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

62–452 2010

ROADMAP TO COPENHAGEN: DRIVING TOWARD 

SUCCESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 

Serial No. 111–9 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD 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 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD 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. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Shelley Capito, a Representative in Congress from the State of West 

Virginia, opening statement ................................................................................ 7 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 8 

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

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, U.S. Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 31 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ROADMAP TO COPENHAGEN: DRIVING 

TOWARD SUCCESS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:39 a.m. in Room 2175, 

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

of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Cleave, 

Sensenbrenner, Blackburn, and Capito. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh Cohen and Camilla Bausch. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming. For those of you who have 

spent any time in the water this summer, you may have noticed 

that it was warmer than usual. On the east coast, typically chilly 

Maine beaches felt more like those usually found in Maryland, 

which were in turn feeling more like Florida. Worldwide ocean temperatures in July were the hottest recorded in the last 130 years. 

While this might benefit your beach weekend now, it is the latest 

reminder of the serious consequences of global warming. As the 

oceans warm and become more acidic due to increasing absorption 

of carbon dioxide, coral reefs and other critical components of the 

ocean ecosystem are put at risk, threatening food supplies for a significant portion of the world. 

Global warming is a global problem, in need of a global solution. 

The next opportunity to find that global solution is coming quickly. 

In December, the nations of the world will gather in Copenhagen, 

intent on finalizing an international climate agreement that will 

protect people and the planet and unleash a clean energy revolution. 

Todd Stern, the United States Special Envoy for Climate Change, 

is with us today to report on the progress made thus far and the 

challenges that remain to reaching an agreement in Copenhagen. 

Since the start of the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming, I have maintained that the most effective 

way of advancing the negotiations of the next international climate 

change agreement would be for the United States to show leadership by committing to mandatory domestic reductions of heat-trapping pollution. 

In June the House of Representatives took the first step by passing the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act. 

To the rest of the world, House passage of this bill signaled AmerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:28 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 062452 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A452.XXX A452

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

ica’s growing commitment to preventing climate change and building a global clean energy economy. It helped leaders at the G8 and 

the Major Economies Forum held in Italy this July reach agreement on important points, including the need for emissions to peak 

as soon as possible, commitments to prepare low carbon growth 

plans, and a pledge by developing countries to take actions that 

would meaningfully reduce their emissions from their current trajectories. 

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues so that we 

can send the strongest possible signal from the United States Congress to the negotiations in Copenhagen. 

Sending clean energy legislation that reduces global warming 

pollution to President Obama is not just important for international diplomacy, it is critical to our national interest. The great 

race of the 21st century will be to provide affordable clean energy 

to the world. Whether countries are trying to revitalize flagging 

economies or pull their people out of poverty, they are turning to 

clean energy technology. In a race that the United States once had 

a clear lead, we are now falling behind. The Europeans, Japanese, 

and increasingly the Chinese are using their domestic policies to 

drive the development of clean energy industries and stake their 

claims to the burgeoning global clean energy economy. If we want 

to be globally competitive, we must do the same. 

The United States’ effort to reverse the trend began with the 

2007 energy bill’s increase in fuel economy standards and commitment to renewable fuels. It accelerated with the $80 billion investment in clean energy infrastructure and technology in this year’s 

Recovery Act. It will culminate with a comprehensive clean energy 

law like the Waxman-Markey legislation that passed the House 

this summer. 

The world is watching the United States. We should be responding to that concern the world has. It is time to reclaim our technical leadership on clean energy, our economic leadership in the 

next great global jobs race and our moral leadership to protect the 

planet. I am confident that this is the foundation upon which a 

new global climate agreement, one that includes all countries doing 

their fair share, will be built. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 62452A.001
4 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 62452A.002
5 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to turn and recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I certainly thank the Chairman from 

Massachusetts for recognizing me. What I would like to tell him is 

that in the Upper Midwest we had a very cool and dry summer. 

I live on a lake during the summer, and had you come and visited 

me I could have posted a picture of the screen of you jumping in 

my lake and turning blue. So I appreciate the world view that the 

gentleman from Massachusetts has got; but, remember, the Upper 

Midwest of the United States of America is part of the world as 

well. 

I would like to join Chairman Markey in welcoming Todd Stern, 

the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, to this hearing. We 

have 87 calendar days and 16 official negotiating days before the 

Copenhagen conference on December 7th, when delegates hope to 

replace the flawed Kyoto Protocol. And where are we on the road 

to Copenhagen? Are we working towards success or are we working, as I fear, toward a repeat of the Kyoto experience? 

After 26 days of negotiations at three meetings this year in Bonn 

we are, in my opinion, a long ways from success. There are two 

parallel negotiations underway, one under the convention where 

the U.S. participates and the other under the Kyoto Protocol where 

the U.S. is an observer. 

The upcoming 2-week negotiating session in Bangkok will start 

with well over 400 pages of text to consider. This compares with 

a little over 100 pages of text at a similar time in the 1997 Kyoto 

negotiations. In addition to having to wade through lengthy and 

complex negotiating text, there are irreconcilable differences in the 

positions of developed and developing countries on a number of 

thorny issues, particularly on funding, technology, and midterm 

mitigation targets. Developing countries are demanding that developed countries contribute up to 1 percent of their gross domestic 

product in developing countries for climate change over and above 

existing foreign aid. This would be an additional tab of more than 

$140 billion a year for the U.S. alone. This is an unacceptable price 

tag for the beleaguered American taxpayer and will increase an already out-of-control Federal budget deficit. Many developing countries have said they will not sign any agreement that does not include massive transfers of wealth. These same countries refuse to 

consider any binding commitments to reduce emissions. 

The developing countries are also leading efforts to weaken or 

even destroy intellectual property rights by seeking to gain free access to American and other developed countries’ IPR for clean energy technologies. Their proposals include preventing patenting in 

developing countries, requiring compulsory licensing, and ensuring 

access to new technologies on a non-exclusive royalty-free term, all 

of which ignore the fact that new technologies will only be developed if there are incentives to create them. 

Developing countries have also demanded that developed countries reduce their emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Cuts of such magnitude could only be achieved by 

wrecking developed countries’ economies and, indeed, the global 

economy. In the meantime, most developing countries say they are 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
6 

unwilling to undertake any emissions reduction efforts in the absence of developed-country funding or free technology. 

Finally, it appears that a majority of developed countries, including the United States, have agreed that developing countries 

should not have to take on legally binding emissions reductions 

commitments for the foreseeable future. Business-as-usual projections, so that even if developed countries reduce their emission to 

zero, global emissions will be higher in 2050 than they are today 

because of increases in the developing world. 

As today’s witness told the Center for American Progress in 

June, quote, According to recent modeling, even if every other 

country in the world besides China reduced its emissions by 80 percent between now and 2050—a thoroughly unrealistic assumption 

by the way—China’s emissions would alone be so large to put us 

on a track of global concentrations far above what scientists consider to be safe, unquote—from Mr. Stern. 

In light of this will the Senate ratify an agreement that lets 

China, India, Brazil and other major developing economies off the 

hook indefinitely? I have my doubts. 

So what does all of this portend? My more than 12 years’ experience with international climate change negotiations tells me we are 

heading towards a repeat of Kyoto; namely, an environmentally ineffective agreement that cannot be ratified by the United States 

Senate. 

With so many controversial issues left unresolved, Mr. Stern and 

his negotiating team have 87 days of hard work ahead. I hope today’s hearing helps provide a roadmap for a successful treaty that 

the American public and thus their elected Members of the Senate 

can support. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We now turn 

and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing your 

weather dialogue here, we just finished experiencing the longest 

period in our community’s history—Portland, Oregon known for 

rain—without rain this summer, entirely consistent with what the 

experts would tell us in terms of changes in global climate patterns. 

I am very pleased that you have structured this hearing today. 

I hear my good friend from Wisconsin articulate the concerns about 

nations’ stated negotiating positions. After other work over the 

course of the last year, I am struck by the growing consensus about 

the shared interests that we all share. The opportunities to blend 

the range of interest to be able to make sure that every country— 

not so much their stated negotiating positions, but what is in their 

long-term interests—what we can do to fashion an agreement I 

think is more possible than I would have expected. 

It is clear that the Americans can no longer continue to waste 

more energy than anybody in the world, regardless of our concerns 

about climate change and the negotiations. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Stern about how these pieces are coming together, 

what he views as the opportunities for these aligned interests. And 

last, but by no means least, any observations that he may have 

about what we in Congress, and this committee in particular, can 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
7 

do between now and December to help move this along in Congress 

and any assistance we may give in Copenhagen. Thank you very 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. 

Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I too welcome Mr. Stern. Just to make 

you familiar with me and the State that I represent, I represent 

West Virginia, which has a great stake in the decisions that you 

are making on the international stage. It is always difficult in our 

State, and has been historically, to balance the economic and environmental consideration. So I would ask you to—and I am certain 

that you will—take that into consideration, a State such as mine, 

and they are more heavily impacted than others in this country to 

the decisions that are going to be made on behalf of the United 

States in the international community and look just not at the environmental but the potential economic impact that these decisions 

will make. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, continuing our reports of this summer, let me 

give you mine during my 3-day summer vacation at Lake Quinalt, 

Washington. From the Olympic peninsula, part of the Olympic National Park on the south side of Lake Quinalt, there are these incredibly huge trees, the tallest Sitka spruce in the world. But on 

the western ridge of every ridge that is exposed to the winds coming in from the Pacific Ocean, they look like they have been clearcut because there was an enormous windstorm that knocked down 

thousand-year-old trees and huge—10, 20, 30 acre patches on the 

western ridge. These trees have been around a thousand years, but 

now something is changing to knock them over. 

To me it was a pretty powerful statement about what happens 

when the climate changes to have to be climbing over these huge 

trees that have been knocked down. I do not know if that windstorm was specifically caused by climate change, but it was consistent with what the pattern suggests is going to become more frequent and we are seeing more frequently in the Pacific Northwest. 

Two notes of optimism: This summer, technology has been advancing, which ought to give us more optimism. Ultimately, we 

have to have technology to solve this. Last week First Solar, an 

American company, just signed a contract to build the biggest solar 

electrical generating plant in China using American technology. 

This is a model for the future. We will start building lithium-ion 

batteries in this country and electric cars in this country. Technology should be giving us optimism in Copenhagen. 

Second, there should be optimism in the U.S. Senate. We talked 

to 14 sort of moderate Democrats a few weeks ago. Something happened that has never happened in the history of the U.S. Congress. 

Members of the Senate listened to Members of the U.S. House and 

actually took notes. I was stunned. This has never happened. This 

is a wonderful opportunity for America to lead the world, both in 

Washington, DC, and Copenhagen. And, Mr. Stern, we wish you 

well. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
8 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now turns and recognizes the 

gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stern, welcome. We are delighted that you are here. I will 

have to say that while I did not have a vacation, I had a 

‘‘workation’’ in my district. But in Tennessee where I am from, as 

I was holding town halls, we found the weather was much cooler 

than average. One of my town halls that had five times as many 

people as expected, we were too large for the building and found 

ourselves out on the parking lot the first week of August, during 

the evening. And we were perfectly comfortable. It was 103, it was 

more like 83 degrees. So that came a little bit as a pleasant surprise for us. 

And when it was August 30th and I was slipping a sweater on 

my 15-month grandson to go out in the evening, I thought, my 

goodness, this is the coolest summer that we have had in 113 

years. 

We welcome you and we are looking forward to hearing what you 

have to say. I will have to tell you while some of my colleagues 

favor a global treaty, I do not favor a global climate change treaty. 

It is an effort that I am not able to support. As I have studied the 

issue and realizing many Third World nations are beginning to say 

look, we need to be working on a standard of living, their people 

and their leaders are trying to figure out how to deal with immediate life-and-death issues every single day. They are worried about 

food and health and sustainable economic development and want 

to place those issues first and foremost before looking at climate 

issues that would have an effect on them 50 or 100 years down the 

road. I think that we need to be mindful of that. 

Another item, technology. Mr. Inslee mentioned technology. 

Much of the innovation in technology that has taken place has 

taken place here in this country. Intellectual property protections 

for those innovators are going to be an imperative. But looking forward to the discussion today, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

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

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we move towards 

Copenhagen, I personally am experiencing great delight because I 

think that with the United States fully participating and with the 

United States for the first time putting forth an effort to deal with 

one of the most difficult issues facing our generation—climate 

change—the rest of the world I think will take note, pay attention 

and even begin to participate. 

I think that when you look at what is going on around the world, 

not ignoring even here in the United States, there is something 

that I think should send chills through most observant people who 

are not ideologically opposed to dealing with this crisis. So I am excited about the fact that this administration will be fully participating. I am excited about the fact that this committee lead by you, 

Mr. Chairman, has provided information to Congress, and I think 

we are on the road to the beginning of the healing of this planet. 

And so I appreciate your leadership and hope that you will go to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
9 

Copenhagen and that I will be with you. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. We will go to Copenhagen together. 

Now, I think we have completed all time for opening statements 

by members. So we will turn now to our witness, Mr. Todd Stern, 

who served in the White House from 1993 to, 1999 and from 1997 

to 1999, coordinating the Clinton administration’s Initiative on 

Global Climate Change. Mr. Stern served as the senior White 

House negotiator at the Kyoto in Buenos Aires negotiations. He has 

now been named by Secretary Hillary Clinton as the Department 

of State’s Special Envoy for Climate Change. 

Mr. Stern is the Nation’s chief climate negotiator. He represents 

the United States internationally in all bilateral and multilateral 

negotiations regarding climate change. It is an honor for us to have 

you with us today, Mr. Stern. Whenever you feel comfortable, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF TODD STERN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE 

CHANGE 

Mr. STERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I should say 

that I spent many of my summers up in places like Eagle River, 

Eau Claire, and Lake Nebagamon in Wisconsin, up in those upper 

reaches where Mr. Sensenbrenner was taking about. But I will not 

get into the issue of whether the water is hot or cold right now. 

I do thank you and the Ranking Member and members of this 

committee for inviting me here today, and let me thank you all for 

the hard work and leadership that you have shown over the past 

year. 

This morning I would like to provide you with a brief update on 

the state of negotiations. The core issues remain mitigation undertakings for developed and the more advanced developing countries; 

a regime for measuring, reporting and, most importantly, verifying 

all actions taken; and the provision of appropriate financial technology assistance by major economies as well as issues of adaptation and forestry. 

We are concentrating our efforts on three related fronts: the formal negotiating track of the U.N. Framework Convention, the 

Major Economies Forum and bilateral discussions. 

Let me say bluntly that the tenor of negotiations and the formal 

U.N. track has been difficult so far. Developing countries tend to 

see a problem, not of their own making, that they are being asked 

to fix in ways in which they fear could stifle their own ability to 

live their standards of living. Developed countries tend to see an 

unforgiving problem that cannot be solved without the full participation of key developing countries, particularly China and other 

emerging market economies. And yet we must find a way to bridge 

this historic developed- and developing-country divide. 

In the Major Economies Forum some good progress has been 

made. The leaders declaration in L’Aquila, Italy included a pledge 

by developing countries to undertake actions that would significantly cut their emissions in the midterm compared to business as 

usual; recognition of the broad scientific understanding that the increase in global temperatures ought not to exceed 2 degrees centigrade as compared to pre-industrial levels; an agreement that 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
10 

emissions globally must peak as soon as possible; and agreement 

on broad principles of financing related to climate change. 

Major developing countries, and that includes China, Brazil, 

India, South Africa, are in fact taking action. They recognize the 

seriousness of the problem, their own vulnerability to it, and the 

need for global action. And each of them has taken or announced 

significant steps. We applaud those steps, but more is needed. 

We are calling upon China and the other major developing countries to undertake actions that will reduce their emissions below 

their so-called business-as-usual path in the midterm and to a degree consistent with what science is suggesting is necessary; to reflect those actions in an international agreement, just as we must 

reflect our own actions in such an agreement; to subject those actions to strong reporting and verification regime; and, in addition, 

all countries must develop low carbon growth plans, with assistance as appropriate, to steer the course of their own future development and put the world on the path to a low carbon global economy. 

Now we cannot expect any country to commit to actions that are 

antithetical to their own need to fight poverty and build a better 

life for their citizens. And we have to send a message in word and 

deed. The effort to meet a new climate change agreement is not 

simply putting a cap on carbon, it is also about sustainable development. But in the world we live in now, the only sustainable development is low carbon development. 

What do other countries, both developed and developing, have a 

right to expect from us? I think frankly that we stand and deliver; 

that we apply the global leadership that has been the hallmark of 

the United States to an issue of profound generational meaning. 

The steps that the President and Congress have already taken, including the $80 billion for clean energy investments in the stimulus 

package and the new tailpipe fuel economy standards that EPA 

and the Department of Transportation pledge to issue are very important but just the beginning. The centerpiece is the comprehensive energy and climate legislation that the House passed in May. 

Nothing that the United States can do is more important for the 

international negotiating process than enacting robust comprehensive energy and climate legislation as soon as possible. 

The United States can also be expected to play an important role 

in providing support for technology and adaptation to countries in 

need. We must make the development and dissemination of technology a top priority in order to bring sustainable low carbon energy services to people around the world, particularly the people in 

greatest need. 

In this respect you might say the financing provisions of the 

Waxman-Markey bill are pivotal, in my judgment, to getting the 

deal. This is absolutely not charity. It is squarely in the United 

States’ national interest to help ensure that all countries pursue a 

clean development path. 

In short, we have a lot of work to do this fall. The Congress has 

a crucial role to play on the domestic front, and internationally we 

will be vigorously engaged with every relevant country and country 

block. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
11 

Mr. Chairman, the world is going to make history on this issue 

over the course of the next months and years. We will either make 

it for the right reasons, because we found common ground and set 

ourselves on a path toward a new sustainable low carbon model, 

or for the wrong reasons, because we blinked at the moment of 

truth and left our children and grandchildren to face the consequences. We have to get this right. I thank you and look forward 

to answering your questions. 

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

[The statement of Mr. Stern follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
12 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 62452A.003
13 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 62452A.004
14 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 62452A.005
15 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 62452A.006
16 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 62452A.007
17 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will now recognize himself for a round 

of questions. 

I will begin by asking you: You had a very large role in the Kyoto 

negotiations; could you outline for us what you believe the main 

lessons that should be drawn from the Kyoto experience? 

Mr. STERN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think first and foremost 

I would say that Kyoto took place in what was fundamentally a domestic policy vacuum. It is critical that what we do internationally 

be synched up to what we are doing domestically; that there be political support; support here in the Congress for the kinds of actions that we are talking about taking internationally. So that was 

vividly not true during the Kyoto years. It must be true now. And 

that, again, is one of the reasons why the Waxman-Markey legislation is so fundamentally important. 

Second lesson is that we cannot move forward on an agreement 

which fails to include the major emitting countries in the world, 

whether they are developing or developed. The problem is a global 

problem that cannot begin to be solved without the genuine participation of countries like China and the other emerging markets. The 

reality is that the United States and the developed countries are 

the big historic emitters—the United States the largest of all—but 

going forward, the vast majority of growth and emissions is coming 

from the developing world and they have to play a significant part. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how will, in your opinion—— 

Mr. STERN. I am sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. How will successful negotiations in Copenhagen 

help American interests? If you could talk about that in the context 

of Waxman-Markey legislation and what the benefits for our penal 

would be? 

Mr. STERN. Sure. I think there are a few things to be said. First 

of all, the climate change threat is a fundamental threat to the 

United States as well as to other countries. And that is true as a 

matter of economics, national security and the environment, all 

three of those. And not at all least from a perspective of national 

security which has been highlighted in recent years, and in reports 

by former admirals and generals that were put out by the CNA 

Corporation. There was a big story in the New York Times a month 

or two ago about this, and there is increasing focus within the national security community on this issue. 

It is also true that, as a matter of the capacity to solve the problem, it is a global problem. If the United States is a large emitter, 

but 80 percent takes place outside of the United States, so for us 

to act without action around the world, there is no way to solve the 

problem. And further I think it will be—I completely agree with 

what you said when you said you referred to a great race in the 

21st century with respect to clean energy and the development of 

clean energy. I think that has the potential to be the economic driver for all of us, including the whole world, not just the United 

States, but places that can be the recipient of the United States’ 

high-tech exports is clearly in the interest of this country. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could, it would help if you would talk a 

little bit about the United States-China relationship, the issues of 

clean energy and climate, and the bilateral negotiations that have 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
18 

been going on in terms of using that as an indicator of progress 

that has been made towards an agreement. 

Mr. STERN. Right. Look, the United States and China are the two 

biggest players here. If there are two 800-pound gorillas on this 

issue, it is the U.S. and China, representing over 40 percent of 

global emissions. So there is no question that we can’t get an 

agreement that is acceptable to us without the genuine participation of China. We have been intensively engaged with the Chinese 

at various levels, bilaterally, and in the Major Economies Forum 

and other places. We have made it quite clear to the Chinese that 

the kinds of things that we need, which I reference in my testimony, they are going to have to take action which is commensurate 

with the scope of the problem, with their role as now the large 

emitter. They are going to have to reflect that action in an international context. They are going to have to be prepared to have a 

strong verification regime and the like. These are all issues that we 

discuss with them. We are attempting to narrow differences. 

Part of what is important I think with respect to China and 

other countries as well—we are focusing on China now—is that 

this issue has to be seen—and I think we have actually done a good 

job in conveying this in a whole array of different situations, starting with Secretary Clinton’s trip in February. They have to see 

that this is a centrally important issue to the U.S.-China bilateral 

relationship. They care a lot about that. 

The summit that is going to occur between President Hu and 

President Obama will probably be the biggest diplomatic event of 

the year for China. They do not want it to run off the rails. On the 

other hand, they are in all things tough negotiators and going to 

try to get what they see as most in their interest. I do think China 

wants to get a deal done. The question will be whether we can get 

the particulars put together in a way that works for them and for 

us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. My time has expired. I recognize now 

the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Historically, climate treaties such as the UNFCCC and Kyoto, have 

been submitted in the Senate as treaties. The Senate report prior 

to Kyoto stated that in the view of the Foreign Relations Committee, any amendment to the convention that adopted emissions 

target would have to be submitted to the Senate. 

Will the administration treat a Copenhagen climate deal, if one 

is reached, as an Article 2 treaty requiring advice and consent by 

two-thirds of the Senate, or will the administration say that this 

is a congressional executive agreement that will simply need a majority vote in both houses? 

Mr. STERN. Mr. Sensenbrenner, it is certainly our expectation 

that an agreement would be submitted to the Senate. We do not 

have any other plan at this point. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is good to hear. Now the conundrum, 

of course, is that developing countries—and led by China and 

India—have adamantly objected to any type of legally binding 

emissions cap in the treaty. And when you talked in June to the 

Climate Actions Symposium, you started looking at the math of the 

increasing role to emissions in China and India, coupled with the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
19 

targets that are being proposed for the developed world, and you 

called this the unforgiving math of accumulating emissions. Your 

words not mine. 

In light of this unforgiving math, would you agree to a treaty 

that did not include binding commitments from developing countries, particularly China and India? 

Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, we have called for binding commitments by all the major players, and that is what we are seeking. 

It is in our view understandable and appropriate, really, that there 

be differences as between what the developed countries are doing 

and what developing countries are doing with respect to the actual 

content of actions. And I think those are differences that ought to 

disappear over time, but we still recognize that there is some basis. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Bali agreement which was negotiated 

by the Bush administration did talk about differentiated commitments. I guess my question is: If China and India stonewall on the 

issue of binding commitments, is that a deal breaker that you and 

the administration would be willing to walk away from? 

Mr. STERN. No. That is what I was just getting to, Mr. Sensenbrenner. What I was about to say is that I see a basis for some difference in content. I do not see a basis for saying we have to stand 

behind what we are talking about, and they do not have to stand 

behind what they are talking about. So we do think that that is 

quite important and, as they say, it is in the submission. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I can say that looking at it from a foreign—and relying on press reports—the response of the Environment Minister of India following Secretary Clinton’s visit to New 

Delhi, at a press conference that she had there, certainly was not 

encouraging that India would sign up for binding commitments. So 

I wish you good luck in hopefully getting them to realize that they 

have to jump on board binding commitments if they expect the rest 

of the world to do that. 

The final piece of questions that I would like to ask you, Mr. 

Stern, is as I mentioned in my opening statement, developing countries are trying to weaken intellectual property rights. I am very 

concerned that the developing countries have proposed preventing 

patenting and developing in their countries, requiring compulsory 

licensing, ensuring access to new technologies on a non-exclusive 

royalty-free term. 

Does the administration support any of these positions, or will 

the administration work to make sure that the protection of intellectual property rights—which in my opinion is needed to assemble 

the capital to develop these new technologies—be included in a 

treaty that comes out of Copenhagen? 

Mr. STERN. We do not support those positions, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Look, I think intellectual property is central to our system. Indeed, if you look at this problem, which is the way I look 

at it, I think the way we look at it, it is fundamentally an issue 

that is only going to be solved through innovation, with the development of new technologies promoted through the right rules of the 

road, to be sure. You cannot have a problem whose solution is 

based on innovation if you interfere with intellectual property 

rights. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
20 

Having said that, we also have to recognize that it is terribly important that we do find ways completely consistent with intellectual property protection, where we seek to diffuse and disseminate 

technologies to places, if needed. But we do not have—I do not 

think I have any difference of opinion with what you have stated. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is good to hear. I yield back the balance of my time. Quit while we are ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I think it is important to 

note that you did work on intellectual property issues when you 

were on the staff of Senator Leahy in the Senate. 

Mr. STERN. I did indeed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a number 

of us who had the opportunity to spend a week in China earlier 

this year came away with the same expression of optimism that 

you mentioned in terms of the interest of the Chinese. I think it 

was conveyed formally and informally that there was great interest 

in securing an agreement, that it was clearly important to them, 

and the notion that there are lots of common interests. And I would 

like to return to that in a moment. 

But before then, I would like to just follow up on your response 

to the initial question about what is different now than the Kyoto 

negotiation you were involved in earlier. You mentioned that we 

did not have the domestic policy vacuum, that we have greater 

structure framework. I am pleased that after 8 years of the United 

States being missing in action, that we have, I think, changed that 

and we are working on the policy framework. 

But I am wondering if, other than the legislation that has passed 

the House, if you have other thoughts about changes to that framework, like the EPA’s decision that we will be dealing with carbon 

pollution as something that is going to be subject to regulation. Are 

there other elements here that you see that change that framework? 

Mr. STERN. Well, sure. I think that the EPA decision is an important one. I think that, again, I see the general domestic backdrop, 

what is happening here also with the underpinning in terms of 

broader understanding and support for the issue in the public, in 

the national security community, a much greater involvement in 

the business community and the high-tech sectors who I think do 

see clean energy as the way to go. 

I mean, I think that people who lay their bets down on high-carbon infrastructure or high-carbon production measures now are a 

little bit like the guys who built the typewriter plants on the dawn 

of the PC revolution. It is a bad bet. 

And so I think there is a different kind of cultural infrastructure, 

if you will, with respect to where the public is, where the business 

community is, where the national security community is, and 

where Congress is. I think all of those things are quite different 

and lay the foundation for us to move forward if we can get this 

right and if we can get our international partners to move along 

with us. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It was interesting, the business community 

letter to the Senate yesterday, reinforcing your point. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
21 

Are there provisions in the House legislation that you see specifically making a difference to bring together domestic and foreign interests to be able to understand mutual benefits, so that we are 

bridging that gap and making it less adversarial despite perfectly 

predictable negotiating posturing? 

Mr. STERN. Right. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Elements that we have done here that will 

help make your task easier. 

Mr. STERN. Yes. I would point to in particular—and they are related—I think there are provisions in the bill, one that involves a 

set-aside for international forestry at 5 percent of allowances, and 

another that provides a scaling-up set-aside for adaptation and 

mitigation, a percent for each, and scales all the way up to 4 percent for each in the mid-2020s. Those provisions are engines for financial support for poor countries around the world and in a way 

that I think is, again, very much in our interest, and both in our 

interest from a substantive standpoint and a diplomatic standpoint 

of being able to attract support from developing countries. 

So I mentioned to you in my opening remarks that I am very 

hopeful that those provisions, or at least some facsimile thereof, 

can be maintained in whatever version of the bill comes out of the 

Senate, because I do think those are quite important. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Lastly, is there anything additional from your 

vantage point that you think the House and this committee can do 

in the interim between now and Copenhagen that would be useful? 

Mr. STERN. Well, I think Congressman, I think that any time 

Members of Congress, this committee or the House or the Senate, 

have an opportunity to speak with foreign government visitors on 

these issues and to speak to them in a way that imparts some 

sense of reality to their thinking, that is always good. And there 

are different players that that can be relevant for. 

The trip you made to China I am sure was quite important in 

that regard. There are messages to be sent to places like India, but 

also to places like Europe. The thing that will allow us to get this 

done, if we can get it done, is combining the sense of what science 

requires with the sense of pragmatism. And there is often not 

enough pragmatism in the international arena. 

I mean, we can get something done if it is based on something 

that we all need. We cannot get something done if it is based on 

what we all ideally want. There is a difference between what you 

need and what you want. If countries can focus on what their real 

needs are, not on ideology, not on old rhetoric, if they can be sensitive to what is doable in the United States—I am proud of what 

we are doing here, I think the bill that came out of the House was 

a huge advance. And there are those who say, Well, why aren’t you 

doing five times as much of that? It is important to hear messages 

from Members saying this is good, solid, and an important start; 

this is consistent with what we need to do and you are not going 

to get more than that. Let’s get real and try to work this out and 

get it done. 

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

recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. When we went to China we were very 

impressed with their investments in new clean energy technology. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
22 

And we were impressed there were things they were doing we did 

not know before we went, including their renewable energy standards and the like. It is clear that they are moving. It is clear that 

they want to dominate some of these industries. And that is one 

of the reasons I am happy our stimulus package got us out of the 

gate. 

I guess the question I have as far as an agreement with China, 

they talked about themselves as a developing country, which was 

interesting because we would drive by the main drag going past 

Gucci stores and Lexus dealerships. 

Mr. STERN. Been there. 

Mr. INSLEE. And Prada stores. It was difficult to understand 

that. To me it sort of looked like there was not two parts of the 

world: the developed world and the developing world. There were 

three parts: the developed world, the developing world, and China 

which is some sort of third tier in its classification. 

Should we think of that in these terms and encourage China to 

think about themselves in those terms? And if so, where do they 

fit in that tier? 

Mr. STERN. I have had very much the same reaction driving 

down the same road that you did, Congressman. I think China is 

kind of developed and a developing country at the same time. It is 

obviously a huge economic juggernaut when you see big cities, 

there are gleaming skyscrapers, and very modern looking. They 

still have somewhere between 3 and 400 million people, more people than live in this country, who live on a dollar or two a day. 

They are dirt-poor, particularly in the rural parts of the country. 

So, they are kind of both. They are kind of are a hybrid, as you 

say. And I think that we have to and are pushing China hard to 

take strong action. You cannot sort of expect of China what you 

would expect of poorer countries in Africa or Latin America or Asia. 

They do need to be treated, as do other emerging market countries, 

in a way that requires real action. It is the only way to solve the 

problem. Over time, and I do not think a very long period of time, 

I think they will need to be treated exactly the same as developed 

countries. But we are not quite there yet. 

I will say that if you look at what China is doing on this issue, 

it is actually quite impressive. It is not adequate yet, but they are 

doing a lot. I have sometimes said that I think the real competitive 

issue for us, the real competitiveness issue with us is that we 

might think we will spend the next 5 years pushing China, and 

then we will spend all the rest of the years chasing them if we do 

not get our own act together. They are moving and they see big 

markets and they are going to move if we do not. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think all of our anxiety has been that China is not 

moving on global climate change. Our economic anxiety should be 

that they are moving on climate change because they want to dominate these industries. And we want to be players in this. 

Mr. STERN. Right. Look at what they announced on the solar 

front, which is great. We need that to happen, but we need to be 

in the game fully ourselves. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think our bill will help in that regard. 

We talked to Prime Minister Singh of India a couple of years ago, 

and he told us—and I do not think he was joking when he said 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
23 

this—he said India has agreed or will agree to a binding target of 

CO2 emissions. We will agree never to exceed per capita—per capita—the average of industrialized nations’ emissions. They have 

sort of said, sure, we will with you. We will agree never to emit 

more than you do. We will agree to a binding target. Of course, if 

they get to that level, the planet will be cooked long ago. What do 

we say to that argument, and what is it in regard to India that we 

expect? 

Mr. STERN. I say to the argument that obviously that is not good 

enough. It is the case, if you think about the trajectory of the bill 

that came out of the House, the per capita emissions of the United 

States aren’t going to decline very significantly over a period of 40 

years or so, if you take this out to 2050. So the disparity—— 

Mr. INSLEE. If we pass our bill. 

Mr. STERN. That is right. If the Senate passes a bill and we get 

a conference and the President can sign it, and we actually enact 

legislation—which, again, I think there is nothing more important 

than that—but if that kind of regime gets put in place, you are 

going to have the gap between the per capita emission between 

countries like India and countries like us dramatically decrease because of the efficiencies and the renewable energy developments 

and so forth that will be part and parcel of that legislation. 

But in terms of what we are looking for from India now, it is 

very much the same structure as what I said for China. They need 

to articulate a strong, robust set of actions that will reduce their 

emissions significantly from where they would otherwise be from 

their business as usual. They have to reflect those in an international agreement and exactly what the structure of that is. It is 

a very live part of the discussions and negotiations. 

There has got to be a verification system. I mean it goes under 

the rubric of MRB, measurement, reporting and verification. But 

verification is really the most important piece, so that everybody 

can see what everybody else is doing and have some level of confidence that if China or India or France or anybody else says we 

are going to do X, there is a system to see whether they have actually done X. There has got to be a mechanism for financing and 

technology dissemination. And those are the key issues and we are 

working with them on all of those issues, and India is difficult. 

There is no question about it, India is tough. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

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

recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stern, the world is in the throes of the great recession, and 

I think there are some European nations that are already experiencing some relief. And, of course, there is concern that we could 

pull people back down into a much greater recession if we do not 

recover. 

Last year the U.N. suggested that $86 billion a year would be 

needed to provide aid to developing nations as we begin to try to 

clean up this planet. My concern—and perhaps you have thought 

about it or maybe even had some discussion about it—at this point, 

the U.N. has collected nothing. And given the state of economics 

around the globe, is there a concern on your part that if we are 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
24 

successful in Copenhagen, but demonstratively cannot provide 

money—I mean, we have people in the United States who object to 

paying the U.N. dues. So when we are asked to provide money for 

this and we run into problems at home, does that create cause for 

China and India to become even more resistant to their participation; since we are not putting any money forth, therefore we must 

not be serious? 

Mr. STERN. It is a very good question, Congressman, and an important question. First of all, it is going to be important that there 

be financing assistance at some level provided, particularly to poor 

countries. It is also true, as Mr. Sensenbrenner said in his remarks, that the kinds of numbers that are tossed around by some 

in the negotiations are completely, wildly, unrealistic—1 percent of 

GDP, things like that that are untethered to reality. 

We have to work with the EU, Japan, Australia, other developed 

countries, to develop an overall financing package which is consistent with kind of what we can do. Again this is an agreement 

that would kick in starting in 2013. So hopefully we will be out of 

the great recession and into a better period of growth by that time. 

But the amounts of money that are considered and ultimately 

agreed to have to strike a right balance to what is reasonable to 

provide on the one hand and it is consistent with, or at least gets 

us in the right direction with respect to the need, on the other side. 

Again, I think that the provisions that are in the Waxman-Markey bill are really quite helpful in that regard, because they do 

generate some funds. Not vast amounts, but a good start through 

the sale of emissions allowances. So I think that is a good way to 

do it that does not have to get into the yearly appropriations kind 

of process. But this is a need that is going to scale-up over time 

that we just have to kind of step in a balanced, reasonable way, 

along with our developed country partners, so we are making a 

good start but it is affordable. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you think that it is important—as of today we 

do not even have any administrative costs, which does not bode 

well for, at least I think, the picture that we need to paint of what 

is going to happen after Copenhagen. I think administrative costs 

have been estimated at about $4 billion and, of course, we have 

nothing on that. 

I do agree that Markey-Waxman does provide some help. And 

maybe you can help us with this. We need a unicameral system of 

government here in the United States so we could close down the 

Senate, either today or sometime before Christmas. I think that the 

House has already acted and we are 3 months away from Copenhagen. So I think it would be important to either close the Senate 

down or somehow get them to do something they do not like to do, 

which is vote on legislation. 

Do you agree with me? 

Mr. STERN. No comment. I am appearing before the Senate in a 

week or two and I worked in the Senate. I am a big fan of both 

bodies. I managed to grow up in Chicago and like the White Sox 

and the Cubs, so I am not going to get into that. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
25 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize himself for additional 

questions. Inside of the Waxman-Markey bill is individual provisions on renewable electricity standards for our country, energy efficiency standards for our country. How do individual complementary policies like that included in the legislation play a role in global—— 

Mr. STERN. Play a role? 

The CHAIRMAN. What role would provisions like that adopted by 

the United States play in international negotiations on the responsibility of countries around the world to adopt similar provisions? 

Mr. STERN. Well, I think provisions like that are very important 

both substantively and actually diplomatically. Substantively because they can push us in the direction of taking concrete actions 

to reduce emissions as well as improving our overall economic and 

clean energy profiles. I think they are important for that reason. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, there are different kinds of ideas that 

are being discussed right now with respect to what the structure 

of this agreement ought to look like. One of the ideas I think is 

quite an interesting one has been proposed by Australia, something 

similar by South Korea, a little bit different, which would contemplate countries entering their commitments to their policies on 

to a schedule, sort of like in a trade context and committing to 

carry them out. So I think that in a structure like that, which 

again we do find interesting, you could imagine putting in all of 

our critical policies and what they add up to. And I think that in 

doing that, it gives us the opportunity and pushes countries not 

only to have a number, but to say not just X percent, but here is 

how we are going to do—here is what we are going to do about it. 

We have a policy on renewable energy standards, and appliances, 

and cap-and-trade system and we are putting our money where our 

mouth is. And so should you. So I think it is useful in that regard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you talk about the sharing of technical 

know-how and expertise in emissions verification processes? How 

would that work? How do you envision the sharing of the expertise 

to occur and ensuring that there is in fact a verification system in 

place that would work. 

Mr. STERN. Well, there are a couple of different elements to that. 

There is a measurement and reporting piece to that. The measurement in particular is a piece of that where I think that the technical expertise of countries like the United States will be important 

in helping various countries, actually even China, to be—to have 

greater capacity to measure emissions in a credible way. 

Verification is, as we see it, fundamentally an issue of trying to establish the countries that are actually doing what they have said 

they are going to do and this is a discussion which is live and going 

on in the negotiations right now. I mean I think that it will need 

to—a verification to work is going to have to balance rigor with not 

being overly intrusive because countries like us and other countries 

will have concerns about the degree to which people swoop in from 

outside. So there has got to be a good balance in how that is done 

and we are working on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion is it possible to develop a 

verification—— 

Mr. STERN. Yes—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
26 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Which can accurately measure emissions reductions without having an overly intrusive system put—— 

Mr. STERN. Yes, I think—I think that it is, Mr. Chairman. I 

mean I think that again the measurement part is something that 

we have a lot of expertise in, other developed countries do, and we 

can help in what is often referred to as capacity building so that 

countries that have less expertise actually can go about effectively 

measuring emissions. That’s one piece of it. The verification piece 

also has to do with the degree to which if countries as we are going 

to do X, Y, and Z, they can demonstrate that they are actually 

doing it, and I think that there’s—some of that is going to depend 

in the first instance on what countries report. There would likely 

need to be some sort of expert review from the outside. There is 

a suite of elements that are going to have to be part of that, and 

I think it will be tricky but I think it is very important. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is important, very important. So, for example, 

if we were looking at the steel sector in China, in the United 

States, and in India and we wanted to make sure that that sector 

was properly verified, would an agreement be reached as part of 

this ultimate treaty that would put in place a verification system 

that would be mutually agreed upon by those countries? If you 

would just—using steel as a specific example, could you walk 

through how that might—— 

Mr. STERN. Yeah. Well, I think it depends on the first instance 

what the actions are that a country has agreed to take. So let us 

assume under your hypothetical that China has agreed to do X, Y, 

Z things with respect to the steel industry. Then I think that first 

of all it would be important to work with the Chinese to make sure 

they are capable of measuring the emissions in a reasonably accurate way, and then I think it would be some combination of reporting in the first instance, and this is going to be true for any country, United States or anybody else, in the first instance reporting 

by the country saying we have agreed to do the following things, 

we are going to have this, that or the other kind of policies apply 

to steel mills, the building of steel mills or the running of steel 

mills in China, here’s what we said we are going to do and here 

is what we are doing, and I think the capacity would be essential 

to have some kind of an outside expert review to be able to look 

to see what is being represented and determine whether it is accurate. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Stern, on June 10 you reported in the 

China Daily, quote, ‘‘We don’t expect China at this stage to take 

on a national cap.’’ You have been advocating for the national cap 

in the Waxman-Markey bill. Why is a cap good for us and not good 

for China? 

Mr. STERN. Well, look I think it would be great if China took on 

a national cap. I don’t think that’s the only way to go. And I think 

that as I said earlier China—in talking to Mr. Inslee, China is in 

a kind of a hybrid position. China is—is obviously a developing juggernaut. It has got a very powerful economy. It is also still in many 

respects developing. So it is somewhere in between. And I think 

what we need to get from China is a set of actions that are strong. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
27 

Now, look at—what they are currently doing right now includes a 

20 percent cut in their energy intensity. I think that that is something that is actually economy wide. It is not a cap in the same 

way that we are talking about but it is significant. I think that— 

and they have got a 15 percent by 2020 renewable energy standard. They have got vehicle standards that are pretty much comparable to ours. They have got a whole suite of other measures for 

efficiency and the like. I mean on the one hand it is significant and 

doing a fair amount. On the other hand, they are growing so fast 

that their emissions are still going up a lot. They need to do a set 

of policies that add up to a national reduction in their emissions. 

So that is the thing that we are most fundamentally interested in. 

If they did a national cap that would be great. I don’t think they 

are going to do that yet, and I don’t think it is crucial for us that 

that happen as long as there is a set of policies that add up to a 

real reduction. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. See, I am concerned that the Chinese are 

taking advantage of the differentiated language in the Bali agreement, basically to cook the math in their favor. The Chinese economy is recovering from the worldwide recession faster than ours. 

Maybe that is because their stimulus package was more effective 

than the ones that we have employed. But the projection that I 

have heard is that the Chinese GDP will go up by about 50 percent 

from 2005 to 2010. Now, a 20 percent cut in energy intensity 

means that they still emit 30 percent more in emissions, and that 

certainly is not going to have the economic impact that the caps in 

the Waxman-Markey bill are going to impose on the United States. 

And the Byrd-Hagel resolution basically said the center wouldn’t 

ratify a treaty unless it met two points. One is that it was worldwide in application and secondly that it didn’t hurt the United 

States economy. And if we are reducing our emissions below where 

we are now and China is still allowed to increase its emissions by 

30 percent, I just can see more wealth and more jobs being 

outsourced from the United States to China, and that is not anything that I am willing to support. I don’t think the American public will support it either; so how do we deal with this issue? 

Mr. STERN. Well, Congressman, I think that what we have—that 

what we have to keep our eye on is again the robustness of the 

Chinese program. I think in the right circumstances and we don’t 

know what we have got yet, but in the right circumstances what 

we would like to see is a set of actions where they are reducing 

emissions compared to their business-as-usual path, which is at 

least in some broad way comparable to or in the range of comparability with what we are talking about. And I think that is possible. Now, we don’t have that yet. We don’t know yet, but that is 

what we are pushing toward. I mean again the reductions that 

they have been making over this 5-year period, they are not 

enough but they are actually fairly significant as compared to 

where they would otherwise be, and that again is I think what we 

still need to be focusing on. 

The other thing with respect to our own concerns about our own 

companies is that the legislation that was passed out of the House 

includes a good deal of protection for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries basically getting all allowances relating to this 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
28 

legislation free so that those industries aren’t going to pay any 

more into the 2020’s. They aren’t going to pay any more. It is not 

a case you have got this trade-exposed industry and they are going 

to pay so much because of this bill and the Chinese aren’t. They 

are not going to pay. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With all due respect, Mr. Stern, boiling the 

math down to the bottom line meaning when you push the equals 

button on the calculator, what the Chinese say they are doing is 

they are cutting back on the growth rate of their emissions so that 

they will be still be 30 percent above 2005 levels whereas WaxmanMarkey says that we have to reduce our emissions to 17 percent 

below a lower baseline, and that math just doesn’t add up. And I 

think that my constituents and the Senate ultimately will have to 

view whether the deal is a good one for the United States and is 

in our national interest, and China going up 30 percent and us 

going down 17 percent with different baselines, in my opinion, 

flunks the good deal test by a long, long way. So I just urge you 

that you are going to have to figure out a way to figure out how 

to bridge the gap between plus 30 and minus 17. 

Mr. STERN. Well, I appreciate your views, congressman. I do 

think that with respect to—to the world broadly, with respect to 

the major developing countries, a very important issue is one actually which is referenced in the leader’s declaration from the Major 

Economies Forum, although not with the year specified yet, but 

that emissions are going to have to peak. They are not going to 

peak next year for China. They are just not. I mean you can’t take 

an economy that is growing like that and put the brakes on flat. 

I mean if you look at what the trajectory is for China, it is completely different than the trajectory for the developed world; so you 

can’t quite expect that. On the other hand, you can expect that 

over, you know, an appropriate period of time the emissions growth 

slows, they peak, and then they start coming down and what that 

time is is going to be an important part of the discussion. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State. 

Mr. INSLEE. I almost think before we have a Senate debate in a 

treaty, everybody has to watch Slumdog Millionaire to just get a 

sense of what we are dealing with with some of our fellow—fellow 

folks across the water. 

I want to just ask what is—if you had two scenarios, which one 

would be better for the United States? One scenario where India, 

let us say those people who are now living with a piece of plastic 

stretched over their head on a piece of bamboo and maybe one shirt 

to their name and they wake up in the morning and try to figure 

out where they are going to get water. When you talk to those people that is what they say. What is the first thing you do when you 

wake up? They say, I try to find some water to drink. Then maybe 

I try to find some food to eat. And there are 300 to 500 million of 

those people that live that way. Now, we are asking them they 

need to act, but the question is what. So here are two scenarios: 

One scenario where those folks agree to a cap of the same cap that 

we have in the United States per person. They agree with us they 

will never emit more than we will today and they will agree to be 

bound by Waxman-Markey in a sense, but of course their emissions 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
29 

go up by a factor of ten per person if they did that. They would 

still agree to a cap but it wouldn’t do us any good. Or a situation 

where we demand and receive vigorous investments by them, vigorous changes in their regulatory structure, vigorous changes in 

their transportation infrastructure, vigorous efficiency standards in 

their building, some of which some of them have done. Of those two 

scenarios, my view would be an agreement where we win agreements by the developing world to take action, including China, as 

opposed to a cap which might be so high that they never actually 

ever do anything until the world is already destroyed. I will talk 

the action rather than the cap. What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. STERN. I completely agree, congressman. And that is very 

much consistent with—with our focus all through this year. It is 

consistent with the focus in our submission. It is consistent with 

the focus of what we are going to be discussing in the Major Economies Forum next week here in Washington. So I couldn’t agree 

with you more. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. There are two of us anyway. That is a 

start. Thanks a lot. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this has been an extremely informative, 

helpful briefing, Mr. Stern. We appreciate it very much. What I 

would like to do is give you a couple of minutes if you would like 

to summarize your case here to the Congress, what you think that 

we should do and what your expectations are for Copenhagen in 

terms of the results for our country and for the planet. 

Mr. STERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to have come before you today. 

Look, I think that the most important thing without a doubt for 

the Congress to do is to enact—to pass legislation, send it to the 

President that he can sign that puts—that gives us the kind of 

credibility and leverage that would be enormously useful in the 

context of these negotiations. So in terms of what Congress can do, 

obviously there are a lot of things Congress can do, but that is job 

number one as far as I am concerned. We are going to be working 

hard through this fall to press our case with all of the critical parties, and that includes the Europeans, the nonEU developed countries like Japan and Australia, Canada, others, the major developing countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and then 

the kind of rank and file, if you will, of developing countries. We 

need to make a case that—and I think that increasingly countries 

see this that this is an absolutely critical priority for the world, 

that there are security, economic, and environmental consequences 

of not acting that are just not acceptable. I mean the status quo 

is not sustainable, and we have a moment here where we can make 

real progress. So we have to get our own house in order as a priority and we have to work with our developed country friends and 

then developing to—to frame out a system that people can all agree 

on. I think it should be built on countries committing to a set of 

their own national actions. I mean that is what we have been talking about from the beginning and that is what we think is most 

effective. It has got to have that. It has got to have a verification 

system, and there has got to be a reasonable and balanced system 

for supporting the—through financing and technology, poor countries around the world. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
30 

It is also important I think and we have been doing this but we 

are going to redouble our efforts to make sure that the broad range 

of developing countries, not the big ones, they are in a different 

place. They don’t actually—we are not looking for them to step up 

and say we are going to make mid-term reductions by 2020 in the 

following ways. What we need them to do is develop low carbon development strategies, low carbon growth plans, and if they are poor 

countries, then with technical assistance and financing support to 

do that, so that everybody can get on a path to a low carbon development and to building a low carbon global economy. That is the 

only way we are going to be able to proceed. Technology development is going to be a huge part of that, but we have to—we are 

going to need to move forward with all of these groups, and we are 

going to be trying to do that at all levels. There are a number of 

important opportunities that the President is going to have this 

fall, the Secretary of State. Of course me and my team will be proceeding at full throttle, and we are going to do our best to get this 

done. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was a real privilege to have you come before 

us today. We wish you the best of luck. We will do our best from 

our side to work with the Senate in order to complete the legislation so that you can go fully armed into these negotiations the next 

90 days are critical. And we very much thank you for your work 

on behalf of our country and the world. Thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
31 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 62452A.008
32 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 62452A.009
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62452A.010
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 62452A.011
35 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 62452A.012
36 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 62452A.013
37 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 62452A.014
38 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 62452A.015
39 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 62452A.016
40 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 62452A.017
41 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 62452A.018
42 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 62452A.019
43 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 62452A.020
44 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 62452A.021
45 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 62452A.022
46 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 62452A.023
47 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 62452A.024
48 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 62452A.025
49 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 62452A.026
50 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 62452A.027
51 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 62452A.028
52 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 62452A.029
53 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 62452A.030
54 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 62452A.031
55 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 62452A.032
56 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 62452A.033
57 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 62452A.034
58 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 62452A.035
59 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 62452A.036
60 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 62452A.037
61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 62452A.038
62 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93/150 here 62452A.039