has less than 4 percent of global 

reserves 45—ultimately an unsustainable equation—natural gas 

does not present the same immediate geopolitical and economic security risks as oil. Net natural gas imports currently make up just 

12 percent of total supply, the vast majority of which comes from 

Canada. Further, EIA projects imports to fall to 6 percent of U.S. 

supply in 2035.46 After four consecutive years of production increases, the United States is now producing more natural gas than 

it ever has before. It has become a fuel of choice for new power 

plants in the United States because of its low emissions, comparatively low capital cost, short lead times for plant construction, and 

relatively low current fuel prices. The electric power sector now accounts for 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption, nearly 

the same as the manufacturing sector.47

New drilling technologies, especially horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, have driven the recent surge in domestic production by allowing the extraction of shale gas from geologic formations that could not be tapped with traditional techniques. The resource potential of shale gas has significantly increased the natural 

gas reserve estimates in the United States.48 The Potential Gas 

Committee estimated in 2009 that the United States held 35 percent more gas reserves than it believed two years earlier, an 80- 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
10 

49Potential Gas Committee, Press Release: ‘‘Potential Gas Committee Reports Unprecedented 

Increase in Magnitude of Natural Gas Resource Base,’’ June 18, 2009. Available at http://www. 

energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/potential-gas-committee-reports-unprecedentedincrease-in.pdf. 50 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 51 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (2007), available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html 52 Id. 53Steve Hargreaves, Natural gas vs. contaminated water, CNNMoney.com, July 29, 2008, 

available at http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/lshaleldrilling/index.htm. 54 U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS–156–00, Water Produced With Coal Bed Methane 

(Nov. 2000), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0156-00/fs-0156-00.pdf. 55 Hal Clifford, Wyoming’s powder key, High Country News, Nov. 5, 2001, available at 

http://www.hcn.org/issues/214/10823. 56 Vickie Welborn, ‘‘Competition for Water Raises Concerns’’ Shreveport Times, August 8, 

2008. 

year domestic supply at current rates of production.49 Shale gas 

now accounts for nearly a third of total U.S. gas reserves, and the 

EIA estimates that shale resources will provide 24 percent of total 

U.S. natural gas supply by 2035, up from 6 percent currently.50

By contrast, recent proposals to open new areas of the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) for gas production are unlikely to lead to 

substantial new production or to significant downward pressure on 

prices. According to EIA, less than 7 percent of total U.S. proven 

natural gas reserves are OCS offshore reserves. EIA estimates that 

73 percent of these technically recoverable natural gas resources in 

the OCS (or all but 2 percent of total proven natural gas reserves) 

are already available for leasing and development.51 Furthermore, 

EIA’s analysis found that ‘‘lower 48 natural gas production is not 

projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased 

access to the OCS.’’ 52

Development of onshore unconventional resources has stressed 

water availability and quality in some areas. The Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, which has intensified concerns about the 

potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, focusing 

primarily on the potential for fracturing fluid, which may include 

chemical lubricants, gels, and biocides, to contaminate water supplies.53 Coalbed methane production—another form of unconventional gas development—releases saline water from the coal seams 

that can also contain arsenic, lead and other heavy metals 54 and 

must be dealt with properly to avoid contamination of water supplies or destruction of pasture as has occurred in some areas of Wyoming.55 In some areas of the country, water supply systems are 

struggling to meet the demands of increased natural gas production 

on top of existing drinking and agriculture usage.56

Natural gas also comes with the same price volatility concerns as 

oil. Between 2002 and 2008, average monthly U.S. well head prices 

soared more than 400 percent. Just a year later, in 2009, prices 

had fallen by two-thirds from their high in 2008. This has had a 

deleterious effect on some industries that rely on natural gas a key 

input—such as pulp and paper, metals, glass, and plastic—as well 

as end users like farmers, who must spend much more for natural 

gas-based fertilizer. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
11 

57 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2009, p. 277. 58 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities, February 3, 2010. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/ 

applications.html. 59Lovins, Amory B., Invited testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, Hearing on ‘‘Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?’’ (March 

12, 2008) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/files/0401.pdf. 60 Id. 

Nuclear 

With a fleet of 104 commercial nuclear reactors, the United 

States is by far the largest producer of nuclear power in the world. 

In 2009, nuclear accounted for 20 percent of total U.S. electric generation, a share that has remained relatively stable over the last 

two decades. While the number of commercial reactors has remained the same since 1998, the fleet capacity factor—or the percentage of the time the generators are running at full capacity— 

has increased from 78 percent to more than 90 percent.57 While 

U.S. reactors were designed and commissioned to operate for 40- 

year lives, 59 commercial reactors have now received 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 

giving them up to a total of 60 years of operation. Extensions for 

21 additional reactors are currently under review, and more are 

anticipated, according to NRC.58

Electric utilities have filed 17 applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 26 new reactor operating licenses since 

2007, the first new reactor applications submitted to U.S. regulators in three decades. While some are reading this activity as an 

indication of a nuclear ‘‘renaissance’’, the nuclear industry continues to face significant challenges. The cost of new nuclear plants 

has ballooned in recent years and now approaches or exceeds the 

total market capitalization of many electric utility companies.59

While nuclear power is a mature technology that has been 

around for more than half a century, the industry’s long-running 

inability to build safe reactors on time and on budget continues to 

make financing very difficult for new projects. According to the 

Congressional Budget Office for the more than 40 nuclear power 

projects underway since the partial-core meltdown at Three Mile 

Island in 1979, construction cost overruns exceeded 250 percent. 

For the 67 nuclear plants that have come online in the United 

States since 1976, on average more than 13 years passed between 

when a new plant application was officially accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and when the plant began commercial 

operation.60 The last reactor completed in the United States came 

online in 1996 after a construction period of 23 years. Since the nuclear building boom of the 1970s and 1980s, the nuclear industry 

and the number of skilled nuclear workers in the United States has 

contracted substantially, making a nuclear resurgence all the more 

difficult and less likely to be driven by domestic workers. 

Cost projections for new nuclear power plants have also increased dramatically and made it unlikely new projects can be financed without taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. The nuclear industry projects a new large reactor would cost around $2 billion to 

construct, which would place new projects at the low end of the $2 

to $6 billion range seen for reactors completed since the mid-1980s 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
12 

61 Congressional Research Service, Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt (October 21, 2010) available at http://www.crs.gov/Products/RL/PDF/RL33558.pdf. 62 Nuclear Energy Institute, Policies That Support New Nuclear Power Plant Development 

(October 2009) available at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/ 

factsheet/policiessupportnewplantdevelopment/?page=2. 63 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S.14, Energy Policy Act of 2003, at 11 (May 

7, 2003), available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf. 64This does not include $2.5 billion appropriated through the Recovery Act which is estimated to support approximately $21 billion in loan guarantees. Department of Energy, Loan Guarantee 

Programs, (August 2010) available at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/lgprogram.htm. 65Katherine Ling, ‘‘Nuclear Power: 17 apply for DOE loan guarantees, far exceeding available 

cash,’’ Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2008. 66 Nuclear Energy Institute, June 26, 2009 available at http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/ 

senatevotenuclearplantdeployment/nei-welcomes-inclusion-of-clean-energy-provisions-in-climatebill-okd-by-house/. 67Secretary Stephen Chu response to questions from Rep. Markey, December 22, 2009. See 

http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleasesl2008?id=0186#mainlcontent. 68 New York Times (ClimateWire), DOE Delivers Its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee, February 17, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewiredoe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html. 

(in 2007 dollars).61 However, the 2007 Keystone Center study has found costs for the same plant could reach $4 billion. New plants 

are now expected to cost $6–8 billion each,62 a figure which approaches or exceeds the total market capitalization of many electric 

power companies. 

In light of these costs and risks, it remains in doubt whether private financing will be available for any new nuclear facilities without the assurance of federal government guarantees on the loans. 

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default 

on such loans to be ‘‘very high—well above 50 percent.’’ 63

The existing Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has been authorized to award $38.5 billion in loan guarantees,64

more than half of which is specifically targeted at jumpstarting nuclear power. The Department has received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 22 proposed nuclear power plants, totaling $122 billion in requested assistance. The Director of the Department’s loan program office has stated that $18.5 billion could 

probably accommodate only two power plants unless coupled with 

additional financing assistance.65 Additional financing from foreign 

government export credit agencies, in exchange for agreements on 

the sourcing of reactor components, could—in conjunction with the 

federal loan guarantees—increase the number of nuclear plants receiving loan guarantees to four. The Nuclear Energy Institute has 

stated that at no time ‘‘in the immediate future’’ are private companies anticipated to be able to finance new nuclear plants without 

the aid of federal loan guarantees. In recognition of this, the Nuclear Energy Institute endorsed the major energy infrastructure financing mechanism—the Clean Energy Deployment Administration—that was included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the House of Representatives in 2009.66

Loan guarantee commitments are offered conditionally, contingent upon an applicant subsequently receiving both a reactor design certification and a construction and operating license from the 

NRC.67 On February 16, 2010, the Department of Energy announced the first of these nuclear loan guarantees, an $8.3 billion 

award to a consortium led by the Southern Company to support the 

construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.68 The other recent 

loan guarantee deal that was in the final stages fell through when 

the applicant, Constellation Energy, pulled out after a disagreement over the financing terms offered by the loan guarantee proVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
13 

69The Washington Post, Constellation Energy shelves plan for Calvert Cliffs reactor, October 

13, 2010, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/ 

AR2010100807370.html. 70Department of Energy, FY2011 Budget Justification. 71 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2b Electricity Net 

Generation: Electric Power Sector, Selected Years, 1949–2007 (2007). 72 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2010. 

gram.69 The Georgia project is unique in that, under Georgia state 

law, the consortium can begin recovering project costs from rate 

payers while the plants are under construction, several years before the project generates any power for its customers. This is another financing mechanism that utilities in some states are looking 

to replicate to help cover the huge cost of new nuclear projects. 

Beyond the financing problem, nuclear power faces a major challenge in remaining competitive in electricity markets where low 

cost generation has priority dispatch to the grid. While the cost of 

nuclear power is very low on an operating basis, when the huge upfront capital costs are calculated into electricity rates charged to 

consumers, nuclear power becomes very expensive. Over the long 

term, the way nuclear power will overcome this and become more 

competitive is through the realization of its low-carbon benefits. 

That is why the CEOs of Constellation Energy (60 percent of its 

electric generation is from nuclear power), Exelon (the largest nuclear plant operator in the United States), Florida Power and Light 

(20 percent of generation from nuclear), and Entergy (50 percent of 

generation from nuclear) all support a national cap on greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Long-term nuclear waste disposal continues to be a problem as 

well. The Obama Administration requested no funding for the 

Yucca Mountain repository for FY 2011, instead determining that 

developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not a workable option 

and the nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal.70 Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are being evaluated by the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which was 

formally established by the Department of Energy on March 1, 

2010. 

Renewables 

Renewable sources of energy can and should become a major contributor to the U.S. electricity supply within the foreseeable future. 

Renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and hydro 

currently generate 10.5 percent of the country’s electricity, with 

non-hydro renewables responsible for 3.6 percent.71 Even with no 

changes to current policy, EIA projects renewable generation to account for 45 percent of the increase in total generation through 

2035. Assuming a long-term extension of the production tax credit 

(PTC), renewable energy’s share of increased electricity generation 

grows to 61–65 percent through 2035.72 Reaching 20 percent of 

total generation by 2020 is an ambitious, but achievable target for 

renewables based on the current state of the technologies and the 

available renewable resources. 

Adoption of a national renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring that 20 percent of electricity generated in the United States 

come from renewable sources by 2020 should be a centerpiece of 

our national energy strategy. A key driver of renewable energy 

growth in the United States has been state-level RESs. Thirty 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
14 

73 Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renewl energylconsump/realprereport.html. 74 Ryan Wiser & Galen Barbose, Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status 

Report with Data Through 2007, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (April 2008), available 

at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-154e-revised.pdf. 75 American Wind Energy Association, Press Release: Tens of Thousands of Layoffs in American Wind Energy Seen at State in Tax Extender Package, December 7, 2010, available online 

at http://www.awea.org/rnlreleasel12-07-10.cfm. 

States and the District of Columbia now have enforceable RESs or 

similar laws. In 2009, these states were responsible for 77 percent 

of total U.S. renewable energy.73

The types and quantities of renewable electricity required under 

these programs vary widely among the states, but it has become 

clear that states with RESs are deploying more renewable electricity generation than states without them. At the same time, RES 

policies are having little or no impact on consumer electricity rates 

and in many markets the renewable electricity is priced competitively with fossil fuel-based generation.74 The House of Representatives passed a national RES of 15 percent by 2020 in the 110th 

Congress and a national RES of 20 percent by 2020 in the 111th 

Congress, but neither measure passed in the Senate. Like many 

state programs, these House-passed RESs allowed a percentage of 

the renewable energy requirement to be fulfilled through utility 

programs that increase energy efficiency. This energy efficiency 

mechanism provides utilities with increased flexibility and gives regions with less renewable resources another way to achieve compliance, even providing lower utility bills to consumers in the process. 

Tax incentives—including the existing Production Tax Credit 

(PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC)—also play a key role 

in deploying renewable electricity generation, providing a policy 

‘‘bridge’’ that is helping the renewable energy industry survive in 

an environment where the benefits of low- and zero-carbon emissions are not properly valued by the market. These two policies 

have been a major driver of renewable energy development over 

the past several years by giving individuals, businesses, and utilities incentives to invest in renewable energy generation. 

In response to a collapsed tax equity market in late 2008 that 

made it difficult for renewable energy developers to use these tax 

credits, the 1603 Treasury Grant Program was included in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to temporarily allow renewable energy developers to convert tax credits into cash grants 

of equal value. The highly successful program allowed the renewable energy industry to continue to grow during the recession, creating 55,000 jobs and directly leading to the deployment of 4,250 

megawatts of renewable energy in 2009.75

The federal government has an important role to play in eliminating regulatory barriers to the expansion of renewable electricity 

generation. Despite the success of state-level initiatives to promote 

renewables, the balkanized structure for electricity regulation and 

the inconsistency of federal and state incentive programs have created a relatively unstable investment climate for the domestic renewable electricity market, limiting financing opportunities for individual projects and domestic manufacturing capacity. The federal 

government has a key role to play in helping to rationalize these 

programs and regulatory regimes to encourage expanded renewable 

electricity generation. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
15 

76 American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual Markey Report, Year Ending 2009, Available at http://e360.yale.edu/images/digest/AnnuallMarketlReportlWind.pdf. 77 Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2008, available at ftp:// 

ftp.eia.doe.gov/electricity/034808.pdf; and Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2009, U.S. Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2009, page 19, see 

table 1.5. Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy Source, 2009 available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile1l5.pdf. 78 American Wind Energy Association, Windpower Outlook 2010, Available at http:// 

www.awea.org/documents/reports/Outlookl2010.pdf. 79 Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Industry 2009: Year in Review (November 2010) available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epalsum.html. 80Pew Environment Group, Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? (2010), Page 13. Available 

at http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/cleanenergyeconomy/pdf/PewG-20Report.pdf. 81 U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008). Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf. 82 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011. 83 U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008). Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf. 84 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Ethan Zindler, Fostering Green Technology Innovation, 

slide presentation, July 8, 2010. 

Wind 

The global market for wind power grew 32 percent in 2009, as 

more than 38,000 megawatts of new wind capacity was installed 

worldwide. More than 10,000 megawatts of this was installed in 

the United States 76 where, for the second consecutive year, more 

wind capacity was installed than any other source.77 Over the last 

five years, wind installations in the United States have expanded 

39 percent annually.78 Four U.S. states—all of which have state 

RESs—account for 51 percent of total U.S. wind capacity: Texas, 

Iowa, California, and Washington.79 However, while the U.S. is the 

global leader in installed wind capacity, China is catching up 

quickly and may overtake the United States in 2010 or 2011.80

Department of Energy research suggests generating 20 percent of 

electricity from wind in the United States by 2030 is an ambitious 

yet feasible scenario, which would require a build-out of 300,000 

megawatts of wind capacity.81 The EIA projects 27,000 megawatts 

to be installed through 2013, which would bring total installed capacity to 62,000 megawatts.82 To meet the 20 percent goal, wind 

turbine production capacity would have to ramp up to 16,000 new 

megawatts per year by around 2018,83 up from a current baseline 

production capacity of nearly 8,000 megawatts per year.84

As wind technology continues to improve, prices are falling and 

capacity factors are increasing. The cost of wind energy over the 

past 20 years has dropped from 40 cents per kWh to 4 to 6 cents 

per kWh at good sites. Increases in the capacity factor of the turbines—or the percentage of time in which they are producing at 

their full capacity—have grown 11 percent over the past two years 

and will continue to increase as the technology improves. While 

most new wind turbines in the United States produce 1.5 to 2.5 

megawatts of power, superconducting materials may enable the 

construction of 10 megawatt turbines in the near future. These 

larger machines will be well suited for offshore wind developments, 

plans for which have accelerated recently. In addition to the 130- 

turbine wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts that is poised to 

start construction in 2011, Cape Wind, there are at least 11 other 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
16 

85The Washington Post, Offshore wind farm near Cape Cod, first in U.S., gets federal approval, April 29, 2010, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/ 

04/28/AR2010042804398.html. 86 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United 

States; Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers (September 2010), available at http:// 

www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf. 87Solar Energy Industry Association, US Solar Industry Year in Review 2009 (April 15, 2010) 

available at http://seia.org/galleries/default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in%20 

Review.pdf. 88 European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Generation V—2008 

Solar electricity for over one billion people and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at 

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-generation-v– 

2008.pdf. 89 European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Generation V—2008 

Solar electricity for over one billion people and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at 

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-generation-v-2008.pdf. 90This reflects crystalline silicon cell technology, which forms about 90% of the solar cell market. See Solar Buzz, Solar Module Retail Price Highlights: December 2010, Available at http:// 

www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm. 91Solarbuzz. Fast Solar Energy Facts: Global Performance, available at http:// 

www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm. 

offshore wind projects in development across seven states.85 The 

available wind resources off U.S. coasts are massive, estimated by 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to be 4,150,000 

megawatts, or more than four times the capacity of all existing 

U.S. electrical generation.86

Solar 

More energy in the form of solar radiation strikes the Earth’s 

surface in an hour than humanity uses in an entire year. Capturing this energy and converting it into electricity is primarily 

done through photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight into direct 

electrical current and concentrating solar power, which concentrates the sun’s energy using huge mirrors or lenses and then 

uses this heat to run a conventional turbine. 

Solar photovoltaics (PV) have experienced explosive growth over 

the last several years, with world capacity growing 44 percent in 

2009 alone 87 and installed capacity has grown from 1,200 

megawatts in 2000 to more than 20,000 megawatts in 2009.88 Total 

U.S. solar electric capacity climbed past 2,000 megawatts in 2009, 

enough to serve more than 350,000 homes. Solar has expanded out 

of the residential and commercial rooftop niche, with more than 

6,000 megawatts of utility-scale solar projects announced in the 

United States. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has 

identified the potential for nearly 7,000,000 megawatts of solar 

thermal power generation in the southwestern United States, 

roughly seven times current U.S. electric generating capacity. Globally, research from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association 

and Greenpeace suggests that by 2030, global PV capacity could 

reach 1,864,000 megawatts and satisfy the electricity needs of 14 

percent of the world’s population.89

Technology advances and increases in the scale of production in 

the solar industry have exceeded those of any other renewable energy sector as prices for PV modules have fallen to less than $3.50 

per watt from almost $100 per watt in 1975.90 Solar PV prices have 

declined an average of 4 percent per year over the past 15 years.91

The accumulation of innovations and movement down the technological learning curve experienced in solar PV is somewhat analoVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
17 

92Moore’s law describes the long-term trend in computing hardware in which the number of 

transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two 

years. 93 Emanuel Sachs, in testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming, Hearing on ‘‘New Technologies: What’s Around the Corner’’ (July 28, 2009) available 

at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0007#mainlcontent. 94Solar Energy Industry Association, US Solar Industry Year in Review 2009 (April 15, 2010) 

available at http://seia.org/galleries/default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in%20 

Review.pdf. 95Geothermal Energy Association, Geothermal grows 26% in 2009 GEA identifies new projects 

underway in 15 states, April 2010 Update Release, Available at http://geo-energy.org/ 

pressReleases/April2010lFinal.aspx. 96 ABS Energy Research, The Geothermal Energy Report—Direct Use and Power Generation, 

Edition 6 2010, available at http://www.absenergyresearch.com/cmsfiles/reports/GeothermalReport-2010.pdf. 97 U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet: Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States (2008), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/ 

fs2008–3082.pdf. 

gous to Moore’s Law 92 in microelectronics. Over the long term, 

every time deployment of solar PV capacity doubles, the cost of 

solar falls by 18 percent. Projected forward, this learning curve 

would have solar PV reaching grid parity by 2020.93 The Department of Energy’s Solar America Initiative seeks to make solar PV 

cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity by 2015. 

Huge investments in new production of polysilicon (the critical 

input for most PV cells) have come online recently, ending a temporary materials shortage and leading to a solar module price drop 

upwards of 50 percent over the past 2 years.94

Geothermal 

The Earth produces more internal energy, in the form of heat, 

than humans can possibly use. Like solar, the use of geothermal 

energy is only limited by technology and the associated costs. Unlike solar, geothermal is a baseload power resource and not vulnerable to intermittency problems. While the United States has the 

most installed capacity of geothermal energy in the world—about 

2,500 megawatts across six states—the amount of electricity produced from geothermal energy has essentially been flat for the past 

two decades. However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act created a building boom in the United States recently with 188 

projects currently in different stages of development across fifteen 

states which could produce as much as 7,875 MW of new electric 

power.95 The sector is expected to grow rapidly in several other 

countries as well over the next 5 years, ramping up global capacity 

by 78 percent to more than 19,000 megawatts in 2015.96

The United States has massive, untapped geothermal energy resources. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently 

found that the electric generation potential from currently identified geothermal systems distributed over 13 U.S. states is more 

than 9,000 megawatts. Their estimated power production potential 

from yet to be discovered geothermal resources is more than 30,000 

megawatts. An additional 500,000 megawatts may be available by 

harnessing geothermal reservoirs characterized by high temperature, but low permeability, rock formations.97

Biomass 

Biomass currently supplies more electricity in the United States 

than wind, solar, and geothermal power combined, and the potential for additional generation from this energy source is vast. BioVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
18 

98Zia Haq, Energy Information Administration, Biomass for Electricity Generation, available 

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass/. 99Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Biomass Cofiring in Coal-fired Boilers, 

DOE/EE–0288. (2004), available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/ftalbiomassl co- firing.pdf. 100 Energy Information Administration, Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard 

at 9 (Table 2: Summary Results) (June 2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ 

prps/pdf/sroiaf(2007)03.pdf. 101Marie Walsh et al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Feedstock Availability in the 

United States: 1999 State Level Analysis (Jan. 2000), available at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/ 

resourcedata/index.html. 102 Energy Information Administration, Regional Generation Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Supplement to Report #: SR-OIAF/2007–03) (June 2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/regionallgeneration.pdf. 103 National Hydropower Association, Hydropower: For a Clean Energy Future Fact Sheet, 

available online at http://www.hydro.org/hydrofacts/two-pager4.pdf. 104 Energy Information Administration, International Electricity Generation, available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electricitygeneration.html. 105 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, at 264. 

mass available for electricity generation includes residues from forests, primary mills, and agriculture, as well as dedicated energy 

crops and urban wood wastes. Biomass can be used as the sole fuel 

source for power plants, or it can be used in conventional power 

plants to substitute for a portion of the traditional fuel, typically 

coal, in a process called co-firing. While most co-firing plants use 

biomass for between 1 and 8 percent of heat input,98 biomass can 

effectively substitute for up to 20 percent of the coal used in the 

boiler.99 In addition to reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, 

co-firing biomass also lowers fuel costs, avoids landfilling, and reduces emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide. 

An EIA analysis of the impacts of a 15 percent national renewable electricity requirement found that electricity production from 

biomass could grow by a factor of eight between 2005 and 2030.100

Most of this generation would come in the southeastern United 

States, where nearly a third of the country’s biomass feedstock potential exists.101 The EIA found that the Southeast region could 

meet nearly its entire 15 percent 

renewable requirement through 2020 with indigenous biomass resources.102 Using biomass for electricity would help the region create thousands of jobs, increase global export opportunities, and 

keep billions of dollars in the Southeast that would have otherwise 

left to import coal and other fuels from other states and countries. 

Hydropower 

Hydropower is the largest source of installed renewable electricity in the United States, providing 7 percent of U.S. electricity 

in 2009, and accounts for two-thirds of U.S. electricity generated 

from renewable resources.103 Only China, Canada, and Brazil generate more electricity from hydropower than the United States.104

The 78,000 megawatts of installed capacity in the United States 

has remained relatively unchanged over the past 3 decades.105

However, with only 3 percent of the 80,000 existing dams in the 

United States currently generating electricity, there exists great 

potential for increased hydropower capacity additions. The vast 

majority of dams in the United States were built and are operated 

for purposes such as flood control navigation and water supply. The 

hydropower industry projects nearly 19,000 megawatts of new hydropower capacity could be added by 2025 at existing dam facilities 

through efficiency upgrades and capacity additions with the passage of an RES. A strong federal RES could also incentivize nearly 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
19 

106 Navigant Consulting, Job Creation Opportunities in Hydropower (September 20, 2009). 107 As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the total CO2-equivalent concentration of all GHGs is 455 ppm. See http://www.ipcc.ch/. 108 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 

(2007). Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html. 109 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010. Recent Mauna Loa CO2. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. 110Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States, Cambridge University Press. (2009) Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 111 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers. 112 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water. 113 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008. Ocean Acidification State of the 

Science Fact Sheet, available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/OceanlAcidification 

%20FINAL.pdf. 114Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 

16,000 more megawatts of hydro capacity installations by 2025 

using wave, ocean current, tidal, and inland hydrokinetic resources. 

None of these nearly 35,000 megawatts of new facilities would require a new dam, and they would only scratch the surface of the 

371,000 megawatts of new hydro resource potential in the United 

States.106

II. AN OVERVIEW OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS

A clear scientific consensus now holds that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from human activities are largely responsible. During the past two centuries of industrialization, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased dramatically, a shift comparable to that seen over the last 

20,000 years as the Earth naturally transitioned out of its last ice 

age.107 Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), the dominant GHG 

emitted by human activities, have increased from about 280 parts 

per million (ppm) in 1750 108 to nearly 390 ppm in 2010 109 and are 

now approximately 30 percent above the highest levels of the preceding 800,000 years.110 This has produced a dramatic shift in 

ocean chemistry, disrupting the delicate acid-base balance to which 

marine organisms are accustomed. Global average surface temperature has increased about 1.4 °F over the past century. These 

changes are already causing a broad range of adverse impacts to 

human and natural systems. Failure to rapidly reduce GHG emissions will result in even more catastrophic impacts at a global 

scale. 

If emissions of GHGs continue to grow unabated, the likely nearto medium-term impacts of unchecked climate change may include: 

• Increasingly severe water scarcity, subjecting up to 1.2 billion additional people in Asia, up to 250 million people in Africa,111 and up to 80 million people in Latin America to increasing water stress by 2020.112

• Further warming and acidification of the oceans, severely 

impacting global fisheries and contributing to the collapse of 

coral reefs around the world.113 Ocean acidification has already 

risen by about 30 percent due to increased carbon pollution 

since 1750. 

• Expected sea level rise of approximately 3 to 4 feet and 

possibly as much as 6.5 feet by 2100,114 subjecting roughly a 

billion people living in coastal areas around the world to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
20 

115Knutson, T., 2008. Global Warming and Hurricanes. Available at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/ 

global-warming-and-hurricanes. 116Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 117 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers. 118 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaption 

and Vulnerability. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/ar4/wg2/en/ch8s8-4- 

2.html. 119Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. 120 Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global 

Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available at http:// 

www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf. 121 Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global 

Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available at http:// 

www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf. 122McGuinn, Admiral Dennis, Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Not Going Away: America’s Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges (2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0024. 123 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers; and Luers, A., et al., How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target 

for U.S. Emission Reductions. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007) Available at http://www. 

ucsusa.org/globallwarming/solutions/biglpicturelsolutions/a-target-for-us-emissions.html. 124 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers; and Luers, A., et al., How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target 

creased risk of inundation, storm surges, coastal erosion, and 

saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies. • Increased heavy precipitation events and flooding, as well 

as more powerful hurricanes.115, 116

• Mass extinction of species, perhaps 40 percent of the 

world’s species by the latter half of this century.117

• Multiple adverse effects on public health associated with 

more frequent and intense heat waves, ground-level ozone air 

pollution, and the spread of infectious diseases.118

Tragically, these impacts will fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries that are 

least responsible for climate change and least able to adapt to its 

impacts. Still, the United States and other developed countries will 

suffer devastating economic, environmental, and human health impacts if climate change continues unabated. 

The potential costs of climate change are staggering. Economic 

studies suggest that climate change could cost the global economy 

5 to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).119 In the United 

States, even a narrow range of climate change impacts could slash 

GDP 3.6 percent by 2100.120 These costs far outweigh the potential 

costs of economy-wide legislation to reduce carbon pollution.121

Climate change presents a serious and growing risk to the U.S. 

security interests around the world. Climate change is expected to 

act as a ‘‘threat multiplier’’ 122 by increasing the risk of water and 

food scarcity, mass migration, resource conflict, and political destabilization. Climate change will also adversely affect military and 

strategic infrastructure, both in the United States and abroad. 

In order to avert the most catastrophic consequences of climate 

change, human-caused GHG emissions must be cut substantially. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international climate science body, has concluded that to secure 

even a 50–50 chance of avoiding the dangerous climate change associated with a 3.6 °F increase in global average surface temperature, global GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 to 85 percent 

by 2050.123 This requires the United States and other developed 

countries to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.124


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
21 

for U.S. Emission Reductions. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007) Available at http://www. 

ucsusa.org/globallwarming/solutions/biglpicturelsolutions/a-target-for-us-emissions.html. 125 National Research Council, America’s Climate Choices (2010), Available at http:// 

americasclimatechoices.org/. 126Gleick, Peter, Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global 

Warming Hearing Not Going Away: America’s Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges. 

(December 1, 2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0024#mainlcontent. 127Scientific societies’ letter to U.S. Senators, (October 21, 2009) Available at http:// 

www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climatelletter.pdf. 128 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 

Strong interim mitigation targets are also needed, including a reduction of U.S. emissions by at least 17 percent by 2020. To accomplish these goals, it is necessary to dramatically increase the 

amount of clean energy and energy efficiency deployed around the 

world, an energy technology revolution that the United States must 

lead. 

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

A clear scientific consensus now holds that climate change is 

happening and that human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the primary cause. ‘‘Climate change is occurring, is 

caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks 

for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of 

human and natural systems.’’ 125 This is the conclusion of the National Research Council, the leading scientific body in the United 

States, in their comprehensive assessment America’s Climate 

Choices. In fact, every major professional science organization 

working in fields relevant to climate change (e.g., the American 

Meteorological Society, the American Chemical Society, etc.) and 

national academies around the world agree that human emissions 

of GHGs are now the dominant driver of climate change. No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the conclusion that climate changes are being driven by human activities.126,127 There is now a vast body of scientific evidence that provides the basis for strong mitigation and adaptation actions. The 

consequences of failing to reduce GHG emissions will be catastrophic. 

BACKGROUND ON GLOBAL WARMING AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

Global warming refers to the global temperature rise and associated impacts from the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere associated with human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. 

The build-up of these gases enhances the so-called ‘‘greenhouse effect’’ and warms the Earth’s climate system. As the glass of a 

greenhouse traps warm air inside, these gases trap heat that would 

otherwise escape into space. Key human-emitted GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and 

certain fluorine-containing gases (F-gases) such as 

chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). 

The impact of each gas on the climate is determined by its heattrapping potency, concentration, and atmospheric lifetime. The 

IPCC declared in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report that the evidence for global warming is ‘‘unequivocal.’’128 Over the last century, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
22 

129 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 130 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 131Lockwood and Froehlich, 2007. Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in Solar Climate 

Forcings and the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. 

463. 132Santer, B. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global 

Warming. Hearing entitled Climate Science in the Political Arena. (May 20, 2010) Available at 

http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0019#mainlcontent; Hurrell, J., 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming Hearing entitled The 

Foundation of Climate Science (May 6, 2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/ 

pubs?id=0018#mainlcontent. 133 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 134 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005. Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on 

Ocean Chemistry and Biology Available at http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spotlgcc.html. 

the global average temperature has increased 1.4sF, with almost 90 

percent of the warming occurring over the last 50 years.129

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are the 

primary cause of global warming. The GHGs building up in atmosphere are the same type that humans are emitting by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Satellite measurements show that 

these GHGs are permitting less heat to escape out to space and 

ground observations show that they are heating up Earth’s surface. 

Further, natural causes of climate change are not capable of explaining either the magnitude or patterns of observed warming. If 

the sun was responsible, for example, warming would be observed 

throughout the atmosphere. Instead, scientists see the fingerprint 

of GHGs: warming isolated to the lower atmosphere and cooling in 

the upper atmosphere. Indeed, the IPCC has estimated that the 

global warming contribution, or radiative forcing, from human activities is 10 times larger than the best estimates of the changes 

from solar activity.130 A 2007 study found that all the trends in 

solar activity that could influence the temperature of the Earth 

have been in the opposite direction needed to explain the rise in 

temperature over the preceding 20 years.131 In addition to direct 

observational evidence, modeling results also confirm the human 

fingerprint on global warming. These fundamental conclusions related to human attribution of climate change were made clear in 

expert testimony before the Select Committee during the 111th 

Congress, including in-depth discussion by Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Dr. James Hurrell of the 

National Center for Atmospheric Research.132 Given abundant evidence, the IPCC concluded in its 2007 assessment that most of the 

observed global warming of the past half-century is very likely— 

with greater than 90 percent certainty—due to the increase of 

heat-trapping gases associated with human activities.133

In addition to global temperature rise, human-emitted CO2 is 

causing rapid ocean acidification. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere 

from human activities enters the ocean, forming carbonic acid and 

lowering the pH of the seawater. For example, over the mid-1980s 

to mid-2000s, the upper ocean absorbed approximately 30 percent 

of the excess CO2 emitted through human activities.134 In response, 

the upper ocean has become 30 percent more acidic over the IndusVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
23 

135 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (2008) available at http:// 

www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/OceanlAcidification%20FINAL.pdf. 136Feeley, R., et al., 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy. Available at http:// 

www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf. 137 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 138Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 139 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 140 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 141 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 142 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 143 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. 

trial Era,135 a rate of change that is at least 100 times more rapid 

than at any period in at least the preceding 650,000 years.136

GLOBAL EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES

Of all human-emitted GHGs, CO2 is most responsible for committing the world to long-term climate change. CO2 accounts for approximately 77 percent of recent long-lived human-caused GHG 

emissions (in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2-eq, evaluated over a 100-year time horizon).137 Over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions resulted 

from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted 

from deforestation and agricultural practices occurring primarily in 

developing countries.138

After CO2, the other primary long-lived GHGs are methane, nitrous oxide, and F-gases. Methane emissions derive primarily from 

agriculture, livestock, mining, transportation, use of certain fossil 

fuels, sewage, and landfill waste. Currently, methane accounts for 

approximately 14 percent of global GHG emissions (i.e., CO2-eq).139

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossils fuels and solid waste.140

Nitrous oxide accounts for approximately 8 percent of recent global 

GHG emissions (CO2-eq).141 F-gases are very potent GHGs that are 

emitted during refrigeration, air conditioning, and industrial processes. F-gases account for approximately 1 percent of recent global 

GHG emissions (CO2-eq).142

In addition to long-lived GHGs, tropospheric ozone and water 

vapor are important GHGs that are short-lived in the atmosphere. 

Changes in tropospheric ozone concentrations result from emissions 

of chemicals such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. While the atmospheric lifetime of tropospheric ozone is 

relatively short compared to many other GHGs, its instantaneous 

warming effect is substantial, about one-fifth of the instantaneous 

warming associated with human-caused CO2.143 Water vapor is a 

naturally-occurring, short-lived GHG. The amount of water vapor 

in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature and is not a direct 

result of human activities, but does respond indirectly; as the ocean 

and atmosphere warm from other GHGs, more evaporation occurs 

and the atmosphere’s capacity to retain moisture also increases, 

thereby increasing the water vapor concentration. 

Over the past two decades, growth in the world economy and its 

carbon intensity has driven a marked increase in GHG emissions. 

Between 1990 and 2004, global GHG emissions grew by 24 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
24 

144 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers. 145 United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change Science Compendium. 146 United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change Science Compendium. 147 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 148Global Carbon Project, 2010. Available at http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ 

09/hl-full.htm#ffcement. 149 United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change Science Compendium. 150World Resources Institute. Projected Emissions of GHGs in 2025 Available at http:// 

cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=ntn/3-1. 151 International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available 

at http://www.iea.org/publications/freelnewlDesc.asp?PUBSlID=2143. 152 International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available 

at http://www.iea.org/publications/freelnewlDesc.asp?PUBSlID=2143. 153 International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available 

at http://www.iea.org/publications/freelnewlDesc.asp?PUBSlID=2143. 154 International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available 

at http://www.iea.org/publications/freelnewlDesc.asp?PUBSlID=2143. 155 Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 8.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources 

Institute, 2010). 156World Resources Institute. Projected Emissions of GHGs in 2025. Available at http:// 

cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=ntn/3-1. 

cent.144 In 2000, the IPCC developed emissions scenarios that projected an increase of global GHG emissions of 25 to 90 percent 

(CO2-eq) from 2000 to 2030.145 However, recent (2000–2007) trends 

in emissions are higher than the worst case scenario. The growth 

rate in emissions increased markedly from 1.3 percent per year in 

the 1990s to 3.3 percent per year for the period 2000–2006.146 In 

2007, the IPCC developed an updated set of scenarios that show 

similar emissions growth by 2030, but they also make clear that 

more rapid growth is possible.147 Fossil fuel CO2 emissions reached 

a record high in 2008 and subsequently declined slightly in 2009 

by 1.3% due in part to the global economic downturn.148 Under current mitigation policies, however, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades.149 By some estimates, 

GHG emissions from developing and emerging countries are expected to grow by 84 percent from 2000 to 2025, while GHG emissions from developed countries are expected to rise 35 percent over 

the same period.150

National statistics show a complex and changing environment for 

the sources of GHG emissions. In 2008, two-thirds of global GHG 

emissions originated from just ten countries, with China and the 

United States together responsible for 41 percent.151 While China 

is now the largest GHG emitter on an annual basis, the United 

States continues to have one of the highest per capita emissions 

rates. As of 2008, the United States emitted 19 percent of global 

CO2 from 5 percent of the world’s population.152 In contrast, China 

contributed 22 percent of global CO2 from 20 percent of the population.153 India contributed less than 5 percent of CO2 from 17 percent of the population.154

For most industrialized countries, their historic (i.e., cumulative) 

share of global emissions is much higher than their current (i.e., 

annual) share. For the period between 1850 and 2005, the United 

States led all countries by contributing 26 percent of global cumulative CO2 emissions and the EU–27 nation grouping contributed 

22 percent. China’s cumulative contribution was 10 percent and India’s was 8 percent.155 In contrast, from 2000 to 2025, China and 

India’s emissions are expected to grow by 118 and 70 percent respectively, while emissions from the United States are expected to 

grow by 39 percent.156 Strong new mitigation policies will be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
25 

157 Energy Information Agency, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report (2009) Available at 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html. 158 Energy Information Agency, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report. (2009) Available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html. 159 Energy Information Agency, Short-term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook (2010) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Overview. 160 Energy Information Agency, Short-term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook (2010) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Overview. 161Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 162Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 163Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 

quired to prevent emissions growth consistent with these projections. 

Emissions of GHGs in the United States derive from a variety of 

sources and have on the whole been on a growth trajectory. As of 

2008, 83 percent of U.S. GHG (i.e., CO2-eq) emissions came from 

CO2, emitted almost entirely from energy-related fossil fuel burning. The remaining GHG emissions were comprised of CH4 (11 percent of all U.S. CO2-eq emissions), N2O (4 percent), and F-gases (3 

percent). U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions come from the following end-use sectors: the electric power sector (41 percent), transportation sector (33 percent), and residential, commercial, and industrial sectors (26 percent).157 Emissions from the electric power, 

transportation, and agricultural sectors have increased since 1990, 

while emissions from the industrial, commercial, and residential 

sectors have held steady or declined over the same period. 

Emissions of CO2 from all sources grew from 5.02 billion metric 

tons in 1990 to a record high of 6.03 billion metric tons in 2005.158

While the long-term emissions trend has been up, year-to-year fluctuations result from a multitude of factors, including economic conditions, weather, and fuel switching in response to price changes. 

The recent economic downturn combined with a change in energy 

use—including a substantial switch from coal to natural gas and 

increased use of renewables for electricity generation—reduced CO2

emissions in the United States during the last few years. For example, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels declined 6.6 percent in 

2009.159 However, the current economic recovery is expected to contribute to a rise of CO2 emissions of 2.1 percent and 1.1 percent 

for 2010 and 2011, respectively.160

GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

The current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Records over the past 

800,000 years show variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations 

within a range of approximately 170 to 300 ppm.161 Human-caused 

CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution have pushed the 

concentration from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to 

nearly 390 ppm.162 The current concentration of CO2 is roughly 30 

percent higher than the highest level of the past 800,000 years.163

Over the same period, methane has increased from about 715 parts 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
26 

164 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report. 165Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 166 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38–39 (Table TS.2); and Luers, A., et al., 2007. How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission Reductions. Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/globallwarming/solutions/biglpicturelsolutions/a-targetfor-us-emissions.html. 167 Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to 

black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1. 168 Jacobson, M., 2010. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, 

and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

Vol. 115. 169 Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to 

black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1. 170 Bond, T., et al., 2004. A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon 

emissions from combustion. Geophysical Research; Letters, Vol. 109. 171 Bond, T. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change, House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20071018110647.pdf. 

per billion (ppb) to 1774 ppb and nitrous oxide has increased from 

about 270 ppb to 319 ppb.164

In the absence of mitigation policies, GHG concentrations will 

continue on a dangerous trend. For example, CO2 concentrations 

could increase to 2 to 3 times the highest levels from the past 

800,000 years by the end of the 21st century.165 The IPCC has concluded that to create even a 50–50 chance of avoiding the dangerous climate change associated with a 3.6 °F increase in global 

average surface temperature, global GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 to 85 percent by 2050. This requires the United States 

and other developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 80 

percent by 2050.166 Given the current emissions growth both in the 

United States and globally, a substantial change of course is required in the very near term to avoid the catastrophic impacts outlined in later sections. 

BLACK CARBON

Black carbon is a potent, short-lived driver of climate change. 

Unlike GHGs, black carbon is a particle pollutant, which is emitted 

as a component of soot during incomplete combustion of fossil fuels 

and biomass. Black carbon alters Earth’s energy balance by absorbing sunlight (1) independently in the atmosphere, (2) in water 

droplets and ice crystals in clouds, and (3) when deposited on snow 

and ice surfaces.167 Currently, black carbon is likely the second or 

third largest driver of global warming and plays a particularly 

large role in modifying the Arctic climate.168

Global emissions of black carbon derive from energy-related combustion and outdoor biomass burning. Of the approximately 8 million tons of black carbon released each year,169 about 58 percent 

is emitted through energy-related combustion and 42 percent is 

emitted through outdoor biomass burning.170,171 Residential emissions of black carbon are due largely to home heating and cooking 

(e.g., using wood, coal, crop residue, dung, and diesel fuel). Diesel 

fuel vehicles are the dominant source in the transportation sector. 

In the industrial sector, iron and steel production are major 

sources. Outdoor biomass burning is largely associated with deforestation activities and the burning of crop residue.172

Currently, global emissions of black carbon are dominated by 

Asia (59 percent), followed by Europe (12 percent), South America 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
27 

172 Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to 

black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1. 173 Climate Institute, 2009. How does black carbon change the climate debate? Climate Alert, 

Vol. 19. 174Select Committee, 2010. Clearing the Smoke: Understanding the Impacts of Black Carbon 

Pollution. Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0016#mainlcontent. 175 Jacobson, M., 2010. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, 

and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

Vol. 115. 176Kintisch, E., 2010. NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever. Science. 177 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

(10 percent), Africa (10 percent), and North America (9 percent).173

In developed countries such as the United States, energy-related 

combustion, primarily related to diesel fuel, is now the leading 

source of black carbon. Energy-related combustion also dominates 

emissions in Asia, though with a much larger contribution from 

residential sources. In contrast, outdoor burning of biomass is the 

leading cause of emissions in South America and Africa. 

In March of 2010, the Select Committee held a hearing to explore 

opportunities for reducing black carbon emissions in the United 

States and abroad.174 According to the expert testimony, there are 

substantial climate benefits associated with reducing black carbon 

emissions and the technologies to do so are already available. Residential emissions of black carbon may be reduced with cleaner cook 

stoves (e.g., improved-combustion, solar-powered, electric, and gas). 

Transportation sector emissions may be reduced through the phase 

out of two-stroke engines, upgrades to higher quality, low-sulfur 

fuels (e.g., ultra-low sulfur diesel or natural gas), improved engine 

technology, and engine retrofits for existing diesel vehicles. In the 

industrial sector, emissions may be reduced substantially by capturing particle pollution from coke ovens and blast furnaces used 

in steel and iron production. Changes in agricultural and forestry 

practices could yield large reductions from biomass burning. 

Since black carbon has a short atmospheric lifetime, the benefits 

of emissions reductions could be achieved rapidly. However, it is 

very important to note that black carbon is co-emitted with other 

climate-modifying aerosols, including those that act as cooling 

agents. Still, the fast-acting nature of black carbon emission reductions could be important in preventing the climate system from 

passing certain tipping points of rapid and irreversible change and 

greatly improve human health, particularly in developing countries.175

OBSERVED AND PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE

As atmospheric GHG concentrations have increased, the global 

temperature has increased about 1.4 °F over the past century. The 

2010 meteorological year was the hottest on record dating back to 

1880.176 This follows on the heels of the hottest decade (2000–2009) 

on record, breaking the previous record held by the 1990s, which 

broke the previous record of the 1980s. Additionally, every year in 

the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s average, and every year in 

the 1990s was warmer than the 1980s average.177 Historical trends 

in the temperature record also show that the rate of warming is 

increasing: the rate of warming was 0.08 °F per decade for the period 1850–2005; 0.11–0.13 °F per decade for 1901–2005; and 0.29– 

0.31 °F per decade for 1979–2005.178


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
28 

179 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 Synthesis Report. 180 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 Synthesis Report. 181Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 182 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. 183 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008. Ocean Acidification, State of the 

Science, Available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/OceanlAcidification%20FINAL.pdf. 184Select Committee, Hearing on The Foundation of Climate Science (May 6, 2010), available 

at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0018#mainlcontent. 185 Hurrell, J., 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming, The Foundation of Climate Science (May 6, 2010) available at http:// 

globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/050510climateScience/hurrell.pdf. 186McCarthy, J., 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming Hearing ‘‘ The Foundation of Climate Science’’ (May 6, 2010) available at 

http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/050510climateScience/mcCarthy.pdf. 

Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise. Over the 

next two decades, global temperatures are projected to increase approximately 0.36 °F per decade for a range of emissions scenarios.179 Beyond that time frame, the expected temperature rise 

depends largely on future emissions that will in turn depend on a 

variety of factors, including energy and climate policies of countries 

around the world. By the end of this century, if there is no change 

in policies, global temperatures are expected to increase in a likely 

range varying from 2–11.5 °F globally 180 and 4 to 11 °F in the 

United States 181 for a broad range of future emission scenarios. It 

should be emphasized, however, that current trends in emissions 

are consistent with, or higher than, the scenarios on the high end 

of this range. 

The oceans have experienced both significant warming and acidification due to increases in the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. 

Thus far, oceans have absorbed approximately 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the climate system because of human activities. This is due in part because ocean water has a heat capacity 

1,000 times greater than that of the air in the atmosphere. Most 

of the warming is occurring within a few hundred feet of the sea 

surface; the sea surface itself has warmed about 1.4 °F over the 

past century.182 Increasing concentrations of CO2 have also acidified the world’s oceans by approximately 30 percent over pre-industrial levels.183 If the current CO2 emissions trend continues, the 

ocean will experience acidification to an extent and at rates that 

have not occurred for tens of millions of years. 

In May 2010, the Select Committee examined the fundamental 

climate changes occurring to Earth’s atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial environments.184 Dr. James Hurrell of the National Center 

for Atmospheric Research told the Committee that the global 

warming is accelerating; the rate of warming in the last 50 years 

is nearly twice that of the warming over the 100-year trend.185 Dr. 

James McCarthy of Harvard University reported that scientists 

now know that the oceans have absorbed about one-third of the 

CO2 released from fossil fuel burning in the Industrial Era, threatening a range of calcifying organisms and the marine ecosystems 

dependent on them.186 The expert testimony made clear that a 

broad range of adverse climate change impacts are expected to intensify if human-caused GHG emissions are not curbed substantially. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
29 

187 National Aeronautic and Space Administration. Available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ 

gistemp/graphs/Greenland.pdf. 188 Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, 2004. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Available at http://www.acia.uaf.edu/. 189 National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. 190 National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. 191 National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. 192 Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009) Available at http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/CopenhagenlDiagnosislLOW.pdf. 193 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/ 

future/sealice.html. 194 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010. Ursus 

Maritimus. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/22823/0. 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

The warming of the climate system produces many complex responses, which then lead to a range of impacts on human and natural systems. It bears emphasis that the observed warming and 

ocean acidification to date has already produced many documented 

climatic changes. As warming and acidification continue, more dramatic changes are expected. Here, we discuss some examples of climate change impacts. 

Ice in the Arctic 

The Arctic region is warming at a staggering rate. By the decade 

of the 2000s, much of the Arctic warmed by 1.8–3.6 °F relative to 

the period 1951 to 1980, a level of warming that exceeded most 

other regions on Earth. Since 1950, northern Greenland has experienced warming of 2.7–3.6 °F.187 The amplified climate response in 

the Arctic is thought to be due in large part to the melting of Arctic 

ice.188 Ice acts like a mirror to the sun’s energy, reflecting much 

of the energy back out into space. As Arctic ice disappears, dark 

ocean water and land is revealed, which soaks up more sunlight 

and heat and thereby accelerates warming and melting. 

As temperatures rise in the Arctic, sea ice is disappearing. The 

Arctic sea ice extents in the last four years (2007 to 2010) have 

been the four lowest on record.189 In 2010, the extent of ice in the 

Arctic was the third-lowest recorded since observations began in 

1979 190 and the area of missing ice compared to the baseline period of 1979–2000 was nearly five times the size of California.191

The amount of multi-year ice has been in decline, as has the thickness of ice. From submarine measurements, researchers have observed an average loss of nearly two meters of Arctic sea ice between 1980 and 2008, almost half of the average ice thickness.192

Leading models predict that Arctic summer sea ice may completely disappear within the next 30 years and possibly as early as 

the 2020s, though the precise timing is uncertain.193 A recent 

international assessment projects that the polar bear population 

will decline by more than 30 percent in 45 years due to reduced 

habitat range and quality.194 The loss of stable, year-round sea ice 

is also disrupting traditional seal-hunting and fishing practices on 

which Inuit livelihoods depend, endangering an entire way of life. 

The ice covering Arctic land areas is also melting and contributing to global sea level rise. In Greenland, for example, around 

385 cubic miles of ice was lost between April 2002 and February 

2009, equivalent to a half millimeter per year of global sea level 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
30 

195 University of Colorado at Boulder, (2010) Available at http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/ 

f595fae00e6b451d4016ab9a43a049f8.html. 196Kahn, S., et al., 2010. Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by 

GRACE and GPS. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37.; and Velicogna, I. (2009). Increasing 

rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36. 197 Anthony, K., 2009. Methane: A menace surfaces. Scientific American. 198 Anthony, K., 2009. Methane: A menace surfaces. Scientific American. 199Select Committee hearing on The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming’s Impacts on the 

Arctic Region (August 10, 2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id= 

0020#mainlcontent. 200 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010. Ice Island Calves off Petermann 

Glacier. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/petermann-calve.html. 201Select Committee Briefing, 2010. The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming’s Impacts on 

the Arctic Region. Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0020#mainlcontent. 202 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010. Is Antarctica Melting? Available at 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108lIslAntarcticalMelting.html. 

rise.195 Further, the rate of ice loss from Greenland has been accelerating,196 meaning the contribution to global sea level will continue to grow with time. 

Melt-water from Arctic land areas may alter ocean currents, potentially disturbing marine ecosystems and weather patterns. As 

the Arctic permafrost (frozen soil) melts, massive amounts of methane may be released as the carbon-rich soils are exposed to microbial degradation. Since methane is a potent GHG, these emissions 

will produce a positive feedback that will drive additional warming 

and subsequent methane emissions.197 At predicted rates of thaw, 

it is expected that methane emissions from melting permafrost will 

contribute an additional 20 to 40 percent to all global methane 

emissions (natural and manmade) by 2100 and thereby contribute 

a projected +0.58 °F to global temperatures.198 The loss of permafrost is also causing extensive damage to homes and other infrastructure in Inuit villages. 

The Select Committee held a briefing in August of 2010 to examine the calving of a massive iceberg from Greenland and the broader pattern of ice loss in the Arctic.199 In early August 2010, an iceberg covering nearly 100 square miles—four times the size of Manhattan—broke off (calved) from the Petermann Glacier on the 

northwestern coast of Greenland.200 The iceberg was the largest to 

break off in the Arctic in nearly a half century. Dr. Robert 

Bindschadler and Dr. Richard Alley, two of the scientists participating in the briefing, warned Select Committee members that we 

could have already passed, or may within only decades pass, a tipping point in the Arctic beyond which climate change may be even 

more abrupt and effectively irreversible.201

Ice in Antarctica 

Antarctica is also losing ice with consequences ranging from increased global sea level to loss of wildlife habitat. Antarctica is covered by two ice sheets; the larger East Antarctic ice sheet covers 

the majority of the continent, while the West Antarctic ice sheet 

has significant ice shelves floating in the ocean. Taken together, 

they contain enough water to raise sea level by around 200 feet if 

melted completely.202

In the spring of 2002, scientists were shocked to discover that an 

ice shelf the size of Rhode Island had disintegrated in just over a 

month from the West Antarctica ice sheet. The collapse of the 

Larsen B ice shelf was a wake up call to scientists who had 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
31 

203 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002. Breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf, 

Antarctica. Available at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2288. 204 Chen, J., et al., 2009. Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements. 

Nature, Vol. 2. 205Gillett, N., et al., 2008. Attribution of polar warming to human influence. Nature, Vol. 1. 206Steig, E., Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year, Nature 457; and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2009. Satellites 

Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/ 

features/warminglantarctica.html; Real Climate, 2009. State of Antarctica: red or blue? Available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/. 207 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, 

available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ 208 Barbraud, C., and H. Weimerskirch, 2001. Emperor penguins and climate change. Nature 

411. 209 Jenouvrier, S., et al., 2009. Demographic models and IPCC climate projections predict the 

decline of an emperor penguin population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 

106. 210Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 211 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Adaptation North America. Available 

at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf. 212 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. 

thought that these large areas of ice would take a millennium to 

disappear, not a month.203

Since then, satellite measurements made by NASA show that 

Antarctica as a whole is indeed losing mass at an accelerating rate. 

There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known to be occurring in the western ice sheet, East Antarctica has also been losing ice since 2006.204

Human activities have been identified as an important driver of 

Antarctic climate change, though a complex set of natural factors 

are also important.205 Rigorous analysis of temperature trends 

show that Antarctica has been warming at an average rate of 

0.22 °F per decade (from 1957 to 2006) or more than 1°F for the 

last half century,206 roughly comparable to the warming observed 

for the globe as a whole.207 Antarctic warming is expected to continue as GHG concentrations rise and the ozone hole, which cools 

the continent, heals. 

As ice extent shrinks, breeding and foraging habitat for Antarctic 

wildlife is compromised. The population of Emperor penguins, for 

example, has already declined by 50 percent.208 Researchers studying Emperor penguins in Terre Ade ́lie, Antarctica, estimate that by 

the end of the century their population will decline from 6,000 

breeding pairs to an expected 400 breeding pairs under IPCC climate projections of business-as-usual emissions of GHGs.209

Sea Level Rise 

Accelerating sea level rise is threatening coastal communities 

around the world. Over the past century, thermal expansion of the 

oceans and widespread melting of ice sheets and glaciers have produced a global sea level rise of approximately 8 inches.210 Observations from the past two decades indicate that the recent rate of rise 

has been twice that of the past century.211 Over the next century, 

the IPCC has projected global sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches (18– 

59 centimeters), with current emissions trends consistent with the 

higher end of the range. However, these estimates do not account 

for changes in ice sheet dynamics.212 Accounting for this contribuVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
32 

213Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 214 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 215Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 216 Environmental Protection Agency. Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise, Available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html. 217 United Nations Environmental Programme, 2008. Warmer World May Mean Less Fish. 

Available at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=528& 

ArticleID=575. 218 Connaughton, J., 2005. Testimony to Senate Commerce Committee. 219 Carpenter K., et al., 2008. One-Third of Reef-Building Corals Face Elevated Extinction 

Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts, Science Express. 

tion, the rise is expected to be in the range of 3.5 feet by the end 

of this century, perhaps even as great as 6.5 feet.213

Sea level rise will have severe impacts on the world’s coastal regions. Rising sea levels are already causing inundation of low-lying 

lands and infrastructure, erosion of wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and flooding, and increases in the salinity 

of coastal estuaries and aquifers. The most dramatic near-term 

threats of sea level rise are being felt by small island states with 

elevations close to current sea level. Worldwide, about one billion 

people live within 75 feet elevation of today’s sea level, including 

nearly all of Bangladesh, and areas occupied by more than 250 million people in China.214 In total, more than 70 percent of the 

world’s population lives on coastal plains, and 11 of the world’s 15 

largest cities are on the coast. 

The coastal regions of the United States are very susceptible to 

sea level rise. Along the Gulf Coast, an estimated 2,400 miles of 

major roadway and 246 miles of freight lines are at risk of permanent flooding for a 4 foot rise.215 The Transportation Research 

Board concluded that under business-as-usual, coastal airport runways in Boston, Miami, New York and other areas could be under 

water by 2050. In addition, rising sea level will cause intrusion of 

saltwater into both surface water and ground water in many U.S. 

coastal areas, threatening freshwater supplies.216

Warming and Acidification of the World’s Oceans 

The world’s oceans will suffer devastating climate change impacts. The U.N. Environment Programme found that ‘‘climate 

change may slow down ocean thermohaline circulation crucial to 

coastal water quality and nutrient cycling in more than 75 percent 

of the world’s fishing grounds.’’ 217 Less hospitable waters would 

have a significant effect on the fishing industries. In the United 

States alone, commercial and recreational fisheries contribute $60 

billion to the economy each year and employ more than 500,000 

people.218

Warming and acidification of ocean waters are also contributing 

to the collapse of coral reefs around the globe. Recent studies indicate that over one-third of all coral species are already endangered.219 When key temperature thresholds are exceeded, mass 

bleaching and complete coral mortality often result. In fact, corals 

are threatened to extinction within the next century from rising 

ocean temperatures and ocean acidification if atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise unchecked. This threatens U.S. reefs 

with commercial value exceeding $100 million. The total global ecoVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
33 

220Damassa, T., 2006. World Resources Institute, The Value of Ecosystems. Available at 

http://www.wri.org/stories/2006/12/value-coastal-ecosystems. 221 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis at 8; and 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis, 2008. Assessment Product 3.3, Weather and 

Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, 

and U.S. Pacific Islands. 222 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Available at http://www.ucar.edu/news/ 

releases/2009/maxmin.jsp. 223 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters. 

Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html. 224 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. 225Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 226Meehl, G. and C. Tebaldi, 2004. More Intense, More Frequent, and Longer Lasting Heat 

Waves in the 21st Century, 305 Science 994. 227Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 228 Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton. The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global 

Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural Resources Defense Council. (2008) Available at 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf. 229Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 

nomic value of coral is estimated to be between $30 and $172 billion annually. In the United States, certain coastal areas would be 

especially harmed; in Florida, for example, reef-based tourism in 

the Florida Keys generates $1.2 billion in annual revenue.220

Healthy coral reefs provide other benefits as well, including shoreline protection, beach sand supply, potential pharmaceuticals, and 

habitat for fish and other marine organisms. 

Extreme Events 

Global warming has already changed the intensity, duration, frequency, and geographic range of a variety of weather patterns and 

will continue to do so, with potentially severe impacts on the 

United States and the world.221

A 2009 study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that the United States experienced 

approximately twice as many daily record high temperatures than 

daily record lows over the past decade, as the number of daily 

record lows has diminished due to global warming.222 Since the 

1980s, the frequency of damaging extreme weather events and the 

cumulative cost of those storms has increased in the United States; 

in recent years, the number of weather events exceeding $1 billion 

in damages exceeded 100.223

Heat waves have already increased in frequency over most land 

areas, and it is very likely that future climate change will result 

in an increase in the frequency and intensity of hot extremes.224,225

The intensity, duration and frequency of heat waves will increase 

particularly in western and southern regions of the United 

States.226 For a high GHG emissions future, parts of the U.S. 

South that currently have about 60 days per year with temperatures exceeding 90 °F will experience more than 150 such days by 

the end of the century.227 With continued warming by 2100, Washington, D.C. will experience the temperatures that Houston does 

today, Denver will be as warm as Memphis is today, and Anchorage will be as warm as New York City is today.228 A warmer planet is also expected to experience more extreme summer dryness.229


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
34 

230Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 231Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 232 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 233 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical Science Basis, Summary 

for Policymakers. 234Knutson, T., et al., 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience 3, 157– 

163. 235 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. 236Select Committee, Hearing on Extreme Weather in a Warming World (September 23, 2010) 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0023. 

With global warming, heavy winter precipitation and flooding is 

also increasing.230 In the United States, for example, the amount 

of precipitation falling in heavy downpours (heaviest 1 percent of 

events) has increased nearly 20 percent over the past century.231

As the atmosphere warms, it is able to hold more water vapor. 

When a storm occurs, the amount of precipitation can increase, 

which can result in flooding. The IPCC has found that ‘‘[t]he frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land 

areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapor.’’ 232 Precipitation is expected to continue to 

shift towards heavier events, with longer dry periods in between.233

Contrary to the claims of global warming skeptics, the record snowstorms during the winter of 2009–2010 may have demonstrated 

this phenomenon; they certainly did not disprove it. In the future, 

it is very likely that North America will experience more frequent 

and intense heavy downpours and higher levels of total rainfall in 

extreme precipitation events. Extreme precipitation events and associated flooding costs lives and result in damage to infrastructure, 

property, and agricultural lands. 

Global warming is expected to increase the globally averaged intensity of tropical storms and decrease their frequency.234 Stronger 

hurricanes lead to more destructive winds and higher storm surges, 

increasing the risk to coastal communities in their paths. As sea 

level rises and storm surges increase, the vulnerability of cities to 

flooding, and the related impacts, increases significantly. Finally, 

strong cold-season storms are also likely to become more frequent, 

with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.235

In September of 2010, the Select Committee held a briefing to examine the links between climate change and extreme weather 

events. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Husain 

Haqqani spoke about the devastating economic, health, and security impacts of the flooding that struck Pakistan in the summer of 

2010.236 Twenty percent of Pakistan was inundated, more than 

1,700 people lost their lives, and more than 21 million people were 

directly affected by the floods. 

Extreme events consistent with climate change predictions occurred in a number of other locations in 2010 as well. Russia experienced both the worst heat wave and one of the worst droughts on 

record. In China, massive flooding claimed over 2,000 lives. In 

India, heat waves killed dozens of people and flooding left 2 million 

people homeless. Here in the United States, record-breaking temperatures baked the East Coast and disastrous flooding inundated 

Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and elsewhere. As the parVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
35 

237Select Committee, Hearing on Extreme Weather in a Warming World (September 23, 2010) 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0023. 238German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2007. Climate Change as a Security Risk 

Summary for Policy-makers. 239 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, 2008. The Food Crisis and Sustainable Development. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/documents/ 

bgrounderlfoodcrisis.pdf. 240 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 

Summary for Policy Makers at 13. 241 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 36. 242 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers at 11. 243 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 28. 244 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 19– 

26. 245 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 3. 246 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 88. 247 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 86. 248 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 87. 

ticipants of the briefing discussed, as concentrations of GHGs increase in the atmosphere, there will be more extreme weather 

events, including more intense and frequent heat waves and increased drought and flooding.237

Freshwater 

One of the most dramatic impacts of global warming in the 21st 

century will be the exacerbation of already severe water scarcity. 

Over a billion people currently lack access to safe drinking 

water.238 By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to be living in regions experiencing water scarcity and two-thirds of the world’s population may be living in water stressed conditions.239 The IPCC 

projects that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people in Africa 

will experience an increase of water stress due to climate 

change.240 For Asia, the number is between 120 million and 1.2 billion people, and for Latin American it is 12 to 81 million.241

Global warming is leading to rapid melting of land ice, glaciers, 

ice caps, and snow fields which over time will exacerbate water 

scarcity in many regions of the globe. One-sixth of the world population currently relies on melt-water from glaciers and snow cover 

for drinking water and irrigation.242 The IPCC’s 2008 Climate 

Change and Water report projects widespread reductions in snow 

cover in the 21st Century, and a 60 percent volume loss in glaciers 

in various regions.243 While melting may temporarily increase 

freshwater supply, more winter precipitation falling as rain rather 

than snow and an earlier snowmelt season will deplete frozen 

freshwater reserves and exacerbate water scarcity conditions.244

Increased water stress due to climate change will disproportionately affect the dry tropics and dry regions at lower mid-latitudes.245 Semi-arid and arid areas in Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Brazil, and the western United States are expected to suffer 

decreasing water resources with climate change.246 In Asia, decreasing precipitation and rising temperatures will result in the increasing frequency and intensity of droughts.247 In northwestern 

China and Mongolia, snow and glacier melt will cause floods in the 

spring in the near term but will also result in freshwater shortages 

by the end of the century.248 Global warming is expected to result 

in more persistent El Nin ̃ o conditions that shift the Amazon 

rainforest from a tropical forest environment towards dry savanVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
36 

249Lenton, T., et al., 2008. Tipping Elements in the Earth’s climate system. 105 Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 1790. 250WWF Climate Change Programme. Climate Change Impacts in the Amazon: Review of Scientific Literature. Available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/amazonlcclimpactsllitl 

reviewlfinall2.pdf. 251Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. Available at http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?lr=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin. 252Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. Available at http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?lr=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin. 253Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. Available at http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?lr=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin. 254Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. Available at http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?lr=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin. 255 Ruth, M., et al., 2007. The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction. University of Maryland Center for Integrative Environmental Research. Available at 

http://dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/usleconomic.pdf. 256Wehner, M., Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming. Hearing on Extreme Weather and Climate in a Changing World. (September 23, 2010) 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/092310ExtremeWeather/wehner.pdf. 257 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 67. 258 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate Change and Water, pp. 68. 259 Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. National Water Program Strategy: Response to 

Climate Change. Available at http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/docs/ 

TO5lDRAFTlCCRl Revisedl10-16.pdf. 260Winter, A., 2008. Fisheries: Freshwater species in steep decline—USGS, Greenwire. 

nah,249 imperiling an ecosystem that sustains local communities 

and one of the highest concentrations of biodiversity on Earth.250

In the American West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is at its lowest 

level in 20 years, threatening California water supplies.251 Experts 

warn that even in optimistic scenarios for the second half of the 

21st century, 30 to 70 percent of this snowpack may disappear.252

As a consequence of decreasing snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, 

the U.S. Southwest is already experiencing a severely reduced flow 

in the Colorado River upon which 30 million people depend for 

water.253 The U.S. Midwest is expected to experience drought due 

to a loss of soil moisture and surface waters.254 In addition to a 

range of other costs, agriculture in the U.S. Southwest and Great 

Plains is likely to suffer massive economic losses due to increasing 

water scarcity.255 In September 2010, Dr. Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory briefed the Select Committee 

on the hydrologic impacts of climate change, explaining that much 

of the United States will experience severe drought by the end of 

the 21st century for business-as-usual GHG emissions.256

Climate change will also negatively impact the quality of freshwater resources. For example, reduced river flows will limit the dilution of effluent, leading to increased pathogen and chemical concentrations.257 In addition, increased heavy precipitation events 

due to climate change may contaminate watercourses and drinkingwater reservoirs.258 Warmer water temperature combined with 

higher phosphorus concentrations will increase the occurrence of 

freshwater algal blooms, with adverse impacts on freshwater ecosystems and fisheries. Fish habitat may also be compromised because altered water chemistry will promote the intrusion of 

invasive species.259 These impacts will exacerbate the precarious 

state of freshwater fish species in North America, nearly 40 percent 

of which are already at risk.260

Land Resources 

Global warming is impacting forests through increased temperatures, altered patterns of precipitation, and changes in the presence and severity of pests. The role of climate change in forest ecolVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
37 

261 Alencar, A., et al., Carbon emissions associated with forest fires in Brazil, in Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change (P. Moutinho and S. Schwartzman eds. 2005). Available at 

http://www.edf.org/documents/4930lTropicalDeforestationlandlClimateChange.pdf. 262 Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/. 263Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 264Westerling, A., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire 

Activity 313 Science 940 (2006). 265Westerling, A., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire 

Activity 313 Science 940 (2006). 266 Van der Werf, G., et al., Continental-Scale Partitioning of Fire Emissions During the 1997 

to 2001 El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a Period, 303, Science 73. (2004). 

ogy is an area of active scientific research. In areas with adequate 

water availability, warmer temperatures have likely increased forest growth and will continue to do so. Increasing CO2 concentrations will likely increase photosynthesis but will only increase wood 

production in young forests where adequate nutrients and water 

are available. 

But the negative effects of climate change on forests outweigh 

the benefits. Increasing global temperatures are already affecting 

tropical forests, with droughts provoking forest fires in the Amazon 

and Indonesia. The combination of degraded forests from logging 

and agriculture with more extreme climate events suggests that 

forest fires are likely to play an even more important role in the 

future of tropical forests and their contribution of global warming 

pollution.261 The dieback of forests represents a form of abrupt climate change, as forests that would otherwise serve as carbon sinks 

may succumb to water stress and pest exposure; the risk of passing 

such critical thresholds increases greatly with continued climate 

change.262

In the United States, some forest types are expected to expand 

(e.g., oak-hickory), while others are expected to contract (e.g., 

maple-beech-birch).263 There is also growing evidence that climate 

change is increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the 

United States. Scientists have concluded that from 1986 to 2006 

longer, warmer summers have resulted in a four-fold increase in 

major wildfires and a six-fold increase in the area of forest burned, 

compared to the period from 1970 to 1986.264 In addition to more 

intense and more frequent fires, the length of the fire season and 

the burn duration of large fires have also increased. Warmer temperatures cause an earlier snowmelt which can lead to an earlier 

and longer dry season.265 Models of future climate have consistently concluded that the area burned will increase in the coming 

years and decades. With more wildfires come more GHG emissions. 

Although estimates vary widely, wildfires may represent up to 10 

percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.266

Global warming is also exacerbating insect infestations (most notably bark beetles), which in turn make forests more susceptible to 

wildfire. Drought stress makes trees and vegetation more susceptible to attack by insects, and warmer winter temperatures allow 

a higher number of insects to survive and increase their populations. Warmer temperatures can also increase reproductive rates 

of insects, resulting in two generations in a single year. Finally, 

warmer temperatures allow insects to invade areas previously outside their natural range, as has happened with the mountain pine 

beetle in the U.S. West. Research has clearly demonstrated the link 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
38 

267 Backlund, P. et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States 

at 7. 268 Backlund, P., et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States. 269Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States, Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts. 270 Rosenzweig, C., F.N. Tubiello, R. Goldberg, E. Mills and J. Bloomfield, 2002. Increased crop 

damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global Environ. Change, 12, 

197–202. 271 Backlund, P., et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008 The Effects of Climate 

Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States. 272 International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2008, IUCN Red list Reveals world’s 

mammals in crisis, Available at http://www.iucn.org/newslevents/events/congress/ 

index.cfm?uNewsID=1695 273Thomas C., et al., 2004. Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145. 274 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 

Summary for Policy Makers. 275 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 

Summary for Policy Makers. 

between warmer temperatures and drought on extensive insect outbreaks in southwestern forests and Alaska.267

Agricultural lands are also expected to experience substantial impacts from climate change. For most crops there are temperature 

limits that, when reached, can impair crop yield. For example, an 

anticipated 2.2 °F rise in temperatures over the next 30 years is 

projected to decrease yields of maize by 4.0 percent, wheat by 6.7 

percent, sorghum by 9.4 percent and dry bean yields by 8.6 percent.268 Agricultural lands are also sensitive to changes in the timing and intensity of water availability. Runoff in snowmelt-dominated areas is occurring up to 20 days earlier in the U.S. West and 

up to 14 days earlier in the Northeast.269 In some regions, global 

warming is expected to exacerbate drought conditions, whereas others will experience more frequent and intense heavy downpours. 

Heavy rainfalls reduced the value of the U.S. corn crop by an average of $3 billion per year between 1951 and 1998.270 Insects and 

disease pests will also respond to changes in climate and may adversely affect agriculture.271

Wildlife 

If climate change goes unchecked, it could lead to mass extinction of the world’s species. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s 2008 annual report lists 38 percent of 

catalogued species as already threatened with extinction, including 

nearly 25 percent of all mammals.272 A 2004 study suggests that 

15 to 37 percent of terrestrial species may be ‘‘committed to extinction’’ by 2050 due to climate change.273 The IPCC predicts that for 

a temperature rise of 2.7–4.5 °F, approximately 20 to 30 percent of 

plant and animal species will be at an increased risk of extinction.274 Additional warming could lead to even higher rates of extinction, perhaps a loss of more than 40 percent of all plant and 

animal species by the latter half of this century.275

The species most vulnerable to climate change have a specialized 

habitat, a narrow environmental tolerance that is likely to be exceeded due to climate change, and dependence on specific environmental triggers or interactions that are likely to be disrupted by 

climate change. One tragic and iconic example is the polar bear. 

Polar bear populations are expected to decline by 30 percent in the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
39 

276 Harden, B., 2005. Experts Predict Polar Bear Decline, Washington Post. Available at 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html. 277 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers at 48. 278 Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change—Health and Environmental Effects. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html. 279 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Policy on Climate Change and Public 

Health, Available at http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/pubs/ClimatelChangelPolicy.pdf. 280World Health Organization, 2007. Fact Sheet No. 266, Climate and health. Available at 

http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/. 281 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability 

at 391–431. 282 European Commission. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. The 2003 

European heat wave. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/phlinformation/dissemination/unexpected/unexpectedl1len.htm. 283 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Climate Change and Public Health: Heat 

Waves. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/effects/heat.htm. 

next 35 to 50 years and to disappear from Alaska altogether due 

to loss of habitat resulting from global warming.276

Public Health 

There is a broad consensus among experts within the worldwide 

public health community that climate change poses a serious threat 

to public health. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report concluded 

that climate change’s likely impacts on public health include: increases in mortality associated with more frequent and more intense heat waves; increased occurrence of deaths, disease, and injury from floods, storms, fires and droughts; increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level 

ozone pollution; changes in the range of some infectious disease 

vectors; and increased malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those relating to child growth and development.277

In addition, EPA,278 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),279 and NOAA have all concluded climate change poses 

a serious public health risk. The World Health Organization 

(WHO) released a quantitative assessment concluding that the effects of climate change may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 

2000 and that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.280

According to the IPCC, climate change contributes to the global 

burden of disease, premature death and other adverse health impacts.281

Heat waves will increase in intensity and frequency in the 

United States and globally, with significant consequences for 

human health. The populations most at risk of dying in a heat 

wave are the elderly and people in underserved communities. The 

European heat wave of August 2003 is estimated to have killed up 

to 45,000 people.282 In France alone, nearly 15,000 people died due 

to soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 104 °F and remained extreme for two weeks. It is estimated that heat-related 

deaths in the United States will climb from the current 700 per 

year to 3,000–5,000 by 2050.283

Global warming will exacerbate ground-level ozone pollution, 

leading to substantial increases in respiratory illness and premature death. Ozone is a known public health threat that can 

damage lung tissue and exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions. The IPCC predicts increased levels of ozone across the eastern United States, ‘‘with the cities most polluted today experiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
40 

284 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability 

at 632. 285 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6, Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems at 

ES–6. 286 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability 

at 632. 287McConnell, R., et al., 2002. Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: A cohort study, 

359 The Lancet 386; and Gent, J., et al., 2003. Association of low-level ozone and fine particles 

with respiratory symptoms in children with asthma, 29 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1859. 288 Jacobson, M., 2008. On the Causal Link Between Carbon Dioxide and Air Pollution Mortality. 35 Geophysical Research Letters L03809. 289World Health Organization, 2002. World Health Report: Reducing risks, promoting healthy 

life. 290 Checkley, W., et al., Effect of El Nin ̃ o and ambient temperature on hospital admissions for 

diarrhoeal diseases in Peruvian children, 355 The Lancet 442. 291 Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change—Health and Environment Effects: 

Health. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html#climate. 292 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 293 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

encing the greatest increase in ozone pollution.’’ 284 The increase in 

temperature in urban areas specifically and increases in ozone can 

increase rates of cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses as well as 

temperature-related morbidity and mortality for children and the 

elderly.285 Similar impacts will be felt in urban areas around the 

globe. By mid-century, ozone related deaths from climate change 

are predicted to increase by approximately 4.5 percent from the 

1990s levels.286 Even modest exposure to ozone may encourage the 

development of asthma in children.287 Recently, an analysis linking 

CO2 emissions to mortality revealed that for each increase of 1.8 °F 

caused by CO2, the resulting air pollution would lead to about a 

thousand additional deaths annually and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States.288

Climate change will lead to changes in geographic distribution of 

infectious diseases, with potentially serious impacts on public 

health in the United States and globally. The WHO estimates that 

climate change was responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4 percent of worldwide diarrhea, and 6 percent of malaria in some middle-income countries.289 If average global temperature increases by 

a further 1.8 °F, an additional 320 million cases and 176,000 deaths 

from diarrheal illnesses are expected annually.290 According to 

EPA, ‘‘[c]limate change may increase the risk of some infectious 

diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas 

and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects.’’ 291 For example, 

the IPCC has concluded that the global population at risk from vector-borne malaria will increase by between 220 million and 400 

million in the next century.292 Similarly, the IPCC predicts that climate change is likely to increase the risk and geographic spread of 

the West Nile virus, a mosquito-borne disease.293

National Security 

The current and projected impacts of climate change have serious 

national security consequences for the United States and its allies. 

The security issues raised by climate change have received increasing attention in recent years both in the U.S. Congress and in 

international venues. 

The first-ever U.S. government analysis of the security threats 

posed by global climate change was issued in June 2008 as the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA), National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030. The 2008 NIA was the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
41 

294McGuinn, Admiral Dennis, 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Hearing on Not Going Away: America’s Energy Security, Jobs 

and Climate Challenges. (December 1, 2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/ 

pubs?id=0024#mainlcontent. 295 Black, G., 2008. The Gathering Storm, OnEarth. http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm?page=all. 296Giannini, A., et al., 2008. A Global Perspective on African Climate, Climatic Change. 

sult of a process initiated, in part, by the introduction of H.R. 1961, 

the ‘‘Climate Change Security Oversight Act,’’ which required the 

U.S. Intelligence Community to analyze the national security implications of global climate change. 

In addition, U.S. and European military and security policy analysts have issued a number of public reports exploring the security 

consequences of global warming and potential responses. All of 

these reports emphasize concerns over a few key security impacts, 

including migration, water scarcity, infrastructure at risk from extreme weather, and new economic routes and access to new energy 

resources. In most cases, global warming is not creating ‘‘new’’ security threats, but rather is acting as a ‘‘threat multiplier.’’ 294

Numerous impacts of climate change could ultimately increase 

both the temporary and permanent migration of people inside and 

across existing national borders and increase risks of geopolitical 

instability. Nations dealing with an influx may have neither the resources nor the desire to support climate migrants. As in the past, 

movement of people into new territory can increase the likelihood 

of conflict and the potential need for intervention from U.S. and allied military forces. 

Rising sea levels threaten low-lying island nations and populous 

coastal areas. For example, the risk of coastal flooding in Bangladesh is growing and could force 30 million people to search for 

higher ground in a country already known for political violence. 

India is already building a wall along its border with Bangladesh.295 Other economically and agriculturally important coastal 

areas, like Egypt’s Nile Delta and China’s southeast coast, are also 

threatened from rising sea level and severe storms. Similar impacts 

in Central America and the Caribbean could add pressure to existing migration patterns from those areas to the United States. 

Increased water scarcity due to climate change will likely increase the risk of conflict. Already, scientists have traced declines 

in rainfall in the Darfur region to disruption in the African monsoon associated with warming sea surface temperatures 296 which 

has exacerbated conflict between farmers and nomadic herders. 

Rapidly melting glaciers in the Andes and the Tibetan Plateau 

threaten the water supply for some of the most populous countries 

in the world. The major rivers of India and China originate in the 

Tibetan Plateau glaciers and are an important component of their 

summer freshwater resources; dwindling water resources or 

changes in the flow regime could heighten existing tensions within 

the region. 

Extreme weather events also pose a significant and growing security threat. Many active U.S. coastal military installations 

around the world are at risk of damage from storm surges and associated flooding. For example, the U.S. airbase at Diego Garcia in 

the Indian Ocean, which is critical to operations in Iraq and the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
42 

297The CNA Corporation, 2007. National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. Available at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20 

Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf. 298Select Committee, Briefing on Extreme Weather in a Warming World, (October 23, 2010). 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0023#mainlcontent. 299 Borgerson, S., 2008. Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global 

Warming. Foreign Affairs. 300 Borgerson, S., 2008. Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global 

Warming. Foreign Affairs. 301 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers. 

surrounding region, is highly susceptible to coastal storm surges.297

In September of 2010, the Select Committee held a briefing entitled 

Extreme Weather in a Warming World, in which Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani spoke about the security implications of the devastating floods that struck Pakistan 

in 2010.298 Military resources, including U.S. helicopters needed to 

fight terrorists, had to be diverted for humanitarian assistance. 

Flood-stricken regions of Pakistan with dislocated populations also 

became more susceptible to the intrusion of terrorism. 

Finally, accelerating melting of Arctic sea ice is impacting the 

United States’ strategic interests in the region. Russia has moved 

to stake claim to over 460,000 square miles of new arctic territory, 

including areas with potential oil and natural gas resources.299

With the opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time in recorded history, the Prime Minister of Canada announced his intention to increase his country’s military presence in the Arctic.300

Other circumpolar nations, including the United States, have 

begun to examine their potential claims on Arctic territory and 

identify necessary preparations for increased maritime traffic in 

the area. Given that melting in recent years was almost as great 

as 2007, this issue will remain one of immediate concern. As new 

economic routes and energy resources become available, the United 

States will have to adapt and perhaps redeploy resources to deal 

with the changing physical and economic landscape. 

Vulnerable Communities 

While the ramifications of climate change will be felt in every 

community, the greatest impacts will be borne by those already 

most economically vulnerable and who have contributed least to climate change. Left unabated, climate change will exacerbate deep 

inequalities within and between countries. The human face of the 

climate story is one in which communities least responsible for the 

climate crisis are the first pushed to the edge of survival, and then 

ultimately over the edge if they are unable to adapt to climate 

changes. 

Climate change will have devastating impacts on the developing 

world, reversing gains in poverty alleviation, food security, nutrition, health, and basic services. Poor communities are especially 

vulnerable because they have less capacity to adapt to climate 

changes and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources 

such as local water and food supplies.301 Increased exposure to 

drought and water scarcity, more intense storms and floods, and 

other environmental pressures will hold back the world’s poor from 

building a better life for themselves and their children. 

Climate change is likely to add to the total of 2.6 billion people 

now living on $2 a day or less. By the end of the century, an addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
43 

302Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. 303Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. 304 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance Program. 

Available at http://housemajority.org/coms/cli/AVETAlReport.pdf. 305 Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, 2008. Climate of Change: African 

Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy for the U.S. Available at http:// 

www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf. 306Quintero-Somaini, A., et al. (2004), Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the 

Latino Community. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/ 

effects/latino/english/latinolen.pdf. 

tional 145 to 220 million people in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa could fall below the $2 per day poverty level as a result of climate change impacts.302 According to the Stern Review, unchecked 

climate change could turn 200 million people into refugees this century, precipitating the largest migration in history. In addition, increased frequency and severity of droughts and floods will affect 

crop productivity and food production, disproportionately affecting 

the 850 million people already experiencing food scarcity.303

Island nations are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, from the degradation of marine resources to sea level 

rise. The Republic of the Maldives, for example, is confronting the 

loss of coral reefs that serve as the basis for its economy, currently 

driving a productive fishing industry and attracting large numbers 

of tourists. In the long term, rising sea level represents a truly existential threat; with the highest point on the islands little more 

than six feet above sea level, all 1,190 islands making up the 

Maldives could eventually be rendered uninhabitable. 

In the United States, climate change impacts are deepening existing inequities. In Alaska, a state already hit hard by climate 

change, at least three Alaskan villages—Shishmaref, Kivalina, and 

Newtok—will be lost to coastal erosion due to rising sea levels as 

soon as in the next decade.304 As devastating as it may be to watch 

a town fall into the sea, the more destructive and irreplaceable 

transformation occurring within these native communities is to cultures and traditional ways of life as global warming transforms the 

world around them and makes practices and traditions irrelevant 

or even dangerous. 

Climate change may also increase existing health inequities for 

people of color. In major metropolitan areas, African Americans are 

more likely than whites to be exposed to higher air toxic concentrations and are nearly three times as likely to be hospitalized or 

killed by asthma.305 Latinos, 66 percent of whom live in areas that 

violate federal air quality standards, face disproportionate health 

impacts as well.306 These health inequities may grow, for example, 

as levels of ground-level ozone increase with warming. 

Economic Costs of Climate Change 

Climate change impacts of the types described above will have 

staggering economic impacts in the coming decades. Measuring 

these impacts in dollars is a challenge, requiring analysis of local 

and global impacts, long time horizons, quantification of risk and 

uncertainty, and capturing the possibility of climate tipping points 

that induce major, catastrophic change. While the variables are numerous and complex, estimates of potential economic impacts are 

massive. 

The Stern Review, one of the most in-depth and respected economic analysis of climate change, used formal economic models to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
44 

307Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. 308 Ruth, M., et al., 2007. The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction. University of Maryland Center for Integrative Environmental Research. Available at http:// 

dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/usleconomic.pdf. 309 Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate Change: What We’ll Pay if Global 

Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available at http:// 

www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf. 310 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010. The disclosure of climate 

data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Available at http:// 

climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf; and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, 2010. Government Response to the House of 

Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009–10: The disclosure of 

climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Available at 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf. 311Oxburgh, R., H. Davies, K. Emanuel, L. Graumlich, D. Hand, H. Huppert, and M. Kelly, 

2010. Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the 

estimate that unabated climate change will cost at least 5 percent 

of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever.307 If a wider range of risks and impacts is considered, the 

damages could rise to 20 percent or more of GDP annually over the 

next two centuries. 

In the United States, the economic impacts of climate change will 

be felt throughout the country and within all sectors of the economy. The greatest economic impacts will likely result from stress 

to freshwater supplies, changes to the agricultural sector, damage 

to coastal infrastructure from storms and sea level rise, effects on 

energy supply and demand, adverse impacts to human health, and 

more frequent and extensive forest fires.308 Tourism and other 

weather-dependent industries will continue to be hit especially 

hard as well. 

Modeling results from a Tufts University and Natural Resources 

Defense Council study show that if present trends continue, the 

total cost of only four global warming impacts in the United 

States—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and 

water costs—will cost nearly $1.9 trillion annually by 2100 (in constant 2008 dollars), or 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP. Factoring in a 

wider range of harms such as health impacts and wildlife damages, 

these costs could reach 3.6 percent of GDP annually in the United 

States by 2100.309

CLIMATE SCIENCE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA

As the political debate over climate change solutions has gained 

prominence, climate science and the climate scientists themselves 

have become targets of politically motivated attacks. A number of 

such incidents occurred during the 111th Congress. The Select 

Committee played an important role in informing the public on 

these issues and bringing the best-available climate science into 

discussions and debates of U.S. energy and climate policy. 

Hacked Email Incident Explained 

In November of 2010, emails and electronic documents were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of 

East Anglia. The emails were subsequently taken out of context 

and distorted to smear the reputations of certain climate scientists 

and challenge the well-established conclusions of climate science. 

However, all of the official reviews of the hacked email incident 

cleared climate scientists of any wrongdoing and showed there was 

no real substance to the allegations; the official reviews included 

the UK House of Commons Report,310 the Oxburgh panel report,311


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
45 

research of the Climatic Research Unit. Available at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/ 

press/CRUstatements/SAP. 312 Russell, M., G. Boulton, P. Clarke, D. Eyton, and J. Norton, 2010. The Independent Climate Change Email Review, Available at http://www.cce-review.org/. 313The Pennsylvania State University, 2010. RA–1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. 

Michael E. Mann. Available at http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/FinallInvestigation lReport.pdf. 

314 Revkin, A., 2009. On Climate Data, Trends and Peer Review. New York Times, Available 

at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/. 315Select Committee staff analysis of the stolen electronic documents from the CRU. Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/DOCS/SelectCommitteeAnalysisStolenElectronic 

Documents.pdf. 316Select Committee, Hearing on Climate Science in the Political Arena, (May 20, 2010). 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0019#mainlcontent. 

the Sir Muir Russell Report,312 and the Penn State Report.313 The 

Sir Muir Russell panel’s review of the scientists whose emails were 

stolen concluded that, ‘‘their rigor and honesty as scientists are not 

in doubt.’’ Their review also states that, ‘‘we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the 

IPCC assessments.’’ 

The Select Committee held a series of hearings that examined 

the hacked email incident. In December of 2010, the Select Committee heard testimony from President Obama’s science advisor, 

Dr. John Holdren, and the NOAA Administrator, Dr. Jane 

Lubchenco, emphasizing that it is the results of thousands of researchers from hundreds of research facilities around the world 

that makes global warming unequivocal, not the work of a single 

research group.314 In fact, NASA and NOAA have conducted independent research that fully confirms the findings of the Climatic 

Research Unit that came under attack. 

In a separate hearing held in May of 2010, the Select Committee 

heard directly from one of the members of the Oxburgh inquiry 

panel, which reviewed the hacked email incident; Dr. Lisa 

Graumlich, then of the University of Arizona, reported that she 

and her colleagues on the Oxburgh panel ‘‘saw no evidence of any 

deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic 

Research Unit.’’ The Select Committee also issued a report explaining how some of the emails—namely those related to Dr. Michael 

Mann and his analysis of temperature records—were inappropriately taken out of context and that the fundamental conclusions of 

his work were robust and independently verified by numerous research groups, including the National Research Council.315

Harassment of Climate Scientists 

Following the hacked email incident described above, harassment 

and intimidation of some climate scientists sharply increased. 

In May of 2010, the Select Committee held a hearing to examine 

the harassment and intimidation of climate scientists.316 Dr. Ben 

Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory told the Committee, ‘‘I firmly believe that I would now be leading a different life 

if my research suggested that there was no human effect on climate. I would not be the subject of Congressional inquiries, Freedom of Information Act requests, or email threats. I would not need 

to be concerned about the safety of my family. I would not need to 

be concerned about my own physical safety when I give public lectures.’’ 

The late Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an early 

and influential voice on climate change, described a shift in the cliVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
46 

317 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Statement on the melting of Himalayan 

glaciers. (2010) Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement20january2010.pdf. 318Kintisch, E., 2010. As Climate Scientists Battle the Press, One Receives Rare Apology 

From Paper. Science. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/ 

climate-scientists-battle-press.html. 319The Telegraph, Dr Pachauri—Apology (August 20, 2010). Available at http:// 

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7957631/Dr-Pachauri-Apology.html. 320 Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010. Assessing an IPCC assessment: An 

analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. Available at http:// 

www.pbl.nl/images/500216002ltcm61l48119.pdf. 321 InterAcademy Council, 2010. Climate change assessments: Review of the processes and 

procedures of the IPCC. Available at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html. 322Select Committee, Hearing on Climate Science in the Political Arena. (May 20, 2010). 

Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0019#mainlcontent. 

mate debate since the 1970s, saying, ‘‘It was always civil. It was 

always bipartisan. And it has now gotten to the point where things 

have become accusatory and highly ideological, and that is very unfortunate.’’ All of the witnesses participating decried political attacks on climate scientists and advocated for a civil dialogue on the 

issue of climate change. 

IPCC Criticism Explained 

During the 111th Congress, the IPCC and its Chairman 

Rajendra Pachauri were also the target of many politically motivated attacks. A number of alleged errors in the IPCC’s 2007 

Fourth Assessment Report—namely the section on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—received a great deal of attention. The alleged errors were used to question the conclusions of the IPCC’s 

Fourth Assessment Report, even those derived from other sections 

of the report. In fact, only one of the alleged errors—an error in 

the year that Himalayan glaciers are expected to disappear—was 

legitimate; the IPCC admitted the error and corrected it.317 Close 

scrutiny by climate science experts revealed that the other allegations of errors were false. 

Numerous newspapers have since retracted stories perpetuating 

the false allegations against the IPCC. The UK’s Sunday Times 

issued an apology and retracted an erroneous story about the 

IPCC’s discussion of climate change impacts in the Amazon, acknowledging that, ‘‘In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence.’’ 318 The UK’s Telegraph issued an apology to IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri for 

putting forth allegations of financial irregularity that were proven 

false by an independent review. Following the exoneration, the 

Telegraph stated, ‘‘We apologise to Dr. Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.’’ 319 The Netherlands Government has also accepted 

responsibility for erroneous information that they provided to the 

IPCC and which was wrongly attributed to the IPCC in news reports. While the error had no bearing on the IPCC’s conclusions, 

the Netherlands Government appropriately stated, ‘‘We acknowledge that this error was not the fault of the IPCC.’’ 320 Further, an 

official review of IPCC procedures and process coordinated by the 

InterAcademy Council determined that in fact ‘‘the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.’’ 321

The Select Committee held a series of hearings in which the allegations against the IPCC were examined and debunked. In a Select 

Committee hearing in May of 2010,322 for example, Dr. Ben Santer 

of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory told the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
47 

323Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean 

Energy Industry Generate? (2004). Available at http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ 

ewealdocuments/documents/policy/externalldocuments/040413lrenewableslberkeley.pdf. 324 In the case of biomass, there are fuel costs but these fuels are renewable and prices are 

less volatile. 325 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009, Available at http:// 

www.worldenergyoutlook.org/. 326 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010, Available at http:// 

www.worldenergyoutlook.org/. 327 Id. 

mittee that, ‘‘Responses to these unfounded allegations have been 

given in a variety of different fora by myself, by the IPCC, and by 

other scientists, yet the allegations remain much more newsworthy 

than the rebuttals.’’ Dr. Mario Molina, a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, told the Committee that, ‘‘There appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the nature of climate change science among those 

that have attempted to discredit it. They convey the idea that the 

science in question behaves like a house of cards. If you remove 

just one card, the whole structure falls part. However, this is certainly not the way the science of complex systems works. A much 

better analogy is a jigsaw puzzle. Many pieces are missing, some 

might even be in the wrong place, but there is little doubt that the 

overall image is clear, namely, that climate change is a serious 

threat that needs to be urgently addressed.’’ 

PART III: THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGE: JOBS AND CLEAN TECH

GROWTH

The United States stands at a critical moment with regard to the 

relationship between our economy and our energy system. Our economic future is threatened by continued dependence on foreign oil 

and other fossil fuels. Our electric grid and transportation system 

are inefficient. We are losing the lead in development of alternative 

energy technologies to countries like Germany and China. We are 

vulnerable to volatility and speculation in our energy markets. In 

short, the United States cannot continue business as usual and expect to maintain our current level of economic competitiveness. 

Fortunately, the energy and climate challenges we are facing 

represent an unprecedented opportunity for an innovation-driven 

economic revival in which clean energy solutions—built by American workers—are marketed around the world. Investments in renewable energy create, on average, three to five times as many jobs 

as similar investments in fossil-fuel energy systems.323 Rather 

than energy dollars going to expensive fuels that are quickly 

burned up, energy dollars that go into renewable energy systems 

go to actual workers building machines that, once assembled, run 

on free fuel for their operating lifetimes.324

The world will need to invest $26 trillion over the next 2 decades 

in order to meet our energy needs.325 Clean energy will likely make 

up an increasing share of this investment with each passing year, 

and the International Energy Agency estimates that, globally, $5.7 

trillion will be invested in renewable electricity generation alone 

between 2010 and 2035.326 The nations that move aggressively to 

support their young clean energy industry and workers will have 

a leg up in leading this key growth sector. With more than 90 percent of the increase in global energy demand coming from outside 

the 34 wealthy industrial nations,327 the clean energy sector repVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
48 

328Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind 2009 Report, March 2010 available at http:// 

www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/Publications/GloballWindl2007lreport/GWEClGloball 

Windl2009lReportlLOWRESl15th.%20Apr.pdf. 329Global Wind Energy Council. Latest News: Wind power to provide a fifth of world’s electricity by 2030, (Dec 10, 2010). Available at: http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&nol 

cache=1&txlttnews[ttlnews]=270&txlttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=97741fa57b. 330 American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report—Year 

Ending 2009, available at http://e360.yale.edu/images/digest/AnnuallMarketlReport 

lWind.pdf. 

331 American Wind Energy Association, Fact sheet: Wind Energy Manufacturing: Rapid 

Growth in the United States (2010). 332 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Joined at the Hip: the US-China Clean Energy Relationship, (2010). Available at bnef.com/free-publications/white-papers. 333 Coal mining jobs data includes employees engaged in production, preparation, processing, 

development, maintenance, repair, shop or yard work at mining operations. Excludes office 

workers and mines producing less than 10,000 short tons annually and preparation plants with 

less than 5,000 employee hours. Wind jobs total includes turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and 

marketing services. See Energy Information Administration, Coal Data: A Reference, page 79 

Table 22. U.S. Coal Mining Average Employment, Hours Worked, and Earnings, Selected Years 

available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/006493.pdf; and American Wind Energy Association, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/newsldetail.html?newslid=15927. 334The Solar Foundation, National Solar Job Census 2010, (October 2010) available at http:// 

www.environmentwashington.org/uploads/21/d0/21d00a2f59894f096c52d4c6567f0e64/Final-TSFNational-Solar-Jobs-Census-2010-Web-Version.pdf. 335See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency—California’s Highest Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp:// 

ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Egy-Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf. 

resents an opportunity to help countries develop alternatives to the 

fossil fuel development pathway followed by the United States and 

other developed countries. Further, with half of the current U.S. 

trade deficit coming from imported oil, clean energy represents a 

huge export market that has the potential to reverse our energydriven trade imbalance. 

Clean energy is already an important player in the world’s energy markets. For example, the 2009 market for wind turbine installations was worth $63 billion and more than 600,000 people are 

now directly employed in the industry.328,329 In the U.S., there 

were 39 new announced or expanded wind manufacturing facilities 

in 2009, and more than 200 facilities in production.330 Over 60 percent of the value of wind turbines installed in America is now produced domestically, an increase from 25 percent in 2004.331 Total 

U.S. wind turbine manufacturing capacity is expected to reach 

12,000 megawatts per year by 2012.332 Coal mining jobs have 

dropped precipitously—by more than 60 percent—over the past 30 

years (246,300 in 1980 to 80,000 in 2010). Meanwhile, the wind industry has taken off. Since 2007, wind jobs have increased 70 percent and have surpassed coal mining jobs to employ 85,000 workers 

across all 50 states.333 The solar industry doubled the number of 

people working in the industry in the United States from 2009 to 

2010, to 93,000 workers in all 50 states.334

The energy efficiency sector is a huge untapped resource with the 

potential to increase economic productivity and save U.S. consumers money. McKinsey & Company research has found that the 

U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent within a decade. 

Such action would eliminate more than $1.2 trillion in waste, far 

more than the $520 billion in required upfront investment. California regulators have similarly found that state efficiency programs produce savings at a rate of two dollars or more for every 

dollar invested.335 According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 

a requirement on utilities to meet a certain share of their load 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
49 

336 Union of Concerned Scientists, A Better Climate Bill, (2010). Available at http:// 

www.ucsusa.org/cleanlenergy/solutions/biglpicturelsolutions/a-better-climate-bill.html. 337Pew Environment Group, Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? (2010). http:// 

www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Globallwarming/G-20%20Report. 

pdf?n=5939) 338 Bradsher, Keith, New York Times, On Clean Energy, China Skirts Rules, (September 8, 

2010). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/business/global/09trade.html?page 

wanted=all). 339 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2010 Report (2010) Available at http://bnef.com/free-publications/white-papers. 340Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic 

Arguments (September 2010) Available at http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/lmedia/ 

DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf. 341 Reuters, Deutsche Bank spurns U.S. for climate investment, (Aug 11, 2010) Available at 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67A3JK20100811. 342 Bloomberg, China May Spend $738 Billion on Clean Energy Projects, (July 20, 2010) Available at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010l07l20/china-may-spendl738lbillion-onclean-energy-projects.html. 

through energy efficiency measures, in combination with an RES, 

would reap huge savings for U.S. consumers. The average U.S. 

household would save nearly $100 annually on their energy costs 

in 2030, and electricity and natural gas expenditures would be reduced by a total of $113 billion through 2030.336

The Pew Environment Group has found that clean energy jobs 

grew 2.5 times faster than jobs in the U.S. overall between 1998 

and 2007, and 770,000 people are now employed in clean energy 

jobs across the country.337 China is estimated to now have more 

than 1 million people employed directly through the clean energy 

sector.338 The German renewable energy sector increased to more 

than 300,000 in 2009, nearly half in the last five years.339

While opponents of clean energy and climate protection have proliferated arguments intended to undermine the scientific consensus 

on climate change and stall policy action, many in the financial 

community that put real investment capital at risk have analyzed 

the climate change threat, drawn clear conclusions, and moved capital to the markets where policies reflect this threat. One large financial institution, Deutsche Bank, went so far as to partner with 

the expert scientists at the Earth Institute at Columbia University 

to determine the validity of climate skeptic claims. The central conclusion of this large institutional investor was clear: ‘‘the primary 

claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that humanmade climate change is already happening and is a serious longterm threat.’’ 340 It is therefore no surprise that Deutsche Bank, with nearly $7 billion in climate change-related investments under 

management, has placed only about $45 million into that sector in 

the United States, instead focusing investments in China and 

Western Europe.341

The United States has fallen behind China in building a robust clean energy sector. In 2009, $35 billion was invested in the Chinese clean energy sector, nearly twice the amount invested in the 

United States. During the coming decade, China has pledged to 

support $738 billion in investment in their domestic clean energy 

sector.342 In less than a decade, China has gone from manufacturing less than 1 percent of the world’s solar panels to nearly half. 

Upwards of 95 percent of these solar modules are exported. This 

$15 billion in solar exports is more valuable than America’s corn, 

beef, and chicken exports combined. 

Some of China’s clean energy programs may be illegal violations 

of international trade agreements. On September 9, 2010, the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
50 

343 United Steelworkers, USW Files Trade Case to Preserve Clean, Green Manufacturing Jobs 

in America (September 9, 2010) available at http://www.usw.org/medialcenter/releasesl 

advisories?id=0327. 344 United States Trade Representative, United States Launches Section 301 Investigation 

into China’s Policies Affecting Trade and Investment in Green Technologies, available at http:// 

www.ustr.gov/node/6227. 345 Chairman Edward J. Markey, Select Committee Opening Statement: Hearing on ‘‘The 

Global Clean Energy Race’’ (September 22, 2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/ 

files/HRG/092210Global/markeyOpening.pdf. 346 Rare earth elements are a collection of 17 elements that are indispensable to a wide range 

of military, electronic, and industrial applications, as well as a variety of clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, solar panels and energy efficient light bulbs. 347Secretary Chu, Secretary Locke, U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, Responses to Questions 

from Representative Markey, (December 13, 2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/ 

files/SHARE/12l13-10lRareEarthMaterials.pdf. 348Dan Kammen, Testimony for Select Committee Hearing ‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D 

Needs to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenges’’ on September 10, 2008. Available at 

http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0147.pdf. 349Dan Kammen, Testimony for Select Committee Hearing ‘‘Investing in the Future: R&D 

Needs to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenges’’ on September 10, 2008. Available at 

http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0147.pdf. 

United Steelworkers union filed a comprehensive trade case with 

the United States Trade Representative (USTR) alleging an array 

of Chinese policies and practices that threaten the future of America’s clean energy sector.343 The case, which USTR began officially 

investigating on October 15, 2010,344 alleges that China has utilized hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, performance requirements, preferential practices and other illegal trade activities 

to advance its control of the sector. The Select Committee is very 

concerned about China’s use of unfair trade practices to bolster the 

competitiveness of its industries and urges prompt action to address violations found through the U.S. Trade Representative’s investigation.345

One aspect of the Steelworkers’ petition relates to China’s restrictions on access to rare earth elements and other critical materials, an issue that intensified in late 2010 and demonstrated the 

unacceptably high strategic value these critical materials have 

reached.346 China currently produces 95 percent of the world’s rare 

earth elements and in September 2010 began restricting export of 

these materials to Japan in retaliation for Japan’s detention of a 

Chinese fishing boat captain that was operating in disputed territorial waters. China has also increased export duties and cut 2010 

export quotas by 40 percent compared to 2009 levels.347 With demand for critical materials growing rapidly and China becoming an 

increasingly unreliable global supplier, taking steps to encourage 

the development of critical material production outside of China 

will be important in bolstering U.S. energy independence. 

As mature industries increasingly move overseas to access cheaper labor, technology and innovation-driven sectors will become the 

key to sustaining economic growth and creating good jobs. It has 

been estimated that over 90 percent of new economic growth results from public and private sector investments in innovation.348

By this measure, the established energy industry now dominated 

by massive companies and outdated business models is decidedly 

not a high-growth, job-creating, innovation-oriented sector. While 

investment in research and development (R&D) is roughly 3 percent of gross domestic product, it is roughly one-tenth that level in 

the energy sector. By contrast, R&D investments in the medical 

and biotechnology field are roughly 15 percent of sales, almost 40 

times more than in the energy field.349 Policies that increase comVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
51 

350 Excludes ConocoPhilip’s one-time write down of more than $34 billion in domestic oil 

exploration and production and investments in the Russian oil company Lukoil, which led to 

its reported $16 billion loss in 2008. See Weiss, Daniel and Alexandra Kougentakis, Center for 

American Progress. ‘‘Big Oil Misers’’ (March 31, 2009), available at http:// 

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/bigloillmisers.html; and 10–K, Proxy Statements, 

and 20–F forms for BP, PLC, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and R.D. Shell. 351Weiss, Daniel and Alexandra Kougentakis, Center for American Progress, ‘‘Big Oil Misers’’ 

(March 31, 2009), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/bigl 

oillmisers.html. 

petition and open markets to new technologies and business models 

will accelerate the transition to an innovation-oriented, job-creating 

energy sector. 

Meanwhile, the Big Five oil and gas companies are raking in 

record-breaking profits—$321 billion between 2007 and 2009.350 Instead of favoring greater exploration or alternative energy investments as the price of oil has raced upwards, the oil majors have 

preferred to increase stock buybacks, which grew from $10 billion 

in 2003 to $60 billion in 2006. Exploration spending from the five 

largest oil companies was flat or decreased during this period. In 

2009, the major oil companies invested more than $56 billion in 

dividends and stock repurchases and less than $4 billion on all 

types of research and development.351

Putting Americans back to work on retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight rail, 

constructing a ‘‘smart’’ electrical grid, building and installing wind 

and solar energy systems, as well as developing next-generation 

biofuels would ensure the clean energy technology revolution brings 

working Americans along with it. 

SELECT COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 

I. INVESTIGATION INTO THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

The Select Committee, together with the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, conducted 

an extensive, groundbreaking investigation into the BP Deepwater 

Horizon Oil spill. As a result of this investigation the Congress and 

the public gained a much better understanding of the true amount 

of oil spilled and its actual effects on the Gulf of Mexico. The investigation also forced BP to make publicly available its live video feed 

of the spill occurring 5,000 feet below the ocean surface and revealed many instances of BP’s and other oil companies’ lack of 

preparation and inadequate response plans. 

SUMMARY OF INCIDENT

On April 20, 2010, at about 10 p.m., an explosion occurred on the 

Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. There 

were 126 people on board at the time. Fifteen people were injured 

and eleven workers were killed. The Deepwater Horizon, owned by 

Transocean Ltd., was under a contract with BP to drill an exploratory well. BP was the lessee of the area in which the rig was operating. At the time of the explosion, BP and Transocean were in the 

process of temporarily closing the well, in anticipation of returning 

to the well in the future for commercial production. Halliburton 

had completed some cementing of casings in the well less than 24 

hours prior to the accident. On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater HoriVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:46 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR709.XXX HR709

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
52 

352 National Incident Command’s Flow Rate Technical Group (2010) Available at http:// 

www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/US-Scientific-Teams-Refine-Estimates-of-Oil-Flow-from-BP-Well 

-Prior-to-Capping.cf. 353 National Incident Command’s Flow Rate Technical Group (2010) Available at http:// 

www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/US-Scientific-Teams-Refine-Estimates-of-Oil-Flow-from-BP-Well 

-Prior-to-Capping.cfm. 

zon rig sank and two days later, Remotely Operated Vehicles 

(ROVs) found oil leaking from the broken riser pipe. 

Ultimately, oil would continue leaking from the Macondo well for 

87 days before the well was finally capped on July 15, 2010. The 

government’s Flow Rate Technical Group (FTRG) concluded that 

during that period, oil had been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico at 

a rate beginning at 62,000 barrels per day and ending at 53,000 

barrels per day prior to the well being capped.352 According to the 

FRTG, a total of 4.1 million barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf 

of Mexico, with an addition 800,000 barrels having been captured 

aboard containment ships responding to the crisis.353 The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill ultimately became the largest oil spill in the 

history of the United States. 

SUMMARY OF CHAIRMAN MARKEY’S INVESTIGATION

Chairman Markey helped lead the investigation in Congress into 

the causes of and response to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. 

Chairman Markey’s investigation focused on a number of key 

areas. 

Forced BP to Make Live Video of the Oil Spill Available to the Public 

It took 23 days for BP to produce underwater images from ROVs 

at the leak site. After the first shocking images appeared, Chairman Markey pressured BP to release a live video feed of the leak 

from the ocean floor. This live video feed from the ‘‘Spillcam’’ appeared on the Select Committee website on May 19, 2010. Within 

a few days, more than a million people had visited the Select Committee website to see the images of the spill. 

Uncovered the Truth About the Size of the Oil Spill 

BP initially claimed that oil was spilling into the Gulf of Mexico 

at the rate of 1,000 barrels a day. However, Chairman Markey uncovered documents from BP that showed as early as April 27, 2010, 

the company knew that the spill could be as large as 14,0266 barrels per day and its ‘‘best guess’’ was that 5,758 barrels were leaking. Despite this knowledge, BP’s top official in the Gulf continued 

to maintain that the spill was 1,000 barrels per day and resist efforts to increase the estimate to 5,000 barrels per day. 

Chairman Markey also convened the first briefing on Capitol Hill 

with officials from BP, Halliburton and Transocean on May 4, 

2010. During the closed door briefing, BP officials admitted that a 

worst case scenario from the Macondo well would be a spill of 

60,000 barrels per day. Chairman Markey was later able to provide 

video images of the spill to scientific experts, who warned Congress 

that based on those images, the spill might be much larger than 

what BP was asserting. The size of the spill was critical information not only to inform response efforts but also to ultimately decide BP’s financial liability. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
53 

354 Executive Order 13543. Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executiveorder-national-commission-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-and-offshore-dri. 

Creation of an Independent Panel to Investigate the Spill 

Chairman Markey was the first Member of Congress to call on 

President Obama to create an independent, blue-ribbon commission 

to investigate the causes of the BP oil spill and to make safety recommendations on deepwater drilling moving forward. The President responded by establishing the National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling through executive order on May 21, 2010.354 This bipartisan commission was 

headed by former Sen. Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator 

William Reilly. 

Chairman Markey further pushed for legislation to grant this bipartisan panel subpoena power, which was not possible through executive order. On June 23, 2010, the House passed legislation to 

give the commission subpoena power in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 420–1. However, consideration of that legislation, H.R. 

5481, was ultimately blocked in the Senate. 

Uncovered Flawed Oil Spill Response Plans from all Major Oil 

Companies 

In examining the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response plans for the 

five major oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and 

ConocoPhillips, Chairman Markey found that none of these companies were any better prepared to respond to a deepwater blowout 

than was BP. In fact, these five companies had response plans that 

were virtually identical. 

The oil spill response plans cited identical response capabilities 

and touted identical ineffective equipment. In some cases, they 

used the exact same words. Like BP, three other companies include 

references to protecting walruses, which have not been found in the 

Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years. BP and two other companies all listed a scientific expert as a resource who had died years 

earlier. All in all, the response plans for these companies were 90 

percent identical. 

The First Congressional Delegation to the Region 

On May 7, 2010, Chairman Markey led the first Congressional 

Delegation to the Gulf Coast following the BP Deepwater Horizon 

Incident. Members flew over the spill site to view the impacts, met 

with the officials leading the response efforts at the Unified Command Center in Robert, LA, and visited a staging area on the 

coast. 

Oversight of Efforts by EPA and the Coast Guard to Curb BP’s Use 

of Dangerous Chemical Dispersants 

Despite the assertions made by BP that dispersants could be 

safely used on the surface and at the sea floor, Congressman Markey conducted considerable oversight of the manner in which the 

1.8 million gallons of dispersants were applied to Gulf of Mexico 

waters. Congress warned of potential harm that long-term use of 

these chemicals could have on the marine environment, the food 

chain and families living in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly since 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
54 

355Letter from Lisa Jackson to David Rainey, BP vice president of Gulf of Mexico Exploration, 

attaching Addendum 3 to the ‘‘Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive.’’ (May 26, 

2010). 356Letter from Chairman Edward J. Markey to Admiral Thad Allen (July 30, 2010. Available 

at http://markey.house.gov/docs/07-30-10ejmtocgdispersants.pdf. 357 BP, p.l.c., (2010) Available at: http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/1927/910403. 358Schenkman, Lauren (2010) BP Releases Long-Awaited Plan for $500 Million for Gulf Research. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/bp-releases-long-awaitedplan-fo.html. 

BP decided to use the least effective and most toxic formulation of 

dispersants to combat the effects of the spill. 

As a result of concerns expressed by Chairman Markey regarding 

their use and EPA’s analysis of these risks, on May 26, 2010 EPA 

and the Coast Guard directed BP to completely eliminate surface 

application of dispersants except in ‘‘rare cases’’ when an exemption might be needed.355 EPA and the Coast Guard further directed 

BP to reduce the overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent from 

the maximum daily amount used (70,000 gallons per day) and to 

limit subsurface application to no more than 15,000 gallons per 

day. If BP wished to deviate from these instructions, it was required to make a written request and obtain approval from the 

Federal On-Scene Coordinator, which was the Coast Guard in this 

case. On July 30, 2010, Chairman Markey released analysis of the 

actual volumes applied following this directive, which indicated 

that the Coast Guard approved requests to use dispersants on an 

almost-daily basis, despite the directive that these approvals be 

issued in only ‘‘rare’’ cases.356 Chairman Markey also conducted extensive oversight to ensure that seafood was being examined to ensure that it was not contaminated with dispersants. 

Monitoring the Effects of Dispersants and Oil on Seafood 

Chairman Markey also conducted extensive oversight to ensure 

that seafood harvested from the Gulf of Mexico was being appropriately monitored for the presence of dispersants, oil and other byproducts of the oil spill, such as toxic heavy metals. A series of letters to the FDA prodded FDA to do more to monitor the long-term 

consequences of the spill on food safety to ensure that the public 

has confidence in the safety of seafood from the Gulf. As a result 

of these concerns, the FDA developed a chemical test to detect the 

presence of dispersant in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp, which was 

announced on October 29, and subsequently used as a part of the 

protocol to reopen waters in the Gulf to fishing. 

Creation of a $500 Million Research Fund 

Chairman Markey called on the companies responsible for the 

disaster to pay for outside research by independent scientists to 

analyze the environmental impacts of the spill. Following Chairman Markey’s request, BP pledged on May 24, 2010 to donate $500 

million to establish this fund which will also assess the ecological 

impacts on the Gulf. However, only $40 million of the $500 million 

pledged has been disbursed by BP to date, hindering the efforts of 

scientists to understand the full consequences of the spill.357,358

Future disbursements will be determined by a board assembled by 

BP and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance; it still remains unclear to what 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
55 

359Schenkman, Lauren (2010) BP Releases Long-Awaited Plan for $500 Million for Gulf Research. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/bp-releases-long-awaitedplan-fo.html. 

extent grants will be awarded on the basis of scientific merit versus 

geographic proximity to the spill.359

II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS

INTRODUCTION

The 111th Congress—and particularly the House of Representatives—was intensely active in addressing energy security and climate change. As detailed below, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress, established the largest public 

investment in clean energy technology in history. The House 

passed historic comprehensive energy and climate legislation, a 

major bill responding to the BP oil spill, and an array of bills addressing other energy security and climate-related issues. The Select Committee played a substantial role in each of these legislative 

efforts. 

Collectively, they represent a broad vision of energy and climate 

solutions that have been a major focus of the Select Committee’s 

work. During the same period, the United States under the Obama 

Administration returned to a leadership role in the international 

climate negotiations, resulting in some significant initial steps forward, as discussed below. 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted on February 17, 2009. This legislation was a direct response 

to the economic crisis, intended to preserve and create jobs, promote economic recovery, and assist those most impacted by the recession, in large part through the provision of needed investments 

in infrastructure and technology that will also generate long-term 

economic benefits. The bill included $288 billion in tax cuts and 

benefits for families and businesses; $224 billion in increased federal funding for education, healthcare, and extended unemployment benefits; and $275 billion in federal contracts, grants and 

loans. 

Roughly $90 billion, or 11 percent, of ARRA investments targeted 

clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives, such as tax credits, 

grants, loan guarantees, and other programs for energy efficiency, 

electricity generation from renewable sources, electric grid modernization, advanced vehicles and fuels technology, traditional 

mass transit and high-speed rail, carbon capture and sequestration, 

green innovation and job training, and clean energy equipment 

manufacturing. Collectively, this represents the largest public investment in clean energy technology in history. 

As of July 2010, two-thirds of appropriated ARRA funds had 

been obligated and more than one-quarter had been spent. The 

Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimates this public investment has already saved or created more than 800,000 jobs, with 

190,000 of those occurring in the clean energy category. CEA also 

reports that ARRA clean energy funds have been successful in 

leveraging private investment. For example, the Energy Cash Assistance Program has disbursed $4.7 billion, supporting over $13 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
56 

360 Council of Economic Advisers. The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Fourth Quarterly Report. (Jul 14, 2010) Available at http://www.white 

house.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/economic-impact-arra-4th-quarterly-report/ 

summary. 361 Rogers, Matthew. Testimony for U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Hearing: To examine the Department of Energy’s implementation of programs authorized and 

funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (March 4, 2010). 362 Id. 363Mouawad, Jad. Wind Power Grows 39% for the Year. New York Times. (January 26, 2010). 

Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/business/energy-environment/26wind.html. 364The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2454 would raise federal revenues by $873 billion over ten years and increase direct spending by $864 billion, resulting in a net $9 

billion reduction in the federal budget deficit. 365 Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy (June 

2009) Available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/perilreport.pdf. 366 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) 

available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/national/JobslAnalysisl0309.pdf. 

billion in total investment activity, and the Smart Grid Program 

has leveraged $6 billion in outside investment with their initial investment of $4.5 billion.360

Both demand for ARRA programs and the impact they are mak- ing are significant. For example, the $14 billion in competitive 

grants that the Department of Energy is now distributing are oversubscribed with projects, with only one in five applications receiving an award.361 ARRA clean energy programs are putting the 

United States on track to double non-hydro renewable electricity 

generating capacity and double advanced energy equipment manufacturing by 2012.362 In 2009, a year in which many were forecasting declines in renewable deployments, the wind industry grew 

its total installed capacity nearly 40 percent from the previous 

year.363

AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT

On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known 

as the ‘‘Waxman-Markey’’ bill. This is the first and only comprehensive legislation to combat climate change to be passed by a 

full chamber of Congress in the United States. If enacted, the Waxman-Markey bill would create millions of new clean energy jobs, 

enhance America’s energy independence, and protect the environment—all without increasing the federal deficit.364

The bill would unleash private sector investment in clean energy 

to create millions of new jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. One 

recent study concluded that H.R. 2454 and the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act would together create 1.7 million new clean 

energy jobs.365 The energy efficiency provisions of the WaxmanMarkey bill alone would generate 770,000 jobs by 2030.366 The bill 

would also protect America’s current jobs by helping energy-intensive industries like the steel, iron, and paper industries transition 

to a cleaner, more profitable future. 

To enhance America’s energy independence, the Waxman-Markey 

bill promotes all forms of American clean energy. The bill would 

make a landmark investment in the future of the country by providing $190 billion through 2025 to increase our efficiency and deploy cutting-edge technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy, and electric and other advanced technology vehicles. As a result, enactment of the bill would cut America’s use of foreign oil by more than 5 million barrels per day in 

2030—as much as we currently import from the Middle East and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
57 

367World Resources Institute, Emissions Reductions Under the American Clean Energy and 

Security Act (May 19, 2009) Available at http://www.wri.org/publication/usclimatetargets. 368 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) 

available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/national/JobslAnalysisl0309.pdf. 

Venezuela—when combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuels 

standards enacted in 2007 and updated by President Obama. 

To protect the environment, the Waxman-Markey bill would limit 

global warming emissions from electric utilities, oil refineries, and 

other major sources, and reward companies as they use cleaner 

technology. The bill would reduce total global warming emissions 

83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. According to the World Resources Institute, the bill would slash global warming pollution by 

2,265 million metric tons in the year 2020 alone.367

The Waxman-Markey bill enjoyed support from a broad range of 

stakeholders, including representatives of industry, labor, environment, and faith groups, and the bill was careful to protect consumers from higher energy prices. In fact, the American Council for 

an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that the energy efficiency 

provisions in the bill would save consumers $1050 per household 

by 2020.368

Unleashing a U.S.-led clean energy revolution and cutting U.S. 

global warming pollution remains critical unfinished business and 

should be among the top priorities of the new Congress and the Administration. The Waxman-Markey bill remains the most comprehensive and detailed roadmap established to date, and should 

be a touchstone for future efforts in this sphere. 

GULF OIL SPILL LEGISLATION

In response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, discussed 

at length above, the House enacted broad legislation to hold BP 

and other parties fully accountable for the spill, to help restore the 

Gulf, and to reform offshore oil and gas drilling to ensure that a 

spill of this kind never happens again. 

On July 30, 2010, the House passed the Consolidated Land Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 3534). This legislation includes the following elements: 

• Strong new safety measures, including independent certification of critical offshore drilling equipment. 

• Removal of the $75 million cap on economic damages to be 

paid by companies like BP and other responsible parties to 

families and businesses harmed by an oil spill. 

• Elimination of the scandal-ridden Minerals Management 

Service; establishment of a new structure within the Department of Interior for offshore oil and gas leasing, revenue collection, and safety and environmental regulation; and establishment of tougher ethics standards for Federal officials overseeing offshore drilling. 

• Strengthening of the President’s Commission on the Deepwater Horizon spill by giving the Commission subpoena power 

to ensure cooperation in its investigation. This portion of the 

legislation was introduced by Rep. Lois Capps and Chairman 

Markey as H.R. 5481. 

• Closing of the royalty loopholes that allow oil companies to 

drill for free on public lands during times of high oil prices, 

saving American taxpayers up to 53 billion. This provision was 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
58 

introduced by Chairman Markey and has passed the House 

multiple times. 

• Establishment of a Gulf of Mexico Restoration Program to 

coordinate efforts to return the Gulf to health following the 

spill, and measures to ensure that a portion of the fees from 

offshore drilling are used to protect and improve our oceans. 

• Provisions to ensure full funding, using offshore oil and 

gas drilling fees, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

and the Historic Preservation Fund, which help protect high 

quality natural, recreational, and historical areas. 

The CLEAR Act built on other legislation separately passed by 

the House, including: 

• Legislation, co-sponsored by House Education and Labor 

Committee Chairman George Miller and Chairman Markey, to 

protect whistleblowers working on offshore oil and gas drilling 

operations (H.R. 5851—the Offshore Oil and Gas Whistleblower Protection Act). 

• Legislation to ensure fair compensation to the families of 

those killed or injured in the BP spill (H.R. 5503—the Securing 

Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability 

(SPILL) Act). 

• Legislation supporting research and development of new 

technologies and practices for the prevention and cleanup of oil 

spills (H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act; H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization 

Act). 

Although the Obama Administration has taken a number of critical steps to address these issues, many of the elements of this 

House-passed legislation should remain key priorities for the next 

Congress. 

CASH FOR CLUNKERS

On June 24, 2009, President Obama signed into law legislation 

originally passed in the House as the ‘‘Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009,’’ authorizing the creation of the successful ‘‘Cash for Clunkers’’ program. The framework for this legislation had previously been negotiated, as part of the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act, by Democratic Members of Congress led by Chairman Markey, Energy and Commerce Committee 

Chairman Henry Waxman, and Reps. Betty Sutton, Jay Inslee, 

John Dingell, and Bart Stupak. 

Under this legislation, Congress ultimately provided $3 billion in 

funds to encourage consumers to trade in their old gas-guzzler for 

a new, more fuel efficient vehicle, thereby reducing our dangerous 

dependence on imported oil, saving consumers money at the gas 

pump and providing meaningful assistance to get the struggling 

American auto industry back on its feet. The program provided 

consumers purchasing qualifying new vehicles with $3,500–$4,500 

vouchers, in connection with the purchase of almost 700,000 new 

vehicles. 

These new vehicles: 

• Averaged about 9.2 miles per gallon (about 60 percent) 

more efficient than the gas guzzlers that were traded in, far 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
59 

369 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) 

available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/national/JobslAnalysisl0309.pdf. 370 New York Times, Made in the U.S.A: Efficiency Materials, (March 12, 2010) Available at 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/made-in-the-u-s-a-efficiency-materials/. 371 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) 

available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/national/JobslAnalysisl0309.pdf. 

exceeding the minimum fuel efficiency requirements imposed 

by the legislation. 

• Are estimated to reduce the need for 33 million gallons of 

gasoline annually. 

• Are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 9 million metric tons over the next twenty-five years. 

The program was also estimated to have created or saved more 

than 60,000 jobs and added $3.8–$6.8 billion to the GDP. 

HOMESTAR—CREATING JOBS THROUGH BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY

RETROFITS

On May 4, 2010, the House passed the HomeStar Energy Retrofit 

Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019) to address the issues of job creation in the 

construction sector and building energy efficiency. Similar to the 

‘‘Cash for Clunkers’’ program, this legislation would authorize the 

establishment of a national rebate program to encourage homeowners to improve home energy efficiency through measures such 

as installation of new insulation, more efficient windows and doors, 

and so on. 

Under the program, homeowners can participate in either a ‘‘Silver Star’’ program that provides rebates for a pre-approved list of 

specific energy-saving measures, or the ‘‘Gold Star’’ program that 

provides rebates for whole-home retrofits that achieve at least a 20 

percent increase in the overall energy efficiency of the home. 

If funded at the authorized level of $6 billion, the HomeStar program would create or save 168,000 jobs—helping to address high 

unemployment rate in the construction industry, which is near 25 

percent.369 Ninety percent of the retrofit products that would be 

purchased under the program are made in the United States, such 

that it would also provide a much-needed stimulus for domestic 

manufacturing.370 The program would also save homeowners $9.2 

billion on energy bills, and would save an amount of electricity 

equivalent to the output of four 300 megawatt power plants and an 

amount of natural gas and home heating oil equivalent to 6.8 million barrels of home heating oil.371

THE GRID ACT—SECURING AMERICA’S ELECTRICITY GRID

Another critical issue addressed by the House of Representatives 

during the 111th Congress is the security of America’s electric 

grid—a key element of America’s energy security. Right now, 

America’s electric grid is vulnerable to cyber or other attacks by 

terrorists or hostile countries. Our adversaries are actively probing 

these weaknesses and already have the capacity to exploit them. 

The consequences of such an attack could be devastating. The commercially operated grid provides 99 percent of the power used by 

our defense facilities. Every one of our Nation’s critical civilian systems—water, communications, healthcare, transportation, law enforcement, and financial services—depends on the grid. Classified 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
60 

372 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Report of the Conference of 

the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Available 

at http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advancedlsearch/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref= 

600005735#beg. 373 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Submission of the United 

States of America, Organization of Work of the AWG/LCA in 2010 (February 26 2010) Available 

at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/adlhoclworkinglgroups/application/pdf/usawp2010llca.pdf. 

Member briefings convened by Chairman Markey during the 111th 

Congress underscored the urgency of this threat. 

On June 9, 2010, the House passed—by unanimous voice vote— 

H.R. 5026, the Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (GRID) 

Act, sponsored by Chairman Markey and Rep. Fred Upton. This bipartisan legislation would establish critical new Federal authority 

to protect the Nation’s electric grid against a range of threats and 

vulnerabilities—including cyber attacks, electromagnetic weapons, 

solar storms, and the supply of critical large transformers produced 

exclusively overseas. Without the establishment of this new authority, the Federal government has limited authority to protect the 

grid. This remains a front-burner issue for the next Congress. 

International Negotiations 

The past two years have seen substantial new developments with 

regard to international climate negotiations. With more than 120 

heads of government in attendance, the United Nations Climate 

Change Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 was the largest 

meeting of world leaders in history. Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a 

high-profile, bipartisan delegation of 21 Members of the House of 

Representatives, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Chairman 

Markey and four other Chairmen of House Committees, to attend 

the summit. 

President Obama and other world leaders gathered at the Copenhagen summit reached a significant new agreement known as the 

Copenhagen Accord. This Accord, which has now been signed by 

140 countries, including those accounting for the vast majority of 

global greenhouse gas emissions, provides for explicit emission 

pledges by all the major economies. It also outlined an aspirational 

goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius 

and broad terms for the reporting and verification of countries’ actions.372 For the first time, the United States, China and other 

major emitters committed to strong reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions on a national level. 

The Copenhagen Accord also included an unprecedented commitment of funds for global adaptation and mitigation. The United 

States and other developed countries made a collective commitment 

of $30 billion in 2010–2012 to help developing countries reduce 

emissions, preserve forests, and adapt to climate change, and a 

goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in public and private finance 

by 2020 to address developing country needs. The United States, 

the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, committed to 17 

percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 

2030, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. These targets are 

aligned with the ACES legislation passed by the House of Representatives.373

At the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010, 

the international community took another important step forward 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
61 

374See Draft Decision -/CP.16, Outcome of the work of work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on 

Long-Term Cooperative Action (December 2010) Available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ 

copl16/application/pdf/cop16llca.pdf); and Draft Decision -/CMP.6, Outcome of the work of the 

Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol 

at its fifteenth session (December 2010) Available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/copl16/ 

application/pdf/cop16lkp.pdf. 

through the establishment of the Cancun Agreements. These agreements make substantial progress in implementing all of the major 

pillars of the Copenhagen Accord, including Mitigation, Monitoring, 

Reporting and Verification and International Consultation and 

Analysis (MRV/ICA), Adaptation, Finance, Technology, and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).374

Notably, the agreements ‘‘anchor’’ the emission reduction pledges 

made by major developed and developing countries under the Copenhagen Accord in a new decision of the Conference of the Parties 

and confirm the climate financing pledges made by developed countries. Further, major developing countries agreed to take a substantial step forward in establishing an international regime to ensure 

transparency in measuring, reporting and verifying their compliance with emission reduction pledges, including through periodic 

international consultation and analysis. 

CONCLUSION 

In April of 2007, the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming held its first hearing. At that inaugural gathering, the Select Committee discussed the twin challenges of climate change and our dependence on foreign oil. 

Since that day, Congress passed historic improvements in vehicle 

fuel economy standards and made major investments in clean energy technologies, including renewable energy, electric vehicle, and 

advanced battery technologies as well as building and appliance efficiency measures that will save families and small business billions of dollars. The House passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill. America held two historic national elections. The world— 

including China and India—committed to reduce carbon pollution 

in the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements. U.S. troops 

continue to fight bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, regions where 

our energy and national security interests remain entangled. The 

Gulf of Mexico was sullied by BP’s oil spill, which became the worst 

environmental disaster in U.S. history. The Select Committee has 

been a central forum for discussion and debate of all these issues. 

Over the life of the Select Committee, the politics of energy and 

climate change have shifted back and forth as have the issues that 

dominate media and public attention. What has not changed is the 

array of challenges we face as a nation and as a planet. 

The national security challenges from our dependence on oil are 

not going away. The Select Committee heard from Vice Admiral 

Dennis McGinn, who was a witness at the very first Select Committee hearing first hearing and at the very last Select Committee 

hearing. He made clear the price of our dependence on foreign oil, 

borne out not in this rhetorical battlefield, but in the theater of actual war, where bullets and bombs are spent to defend or acquire 

barrels of oil. 

The national security threats from climate change are not going 

away. During the first Select Committee hearing, we discussed the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
62 

drought-influenced Somali conflict that led to the events recounted 

in the film ‘‘Blackhawk Down.’’ A warming world exacerbated a 

military hot spot. In September of 2010, the Select Committee 

hosted the Pakistani Ambassador to discuss his country’s devastating floods. He discussed how his country diverted resources 

like helicopters away from fighting Al Qaeda to assist in the flood 

response. An increasingly destabilized climate will invariably lead 

to more of these destabilizing geopolitical events. 

The economic security threats stemming from America’s lack of 

an energy plan are not going away. China is pushing ahead with 

clean energy investments, along with other emerging technologies 

like carbon capture. Twice as much money was invested in clean 

energy in China as was invested in the United States last year. As 

we heard from the private investment community, this move by 

China will attract trillions in private capital—money that could be 

invested in jobs here at home. 

And China is not alone. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other 

countries recognize that dominating the trillion dollar market of tomorrow requires foresight and public investment, supported for forward-looking public policy, today. For the United States, second 

place in the clean energy race is an unacceptable goal. Just as we 

cannot afford to continue our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, 

we cannot afford to concede this economic opportunity. 

The carbon pollution that we have already spewed into the atmosphere, warming our Earth, is not going away anytime soon. 

The pollution we emit today will still be in the atmosphere centuries from now. Every day that we wait to act to stem the tide 

of carbon emissions will be felt for decades and centuries to come. 

While some Members of Congress dispute the science of global 

warming, the rest of the world does not. As the world’s climate 

community gathered for the U.N. climate change conference in 

Mexico this year, virtually all the countries of the world accepted 

that cutting carbon pollution is this generation’s responsibility. The 

threat that climate change poses is too dangerous and too urgent, 

for us to retreat into cynicism, skepticism, or inaction. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the Select Committee with her 

grandchildren in mind, hoping to ensure that the world we leave 

behind is safe and prosperous and that its natural treasures remain undiminished for generations to come. The Select Committee 

held 80 hearings and briefings, focusing on developing solutions to 

end our dangerous addiction to foreign oil, combat climate change, 

create millions of new clean energy jobs here in the United States, 

and save American consumers billions in energy costs. The Committee heard testimony from a diverse group of literally hundreds 

of the world’s leading energy and national security experts—from 

military generals, energy CEOs, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, 

local, State, Federal and international officials, private sector investors, clean energy and environmental advocates, and entrepreneurs and innovators who are creating the next generation of 

clean energy technology. Collectively, these business, science, military, government, and civil society leaders made a compelling case 

for the urgent need for the United States to embrace a clean energy future. 

In considering the future, it is instructive to keep in mind a few 

key numbers: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
63 

1. $1.3 Trillion 

That is the amount of money consumers have shipped overseas 

for foreign oil since the Select Committee was created in 2007. Imported oil represents nearly half of our trade deficit. This massive 

transfer of wealth is an albatross on our economy and boon for terrorist activities around the globe. 

As long as foreign oil continues to jeopardize our national and 

economic security—Congress’s work is not done. 

2. $738 Billion 

That is the amount of money China plans to invest in clean energy over the next decade. This will generate jobs that should be 

created here in the United States. The United States has the technological advantage and the entrepreneurial spirit. But unless the 

United States marshalls the political will to adopt policies that will 

spur a clean energy revolution, we will continue to lose our innovation and manufacturing edge. 

3. $4 Dollars. 

In the summer of 2008 that was the price of gasoline that focused this nation like a laser on finding alternatives to oil. As the 

global economy recovers, China and India continue to grow, and 

supplies remain tight, it is inevitable that these prices will return. 

The United States must act to continue the transition away from 

oil dependence. 

4. And finally, the number 1 

We have one planet. We all share it. We are all responsible for 

it. 

2010 is on track to be the hottest year on record, following the 

warmest decade on record. We have heard the warnings from scientists. We have seen the damage with our own eyes. 

Someday, our children and grandchildren will look back on the 

record of the Select Committee. That record will reflect a respectful 

and rigorous debate and an unprecedented understanding of the 

challenges before us. Whether or not they will see that this generation has taken the bold action required by these challenges remains 

to be seen. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
(65) 

* Mr. Bruton’s testimony was presented in a briefing format and immediately following his 

testimony the formal hearing commenced. 

APPENDIX A 

HEARINGS AND BRIEFINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING

JANUARY 15, 2009

Stimulus Package and Energy: Creating Jobs, Opportunities for All 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Van Jones, Director, Founding President, Green For 

All 

• The Honorable Michael Nutter, Mayor, City of Philadelphia 

• The Honorable Douglas Palmer, Mayor, City of Trenton 

• Denise Bode, CEO, American Wind Energy Association 

• Mr. Trevor Houser, Visiting Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Partner, Rhodium Group, 

LLC (RHG) 

• Dr. David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009

Roadmap from Poznan to Copenhagen—Preconditions for Success 

Witness List: 

• Mr. John Bruton, Delegation of the European Commission 

and Ambassador to the U.S.* • Mr. Elliot Diringer, Vice President of International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change • Mr. Rob Bradley, Director of the International Climate 

Policy Initiative, World Resources Institute • Ms. Karen Alderman Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009

Get Smart on the Smart Grid: How Technology Can Revolutionize 

Efficiency and Renewable Solutions 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Allan Schurr, Vice President, IBM 

• Mr. Robert Gilligan, Vice President, General Electric 

• Mr. Tom Casey, CEO, CURRENT Group, LLC • Ms. Shirley Coates Brostmeyer, CEO, Florida Turbine 

Technologies, Inc. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
66 

• Mr. Charles Zimmerman, Vice President, Wal-Mart 

• Mr. James Hoecker, Hoecker Energy Law & Policy 

MARCH 2, 2009

Briefing: Youth Climate: Green Jobs, Clean Futures 

Witness List: 

• Ms. Jessy Tolkan 

MARCH 4, 2009

Preparing for Copenhagen: How Developing Countries Are Fighting 

Climate Change 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Carter Roberts, President and CEO, World Wildlife 

Fund (WWF) 

• Ms. Barbara Finamore, China Program Director, Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

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

(CCAP) 

• Mr. Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) 

MARCH 19, 2009

Constructing a Green Transportation Policy: Transit Modes and 

Infrastructure 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Peter Varga, CEO, Interurban Transit Partnership, 

Grand Rapids, Michigan 

• Mr. Andy Clark, Executive Director, League of American 

Bicyclists 

• Mr. Chris Zimmerman, Arlington County, Virginia Board 

Member 

• Mr. John Boesel, President and CEO, CalStart 

JUNE 18, 2009

Global Warming’s Growing Concerns: Impacts on Agriculture and 

Forestry 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Jerry Hatfield, Supervisory Plant Physiologist, USDA 

• Ms. Heather Cooley, Senior Researcher, Pacific Institute 

• Mr. Tom Troxel, Director, Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

• Dr. Johannes Lehmann, Associate Professor of Soil Fertility Management/Soil Biogeochemistry, Cornell University 

• Mr. Ford B. West, President, The Fertilizer Institute 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
67 

JULY 28, 2009

New Technologies: What’s Around the Corner 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Greg Kunkel, Vice President for Environmental Affairs, Tenaska Inc. 

• Mr. Frank Smith, Chief Executive Officer, PURGeN One 

LLC 

• Dr. Brent Constantz, Chief Executive Officer, Calera Corporation 

• Dr. Emanuel Sachs, Chief Technical Officer, 1366 Technologies Inc. 

• Mr. Sean Gallagher, Vice President, Tessera Solar 

• Mr. Gary Spitznogle, Manager, IGCC and Gas Plant Engineering, American Electric Power 

JULY 29, 2009

Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in 

Global Climate Solutions 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Govi Rao, Chairman, Lighting Science Group Corporation 

• Mr. Robert T. Nelsen, Co-founder and Managing Director, 

ARCH Venture Partners 

• Ms. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director for International Policy & Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund 

• Dr. Mark Esper, Executive Vice President, Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

Roadmap to Copenhagen—Driving towards Success 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, 

U.S. Department of State 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

Solar Heats Up: Accelerating Widespread Deployment 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Stephanie A. Burns, Chairman, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Dow Corning 

• Mr. Frank De Rosa, Chief Executive Officer, NextLight Renewable Power 

• Mr. Steve Kline, Vice President for Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs, Pacific Gas & Electric 

• Ms. Nada Culver, Esq., Senior Counsel, The Wilderness 

Society 

• Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Economics Professor, King Juan Carlos University 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
68 

OCTOBER 22, 2009

Building U.S. Resilience to Global Warming Impacts 

Witness List: 

• Mr. John Stephenson, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office 

• Mr. Eric Schwaab, Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

• Mr. Stephen Seidel, V.P. for Policy Analysis & Gen. Counsel, Pew Center on Global Climate Change 

• Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute 

OCTOBER 29, 2010

Fraudulent Letters Opposing Clean Energy Legislation 

Witness List: 

• Representative Tom Perriello, U.S. House of Representatives 

• Mr. Jack Bonner, Bonner & Associates 

• Mr. Steve Miller, President and CEO, American Coalition 

for Clean Coal Electricity 

• Ms. Lisa M. Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, American Association of University Women 

• Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, Director and Senior Vice President 

for Advocacy and Policy, NAACP Washington Bureau 

DECEMBER 2, 2009

The State of Climate Science 

Witness List: 

• Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

• Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

MARCH 10, 2010

The Clean Energy Recovery: Creating Jobs, Building New 

Industries and Saving Money 

Witness List: 

• Ms. Lisa Patt-McDaniel, Director, Ohio Department of Development 

• Mr. Bryan Ashley, Chief Marketing Officer, Suniva Inc. 

• Mr. Paul Gaynor, Chief Executive Officer, First Wind 

Holdings LLC 

• Ms. Mary Ann Wright, Vice President and Managing Director, Business Accelerator Project, Johnson Controls, Inc. 

• Mr. Brian M. Johnson, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform & Executive Director, Alliance for Worker 

Freedom 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
69 

MARCH 16, 2010

Clearing the Smoke: Understanding the Impacts of Black 

Carbon Pollution 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Tami Bond, Professor, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign 

• Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

• Dr. Drew Shindell, Senior Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 

• Mr. Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task 

Force 

APRIL 14, 2010

The Role of Coal in a New Energy Age 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Gregory Boyce, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Peabody Energy Corporation 

• Mr. Steven F. Leer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

Arch Coal, Inc. 

• Mr. Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive for Energy and Minerals, Rio Tinto 

• Mr. Michael Carey, President, Ohio Coal Association 

MAY 6, 2010

The Foundation of Climate Science 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources 

and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of 

the ‘‘Oxburgh Inquiry’’ panel 

• Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, 

Carnegie Institution of Washington, and co-chair of ‘‘Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability’’ portion of new IPCC report due 

in 2014 

• Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and Chair of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, co-chair 

of ‘‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’’ portion of IPCC report published in 2001 

• Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for 

Atmospheric Research, contributor to IPCC reports 

• Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science 

and Public Policy Institute 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
70 

MAY 20, 2010

Climate Science in the Political Arena 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of 

Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council 

• Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego 

• Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University 

• Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

• Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University 

AUGUST 10, 2010

Briefing: The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming’s Impacts on 

the Arctic Region 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Richard B. Alley, Professor of Geosciences, and Earth 

and Environmental Systems, The Pennsylvania State University 

• Dr. Robert Bindschadler, Senior Research Scientist at University of Maryland Baltimore County, who has 30 years of 

service with NASA 

• Dr. Andreas Muenchow, Professor of Physical Ocean 

Science and Engineering, University of Delaware 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

Briefing: Progressive Auto X PRIZE: How Entrepreneurs Are 

Driving the Future of Jobs and Energy Security 

Witness List: 

• Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO, X PRIZE 

Foundation 

• Mr. Oliver Kuttner, Founder and CEO, Edison2, Team 

Edison2 Team Leader 

• Mr. Ron Cerven, Project development engineer, Li-Ion Motors Corp, Team Li-Ion Team Leader 

• Mr. Jim Lorimer, US Sales Representative, 21st Century 

Motoring, Team X-Tracer Team Member 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

The Global Clean Energy Race 

Witness List: 

• Mr. Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research, Deutsche Bank 

• Mr. Michael Liebreich, Chief Executive, Bloomberg New 

Energy Finance 

• Dr. Ravi Viswanathan, General Partner, New Energy Associates 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
71 

* General Clark was not able to attend the hearing but his full written testimony was included 

for the record. 

• Mr. Tom Carbone, Chief Executive Officer, Nordic Windpower 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

Briefing: Extreme Weather in a Warming World 

Witness List: 

• Ambassador Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to 

the United States 

• Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor, Princeton University 

• Dr. Thomas Peterson, Chief Scientist, NOAA’s National 

Climatic Data Center 

• Dr. Michael Wehner, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory 

DECEMBER 1, 2010

Not Going Away: America’s Energy Security, Jobs and Climate 

Challenges 

Witness List: 

• General Wesley K. Clark, US Army (Ret.), NATO Supreme 

Allied Commander Europe 1997–2000 * 

• Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy (Ret.) 

• Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Waterkeepers 

Alliance 

• Richard L. Kauffman, Chairman of the Board, Levi 

Strauss & Co. 

• Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, 

Environment, and Security 

• Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
(73) 

APPENDIX B 

BP DEEPWATER HORIZON CORRESPONDENCE


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTS
74 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 85 here HR709.001
75 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 86 here HR709.002
76 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 87 here HR709.003
77 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 88 here HR709.004
78 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 89 here HR709.005
79 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 90 here HR709.006
80 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 91 here HR709.007
81 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 92 here HR709.008
82 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 93 here HR709.009
83 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 94 here HR709.010
84 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 95 here HR709.011
85 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 96 here HR709.012
86 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 97 here HR709.013
87 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 98 here HR709.014
88 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 99 here HR709.015
89 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 100 here HR709.016
90 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 101 here HR709.017
91 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 102 here HR709.018
92 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 103 here HR709.019
93 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 104 here HR709.020
94 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 105 here HR709.021
95 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 106 here HR709.022
96 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 107 here HR709.023
97 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 108 here HR709.024
98 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 109 here HR709.025
99 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 110 here HR709.026
100 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 111 here HR709.027
101 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 112 here HR709.028
102 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 113 here HR709.029
103 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 114 here HR709.030
104 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 115 here HR709.031
105 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 116 here HR709.032
106 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 117 here HR709.033
107 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 118 here HR709.034
108 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 119 here HR709.035
109 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 120 here HR709.036
110 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 121 here HR709.037
111 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 122 here HR709.038
112 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 123 here HR709.039
113 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 124 here HR709.040
114 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 125 here HR709.041
115 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 126 here HR709.042
116 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 127 here HR709.043
117 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 128 here HR709.044
118 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 129 here HR709.045
119 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 130 here HR709.046
120 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 131 here HR709.047
121 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 132 here HR709.048
122 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 133 here HR709.049
123 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 134 here HR709.050
124 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 135 here HR709.051
125 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 136 here HR709.052
126 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 137 here HR709.053
127 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 138 here HR709.054
128 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 139 here HR709.055
129 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 140 here HR709.056
130 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 141 here HR709.057
131 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 142 here HR709.058
132 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 143 here HR709.059
133 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 144 here HR709.060
134 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 145 here HR709.061
135 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 146 here HR709.062
136 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 147 here HR709.063
137 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 148 here HR709.064
138 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 149 here HR709.065
139 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 150 here HR709.066
140 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 151 here HR709.067
141 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 152 here HR709.068
142 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 153 here HR709.069
143 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 154 here HR709.070
144 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 155 here HR709.071
145 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 156 here HR709.072
146 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 157 here HR709.073
147 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 158 here HR709.074
148 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 159 here HR709.075
149 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 160 here HR709.076
150 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 161 here HR709.077
151 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 162 here HR709.078
152 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 163 here HR709.079
153 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 164 here HR709.080
154 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 165 here HR709.081
155 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 166 here HR709.082
156 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 167 here HR709.083
157 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 168 here HR709.084
158 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 169 here HR709.085
159 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 170 here HR709.086
160 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 171 here HR709.087
161 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 172 here HR709.088
162 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 173 here HR709.089
163 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 174 here HR709.090
164 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 175 here HR709.091
165 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 176 here HR709.092
166 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 177 here HR709.093
167 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 178 here HR709.094
168 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 179 here HR709.095
169 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 180 here HR709.096
170 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 181 here HR709.097
171 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 182 here HR709.098
172 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 183 here HR709.099
173 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 184 here HR709.100
174 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 185 here HR709.101
175 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 186 here HR709.102
176 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 187 here HR709.103
177 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 188 here HR709.104
178 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 189 here HR709.105
179 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 190 here HR709.106
180 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 191 here HR709.107
181 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 192 here HR709.108
182 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 193 here HR709.109
183 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 194 here HR709.110
184 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 195 here HR709.111
185 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 196 here HR709.112
186 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 197 here HR709.113
187 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 198 here HR709.114
188 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 199 here HR709.115
189 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 200 here HR709.116
190 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 201 here HR709.117
191 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 202 here HR709.118
192 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 203 here HR709.119
193 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 204 here HR709.120
194 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 205 here HR709.121
195 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 206 here HR709.122
196 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 207 here HR709.123
197 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 208 here HR709.124
198 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 209 here HR709.125
199 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 210 here HR709.126
200 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 211 here HR709.127
201 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 212 here HR709.128
202 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 213 here HR709.129
203 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 214 here HR709.130
204 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 215 here HR709.131
205 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 216 here HR709.132
206 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 217 here HR709.133
207 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 218 here HR709.134
208 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 219 here HR709.135
209 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 220 here HR709.136
210 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 221 here HR709.137
211 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 222 here HR709.138
212 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 223 here HR709.139
213 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 224 here HR709.140
214 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 225 here HR709.141
215 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 226 here HR709.142
216 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 227 here HR709.143
217 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 228 here HR709.144
218 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 229 here HR709.145
219 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 230 here HR709.146
220 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 231 here HR709.147
221 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 232 here HR709.148
222 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 233 here HR709.149
223 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 234 here HR709.150
224 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 235 here HR709.151
225 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 236 here HR709.152
226 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 237 here HR709.153
227 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 238 here HR709.154
228 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 239 here HR709.155
229 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 240 here HR709.156
230 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 241 here HR709.157
231 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 242 here HR709.158
232 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 243 here HR709.159
233 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 244 here HR709.160
234 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 245 here HR709.161
235 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 246 here HR709.162
236 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 247 here HR709.163
237 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 248 here HR709.164
238 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 249 here HR709.165
239 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 250 here HR709.166
240 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 251 here HR709.167
241 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 252 here HR709.168
242 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 253 here HR709.169
243 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 254 here HR709.170
244 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 255 here HR709.171
245 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 256 here HR709.172
246 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 257 here HR709.173
247 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 258 here HR709.174
248 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 259 here HR709.175
249 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 260 here HR709.176
250 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 261 here HR709.177
251 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 262 here HR709.178
252 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 263 here HR709.179
253 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 264 here HR709.180
254 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 265 here HR709.181
255 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 266 here HR709.182
256 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 267 here HR709.183
257 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 268 here HR709.184
258 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 269 here HR709.185
259 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 270 here HR709.186
260 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 271 here HR709.187
261 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 272 here HR709.188
262 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 273 here HR709.189
263 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 274 here HR709.190
264 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 275 here HR709.191
265 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 276 here HR709.192
266 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 277 here HR709.193
267 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 278 here HR709.194
268 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 279 here HR709.195
269 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 280 here HR709.196
270 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 281 here HR709.197
271 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 282 here HR709.198
272 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 283 here HR709.199
273 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 284 here HR709.200
274 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 285 here HR709.201
275 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 286 here HR709.202
276 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 287 here HR709.203
277 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 288 here HR709.204
278 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 289 here HR709.205
279 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 290 here HR709.206
280 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 291 here HR709.207
281 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 292 here HR709.208
282 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 293 here HR709.209
283 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 294 here HR709.210
284 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 295 here HR709.211
285 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 296 here HR709.212
286 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 297 here HR709.213
287 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 298 here HR709.214
288 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 299 here HR709.215
289 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 300 here HR709.216
290 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 301 here HR709.217
291 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 302 here HR709.218
292 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 303 here HR709.219
293 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 304 here HR709.220
294 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 305 here HR709.221
295 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 306 here HR709.222
296 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 307 here HR709.223
297 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 308 here HR709.224
298 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 309 here HR709.225
299 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 310 here HR709.226
300 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 311 here HR709.227
301 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 312 here HR709.228
302 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 313 here HR709.229
303 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 314 here HR709.230
304 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 315 here HR709.231
305 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 316 here HR709.232
306 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 317 here HR709.233
307 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 318 here HR709.234
308 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 319 here HR709.235
309 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 320 here HR709.236
310 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 321 here HR709.237
311 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 322 here HR709.238
312 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 323 here HR709.239
313 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 324 here HR709.240
314 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 325 here HR709.241
315 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 326 here HR709.242
316 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 327 here HR709.243
317 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 328 here HR709.244
318 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 329 here HR709.245
319 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 330 here HR709.246
320 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 331 here HR709.247
321 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 332 here HR709.248
322 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 333 here HR709.249
323 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 334 here HR709.250
324 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 335 here HR709.251
325 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 336 here HR709.252
326 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 337 here HR709.253
327 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 338 here HR709.254
328 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 339 here HR709.255
329 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 340 here HR709.256
330 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 341 here HR709.257
331 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 342 here HR709.258
332 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 343 here HR709.259
333 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 344 here HR709.260
334 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 345 here HR709.261
335 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 346 here HR709.262
336 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 347 here HR709.263
337 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 348 here HR709.264
338 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 349 here HR709.265
339 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 350 here HR709.266
340 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 351 here HR709.267
341 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 352 here HR709.268
342 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 353 here HR709.269
343 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 354 here HR709.270
344 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 355 here HR709.271
345 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 356 here HR709.272
346 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 357 here HR709.273
347 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 358 here HR709.274
348 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 359 here HR709.275
349 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 360 here HR709.276
350 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 361 here HR709.277
351 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 362 here HR709.278
352 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 363 here HR709.279
353 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 364 here HR709.280
354 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 365 here HR709.281
355 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 366 here HR709.282
356 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 367 here HR709.283
357 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 368 here HR709.284
358 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 369 here HR709.285
359 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 370 here HR709.286
360 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 371 here HR709.287
361 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 372 here HR709.288
362 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 373 here HR709.289
363 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 374 here HR709.290
364 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 375 here HR709.291
365 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 376 here HR709.292
366 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 377 here HR709.293
367 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 378 here HR709.294
368 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 379 here HR709.295
369 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 380 here HR709.296
370 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 381 here HR709.297
371 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 382 here HR709.298
372 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 383 here HR709.299
373 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 384 here HR709.300
374 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 385 here HR709.301
375 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 386 here HR709.302
376 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 387 here HR709.303
377 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 388 here HR709.304
378 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 389 here HR709.305
379 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 390 here HR709.306
380 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 391 here HR709.307
381 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 392 here HR709.308
382 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 393 here HR709.309
383 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 394 here HR709.310
384 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 395 here HR709.311
385 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 396 here HR709.312
386 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 397 here HR709.313