U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–474 PDF 2002

S. Hrg. 107–153

S. 1008—THE CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY AND

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2001

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1008

TO AMEND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 TO DEVELOP THE

UNITED STATES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY WITH THE

GOAL OF STABILIZATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN

THE ATMOSPHERE AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD PREVENT DANGEROUS

ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE CLIMATE SYSTEM,

WHILE MINIMIZING ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS, ALIGNING THE STRATEGY WITH

UNITED STATES ENERGY POLICY, AND PROMOTING A SOUND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, TO ESTABLISH A RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT FOCUSES ON BOLD TECHNOLOGICAL

BREAKTHROUGHS THAT MAKE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TOWARD THE

GOAL OF STABILIZATION OF GREENHOUSES GAS CONCENTRATIONS,

TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JULY 18, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Counsel

TIMOTHY H. PROFETA, Legislative Counsel to Senator Lieberman

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

PAUL R. NOE, Minority Senior Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statement: Page

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1

Senator Thompson ............................................................................................ 2

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 7

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 21

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 24

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 26

WITNESSES

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2001

Hon. Robert C. Byrd, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ............... 4

James E. Hansen, Ph.D., Head, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies .... 9

Thomas R. Karl, Director, National Climatic Data Center, National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................................... 11

Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change .................. 30

James A. Edmonds, Ph.D., Senior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute ............................................................ 32

Dale E. Heydlauff, Senior Vice President-Environmental Affairs, American

Electric Power Company ...................................................................................... 34

Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute ......................................... 36

Margo Thorning, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American

Council for Capital Formation ............................................................................ 38

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Byrd, Hon. Robert C.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4

Claussen, Eileen:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 75

Edmonds, James A.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Hansen, James E.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 51

Heydlauff, Dale E.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 84

Karl, Thomas R.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 68

Lash, Jonathan:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91

Thorning, Margo:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98

Page

IV

APPENDIX

Statement entitled ‘‘The Future Course of the International Climate Change

Negotiations,’’ printed in the Congressional Record on May 4, 2001, submitted by Senator Byrd ....................................................................................... 112

Statement entitled ‘‘Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act

of 2001,’’ printed in the Congressional Record on June 8, 2001, submitted

by Senator Byrd ................................................................................................... 114

Article from The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001, entitled ‘‘Scientists’

Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty,’’ by Richard S. Lindzen ................. 118

Prepared testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment

and Public Works Committee on May 2, 2001 ................................................... 120

Prepared statement of John P. Holdren, Professor, Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University ................................................................................................................... 125

Prepared statement of David G. Hawkins, Director, NRDC Climate Center,

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................................................... 134

Copy of S. 1008 ........................................................................................................ 144

(1)

S. 1008—THE CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 2001

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Lieberman,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Lieberman, Thompson, Stevens, Voinovich,

Collins, and Bennett.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. I welcome

our witnesses and our guests this morning. I would like to thank

them for joining us to present testimony regarding the Climate

Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001, which has

been introduced by our colleagues, Senators Byrd and Stevens. In

the long term, I think there is no greater environmental challenge

facing the United States and the world than global climate change.

It is also a most complicated international matter, to devise an appropriate response.

Two recent scientific reports, one by the United Nations and the

second by the National Academy of Sciences, confirmed some of the

worst fears about climate change. These reports conclude that the

Earth is warming; that the warming is caused by human activities;

and that, unless we reverse this trend, we will face dire consequences, including rising sea levels, widespread drought, the

spread of diseases associated with warmer weather, and an increase in extreme weather events.

Most everyone agrees that there is a problem and on the need

for a strong response, except frankly some here in the United

States. One need only look to Genoa and Bonn, where thousands

of protesters are gathering to demonstrate against President

Bush’s decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol, to appreciate

the depth of conviction associated with this problem of global

warming and the extent to which the United States has now separated itself from most of the rest of the world on this subject.

Personally, I feel that we need an international agreement with

binding targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I say that because in the aftermath of the Rio Treaty, which

the Senate ratified on October 15, 1992, which set out a series of

targets and timetables that were meant to be voluntarily complied

2

with, but were not, that the answer, I believe, is that we need binding targets and timetables.

I know that some of my colleagues feel otherwise, but the truth

is that we are not here today to debate those questions, although

I would guess that we will hear some of the differing points of view

on them. That is because our two colleagues, Senators Byrd and

Stevens, have, I think, put together a legislative proposal that creates common ground that all of us can occupy and from which we

can move forward together. Achieving a bipartisan consensus on

this legislation can, I believe, be an historic turning point in the

United States’ response to global climate change.

The legislation Senators Byrd and Stevens propose will create a

focused, comprehensive effort within the Executive Branch that

will provide the leadership and creative work that the problem of

global warming requires. The bill will establish a new National Office of Climate Change Response in the White House, comparable

in some ways to the current Office of National Drug Control Policy,

to develop a peer-reviewed strategy to stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, in order to prevent dangerous disruption of the climate system.

That is a goal that we have all agreed to in the aforementioned

Rio Treaty on climate change, which again the Senate ratified in

October 1992. This bill will also create the infrastructure needed

to develop the innovative technologies that will be necessary to address global warming and it will authorize funding for those efforts.

With this bill, research and development activities on greenhouse

gas mitigation would have a home centered in the Department of

Energy from which they could be aggressively pursued, and in

crafting a climate change strategy, the office within the White

House would be instructed by this proposal to consider four key

elements: Emissions mitigation; technology development; adaptation needs; and further scientific research.

As Senator Byrd has said, this bill is meant to complement, not

replace, other greenhouse gas mitigation measures by creating a

process by which we receive expert evaluation of the challenge we

face and fund research work to meet it. This legislation, I think,

will become the tree from which other climate change measures

will branch. In the end, I believe our shared responsibility is clear.

We have got to take action and take it soon to deal with this problem that will affect our children and grandchildren and theirs,

more than it will directly affect us.

I would close by saying that in their long and distinguished careers in the Senate, Senators Robert C. Byrd and Ted Stevens have

not only made history, they have shown they understand history

and the responsibility for leadership that history places on those of

us who are privileged to serve here. In this bipartisan breakthrough proposal on global climate change, they have once again

shown the rest of us a way to move forward together. For that, I

thank them.

Senator Thompson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

hearing on legislation pending before the Committee on the imporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:24 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75474.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
3

1 Copy of S. 1008 appears in the Appendix on page 144.

tant issue of climate change. The risk from human-induced climate

change is a risk that we should responsibly try to manage. When

contrasted against the Kyoto protocol, S. 1008 offers a potential for

a reasonable way forward, I believe. S. 1008 would require the development of a national climate change strategy and authorize new

funding for the development of breakthrough energies technology

needed to reduce the risk of climate change.1

We are going to need these technologies if we want to meet the

objective of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,

which the United States has ratified. The objective was the longterm stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in

the future, and to meet this, we are going to have to develop fundamentally new ways of producing and using energy that give us

the energy we need without the emissions that we do not want.

But reducing CO2 emissions is not as simple as putting a scrubber on a smokestack. We are going to need new technologies, and

we must seek a global solution, one that involves all nations of the

world and not just the developed ones. These are some of the reasons why I applaud the President’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

I also support the President’s effort to define the new way forward,

both domestically and internationally.

The flawed Kyoto Protocol would place unfair, expensive limits

on the United States. It could have rationed the amount of energy

the United States could have used, even though energy is key to

American prosperity. It could have caused significantly higher energy costs. It could have significantly reduced the rate of economic

growth, affecting millions of jobs, eliminating the surplus and

threatening American global competitiveness. Some of our biggest

economic rivals would be exempt from the emission limits.

It appears that a new approach to managing the risk of climate

change is needed, and the President is providing it. The President’s

plan will focus on managing the risk of climate change using American technology, ingenuity and innovation. It will involve quantifying and understanding the risk of climate change through improved climate observations and models. It will involve developing

the tools we will need to reduce the future risk of climate change,

advanced energy technologies. Such useful concepts are reflected in

S. 1008. I also understand that several of my colleagues, including

Senators Murkowski, Craig and Hagel, may soon introduce legislation that could make positive additions to S. 1008. There is a great

deal of controversy surrounding the politics and science of global

climate change. While I am concerned about spending such large

sums of money in creating new bureaucracies, there may be broad

support for the notion that we will need significant investment in

R&D to be prepared to address the challenge of climate change.

There is significant disagreement on other policy options, like

mandatory caps on emissions, and as the National Academy recently pointed out, there are still significant uncertainties in our

scientific understanding of climate change. But perhaps we can

start by reducing the gaps in our scientific understanding to quantify the risk we face, and we can develop the energy technology

4

tools we are going to need if we want to act dramatically to reduce

the risk of future climate change.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Thompson.

We have been following a procedure here where we have opening

statements just from the Chair and the Ranking Member, so I am

going to ask Senator Byrd to testify now. But then obviously, because Senator Stevens is a co-sponsor, I will ask him, if he wishes,

after you conclude, to speak.

Senator Byrd, we are honored to have you here and look forward

to your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT C. BYRD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson,

Senator Stevens, Senator Voinovich, Senator Collins, other Members of the Committee. I thank you very much for inviting me to

speak on behalf of S. 1008, the Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001. I thank you for holding this hearing

on legislation that Senator Stevens and I have introduced and

which we believe incorporates the interests of a wide range of

members on both sides of the aisle.

I have spoken twice in recent months on the Senate floor about

the issue of global climate change. My desire to discuss this important issue derives not only from my sense of personal concern, but

also from my optimistic belief that we can meet the climate change

challenge if we are willing to make a commitment to do so. It is

my position that all nations, industrialized and developing countries alike, must begin to honestly address the multifaceted and

very complex global climate change problem.

At the same time, I believe that our Nation is particularly wellpositioned with the talent, the wisdom, the drive, in leading efforts

to address the problem that is before us. It is for these reasons that

my friend, Senator Stevens, and I introduced the legislation that

is under consideration before this Committee today. The Byrd-Stevens climate change action plan recognizes the awesome problem

posed by climate change. It puts into place a comprehensive framework, as well as a research and development effort to guide U.S.

efforts far into the future.

This legislation authorizes a major new infusion of funding for

the research and development efforts to help create and deploy the

next generation of innovative technologies that will be needed to

address the climate change challenge in the coming decades. S.

1008 establishes a regime of responsibility and accountability in

the Federal sector for the development of a national climate change

response strategy.

That strategy, Mr. Chairman, calls for a new framework to deal

with a comprehensive climate change approach. To implement this

strategy, this legislation provides for the creation of an administrative structure within the Federal Government, including an office

in the White House to coordinate and implement this strategy. S.

1008 also creates a new office in the Department of Energy that

will work on long-term research and development of a type that is

5

not currently pursued in more conventional research and development programs today.

The bill creates an independent review board that will report to

Congress to ensure that these goals are achieved. Under S. 1008,

we can begin to take action on climate change through a comprehensive and aggressive approach. It is a bipartisan initiative

that is intended to supplement, rather than replace, other complementary proposals to deal with climate change. This bill is technology-neutral and does not carve out special benefits for any one

energy resource or technology.

We must put a portfolio of options on the table if we are to have

any hope of solving this dilemma. This legislation provides for the

broad framework necessary to address the climate change challenge. It reaffirms the goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse

gas concentration. It leaves the technology decisions to energy experts and the marketplace, and it recognizes the vital need to support public-private partnerships in developing these technologies.

Senators we have an opportunity before us that we should not

let slip away. It is not just an opportunity. It is also a very heavy

responsibility. As this Senate begins to address our Nation’s many

energy and environmental concerns, climate change legislation

must be part of that equation, and the Byrd-Stevens climate

change action plan can help to chart that course. Addressing global

climate change takes clear-headed and strong leadership. It requires extraordinary leadership.

While our current menu of climate change policies and programs

is an important first step, this approach only pays lip service to the

awesome challenge that we face. We must go further than just

making small incremental improvements in our existing research

and development programs. It is a huge challenge. I hope that this

Congress and this administration are willing to step up to the

plate. Rarely has mankind been confronted with such an undertaking, the need to improve the energy systems that power our

economy

This is the greatest Nation in the world when the issue is one

of applying our talents to push beyond the next step, and instead

to visualize, conceptualize and then to achieve major leaps forward.

We have put a man on the Moon and brought him back to Earth.

We have helped to eradicate insidious diseases that have ravaged

the peoples of the Earth. Our Nation is a world leader in medical

and telecommunications technologies. We should also be a leader

when it comes to revolutionizing our energy technologies. Such a

commitment would be important for our economy, our energy security, and the global environment overall.

But I must ask how long are we going to wait to develop these

technologies? This is a huge opportunity for our Nation, but our efforts will only be rewarded if we can make a concerted commitment

and dedicate ourselves to the task ahead, and that will not be easy.

Make no mistake about it, global climate change is a reality. There

are some who may have misinterpreted my stance on this issue,

based on S. Res. 98 of July 1997, which I co-authored with Senator

Hagel. That resolution, which was approved by a 95–0 vote, said

that the Senate should not give its consent to any future binding

6

international climate change treaty which failed to include two important provisions.

That resolution simply stated that developing nations, especially

those largest emitters, must also be included in any treaty and that

such a treaty must not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

In other words, we needed to proceed with our eyes open and we

asked the administration—the then-administration—to provide to

the Congress the estimates of cost of the treaty, cost to the various

industries in this country, the automobile industry, the mining industry and so on. Those estimates have not yet been provided.

I still believe that these two provisions are vitally important

components of any future climate change treaty, but I do not believe that this resolution should be used as an excuse for the

United States to abandon its shared responsibility to help find a

solution to the global climate change dilemma. At the same time,

we should not back away from efforts to bring other nations along.

The United States will never be successful in addressing climate

change alone.

We are all in the same boat, and what comes around goes

around. The pollution that begins with China and Indonesia and

Mexico, Brazil, and other developing countries, comes around to the

United States and to Great Britain and to the European countries.

It is a global problem that requires a global solution. It is critical

that nations such as those I have mentioned, China, India, Mexico,

Brazil and other developing nations, adopt a cleaner, more substantial development path that promotes economic growth while also

reducing their pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Senate’s fiscal year 2001 energy and water appropriations

bill, I inserted language that created an interagency task force to

promote the department of U.S. clean-energy technologies abroad.

Such an initiative is complementary to the efforts proposed in S.

1008. The clean-energy technology exports initiative is now underway and will help foreign nations to deploy a range of clean-energy

technologies that have been developed in our laboratories.

These technologies are hugely marketable. Many of them have

resulted from our clean-coal technology, which I initiated in 1985,

with $750 million committed to the task. It has been an immensely

successful program. The private sector has come forward with more

than it was required. It was required to come forward with 50 percent of the cost. It has put two-thirds of the cost on the barrelhead

and several technologies have gone forward and proved to be successful

If nations like China continue to depend on coal and other fossil

fuels to grow their economies into the future, it is incumbent upon

the United States to accelerate the development, demonstration

and deployment of clean coal and other clean-energy technologies

that will be critical to meeting all nations’ energy needs, while also

providing for a cleaner environment. I believe that S. 1008 maps

a responsible and realistic course. That road may be bumpy and I

am sure that there will be disagreements along the way, but it is

a journey that we have to take. We owe it to future generations.

S. 1008, if adopted and signed by the President, will commit the

United States to a serious undertaking, but one that should no

longer be ignored. If we are to have any hope of solving one of the

7

1The statements submitted by Senator Byrd from the Congressional Record on May 4, 2001

and June 8, 2001 appear in the Appendix on pages 112 and 114 respectively.

world’s and one of humanity’s greatest challenges, we must begin

now. Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for holding this hearing. I

again thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his vision, his leadership, for his cooperation, for his joining in the promotion of this

legislation. I look forward to working with you, Senator Lieberman,

and with you, Senator Thompson, Senator Stevens and the other

Members of this Committee on this important and timely legislation. It is not a moment too soon.

I ask unanimous consent that my May 4, 2001 and June 8, 2001

climate change statements printed in the Congressional Record be

made a part of the record.1

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection.

Senator BYRD. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd, for

a very thoughtful, very important statement, and one that has, I

think, the appropriate sense of urgency.

Senator Stevens.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and I, too, join Senator Byrd in thanking you for holding this hearing, and I commend my good friend from West Virginia for his

leadership in trying to establish a major research effort to reduce

carbon emissions and deal with the whole subject, the myriad of

subjects that are included in global climate change strategy. I

thank you very much, Senator Byrd, for allowing me to join you on

this, because it is a matter of great importance to me and my

State, as you know.

I think, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson, Members of the Committee, in days gone by, Senator Byrd and I might have just added

this to an appropriations bill.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We still were hoping that eventually you

might do that. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENS. The difference is that we know this is such a

complex subject, one that needs congressional approval before we

forge into this area. We want to make sure that you are all behind

us before we try to put the taxpayers’ money where our mouths

have been. We need funds for this. I view this as being next to

major medical research in terms of issues that this country faces,

and I want to tell you I am particularly interested because of the

last hearing I chaired, Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was a field hearing in Fairbanks on the impacts of global climate change on the Arctic environment.

I would welcome and urge you to think about bringing the whole

Committee up to see what global climate change means. There is

no question that the change has taken place more rapidly in the

Arctic than anywhere else on the globe. Many of the witnesses at

our hearing noted that climate activity stems from a number of factors, including human activity. I do not think we can assess it totally to human activity.

8

The degree to which any particular phenomenon or activity contributes to climate change is not yet well-understood. Regardless of

the cause, there has been a dramatic warming trend in the Arctic

areas, as I said. Let me tell you, pack ice, which is the ice that insulates our coastal villages from winter storms, has shrunk 3 percent per year since 1970. Increased storm activity has caused significant beach erosion, which now has required us to consider ways

to displace entire communities along the coastline of Alaska.

The sea ice is thinner than it was 30 years ago, and the sea ice

is the platform on which most of the reproductive activity of marine mammals takes place. It is back from the shore now. This is

permanent ice that is thinning. As a matter of fact, I was told it

was three inches thinner this year than last year. The Northwest

Passage has been opened now for 3 years. I remember so well, as

a young Senator, when I went on the MANHATTAN and tried to

accompany many people and see if we could use the Northwest

Passage to transport Alaska’s oil to the East Coast, rather than

build a pipeline; and it failed, as you know, because of the ice.

We spent days riding that ice breaker tanker, grinding three,

four, five miles a day of ice. That is gone now. It is not there. The

Northwest Passage is just one of the indications. I would invite you

to come up and see our northern forests. Our northern forests are

now farther north and further west, as the permafrost is melting,

and the permafrost melting means a great deal to us. Half of the

coal in the United States is in that area, of the permafrost of Alaska. Whether we will ever be required to use it, I do not know, but

under current law, we would have to replace the contour of the

land if we took the coal out. Of course, that is an impossibility.

Now, the powers-that-be, the Good Lord, is melting that permafrost and the contour may not be the same in future years as it is

now. It might be easier to get to the coal. But this legislation provides us a balanced approach to climate change and will help us

deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and do so without harming

the economy of the United States, and to increase the capability of

Third World countries to improve their economy. By making necessary research and development efforts now, I think we can inspire a generation of technologies that will enhance America’s

chance to be the leader in dealing with global climate change.

It will increase research and development funding, so we can better understand this global climate change. We can plan to develop

the capabilities that technology will lead us to, and I think we will

be able to react to global climate change in a very positive way if

we follow the Senator’s lead, and I am glad to be his partner in

this effort. This bill will require, in my judgment, that we double

the technology investment for research and development related to

global climate change, just as we doubled the investment in health

research in the last 5 years. This will lead us into a new era of

funding for research in this area.

I think there should be no misunderstanding about it, because I

have joined Senator Byrd in making a commitment that this money

will be made available to the research community, so we can better

understand these changes and take whatever actions we can to offset them. It will create a process for the United States to take seriously this issue and to address it promptly. I thank you for holding

9

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen with attachments appears in the Appendix on page

51.

the hearing, and again I repeat my invitation to you to come up

and see what is happening. I was told in Fairbanks that while the

world as a whole may have increased in temperature by about one

degree, the Arctic has increased in temperature by seven degrees,

and we took our committee to Antarctica to see if the same situation was developing down there.

They have increased ice pack down there. They have increased

problems down there, but they are not as much involved in global

climate change as we are in the Arctic. The Arctic is the place to

understand global climate change and I am proud, Senator, that

you allowed me to join you in this effort, and pledge that we will

fight this battle together. We need this information. We need to develop this technology as rapidly as possible.

Thank you very much.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Stevens, thank you very much for

that very compelling testimony, and particularly for the memorable

reports from Alaska and the Arctic. I accept your invitation. I think

Senator Thompson and I ought to figure out a way to see if we can

bring the Committee exactly to the places you described. In a way,

it may be that Alaska and the Arctic are the early warning system

or, to use an old and worn expression, the canary in the coal mine,

in the case of climate change. I thank you.

Senator Byrd, thank you very much for your time. I know you

have a busy schedule and I appreciate very much your being here

today.

Senator STEVENS. Please excuse me, too. I have another——

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Oh, you have a busy schedule, too. It is

always great, not only to have your leadership on a critical problem

like this, but to know when we have your leadership, the prospects

of funding such a bill are quite high. [Laughter.]

Thank you. We will call the second panel: Dr. James Hansen,

Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and Thomas

Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data Center. Dr. Hansen,

why don’t you proceed? We have a clock going. Your full statement,

which we appreciate, will be printed in the record in full, and I ask

you to try to stay pretty much as close to the 5 minutes as you can.

Then it is the tradition of the Committee now to give each Senator

10 minutes. So if any of my colleagues want to make opening statements, that hopefully will give them the opportunity to do that, as

well.

Dr. Hansen.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HANSEN,1 Ph.D., HEAD, NASA

GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. I will talk about

options for influencing future climate. The most popular prediction

for future climate change is based on the business-as-usual scenario, in which the annual increments of the forcing agents that

drive climate change grow larger and larger every year. This sceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:24 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75474.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
10

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 62.

nario leads to a prediction of dramatic climate change, several degrees by the end of the century.

It is a useful warning of what could happen if we let the growth

of climate-forcing agents run wild. For the sake of contrast, my colleagues and I have defined an alternative scenario for climate

change in the 21st Century. In this scenario, the growth rate of the

forcing agents that drive climate change decelerates, such that

global warming in the next 50 years is less than one degree and

the stage is set for stabilizing atmospheric composition later in the

century. How can we achieve this? What are the climate forcing

agents?

My chart,1 which is over here, but is also in your handout, shows

the estimated climate forcing agents that exist today. Red is used

for forces that cause warming, blue for cooling. Carbon dioxide, the

bar on the left, causes the largest forcing, 1.4 watts-per-metersquared. But the forcing by other greenhouse gases, the next four

bars, adds up to at least as much as carbon dioxide. Methane

causes a forcing half as large as carbon dioxide. Tropospheric ozone

is also important; and then there are several aerosols, which are

fine particles in the air. Black carbon is soot from diesel engines

and coal burning. It causes warming. Organic aerosols and sulfates

from fossil fuels cause cooling. Aerosols also affect the properties of

clouds (that is the large blue bar here) and cause a cooling, but the

magnitude of it is very uncertain. The net forcing by all of these

is positive, consistent with observed global warming.

The question is: How will these forcings change in the future?

The added climate forcing in the next 50 years will be only one

watt and greenhouse warming less than one degree provided, (1)

we halt the growth of the non-CO2 forcings, and, (2) fossil fuel use

and CO2 emissions continue, but at about the same rate as today.

The resulting forcing of one watt would cause some climate change,

but less than one degree in 50 years.

So, first, can we stop the growth of the non-CO2 forcing? Not only

can we, but it only makes sense. Black carbon is the product of incomplete combustion. You can see it in the exhaust of diesel trucks.

The microscopic soot particles are like tiny sponges. They soak up

toxic organics and other aerosols. They are so tiny that, when

breathed in, they penetrate human tissue deeply. Some of the

smallest enter the bloodstream. They cause respiratory and cardiac

problems, asthma, acute bronchitis, with tens of thousands of

deaths per year in the United States, also in Europe, where the

health cost of particulate air pollution have been estimated at 1.6

percent of the gross domestic products.

In the developing world, the costs are staggering. In India, approximately 270,000 children under the age of five die per year

from acute respiratory infections caused by this air pollution. The

pollution arises in household burning of field residue, cow dung,

coal, for cooking and heating. There is now a brown cloud of air

pollution mushrooming from India. Tropospheric ozone is another

pollutant whose growth could be stopped, as could that of methane.

We have only one atmosphere and it is a global atmosphere. We

need to reduce the pollution that we put into it for other reasons,

11

1The prepared statement of Mr. Karl appears in the Appendix on page 68.

human health, agricultural productivity, and in the process we can

prevent the non-CO2 climate forcing from increasing.

In the United States, for example, we can reduce diesel and other

soot admissions. We might also work with developing countries to

help reduce their pollution. One possible long-term solution would

be electrification, a clean source of energy.

Now, the other part of the climate problem is CO2. It is the hardest part of the problem, but is not as intractable as it is often made

out to be.

In 1998, global CO2 emissions declined slightly. In 1999, they declined again, and, in 2000, another small decline. This is just the

trend needed to achieve the alternative scenario with only moderate climate change. In the near-term, my opinion is that this

trend can be maintained via concerted efforts toward increased energy efficiency, conservation and increased use of renewable energy

sources. On the long-term, we probably need a significant increasing contribution from an energy source that produces little or no

CO2.

In my written testimony, I note some possibilities, which include

zero-emission coal; nuclear power; the combination of solar energy,

hydrogen and fuel cells. Each possibility has pros and cons, and

R&D is needed. It will be up to the public, through their representatives, to make the choices.

Finally, the relevance of all this to your hearing is that there is

more than one way to control climate change. The forcing agents

that cause climate change are complex and, in some cases, poorly

understood. These forcing agents have other effects on people and

the rest of the biosphere that should be considered. We need to

take a broad view of this issue. We will need a strategy, and that

strategy will need to be adjusted as we learn more and see the effect of the actions that we take. This is a long-term issue.

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Dr. Hansen. Mr. Karl.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL,1 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. KARL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting

me here today, and Members of the Committee. I have been invited

to talk about the science of climate change. First, I want to emphasize two important fundamental issues. First off, there is a natural

greenhouse effect. It is real. A small percentage of the atmosphere,

about 2 percent, is composed of greenhouse gases. This includes

water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and methane. These effectively

prevent part of the heat from the Earth escaping and lead to temperatures warmer than what would otherwise be the case.

In addition to the natural greenhouse effect, there is a change

underway in the greenhouse radiation balance. Some greenhouse

gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities

and increasingly trapping more heat. Direct atmospheric measurements over the past 40 or so years have documented a steady

12

growth in atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide. Measurements, using air bubbles trapped within accumulating layers of

snow, show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more

than 30 percent over the industrial era, compared to the relative

constant abundance that it had over the previous 750 years.

The predominant cause of the increase in carbon dioxide is the

combustion of fossil fuels and burning of forests. Other heat-trapping gases are also increasing as a result of human activities. The

increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases due to human activities

are projected to be amplified by feedback effects, such as changes

in water vapor, snow cover, and sea ice. So as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases increase, the

resulting increase in surface temperature leads to less sea ice and

snow, thereby reducing the amount of the Sun’s energy reflected

back into space, resulting in a higher temperature.

As greenhouse gases increase, evaporation increases, which leads

to more atmospheric water vapor. The additional water vapor acts

as important feedback to increase temperature. Our present understanding is that these two feedbacks account for about 60 percent

of the warming. The exact magnitude of the feedback effects and

others, such as changes in clouds, remain a significant source of

uncertainty related to our understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases.

Increases in evaporation water vapor affect global climate in

other ways besides increasing temperature, such as increasing

rainfall and snowfall rates. The increase in greenhouse gas concentration implies a positive radiative forcing and has a tendency

to warm the climate. Particles or aerosols in the atmosphere resulting from human activities can also affect climate. Aerosols vary

considerably from region to region. Some aerosol types act, in a

sense, opposite to the greenhouse gases and cause a negative forcing or cooling of climate, as Dr. Hansen’s chart shows.

There may also be other natural factors that exert an influence

on climate: Changes in the sun’s energy, and changes in volcanic

eruptions. These effects, however, such as volcanic eruptions, are

short-lived. The forcing estimates in the case of greenhouse gases

are substantially greater than those for these other two forcing

agents. What do the changes imply? First off, there is a growing

set of observations that yields a collective picture of a warmer

world. There is just simply no question the climate of the last 100

years is increasing the temperature. We have ample evidence:

Widespread retreat of glaciers in non-polar regions; snow cover,

and sea ice extent has decreased; thickness of sea ice has decreased; and duration of ice on lakes and rivers also all have decreased.

It is also likely that the frequency of extreme events have increased as global temperatures have risen. This is particular evident in areas where precipitation has increased, primarily mid- and

high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Other extremes have

decreased, such as the frequency of extremely cold weather, and

the frequency of frost during the period of instrumental record.

There is a new and stronger evidence that most of the warming

over the last 50 years is attributed to human activities. Scenarios

13

of future human activities indicate continued changes in atmospheric composition throughout the 21st Century.

Based on these scenarios and the estimated uncertainties in climate models, resulting projections of global temperature increase

by the year 2100 range from 2.3 to 10.1 degrees Fahrenheit. Such

a projected rate of warming would be much larger than observed

over the 20th Century and would very much likely be without

precedent over the past 10,000 years. It is important to emphasize

that greenhouse gas warming could be reversed only very slowly.

The quasi-irreversibility arises because of the slow rate of removal

from the atmosphere of greenhouse gases and because of the slow

response of oceans to thermal changes.

It is presently not possible to generally define a safe level of

greenhouse gases. There are still large uncertainties related to the

projected rate and magnitude of climate change. The determination

of an acceptable concentration of greenhouse gases depends on narrowing this range, as well as the knowledge and risk of vulnerabilities to climate change. Analysis reveals that sectors and regions vary in their sensitivity to climate change, but generally

those societies and systems least able to adapt and those regions

with the largest changes are at greatest risk. This includes the

poor nations and sectors of our society, natural ecosystems—those

regions that are likely to see the largest changes, for example, in

the Arctic.

In terms of our understanding, there is still considerable uncertainty of how the natural variability of the climate system reacts

to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Current estimates

of the magnitude and impacts of future warming are subject to future adjustments either up or down. To address these uncertainties

in several areas, we think it is important that we embark on understanding the complex climate system. Progress in this area will

be limited by the weakest link in the chain. At the present time,

there are several weak links that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, a climate observing system is needed to monitor decade-to-century scale changes for basic variables needed to

describe the climate system. Current observing systems yield large

uncertainties in several key parameters, especially on regional and

local scales. Although we have been able to link observed changes

to human activities, it is not possible to quantitatively identify the

specific contribution of each forcing factor, which is required for the

most effective strategy to prevent large or rapid climate change.

This will require better understanding in several areas: The feedbacks of the climate system; the future usage of fossil fuels; carbon

sequestration on land and in the ocean; details of regional climate

change; and natural climate variability.

Finally, we found that no matter how good our understanding of

future climate change might be, we ultimately must understand

how this impacts natural and human systems. To achieve this understanding will require first an interdisciplinary research that

couples physical, chemical, biological, and human systems, improved capability to integrate scientific knowledge, including its

uncertainty, into effective decision support systems, a better understanding of the impact of multiple stresses on human and natural

systems, especially at the regional and sectorial level.

14

Thank you, and I look forward to working with you on these

issues, and thank you again for inviting me to appear today.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Karl. Let me begin questioning. Although we asked you here to discuss the science of climate change, I think it would be interesting to ask if you have any

response, having the expertise you do, to the Byrd-Stevens proposal

that is the focus of our hearing today, and to the coordination of

the response to climate change that it would enact. Do either of you

have a response?

Mr. Karl.

Mr. KARL. One thing I would highlight is, as I indicated in my

testimony, this is an extremely complex issue, one which encompasses many areas of science. It encompasses areas of social

science, as well as the physical sciences. So, to move forward, it is

very clear a coordinated effort is clearly needed, and I think that

is one of the highlights of the Byrd-Stevens bill.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Dr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. I was delighted to hear the discussions by the several Senators. I agree with Mr. Karl. It is a very complicated issue

and we need a broad approach to look at it.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you think that the Byrd-Stevens proposal, as you understand it, meets that standard?

Mr. HANSEN. I do not think it is appropriate for me to take a position with regard to it, but certainly the discussions we heard

today seem to be right on the mark.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Understood. It is my impression that

there is not really remaining dispute regarding whether climate

change is occurring. In fact, I noticed last week that our colleague,

Senator Hagel, who was one of the co-authors, obviously, of the

Byrd-Hagel resolution, was quoted in USA Today as saying that, ‘‘There is no question there is climate change. We are beyond that

debate.’’ Would you agree with Senator Hagel, Dr. Hansen?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I was one of the authors, as was Mr. Karl, of

the recent National Academy of Science’s report in which we reaffirmed the reality of global warming and that there is the possibility of disruptive climate change later this century. I think we

also took pains to stress some caveats about what will happen. It

depends very much on how these climate forcing agents develop,

and it is certainly within our capability to influence that and to influence the amount of climate change that will occur.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Karl.

Mr. KARL. Yes, there is no question that the climate is changing

in ways which we have now seen from the observational record and

our past paleoclimate data. One of the important attributes of climate, though, is much broader than just changes in temperature,

and as I indicated, there are some unsettling things we do not

know about—for example, changes in some of the extreme precipitation events in all areas of the world.

So I think it is really going to be key, as we continue to change

atmospheric composition, to look at changes in all the elements of

the climate system, particularly for potential surprises, accelerated

changes. That is one of the areas I would like to emphasize. Although we are sure climate is changing in significant ways, we do

not have all the answers today.

15

Chairman LIEBERMAN. In other words, there are questions about

whether some of the extreme precipitation or extreme weather that

people are experiencing is related to the climate change that we

know is a reality.

Mr. KARL. Part of the difficulty we have, if you look at our observing system, is that in the mid-latitudes and some of the higher

latitudes, we have enough data to make what we think are reasonably confident statements. But if you look at the rest of the world,

the observing systems really are not capable of delivering that kind

of information which we so badly need.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. One area of focus of the Byrd-Stevens bill,

S. 1008, which is, I thought, very interesting, was the need to help

us—Americans—adapt to the already inevitable consequences of

climate change, or at least that is the way I read one of their four

goals. I wanted to ask you to what—perhaps you have answered it

already, but just to come at it in a different way—to what extent

do you believe that some climate change is already inevitable? In

other words, that there will be consequences already. And what

measures would you recommend to help adapt to that change?

Mr. HANSEN. I think that we have evidence that some additional

warming is on the way. There has been warming already of about

half-a-degree Celsius or one degree Fahrenheit in the past century,

and I think that there is about another half-a-degree Celsius,

which is already in the pipeline, because of the greenhouse gases

that we have added to the atmosphere and which the system has

not yet responded to, due to the long time constant of the ocean.

It takes a long time for the ocean to warm up in response to this

forcing.

If we can slow down the growth rate of these climate forcing

agents, then I think the additional warming in the next 50 years

will be less than one degree. That is a magnitude which we could

adjust to probably without a great deal of difficulty, although even

now climate fluctuations are a major factor that we need to pay

more attention to, making ourself less vulnerable to those fluctuations.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. How serious would the steps be that we

have to take to control or contain climate change within the next

50 years, to the degree that you describe?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, there are two things that we need to do: One

is, as I mentioned, stop the growth of these non-CO2 forcings. I

think there are very good reasons to do that anyhow, which to a

large degree could pay for themselves. They are not going to happen automatically. We have to see that they happen. They are basically air pollution and they affect everybody—I gave numbers for

people that die from it—but there are even more people who do not

die, but suffer consequences of air pollution.

The CO2 part: How do we keep the rate of emissions of CO2 from

increasing? Again, that is debatable. There are people who feel that

just from conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy

sources, we can keep the emissions similar to what they are today.

Most energy experts, however, believe that we will need some clean

energy sources such as—I gave you examples: Nuclear power,

which has disadvantages; or capture the CO2 from coal—that is

now technically possible, but it adds to the cost. So there are things

16

that appear practical—but they will require a real effort to do

them.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Karl, how about your reaction to the

extent to which climate change is already inevitable, perhaps also

your evaluation of Dr. Hansen’s alternative scenario?

Mr. KARL. Yes, I would like to address that and emphasize as

well, one of the great problems we face, as Dr. Hansen said, which

I agree with, we already have in the pipeline some additional

warming, something on the order of half-a-degree, and it is clear

that greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to continue to increase. One of the real difficulties we have is trying to ensure that

new systems that are expected to have a lifetime of many decades

now begin to incorporate, not just the past climate, but projected

changes in climate, to ensure that their design efficiency is as good

as it could possibly be.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. How do you mean new systems?

Mr. KARL. For example, we have noticed that the design standards for buildings are being exceeded in many parts of the country

and engineers are using climatologies based on earlier records in

the 20th Century. So in order to ensure that we have efficiency in

our energy systems, we would really need to think about how we

use the climate of the past and what we might expect into the future, and that is a very important area of adaptation, because quite

frankly, at this time, people are a bit scrambling, trying to decide

exactly what to do.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Are we seeing elsewhere, in your experience, the rather dramatic examples that Senator Stevens gave us

about what is happening in Alaska and the Arctic region, of the effects of climate change?

Mr. HANSEN. The Arctic region—it is not the entire Arctic. For

example, Greenland has actually cooled in the last 50 years. So

there is a change in the long-wave patterns at the high latitudes,

such that the region around Alaska and the center of Siberia warm

substantially. Those are the regions where we have seen the largest warming. I do not think there is a comparable warming in

other parts of the world. As we said, the average warming is about

half-a-degree Celsius, but in those regions it has been significantly

larger than that.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Karl.

Mr. KARL. I think it would be worth emphasizing that the expectations of warming are larger over land areas compared to the

ocean areas, and large over places like North America and midand high-latitudes, significantly larger than the average temperatures that you hear being discussed in terms of projected change.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Why is that?

Mr. KARL. The oceans are a great reservoir of heat, and we have

just conducted some research in our agency which showed that the

ocean heat content has increased. So part of the warming being

taken up into the oceans is being transported down to deep layers

in the ocean.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But why more of an impact in North

America?

17

Mr. KARL. North America is similar to other major, large continental areas. So you can make the same statement for Eurasia, as

well.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, both. Senator Thompson.

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank

you very much for being with us here today. It seems to me that

one of the things that comes out of reading from your works and

other experts’ work is that there is a great deal of uncertainty and

complexity involved in what we are dealing with here, from the

work of the National Academy of Sciences and also the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others.

Obviously, many are strong proponents of Kyoto, but in 1999,

more than 17,000 scientists signed a petition against it. It seems

to me that there are questions with regard to the extent of the

warming. There are also questions with regard to the causes of the

warming. The question presented to us as policymakers is how

much do we know at this point and what are the responsible policy

options and choices in light of what we know and what we do not

know.

Getting to the question of the extent of the warming, I have

read—or some scientists have pointed out or alleged—that the climate is always changing and always has. In the Middle Ages, we

had another warming trend. Thirty years ago, some people were

concerned about climate cooling. Is that technically accurate and,

if so, what is the significance of that?

Mr. KARL. I would be happy to address that, Senator. One of the

major improvements that we have been able to achieve in the last

5 years is the use of paleoclimatic data or proxy data, and what

this encompasses are measurements from tree rings, ice cores, corals in the ocean and historical records. These records have been

painstakingly analyzed over the last 5 years by a number of different scientific groups to try and estimate what temperatures have

done globally over the last 1,000 years or so. Unfortunately, the

measurements are not complete enough to go back 1,000 years in

the Southern Hemisphere, but for the Northern Hemisphere, we

think they are.

This analysis suggests that our concepts of things like the Little

Ice Age, the medieval warming period, perhaps were rooted in the

accounts that we read from Europe. If you look at the globe or the

hemisphere as a whole, what you see is a remarkable consistency

in temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere the last 1,000

years. So when you put on top of that the instrumental record of

the 20th Century, you see that the warming that we see in the last

100 years is substantially greater than anything we have seen in

the last 1,000 years.

By no means do we have all the answers. We would like to be

able to narrow uncertainties. I think the statements we are using

now are saying things like, ‘‘It’s likely that,’’ because we want to

leave a little room for additional observations. But the best evidence suggests the warming today is very unusual.

Senator THOMPSON. Can you determine that there have been periods of time in our history where there has been a cooling?

Mr. HANSEN. Certainly there have been. There was a cooling

from the 1930’s and 1940’s until 1970, and that does relate to your

18

comment about some scientists talking about mechanisms that

would cause cooling. That actually is in my chart. The blue bars— the aerosols, most of the aerosols, tend to reflect sunlight and

therefore cause a cooling, and it is a possibility that the cooling

that we observed in that period was related to the aerosols.

As we started to get our energy systems going, we were producing a lot of aerosols and CO2. Recently, in recent decades, we

have tried to reduce some of those sulfate aerosols, which are pure

white and cause a cooling effect. The reason to reduce them being

that they cause acid rain and other undesirable things. So it is

good to try to reduce those. In the process, though, we accelerate

the tendency toward warming. So that is why it is important to

also attack not only sulfate aerosols, but the black carbon aerosols,

because those aerosols cause warming.

Senator THOMPSON. May I ask this? Do we know enough about

this particular subject and this history?

Mr. HANSEN. We do not know enough to——

Senator THOMPSON. Extrapolate that the current trend is going

to continue?

Mr. HANSEN. Right, because, you see, there are uncertainty bars

on these, the black vertical bars. In fact, the aerosol changes are

very uncertain. We do not have the measurements. It is clear we

need to try to do some things, and we will need to adjust our strategy as we go along, as we learn more.

Senator THOMPSON. If my suggestion is correct, it does not mean

that we should not do anything about it. It does not mean that we

should not try to deal with it, or err on the side of safety in the

long-term. But it does seem to me, from all I can gather and my

limited knowledge of this area, that there is still an awful lot we

do not know. It would be very difficult, based on where the science

is and where the history and the historical analysis has been, to

extrapolate any trend with confidence. It is kind of like budgets

and deficits and surpluses around here. Whatever is happening at

the moment is what we predict is going to continue to happen. I

hope scientists do not do the same thing, but it is a good thing to

keep mind, I think, as we go forward.

I also understand that some satellite measurements have been

different than others in terms of the extent of the warming. Obviously, you have got regional considerations to take into effect. Some

parts of the world are cooling, many are warming. In some cases,

surface measurements have been different from satellite measurements—have they not?

Mr. KARL. It is an interesting aspect of trying to understand

some of the details of what we see.

Senator THOMPSON. Do not try to make me understand it. We do

not have time enough for me to understand all that. But I have a

couple more questions, if you can give me a summary.

Mr. KARL. It is clear that if you look at the middle of the atmosphere—I think you were referring to satellite measurements—if

you go back to the late 1950’s, where we have weather balloons, the

middle atmosphere and the surface warming is very comparable. If

you look at the last 20 years, a smaller period where satellites have

been able to provide additional information, you do find significant

differences that we do not entirely understand today.

19

1The article by Richard S. Lindzen referred to by Senator Thompson appears in the Appendix

on page 118.

Senator THOMPSON. Alright, sir. Getting to the causes of warming, Dr. Hansen you especially have made the point that perhaps

we are not emphasizing enough the non-CO2 aspects. I notice this

bill creates an Office of Carbon Management and so forth. Obviously, CO2 is significant, but actually I believe that has been rather

stable. CO2 emissions have been rather stable over a period of

time—haven’t they—while the other particulates and so forth have

gone up?

Mr. HANSEN. The CO2 emissions have been, in the last 20 years,

increasing at about 1 percent a year. That compares with about 4

percent per year from the end of World War II until the oil price

shock in the 1970’s. So we changed the growth rate from 4 percent

to 1 percent. But if we allowed even 1 percent per year growth to

continue 50 years, we would be in trouble. So we really need to

change that 1 percent to more like 0 percent, and that does require

some effort and some technology.

It is often assumed that CO2 is all the problem or almost all the

problem. That is under the assumption that CO2 emissions continue to increase, so that every year we burn more fossils fuels

than the year before, and that is not necessarily true. If we can decrease that growth rate down to 0 percent, then its contribution is

not so overwhelming.

Senator THOMPSON. Both of you worked on the National Academy of Sciences report that did an evaluation of the work of the

IPCC, and it has been somewhat controversial. The summary that

came out was used in the media, in many cases, to say that what

you were doing was endorsing Kyoto or certainly at least endorsing

the IPCC conclusions.

One of your fellow panelists, Richard Lindzen has written in the

Wall Street Journal about it, and says, ‘‘The panel was finally

asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the summary for

policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The summary for

policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the

NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC’s summary for policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. Government. The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research

activities and climate science, but it is not specifically directed at

policy. The summary for policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives, many of whom are also their nation’s Kyoto representatives, rather than scientists. The resulting document has a

strong tendency to disguise uncertainty and to conjure up some

scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.’’ 1

Would you concur or disagree with his assessment of the work

of the NAS in this instance?

Mr. HANSEN. I am disappointed that the media takes such a simple perspective. We reaffirmed that there is some global warming

going on, and that there is a danger of large climate change later

20

this century. But that does not lead to the conclusion that therefore

the solution to this is Kyoto. We did not address the appropriate

policy responses. We did take pains to stress some caveats that

should be associated with the IPCC assessment. In particular, right

at the very beginning, our second paragraph of the summary, we

said that the projections of IPCC that get very large climate change

are based on the premise of a business-as-usual scenario, which

has larger and larger emissions.

It is not obvious that will happen. In fact, in the last 20 years,

there has actually been some deceleration in the rate of growth of

climate forcings. The peak rate of growth occurred in 1980 and

there has been a 25-percent reduction in that rate, due to the fact

that we decided to phase out chlorofluorocarbons and the methane

growth rate declined. So that is an example of the kind of strategy,

that you can have other benefits from reducing some of these climate forcing agents. That is what we are trying to argue, that we

need to look at the entire picture, not just CO2.

Senator THOMPSON. I am over time, but if you want Mr. Karl to

respond to that, it is fine with me.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Karl.

Mr. KARL. Commenting on Mr. Lindzen’s comment, one of the

things, I think, we tried to point out in the Academy report is any

time you are necessarily taking a very large volume of work, like

if you look at the IPCC full science report, and then you look at

the technical summary and the summary for policymakers, it

shrinks down. So it is very clear that you do not have the time to

or the length of paper to explain all the uncertainties and all of the

details of the changes.

So I think it is only natural, when you look at a briefer summary, that you do not spend a lot of time reading all the uncertainties, and clearly they are there in the IPCC report, and often beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and people can take all of those

reports and selectively pull out individual sentences and try and

craft either a very uncertain future or a very certain future.

Senator THOMPSON. Sometimes commentators or politicians

using scientific research and analysis to justify their opinions is not

a pretty sight; is it?

Mr. KARL. It is not a pretty sight, but one thing I would say is

in Shanghai, as we said in the Academy report, every change that

was made to the report—because we went there with a draft— there were suggestions from the floor. They did not understand

some comments that were made. They suggested alternative language. But for every change that was made, there was a scientist

who was responsible for that section, who formed a group and

eventually agreed to whatever change was put into the report on

the summary for the policymakers.

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Thompson. Senator

Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The two of us are

on two committees, this Committee and Environment and Public

Works, and I am not sure sometimes which committee I am before.

I noticed that there is a movement to move climate change into our

Subcommittee in Environment and Public Works.

21

1The prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by

Richard S. Lindzen on May 2, 2001 appears in the Appendix on page 120.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is correct.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Senator VOINOVICH. I thank you for calling this hearing today.

I think that this legislation does a good job of calling more attention to the issue of climate change without jumping to some of the

conclusions, regarding the science and other issues, which have

plagued other approaches. I am pleased, in particular, that it recognizes the need for the continued use of coal. I was interested in Dr.

Hansen’s comments.

Coal is now and will continue to be the most economical way of

producing energy in this country for many years. We have a 250-

year supply of coal and we need to encourage clean-coal technologies. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the previous administration was anti-coal and did everything it could to discourage its use,

instead of promoting clean-coal technology and working with the

utilities to improve their emissions to protect the environment and

public health, and to provide low-cost energy.

I sincerely believe that until we pass a multi-emissions bill and

deal with the issue of new source review, that we are not going to

be able to utilize the technology available for coal so that we can

have low-cost energy and move forward with improving our environment. The same applies to nuclear power. We cannot examine

climate change and a national energy policy and ignore the fact

that nuclear power is something that should be looked at, and

again, until we deal with the political football of what we do with

nuclear waste, we cannot move on with that option. But it is one

that we need to move forward with.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we did have a hearing in the Public

Works Committee which examined the state of the science in terms

of climate change, and I was impressed with the fact that there are

still many uncertainties regarding climate change and the state of

consensus on the issue is, I think, greatly exaggerated by climate

change proponents and most members of the press. I noticed that

Senator Thompson mentioned Dr. Lindzen’s testimony and I am

going to ask if that testimony that he gave in the hearing can be

inserted in the record for today.1

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection

Senator VOINOVICH. I am encouraged, although I think that

President Bush handled this Kyoto Treaty issue—maybe from a

public relations point of view, he could have handled it differently,

because I know that Europeans are up in arms, and I ran into that

when I was at the Organization for Security and Cooperation meeting in Europe and also at a NATO meeting. But I am encouraged

that President Bush announced last week a broad policy initiative

to further study climate change and the potential impacts, including an important joint venture with Japan to develop state-of-theart climate modeling.

The models that the U.N.’s IPCC has relied upon need additional

research before we base a major policy initiative on them, such as

what is called for by the European Union. We have to really imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:24 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75474.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
22

prove the modeling substantially. I think this legislation is a positive step forward in the sense that it is bipartisan and tries to answer the many uncertainties involved with this issue.

My concerns with the legislation are the costs, which are substantial, and whether or not creating a new bureaucracy in the Department of Energy and in the White House is going to enhance

our ability to deal with this challenging problem or whether it is

going to make it even more difficult. It authorizes some $4.8 billion, and I am interested in finding out how much is already appropriated to various agencies and departments for climate change

and whether or not there is an overlap in terms of the funding.

In addition, I would like to make sure that the new offices in the

Department of Energy and the White House actually reduce bureaucratic burden instead of increasing it. I want to again underscore what Senator Thompson said, and that is the National Academy of Sciences, in their report, said, ‘‘Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases

and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming

should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments

either upward or downward, and reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate

change will require major advances in understanding and modeling

of both the factors that determine atmospheric concentration of

greenhouse gases and aerosols and the so-called feedbacks that determine the sensitivity of the climate system and prescribed increase in greenhouse gases. There is also a pressing need for a

global observing system designed for monitoring climate.’’ It is really important that Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens are

trying to bring some more objective evaluation of where we are to

this subject. Would you agree that we need a whole lot more work

in this area?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, absolutely. I have been arguing for some years

that—some people would say that the error bars that we have on

these forcings are actually underestimated—that we have to measure what things are actually changing. If we are going to project

the future, we have to know what is happening now.

Mr. KARL. There is absolutely no question, as I indicated in my

oral statement, that we need fundamental observations for the

long-term, not just a 2- or 3-year effort. We need to make sure that

we put into place an observing system that can guarantee 50 years

from now that we will know what actually happened to some of

these very important variables that we have discussed here today.

Senator VOINOVICH. This legislation funds clean-coal technology,

and Dr. Hansen, you mentioned that. With your understanding of

the science today, do you believe it is possible to address the concerns of the climate change proponents and continue to rely upon

the burning of our current coal levels?

Mr. HANSEN. Coal has at least two—it has several emissions.

Black carbon is one of them. I think that scrubbing the sulfate and

the black carbon is something that can be done. I think that, as

you have mentioned, the technology for that has been worked on.

That will take care of part of the problem. In the long-run, if coal

were to be a major contributor in the next 100 years to our energy

23

needs, we may also need to actually capture the CO2. That is possible, and there are now experiments intended to prove that this

can be done in an economic way and we can dispose of the CO2. There are experiments where this is being tested, the CO2 injected

into the ocean, and the ocean can absorb it all. So I think that it

is technically possible. We need to support that technology, but it

will raise a practical issue because it will increase the cost. We

need to make sure that it is not so costly that it would discourage

some countries from actually using it.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think that it could be compensated

with more attention to carbon sinks?

Mr. HANSEN. Carbon sinks, if you mean in the biosphere of forests and soils, there is a limit as to how much you can put there.

It can help, but by itself, that is not sufficient if we, in fact, continue to have fossil fuels as a major energy source.

Senator VOINOVICH. And what do you think of nuclear power?

Mr. HANSEN. Again, these types of issues, of course, have to be

decided by the people through the representatives, and as you

know, there are pros and cons to each of these. Nuclear power,

from our standpoint as climate scientists, we can say, ‘‘Well, it

looks great from that standpoint.’’ It produces essentially no CO2. So, if it were acceptable, then that is certainly a good candidate for

an energy source.

Senator VOINOVICH. I know that you seem to be reluctant to comment about the organizational structure, when you were asked a

question earlier.

Mr. HANSEN. I do not think it is appropriate really, for me to do

that.

Senator VOINOVICH. May I ask you this? We have the Department of Energy, President Clinton had a task force with the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House, and there are

many agencies right now that are dealing with this issue. From

your observation, do you think that these activities are well coordinated?

Mr. HANSEN. I think there is a NAS report—Mr. Karl can put

in his word here, too, but I think there is pretty widespread agreement that it is not as coordinated as it should be.

Mr. KARL. As I mentioned earlier, this is an exceedingly complex

issue, ranging from understanding the physical aspects of the climate system down to the impacts, and I must tell you one of the

most frustrating experiences as a scientist is when you try and go

interdisciplinary and try and link up the information from one specific scientific specialty to others, to really understand almost every

problem we have, relate to multiple stresses. It really requires a lot

of coordination. So the statement that it is not nearly as well-coordinated as it could be, I think goes without saying.

Senator VOINOVICH. So you would both agree that, whether

through this proposed legislation or some other vehicle, there is a

need for better coordination between all of the agencies that are

dealing with this problem?

Mr. KARL. Yes.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. Senator Collins.

24

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. I want to begin by thanking you for holding

this hearing. Climate change is a serious and growing problem.

Global temperatures have increased by approximately 1 degree

over the last 100 years. According to the scientific community,

much of this warming is likely due to human activities that have

increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This

warming is expected to accelerate. The best predictions forecast an

increase in global temperatures of anywhere from 2.5 to 10 degrees

by the end of the next century.

According to a report recently prepared by the National Academy

of Sciences, such warming could well have serious adverse effects,

including droughts, floods, sea level rise, and far-reaching changes

to ecosystems. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens deserve praise

for their efforts to address the difficult issue of climate change by

crafting legislation that would position the United States to address climate change in a comprehensive manner and with adequate resources.

I am therefore very pleased to join the Senators as a co-sponsor

of their legislation. By more than doubling authorized funds for research and development to create new technologies to deal with climate change, this legislation would significantly advance the

United States’ efforts to address climate change, as well as better

position the United States to become a leader in the energy technologies of the future. The Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act is an important step in creating an appropriate U.S. response to climate change.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is not the only step

that we should take. We also need to continue making improvements in energy efficiency, further develop our renewable energy

resources, and take action to reduce emissions. In fact, the Chairman and I are co-sponsors of legislation that would attempt to

bring about those changes. By taking these actions in combination

with the groundbreaking legislation proposed by Senator Byrd and

Senator Stevens, I believe that we can create an energy strategy

that will save consumers money, make America less dependent on

foreign energy sources, and protect society and the environment

from the detrimental effects of climate change.

Mr. Chairman, I am very fortunate to have on my staff a climatologist. I suspect that I may be the only Senator who is not a

member of the Environment Committee that has a climatologist on

my staff, and I have to tell you that he speaks very highly of the

work done by the two scientists who are appearing before us today.

Dr. Karl, my staff tells me that you have done groundbreaking

work on the analysis of global temperature trends, and your work

has made a significant contribution to our knowledge of global

warming. Given your expertise on measuring temperature trends,

could you discuss an issue that I understand has been hotly debated with climate change, on the differing results between groundlevel and satellite measurements of temperature trends.

I understand that ground-level measurements have often shown

greater warming than satellite measurements. So the question that

comes to my mind: Is there a problem with one set of measureVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:24 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75474.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
25

ments or are ground temperatures really warming faster than

those in the lower atmosphere?

Mr. KARL. That is a very good question, Senator, and I will try

to briefly answer that. As I indicated earlier to Senator Thompson,

that if we take a look at the temperatures in the middle part of

the troposphere, they have been measured by satellites since 1979.

If we go back farther in time, using weather balloons, we can get

an estimate of the temperatures in the middle part of the troposphere back to 1960. If we see what is happening at the surface

and compare that to the middle part of the troposphere, we find a

reasonably consistent picture over that longer 40-year period. If we

focus on the last 20 years, we find a significant difference.

Part of that difference, we think we understand in terms of the

timing. It is a short record, remember, 20 years, the timing of El

Nino events, the timing of volcanic eruptions—Mount Pinutubo, for

example, all have big effects in a short record. Also the way in

which the Earth is sampled differently from ground-based measurements compared to balloons and from satellite data impacts the

difference. So we can go some way toward explaining the difference

in the last 20 years, but part of that difference still remains unexplained and it is one of the challenges of the scientific community

to understand.

Now, are there still problems with both surface and tropospheric

temperature measurements? Certainly we try to put error bounds

on the data, and we think even given the error bounds that we put

on these two different sets of measurements, in the troposphere

and at the surface, there still remains an unexplained physical difference that we do not quite have resolved yet today.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you.

Dr. Hansen, I have a question for you, also. In your written testimony, you speak extensively of the importance of combating air

pollution as a means of addressing climate change. As you point

out, this would have substantial collateral benefits. Your statistics

on the impact of air pollution in Europe are really stunning: 40,000

deaths and 500,000 asthma cases a year in France, Switzerland,

and Austria alone. In your judgment, does the Kyoto Protocol adequately and efficiently address the global warming impacts of black

carbon and other forms of air pollution?

Mr. HANSEN. No, it does not. It, in fact, does not include black

carbon. It does not include tropospheric ozone. As you notice in my

chart, if you add up our estimates of those two forcings, it is comparable to that of CO2, and I think it is important that they be included. Given the difficulty, the cost of the kind of agreements that

you would need for the Kyoto Protocol, I just do not see us having

two of these. So I think it makes much more sense to combine the

air pollution issue and the CO2 issue, otherwise we are just not giving enough attention to this aspect of the problem.

I do not know how many people are dying from global warming

right now, but I do not think it is very many, and I do not think

there are as many people being affected by that. So it is just inappropriate to neglect this air pollution aspect.

Senator COLLINS. And that does appear to be a significant weakness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. HANSEN. In my personal opinion, yes.

26

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. I remember being at a seminar on global warming in which—this was

one of those Aspen programs in which we had a bunch of scientists

talking to a bunch of us members of Congress, and one member of

the House, who happened to be a Republican, at the end said—it

was Jim Greenwood who said, ‘‘So let me get this straight,’’ to the

scientists, ‘‘If you are right,’’ and they were mostly very proactive

about global warming, ‘‘and we take appropriate remedial action,

we will have saved the planet as we know it. And if you are

hyperventilating a bit, all we will have done is to clean up the air

and keep a lot of people healthier than they otherwise would be.’’

So, not a bad trade-off. Thank you.

Senator Bennett, thanks for being here.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I

may, I would respond to that with another set of trade-offs. There

is no agreement in the scientific community about what is causing

global warming. There are hypotheses that are vigorously argued

one side or the other. There is, as nearly as I can tell, absolute

agreement in the economic community that Kyoto would be a disaster, economically, to the United States, if it were to be put into

place. My point is that the greatest enemy of the environment is

poverty.

Dr. Hansen has talked about India and the brown cloud that

hangs over India. The reason India puts up with that is not that

they like air pollution, but that they cannot afford in their economy

the kind of scrubbers that we have. So if we go chasing down the

cliff, and I consider it a cliff, of Kyoto, we run the risk of impoverishing the economy that drives the rest of the world, and thereby

end up with people in underdeveloped countries causing greater

global warming than otherwise. So I would have argued with your

Republican friend if I had been present at that particular Aspen

Institute.

Dr. Hansen, I do not want to mousetrap you or blindside you in

any way. I have here a report written by Patrick Michaels. Are you

familiar with Mr. Michaels?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I am.

Senator BENNETT. Rather than debate it, I would ask you to supply for the record your rebuttal to Mr. Michaels’ argument, so that

those who do not know what we are talking about will understand

this. I am quoting from this report, he says, ‘‘NASA scientists—on

June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the

House that there was a strong cause-and-effect relationship between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere,’’ and then you presented a model based on that assumption

where you predicted an increase of .45 degrees centigrade from

1988 to 1997, and Mr. Michaels has a chart where he shows that

prediction was wrong on the high side by a fairly significant

amount.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to that chart and give

us your analysis. If you can do it quickly here——

27

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I would like to quickly respond to that. It is

a very curious charge, because, in fact, if you look at my 1988 testimony, what I showed was three scenarios for the future. One of

them, scenario A, was business-as-usual, in which the emissions increase, every year you have more than before, and the other—scenarios B and C had more flat emissions. In fact, the real-world

emissions have been between scenarios B and C. If you look at our

climate model calculations for the forcings which have actually occurred, they are right on the money. So Mr. Michaels did a very

interesting thing. He took our chart—by the way, in the Senate testimony I said——

Senator BENNETT. In the House testimony.

Mr. HANSEN. In my Senate testimony in 1988——

Senator BENNETT. Oh, OK.

Mr. HANSEN. I testified to both the House and Senate in 1988

and showed exactly the same projections—but I said the most likely scenario is scenario B, not scenario A. But Mr. Michaels took

this chart, erased scenarios B and C, and showed scenario A. So

it is a very simple answer to this.

Senator BENNETT. I appreciate that, because I suggest or believe

that the New York Times has taken scenario A and enshrined it in

conventional wisdom forever and ever, as they tell us what scientists are saying. I appreciate your clarifying that, because what

you are saying is that there is no absolute certain prediction upon

which everybody can depend with respect to the future. There is a

great deal of uncertainty.

Mr. HANSEN. That is exactly right. There is no reason that we

need to follow scenario A, the business-as-usual.

Senator BENNETT. You are saying now that we did not follow the

scenario——

Mr. HANSEN. We have not, no. I mentioned a little earlier that,

in fact, the growth rate of emissions declined 25 percent in the last

two decades because of chlorofluorocarbons being phased out and

because of methane slowdowns. So we have already taken some

very helpful steps for reducing the future climate change and we

need to take some more in the next century.

Senator BENNETT. I would hope that if there is any representative of the New York Times here, that they would call your answer

to the attention of their editorial writers, so that they could become

a little less hysterical.

Mr. HANSEN. I actually tried to do that. I wrote an op-ed article

a week ago, but they did not publish it.

Senator LIEBERMAN. We can sympathize with that. [Laughter.]

Senator BENNETT. You will not get opinions that are not fully orthodox ever reported in the New York Times, unless you can get

Bill Sapphire to write the column about it.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That explains why I like those editorials,

they are fully Orthodox. [Laughter.]

Senator BENNETT. Very good. You have maybe answered this

question, but I would like you to get into it a little bit more. We

are talking about temperatures going up in the last 100 years. In

fact, they went up for 30 years. They went down, admittedly at a

lower angle than they went up, for about 30 years, and then they

28

started up again for 30 years. So, instead of this being the chart

for the last century, it is this, this, and this. [Indicating.]

Can you tell us what caused that 30 years of temperature going

down, roughly between 1945 and 1975?

Mr. HANSEN. We cannot do it with confidence. It could be

unforced variability. The climate system is a chaotic system, which

fluctuates from decade to decade, just like the weather fluctuates

from day to day, because the atmosphere and ocean are fluids,

which are chaotic and have an unforced variability. It could also

have been forced. As you know, as we have talked some time today,

there are both positive forcings and negative forcings, and the negative forcings probably—the aerosols have not been increasing so

much recently. In fact, in the United States and Europe, they have

been decreasing because of acid rain concerns. It could be that the

aerosol increases caused that cooling trend, but we do not have the

measurements to prove that.

Senator BENNETT. You are underscoring once again the uncertainty here.

Mr. HANSEN. Right.

Senator BENNETT. We do not really know what caused it to go

up so rapidly in that first 30-year period or what caused it to come

down in 30 years. We think we have got a better handle on what

is causing it to go up now, but even there, we cannot be absolutely

sure. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. HANSEN. That is exactly right.

Senator BENNETT. One final question. As I looked into this, I

asked a layman’s question and was a little stunned at the answer

that I got. I hope you can help me understand it. I said, ‘‘How

much CO2 is there?’’ We talk about CO2. How much CO2 is there

and what percentage of it comes from human activity? I am told

that roughly three—maybe generously 4 percent—of the total CO2

that the planet has released into the atmosphere every year comes

from human activity, and that the rest of it is all generated by the

planet itself.

My question is, is there a difference out there in the atmosphere

or troposphere or wherever it is you wander, between naturallygenerated CO2 and human-generated CO2? Let me tell you why I

want to know that. Because if indeed there is no difference—let’s

take the 4 percent number, which is the largest number I have

heard for human activity generating CO2, and take the 25 percent

figure, which the New York Times quotes as coming from the

United States, that means the United States is producing 1 percent

of the total CO2 out there, and if we do Kyoto, we reduce that by

less than 1⁄10 of 1 percent. I wonder why savaging the American

economy to reduce the total by less than 1⁄10 of 1 percent is a good

idea.

Now, that is where the math is. Once again, is there a difference

in the atmosphere between naturally-generated CO2 and humangenerated CO2 that affects this whole equation?

Mr. HANSEN. There is not a difference which is relevant to their

ability to cause warming. However, I do not understand where your

4 percent comes from, because there are various ways to do these

numbers.

29

Senator BENNETT. It comes from the Department of Energy and

cross-checked with the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me tell you what I think the relevant numbers

would be. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 in

the atmosphere was about 280 parts-per-million. It did change over

time scales of tens of thousands of years with the Ice Ages and

things, but the last several thousand years it was about 280 partsper-million. It is now about 360—is that right, Mr. Karl? So it is

about a 25- or 30-percent increase, and we are pretty darn sure

that that is almost entirely due to human activity. So, based on

those numbers, it is not a 4 percent increase. It is more like a 30

percent increase, and the United States has contributed a fairly

large fraction of that.

Senator BENNETT. Clearly, we need a resolution to this, because

I have gone to every source I could find to say what percentage of

the total CO2 currently being sent into the atmosphere comes from

human activity, and the answers have been amazingly uniform.

Mr. HANSEN. The way you get that small number is to look at

the fluxes. There are fluxes that go up and down, because the

plants are growing and decomposing—there are fluxes up and

down. But the point is, if you look at those total fluxes, yes, the

human contribution may not look so large. But the net impact of

that human contribution—it is always one sign. Humans are the

cause almost certainly for almost all of this increase from 280

parts-per-million to 360 parts-per-million.

So I think it is more appropriate to say that humans have contributed an increase to atmospheric CO2, which is about 30 percent

of what is there now. There is really no scientific disagreement

about this.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You got your answer, Senator Bennett.

Senator BENNETT. I will go back to the Department of Energy

and the Library of Congress now and see what comment they have.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much. You raise some important questions, including the ones about the economic consequences

of Kyoto, which I believe that some of our witnesses on the second

panel will testify to. If they do not, I am going to ask them about

it. Thanks to both of you.

Did you want to respond at all, Mr. Karl, to Senator Bennett’s

questioning?

Mr. KARL. I might just want to make one statement, and that is

absolute certainty is very rarely going to be found in these complex

environmental issues. So when we say we are nearly certain, that

is pretty high statement coming from scientists in an area that is

fairly uncertain.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much to both of you. I would

like to now call the final panel: Eileen Claussen, President of the

Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Dr. James Edmonds, Senior

Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute; Dale E. Heydlauff, Senior Vice President, Environmental Affairs, of the American Electric Power Company; Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute; and Margo

Thorning, who is Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the

American Council for Capital Formation.

30

1The prepared statement of Ms. Claussen appears in the Appendix on page 75.

Thanks to all of you for coming this morning. We really look forward to your testimony about the Byrd-Stevens legislation and

about the problem overall.

Ms. Claussen, welcome back.

TESTIMONY OF EILEEN CLAUSSEN,1 PRESIDENT, PEW CENTER

ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on

S. 1008, the Byrd-Stevens Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001. My name is Eileen Claussen and I

am the President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a nonprofit, nonpartisan and independent organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers and innovative solutions to the

effort to address climate change. Thirty-six major companies in the

Pew Center’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, most included in the Fortune 500, work with the center in assessing the

risks, challenges and solutions to climate change. There is a list of

who they are up there on the chart.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that enacting the Byrd-Stevens bill will

be an important first step in developing a serious domestic climate

change program, a step that should be taken quickly. This bipartisan bill will integrate our energy policy with the long-term goal

of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. It will respond to concerns often raised by other nations that the United

States has no basis for domestic action. It will continue investigation into the uncertainties of the science and economics of climate

change.

Most important among the many provisions of the Byrd-Stevens

bill is the one that requires the development within 1 year of a

U.S. climate change response strategy with the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. To meet this goal, the strategy will rely on emission mitigation measures, technology innovation, climate adaptation research, and efforts to resolve the remaining scientific and economic uncertainties.

At the Pew Center, we believe enough is known about the science

and environmental impact of climate change for us to take action

now. As we have learned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirmed recently by the National Academy of

Sciences, the scientific consensus is very strong that greenhouse

gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human

activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures to rise.

As a consequence, there likely will be substantial impacts to

human health, agriculture, ecosystems and coastlines. The high

probability of these outcomes indicates the need for some action

now. Even as we act, however, we need to refine our scientific understanding, particularly on the impacts of climate change. But the

best scientific evidence tells us that we have already bought a

changed climate, to which we and our children will need to adapt.

31

Obviously, the more quickly we mitigate, the less we will have

to adapt. But some amount of adaptation appears inevitable. The

Byrd-Stevens bill creates a sound basis for giving priority to and

investigating how we must adapt to climate change. We also applaud efforts to further analyze the uncertainties regarding the economic impacts of climate change. Work done by the Pew Center

suggests that no existing model accurately predicts the economic effects of any given measure to mitigate climate change. We are hard

at work to fill in many of the gaps of the models, but additional

efforts would be most welcome.

Second, the Byrd-Stevens bill will promote technology innovation.

In May, Senator Byrd said from the Senate floor that to address

global climate change, ‘‘What is required is the equivalent of an Industrial Revolution.’’ We think he was exactly right. To effectively

address climate change, we need to lower carbon intensity, become

more energy efficient, promote carbon sequestration, and find ways

to limit emissions of non-CO2 gases. This will require fundamentally new technologies, as well as dramatic improvements in existing ones.

New, less carbon-intensive ways of producing, distributing and

using energy will be essential. The redesign of industrial processes,

consumer products and agricultural technologies and practices will

also be critical. These changes can be introduced over decades as

we turn over our existing capital stocks and establish new infrastructure. But we must begin making investments, building institutions and implementing policies now.

Third, under the Byrd-Stevens bill, the climate change response

strategy will be required to incorporate mitigation approaches to

reduce, avoid and sequester greenhouse gas emissions. This will

force us to take a hard, needed look at our policy choices. We believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to

muster the kind of sustained effort needed to reduce, avoid and sequester greenhouse gas emissions without the force of legally-binding commitments.

There is little incentive for any company to undertake real action

unless ultimately all do and are in some manner held accountable.

Markets, of course, will be instrumental in mobilizing the necessary resources and know-how. Market-based strategies, such as

emissions trading, will also help deliver emissions reductions at the

lowest possible cost. But markets can move us in the right direction only if they are given the right signals. In the United States,

those signals have been neither fully given, nor fully excepted.

Three decades of experience fighting pollution in the United

States have taught us a great deal about what works best. In general, the most cost-effective approaches allow emitters flexibility to

decide how best to meet a given limit, provide early direction so

targets can be anticipated and factored into major capital and investment decisions, and employ market mechanisms to achieve reductions where they cost least. To ease the transition from established ways of doing business, targets should be realistic and

achievable. What is important is that they be strong enough to

spur real action and to encourage investment and development of

the technology and infrastructure needed to achieve the long-term

objective.

32

1The prepared statement of Mr. Edmonds appears in the Appendix on page 79.

A good first step to get our house in order is to immediately require accurate measurement, tracking, reporting and disclosure of

greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the government could enter

into voluntary enforceable agreements with companies or sectors

willing to commit to significant reductions. While such efforts can

help get the United States on track, the long-term emission reductions needed can be achieved only with a far more comprehensive

and binding strategy.

I should add that congressional debate over the mitigation measures should start now and not await completion of the strategy, especially since the debate will take some time, we believe, to resolve.

As Senator Byrd said when he introduced his bill, this legislation

is intended to supplement, rather than replace, other complementary proposals to deal with climate change in the near-term on both

the national and international level.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Byrd-Stevens Climate Change

Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001, if enacted quickly

and implemented in a serious manner, will provide an excellent

foundation for climate change policy in this country. Thank you for

the opportunity to testify.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Ms. Claussen, for that excellent testimony.

Dr. Edmonds, welcome. Thank you for being here.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. EDMONDS,1 Ph.D., SENIOR STAFF

SCIENTIST, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY,

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE

Mr. EDMONDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee, for the opportunity to testify here this morning on the

Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001.

It is a privilege to be invited here and to have the opportunity to

share a position on this panel with such distinguished colleagues

as Dale Heydlauff, as well as, Eileen Claussen, Jonathan Lash, and

Margo Thorning. My presence here today is possible because the

U.S. Department of Energy, EPRI and numerous other organizations in both the public and private sectors have provided me and

my research team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

long-term research support.

That having been said, I come here today to speak as a researcher and the views I express are mine alone. The focus of my

comments today are on the funding portion of the Climate Change

Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001, not on its organizational aspects.

My observations draw upon the work that was conducted under

the Global Energy Technology Strategy Program to Address Climate Change, an international, public-private sector collaboration

advised by an eminent Steering Group. Analysis conducted at the

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, as well as in collaborating

institutions around the world during Phase I, supports three general conclusions: (1) It’s concentrations of greenhouse gases that

matter. For CO2, cumulative emissions by all countries, over all

time determine the concentration; (2) technology is the key to conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:24 Feb 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75474.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
33

trolling the cost of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse

gases; and (3) managing the cost of stabilizing the concentration of

greenhouse gases, at any level, requires a portfolio of energy R&D

investments across a wide spectrum of technology classes.

My first point is that: It’s Concentrations Not Emissions. The

United States is a party to the Framework Convention on Climate

Change, which has as its objective the ‘‘stabilization of greenhouse

gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’’ This is not the same as stabilizing emissions. Because emissions of

the greenhouse gas, CO2, accumulate in the atmosphere, its concentration will continue to rise indefinitely even if emissions are

held to current levels or even at some reduced level.

Stabilization of CO2 concentrations means that the global energy

system, and not just the United States’ energy system, must undergo a fundamental transition from one in which emissions continue

to grow throughout this century into one in which global emissions

eventually peak and then decline.

Coupled with significant global population and economic growth,

this transition represents a daunting task even if a concentration

as high as 750 parts per million is eventually determined to meet

the goal of the Framework Convention—though no consensus yet

exists as to what concentration will prevent ‘‘dangerous’’ interference with the climate system.

My second point is that: Technology Controls Cost. Stabilizing

the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will require a credible commitment to limit cumulative global emissions

of CO2. Such a limit is unlikely to be achieved without cost but

that cost will in large measure be shaped by the character of the

energy technology options available to limit cumulative global

emissions of CO2. My third point is that: There Is No ‘‘Silver Bullet.’’ No single

technology controls the cost of stabilizing CO2 concentrations under

all circumstances. The portfolio of energy technologies that is employed varies across the world’s regions and over time. Regional

difference in such factors as resource endowments, institutions, demographics and economics, inevitably lead to different technology

mixes in different nations, while changes in technology options inevitably lead to different technology mixes over time.

Technologies that are potentially important in stabilizing the

concentration of CO2 include energy efficiency and renewable energy forms, non-carbon energy sources such as nuclear power and

fusion, improved applications of fossil fuels, and technologies such

as terrestrial carbon capture by plants and soils, carbon capture

and geologic sequestration, fuel cells, and advanced energy storage

systems, and commercial biomass and biotechnology. The latter

holds the promise of revolutionary change for a wide range of energy technologies. Many of these technologies are undeveloped or

play only a minor role in their present state of development.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be

happy to answer your and the Committee’s questions.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Dr. Edmonds. Thanks very

much.

Mr. Heydlauff, welcome.

34

1The prepared statement of Mr. Heydlauff with an attachment appears in the Appendix on

page 84.

TESTIMONY OF DALE E. HEYDLAUFF,1 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN ELECTRIC

POWER COMPANY

Mr. HEYDLAUFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a

privilege to be here, Senator Thompson, Senator Bennett. My name

is Dale Heydlauff. I am the Senior Vice President for Environmental Affairs at American Electric Power Company. We are

headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, and have the distinction of

being the country’s largest consumer of coal. As a matter of fact,

I think we burn more coal than anybody in the Western Hemisphere. We are the third-largest consumer of natural gas. We are

the largest producer of electricity in the Nation.

As a consequence of that, we recognized early on that the concerns about global climate changes were ones that we needed to

take seriously. We have been heavily engaged in the debate since

literally Dr. Hansen testified before the Senate in 1988. We have

been following this debate very closely. We have been participants

and observers in the international negotiations on this issue, and

importantly, we have sought to find and identify ways that we can

effectuate meaningful emission reductions, avoidance or sequestration through our activities and our operations, both domestically

and around the world.

It is in that context that I wanted to testify before you today, and

with your permission, I will submit my written statement for the

record and just summarize my oral remarks. The simple thing for

me to do is just to say I concur completely with the statements of

those who have preceded me on this panel. We are one of the

founding members of the Pew Center on Climate Change Business

Environmental Leadership Council and we are honored to be in

that position. I rarely find myself in disagreement with the wisdom

of our President, Mrs. Claussen. Dr. James Edmonds and I have

known each other for a number of years now. The Global Energy

Technology Strategy Program that he referenced in his testimony

is research that we helped fund and have funded for years. Quite

honestly, it has guided substantially what I want to say here today.

Let me start and say if I could summarize my remarks in one

line, it would be this: Accelerating climate friendly technology development through very dramatic increases in energy technology,

research and development, both by the public and private sectors,

and then deploying the fruits of that R&D on a global basis is by

far and away, in my judgement, the most sensible, cost-effective

and ultimately sustainable strategy for addressing the climate

change issue.

I do not think there is going to be any other way you are going

to do it. If you believe that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions need to be stabilized in the future, it is only

going to come about as a result of a technology strategy, one that

can help be facilitated by the legislation that we are testifying to

today. Let me talk a little bit about the challenge that befalls this

country in doing that, and indeed the world, because this is truly

a global commons problem.

35

The first is, in real terms, energy technology R&D in this Nation

in the past decade has fallen by 47 percent, both in the public and

private sectors. The energy industry itself, I am somewhat embarrassed to report, today invests 1⁄2 of 1 percent of total national revenues on technology R&D. Compare that to the chemical, pharmaceutical, and telecommunications industries, which routinely spend

about 10 percent of annual revenues on R&D, or the U.S. industrial average of 7 percent, and you can see the challenge we have

confronting us.

To compound the problem, however, what we are spending our

dollars on today could be characterized as evolutionary improvements in existing technology, which certainly have some societal

good, and particularly even some climate change benefits, because

in many cases we are attempting to squeeze out more efficiency

from existing technologies. But it simply is not going to be a successful strategy, because what we really need to do is develop those

bold breakthrough technologies that the Byrd-Stevens legislation

would help to facilitate.

A couple of other points I wanted to mention, specifically with respect to the Byrd-Stevens legislation. One is I think they have done

a commendable job in the construct of the national research program and agenda. First of all, you need leadership, and that leadership can only and should only be governed from the top of the

Executive Branch in the White House. I commend them for the establishment of the White House office.

Second, you do need a bureaucracy. I hesitate always to differ

with the Senator from my home State, but in this case, I think you

do need leadership, you need management of an effort of this magnitude. Third, quite honestly, as significant as the level of expenditures would be under this legislation, they will ultimately be inadequate, and I realize we are just talking about public sector investments with respect to the authorizations that we derive from this

legislation, and hopefully the private sector would be willing to

step up and come close to matching that level, because you are

going to need investments of that magnitude ultimately to be successful.

You look at the four paradigms of the Byrd-Stevens bill, and I

think they have got it right. It would establish the solid foundation

upon which to address the climate change issue for a very long

time to come. So, with that, I would admonish the Committee to

exercise the same degree of speed and forthrightness that you took

to scheduling this hearing so soon after the legislation was introduced and proceed on to pass it out and send it over to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Heydlauff. It

strikes me that for somebody who may be either here in the room,

and not very familiar with this dialogue that has been going on,

or watching on television, that the favorable testimony and very

proactive testimony that you have given, representing the company

that is the largest consumer of coal, might be surprising, because

some might think that you would be avoiding a solution. So I admire the fact, and it is typical of a whole group of companies in a

similar position, that you are forward-leaning, are part of the solution, and I know from previous conversation you want the certainty

36

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lash appears in the Appendix on page 91.

that will come with a legislative leadership and solution. So I

thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Lash, welcome back. Good to see you again.

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN LASH,1 PRESIDENT, WORLD

RESOURCES INSTITUTE

Mr. LASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson, and

Senator Bennett. It is a pleasure to be here with you today. I was

very struck by Senator Byrd’s opening statement and by his cosponsor Senator Stevens’ comments at the beginning of this hearing. These comments are most important because they signify a

recognition that climate change is a problem that needs to be systematically addressed and is a priority for our country.

I would actually like to address the legislation that is before us,

rather than the science or the strategies that might emerge. Senator Byrd commented, as he did when he introduced the bill initially in the Senate, that this is a part of a broader effort on climate, not a substitute for action, and I want to address it in that

context. It is essential that, at the same time, the Senate continue

to deal with complementary proposals for addressing the problem

of climate change including legislation that Members of this Committee have co-sponsored. I will come back to why I think that this

is so important. But S. 1008 is particularly important because it

recognizes that climate change represents threat to the Nation’s interests and that we need a national climate change strategy that

is informed by a public dialogue which can help the country to understand what is at stake in the issue and what is at stake as we

approach the solutions.

The strategy should take as its goal, the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at safe levels. That recognition is

an important step in our debate. This was the goal accepted by the

United States almost a decade ago when then-President Bush

signed and the U.S. Senate ratified the Framework Convention on

Climate Change. Now the United States does not have a strategy

on climate change, and as many commentators have noted, we are

clearer about what we are against than what we are for.

Second, S. 1008 recognizes that climate change considerations

should be integrated into decision-making at every level of the government. I offer no view about the specific administrative arrangements proposed in the bill and the highly-detailed requirements,

but I think that the effort to ensure that climate change considerations enter into energy policy and environmental policy decisions

is essential, at all levels of the government.

Third, S. 1008 recognizes that economic consequences of inaction

on global warming may cost the global economy trillions of dollars.

As Senator Bennett pointed out several times earlier, there is no

free effort to respond to climate change and there is a great deal

of discussion about the costs of any strategy for a response, but we

need to recognize the costs of failure to respond as well.

Fourth, S. 1008 recognizes that current research and development budgets are grossly inadequate to meet the challenge of climate change. As the bill’s findings correctly state, stabilization of

37

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will require transformational

change in the global energy system, as well as research and development that leads to bold technological breakthroughs. I agree very

much with what Mr. Heydlauff said a moment ago about the importance of research that is not just at the margins, but, of research that helps us understand the significant kind of changes

that we could make.

Today we have technologies available that companies part of the

Pew Center are using to reduce emissions. It is not impossible for

us to respond to climate change this week, next week, or next

month, to improve efficiency, and to adopt new sources. At the

World Resources Institute, we work with a group of companies who

will soon purchase several thousand megawatts of wind energy in

an effort to reduce their reliance on carbon-based fuels. But none

of this is a substitute for large-scale research on major new technologies.

Finally, S. 1008 recognizes that our national energy strategy

cannot be shaped without paying close attention to the challenge

of climate change. I want to go back to what I said at the start and

emphasize again the need for early action. I think there are three

reasons for slowly taking action now. First of all, if we begin to

slowly take action, we will learn the answers to some of the questions that are troubling many Senators about the costs and technological and social difficulties of change. If we start slowly, we can

add to our store of information about how to respond pragmatically.

Second, a slow start gives us a chance to make a stable transition. Mr. Heydlauff’s company, I believe, burns 80 million tons of

coal a year. Part of the national energy strategy will certainly be

to encourage companies like AEP to build new plants for the generation of electricity. I do not know how AEP managers can effectively represent the interests of their shareholders if they do not

know what policies government may impose in 5, 6, or 8 years that

will add to the costs of burning coal. Without knowing what regulatory costs will be managed, they do not know how much to invest

in efficiency, how much to invest in gas, how much to invest in pollution controls.

Finally, I do not think it is to the benefit of the United States’

competitiveness to fail to invest in more efficient technologies for

producing energy. Whatever long-term strategy we ultimately develop to try to stabilize concentrations, what we do in the first 10

years will likely have to be the same. Whatever the path we ultimately are going to follow, it will still involve early efforts to reduce pollution and control CO2.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lash, for that

very interesting testimony.

Ms. Thorning, thanks for being here. We look forward to hearing

you now.

38

1The prepared statement of Ms. Thorning appears in the Appendix on page 98.

TESTIMONY OF MARGO THORNING,1 Ph.D., SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COUNCIL

FOR CAPITAL FORMATION

Ms. THORNING. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before this Committee and to appear with such a distinguished panel of climate policy experts. I

would like to request that my written testimony be included in the

record.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It will, without objection.

Ms. THORNING. My written testimony includes a discussion of

some of the issues you asked about, including the macroeconomic

impact of the Kyoto Protocol and near-term emission limits, the impact on U.S. budget surpluses of actions that would slow economic

growth, international trading systems, and a discussion of the fact

that the European Union itself will not be able to meet its Kyoto

targets, and a discussion of the science. Although I am not a scientist, I did want to raise the issue that, as we heard earlier, the

science is not clearly understood. Much further work, much more

study, needs to be done on that.

Before launching into a little discussion of S. 1008, I would like

to draw your attention to the story on the front page of the Washington Post this morning, Steven Pearlstein’s story about the economic impact of global slowdown. The implication of the Pearlstein

story is the United States is the engine of world economic growth.

If we are unable to regenerate the strong growth that we have experienced in earlier years, it is going to be much harder for the developing economies and for Europe and for Japan to pull themselves out of their slump.

Therefore, I think it is appropriate to weigh very carefully any

major policy decisions, such as measures to, in the near-term,

sharply reduce the growth or cap CO2 emissions. The studies that

we have looked at and that are described in my testimony suggest

such policies would reduce U.S. levels of GDP by 2 to 4 percent a

year, which would be a significant negative drag on the U.S. economy and on our trading partners. Also, there is a substantial body

of research by scholars such as Robert Crandall at Brookings,

McKibben and Wilcoxin, Yale professor Bill Nordhaus, that suggest

that the cost of going ahead with sharp, near-term caps on emissions far exceed the benefits, even when you take account of the

possibility of some changes to climate.

So I think the evidence suggests we need to take a cautious attitude before deciding what is the best strategy to address the potential threat of climate change, and I do not think the scholars whose

work I am mentioning suggest that nothing needs to be done.

Clearly it does, but we need to move forward in the most efficient,

cost-effective possible way, so as not unduly burden the U.S. economy and our trading partners.

I would like to make a few comments about S. 1008. I think Senators Byrd and Stevens are to be commended for their recognition

of the importance of technological innovation as the principal

means of dealing with the possible threat, potential threat, of climate change. S. 1008 contains some helpful initiatives that could

39

further the goals of maintaining strong economic growth and energy security, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill

also appears to be supportive of some of the initiatives put forth

by the Bush Administration, including advancing clean-coal technology.

I was very pleased to hear the other comments about the importance of coal to the U.S. economy. It is clearly going to be a major

energy source for the foreseeable future, and we do need to accelerate the development of clean-coal technology. However, I would

like to suggest that S. 1008 falls short in some ways, in terms of

promoting many of the policies I suggested in my testimony for encouraging technological innovation.

For example, S. 1008 does not address the question of how to deploy new technology. We need to develop it, but how do we get it

adopted? How do we get it into the system? One thing I would like

to draw your attention to is the U.S. Tax Code, which taxes new

investment much more harshly than most of our competitors,

whether it is productive investment or whether it is pollution-control investment. As Table 1 of my testimony shows, the United

States has very slow capital cost recovery. We rank near the bottom of a list of eight countries that Arthur Andersen surveyed. If

we could improve depreciation or tax incentives for pulling

through, it would help to pull through the kinds of equipment that

would enable us to both grow and reduce CO2 emissions.

So, taking a look at the tax code and, as the Bush Administration moves forward with tax reform, hopefully that would be part

of hopefully better depreciation, particularly for energy-efficient or

pollution-reduction—would be part of any tax code reform. Second,

S. 1008 does not address nuclear power. That has clearly got to be

a major component, at least over the next several decades, of U.S.

energy supply; France manages to produce 80 percent of its electricity and the United States only 20 percent. So it suggests that

we ought to be able to move forward to rely on a source of energy

that is much less polluting.

We also need more bilateral cooperation with developing countries to promote the use of existing and emerging technology. We

need to expand incentives for landfill methane and biomass, the

EIA Clean Technology Initiative report shows that those were the

two most effective programs, and I do not believe S. 1008 addresses

those. Finally, we need to avoid caps on CO2 emissions by U.S. industry and avoid setting targets at this time. We need further

study of this issue. We need to move forward, but in a cost-effective, careful way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Thanks for your

testimony. I appreciate the effort that all of you put into appearing

before us.

Ms. Claussen, let me start with you, and you talked about the

critical need for a national strategy on climate change. You have

extensive experience in government. Now you are in the private

sector, working with some of America’s largest corporations. Just

give us your reaction to what you think the impact would be of a

central White House office focused on climate change, and I want

to ask the question implicitly, is it worth it? In other words, we do

40

not want to continue to proliferate offices in the White House, but

how do you see it here?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Senator, I was in government for about 25 years,

and I participated in interagency process in the Reagan Administration and the first Bush Administration. In the early part of the

Clinton Administration, I actually ran an interagency process. I

hope I learned from the first two administrations and applied some

of it in the third, but the fact is, this is a monster of an issue and

everyone has a legitimate reason to be involved across the government for a variety of different reasons. If you do not have a way

to focus the effort and coordinate the effort, you just have everybody doing their own thing based on their own set of objectives and

the culture of their own agency. You do not have a coherent policy.

It is extremely hard to do, but I think you have to center it in the

White House and you have to put some real effort into making it

work.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Let me go now to the economic consequences and, in a sense, some of the questions that

Senator Bennett raised about the costs of complying with Kyoto or

the cost of responding to the climate change problem. I was interested that, I think, Dr. Edmonds and Mr. Lash, in your prepared

testimony, talked about the economic consequences of inaction

here. I wonder if you could both expand on that, and if there is any

way in which we could begin to quantify the economic cost of inaction.

Mr. EDMONDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Global Energy

Technology Strategy Program has shown that cost does matter and

is an important element that must be taken into account in framing an effective response to climate change. The climate change

issue is essentially an intergenerational problem. This makes the

climate change problem far more difficult than local environmental

problems involving short-lived gases and aerosols, with which we

are more familiar.

We largely live with the climate that we inherited from our predecessors, while we are in turn laying down the foundations of the

climate that we will pass on to the next generation. But, we have

very little margin to change our own climate. The actions that we

take to mitigate emissions are therefore largely undertaken out of

an altruistic motivation-care for our children and grandchildren.

Under such circumstances the cost of emissions mitigation matters

a great deal.

This observation in turn leads us back to the importance of developing technologies and energy systems that can limit emissions

in a cost-effective manner. And, that is the heart of S. 1008. Without cost-effective energy technologies and systems even the bestcrafted tactics to limit cumulative global emissions of carbon to the

atmosphere will ultimately prove to be either too expensive to implement, or will more likely lead to higher concentrations and

greater climate change for future generations.

On the other hand, if energy technologies and systems are developed and made available at reasonable cost, all tactics for controlling emissions begin to look much more attractive, as do lower

cumulative global carbon emissions and long-term CO2 concentrations.

41

I think the thrust of everything we have learned under this global energy technology strategy program is that cost does matter. It

is a very important element. It has to be taken into account. The

climate change issue is essentially an intergenerational problem,

and we largely live with the climate that we inherited from our

predecessors, and we lay down the concentrations of greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere that are passed onto the next generation.

So, in fact, most of our margin is not on our own climate. It is an

altruistic enterprise, and under those circumstances, we do altruism. We save for our kids education and we do things for the future, but cost really does matter and it matters a lot.

I think what comes out of this global energy technology strategy

program is that addressing the climate change issue seriously requires that we deal with this as a century scale problem, not as

a year by year problem, and that if the technology to address climate change is not available—that is the core of what S. 1008 is

about—if it is not available, pretty much independent of the best

crafted tactics to limit cumulative global emissions of carbon to the

atmosphere are ultimately going to turn out to be too expensive,

and we will either not do it or we will not do as much as we could.

On the other hand, if the technology is developed and is made

available, all the tactics begin to look much more attractive and it

is a lot easier to do the job right. I think that is the important lesson, that if we have the technology, it is going to be a lot easier

job and costs are going to be minimal.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Lash.

Mr. LASH. Two brief comments—first, looking at the costs of action, one gets very different answers depending on the assumptions

used in the models that do the calculations and on the policies that

one analyzes. If the models assume that the economy is very good

at changing sources of fuel, that we would use more gas and less

coal as a response, and that new technologies would develop, the

cost is low. If the models do not assume that kind of flexibility in

our economy, the cost is high. If the models account for benefits,

the cost is low. If the models do not account for benefits, the cost

is high. Most models do not account for benefits because to account

for benefits is very difficult.

For instance, Dr. Hansen was talking about the number of people

who die from air pollution who might be saved if we reduce pollution. Certainly, it is very important what policies are used. If you

have a rigid regulatory system that imposes huge and sudden cost

on utilities or on the auto industry, reductions will cost a lot. If you

have a market-based system that allows companies to choose how

they are going to proceed over a number of years, reductions will

cost less. It is important to make those distinctions as one is analyzing costs. The same is true for the benefits of action and the

costs of inaction. Because we are uncertain about precisely what

will happen 25 years from now if we do not take action—any assessment we make of those costs is going to involve the kinds of

scenarios that Dr. Hansen was talking about, and guesses about

impacts, both here and externally, and it makes counting them difficult. The assumptions going in determine the numbers coming

out.

42

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Heydlauff, it might be interesting to

ask you to comment on this from the perspective of one company,

a big, significant company, America’s largest generator of electricity, generating about 6 percent of the U.S. figure, comparable

to the annual electric power consumption of Mexico and Australia.

I am just reading from your testimony—6.1 million customers. So

the question is, from your company’s point of view, you are supporting action here, I assume, as an act of good citizenship, but

also because there has been a calculation made within the company

and you dispatched your responsibility to shareholders that this is

the right way to go economically, as well. I wonder if you could talk

about that a little bit.

Mr. HEYDLAUFF. I would be happy to do that. One thing I believe

has come out of the research that we help fund, is that you cannot

solve this problem without new technology. We believe as a company that it would be a shame if the country adds new generation,

utilizing existing technologies, and does not take advantage of advanced, more efficient, less carbon intensive technologies to meet

the energy needs of the Nation, and most importantly, then, if we

also do not take that technology and deploy it around the globe. Let

me give you a concrete example of where I think the challenge is

greatest, and that is in the developing nations, which are going to

utilize their indigenous energy resources to grow their economies.

Case in point is China.

China’s total coal burned in 1996, I think, was 600 million or 700

million tons a year. They are projected to burn 2.1 billion tons a

year by 2015, the year at which they are also projected to have

their greenhouse gas emissions equal those of the United States of

America. A number of years ago, the Chinese came to us recognizing our expertise in coal-fired generation. They said we are

going to build lots of new coal-fired generation, approximately at

the time they were talking about building 15,000 megawatts of new

generation a year, and we would like to talk to you about building

some of those plants for us. We told them that, initially, our real

interest was in trying to take these innovative clean-coal technologies that are much more efficient and much cleaner and deploy

them in China. The problem is there is a price premium for that,

that neither we nor our shareholders were willing to eat, nor were

the Chinese willing to pay. That is one of the reasons why, for a

number of years, Senator Byrd has had legislation in saying we

need to figure a way to subsidize that delta between conventional

technology and innovative technologies.

We built a power plant in China, relatively clean, but it was utilizing 1940’s, 1950’s technology because that is all they were willing to pay for. I felt real bad about it, honestly, until I understood

what we were displacing, which was the direct use of coal to heat

and cook in residential dwellings. We brought electricity to a community that never had it before, which is obviously far cleaner and

more efficient than what they were doing. But it was not what we

should have accomplished, which was that leapfrog in technology

use internationally. I do not believe AEP will build another coalfired power plant like we have in operation today. I believe it will

be much more efficient. I think coal has been the bedrock fuel for

43

electric generation in this country for 100 years, and it will continue to be.

We have got to find a way to burn it more efficiently, more cleanly—which the Byrd-Stevens legislation would accomplish. I applaud President Bush in his initiatives that he announced late last

week, which is to advance research on carbon capture and then either utilizing the carbon dioxide for enhanced oil and gas recovery,

or more appropriately probably because the volumes will be so significant, disposing of it in a safe and permanent manner in geologic

formations; deep saline aquifers, abandoned oil and gas wells, coal

mines, whatever. That is how you keep coal in the fuel mix, which

I think is essential.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am going to yield to Senator Thompson

and maybe he wants to take up this line of questioning. I take it

from what you said in your earlier testimony that notwithstanding

the need for transformational new technologies, energy technologies, you do not see the private sector here investing the necessary money in research and development, which is why we need

the kind of focused, expanded effort that is part of this research

and development effort through the Federal Government that is

part of the Byrd-Stevens bill.

Mr. HEYDLAUFF. That is correct. Certainly, history would suggest

that the levels of private sector investment in those revolutionary

bold breakthrough technologies is pretty much nonexistent. There

is very little of it going on today, and perhaps this legislation will

motivate that.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, thanks very much. Senator

Thompson?

Senator THOMPSON. I wonder why the R&D has been so low in

this area, compared to other industries. It looks to me like you are

being besieged at all sides. I know you and I share a commonality

in that we both represent entities that are being sued by EPA right

now. I am referring to TVA, saying that we are keeping the old

plants on too long, and the modifications are not permitted under

the Clean Air Act. So, in fact, it is a mini-Kyoto situation, it looks

to me like. You have the factor of your need for a global approach

to it, because the pollution in the area is destroying the Smoky

Mountains National Park, by the way. You have automobile emissions and the coal emissions from the TVA plants, but a lot of it

comes from your part of the country and it settles right down in

that area.

No company or entity wants to be disadvantaged. So you are

going to have to have a global solution, more or less. The costs are

said to be astronomical if we do it any differently. The rates will

go up in the TVA area if we correct the problem and nobody knows

really how much, but the damage being done is clearer there. It is

more imminent. It is more polluted on the top of the Smoky Mountains most days than it is on the streets of New York City. So if

we cannot have some kind of regional solution to that, I am wondering how we are going to take on the world.

I get back to my point. I wonder why, with all this pressure and

commentary, industry is not doing more. Clearly the government

needs to step into this. That is what we do best up here. We mandate all these different things, all these different entities, and we

44

come to what seem to be logical conclusions about what ought to

be done about all of these problems. We pass some bills not knowing what we are doing, unintended consequences run rampant.

This is what we do well up here, research and development, but

industry, I think, has got to do more too.

I would like to work with you some in the future and talk about

some way we can approach this regional problem that is doing a

lot of damage. Nobody wants to put anybody at a competitive disadvantage, but maybe if we do it together—— Mr. HEYDLAUFF. Just to respond very quickly, one of the other

things that Congress can do and can do well is resolve conflicts in

Federal policy. Nowhere is that more in evidence than in the issue

that you raised about new source review. The Clinton Administration came to us early on and said they were going to meet the aim

of the framework convention on climate change to reduce emissions

levels by the year 2000, but they do not want to rely on new bureaucracies and new regulations. They want to tap the ingenuity

of the American public, and in particular, American industry.

The electric utility industry stepped up to the plate and put together a very robust program of response measures. We literally

combed our company for opportunities to improve the efficiency

with which we convert coal into electrons, and we took a number

of measures at our power plants to do that. I would submit to you

that everything we did that improved the efficiency with which we

converted energy into electrons, simultaneously reduced those air

emissions that you are concerned about in the Smoky Mountains.

Yet, we are in the unhappy position today of having been sued for

taking some of those actions. We are improving the efficiency of the

plant, we are reducing emissions, yet the government is telling us

that was a violation of new source review rules and, consequently

and unfortunately, we have halted those measures until we have

resolved this issue.

I hope that—and I realize that is an issue not for this Committee. Senator Lieberman, it is for your other committee, and in

that we can get that issue resolved too. View it in the context of

a multi-pollutant control legislation that Senator Voinovich talked

about, where we can bring a rational approach, a resolution to all

of these issues; the air quality issues, Senator Thompson, that you

are concerned about in Tennessee, and I know they are concerned

about it in the Northeast, as well as, perhaps, starting down the

path that we all hope to go down in terms of the response to global

climate change concerns.

Senator THOMPSON. Going to another question here that was

mentioned, I think that several members of the panel, specifically

Mr. Lash, mentioned the uncertainty of the economic estimates. I

saw a June 12 USA Today article, I think you referenced it in your

testimony, Ms. Thorning, that indicates the Clinton Administration

has now acknowledged that its economic analysis was flawed. Back

during Kyoto, they came up with some rather low numbers as to

what it would cost—but, it seems it was based on China and India

accepting binding emissions limits, which they have not, and Europe and other countries engaging in emissions trading as a solution, and apparently they are not making any progress on that.

Former administration officials were quoted as saying, ‘‘That the

45

thing that made them really uneasy about our analysis was that

if our assumptions do not come true, costs can come up much,

much higher.’’

Ms. Thorning, you have done that, I know, in some of your work.

It has been pointed out that it is very uncertain and it all depends

on assumptions and so forth. I would like for you to address that

and I would specifically like for you to address what we should do

and how much is it going to cost? Kyoto is a good place to start.

That is one so-called solution that is out there, and people can try

to measure it. There are, obviously, other approaches that will presumably have lower price tags. As far as Kyoto is concerned, first

discuss the validity of being able to analyze the economic aspects.

Second, what does your work reveal in terms of the effect it would

have on: The gross domestic product of this country; our growth,

on gas and electricity prices; and on migration of industry out of

this country?

Ms. THORNING. Thank you, Senator Thompson. The focus of our

work over the past 10 years at the ACCF—and we have spent a

fair amount of time on the issue of climate change—has been looking at the costs of action, and what are appropriate policies to respond to this potential threat. A range of credible modelers, ranging from the Department of Energy to Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, Australian Bureau of Resource Economics,

Charles Rivers Associates, Professor Alan Mann at Stanford, suggest that the cost range of complying with Kyoto would be 2 to 4

percent of U.S. GDP or $200 to $400 billion a year. Of course, the

cost varies depending on what the assumption is about global trading, particularly, as well as some other variables in the models.

As you mentioned, the Clinton Administration’s Council of Economic Advisers number was really off the chart, which they have

now admitted was erroneous. So it seems to me very clear that the

costs are high. The Department of Energy also estimated that electricity prices would have to rise perhaps as much as 80 percent,

gasoline prices, 50 percent. So the cost to the American economy

is very significant. Low-income wage earners would be particularly

disproportionately impacted, because the cost of energy is a much

larger share of their budget. U.S. industry would tend to migrate

to countries that were not CO2 constrained. Alan Mann’s work suggests that by 2020, we might lose 10 to 15 percent of our energy

intensive sector. So there are very serious consequences to precipitously moving forward to limit—cap CO2 emissions. It seems to me

that given the uncertainty about the science, the focus of your

hearing today, which is on the importance of technology and the

development of alternative technologies for energy production, is

very appropriate. We do need to focus on that.

Senator THOMPSON. Without China and India and these other

countries being a part of it, would the CO2 emissions continue to

rise anyway?

Ms. THORNING. They will continue to rise. There are numerous

projections that show that even if the United States and Europe

shut down and sat in the dark—no electricity, no cars—the impact

on global concentrations of CO2 would be almost negligible.

46

Senator THOMPSON. Do you have any basis for reaching an opinion as to whether or not the European Union could or would comply, even if we did?

Ms. THORNING. As my testimony points out, there are five or six

new studies that suggest that the European Union will be 15 to 25

percent above its emissions targets by 2010 or 2012. So it is hypocritical, really, of the European Union to rail against the Bush Administration’s policy of stepping back and taking another look at

how to address climate change.

Senator THOMPSON. It seems to me that the European Union’s

attitude toward Kyoto is somewhat like some of our Democratic

friends’—on the House side—attitude is toward campaign finance

reform, and that is it is a great idea, as long as it does not happen.

[Laughter.]

Ms. THORNING. One of the things that I think people need to realize about the European Union is the leaders there have 10 years

worth of capital built up, political capital. They have made the case

that they need to comply with Kyoto and it is very difficult for

them now to simply back away, I think, and we need to be sensitive to that situation and help—which I think the Bush Administration is trying to do—come up with alternative strategies that

will enable them to feel that we and the rest of the world are going

to move forward.

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Thompson. It strikes me

you are one of a small, courageous band of Republicans that could

have made that comment about Democrats and campaign finance

reform. [Laughter.]

Senator Bennett.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not possibly have said what Senator Thompson said on that score. As I sit

through the morning, I am beginning to see the emergence of consensus, and let me try it out and see if you agree, because obviously I do not want to put words in anybody’s mouth. But it seems

to me that technology is the answer to this problem. Arbitrary limits, such as came out of the Kyoto Protocol, are not, but technology

that is developed to be more efficient almost always means cleaner,

and there are economic benefits to being more efficient, and cleaner

is a wonderful side effect that comes out, and indeed, as Mr. Lash

points out, has some economic benefit in and of itself.

I am referring to an editorial comment made by Robert Samuelson, and I liked his opening. He said, ‘‘The education of George W.

Bush on global warming as simply summarized: Honesty may not

be the best policy.’’ Greenhouse politics have long blended exaggeration and deception, and the Bush Administration, I think, has

told the truth about Kyoto and now is being beaten up for it. But

that is not the issue. The issue is what do we do, and the answer

seems to be, coming out of today’s hearing, that we develop the

technology to deal with it, rather than putting on the artificial, politically-dominated caps.

Now, you are shaking your head, Ms. Claussen. You take the

first shot at me here.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. I agree with I think virtually everyone on this

panel that you cannot solve this without technology. But I do not

47

think that precludes the need for rational, sensible limits, which I

think can also help you move the technology on the development

side and also on the deployment side. This is not to say you need

a mandatory system that will bankrupt the economy or that will

move too soon, too much, but I think there is a real place for limits

which, if done rationally over time and in a way that the market

can sort out, have to be a part of the system.

Senator BENNETT. Let me give you an analogy then. You used

two words, neither one of which can be challenged, but that create

great mischief up here: Rational and sensible. I am not sure we are

ever complying with both of those in legislation that we pass.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Well, I have great faith in the Senate.

Senator BENNETT. But in the automobile industry, CAFE standards have no doubt produced technological breakthroughs. I was at

the Department of Transportation when the catalytic converter was

introduced, and that was a technological breakthrough. But it was

driven in part by CAFE standards. One of the interesting side effects of CAFE standards has been the creation of the automobile

industry in Japan, because the Americans, for whatever reason, did

not seem to be able to produce reliable small cars, and so more and

more people started importing cars from Japan, where they had the

technology to produce these kinds of cars. That is a separate debate.

In the Samuelson column, he talks about how Europe has

achieved what they have achieved with respect to emissions. He

says there are only three countries in Europe that have reduced

their emissions: Germany, Britain, and Luxembourg. I do not think

we need to worry about Luxembourg. Britain, because of plentiful

North Sea gas, they have shifted from coal. But in Germany, it is

a one-time experience, as they have shut down the technologicallyimpaired plants of East Germany that came in with unification,

and once that is done, they are not going to get another boost, unless there are technological breakthroughs that can say, when the

time comes to retrofit a plant, we are going to retrofit it with one

that is more efficient and cleaner. Along the lines, to stretch the

analogy, of the CAFE standards, we are going to get rid of the Cadillac and buy a Toyota, and maybe we have to buy two Toyotas to

carry everybody around, but maybe not, because you can really

only get six people in a Cadillac, and if everybody breathes at the

same time, you can get five in a Toyota.

So I am just reacting here, but the reason I am doing this is because I find in the environmental community some segments that

are anti-technology. They hate the idea of technology. Now, the

best example of that, and this is obviously pathological, was the

Unabomber, who did everything he could to attack technology as

the source of all of our problems, when, in fact, technology is the

solution to our problems, and the people who are heavy in the rhetoric, anti-technology, need to realize that we all need to get on

board in the same thing if we are going to solve this kind of problem.

Now let me give you an example, and maybe Mr. Heydlauff, you

could comment on this. I talked to the electrical generators in

Utah—obvious parochial interest. They tell me they are very bullish on wind. We have got a lot of wind in the West and they are

48

very bullish on wind, and they have been able to design the windmills in such a way that they are not particularly dangerous to

birds anymore. But there is one problem with wind, and that is

that the wind stops, and you cannot stockpile energy the way you

can stockpile Toyotas, and when the wind stops, you have got to

have some alternative.

The obvious alternative is hydro, where you have a body of water

stored, and when the wind stops, you allow that water to go

through the turbine and generate electricity until the wind starts

again, and then, in those hours of the night when nobody is using

the wind energy and you have excess capacity, you pump the water

back up. To me, this is an obvious, wonderful solution to changing,

and many in the environmental community say we are opposed to

hydro in any way, shape or form.

This is a technological solution that can help us, that is being attacked for ideological political reasons. Does anybody have a comment on technology? You have taken me on, and I accept your——

Mr. LASH. Can we disavow the Unabomber first?

Senator BENNETT. Yes, let’s all disavow the Unabomber.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We environmentalists do not want Mr.

Kaczynski to be our representative here.

Mr. HEYDLAUFF. Senator, one of the strengths of the U.S. economy, I think, is the fact that we power it with a wide diversity of

energy sources. Coal is approximately 50 percent of the electricity

base. We have got 21 percent, I think, roughly is the nuclear capacity. Natural gas is approximately 15 percent; hydro is 10 percent;

a little bit of oil and the balance is going to be these non-renewable

resources you talked about, which is less than 2 percent. I think

we need them all and I think we need to develop them all, and we

need to develop them in a way that is both economically rational,

but also protective of the environment, more so than we ever have

in the past.

We are a diversified energy company. I talked about the fact that

we burn, I think as Jonathan said, nearly 80 million tons of coal

a year, but that is only 66 percent of our generation mix; 24 percent is natural gas. We do have nuclear generation, hydro, and we

are about to commission a 150 megawatt wind plant, which we are

very proud of. It is in Texas, and we think there is a lot of wind

potential in Texas. You are absolutely right about the intermittent

nature of wind generation, and it is going to be a problem that will

keep a lot of these intermittent renewable energy resources, like

solar and wind, at the periphery of the electricity supply business

until such time as we have a dramatic breakthrough in energy

storage technology, and that has been elusive, as you know.

As a matter of fact, we would solve the urban smog problem in

Senator Lieberman’s State if we could just come up with an efficient energy storage system, so that people could drive around in

the cars and electric vehicles that do not emit anything. But we are

still going to have an urban smog problem for as far as we can see,

because we have not found that, and the automobile manufacturers

actually have cut back on a lot of that research and gone to hybrids

instead. So that is a challenge, but it is growing and it will continue to grow and capture more of the energy market.

49

Frankly, I think—and we have got experience with this—the renewable energy systems make a lot of sense in developing countries, either in those areas where they have no access to electricity

or in areas where their electricity comes from diesel generation.

We, for example, have put in solar generation, photovoltaic systems, in Bolivia, and in one case it was to provide electricity for

the first time to a community, and in the other case it is displacing

diesel generation. We are looking at that. We are looking at, actually, renewable hybrids similar to what you talked about, smallscale hydro systems, combined with solar and wind generation.

So there are a lot of solutions, I think, to the energy challenges

of the world, and certainly the country, that we need to continue

to exploit. Your suggestions are correct and you are absolutely

right, there are relatively entrenched opponents to virtually any

form of electric generation. We certainly have it with coal. You see

it with nuclear. You have it with hydro and we are well-aware of

that. It is very difficult today to site and build a new hydro plant.

As a matter of fact, I think we have pretty much developed all the

economically feasible areas anyway. It is just hard to get them relicensed today.

Senator BENNETT. They are trying to tear them down in my

State.

Mr. HEYDLAUFF. And they are trying to tear them down, I know,

out West. Even the most efficient, clean natural gas generation,

you are having a hard time siting and building in the Midwest,

some States where you would not expect it, like in Indiana, where

they have had enormous difficulty trying to site new natural gas

power plants. We have the old NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome prevalent in ways that we have never had to deal with when

we built the existing infrastructure. But that infrastructure needs

to be replaced. It is getting old and we have got to replace it.

So we have to come up with a rational energy strategy, and I

guess that is for another committee as well.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. Let the record show that I am the

only member of the Senate who drives a Honda Insight, get 55

miles to the gallon, and I bought it because I was in love with the

technology.

Senator THOMPSON. How do you get in it, is the question?

Senator BENNETT. I have had you in it, the two of us.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I have actually seen you get in and out

of it, and it is an impressive sight, and quite comfortable. [Laughter.]

I would say to my friend from Utah—I thank him for his questions—I think he is right. There is a consensus here about the need

for technology and bold new energy technologies to deal with the

problem of climate change and air pollution and the rest. I think

there is also an agreement, an important one, that, for various reasons, the private sector is not going to do it itself. So this is one

where the government has, as Senator Thompson said, some credibility and needs to do it.

But the second part of this, about the private sector, and this is

where we separate for the moment, anyway, is that I think, as Ms.

Claussen does, that we need caps, and the best reason is actually

the example you gave, of the CAFE standards, of the fuel mileage

50

standards, because what we do here does drive technology. In other

words, if we create standards, the private sector will figure out

ways often to meet them. As Ms. Claussen said, we have got to

calibrate this as best we can, because we do not want to create economic havoc, certainly, in the short run.

The other reason that I favor the binding targets and timetables

is that we had this experience in the 1990’s after the Rio framework, which set targets and timetables and made them voluntary,

and nobody did much of anything around the country and the

world, and the problem got worse. So I think that is what actually

led to Kyoto. One may disagree with the specifics of the Kyoto Protocol. I was actually in Kyoto, and it was a remarkable experience,

watching all those countries with differing points of few, differing

domestic political constituencies and energy resources, trying to

work something out.

So it is far from perfect and it is always subject to alteration, but

I think that is a point at which we differ. The good thing about the

Byrd-Stevens is it does not require us to reach consensus on those

questions. It creates these mechanisms, these offices in the Federal

Government, that will stimulate and finance more research and development, that will force us to come back at this every year and

see how we are doing and create a strategy that reaches toward

stabilization.

I come to the end of the hearing, thanking all the witnesses and

my colleagues, feeling that though there are still disagreements

about tactics here, that this bill really does provide us with some

common ground to go forward, and in doing that, I do think it is

a breakthrough.

Senator Thompson, if you want to add anything—— Senator THOMPSON. Well said, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, all. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, the 12:26 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(51)

A P P E N D I X

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

Æ