U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–201 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–796 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2911, 

SUPER POLLUTANTS ACT OF 2014 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Murphy, Hon. Chris, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ...................... 3 

Thomas, Hon. Carper R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 103 

WITNESSES 

Zaelke, Durwood, President, Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 19 

Fay, Kevin, Executive Director, Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy ... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Shindell, Drew, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Sciences, Nicholas School of the 

Environment, Duke University ........................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 51 

Peiser, Benny, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation ...................... 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 71 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 72 

Moore, Stephen, Chief Economist, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation ........................................................................ 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 84 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 84 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Article; The New York Times, In Step to Lower Carbon Emissions, China 

Will Place a Limit on Coal Use in 2020 ............................................................. 105 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2911, 

SUPER POLLUTANTS ACT OF 2014 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Whitehouse, Merkley, Boozman. 

Also present: Senator Murphy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee is in order. I am delighted to call 

us to order, because we are looking at a bill written by two of my 

colleagues, Senator Murphy and Senator Collins, the Super Pollutant Act of 2014, S. 2911, which is a bipartisan bill that supports 

innovative technologies and policies to reduce short-lived climate 

pollutant emissions, otherwise known as SLCPs, which if you can 

pronounce that, OK. Because I won’t even try. 

These emissions, we are talking about black carbon, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons. And recent headlines have sounded the alarm 

on the mounting impacts of climate change. The reason I am so excited about this bill, when Senator Murphy talked to me about it, 

is it is really a bipartisan breakthrough. That is very important, 

because we are not going to get anywhere if we just have a partisan divide on climate. 

Over the past few months, we have seen everything, from the 

hottest August, the hottest September, the hottest October on 

record, to historic droughts and extreme wildfires, ravaging my 

home communities, to vanishing wildlife habitat in Alaska, to toxic 

algae blooming out of control and contaminating drinking water in 

Toledo, Ohio. I think it was 500,000 people had to drink bottled 

water because of this toxic algae, which is directly related to the 

heat in the water. 

Yesterday, I read a story in the New York Times, it was actually 

the lead story, and it summed up what scientists are now telling 

us. They are saying if we stay on this path, our grandkids will face 

a grim future. They actually lay it out even in a more stark fashion, they say our grandchildren will either have a planet that is 

unpleasant to live in or a planet that is not inhabitable. Those both 

are bad choices, but we see where we are heading. That is why I 

am so grateful, because maybe we can start to take congressional 

2 

action here. The President is taking action, and bless him for doing 

it. I say that sincerely, because I know he cares so much about the 

future. He looks into his daughters’ eyes and he knows that he in 

many ways has a chance to make the planet a better place. And 

he is doing it, despite all the opposition and hysteria about it. 

Well, this hearing will focus on some common sense steps we can 

take to address this critical threat. S. 2911, the Murphy-Collins 

bill, identifies a number of practical steps by the private sector and 

policy measures on the Federal level that can be taken to limit pollutants that cause climate change. Action to limit these super pollutants can help slow climate change over the next several decades 

while also providing important co-benefits to public health. That is 

so key. When we cut back on climate pollution, we have co-benefits 

that involve making the air cleaner and less asthma and less heart 

disease and strokes and all those things. So it is a win-win. 

Now, black carbon is a fine particulate matter that is harmful to 

human health and the environment. If we address that, we can 

help avoid the worst impacts of climate change and also reduce exposure to air pollutants, again, that cause all these respiratory and 

cardiovascular ailments and premature deaths. 

Similarly, reducing methane leaks and emissions can prevent increases in ground level ozone pollution, which will reduce the 

threat to public health. We know the President has put out a really 

good policy on this ground level ozone pollution, which we know is 

smog that can worsen bronchitis, emphysema and asthma. I often 

say, and I will say it again, if any of us, as a Senator, visits the 

schools, and I know, Senator Murphy, how old are your boys now? 

Senator MURPHY. Six and three. 

Senator BOXER. Six and three. I say the next time you go visit 

their class, the older one, ask the class, how many of you kids have 

asthma, or how many of you kids know someone with asthma. You 

will be stunned to see, well, maybe you won’t be stunned, I was 

stunned when I asked that question, I was in a school in San Francisco with Hillary Clinton way back in the 1990’s. We asked the 

class, and way more than half of the class raised their hands. She 

had asked that question. And it just tells you the story. We have 

to protect our children from bronchitis and asthma. 

So S. 2911 has all these benefits and it also supports U.S. companies that are in the forefront of producing innovative chemical substitutes for HFCs and new technologies to control black carbon and 

methane leaks. And it is a real win-win when we can have our private sector stepping up to the plate, doing good things and doing 

well financially. That is the ticket here. And that is what S. 2911 

does, because they establish an interagency task force to mitigate 

short-lived climate pollutants, they ensure Federal agencies have 

plans in place to reduce HFC and methane at Federal facilities. We 

are the biggest landlord in the Country. If we start doing these 

things, it has a real impact. 

It also says we should use existing Federal authorities to phase 

in these alternatives to HFCs and encourage HFC recovery and recycling. And also encourage substantial black carbon pollution reduction efforts in developing countries as part of the State Department’s programs. It also calls for directing Federal agencies to asVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98201.TXT VERN
3 

sess whether the pipeline transmission rates and new standards for 

pipeline systems can reduce methane leaks. 

This is incredible. I once looked at this issue, how many people 

we could put to work just going after these leaks and have that 

win-win benefit. It is so good. 

And I want to welcome our witnesses, and Chris Murphy, I want 

to particularly say thank you so much. I think what you have done 

is a breakthrough. Because not only is it important in addressing 

climate, but it is a bipartisan effort. 

So would you start off, and then we will go to the rest of the 

panel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS MURPHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer. Thank 

you for calling this hearing today. Thank you for your encouraging 

words with respect to our legislation. I am pleased to share the 

panel here, at least kick it off with some very able experts. Thanks 

to Ranking Member Vitter as well for making this hearing possible 

today. 

We are here to discuss, as you very aptly described, SLPCs, 

short-lived climate pollutants. These are substances that do grave 

damage to the climate, often at a rate that is tens of hundreds of 

times the damage on a time-to-time basis that carbon dioxide does. 

But frankly, they are a lot less well-known than carbon dioxide. 

The problem posed by SLPCs, they represent an opportunity, it is 

an opportunity to save lives, to create a lot of jobs and to protect 

fragile ecosystems. 

They also represent a political opportunity. I am honored to have 

this considered as a breakthrough, but phasing down these pollutants can be done more quickly and relatively easily when compared 

to the hard but desperately necessary work that we have ahead of 

us to slow CO2 emissions. 

As members of the committee well know, we are talking here 

about black carbon, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. 

The first is a byproduct of combustion. The second is a fuel. The 

third is an industrial chemical. 

None of them are as vital to the functioning of the world’s economy as carbon dioxide. That means that adopting sensible, moneysaving policies to phase down emissions of all of these will require 

an effort that is relatively manageable compared to the scale of the 

other global challenges that we face. 

So that is why Senator Collins and I worked together to draft the 

legislation that is under consideration by the committee today, the 

Super Pollutants Act. If enacted, this legislation would expand existing programs to launch new initiatives needed to tackle the 

many ways in which SLPCs are emitted. 

We are not talking about revolutionary change here. We are just 

talking about some common sense steps that can bring Republicans 

and Democrats together around cleaning up our climate. Our bill 

encourages USAID and development agencies to consider methane 

and black carbon emissions when financing projects overseas. Our 

bill would urge modifications in the Energy Star program to recognize refrigeration systems that use non-HFC chemicals while still 

4 

achieving energy savings. We would help coordinate interagency 

SLPC initiatives, so that individual departments are working in 

tandem when it comes to these pollutants. 

Both Senator Collins and I realize that considerable obstacles 

confront the enactment of this or any legislation in this present 

congressional environment. However, we believe this legislation 

represents an opportunity to have an important foundation for bipartisan cooperation on climate and public health issues. That is 

because one can favor reductions in methane, black carbon and 

HFCs for reasons that frankly have little to do with climate 

change. There is a huge climate change component to this legislation, but Senator Collins has been a leader in pushing for the expansion of clean-burning cook stoves in the developing world. Because indoor burning of wood and animal dung kills millions and 

millions of people every year. Installing filters diesel truck engines 

similarly reduces soot emissions, while promoting the use of American-made technologies, an effort that Senator Inhofe has strongly 

supported for years. 

Transitioning away from HFC compounds, both here and abroad, 

promotes the use of American technologies and manufacturing 

know-how. The economic benefit to this Country is great. The demand for air conditioning in India alone is anticipated to grow by 

a factor of 50 by 2013. Wouldn’t it be better if Indians were able 

to meet that demand by embracing technological solutions developed in partnership with U.S. firms? 

Limiting methane leaks can actually save considerable sums of 

money for companies and governments that are willing to recapture it and burn it themselves. Indeed, man-made methane emissions are expected to grow by 25 percent over the next 15 years. 

In the oil and gas industry, it is a win-win for distributors and consumers to make sure that less product leaks out of wells and pipes 

on its way to the end users, as Senator Boxer said. 

Now, I say this not to belittle the climate impacts that reducing 

SLPCs could produce. Estimates show that aggressive action could 

prevent nearly a half a degree Celsius of warming in the atmosphere. Instead, I am making this case because tackling climate 

change needn’t be as fiercely and reflexively partisan an issue as 

it has become in recent years. We can do immense good for the climate while doing good for our health and our businesses as well. 

SLPCs can and should represent the beginning of much-needed bipartisan goodwill on this topic. 

So I would like to thank both the business and non-profit communities who have been a part of drafting this bill, for the members of the committee who have already reviewed or co-sponsored 

the legislation, I thank you. For those who haven’t examined it in 

detail, I hope that they will and their staffs will do that in the coming weeks. If they think it can be improved, Senator Collins and 

I would love to work with the committee to do that. 

Madam Chair, I have with me a statement from Senator Collins. 

She has another hearing today, but she would love to have entered 

into the record a very strong statement of support for our bill. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:] 

5 


98201.069
6 


98201.070
7 

Senator MURPHY. So I look forward to testimony today. Again, I 

thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, for bringing us together and again 

express my gratitude for the attention and the time of the committee today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. You are free to 

stay, I know you have a crazy schedule as well. 

But I will move on, with Mr. Durwood Zaelke, President, Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DURWOOD ZAELKE, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE 

FOR GOVERNANCE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. ZAELKE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

Solving climate change may be hard. But getting started is easy. 

The Super Pollutants Act that we are discussing today gets us 

started solving the fast half of climate change. And it will help us 

build the on-ramp, the bipartisan on-ramp, to solving even more 

difficult parts of climate change involving fossil fuels and CO2

emissions. 

As Senator Murphy said, there are many reasons to support this 

bill. Climate is the first and perhaps the most important. But if 

you want to see other reasons, look to the public health benefits. 

The World Health Organization tells us that seven million people 

a year die from black carbon air pollution and millions more are 

made so sick they can’t go to work, they can’t go to school, the asthma that the Chairwoman mentioned. Cutting black carbon can 

save at least two million of these lives and it can make other citizens of the world healthier and more productive. 

There is no dispute about the health benefits of black carbon. 

You can see it, you can taste it. It kills people and cutting it will 

save lives and improve health. California has already done this. 

California has cut black carbon by 90 percent and it has pioneered 

the development of the technology that the rest of the world needs 

to cut its black carbon. 

China, for example, has just mentioned that they are going to be 

putting $277 billion into cleaning up their air pollution. That is a 

tremendous market for U.S. technology. The rest of Asia needs the 

same technology, India in particular, but also Africa and Latin 

America. The whole world does. This is a tremendous opportunity. 

We could also look to the benefits for crop productivity. Methane 

and the photochemical smog it creates damages crops. When we 

lose crops around the world, we create conflicts that often our military has to go help solve. So we can bring tremendous benefits on 

that side as well. 

Finally, the Super Pollutants Act will help us reduce this third 

super pollutant, the HFCs. There are some efforts underway already in the U.S. and elsewhere. Europe, for example, has a law 

that goes into effect next month that will cut HFC emissions by 79 

percent by 2030. 

At the global level, the U.S. has led the effort to use the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs. This will level the playing field 

and prevent a patchwork of regulations that our industries would 

have to face. The Montreal Protocol was first negotiated under 

President Ronald Reagan. It is widely regarded as the most effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98201.TXT VERN
8 

cient and effective international environmental agreement we have 

ever created. It has already phased out nearly 100 damaging 

chemicals by nearly 100 percent. It has ever country of the world 

as a party, developing and developed. And they all have mandatory 

obligations under this treaty. They all have nearly 100 percent 

compliance as well. 

As we phased out the prior chemicals, the CFCs under the Montreal Protocol and now the HCFCs, no one noticed. No one was inconvenienced. No one’s air conditioner didn’t work or refrigerator 

didn’t work. In fact, they became more efficient and the consumer 

saved money. So this treaty has been incredible, not only in putting 

us back on the path to solving this stratospheric ozone challenge 

but also in helping us with climate. This treaty has already done 

five to ten times more in climate mitigation than the Kyoto Protocol. And it stands ready to do even more by phasing down the 

HFCs. 

Just to give you the scale, the combined effort to phase down the 

short-lived climate pollutants will avoid about .6 degrees of warming by the mid-century. That is compared to an aggressive effort 

to cut CO2 , which will avoid about .1 degree, a lot less. By the end 

of the century, they begin to equalize. We have to do both, of 

course. 

So we are ready to do the next big piece with HFCs. And it will 

give us perhaps the single biggest and fastest piece of climate mitigation in the world, and it will incredibly inexpensive. 

If you go back to the early efforts—— 

Senator BOXER. I am going to ask you to wrap up your statement. 

Mr. ZAELKE. I will wrap up, and thank you. 

In conclusion, the Super Pollutant Act can help save millions of 

lives, improve crop yields, promote U.S. industry, cut near-term 

warming in half through the middle of the century. Just as important, the Act can help create the bipartisan momentum that we so 

desperately need to solve the rest of climate change. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zaelke follows:] 

9 


98201.001
10 


98201.002
11 


98201.003
12 


98201.004
13 


98201.005
14 


98201.006
15 


98201.007
16 


98201.008
17 


98201.009
18 


98201.010
19 


98201.011
20 


98201.012
21 


98201.013
22 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Zaelke. 

I am going to just tell you what the plan is here. Senator 

Whitehouse is going to run this hearing. I have been called to a 

hearing on sexual assault on college campuses, and I need to run 

there. My hope is to run there and back, but one never knows. He 

has graciously said he is going to take this. 

Colleagues who are here, Senator Boozman, Senator Whitehouse, 

Senator Murphy was here, Senator Murphy started off, he gave his 

statement. He also put in the record a statement by Senator Collins and made the point this is our first real bipartisan breakthrough on an issue dealing with the climate. But as was pointed 

out, it is a lot more than climate, it is about a lot of other things 

as well. 

So I am going to hand this over to Senator Whitehouse and he 

will run this. I just want to thank you all so much. I am excited 

about this bill. 

Senator Whitehouse, why don’t you take it from here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding] Very well, and Mr. Fay, we will turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN FAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE 

FOR RESPONSIBLE ATMOSPHERIC POLICY 

Mr. FAY. Thank you, Senator. 

I serve as Executive Director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

The Alliance, originally organized in 1980, is a coalition of manufacturers, businesses and trade associations which make or use 

fluorinated gases in their course of business. Today, Alliance member companies are leading the development of next generation, climate-and ozone-friendly technologies and applications. 

The U.S. fluorocarbon using and producing industries contribute more than $158 billion annually in goods and services to the U.S. 

economy, and provide employment to more than 700,000 individuals. 

S. 911 would help to focus government activities on the so-called 

short-lived climate pollutants, including HFCs, further congressional understanding and identify potential future steps. Our comments today are specifically in relation to the provisions governing 

HFCs. 

The Alliance commended the sponsors of the legislation upon its 

introduction. We did so because the legislation would one, recognize 

the appropriate role of the Montreal Protocol in advancing ozone 

protection while reducing greenhouse gas emissions calibrated to 

the pace of technology developments and the availability of proven 

energy efficient alternatives. Two, acknowledges the important role 

of effective refrigerant management and recovery and re-use of refrigerant as near-term approaches that can achieve significant HFC 

emissions reductions. And three, close the HCFC–22 exception that 

permits the use of ozone-depleting residential air conditioning 

units. The legislation promotes both ozone protection and improved 

energy efficiency of newer systems. 

The highly successful Montreal Protocol Treaty is grounded in 

scientific understanding, includes an effective technology and economic assessment process and recognizes the special needs of deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98201.TXT VERN
23 

veloping country economies. The Protocol identifies long-term objectives and achieves its environmental protection benefits in a sensible approach, guided by economic feasibility. 

As a result of our experience under the Protocol over the last 27 

years, we believe it can play an instrumental role in also reducing 

the greenhouse gas contributions of ODS substitutes. This approach is far preferable for uniform treatment of HCFs than command and control regulations by the United States and other nations, or the market-fracturing approach that will result if the 

major economies were all to choose different means of achieving 

HFC greenhouse gas reductions. 

We believe with the appropriate policy signals and flexible implementation, it is possible to achieve a substantial reduction of HFC 

greenhouse gas contribution over the next several decades. That is 

why in September of this year, the Alliance announced its intent 

to ‘‘take actions and support policies to achieve an 80 percent reduction of global HFC emissions on a GWP-weighted basis by 

2050.’’ 

The legislation acknowledges the Protocol’s success and encourages addressing HFCs through an amendment. We would concur. 

The bill also encourages the utilization of Section 608 of the 

Clean Air Act as a means of reducing service emissions of current 

HFC-using equipment and promoting refrigerant recapture and reuse. We know that the majority of HFC emissions occur during the 

service, maintenance, repair and disposal of air conditioning and 

commercial refrigeration units. Moreover, this equipment operates 

most efficiently when properly charged and maintained, minimizing energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions. 

In reducing the contribution of HFCs to climate change, initiating 

proper refrigerant management practices remains the lowest-hanging fruit. 

The legislation also calls attention to the important role of the 

fluorocarbon compounds with regard to energy efficiency of the air 

conditioning units and refrigeration equipment in which they are 

utilized. Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse gas contribution of 

this equipment is derived indirectly as a result of its lifetime energy consumption. 

In the transitions achieved to date, and the pending transition to 

low-GWP compounds, it is imperative that this be part of the technology assessment process, and must include coordination with energy efficiency standards processes and appropriate modifications 

to building codes and standards. 

The last item highlighted in S. 2911 is language to close an exception for what are known as the dry–22 units. In a rulemaking 

5 years ago, EPA defined uncharged condensing units to be a service component not otherwise subject to the Clean Air Act prohibition to place in commerce equipment that relies on HCFC–22, 

which is phased out under the protocol. As a result of this rule 

modification, the manufacture of these units increased significantly 

at a time when their phase-out was nearly complete. The manufacturing community has recently advised EPA of its unanimous position that the manufacture of these units should be phased out. The 

language in the bill would effect this change and the Alliance 

would be supportive. 

24 

U.S. industry has been at the forefront of the technology advances over the last several decades on ozone protection and climate protection. We are now investing in the innovation of lowGWP compounds and technologies that will allow us to achieve 

ozone protection, climate protection and energy efficiency goals. We 

have embraced this new challenge. However, much work remains 

to be done. Technology pathways have not been identified for all 

the critical uses. Industry leaders recently highlighted the multibillion dollar investments to be made over the next decade in order 

to achieve these goals. U.S. industry leadership and an effective 

global approach on the Montreal Protocol will be key to this 

achievement. 

S. 2911 is a useful legislative vehicle with regard to HFCs because it helps focus the attention of the relevant U.S. Government 

departments and agencies on key issues in that regard, including 

effective assessment of low-GWP alternatives for responsible refrigerant management and the market support of Montreal Protocol 

amendment as an appropriate path forward. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. We 

look forward to working with you in the next Congress as these 

issues are addressed and will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fay follows:] 

25 


98201.014
26 


98201.015
27 


98201.016
28 


98201.017
29 


98201.018
30 


98201.019
31 


98201.020
32 


98201.021
33 


98201.022
34 


98201.023
35 


98201.024
36 


98201.025
37 


98201.026
38 


98201.027
39 


98201.028
40 


98201.029
41 


98201.030
42 


98201.031
43 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Fay. I appreciate your testimony. 

Before we turn to Dr. Shindell, would it be possible to get a list 

of the membership of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy? You have some pretty strong participants, and I think it would 

help if there was a record of that. 

Mr. FAY. Surely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Dr. Shindell, if you please. 

STATEMENT OF DREW SHINDELL, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF CLIMATE SCIENCES, NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DUKE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SHINDELL. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

We have heard that the World Health Organization has recently 

estimated that seven million die every year from poor air quality, 

making it the leading environmental cause of premature death 

worldwide. In many parts of the world, it is the single leading 

cause for women and children. It is a silent killer, but it is out 

there. In the United States it is responsible for over 100,000 deaths 

per year. 

Of all the sources of the emissions that lead to poor air quality 

in the United States, coal burning is the single largest, causing, by 

my calculations, about 47,000 premature deaths per year. That 

happens to be larger than the total number of Americans killed in 

all the years of the Vietnam War by hostile fire. So we hear a lot 

up here on Capitol Hill about things like the war on coal; what we 

forget is coal’s war on us. There is a heavy toll, not just from coal 

and not just in terms of death from air quality. One hundred eighty 

thousand non-fatal heart attacks per year, 150,000 cases of hospitalization for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, all of these 

health care costs are passed on to the American people. 

And it is not just the American people, it is American business, 

18 million lost work days every year due to poor air quality, 11 million missed school days for our children. Air quality is a pressing 

issue at the same time that climate change’s toll continues to 

mount. 

The good news here is that there are solutions in many cases, especially when it comes to the short-lived climate pollutants that are 

the heart of this bill. In the study for the U.N. environment program that I led, we found that aggressive action to reduce methane 

and soot, along with the related emissions that come out with soot, 

would, as we have heard this morning, reduce climate change over 

the next, by mid-century or so, by about half a degree. The climate 

has already warmed by nearly a degree, and most of the nations 

of the world have pledged to reduce, to keep the warming to about 

2 degrees. So although half a degree may not sound like much, it 

is really a big deal. 

At the same time, the other benefits of targeting these pollutants 

have enormous consequences. Over the next 25 years, they would 

save about a billion tons of agricultural yield. In the United States 

alone, more than a hundred million tons of crop losses due to ozone 

pollution could be saved by phasing in strong reductions in methane and soot and its related emissions. Over a quarter million 

44 

American lives could be saved by phasing in these same aggressive 

measures to reduce emissions of these pollutants. 

I am gratified to see that the bill that has been proposed and 

that we are discussing here today looks at many of the exact same 

measures that were included in the study that I have just quoted 

from, specifically targeting methane emissions from the oil and gas 

industry, from coal mining and from municipal waste, and targeting emissions of soot and related compounds from diesel engines, from cook stoves and from small industries. 

It is also particularly important to look at emissions in the Arctic, a particularly sensitive region of the planet to warming, and a 

place where particles can have an extra powerful effect on leading 

to a warming planet. 

Some areas in particular, as Senator Boxer mentioned this morning, have solutions where the finance and the industrial, or the economic motivation is especially strong. In particular, for the oil and 

gas sector, what is being proposed in many cases is simply the best 

practices that are already put into place by much of American industry being extended to the rest of the industry that is not yet 

using those and around the world. So sharing our technology, our 

industries’ practices that already have been shown to work, taking 

those and spreading those around for the common benefit. 

At the same time, use of low-sulfur fuels allows greater control 

of particulate emissions. A recent study that we completed on the 

use of kerosene for lighting in the developing world shows that in 

many countries, for example in India, kerosene is heavily subsidized by the government. The financing required to adopt an alternative is already there and simply needs to be redirected. U.S. 

leadership can help make that come to pass. 

I would just like to close by pointing out that we pay a great deal 

of attention to problems and catastrophes when they are local and 

when they occur suddenly. An example, the faulty ignition switches 

in the General Motors cars. These killed approximately 20 people, 

the precise number is still a bit debated, over the last decade or 

so. At the same time, the cars manufactured by GM produced air 

pollution that killed about 40,000 Americans. We don’t pay attention to that nearly enough, so I am grateful to see a bill that targets this pollution that is leading to climate change, air quality, agricultural loss. 

I thank you for your efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shindell follows:] 

45 


98201.032
46 


98201.033
47 


98201.034
48 


98201.035
49 


98201.036
50 


98201.037
51 


98201.038
52 


98201.039
53 


98201.040
54 


98201.041
55 


98201.042
56 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Shindell. 

Our next witness is Dr. Peiser. Please proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BENNY PEISER, DIRECTOR, THE GLOBAL 

WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION 

Mr. PEISER. Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank the 

Chairman and committee for the opportunity to testify before your 

committee on, and I make that absolutely clear, on unilateral policies to tackle climate change, in particular greenhouse gases. So I 

am not going to talk today about real air pollution, but about the 

challenge to come to a global policy which is the only policy that 

would actually tackle greenhouse gases. 

My name is Benny Peiser. I am the Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a non-partisan think tank based in London. 

And as the name suggests, our main concern are the policies adopted by governments. That is what I would like to draw your attention to, particularly the experience we are having in Europe with 

unilateral climate policies. 

The European Union has long been committed to unilateral efforts to tackle climate change, and in the last 20 years has tried 

very hard, felt a duty to set a kind of example through radical bills 

such as this one. We have had it, as I said, for many, many years, 

very radical climate policymaking at home. But it was just Europe. 

As a result, European governments have advanced the most expensive forms of energy at the expense of the least expensive forms 

of energy. And about 14 years ago, the EU adopted the so-called 

Lisbon Strategy with a goal of making ‘‘Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable 

of sustainable economic growth and more embedded jobs and greater social cohesion.’’ In the same year, the EU also adopted the European Climate Change Program, which developed the EU implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. 

Today, 14 years after having adopted these key policies, the 

economies of most EU member states are stagnating or in decline. 

Instead of sustainable economic growth, instead of more jobs, instead of greater social cohesion, the OECD warned last week that 

the crisis-ridden EU has become a major threat to the world economy. So much for Europe becoming the most competitive place on 

earth. 

Europe’s unilateral climate policies have played a crucial role in 

the EU’s economic decline. And it is this experience with unilateral 

action that I want to focus upon. The other thing is, even though 

Europe has managed to reduce CO2 emissions domestically, this 

has only happened because it shifted essentially energy-intensive 

and heavy industries and their emissions overseas to nations where 

there are no similar emission limits, where energy and labor is 

cheap and which are now growing much faster than the EU. As a 

result, Europe’s manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to international competition. 

The EU’s unilateral climate policies pose an existential threat to 

Europe’s industrial base. This threat is real, as the EU’s outgoing 

industry commissioner, Antonio Tajani, has warned in no uncertain 

terms, that is the EU industry commissioner: ‘‘We face a systemic 

industrial massacre. We need a new energy policy. We have to stop 

57 

pretending, because we can’t sacrifice Europe’s industry for climate 

goals that are not realistic, and are not being enforced worldwide.’’ 

That is the crux of the problem. 

There is another problem, a problem that is hitting Europe’s 

poorest most, energy poverty. In the EU, hundreds of billions of 

Euros for climate policies have been paid by ordinary families and 

small and medium sized businesses in what is undoubtedly one of 

the biggest wealth transfers from poor to rich in modern European 

history. As wealthy homeowners and landowners install wind turbines on land and solar panels on their homes and commercial 

buildings, low income families all over Europe have to foot skyrocketing electricity bills. This winter, millions of poor families will 

have to choose between eating and heating. And many can no 

longer afford to pay. So the utilities are cutting off their power. 

Let me conclude. Europe’s climate policy has burdened families 

and businesses with astronomical costs while shifting its heavy industry and its CO2 emissions to other parts of the world. The EU’s 

climate fail demonstrates beyond doubt in my view unilateral policies are a complete fiasco and don’t really solve anything. Europe 

is ground zero for failed climate policy and here is a lesson: don’t 

make the same mistake or you will suffer the same consequences. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peiser follows:] 

58 


98201.043
59 


98201.044
60 


98201.045
61 


98201.046
62 


98201.047
63 


98201.048
64 


98201.049
65 


98201.050
66 


98201.051
67 


98201.052
68 


98201.053
69 


98201.054
70 


98201.055
71 


98201.056
72 


98201.057
73 


98201.058
74 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Peiser. 

Our final witness, Mr. Steve Moore. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MOORE, CHIEF ECONOMIST, INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY, THE 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senators, for the opportunity to testify 

this afternoon. 

I am the Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation. I am not 

an environmental expert, but I am an expert on what is happening 

with the U.S. economy. I thought I would spend my time and devote my remarks to how the fossil fuel revolution that is going on 

in this Country has really so dramatically changed the economic 

outlook in our States. I know some of you represent States that are 

part of this oil and gas revolution that has played such a vital part 

in our economic recovery. 

Let me start by stating a simple fact that is almost undeniable, 

that the whole world of energy production changed almost overnight six or 7 years ago with the introduction of shale oil and gas 

and the technologies that allow us to get at oil and gas in the 

United States that has been stored there for hundreds of thousands 

of years but we never had the technology to get at it. 

If you look at the chart in my testimony, the first chart, you can 

see the ramifications of this for our energy production and also our 

energy imports. This has been a seismic change. The United States 

over the last 6 years has increased its oil and gas output by almost 

50 percent in the last 6 years. That is something, by the way, that 

no one would have predicted possible as recently as four or 5 years 

ago. 

President Obama, just as recently as two or 3 years ago, said the 

United States was running out of oil and gas. I would amend that 

to say, Mr. President, with all due respect, American isn’t running 

out of oil and gas, we are running into it big time. We have hundreds of years of supply. 

You can also see the big reduction in imports, which is a huge 

lift to the American economy. 

The second point I would like to make is maybe the most important, that without the shale oil and gas revolution, it is quite possible the United States never would have exited the recession. That 

is how important this energy revolution has been to the American 

economy. 

And if you look at the second chart in my testimony, I think it 

underscores this point. If you look at all employment, this goes 

through the end of 2013, you can see that virtually on net, all the 

new jobs created in the U.S. economy over the last six or 7 years 

have come from the oil and gas industry. We just 2 months ago got 

to the point where in all industries where we replaced all the jobs 

that were lost during the recession. Without the oil and gas industry, we would have been in a much, much worse situation and the 

recession would have lasted much, much longer. 

The third point I would like to make is that many people a number of years ago bet on green energy. Dr. Peiser made a great point 

on this, that European countries did go all in on green energy 10 

or 15 years ago and it hasn’t worked. What you are seeing is right 

75 

now if you look at what is happening in Germany, Germany’s industrial production fell the last quarter. This is the second quarter 

in a row that Germany has had net zero industrial growth and 

many of the experts believe that one of the reasons that German 

manufacturing and Germany industrial production has fallen so 

dramatically, so far behind the United States, is because of the fact 

that they are trying to use green energy, which is much, much 

more expensive. When you are competing in international markets 

and your energy prices are much higher, you suffer. 

By the way, I would make a side point that one of the real strong 

elements of the U.S. economy today is the U.S. economy is going 

through a manufacturing renaissance that a lot of people would not 

have predicted. It is going on in Michigan, it is going on in Indiana, 

my home State of Illinois, it is going on in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

A lot of this industrial manufacturing rebound in autos and steel 

and other vital industries like plastics and chemicals is a direct result of the energy boom. 

The next point I would like to make is that shale gas is reducing 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that most Americans are not aware of, because the media doesn’t talk a lot about 

this. But if you look over the last 10 years, the United States has 

reduced our CO2 emissions more than any other industrialized 

country that we compete with. This is according to the U.S. Energy 

Information Agency, and you can see in the chart that we have reduced our carbon emissions. The EU has reduced their emissions 

but not as much as we have. And of course, China and India are 

out through the roof in their CO2 emissions. 

The lesson here by the way is that when you shift to shale gas, 

natural gas as a form of electricity production, you dramatically reduce your greenhouse emissions. So the shale gas is a wonder fuel, 

because it is cheap, it is abundant, it is made in America and it 

is clean-burning. 

In my last minute or so, I would like to make this point about 

income inequality. As an economist, as you all know, this has become one of the No. 1 issues for Americans, is the gap between the 

rich and poor. One of the points I would like to stress to you all 

is that by making anything that makes electricity production more 

expensive, it makes it more expensive for people to heat their 

home, makes their utility bills more expensive, actually makes income inequality worse. Because the poor spend a much higher fraction of their income on electricity than the rich do. 

So we ought to look at this energy boom as also something that 

is reducing income inequality in the United States. By the way, if 

we adopt policies and regulations that make electricity more expensive, we are making the income inequality problem worse. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

76 


98201.059
77 


98201.060
78 


98201.061
79 


98201.062
80 


98201.063
81 


98201.064
82 


98201.065
83 


98201.066
84 


98201.067
85 


98201.068
86 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. I appreciate your testimony. I thank the entire panel for being here. 

Let me first ask Dr. Shindell, you testified that aggressive reductions in methane and black carbon could reducing warming rates 

over the next decade by about half. You are at Duke University 

now, which is in North Carolina, which has a coastline which is experiencing some sea level rise. Could you correlate the reduced 

warming rates as a result of reducing methane and black carbon 

emissions to the sea level rise that we are seeing in Rhode Island 

and you are seeing down in North Carolina? 

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, thank you. 

Sea level rise is a cumulative process, as heat goes steadily into 

the oceans. So it is a function of how much we have changed climate or emitted things like carbon dioxide in the past as well as 

our future emissions. So it would be somewhat less than temperature, which is a bit of a faster response. But it would be of similar 

magnitude, say on the order of maybe 40 percent rather than 50 

percent. So a very, very large difference. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you have been a scientist at NASA for 

the last 20 years or so? 

Mr. SHINDELL. Correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You were at the Goddard Institute, a pretty prestigious place? 

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There is a theory that is brooding around 

Congress that the science of climate change is being fabricated by 

a global cabal of scientists who are eager to get their hands on research grants and get attention. You been watching the scientific 

discussion on climate change for many years now from a very prestigious location. As you have watched this debate develop, is there 

any truth to that theory that we sometimes hear here? 

Mr. SHINDELL. There is not only no truth to that theory, there 

is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not only did I work at 

a NASA institute, but NASA along with other space agencies 

around the world launches the instruments, and we watch the 

planet from satellites. We see everything all around the world. And 

the satellites don’t lie. They tell you that the ice caps are shrinking. They tell you that the ocean is rising. They tell you that the 

temperature is going up. They tell you that the atmosphere is getting wetter as the air holds more water vapor. 

They even show that carbon dioxide is rising and they show that 

methane is increasing. All of the things we are talking about today. 

It has been analyzed by independent science bodies from almost 

every country in the world, almost everybody with credibility, with 

expertise in the subject matter says that yes, the evidence is overwhelming. The IPCC group sponsored by nations around the world 

says that the evidence is unequivocal. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Not a word one usually hears in science. 

Mr. Moore, you founded the Free Enterprise Fund with the wellknown economist Dr. Arthur Laffer, who was associated with the 

Reagan administration. Your bio on the Heritage Foundation 

website identifies Dr. Laffer as having a profound influence on your 

thinking. Dr. Laffer has supported a carbon fee on economic 

grounds, if, big if, it is offset with reductions and other taxes. 

87 

Mr. MOORE. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me quote him, what we had to say in 

support: ‘‘I do it for pure economics. I am worried about economic 

growth in the United States and the creation of jobs, output and 

employment. If you tax people who work, you are going to get less 

people working. What the carbon tax would do is remove the tax 

from people who work and put it on a product in the ground. That 

would be very beneficial for the economy, pure and simple.’’ 

Do you agree with Dr. Laffer? 

Mr. MOORE. I am familiar with the repot that you are talking 

about that Dr. Laffer put together. There is a big debate among 

conservative free market economists about whether a swap, where 

you taxed carbon and you reduce taxes on, say, capital or work, 

would be something that would be economically efficient. It is 

something I would certainly be open-minded to. I would have to see 

the details of the plan. It is certainly true, when you tax something, you want to tax bad things and you want to lower taxes on 

good things. So work and effort and capital investment are good 

things, and pollution is obviously a bad thing. So if a deal were 

well constructed, it might be something there might be bipartisan 

agreement on. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You said in your testimony shale gas is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why is that a good thing? 

Mr. MOORE. Why is it? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. MOORE. Well, because carbon emissions, as a goal we want 

to reduce carbon emissions. I am not an expert on global warming. 

But other experts here know far more than I do about that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you don’t dispute them? You believe 

that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a worthy goal? 

Mr. MOORE. Reducing carbon emissions? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Greenhouse gas emissions was the phrase 

you used. So I am using your own words. 

Mr. MOORE. I think it probably should be a goal, and my point, 

when you asked me why is it that we are reducing our carbon 

emissions due to natural gas is because we are converting, as you 

know, Senator, we are converting electricity production in the 

United States away from coal and far more toward natural gas. I 

think next year will be the first year we produce actually more 

electricity from natural gas than from coal. That has been a positive development. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The microphone now goes to the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Vitter of Louisiana. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, and thanks to all of our witnesses. 

I am sorry I was late. I was on the floor to actually help pass something into law, which doesn’t happen every day. I came here as 

soon as I could, and thank you for all of your testimony. 

I will start with Dr. Peiser. Thank you, Dr. Peiser, particularly 

for traveling so far to be with us. 

You brought up with me and my staff the serious concern of the 

cycle of subsidies that seems to occur once renewable energy mandates are initiated. How has subsidizing renewable energy led to 

subsidizing other energy sources and industries in Europe? Why 

88 

does this seem to occur as a direct and natural consequence of 

these climate regulations? 

Mr. PEISER. The problem, a lot of unintended consequences of 

well-intended policies occurred mainly because most policymakers 

were told that the science is settled and therefore the policies are 

settled. That is, I think, the biggest problem in Europe, that with 

the kind of hammer of the science, very poorly thought-through 

policies were adopted. Regardless of the science, the policies make 

no sense. And even a carbon tax, if I may say so, would not make 

any sense if it is just adopted by the U.S. Because it has exactly 

the same effect, that it would drive energy-intensive industries to 

locations where there is no carbon tax. So a carbon tax would only 

make sense if it were adopted universally so that there is a level 

playing field. 

In Europe, what has happened is because there is now a situation where there is a lot of renewable energy which is expensive 

because of the subsidies. But what it is happening, and that is a 

risk that the U.S. faces even with cheap shale gas, is that conventional power plants are no longer running efficiently. They are only 

used, or many of them used for backup or only 70 percent. They 

run uneconomically, they are loss-making. 

So what is happening in Europe, the governments in Europe are 

now subsidizing conventional, have to subsidize conventional power 

plants to keep them open, to keep the lights on. Now that we have 

subsidized renewable and we have subsidized conventional power 

plants, the energy price obviously goes up dramatically, has doubled in the last 10 years by and large. And the industry comes and 

says, we can’t survive with these energy prices, so they are subsidized as well. 

That is the sad, sad situation based on well-intentioned policies, 

policies that have caused a lot of damage, not just to industry but 

also to a lot of families. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And can you also discuss exactly how the 

opt-out provisions of the new EU deal on climate works, and if you 

believe member states are beginning to recognize the economic 

challenges they face in looking for basically a way out, at least in 

the face of China and India not having anything similar or rigorous? 

Mr. PEISER. We have for the first time that I can remember a 

European leadership that seems to be more skeptical about these 

policies than the U.S. Administration. I can’t recall any time that 

that has ever happened, because Europe always adopted much 

more aggressive and much more green policies. Here, the EU leaders have made their targets for 2030 conditional on a legally binding U.N. agreement in Paris. And they have agreed that unless 

there is this agreement that is binding, and I understand there are 

now big problems even as we speak in Lima about this very issue, 

the Europeans will revisit their targets. 

So the targets are conditional on a binding agreement, whereas 

the U.S. Administration seems to be quite happy to go it alone. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And Mr. Moore sort of related to that in 

terms of unilateral versus something else. Could you comment on 

President Obama’s recent deal with China and what did China get 

out of the United States in the deal? 

89 

Mr. MOORE. I am deeply skeptical that China will ever meet 

these targets that were allegedly agreed to. Actually, if you read 

the statement by the Chinese president, it says we intend to do 

this, which is hardly an iron-clad agreement. If you look at that 

chart, Senator, it is that chart on the third or so page of my testimony, you can see that the last 10 years, while we have reduced 

our carbon emissions by about 6 percent, China has increased 

theirs by 156 percent. That doesn’t sound like a country that is getting very serious about reducing their carbon emissions. 

We do know that China is building substantial numbers of new 

coal-burning power plants. They are buying a lot of coal from the 

United States. They also, as I am sure you read, they have a new 

agreement with Russia where they are going to spend several hundred billion dollars on pipelines to pipeline oil and gas from Russia 

into China. As I said in my testimony, that doesn’t sound like the 

actions of a country that intends to substantially reduce its fossil 

fuels production. 

Senator VITTER. And in fact, beyond that, couldn’t an argument 

be made that they almost have an incentive to increase their peak 

several years out, because reductions are measured from a peak? 

Mr. MOORE. Look, if their economy continues to grow at the rate 

that it has, what has happened in China over the last 25 years, one 

of the great economic miracles of human history, where they have 

been growing at a 12 to 13 percent compounded rate. Not many 

economists think they can keep that up. But even if their growth 

rate falls in half, they are still growing at 6 to 7 percent. 

They are going to consume a whole lot, they are going to need 

coal, they are going to need oil, they are going to need gas, they 

are going to need nuclear power. And they may also use green energy as well if it can be done and produced in a way that is costefficient. I think the point that Dr. Peiser and I are making is that 

right now it is not cost-efficient. It is substantially higher in cost 

to generate electricity from wind and solar than it is from coal, natural gas and nuclear power. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Merkley and then Senator 

Boozman. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Moore, you are familiar as an economist with the concept of 

externalities. In Oregon right now we are seeing a fire season that 

has grown by about 60 days over a couple of decades. We are seeing greater pine beetle damage to our forests. We are seeing problems with the reproduction of seafood, particularly oysters, because 

of the 30 percent more acidic ocean water. And we have a great 

drop in the snow pack in the Cascades, which is leading to significant water shortages in the Klamath Basin. 

These are externalities that it didn’t sound to me like you have 

calculated into your analysis. Why is that? 

Mr. MOORE. You are right, there are externalities with any form 

of energy production, no question about it. So the tremendous 

amount of water that is used by modern drilling techniques is certainly a cost. As I said, there are costs to nuclear power in terms 

of the risk of accidents, there are costs from oil in terms of oil 

90 

spills. Obviously wind and solar have external costs as well. We 

have to kind of balance in the cost and the benefits. 

You are quite right, taking in those costs may reduce some of the 

benefit that I documented by some degree, but not substantially in 

my opinion. Because we are talking about costs, for example, of energy production from coal and natural gas that is very substantially lower than the cost of producing, say, from windmills or solar 

paneling. 

Senator MERKLEY. I would certainly encourage you to actually 

look at these externalities seriously. For example, the impact on 

coral reefs around the world from the greater acidity and the 

warmer oceans is having a big impact on fisheries around the 

world. Just these examples, they are multitudinous. And when you 

add up the costs, it suggests that maybe the calculation is that the 

costs do exceed the benefit. These are not captured in the price of 

carbon burning. 

I wanted to turn to Dr. Shindell. I read recently, and you mentioned space-based analysis of what is going on on the earth. I believe that I read about satellite data that was related to tracking 

methane concentrations. I think it referred to a methane bubble in 

areas where fracking has occurred. There is enough fugitive methane from fracking that it has started to become detectable. Are you 

familiar with that particular part of the problem? 

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, thank you. What we heard before was that 

natural gas has a lower greenhouse gas emission than coal. In fact, 

what is really the case is natural gas has lower carbon dioxide 

emissions than coal. But methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and hence the focus of part of this bill. Indeed, it only 

takes a few percent methane leakage to more than offset any benefits that you get from carbon dioxide. So industry tends to report, 

and in many cases it seems accurate, that their leak rates are extremely low from oil and gas operations, often less than 1 percent. 

However, when you measure from aircraft flying overhead, or 

look down from satellites, often you see far larger methane 

amounts that are very inconsistent with those estimates derived 

from industry. They imply several percent. 

In fact, you even see places like some towns in Wyoming that 

have severe ozone levels, greater than, say, New York or Los Angeles, even though there is not a lot of industry, there are not a lot 

of vehicles. So it is clearly all the pollution coming from the oil and 

gas extraction operations in the vicinity. 

So that is the beauty of having these space-based observations. 

Researchers are not allowed to go in except where industry permits 

them to take measurements at the wellhead, at the gas facility. 

But from the air, you can really see that there are at least, in 

many cases, or at least in some cases, there are extremely high levels, which means that natural gas is actually contributing more to 

climate change than coal. 

But again, we have the technology to clean it up. So if we use 

best practices that are in place in some places, if we use those elsewhere, we could really make a big difference. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Fay, by various analyses, there is a translation of, if you will, 

gigatons of carbon dioxide that translates into certain parts per 

91 

mission, about eight gigatons, translates into one part per million 

in the atmosphere. And by some calculations, to have a 50 percent 

probability of staying within the 2 degrees Centigrade, we can only 

burn about 500 to 600 gigatons, or create that much carbon dioxide 

by burning fossil carbon. 

If you look at it that way, and on our current trend, we would 

expend that entire carbon budget within 16 to 20 years. Is that a 

reasonable way of looking at this particular issue? 

Mr. FAY. I am not the carbon guy, but I guess I would have to 

say that from the industry perspective, we have tried to look at 

this at longer than a 16 to 20 year timeframe. Because some of 

these are very long-term issues to resolve. The Montreal Protocol 

that we have dealt with in the ozone-depleting compounds is now 

almost 30 years old. And we have identified paths forward for reducing the HFCs that are substitutes that are out there and growing rapidly between now and 2050. It can be done in a cost-effective way, it can increase energy efficiency which can help reduce 

carbon dioxide output as well. 

But I think it is important to take a long-term view in terms of 

what is achievable and identify goals and objectives that you can 

reach. I think that is what the industries that are involved in the 

HFC side have done and have proposed. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Fay, thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moore, you mentioned the problem of income inequality 

being made worse by high electricity prices impacting single moms, 

people on fixed incomes. Can you talk a little bit about heavy manufacturing, what that would do to jobs? It sounded like in Mr. 

Peiser’s testimony that in Europe, you have a situation where they 

are moving jobs offshore to beat the standards that are on them. 

Here, it looks to me like you have a possibility of meeting the 

standards, but also in this global economy making it such that 

without that on you, then your cost point would make it such that 

you could be competitive. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? And the other thing, too, is 

you have a dirtier world than ever because they are moving them 

to places where they are not going to do what we do, and we can 

be proud of our reductions, and we need to continue our reductions. 

But they are not going to do what we do, and what Europe has 

done. 

Mr. MOORE. So let me answer the first part of our question, 

which is about this issue of inequality. The big story of the U.S. 

economy over the last six to 8 weeks, of course, has been the massive and dramatic reduction in gasoline prices. We know why that 

is happening, gasoline prices are falling primarily because the 

United States output has increased so significantly. 

Now, I just did the calculations on this, Senator. Every time the 

gasoline price at the pump falls by one penny, by one penny, that 

is a $1 billion tax cut for the American consumer. So that means 

that low income people who don’t have to spend $70 to fill up their 

tank, but are only spending say, $50, because we had a 40 percent 

reduction in the gasoline price, that means they could spend it on 

92 

other things. I think Christmas sales are going to be high as a result of these reductions in gas prices. 

So this is a big stimulus to the economy. My point was, the people who benefit the most are people at the bottom, because they are 

paying three to four times the percentage of their income on electric utilities than a wealthy person. 

Now, the other point that is related to this, which I find interesting, you here in the Senate debate oftentimes the Low Income 

Heating and Energy Assistance Program, that is a big program of 

importance in the State of Rhode Island. There have been some calculations, I can get you the studies on this, that show that the reduction in the natural gas price, because of fracking and horizontal 

drilling, that reduction in the price in terms of utilities, that has 

benefited poor, low income Americans, the bottom fifth, to three 

times as much as the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance 

Program. 

So think of this gas boom as three times more important for low 

income people than LIHEAP. So that is a big benefit to the poor. 

I think Dr. Peiser could probably answer the second part of your 

question better than I can. 

Senator BOOZMAN. About heavy manufacturing moving overseas 

and how that affects jobs. 

Mr. PEISER. Well, we all know what happened to the textile industry in Europe. It doesn’t exist anymore, because it went to 

cheap labor countries. And there was a big piece in the Financial 

Times last week saying, cheap energy is the new cheap labor. Manufacturing that requires a lot of energy moves to countries where 

energy is cheap. That is happening now. The European policymakers are desperate, not because of energy poverty and inequality, they never care about that, but that the industry now is moving away and that European companies, instead of investing in Europe, are investing in North America because of cheap energy. That 

drives them crazy. 

And the other thing is that in Germany, heavy industry is subsidized to the tune of $3 billion Euros per year. So they are essentially exempt from the energy price that the ordinary families have 

to pay. 

So ordinary families and small businesses are hit twice over. 

First they have to pay for the extremely high energy price and then 

they have to pay for the subsidies for the industry, just to stay 

there. 

As I said in my testimony and I have explained it in more detail, 

if you ever wanted to develop a policy that is most damaging to 

your country and to your industry, you couldn’t make a better policy than the one Europeans have adopted. It is as dramatic as that. 

And for the first time, European leaders are willing to speak out. 

This was a taboo issue in Europe. It is not like in the U.S. I understand in the U.S. it is a very partisan issue, very, very heavily debated. In Europe, it was whole party, complete consensus and no 

one dared ask awkward questions. This has changed. People are 

beginning to ask these questions, why did we do that and why did 

no one else follow us. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think anybody on this panel minds asking awkward questions. 

93 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

I appreciate very much the testimony of the witnesses. I would 

ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made a part 

of the record, which it was not, because I was not here at the beginning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for holding this important hearing, and to Senator Murphy [and Senator Collins if she attends] for joining us today and working across the aisle on the Super Pollutants Act. 

I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the bill and hope to see more practical 

and bipartisan legislation to protect the environment and manage the ever-worsening problem of climate change. 

Climate change is a clear and present danger for the American public and the 

world. Measurements of the atmosphere and oceans reveal dramatic, even unprecedented, changes in the climate. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the first 10 months of 2014 have been the hottest since record keeping began, and 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. We’re already seeing that unchecked emissions of greenhouse gases are pushing the climate into new, 

costly, and potentially dangerous territory. 

While we cannot ignore the dominating effect of carbon pollution on the climate, 

super pollutants like HFCs, black carbon, and methane also contribute to the problem. These super pollutants trap much more heat, ton-for-ton, than carbon dioxide. 

Let’s consider methane. The latest scientific findings show that the warming potential of methane is 28 times that of carbon pollution when measured over 100 

years and 84 times greater over 20 years. Methane is also the second most abundant greenhouse gas emitted by human activities after carbon pollution, and the 

bulk of U.S. emissions—about 30 percent—are from oil and natural gas production. 

Methane that’s leaked, vented and flared from oil and gas systems pollutes the 

environment and wastes a finite resource. Methane is, after all, the principal component of natural gas. Oil and gas producers who fail to prevent emissions of methane 

are wasting energy and losing potential profits. According to Ceres, in 2012 alone, 

North Dakota oil and gas producers flared more than $1billion worth of natural gas 

in the Bakken. Addressing methane emissions from oil and gas production and distribution will provide significant economic and environmental benefits. 

Some super pollutants are also linked to diminished air quality and threaten public health. For example, the list of health effects from black carbon exposure includes asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and premature death. In my home State of 

Rhode Island, the number of children and adults that suffer from asthma are both 

higher than the national average. We also have one of the highest rates for lung 

cancer in the Northeast. Lost school and work days, as well as the costs of inhalers 

and emergency room visits, add up. Reducing black carbon emissions has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in this committee and I believe this bill provides us 

another opportunity to work together in a bipartisan manner to address this public 

health threat. 

Until there is an economy-wide price on carbon pollution, methane, and other 

greenhouse gases, we need to use all the tools at our disposal to deal with climate 

change. This bill aims to do just that. By supporting common-sense measures to reduce the emissions of these powerful greenhouse gases, it can help us reduce the 

threat of climate change and improve environmental quality. 

Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for holding this hearing, 

and to our distinguished panel of experts for joining us today to help us understand 

to the risks of super pollutant emissions as well as how we stand to benefit from 

reducing them. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow you with the 

same unanimous consent, request for my opening statement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Absolutely. That will be done. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And there is a Politifact that was done 

with respect to the minority leader’s statement that the U.S.-China 

climate deal means China won’t have to do anything for 16 years. 

And the conclusion of Politifact was that that was a mostly false 

94 

statement. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant Politifact be 

made a part of the record as well. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

95 


98201.074
96 


98201.075
97 


98201.076
98 


98201.077
99 


98201.078
100 


98201.079
101 


98201.080
102 


98201.081
103 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Anything further to be made a part of the 

record? 

The record of the hearing will remain open for an additional 2 

weeks for anything else that anybody cares to add. I know Mr. Fay 

is going to be sending us the list of his membership. I appreciate 

very much the association’s testimony in support. I know a lot of 

work went into this. 

This was a potentially kind of an interesting breakthrough moment, to have a bipartisan bill that actually addresses climate 

change. So I will close by remarking on that. I think that is a good 

sign that the wall that has divided us is starting to come down in 

a few ways, the reality of climate change is being acknowledged, 

the forcing role of greenhouse gases is being acknowledged and now 

we are debating solutions, which I think is a much healthier conversation than having parallel realities. 

With that, we will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and thank Senators 

Murphy and Collins for their legislation that addresses so called short-lived climate 

pollutants. 

I’ve been working across the aisle for years to address many of these pollutants 

and welcome this legislation. 

Pollutants such as HFCs and black carbon are called short-lived climate pollutants because they don’t stay in the air for a long time. But despite their short time 

in the air, we know they do great damage to our health and to our climate. 

That is why reducing these harmful pollutants are a win-win-win. We lessen the 

threats posed by climate change; we improve public health; AND we create economic 

opportunities in this country. 

And though short-lived climate pollutants isn’t the easiest thing to say, some of 

these pollutants are the easiest and most cost effective climate pollutants to clean 

up. 

For example, the No. 1 source of black carbon in the United States is old, dirty 

diesel engines. We can retrofit or replace these old, diesel engines with new, American-made technology and reduce black carbon emissions by more than 90 percent. 

Without assessing climate benefits, our diesel retrofit programs authorized 

through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act are some of the most cost-effective 

clean air programs we have today. In fact, DERA provides more than $13 in health 

and economic benefits for every Federal dollar spent. 

I’ve been proud to work with former Senator Voinovich and Senator Inhofe on reducing black carbon pollution from our diesel engines. 

This bill takes another approach to addressing black carbon and I look forward 

to hearing more. 

Before I finish, I would be remiss not to mention the benefits of reducing the 

short-lived climate pollutant called hydrofluorocarbons—or HFCs. I am pleased to 

see language in this bill that addresses these pollutants. 

As many of you remember, in the 1970’s and 80’s we faced another global environmental crisis—there was a hole in the ozone and it was growing at an alarming 

rate. Most scientists believed many of the compounds used globally in refrigerants, 

aerosols and solvents were to blame. 

As a result, the global community came together to phaseout ozone depleting compounds —known as the Montreal Protocol. Since the ratification of the Montreal 

Protocol, we have seen a 97 percent reduction in the global consumption of controlled ozone depleting substances. 

Because HFCs are easy to use, efficient, and safe for the ozone many countries, 

including ours, transitioned ozone-depleting substances to HFCs. Unfortunately, 

HFCs have a high global warming potential. 

If HFCs usage continues unchecked, HFCs could account for approximately 20 

percent of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050. So by using HFCs, we are address one 

global environmental problem, while contributing to another. 

104 

Luckily, companies in this country are already producing replacements for HFCs 

that can be used just as safely without damaging our climate. 

Since 2007, I’ve worked with my colleagues, stakeholders and the EPA to find a 

glide path to reduce the usage of HFCs in this country. Although we haven’t passed 

legislation, I am heartened to see the Administration work with industry and the 

international community to reduce HFCs here at home and globally. 

In closing, I believe the Murphy-Collins legislation is an important next step to 

building on the work we’ve done here at home—through programs like DERA—and 

globally to reduce short-term climate pollutants 

105 


98201.071
106 


98201.072
107 

Æ 


98201.073