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

62–184 2010

ROADMAP FROM POZNAN TO COPENHAGEN— 

PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Serial No. 111–2 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 7 

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

Missouri, prepared statement ............................................................................. 9 

WITNESSES

PANEL I 

John Bruton, Delegation of the European Commission and Ambassador to 

the United States, briefing to Select Committee, prepared statement ............ 11 

PANEL II 

Elliot Diringer, Vice President of International Strategies at the Pew Center 

on Global Climate Change ................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Rob Bradley, Director of the International Climate Policy Initiative at the 

World Resources Institute ................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Karen Alderman Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century 

Energy ................................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Commission of the European Communities, ‘‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic 

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen,’’ January 28, 2009, 

Submitted by John Bruton .................................................................................. 73 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON ROADMAP FROM POZNAN TO 

COPENHAGEN—PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2318 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey (chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Cleaver, 

Sensenbrenner and Blackburn. 

Staff present: Joel Beauvais and Camilla Bausche. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Today the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming will have a briefing 

from the Ambassador of the European Commission to the United 

States regarding the EU’s progress toward the Copenhagen negotiations. And then we will have a hearing to learn about our country’s progress. 

Despite the chill in the air today, global temperatures remain 

high. Two thousand eight was tied for the eighth warmest year on 

record. The evidence of shrinking ice caps and increasingly violent 

storms reminds us of the danger and challenges we face due to climate change. The debate is no longer about whether humans are 

causing global warming but what we are prepared to do about it. 

Now that the United States has a President committed to action, 

Congress is poised to help resolve it. Last Congress made progress 

with the passage of the 2007 energy bill, which by raising fuel 

economy and appliance efficiency standards will reduce global 

warming pollution in the future. 

Now the task confronting us is how to construct policies that 

meet the scientific need and the political will. To accomplish this, 

we will build and improve upon the good work from the 110th Congress. During this economic crisis, we must find a way to ‘‘lay a 

new foundation for growth,’’ as President Obama said in his inaugural address. That is our challenge: to embrace the opportunity to 

create sustainable jobs and a resilient economy, to reduce our dependence on oil, and to prevent human misery. 

But the United States cannot solve the problem alone. The only 

prospect for success exists if the global community engages in a 

joint effort. This is the challenge the international community accepted in Bali in 2007. At that meeting, delegates from almost 200 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
2 

countries met to discuss international climate protection. They decided on a path of negotiations leading to a comprehensive future 

climate regime to be adopted in 2009 in Copenhagen. The Select 

Committee one year ago heard testimony about the progress made 

at the Bali meeting. 

Today we are at the halfway point on the road to Copenhagen. 

This hearing will examine what progress has been made in answering the four main questions posed by the Bali roadmap: how to fulfill the needed greenhouse gas reductions outlined by science, how 

to adapt to impacts we can no longer avoid, how to answer the 

need for technology cooperation, and how to support poor countries 

as they struggle to cope with the realities of climate change. 

It is time to take stock and to plan ahead. There are encouraging 

signs all across the globe. Mexico, South Africa, the EU and others 

have made significant domestic commitments. China’s recent fiveyear plan makes energy efficiency, renewables, and carbon reduction a priority. Carbon markets are being implemented all across 

the world. 

The next step from Bali was Poznan, Poland. In December, almost 4,000 government officials met to negotiate the next steps on 

the path to Copenhagen. Today we will examine the concrete results of the conference, the progress of the international community 

on the Bali agreement, and whether that progress is enough to 

guide us out of the climate crisis. 

There are only 305 days left until the final negotiations in Copenhagen. Three hundred five days from today, the United States 

and the world will have to reach an agreement that reduces global 

warming pollution and facilitates cooperation on adapting to unavoidable climate impacts, developing and deploying low-carbon 

technology, and financing aid to developing countries. 

The road to Copenhagen will require the determination of heads 

of state and the hard work of negotiators, policy-makers, scientists, 

and economists alike. It will not be easy, but there is no alternative 

to a global solution. We must find a way to protect the planet while 

ensuring prosperity for those on it. 

That concludes the opening statement of the Chair. We now turn 

to recognize the Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
3 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 62184A.001
4 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 62184A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Chair. 

Global warming is a universal challenge. The logic supporting 

global treaty is, therefore, obvious, but a global agreement without 

global commitments is not a solution. With the United Nations’ 

self-imposed deadline to replace the Kyoto Protocol approaching, 

we can’t allow expedience to dictate a costly and ineffective response. 

Opposition to Kyoto was bipartisan. In 1997, the Senate voted 95 

to nothing to pass the Byrd-Hagel resolution, stating that the 

United States should not be a signatory to a treaty that does not 

include binding targets for developing nations or that would result 

in serious harm to the economy. Because Kyoto failed on both 

counts, President Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate 

for ratification. 

Kyoto’s principal failure was its lack of inclusiveness. By only requiring commitments from developed countries, Kyoto does not 

place restrictions on a majority of countries, including three of the 

world’s five largest emitters: China, India, and Brazil. A treaty cannot reduce emissions without their participation. 

Even Al Gore, Al Gore, conceded that binding commitments from 

developing countries is essential. But I was the only member of the 

House to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Poznan last December. The negotiations are now headed in that direction. 

I met with delegations from both China and India, and I asked 

pointblank, ‘‘Will you agree to mandatory emissions cuts?’’ Both 

countries said no. 

The emissions in the developing world are rising so rapidly that 

reductions from developed countries will be entirely offset by countries without binding commitments. 

The Battelle Memorial Institute recently calculated that based on 

business as usual projections, developing countries will produce 

more emissions than developed countries within the next ten years. 

And there is a graphic over there that demonstrates that fact. 

A recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine quantified China’s 

growth. By 2050, China is expected to have more cars than the 

United States. China’s grand-scale urbanization plan will aggravate matters. China’s leaders plan to relocate 400 million people, 

the newly developed urban centers between 2000 and 2030. In the 

process, they will erect half of all of the buildings expected to be 

constructed in the world during that period. 

That is a troubling prospect considering the Chinese buildings 

are not energy-efficient. In fact, they are roughly two and a half 

times less so than those in Germany. 

Rather than accept mandatory limits or increase its efficiency, 

China and other developing countries hope to sell offsets to the developed world. Accepting foreign investment is hardly a sacrifice 

comparable to binding limits on emissions. But beyond the unfairness, there is no way to guarantee that the offsets will actually 

happen. 

The theory is sound. Instead of limiting emissions where they are 

the most costly, companies can make the same cuts for less money 

abroad. The problems, however, are twofold. First, the money that 

should be invested in our own economy is sent to China. And, second, many of the offsets won’t happen. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
6 

A recent project demonstration demonstrates the problem. Germany recently agreed to purchase offset credits from Chinese developers to build a new dam. The U.N. approved more than 16 million 

credits for the project. This legitimizes 16 million tons of emissions 

in Germany and generates tens of millions of dollars of revenue for 

China. The problem beyond the massive transfer of wealth is that 

developers began constructing the dam two years before applying 

for the credits. 

According to the British Times Online, one U.N. official estimated that 20 percent of the carbon credits failed to result in actual reductions. Karen Harbert, the President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, will testify that the 2007 U.N. negotiations in Bali and Indonesia produced positive steps towards a 

new treaty. 

In Bali, developing countries agreed to actions that were measurable, reportable, and verifiable. This fits with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 

that I support and that is fundamental in these negotiations. 

An agreement to handicap the handful of economies won’t change 

economic realities. Consumers will still buy goods. The manufacture of these goods will result in the same emissions. And America 

will simply outsource more emissions and more jobs. 

Every country has the right and every government has the obligation to pull its citizens from poverty and advance their way of 

life. The current global downturn historically demonstrates that 

wealth isn’t a fixed pie. It can increase and decrease in absolute 

terms and America prosperity doesn’t come at the expense of the 

world. 

The entire economic world can grow, but all that growth must be 

subject to the same limitations. We cannot self-impose costs while 

foreign markets grow freely. The result is too predictable: a longterm contraction of the U.S. economy coupled with the continued 

explosion of global markets. In the face of intense pressure to find 

a solution, we can’t adopt a costly one that won’t work. 

And I thank the Chair. 

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

recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I would like to make three points. First, I want to answer the 

question of why we are here when we have such an economic meltdown underway, why we are talking about global warming. And I 

want to suggest there are two reasons for it. 

Number one, the Arctic as it melted this summer did not pay any 

attention to the Dow Jones average. The Pacific did not pay any 

attention to the Standard and Poor’s as it became 30 percent more 

acidic in the last 50 years. 

Mother Nature does not wait for us. We have a necessity of acting now. And, secondly, anyone who looked around, the best opportunities for economic growth in this country are associated with 

beating global warming. 

We know there is a world out there that is going to want these 

technologies, and we believe and we took a first step with our economic recovery package to develop these technologies. This is an 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
7 

economic recovery mission that we are on as well as a global environmental one. 

Second point as to why we should act while China has not entered into an agreement yet with us, let me suggest that I believe 

the road ahead, the single most important thing we can do is for 

the United States to regain its moral authority to lead the world. 

We are not in a real strong position to lead right now because 

we haven’t acted. And I would suggest that we need to act domestically before Copenhagen so that we have moral authority to lead 

the world into an international agreement. 

I believe it is in our American destiny to do this. And what we 

did last week in adopting our economic recovery plan, which has 

about $88 billion of investment in these new technologies, we are 

on our way to restoring our moral authority to lead the world. 

The moral of the story is you can’t blame everything on China 

when you haven’t done anything at home. And I wish we would 

spend more time figuring out how we are going to have a domestic 

response to this and a little less time blaming all the problems of 

the world on China when we are the ones who have three to five 

times more CO2 output per capita than the Chinese. 

A third point, just real quickly, I met with the Deputy Minister 

of Environment for Czechoslovakia yesterday. He had some very interesting ideas about what we should ask the Chinas and Indias 

of the world. I believe there are many things we can obtain by 

agreement with the developing world, but we need to regain our 

moral authority first. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate what my friend, the Ranking Member, from 

Wisconsin outlined. There are real considerations we need to take 

into account to be able to do this right. But while Germany may 

be two and a half times more energy-efficient than China, the 

United States doesn’t look all that good in comparison with Germany itself, despite our advanced economy and having talked about 

this for some time. 

I do feel very strongly that Mr. Inslee’s point about this being the 

path for the new economy, for one that is sustainable and has economic opportunity, is spot on. 

I think that with the benefit of this hearing and the work, Mr. 

Chairman, you are doing with the Select Committee, we can refine 

proposals to make sure that we don’t outsource pollution and jobs. 

There is no reason we can’t refine our own trade and environmental policies to make sure that there is, for example, a carbon 

tariff to avoid that. These are things that are within our capacity. 

Now that the United States has ended an eight-year hiatus 

where it was not part of the global process, working in tandem, 

that we have a President that is committed to our international cooperation and our international leadership, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and devising legislation and ideas that are 

based on the experience around the world, good and bad, so that 

we can meet this global climate change. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
8 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Time has expired for 

opening statements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
9 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 here 62184A.003
10 

The CHAIRMAN. And we will now begin with a briefing from His 

Excellency, John Bruton, who is the Ambassador of the European 

Commission to the United States. 

As a reminder, we are not receiving testimony from a witness but 

a briefing by a foreign dignitary. The Select Committee is honored 

to hear from Ambassador Bruton. Before accepting his current position, Ambassador Bruton was the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, 

of Ireland, where he helped to transform the economy and enhance 

the peace process. 

Your Excellency, thank you very much for joining us today. 

Whenever you are comfortable, it is our honor to have you here. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruton follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
11 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 here 62184A.004
12 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 here 62184A.005
13 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 here 62184A.006
14 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here 62184A.007
15 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here 62184A.008
16 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here 62184A.009
17 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here 62184A.010
18 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here 62184A.011
19 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here 62184A.012
20 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 62184A.013
21 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 62184A.014
22 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 62184A.015
23 

[Brief recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And we have a second panel, which will also now 

please move up to the witness table, and would ask our first witness when he is ready to begin with his five minutes of opening 

testimony. And that would be Elliot Diringer, who is the Vice 

President of International Strategies for the Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change. Mr. Diringer served in the Clinton administration 

as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary. 

He now directs the Pew Center’s outreach to key governments and 

actors involved in international climate change negotiations. 

Mr. Diringer, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF ELLIOT DIRINGER, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES, PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE 

CHANGE; ROB BRADLEY, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE POLICY INITIATIVE, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE; 

AND KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY ENERGY 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT DIRINGER 

Mr. DIRINGER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

In summarizing my written testimony, I would like to emphasize 

four points: the progress made since Bali, what is needed in a post2012 climate framework, what will constitute success this year in 

Copenhagen, and how the United States can best ensure that success. 

While global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an 

alarming rate, governments have made important progress since 

the Bali conference. Ambassador Bruton has just described efforts 

under way in Europe. Other developed countries also are moving 

forward. Australia is planning a cap-and-trade system and other 

measures to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2020. Japan will 

announce its own mid-term target later this year. 

Even more encouraging is that several major developing countries have now adopted national climate strategies. China, which 

adopted a national climate program in 2007, was joined last year 

by India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. Brazil is proposing to 

reduce deforestation rates by 70 percent by 2017. Mexico has set 

an aspirational goal of reducing emissions 50 percent by 2050. And 

South Africa has pledged to stop its emissions growth by 2025, 

with absolute reductions to begin 10 years later. 

Internationally as well, we have seen progress since Bali. President Bush and other G8 leaders supported a global goal to reduce 

emissions at least 50 percent by 2050. Then the major economies, 

China, India, and other developing countries acknowledged that 

their emissions must deviate from business as usual. And in the 

U.N. climate negotiations, governments have put forward dozens of 

concrete proposals for fashioning a comprehensive post-2012 agreement. 

In anticipation of new U.S. leadership, governments resolved two 

months ago in Poznan, Poland to shift this year into full negotiating mode. After years of stalemate, conditions are finally set for 

genuine negotiation to begin. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
24 

The Pew Center believes that to be effective, a post-2012 climate 

agreement must establish verifiable commitments by all major 

economies, including economy-wide emission targets for developed 

countries and a range of policy commitments for developing countries. 

We see four major challenges between now and Copenhagen. The 

first is agreeing on a range of comparable emission targets for developed countries. President Obama has called for reducing U.S. 

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The European Union, as we have 

just heard, has set a target of 20 percent below 1990 levels. 

Measured against a 1990 baseline, these goals appear very much 

at odds. However, circumstances today are different. Measured 

against a more current baseline, these goals appear considerably 

more comparable. Both, in fact, would reduce emissions roughly 15 

percent below 2005 levels. Targets under consideration in Australia, Canada, and Japan fall in a similar range. 

The second challenge is defining developing country actions in a 

way that works for developing countries and can be accepted by the 

United States and other developed countries as a genuine commitment. 

Developing countries are not prepared at this stage to assume 

economy-wide targets. Commitments to implement nationally defined policies, such as energy-intensity goals, efficiency standards, 

or sectoral targets are a reasonable alternative provided that these 

policies are defined in clear metrics and produce verifiable emission 

reductions. 

The third major challenge is agreeing on the appropriate means 

and level of support for developing country action. Mobilizing support will be difficult under current economic conditions, but early 

progress in this area will be essential to reaching agreement in Copenhagen. 

The fourth major challenge is deciding how countries’ efforts are 

to be measured and verified. A credible verification system is key 

to establishing and maintaining parties’ confidence in their efforts 

in the overall regime. 

We cannot realistically resolve all of these issues in the next ten 

months. As such, we believe that the Copenhagen Conference 

should be considered a major success if it produces a strong interim 

agreement that puts a full, final, and ratifiable treaty within reach. 

This interim agreement should do three things. It should establish the basic architecture of a post-2012 framework. It should indicate the range of emission reductions and level of support that developed countries are prepared to commit to. And it should initiate 

a process to determine the specific actions to be undertaken by developing countries. This would settle fundamental, legal, and design issues, and create a positive dynamic for concluding the final 

agreement. 

To ensure success in Copenhagen, the United States must first 

and foremost lead at home by quickly enacting comprehensive 

mandatory legislation to reduce U.S. emissions. The United States 

must also lead abroad through a full-fledged diplomatic strategy. 

Congress can help strengthen the hand of U.S. negotiators 

through its design of domestic climate legislation. Congress could, 

for instance, authorize immediate assistance for capacity building 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
25 

in developing countries with assistance for technology development 

to be made available upon U.S. ratification and entry into force of 

a new climate agreement. 

Similarly, Congress could set aside allowance auction revenues to 

be made available on entry into force for emission reductions overseas above and beyond a U.S. domestic target. The targets set 

under domestic legislation must fundamentally guide the U.S. negotiating position, but room to bargain could provide the negotiating leverage needed to secure stronger commitments from others. 

I thank you for this opportunity and would be happy to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Elliot Diringer follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
26 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 62184A.016
27 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 62184A.017
28 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 62184A.018
29 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 62184A.019
30 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 62184A.020
31 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 62184A.021
32 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 62184A.022
33 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 62184A.023
34 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 62184A.024
35 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Diringer. 

Our second witness is Rob Bradley. He is the Director of the 

International Climate Policy Initiative at the World Resources Institute. Mr. Bradley, a trained physicist, now manages a variety of 

projects, including clean energy technologies for poverty reduction 

and adaptation strategies for climate change. 

We welcome you, Mr. Bradley. 

STATEMENT OF ROB BRADLEY 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you and good 

morning. My name is Rob Bradley. I am Director of the International Climate Policy Initiative at the World Resources Institute. 

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. 

I would like to make three points, each of which I treat in more 

detail in my written testimony, which I hope can be included in the 

record. First, success against climate change will mean both strong 

federal policy in the United States and action from major developed 

and developing economies. 

Second, the world has changed dramatically from the days of the 

Kyoto Protocol. Major developing countries are ready to take significant action on limiting emissions. 

Third, the Bali Action Plan provides a solid foundation for a new 

international agreement that meets key U.S. interests. 

The United States is an indispensable leader in the fight against 

climate change. Without the world’s largest economy and biggest 

historical emitter, other countries cannot fix the problem, but nor 

can the U.S. do it alone. Almost 80 percent of global emissions are 

produced by 15 countries, counting the EU as one country, 9 of 

which are in the developing world. 

The Kyoto Protocol, the main climate agreement to date has been 

rejected by the U.S., in particular, because of the concern that 

without meaningful participation from major developing countries, 

it would be ineffective and excessively costly to the U.S. economy. 

Developing countries have historically argued that with their 

poverty and small historical contribution to the climate problem, 

they should not be responsible for curbing emissions. But in recent 

years, there has been a flood of developing country climate plans. 

For example, Brazil announced that it would reduce its deforestation rate over 50 percent from the recent levels by 2017, avoiding 

an estimated 4.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. 

China committed to reducing national energy intensity—that is 

energy use per unit of GDP—by 20 percent by 2010 and looks on 

course to meet that goal with programs expected to cut emissions 

by 550 million tons of CO2. Investment in wind, hydro, nuclear, 

and biomass are expected to save an additional 640 million tons by 

2010. 

India has a number of states that are taking forward-aggressive 

renewable energy targets with renewable portfolio standards. 

Mexico aims to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and 

is considering employing a cap-and-trade policy akin to the one recently considered by the U.S. Congress. 

South Africa has presented a detailed and highly ambitious plan 

to peak its national emissions by 2020 and to bring them down to 

low levels in 2050 in accordance with the science. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
36 

These policies will often not be in the same form as the cap-andtrade approach favored in the U.S. and Europe, but that need not 

make them any less ambitious. They are the more impressive when 

we consider the poverty of many of these countries. 

As has already been mentioned, in India, 550 million people still 

lack any access to electricity. And they, just like Americans and 

Europeans in the last century, legitimately aspire to get it. But 

they are seeking to do so on a lower-carbon pathway. Indeed, countries such as China and India see their future as leaders in the 

clean energy revolution. 

Significant questions do remain. Many of these countries have a 

poor record of implementing national plans. Reliable data are hard 

to obtain. Standards of enforcement, governance, and transparency 

are very variable. 

It will certainly not be enough for countries to take each other’s 

plans at face value. This is where the international agreement 

comes in. It must enhance collective willingness to act by establishing accountability, to build trust that countries are taking real 

action to cut emissions, and framing those actions in the context 

of global goals. 

The Bali Action Plan provides for a radically different agreement 

from the Kyoto Protocol. Mitigation actions from both developed 

and developing countries are to be ‘‘measurable, reportable, and 

verifiable.’’ This language also applies to finance, technology, and 

capacity-building support to developing countries. 

This body can shape the success of the international process. 

Most importantly, adopting an ambitious federal climate policy will 

unleash action not only in the U.S. but also from countries that 

have been waiting on the world’s biggest economy. Second, U.S. 

policy should include provisions for financing international action 

on adaptation, forest protection, and clean technologies. 

I don’t want to imply that this will be easy. Many countries remain wary of commitments. And their rhetoric will stress these 

fears. But the world has moved on a lot in ten years. There is a 

real willingness to tackle emissions and a potential agreement that 

can turn this willingness into verifiable action. For the United 

States and for the world, the time is right to rise to this challenge. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Rob Bradley follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
37 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 62184A.025
38 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 62184A.026
39 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 62184A.027
40 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 62184A.028
41 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 62184A.029
42 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 62184A.030
43 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 62184A.031
44 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 62184A.032
45 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 62184A.033
46 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62184A.034
47 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 62184A.035
48 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 62184A.036
49 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 62184A.037
50 

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

Our final witness is Ms. Karen Alderman Harbert, who is the 

President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute 

for 21st Century Energy. Prior to her time at the Institute, Ms. 

Harbert served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy. 

We welcome you, Ms. Harbert. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, other members of the Committee for holding today’s very important hearing on climate change. 

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most complex issues 

facing the international community today. And I want to focus on 

some of the major challenges to a new agreement and where I believe the U.S. needs to play a constructive role. 

However, it is important to keep in mind the global context in 

which these negotiations are occurring has changed. The world has 

changed considerably since the UNFCCC was launched in 1992. 

Energy demand is going to increase by 50 percent between now 

and 2030. And 75 percent of that growth is going to be in the developing world. 

Next year CO2 emissions from the industrialized nations will account for 47 percent of emissions. The developing world will be 53 

percent. In 2030, that will be a very different picture. The industrialized world will be 38 percent. and the developing world will be 

62 percent. 

So to be effective, therefore, any new arrangement should take 

into account changing trends in global economic development, energy demand, and emissions. The old model of donor and recipient 

countries simply will no longer work. 

Climate change needs to be addressed as part of an integrated 

agenda that proceeds from a clear understanding that for many 

countries, energy security is a greater concern right now than climate change. Too often energy is vilified in these international discussions. Yet, in reality, affordable energy is central to addressing 

climate change because it underpins economic growth, which is 

necessary to drive technology creation and employment and definitely environmental protection. 

International strategies that recognize the reality can raise the 

level of trust between and among developed and developing nations. In addition, in these negotiations, which were going to be 

very difficult to begin with under the very best of circumstances, 

are now complicated further by the recent financial crisis. 

Looking ahead, the U.S. must be the voice of reason in these negotiations. Permeating much of these negotiations is an air of unreality that ultimately could derail an agreement. Unachievable 

emission reduction targets, the weakening of intellectual property 

protections, and unrealistic demands for financial support, for example, are now all on the negotiating table. 

We must temper our ambition with realism, which means that 

while we promote a positive, pro-growth agenda that will attract 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
51 

developed and developing nations and will improve environmental 

stewardship, we must also be willing to walk away from a bad deal. 

Further, to ensure our economy retains its competitiveness, any 

new domestic climate policy should be conditioned on an international agreement that has full international participation. The 

idea that if the U.S. goes first, China, India, and other nations will 

follow is just simply an unjustified article of faith that carries with 

it tremendous economic risk and potentially no environmental benefit. 

We have seen with the Kyoto Protocol that top-down approaches 

simply do not work. A new agreement needs to accommodate a 

wide range of national circumstances and approaches, and it should 

be very simple to implement and oversee. 

A long-term global emissions reduction goal should be realistic, 

achievable, and take into account emerging science, the pace of 

technology development and diffusion, and should not undermine 

economic growth or simply shift jobs or pollution overseas. 

To be effective, a new agreement must include the participation 

of countries like China and India. In this regard, the Bali Roadmap 

was very welcome in that we saw an indication of their willingness 

to participate in activities that were measurable, verifiable, and reportable. 

A new arrangement should include commitments by all countries 

in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities. 

However, we should not use that as a source for inaction. We believe the notion of responsibilities and capabilities ought to evolve 

as economic conditions evolve and countries evolve. And we must 

recognize that countries should graduate from developing to developed status. 

At the cornerstone of any success is technology development and 

deployment. And that will determine how quick and how costly any 

future agreement will be. 

We know that the world will use coal, will use natural gas, and 

will use oil. And we must fashion policies to accommodate their exploitation in the developing world, yet being mindful of environmental stewardship. 

We, of course, are paying close attention to China and the G77 

weaken intellectual property as part of their proposal. We have to 

resolve what place nuclear power and carbon capture storage and 

sequestration will be in any new agreement. 

We can lead by example. And we can accelerate nuclear power 

in this country. And we can invest seriously in CO2 carbon capture 

and storage. So we have opportunities to exert leadership here at 

home by making wise, smart energy policy choices. 

And through the WTO, we should eliminate tariff and non-tariff 

barriers to environmental goods and services, which will lower the 

cost of any eventual agreement. But it is important that climate 

change not be invoked as an excuse to erect tariff barriers to gain 

competitive advantage or redistribute wealth. 

And we also have to remember that financing is critical. This will 

not be cost-free, as Ambassador Bruton said. We need international 

concessionary financing. And we need to re-look at the financial instrumentation we have here at home. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
52 

So, in sum, what would a new international approach look like? 

The following eight principles. It should consider growing energy 

needs, circumstances, and resource endowments of all countries. It 

should set realistic and achievable. It should strike a good balance 

between environmental protection, energy security, and economic 

growth. It should ensure global participation. It should allow for diversified approaches. It should ensure that mitigation actions are 

all measurable, reportable, and verifiable. And it should place technology at the cornerstone while protecting intellectual property and 

the rule of law. We should keep business at the table. We should 

keep the energy sector at the table because they will be key to the 

success of any ultimate agreement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Karen Alderman Harbert follows:] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
53 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 62184A.038
54 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 62184A.039
55 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 62184A.040
56 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 62184A.041
57 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 62184A.042
58 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 62184A.043
59 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 62184A.044
60 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Harbert, very much. I will turn 

and recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I would like to ask about alternative ways to deal with the situation if countries do not enter into this new international framework. We have heard some discussion of potential—Mr. 

Blumenauer threw out the idea of some tariffs to be an adjustment. 

Let’s assume that country X does not enter into this international 

agreement, the possibilities to have some tariff associated with 

their failure to do so associated with the costs of noncompliance. 

Mike Doyle and I are working on an approach a little different 

that would essentially provide free permits to energy-intensive industries as an approach to prevent leakage overseas. It wouldn’t be 

directed to any one country. It would simply say that energy-intensive industries would receive some free permits, as opposed to having to buy them at what is supposed to be an effective auction. 

I just wonder if you would like to comment on those two different 

approaches. Mr. Diringer, would you like to speak? 

Mr. DIRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. 

Let me distinguish between two scenarios, then: one, domestic 

action in anticipation of an international agreement; and the second scenario being once we have reached an international agreement. 

I think in the first scenario, the approach you and Mr. Doyle 

have put forward seems rather workable. In our analysis of potential competitiveness impacts, they actually appear reasonably modest and can be addressed through the allocation process. 

Ambassador Bruton described how Europe has chosen to go that 

route. Australia also is using free allocation to energy-intensive industries to address this issue. And we would prefer that to the imposition of border measures, unilateral border measures, in the absence of an international agreement. 

Assuming that we are able to achieve an international agreement. It seems as if there are two options. One would be to try to 

structure into the agreement the use of some types of tariffs or border measures as a means either to enforce the agreement or as a 

tool to encourage action by parties that have not yet entered into 

the agreement. 

The other option would be not to have those as an explicit tool 

of the agreement but for countries again to choose to do that unilaterally but now with an agreement in place. 

Either of those options, assuming an agreement in place, to my 

understanding would be more effective and more legitimate under 

the WTO than choosing to go the route of unilateral trade measures in the absence of an international agreement. 

I should emphasize I am not an attorney and by no means a 

WTO expert, but my understanding again is that if parties have 

reached an international environmental agreement, then the use of 

trade measures, either as a means of enforcing that agreement or 

as a unilateral tool to guard countries against impacts, would be 

both more legitimate and more effective. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I am going to just take Mr. Diringer’s answer—it kind of covered 

several things—because I wanted to ask another question. Let me 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
61 

start with Ms. Harbert, if I can. I really appreciated your comment 

about trying to drive technology is the answer to this problem. It 

is one thing I wholeheartedly embraced. And I appreciate you 

bringing that up. 

I want to ask you about what you believe, what your organization believes should be the relative contributions of the world’s citizens to this problem. So I will invite you to play Slumdog Millionaire with me for a minute. 

Take two world citizens: one in India, one in Mumbai, one living 

on a dollar a day with no legal place to live; and then a middleclass American living in the First Congressional District, where I 

live, my constituents, myself included, about ten times more per 

capita than the Slumdog Millionaire. 

So I guess the question is, what do you think our relative expectations should be of one another in this international agreement? 

How should we quantify that? Should they be dependent on our 

gross domestic products? You know, what should we expect of each 

other? Should we have the same per capita emissions, in which 

case Indians could go up by a factor of five and ours come down 

by 50 percent? That seems not very attractive to me, but it might 

be seen as fair to the Indians. In fact, Prime Minister Singh has 

said as much. What do you think it should be? 

Ms. HARBERT. Well, first of all, the first thing I am going to do 

after this hearing is go see the movie since obviously you are enamored with it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Great. 

Ms. HARBERT. First of all, we want to presume that any agreement that anybody ever is going to be party to is going to be a success. In order for it to be a success, it has to be binding. And, therefore, there have to be responsibilities that everybody is going to 

agree to. 

There is a precursor agreement that the developing world will 

have common but differentiated responsibilities. But if there is a 

binding agreement, that means that over time those will increase. 

And so we have to be willing to sit at a table and look across the 

table at our counterparts in the developing world and have them 

agree to binding agreements. Therefore, it will not be incumbent. 

And our taxpayers and our citizens will not be the ones paying continuously over time for the compliance of the developing world. 

If we erect tariff barriers at our borders because either they have 

not signed onto an agreement or they are not in compliance with 

their agreements, that basically is just going to put on the burden 

of the American citizen that cost. And that would be unfair, whether it is in your district or anybody else’s district, that we were paying for the failure of the agreement. And it is either an enforcement or whether it was just never successfully negotiated to begin 

with. 

So we have to recognize the aspirations of the developing world. 

They have a right to develop. But they also have an obligation to 

enter into a binding, enforceable agreement that will really and 

materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions every time. If they do 

not participate, we will not succeed. So if the goal is to succeed, 

they have to be party to it. And they have to have binding, enforceable obligations. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
62 

Mr. INSLEE. So what I hear you saying, it needs to be binding, 

but it can and should be differentiated. And so the cut or the difference from the business as usual approach that the Indians may 

take may be different than the percentage we would take. You 

would accept that as a principal? 

Ms. HARBERT. Well, certainly every country is different in the 

type of natural resources it is endowed with, with the types of industries that its economy relies upon. So every country should have 

the sovereign right to decide how it is going to get to the target 

and to the binding obligations that it has agreed to because a country that has a lot of oil and gas and coal is going to go about it 

differently than a country that may be of a declining population 

that has a huge wind and solar base. 

And so we should not be trying to enter into this with a prescriptive formula. It should be flexible. There should be different sectoral approaches to this. But at the end of the day, if we allow 

countries to be exempt from any obligations, our industries, our 

jobs will go overseas, and our citizens will pay the price. And it will 

do nothing to improve the environment. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentle lady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for your patience today and for the good conservation about this because I think it is something that does concern us all and especially in this economic environment in which we find ourselves. 

Mr. Bradley, I wanted to come to you. One of the things that I 

hear from my Ag. Committee quite a bit, they are very concerned 

about livestock emissions and regulations that might be forced on 

them. I want to know what your opinion is on that. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Agricultural emissions are a significant source of 

emissions in large parts of the world. And certainly when we look 

at some of the developing countries that we have been talking 

about here today, finding reliable ways to address emissions from 

rice patties, from cattle, for instance, in places like India is going 

to be a large part of the overall solution that we need to explore 

in those countries. 

I would say that while there are a range of things that can be 

done within the agricultural community, this is probably something 

that is going to be somewhat more detailed than perhaps inclusion 

in the cap-and-trade mechanisms of the kinds that we have been 

talking about here more generally. 

Certainly I think these are areas where there is some ripe scope 

for technology cooperation. Agricultural research is actually an 

area which has quite a good traditional of international collaboration. And certainly it would be I think a very promising area to try 

and find some constructive ways in which the U.S. and developing 

countries can work together to explore solutions through emissions 

in that sector. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, I will tell you that it is something that 

does concern us because you are talking about an issue that would 

end up affecting every single U.S. farm. And the impact of that on 

our food security supply and network is something that is not lost 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
63 

on us. So any further detail that you have on that that you could 

submit in written form I would definitely appreciate having. 

Another question for you. Reading some of the economists’ 

writings on climate change and dealing with the economic situation 

that we are currently in, the jobs retention issues that are in front 

of us, a large number of them have stated that spending billions 

of dollars on climate change right now is unnecessary. And they 

say the money probably would be better spend going toward 

projects such as clean water and sanitation, that that would be a 

more effective route in developing countries than putting the focus 

on climate change. And I would like to hear you address that. 

Mr. BRADLEY. So, just to make sure I understand your question, 

it would be more effective in that view to spend money on water 

systems in developing countries than on cutting emissions—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Clean water and sanitation, correct, instead of 

addressing the emissions and climate change issue. 

Mr. BRADLEY. There are two ways in which this interacts with 

climate change. One is—and this is something you alluded to with 

the agricultural question as well—it is not going to be possible to 

build effective water and sanitation and similar infrastructure in 

developing countries unless, first of all, we take into account the 

climate impacts that they will already be facing because those 

water systems will have to exist and provide their service within 

those stressed environments. 

And, secondly, simultaneously we do need to ensure that climate 

change doesn’t race ahead and perhaps outstrip some of the values 

that those systems are going to bring. 

If you are asking, though, does it make sense for a country like 

India to be spending more of its effort proportionately on providing 

those kinds of services than on cutting emissions at this stage in 

its development, then yes, I would agree. 

I think that this is an issue we have sort of patched back to a 

number of times in this hearing. And it is important to understand 

how heterogeneous these countries are. There is a so-called Germany within India. 

You have 70–80 million people in India who live what would be 

largely viewed as a Western lifestyle, you know, drive Mercedes, 

have air-conditioned apartments, and so forth. Simply because they 

happen to be lodged in the middle of a very poor country should 

not exempt those kinds of communities for taking action. 

And this is why some of the discussions we have been having 

around developing countries emphasizes taking specific actions, 

rather than necessarily starting from a national emissions limit because within that national emissions limit, you potentially end up 

dragging down the Slumdog Millionaires, whom we desperately 

need to help get out of poverty, provide water to, provide energy 

to, and so on. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Yield back. 

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

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Diringer, and Mr. 

Bradley. 

Mr. Diringer, in your testimony, you suggest that the U.S. move 

swiftly to cap and reduce emissions, which I agree with, incidenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:20 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 062184 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A184.XXX A184

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
64 

tally. In fact, I had hoped that it would have been something that 

we moved early in this Congress. But with the hemorrhaging economy, my fear is that that will take such a precedent that some of 

the issues that some of us, at least on this side, are extremely concerned about are going to be delayed. 

We already I think have somewhat of a damaged image in this 

area internationally. That is where Mr. Bradley comes in as well. 

Does a delay in moving in this area of cap and then reducing emissions further damage our international credibility as it relates to 

climate change are the effort by the world community to begin to 

address this serious problem? 

And, secondly, if I can ask both questions? And then I will just 

let the two of you speak. Having family in Tanzania, Tanzania as 

they call the country—we changed it over here—where they have 

a $1,500 a year annual income—and I have seen the devastation 

there of the environment—they are really suffering there. Even in 

the shallows of Kilimanjaro, they have serious water problems. 

The only way we are going to address the developing countries 

is if the First World countries understand that issue and then 

spend whatever is necessary. Deforestation, I mean, probably they 

have knocked over an acre since this Committee has been in session today. 

So I would like to get you to discuss without rambling as I did 

the two issues that I raised. 

Mr. DIRINGER. Let me try to address the first. And perhaps Rob 

will want to pick up on the second. Absolutely further delay in domestic action by the United States will delay and I think actually 

would preclude the possibility of an effective global agreement in 

action to date by the United States, which is not only the largest 

economy in the world but also the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, has been the single greatest impediment to progress 

in developing an effective global agreement. I think that we have 

been in a very prolonged period of stalemate and then 

prenegotiation with countries waiting to see what the U.S. is prepared to do. 

You know, we did see some progress over the past year. We saw 

some progress in the major economies dialogue that President Bush 

initiated. There was initially some great skepticism from other 

countries, but I think other countries came to recognize the value 

in that type of dialogue. But I think the reason it didn’t produce 

any more is because President Bush didn’t put anything on the 

table in terms of U.S. action. 

There are great expectations right now about the new administration and what it will be prepared to do, both in terms of moving 

forward with domestic action and bringing something into the negotiations. So I think that, frankly, domestic action in the U.S. is 

essential. It may not be sufficient, but it is the first essential step 

towards moving forward internationally. 

If I could, you mentioned, you know, concern about the current 

economic situation perhaps delaying action. I just want to note that 

the Pew Center along with the World Resources Institute are both 

members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Coalition of major 

companies and nongovernment organizations calling for mandatory 

action and enactment of cap-and-trade legislation this year. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
65 

One of the points made by the CEOs of the companies is that 

there is a cost to regulatory uncertainty. For them, this is actually 

a very strong economic rationale to move as quickly as possible to 

enact the kind of legislation we need. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. BRADLEY. As briefly as I can, absolutely without the United 

States taking a leadership position on domestic policy, I see very 

little prospect for an international agreement. 

And it is striking we focus a lot in these conversations on the 

sort of differences with China, but in many ways, the conversations 

that we hear when we go to China are extremely similar to the 

ones being held here in Washington around climate change. 

They completely get how bad the climate change is. They really 

worry about the impacts that they face. But they say, ‘‘Listen. We 

are trying to do some things right now, but without the world’s biggest economy moving on this, how can we move much faster than 

we are now?’’ They have been extremely explicit. 

I would depart a little bit from Mrs. Harbert’s framing of it. The 

idea that China and India will to a certain extent wait on U.S. 

leadership before following suit I don’t think is an article of faith. 

I think it is something they have repeatedly and publicly stated 

and that, at the very least, is worth trying to take them at their 

word for one part of that conversation. 

Certainly the issue of countries like Tanzania and the kinds of 

impacts that they face from climate change is one of the things 

that should galvanize us all. I was on Mount Kilimanjaro a couple 

of years ago. And you see the pictures from the ’50s and ’60s with 

this kind of shaggy mane of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro. And it is 

now thinner than my hair. It is something which really underlines 

the incredible difficulties that many of these countries are going to 

face. 

One of the things that I think was very praiseworthy in many 

of the discussions around the climate bills last year was a fairly 

consistent intent on the part of Congress to provide finance for 

international adaptation. 

It was interesting to see the religious community, in particular, 

fall full square behind that. I think that is an important recognition of the moral case that there is there to provide that kind of 

assistance to the countries that are going to be most effective. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let’s go back to this issue of a Germany inside of India. What 

country would be inside of China given their economic development 

right now? Even larger than a couple of Germanies inside of China. 

So, Ms. Harbert, what do you think about the prospects of us 

reaching an agreement with the well-to-do in Shanghai, the wellto-do in Bangalore, the interests that they represent? At least in 

sectoral agreements on steel and cement, we are there modernizing. We are there building these new plants. 

There is a good reason to believe, do you not believe, that we 

could, in fact, reach differentiated agreements with these countries 

so that wherever they are modernizing, wherever they are building, 

wherever their wealth is great, they are bound by the same rules? 

But we can take into account the Slumdog aspect of it in the movie 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
66 

that you haven’t seen, but you can only assume that it is that dollar-a-day resident of both of those countries. 

Ms. HARBERT. Well, there are ongoing efforts right now that are 

succeeding on a sector-by-sector basis: the Asia Pacific partnership. 

You have the aluminum industry working amongst 12 or 13 countries to find ways to produce aluminum in a much more energy-efficient manner, the same in the area of cement and steel, et cetera. 

And that is because we are using technology and reality and economics as the base for making decisions on how to modernize these 

systems. 

One of the most important things we could do is reduce the tariff 

barriers on clean energy goods and services. And we have not been 

successful in the Doha round. We may need to look at different 

ways of doing this. 

Why are we making clean energy more expensive in the developing world? That is needless, and we could reduce that. Those 

would be American jobs and American exports. 

If you listen to the Chinese—and I spent a lot of time in China, 

as have you—the Chinese have said, yes, we’re willing to sit at the 

table. It’s going to be very costly. 

Our priority is economic growth, bringing our people out of poverty so that we don’t have these pockets of Germany, that everybody has a much better baseline and we should afford them the 

right to have their people have a better way of life. 

But they said, ‘‘It is going to cost money. And we don’t have it. 

And, therefore, we expect to be paid.’’ In fact, they have said they 

want .7 percent of the industrialized world’s GDP on an annual 

basis to be able to sit at the climate negotiating table and agree 

to something. Well, that would mean $80 billion every year from the American 

taxpayer to fund China’s compliance with an international agreement. That is a heck of a lot of money. And that is just the U.S. 

obligation. 

So we have to be very careful in how we approach bringing them 

in and that it ultimately doesn’t fall just purely on an economic 

basis on the people inside the United States that for a long time 

have been more prosperous. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Diringer, do you agree with Ms. Harbert? Is 

that a good formula for us to use? 

Mr. DIRINGER. Well, first, on the question of sectoral agreements, 

we think that is certainly something worth exploring. I don’t know 

about the practicality of trying to negotiate something with a national government with respect to action in specific geographic 

areas, but in terms of action within certain economic sectors, that 

is certainly something we should be discussing. And, in fact, if we 

were able to reach agreements around specific sectors, particularly 

the energy-intensive sectors, that would be one very effective way 

to address the competitiveness concerns that we have. 

I mean, as far as the formula, the quid pro quo, if you will, that 

needs to be reached in order to move forward internationally, I 

think we need to be very clear. We need to see commitments. We 

need to see reasonable commitments. We also need to be prepared 

to provide some support to those countries that need it to achieve 

those commitments. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
67 

In the case of China, when you have conversations, I mean, the 

impression I get is that they understand that: (a) they have lots of 

money and that is not really the thing they need from us; and that 

lots of money is probably not forthcoming from the United States 

toward China. What they do need is some assistance on the technology front. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what do you recommend? You know, Ms. 

Harbert said the same thing. So how do we handle this issue of 

technology—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. I think—— 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And its transfer? What would you 

have built into the agreement, first, you, Mr. Diringer? Then we 

will go back to you, Ms. Harbert. What are the specifics that you 

would like to see included? 

Mr. DIRINGER. Well, I think an immediate priority for this administration is to initiate a high-level dialogue with China to have 

an honest conversation about what they are prepared to do and 

what they need to do that. 

I think in terms of the types of measures that we build into an 

agreement, we need specific commitments from them and we need 

to help establish financial mechanisms that provide support, although that will be differentiated support and you need to evaluate 

on a case-by-case basis based on the types of actions countries are 

prepared to do, the types of assistance that would be available to 

them given their national circumstances. 

And for a country like China that has considerable financial resources available to it, then that may not be the most appropriate 

form of support to provide—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are not that sympathetic to China in 

terms of our need to provide them with technology transfer in order 

to deal with their issues? You think that they have sufficient technological capacity and resources to do it the—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. Well, I think they have sufficient financial capacity, but I do think that there may be areas where we can assist 

them in terms of technological capacity provided—I mean, we need 

to have not as conversations—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Just so that I can understand what you are saying—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. They need—— 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. So what do you recommend specifically that we do in those areas that you think—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. Coming to clear terms about the sharing of technology in a way that allows them access to the state-of-the-art 

clean technologies that will enable them to reduce their emissions 

while at the same time protecting and preserving—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But what are those—— 

Mr. DIRINGER [continuing]. Intellectual property of U.S. companies. 

The CHAIRMAN. But what are those clear agreements? How do we 

make it—— 

Mr. DIRINGER. There are many companies that operate day to 

day right now in China, U.S. companies, that have technology-sharing agreements and are able to do business in China in ways that 

they don’t feel is undermining their intellectual property. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
68 

So I think those are the types of agreements that we need to 

work out with respect to the clean energy technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Harbert. 

Ms. HARBERT. I think there are three things. First of all, the 

United States has already put on the table the International Clean 

Energy Fund. They were joined by the U.K. and Japan for a facility 

housed at the World Bank that would provide concessionary financing to the developing world for clean energy projects. 

That would do a lot for us in this economy and generate jobs 

here at home, and it would do a lot to have commercially viable 

projects built on the back of the private sector, rather than on governments around the world that would distribute clean energy. We 

should fund that effort. 

Secondly, we should be serious about reducing tariffs on clean 

energy goods and services around the world that reduces the cost 

of clean energy. And if the priority is economic growth in Bangalore 

and Shanghai, that will reduce the cost of providing that. 

And we have to recognize that the technologies are not owned by 

governments. The United States government can’t just go over to 

the Chinese government and give it away. They don’t own it. GE 

does. Dow does. Dupont does. And they are not going to give it 

away. That is not the way that our system works. 

And so we need to have very strong intellectual property protections in place so that we can cooperate with China, but we’re not. 

We should disabuse ourselves. And we should stop using the words 

‘‘tech transfer’’ in the negotiations. 

The Chinese, the Indians, and the others are expecting to receive 

a big bundle of technology one day. And it’s not forthcoming that 

way. It just doesn’t work. And so we have to find a way to make 

it work and for that technology commerce to be technology transfer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bradley, let’s go to Mexico for a second. They 

are talking about a cap-and-trade system. That would come as kind 

of a shock to most people, I think. Mexico has decided to take a 

leadership role. 

How realistic is it for us to expect that Mexico would adopt a 

meaningful cap-and-trade system that could be looked to with some 

confidence as something which is binding, enforceable, confidencebuilding? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. I will certainly address that question. 

I wonder if I could ask your indulgence just to make one comment 

on the China and technology question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please do so. 

Mr. BRADLEY. The Chinese government strong-armed Huaneng 

Power, which is China’s largest power utility, into setting aside 

capital to put into the FutureGen project. In other words, the Chinese were proposing to pay money towards the construction of a 

power project in Illinois. 

The project was canceled by the Administration. And the Chinese 

found out about it in the Washington Post. They have repeatedly 

emphasized that in many contexts. And it is true that in the negotiations, they do have some very, I would say, unrealistic sort of 

starting negotiation positions about financial transfers. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
69 

In many cases, they are seeking to jointly and equally co-fund research and development and to share the intellectual property that 

arises from it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is a good model, Ms. Harbert? 

Ms. HARBERT. To share the intellectual property? 

The CHAIRMAN. Jointly fund and develop. 

Ms. HARBERT. To the extent that the intellectual property that 

is generated there can be common and differentiated benefits, sure. 

Mr. BRADLEY. On the question of Mexico, I don’t want to imply 

a cap-and-trade bill. My colleagues have been working in Mexico 

now for seven or eight years helping build up the databases and 

inventories necessary for some key sectors to monitor and verify 

their emissions effectively. 

The climate change strategy that the Mexican government came 

up with last year has talked about setting targets for specific sectors. It probably would not be economy-wide in the first instance. 

Mind you, neither is the EU’s emissions-trading system economywide. The kinds of sectors that we are talking about are similar to 

those in the EU sector, heavy manufacturing and the power sector. 

The dynamic by which that will be put in place may be a little 

bit different than in the United States. So, for instance, in many 

instances, the companies involved actually stayed home, most particularly, for instance, the refining sector and some of the power 

generation. 

So I would say that Mexico is not on the brink of a cap-and-trade 

bill, as we would recognize it here, but I would say that there is 

a very realistic prospect that significant sectors will have a capand-trade-type policy applied to them in the kind of time scale 

which we will be bringing in the timed agreement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

There is a national teach-in today on global warming that is taking place on hundreds of campuses, in college and high school 

alike, all across the country. In my district, Brandeis University 

has asked me to participate. But, rather than me teaching them, 

I thought it would be important to let Congress hear from the students. So today at this hearing, I am going to put Brandeis University in the chairman’s seat and ask a question sent to me by Matthew Schmidt, who is a sophomore, who heads the Students for Environmental Action at Brandeis. 

Here is the question. After World War II, the United States 

played a crucial role in the rebuilding of Europe. Has the time 

come for the United States to consider a similar role in spreading 

clean energy technologies throughout the world? 

Mr. Diringer. 

Mr. DIRINGER. I would say absolutely, but the United States will 

not be in a position to do that on its own, obviously. It will need 

to work in partnership with other developed countries and potentially with other developing countries, who increasingly have the financial and technological wherewithal to assist in the diffusion of 

technology worldwide. 

I think it is also interesting to reference the institutions that 

emerged in the post-World War II environment. We are now approaching a point where it is time to reconsider the mission of 

those institutions. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
70 

And I think that in moving forward on technology to address climate change, it is worth considering reinvention of the Bretton 

Woods institutions and making this one of their missions going forward so that we can move beyond the traditional donor-recipient 

model, as Ms. Harbert put it, to a new model in which countries 

work in partnership to advance the types of technologies we need. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. BRADLEY. I think a sort of reservation on that model is that, 

as Ms. Harbert has been saying, it is not as though the U.S. sort 

of owns all of these technologies and it is a question of transferring 

them overseas. 

I do think that some of our international partners don’t completely understand that. And certainly I think some commentators 

and certainly some climate negotiators imagine that we have a lot 

of great technologies in a basement somewhere that we are deliberately not sharing. This is more of a collaborative effort. 

I do think that the model that is going to work and the model 

that ultimately will invalidate some of the longer projections that 

we see in models, the thing that isn’t captured in models is that 

we must get to a point where some of the technologies that are 

going to let us have zero carbon energy really break through to the 

point of competitiveness. 

The one thing that can do more than anything else in the world 

to drive that is by setting a carbon regime in the United States 

which will allow the world’s biggest, most technologically advanced, 

and most innovative economy to start really pushing those technologies forward. That will be America’s biggest gift to the world. 

Those technologies that ultimately will drive that revolution will 

come from all kinds of places, but they will come from America 

more than from any other single place. 

So does America play a role in a way that looks exactly like the 

Marshall Fund? Not quite. But does America play that incredibly 

important core role in driving an energy technology revolution? I 

certainly hope so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Harbert. 

Ms. HARBERT. I guess I would make three comments to the wonderful question posted by the student. First, you know, we are investing less in clean energy R&D in this country than we did since 

the 1970s. 

So we have not put our money where our mouth is. And we need 

to be serious about not just the R&D but, as you said, in the deployment and providing the incentives out there to actually have 

these technologies penetrate the marketplace, which will generate 

exports and generate innovation revolution of clean energy. 

To do that, we need sufficient loan guarantees in this country. 

We need a clean energy bank. We need production tax credits that 

will incentivize. There are a lot of financial instrumentation that 

is very valuable that could be put in place absent having an overarching mandate. 

Secondly, he brought up World War II. Our infrastructure in this 

country was built right after World War II. And we really haven’t 

done anything to modernize it since. 

And if we are going to have a growing economy and fuel an economic recovery, we have got to get serious about infrastructure in 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
71 

this country. Otherwise we are going to have brownouts that certainly would not do anything for our economic recovery. And we 

can demonstrate huge leaps of technology in our electricity grid 

since it has not really been modernized since World War II. 

And that will certainly help with the 1.6 billion people that don’t 

have electricity around the world to have it in the advanced technology state. 

Last, but not least, and maybe the most important is this question from a student at a university. And we are not graduating 

enough scientists, enough engineers, enough math students to actually have the intellectual feedstock we need for the innovative 

transformation that we need. 

We need more engineers. We need more scientists. We need more 

academic institutions that have teachers that are capable of doing 

it. It starts in pre-kindergarten all the way through Ph.D. So we 

have got to get serious about the intellectual foundation of what we 

are talking about here because we don’t have the people that we 

need for all of these goals that we are talking about. 

So we talk about importing oil all the time. We are going to be 

talking about importing all of our intellectual feedstock to feud this 

revolution. And that really won’t sit well here at home. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Harbert, very much. And we 

thank the Brandeis student for his question. 

You know, President Kennedy in his inaugural obviously uttered 

that famous statement, ‘‘Ask not what your country can do for you, 

but what you can do for your country.’’ 

He also then followed it by talking to the world and saying to the 

citizens of the world, ‘‘Ask not what the United States can do for 

you but what we can do together working for the goal of freedom 

and progress in the world-at-large.’’ 

I think here we have many countries that will be able to contribute. Germany is the leader in photovoltaic solar technology, and 

Denmark the leader in wind. And obviously there are many parts 

of the world that can play leadership roles with the United States, 

of course, as the largest industrialized county, hopefully playing 

the largest role of them all. 

In the stimulus package that is now under consideration between 

the House and Senate, there is a large, large infusion of funding 

for education. We agree with that insight that you made, Ms. 

Harbert, that we have fallen behind. We have to make the investment in education because without that in the long run, we cannot 

be leaders. 

To a very large extent, our leadership now is based upon the 

huge investment, which we made a generation ago. That is why we 

win the Nobel Prizes now. That is why we are the leaders. But we 

can’t know 30 years from now whether or not we are going to be 

the winners over India and China and Germany and other countries until we first determine how much we want to invest once 

again in our technologies and our young people to make sure that 

they are competitive. That is still an unknown result because we 

have yet to make those decisions. 

However, a renewable electricity standard would give an incentive for the development of new technologies, the tax breaks, the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
72 

incentive for the development of a new modern technology-driven, 

telecommunications-driven grid is also a part of the solution. 

We have to get to the business of developing those new technologies. And then the United States will be the leader amongst 

other countries, as well, in solving this problem. 

Does the gentleman from Missouri have any other comments? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. This has been a fabulous introduction where we 

now stand in the world on these issues. It is going to be a very, 

very fast-paced race for 305 days to Copenhagen. And we intend to 

ensure that this Congress and the American people are informed 

of all of the choices which we have to make this year if the United 

States is to be the leader when that meeting is convened. 

Thank you all so much for your testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
73 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 62184A.045
74 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 62184A.046
75 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 62184A.047
76 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 62184A.048
77 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 62184A.049
78 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 62184A.050
79 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 62184A.051
80 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 62184A.052
81 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 62184A.053
82 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 62184A.054
83 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 62184A.055
84 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 62184A.056
85 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125/200 here 62184A.057