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

50–224 2009

HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR 

CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009

Serial No. 111–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JON TRAUB, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare 

both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between 

various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences 

are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further 

refined. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES 

Page 

Dr. James Hansen, Adjunct Professor, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York, New York .............................................................................. 6 

Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists .......... 10 

Dr. John Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama ................................................................................... 24 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, Statement ........................................................ 62 

Paul G. Gaffney II, Statement ................................................................................ 67 

Richard Pauli, Statement ........................................................................................ 70 

Wayne Pacelle, Letter ............................................................................................. 73 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR 

CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION 

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles B. Rangel, 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225-1721 

February 18, 2009 

FC–1 

Chairman Rangel Announces Hearing on 

Scientific Objectives for 

Climate Change Legislation 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel today announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will continue its series of hearings 

on climate change. The next hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 

25, 2009, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND: 

During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means began a series 

of hearings on climate change. In the first hearing, the Committee heard testimony 

that human greenhouse gas emissions are having an adverse impact on our planet’s 

climate. In the second hearing, the Committee heard testimony from numerous witnesses recommending that Congress implement revenue measures (e.g., auctionbased cap-and-trade proposals or carbon taxes) that would reduce human greenhouse gas emissions. In connection with the development of these revenue measures, witnesses at this hearing also encouraged the Committee to (1) promote a comprehensive global effort to address climate change and to ensure a level regulatory 

playing field for U.S. manufacturers, (2) mitigate higher energy costs borne by consumers, and (3) maximize the impact that climate change legislation will have on 

growing the U.S. economy. 

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Rangel said, ‘‘The development of climate change legislation will be a priority for the Ways and Means Committee during the 111th Congress. The Committee must define the environmental objectives that we hope to achieve with climate change legislation 

before we can design such legislation. These objectives must be based on 

science.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on a scientific discussion of the objectives that climate 

change legislation should seek to achieve. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Committee Hearings’’. Select the hearing for 

which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide 

a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, comVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 

plete all informational forms and click ‘‘submit’’ on the final page. ATTACH your 

submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting 

requirements listed below, by close of business Wednesday, March 11, 2009. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http:waysandmeans.house.gov. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

Chairman RANGEL. The Committee will come to order. I want 

to thank the Members that are here. I am certain others will be 

coming soon. 

I want to thank the Committee Members and our witnesses for 

joining us on what may not be a historic occasion, but certainly indicating that the Congress is prepared to move on this very, very 

important issue. 

Our President has spoken to this issue. The Speaker has. I am 

certain we all agree that we have a responsibility to continue. 

This is the third hearing that we have had on climate change 

legislation. The whole world is watching, not necessarily this Committee, but certainly the direction in which the Congress is going 

to go. 

We hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 

cooperate in trying to set up some type of a taskforce with other 

Committees of jurisdiction so we can see what, if any differences 

we had, so we can make certain that we get all the ideas on this 

very complex subject in line. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
4 

We think we have enough scientific evidence to move forward on 

this, the distribution of resources that will have to be collected is 

a very complex problem. 

I want to first welcome Dr. James Hansen, who has an international reputation for expertise in this area, spending decades 

bringing this to the attention of the American people and the 

world, sounding the alarm as early as in 1988 when he was in testimony before the Congress, who raised awareness of global warming issues. 

Your leadership has been appreciated. It is invaluable. We are 

really grateful that all of you have adjusted your schedules to share 

your very, very important views with us. 

I want to welcome Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, who joins us today representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. It is a science based 

non-profit organization. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released the U.S. scientists and economists’ call for a swift and deep cut in greenhouse 

gas emissions, and we are honored and pleased that you have presented yourself to us as well as 1,700 scientists and economists 

with expertise in dealing with this, and we thank you again. 

I also would want to include in our welcome to Dr. John Christy, 

who is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth Science Center at the University of Alabama in 

Huntsville. 

He has served the State since 2000 and brings with him a great 

resume of experience in this area. 

Since you all have been pioneers and recognized the serious nature of this issue, and I hope you are pleased to know that our national leadership has agreed that it is time to stop talking and to 

move and to continue to call upon your expertise as we prepare a 

bill to present to the President of these United States. 

I would like to yield to Jim Camp on this sensitive subject. 

Mr. CAMP. It is Jim McCrery and Dave Camp. 

Chairman RANGEL. I am sorry. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you before we get into the substance of this hearing for exerting our jurisdiction over this issue. 

This is an important issue. It is an issue with significant revenue 

ramifications, and the Committee on Ways and Means needs to be 

very importantly involved in it. 

As Dr. Hansen, the witness, notes—I want to thank all the witnesses for being here—he notes in his written testimony, primarily 

on the cover, that tax and trade is ‘‘pseudonymously’’ and sometimes disingenuously termed ‘‘cap and trade.’’ 

I am not sure I could have better stated that fact, that the socalled cap and trade measure is a revenue measure. That should 

originate in the House, and more specifically, it should originate in 

this Committee. 

The question of this hearing is what are the scientific objectives 

for climate change legislation, and I would like to take a step back 

and ask what is the science of climate change, what can it definitely tell us, can it say who is responsible for it, can it tell us what 

impact we can have on it, and if we can, what are the results both 

positive and negative. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
5 

From what I have read, there remains still a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change. 

However, I do think you can find virtually unanimity, and that is 

in acting alone, the United States can do very little if anything to 

reduce global greenhouse gases. 

Unless larger emitters like China and India agree to binding reductions in their emissions, there will be no benefit, only significant job losses here in the U.S. 

Let me repeat that. Unilateral action by the United States will 

not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any significant way, but it 

will reduce U.S. economic growth and destroy millions of American 

jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. In a state like Michigan, that is absolutely critical. 

Those jobs are the backbone of our economy as well. That is because at its core, any tax and trade plan is designed to increase the 

cost of energy. Energy that fuels our cars, lights our homes, powers 

our assembly lines, and ensures an affordable food supply. 

Even if we ask the American worker to make this economic sacrifice, there are no guarantees that China and India will follow 

suit. In fact, the Chinese and Indians have made it very clear that 

they will not agree to any reductions in emissions but instead expect millions of dollars of U.S. aid and technology. 

When asked about capping China’s greenhouse gas emissions, 

Ma Kai, head of the country’s National Development and Reform 

Commission, said and I quote ‘‘Our general stance is that China 

will not commit to any qualified emission reduction targets.’’ 

Similarly, Shyam Saran, India’s principal negotiator on climate 

change, when asked about his country’s interest in capping its 

greenhouse gas emissions, said and I quote again ‘‘Industrialized 

countries should meet their own commitments in the fight against 

climate change rather than asking countries like India and China 

to cap greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving.’’ 

Many of you have heard the Chairman and I discuss the need 

to work in a bipartisan fashion on this Committee, so before I yield 

back, I just want to comment that before Members vote to eliminate millions of American jobs, let us find out if an economy-choking solution will actually provide any measurable benefit. 

I expect all of our witnesses today will caution that the U.S. acting alone cannot make a bit of difference in actually changing the 

climate. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Camp. I now have the great 

honor of calling on Dr. Hansen, who certainly has done a yeoman’s 

job of bringing this serious problem to the attention of our great 

country and the world, and I hope all three of you will make yourself available as we move forward in trying to get these ideas in 

a legislative form. 

Dr. Hansen, thank you once again. I look forward to your testimony. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HANSEN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW 

YORK 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Chairman Rangel and Mr. Camp. 

We have a planet in peril. The President recognizes this. The situation is clear. Evidence from the Earth’s history and ongoing global climate changes reveal that the ‘‘dangerous level’’ of atmospheric 

carbon dioxide is much less than was believed even recently. 

The safe level is no higher than 350 parts per million, probably 

less than that. We just passed 385 ppm. 

Climate change threatens everyone, especially our children and 

grandchildren, the young and the unborn, who will bear the full 

brunt, through no fault of their own. 

It is clear that we cannot burn all fossil fuels releasing the waste 

products into the air without handing our children a situation in 

which amplifying feedbacks begin to run out of their control, with 

severe consequences for nature and humanity. 

We have to face the truth. We cannot burn all of the coal, let 

alone unconventional fossil fuels such as oil shale, unless the combustion products are all captured and disposed of, which is implausible. 

The Obama Administration has taken steps that may lead to improved vehicle efficiencies and reduced coal use. These actions are 

necessary and important but they will be effective only if we address the root cause of the problem. 

The root cause is our failure to make polluting fossil fuel energy 

more expensive than clean energy. We must put a price, a rising 

price, on carbon emissions. 

There are two competing ways to achieve this price. One is tax 

and 100 percent dividend. Tax carbon emissions but give all of the 

money back to the public on a per capita basis. 

For example, let us start with a tax large enough to affect purchasing decisions, a carbon tax that adds one dollar to the price of 

a gallon of gas. That is a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. 

That tax rate yields $670 billion per year. 

We return 100 percent of that money to the public, each adult 

legal resident gets one share, which is $3,000 per year, $250 per 

month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child 

up to a maximum of two children per family, so a tax rate of $115 

per ton yields a dividend of $9,000 per year for a family with two 

children, $750 per month. 

The family with carbon footprint less than average will make 

money. That dividend would exceed their tax. 

This tax gives a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy and it spurs innovation. 

This path can take us to the era beyond fossil fuels, leave most 

remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to extreme 

environments to find every drop of oil. 

We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow, so why not do it sooner for the benefit of our children. Not to do so and knowing the consequences is, I think, immoral. 

The tax rate likely must increase in time, but when gas hits $4 

per gallon again, most of that $4 will stay in the United States as 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
7 

1 Clarification of the climate threat could usefully be obtained by requesting a report from the 

National Academy of Sciences. The Academy, established by Abraham Lincoln for the purpose 

of advising the President and Congress on important technical matters, is widely recognized as 

the most authoritative scientific body in the world. 2The Sword of Damocles: http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/mailings/2009/20090215_Damocles 

.pdf 

dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many gallons. We will be 

well on the way to energy independence. 

The alternative to carbon tax and 100 percent dividend is tax 

and trade foisted on the public under the pseudonym ‘‘cap and 

trade.’’ A cap increases the price of energy as a tax does. It is 

wrong and disingenuous to try to hide that fact, to hide the fact 

that cap is a tax. 

Other characteristics of the cap approach include one, unpredictable price volatility. Two, it makes millionaires on Wall Street and 

other trading floors at the public expense. Three, it is an invitation 

to blackmail by utilities who threaten blackouts coming to gain increased emission permits. Four, it has overhead costs and complexities inviting lobbyists and delaying the implementation. 

The biggest problem with cap tax is that it will not solve the 

problem. The public will soon learn that it is a tax and because 

there is no dividend, the public will revolt before the cap tax is 

large enough to transform society. 

There is no way that the cap tax can get us back to 350 parts 

per million of CO2. We need a tax with 100 percent dividend to 

transform our energy systems and rapidly move us beyond fossil 

fuels. 

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot let the 

special interests win this fight. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of James E. Hansen follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. James Hansen, Adjunct Professor, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York, New YorkTestimony Before the 

House Committee on Ways and MeansFebruary 25, 2009 

Our planet is in peril.1 Climate disruption threatens everyone, but especially the 

young and the unborn, who will bear the full brunt through no fault of their own. 

Recent science makes it clear that if we continue to burn most of the fossil fuels 

we will leave our children a deteriorating situation out of their control. 

One scientific conclusion is crystal clear 1: we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels 

without setting in motion a process of climate disruption that threatens the very 

existence of many species on our planet. This potential injustice is not limited to 

the innocent species we exterminate. The greatest injustice is to our own species 2— 

our children, grandchildren and the unborn, and people who live with nature, who 

we may call ‘undeveloped’, indigenous people who want only to live their lives without bearing burdens that we create. 

The President deserves credit for recognizing that our planet is in peril, and his 

administration deserves credit for initial steps that may lead to increased vehicle 

fuel efficiencies and constraints on coal emissions. These steps are important. Greater fuel efficiency, e.g., is essential. But it must be recognized that these steps address the symptoms of the problem, not the root cause. Moreover, these steps will 

fail if the root cause is not addressed. 

The root cause is our failure to make polluting fossil-fuel energy more expensive 

than clean energy. Instead we subsidize fossil fuels! 

We must put a price on carbon emissions, a rising price. If we do this promptly 

we can stabilize the atmosphere and climate, with healthier air, improved agricultural productivity, clean water, an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat, with 

a reversal of the trend toward increased birth defects and other consequences of fossil fuel pollution in our air and water. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
8 

3http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/mailings/2008/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf 4The tax rate should increase until fossil fuel energy is not competitive with clean energy. 

The tax gathered, and thus the dividend, will initially increase as more clean energy enters the 

mix. But the dividend will enventually go down, as clean energy becomes ascendant. That is 

okay, because, as a result of competition, economies of scale and innovation, clean energy prices 

will fall. In addition, increased energy efficiency and conservation will reduce energy use per 

person. 5Two years ago I sat next to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States at a dinner. 

He became upset, politely, when I mentioned this concept of a carbon tax. Clearly, he understood the implications. He did not seem too concerned that it would be adopted—he probably 

took it for granted that fossil fuel special interests could overcome any wisdom of our law-makers. 

Fossil fuels are finite. We must find clean energies to replace them. Why not do 

that sooner, rather than digging for every scrap of carbon, and in the process destroying the future of our children and grandchildren? 

The reason ‘‘why not’’ is this: the fossil fuel industry has enormous power over 

our governments, through their lobbying and ‘‘campaign’’ contributions. Yet you and 

other leaders are elected to represent the public. The public expects you to look out 

after their children, to preserve creation, our children’s heritage. Instead we are robbing money from our children’s pockets and piggybanks, borrowing money from our 

children to fund subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. 

This selfishness is not limited to America. I wrote to government leaders of several countries that are believed to be among the ‘‘greenest’’, one of them led by a 

physicist. I thought they would understand the clear scientific rationale that we 

must phase out coal use and move beyond fossil fuels, if we are to preserve a planet 

resembling the one we inherited from our elders. But I learned that the fossil fuel 

industries in those countries have enormous power, as they do here. Those governments are not green—they are black, coal black. 

Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend 

If we continue to subsidize fossil fuels and do not impose a carbon price, our automobile manufacturers will likely fail—they are being instructed to build fuel-efficient vehicles, which will be in limited demand as long as fossil fuels do not have 

to pay their true costs. Similarly, ‘‘renewable energy portfolios’’ for utilities will rip 

off the public (rate-payers), with marginal benefit for the environment. Energy-inefficient buildings will continue to be built. And so on. 

The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our 

economy and our society to the clean world of the future is ‘‘Carbon Tax with 100% 

Dividend’’ 3 For example, a carbon price equivalent to $1 gallon of gasoline (about 

$115 per ton of CO2), for 2007 rates of fossil fuel use in the United States, generates 

$670B. If we give one share to each legal resident age 22 and over, one half-share 

to college age youth (18–21), one half-share to the parents of each child up to two 

children per family, that yields about 224 million shares in 2007 (this could be off 

by 10%; I could not find optimum census data). So the 100% Dividend for a $1 gallon tax rate ($115 per ton of CO2) is: 

Single share: $3000/year ($250 per month, deposited monthly in bank account) 

Family with 2 children: $9000/year ($750 per month, deposited monthly in bank 

account) 

The tax rate and dividend should increase with time.4 This approach would reduce demand for fossil fuels, driving down the price of fossil fuels on the open market. The next time the price of gasoline reaches $4/gallon most of that $4 should 

be tax, with 100% of that tax returned to the public as dividend. Instead of our 

money going to the Middle East and other foreign places, most of it would stay at 

home.5

This tax, and the knowledge that it would continue to increase in the future, 

would spur innovations in energy efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. The dividend would put money in the hands of the public, allowing them to purchase vehicles and other products that reduce their carbon footprint and thus their taxes. The 

person doing better than average would obtain more from the dividend than paid 

in the tax. The tax would affect building designs and serve as an effective enforcer 

of energy efficient building codes that are now widely ignored. The need to replace 

inefficient infrastructure would spur the economy. Tax and 100% dividend can drive 

innovation and economic growth with a snowballing effect. Carbon emissions will 

plummet far faster than alternative top-down regulations. Our infrastructure will 

be modernized for the clean energy future. There will be no need to go to the most 

extreme environments on Earth for the last drop of fossil fuel, to squeeze oil from 

tar shale, or develop other unconventional fossil fuels. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
9 

6Metcalf-Weisback-Design of a Carbon Tax 

7P. Kharecha et al. http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/2009/ECWorkshop_report.pdf 8S.E. Stoft http://stoft.com/ebooks/cap-secrets.pdf 

9 Much of the support for Cap & Trade stems from the desire to avoid the term ‘‘tax’’ and 

create a real ‘‘cap’’ or declining limit on emissions. However, as shown in the European Emissions Trading Scheme and the Los Angeles RECLAIM program, among others, weaknesses in 

the cap-and-trade concept make it inapplicable to the climate crisis. Specifically, over-allocation 

of credits, lack of accurate measurement, fraudulent outside offsets, and the failure to create 

true incentives for early investments in clean energy technology and infrastructure will doom 

the prospects for real emissions reductions. 10http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/02/21/what-worked-for-acid-rainwon%e2%80%99t-work-for-climate-change/ 11 Congressional Budget Office, ‘‘Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions,’’ February 2008, 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf 

A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected easily and reliably at the 

first point of sale, at the mine or oil well, or at the port of entry. This approach 

also implies the fastest most effective way to international agreements. A proportionate duty should be applied to any imported products whose manufacture produced carbon emissions. The system could impose presumptive border taxes, allowing individual firms to prove that a lower rate should apply.6

A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. Effects 

will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa. There will be a growing incentive 

for life style changes needed for sustainable living. 

One may ask: is there sufficient technology today, and just around the corner if 

the economic incentive exists, to allow phase out of coal emissions in the near term 

and other fossil fuels on a longer time scale? The answer is a clear ‘‘yes’’, as discussed in a workshop report 7 (this report is a draft—criticisms would be welcomed). 

Indeed, Stoft 8 shows that ‘Tax & Dividend’ supports and makes more effective appliance efficiency standards and renewable portfolio standards. However, in order 

for energy efficiency and non-fossil energies to rapidly supplant fossil fuels, the carbon price should be substantial and rising. 

Tax & Trade (a.k.a., ‘Cap & Trade’, pseudonymously and sometimes disingenuously) 

‘Cap & Trade’ increases costs to the public as does ‘Tax & Dividend’, but without 

the dividend. Thus it should be termed ‘Tax & Trade’.9 Part of the reason for the 

pseudonym is to avoid the stigma of a tax, under the presumption that the public 

is too gullible to figure it out. Other parties support ‘Cap & Trade’ because they 

hope to profit—it is a give-away to special interests, who feel, based on extensive 

empirical evidence, that they will be able to manipulate the program through their 

lobbyists. Except for its stealth approach to taxing the public, and its attraction to 

special interests, ‘‘Cap & Trade’’ seems to have little merit. 

Of course the proponents of ‘Cap & Trade’ are not all special interests and their 

lobbyists, or people who hope to make millions on Wall Street from price volatility 

and manipulations. That is surely right. Many, without looking closely at the details, assume that the successful ‘Cap & Trade’ used to help solve the acid rain problem, might be a good model for the climate problem. Acid rain was much simpler, 

partly because it was a program that required existing facilities to employ a relatively simple low-cost solution. Unlike climate change, the acid rain problem did 

not require massive investments in new infrastructure and innovation. Instead it required a group of existing facilities, with accurate emissions measurement, to make 

minor burner modifications and use readily available low-cost low sulfur coal. A few 

new rail lines were built and some facilities purchased more efficient scrubbers.10

Caps have not generally been applied at the mine or well-head, rather further 

downstream. Proponents of ‘caps’ say they will try to push them upstream. That 

would open up consequences that now should be unacceptable to Americans: volatility, manipulation, and trading floor millionaires. Where would the millions come 

from—the common person, of course, the rate payer, the public. 

The abject failure of Cap & Trade was illuminated for all to see by the Kyoto Protocol, the granddaddy of all Cap & Trade schemes. Even countries that accepted the 

toughest emission reduction targets, such as Japan, saw their emissions actually increase. The problem is the inevitable loopholes in such complex approaches, which 

take years to negotiate and implement. 

The Congressional Budget Office 11 provides a comparison of carbon taxes to capand-trade. That report concludes that a given emission reduction could be achieved 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
10 

12L. Williams and A. Zabel, http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf 13 Brattle Group Report, CO2 Price Volatility: Consequences and Cures, http:// 

www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary /Upload736.pdf 

at a fraction of the cost via a carbon tax, as opposed to cap-and-trade. Another useful comparison is also available.12

The worst thing about cap-and-trade, from a climate standpoint, is that it will 

surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. 

Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our 

children and grandchildren.13

The only solution to the climate problem is to leave much of the fossil fuels in 

the ground. That requires a high enough carbon price that we move on to our energy future beyond fossil fuels. 

Summary 

The honest approach, the effective approach, for solving the global warming problem would be a tax with 100% dividend. The public is not stupid. They will understand that the hooks and eyes of a less comprehensive more dissembling approach 

will be put there for some reason other than saving the future for their children. 

One of the biggest advantages of the Tax and Dividend approach is its simplicity, 

which would allow it to be introduced quickly. The Kyoto-like Cap & Trade is notoriously slow to negotiate and implement, as well as being ineffective in the end. A 

related point is that an effective international accord could be implemented with 

only a few of the major economies. Import duties on countries not imposing a comparable tax would surely bring broad rapid compliance. 

f 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. 

We are now pleased to invite Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel who represents 1,700 climatic scientists, and we are anxious to hear your 

views. Thank you for being with us this morning. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDA EKWURZEL, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak 

about climate science and policy as part of the Union of Concerned 

Scientists. 

UCS is a science based non-profit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. 

I am a geochemist with years of experience studying the Arctic. 

Back in September 1991, I was conducting research in the Arctic 

Ocean. As our ship approached the North Pole station, I expected 

to find a long and difficult passage through very, very thick ice. Instead, I was astonished to find lots of open water that we passed 

through easily. 

That was 17 years ago. Since then, the Arctic sea ice has shrunk 

and in 2007, it broke all records. 

The most important objective of climate change legislation is to 

avoid the worst consequences of global warming. There are common 

sense solutions that have profound benefits for public health, energy security, and our economy. 

In May of 2008, I joined with over 1,700 scientists and economists who hail from all 50 states calling on our Nation’s leaders 

to cut heat-trapping emissions swiftly and deeply. 

This group also said the near term emission reductions could be 

done in a way consistent with sound economic policy. 

In my testimony, I will lay out reasonable goals that we can meet 

with the urgent time line that the science demands. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
11 

These include faster than expected increases in sea level rise as 

shown by the satellite observations and Summer sea ice plummeting in the Arctic. 

An important fact that is often overlooked is this: We are diminishing the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We have dumped so much CO2 into the air that it will take 

at least 1,000 years for the ocean to absorb most of this excess. 

This means that a ton of CO2 that we emit today will leave more 

in the air than when we emitted a ton decades ago. Therefore, we 

cannot afford further delay. 

As you consider policies to reduce emissions, the basic questions 

you must consider are this: how much more of a temperature increase can we tolerate and what does this mean for the United 

States. 

First, an increase in global average temperature above more than 

two degrees Fahrenheit above today poses severe risks to natural 

systems, human health and our quality of life. 

To even have a 50/50 chance of preventing temperatures from 

rising above this level, we must stay below 450 parts per million 

of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Remember, this is an absolute maximum. Recent scientific evidence suggests a lower goal 

may be even more prudent. 

What does the U.S. need to do? In the USC analysis that looked 

at current industrialized nations’ share of global emissions and the 

U.S. share of that level of emissions, we found that the U.S. would 

be allotted a budget of 265 gigatons of carbon dioxide heat trapping 

gases between the years 2000 and 2050. 

To stay within that budget would mean that we would have to 

reduce our emissions at least 80 percent by the year 2050. The earlier we cut emissions, the more flexibility we will have later, but 

if we delay until 2020, that means we would double our rate of 

emissions’ reductions in order to avoid a crash finish. 

Additionally, decisions that industries make today have long lasting consequences. For example, coal plants can last upward of 60 

years. Therefore, we must send the market a clear signal now to 

build energy infrastructure that will avoid dirtier consequences 

that would lock in irreversible consequences. 

The IPCC examined one scenario that had industrialized nations 

cutting between 35 and 50 percent below today’s levels in order to 

stay below a 450 parts per million goal. 

For these reasons, USC thinks it is prudent to reduce U.S. emissions around 35 percent from today’s levels, which is about 25 percent below 1990 emission levels, by the year 2020. We project 

around 10 percent of these reductions can come from tropical forest 

protection and the rest can come from transport, electric and agricultural sectors of our economy. 

We recommend a comprehensive package of climate energy and 

policies in which a well designed cap-and-invest program is a foundation. The most effective means of limiting emissions sufficiently 

is to put a cap and set those limits directly in the legislation. 

Another benefit of a cap-and-invest program is we always keep 

the focus on the climate consequences we will avoid, which as a scientist, is very important to me. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
12 

We also urge Members of Congress to include a rapid response 

science review provision in any climate legislation to ensure that 

government updates policies in light of the latest evidence. 

We look forward to working with Congress to help assure policy 

is designed well to achieve the needed emissions’ reductions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Brenda Ekwurzel follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
13 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.001
14 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.002
15 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.003
16 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.004
17 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.005
18 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.006
19 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.007
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.008
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.009
22 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.010
23 

f 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.011
24 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. 

Dr. Christy may have a different idea, but we certainly do welcome your input into this very complex subject and look forward to 

working with you and your ideas as well. 

Thank you so much for coming. We are prepared to take your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST AND PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA 

Mr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am John Christy, Alabama State’s climatologist and professor 

of atmospheric science at University of Alabama at Huntsville, and 

a participant in many national and international climate panels, 

including the IPCC, as lead author. 

I really do appreciate this opportunity to speak. I want to bring 

some hard metrics to the hearing today. 

The first one comes from my testimony in Federal Court about 

California’s proposed auto emissions standards that the EPA may 

allow to go forward. 

I calculated using IPCC climate models that even if the entire 

country adopts this rule, the net global impact would be at most 

one hundredth of a degree by 2100, and even if the entire world 

did the same, the effect would be less than four hundredths of a 

degree by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot measure it with instruments or notice it in any way. 

The issue here is that the scale of global CO2 emissions is enormous. I also determined the impact of an enormous construction 

project of 1,000 nuclear power plants to be operating by 2020, 

about 10 percent of the world’s energy. 

The effect on global temperature would be only seven hundredths 

of a degree by 2050 and 15 hundredths by 2100. Again, we would 

not notice it, but it is a dent. 

I recall that John McCain wanted to build 45 nuclear plants, not 

1,000. 

The point here is that the proposed actions that we can test to 

limit emissions will have little effect on whatever the climate will 

do, even if you assume a relatively high sensitivity of temperature 

to CO2. 

There is new information about that sensitivity. Current climate 

models assume that the global temperature is very sensitive to 

greenhouse gases. We are adding CO2 to the air. There is no question about that. The real atmosphere has many ways to respond to 

that change that the extra CO2 is forcing upon it. 

My colleague, Dr. Roy Spencer, has shown with satellite observations that during warming episodes, clouds respond by stepping up 

their cooling effect counteracting the warming. 

Not one climate model could demonstrate this cooling response. 

Rather, clouds in the models caused the opposite, further warming. 

We hypothesize that the poor cloud formulations are causing 

models to overshoot the observed temperature. 

Surface temperatures are often used to demonstrate global 

warming. I am one of the few in this science who actually builds 

these climate datasets from scratch. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
25 

In several published papers, I have documented two serious problems that strongly suggest the surface warming of the past century 

is overstated. 

First, popular global datasets use only stations with easy to access data. I have published results for North Alabama, Central 

California, and soon, East Africa, where I went to the hard data 

to find sources to increase the number of stations tenfold. In each 

case, I found that the popular stations showed too much warming. 

Secondly, we have demonstrated that with the development of 

agriculture and urbanization, complicated processes are triggered 

which lead to higher night time temperatures which are not related 

to CO2 emissions. Thus, the current land-based mean surface temperature charts overstate the temperature because they include 

these night time readings. 

In closing, we utilize carbon based energy not because we are bad 

people, but because it is the affordable foundation of our improving 

standard of living, our health and our welfare. 

I was a missionary and science teacher in East Africa and witnessed this simple rule: without energy, life is brutal and short. 

Worldwide, carbon-based energy demand will grow as Africans 

and others continue to experience improving technology, medicine, 

mobility and agriculture, and reap the benefits of higher standards 

of living. We will not stop human progress. 

Alabama’s affordable energy has led to economic development in 

some of the poorest parts of our Nation, jobs, health care, educational opportunities and tax revenue. 

However, paraphrasing what one manufacturer said to me, Alabama is our last stop in the United States. If our energy costs rise, 

we will be taking these jobs to Mexico and China and manufacture 

our products with even more emissions than we create here. 

From my analysis, the major actions being considered to reduce 

emissions will one, have an imperceptible impact on whatever the 

climate will do, and two, make energy more expensive. 

We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature records overstate the actual changes that are occurring, and 

if Congress deems it necessary, the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions by a small but at least detectable amount 

is through a massive nuclear power program. Other alternatives 

simply cannot produce enough power to be noticed. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of John R. Christy follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.015
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.016
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.017
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.018
30 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.019
31 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.020
32 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.021
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.022
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.023
35 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you so much. 

Dr. Hansen, whether we talk about a carbon tax or cap and 

trade, enormous amounts of moneys are to be raised as some type 

of deterrent or penalty on the energy producing company, which 

means, of course, that for the consumer, there will be a tremendous 

increase in costs. 

Could you share with us how you would suggest that the moneys 

raised be used to cushion the increase in costs, especially for lower 

income people? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I think it is essential that we give back 100 

percent of the money that we take in the tax. 

Chairman RANGEL. How? 

Mr. HANSEN. With a dividend, with a monthly deposit in their 

bank accounts. 

Chairman RANGEL. If they do not have a bank? 

Mr. HANSEN. Then they get a check. That may have to be annual. It probably could be monthly by check also. Legal residents 

would get the dividend. As I pointed out, it is large. For example, 

at the rate of $115 per ton of CO2 for a family with two children, 

it would be $9,000 a year. 

That would give them the money to invest in the technologies 

that would allow them to reduce their emissions. It would be a 

strong incentive to reduce their emissions, buy the most fuel efficient vehicles, insulate their homes, buy appliances that are more 

energy efficient. 

You have to give all the money back to the public or they are not 

going to allow such a high tax, but the low income person in particular is going to pay very close attention to this, and he will end 

up with more dividend, more return to money than he is paying in 

the tax. 

The whole idea is you have to affect—you apply the tax at the 

well head or at the mine, at the port of entry in the case of imported fossil fuels, but it has to cover coal, oil and gas entirely, 

with an uniform tax. That is the fair way to do it and affect the 

way the economic system works. 

Economists agree that is the way to do it. In fact, there was a 

study by the Congressional Budget Office that said it is five times 

more efficient than a cap, and it is much easier to implement. It 

is much simpler. It is much more honest. 

Chairman RANGEL. Dr. Ekwurzel, have the scientists given any 

thought of the redistribution of the revenue? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes. Again, I am not an economist but economists that have been looking closely at this, in my conversations 

with them, they really emphasize the benefit of a cap and invest 

program is really a one-two punch. 

First, you actually set a limit on the emissions, which is the ultimate goal. We have to keep track of the goal. That ratchets down 

over time. 

The second step is it generates resources to transition to a clean 

energy economy which is for consumers, workers and low income 

communities, and a well designed cap and invest program would 

invest and buffer low income communities from the inevitable price 

changes that would happen as we transition, but also what is more 

important is it provides choices for those longer investments. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
36 

We need to have cars that are getting us further down the road 

on a gallon of fuel. We need to have weatherization programs to 

buffer people, to have more energy efficiency, which is the low 

hanging fruit we have to deploy right away. 

If we do not reinvest into some of the rapid research and development and deployment of the new technologies while we are rolling out the stuff that is already off the shelf, I do not see how you 

get that without a cap and invest program where you can reinvest 

in a targeted and smart way. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Dr. Christy, I know you do not 

see this as a crisis, but do you see any problems in this area that 

we should be aware of at all? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I agree with one statement of Dr. Hansen. Well, 

a number of them actually, that taxing is more transparent than 

cap and trade. I am worried about that Alabama trucker who is an 

independent trucker and he pays thousands and thousands of dollars into that thing and only gets $3,000 back. 

Yes, I do not see it as a crisis. I happen to think it is still politically correct to manufacture the cars we drive and appliances we 

use and grow the food we eat right here. 

Other considerations might be useful here, more useful for the 

security of our nation to produce its energy locally, here, so there 

are a lot of ways by which you can go there. 

It certainly helps the balance of trade. It certainly keeps dollars 

within the country. 

How can we do that without making energy costs go up so that 

the jobs leave? That is really more of a question for your Committee, I think, than anything. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Camp. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Christy, I would just 

like to ask you, given the complexity of the global climate system, 

which all of you have testified to frankly, and given those factors, 

can you tell us what the impact would be on the global climate system if the United States alone were to completely eliminate all 

greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. CHRISTY. If the United States alone were to eliminate all 

greenhouse gas emissions, that would be equivalent to building 

2,000 nuclear power plants. In 100 years, that would be about 

three-tenths of a degree, something we could measure with our instruments but we probably would not notice it at all in terms of 

what goes on in the climate system otherwise. 

Mr. CAMP. That is less than half of a degree by 2100? 

Mr. CHRISTY. That is correct; yes. 

Mr. CAMP. Is losing three million jobs worth half a degree by 

2100? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I can just say from the State of Alabama’s standpoint, we do not want to lose one job. 

Mr. CAMP. In your testimony, you have analyzed the rate of 

warming is less than what has been predicted by climate models. 

You talked about the research you have done. 

In contrast, Dr. Ekwurzel has said that the measure is really the 

amount of Arctic ice. That cover has changed dramatically, and 

that is showing that climate change is actually occurring faster 

than predicted. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
37 

Can you explain this difference for those of us who are not scientists? 

Mr. CHRISTY. In the Arctic—there is a bigger question. We do 

create datasets that specifically test model projections. In virtually 

every case, we find the models are overshooting almost everything. 

In the ice case, it is a bit different. That is a very complicated 

system that climate models do not do well at describing at all. In 

fact, I just taught Monday on ice theology, on the dynamics of ice, 

to our graduate class in climate dynamics. Models do not have ice 

done well. 

There is high variability of that quantity. It goes up. It goes 

down. A thousand years ago, 5,000 years ago, there was less ice 

than there is now in the Arctic. 

I noticed that left out of this discussion was what happened in 

Antarctica, two weeks after the Arctic sea ice reached its ‘‘record 

minimum,’’ the Antarctic sea ice on the South Pole reached its alltime record maximum. 

Globally, right at that point, if you were to average it, we would 

have average sea ice. Right now, it is a bit below on the global average. 

The Arctic ice is a complicated thing. It has been missing before. 

It has melted before. This is something that has high variability in 

that part of the world. 

Mr. CAMP. Are factors causing that—are there factors other 

than CO2 that would result in that? Obviously, if this has occurred 

over a 5,000 year period, and I presume that—— 

Mr. CHRISTY. The climate system has so many degrees or so 

many loose handles to it, so to speak. No one really knows everything about the climate system so they can predict what it is going 

to do in the future. 

Let me just say yes, there are natural forces that have huge variations or cause huge variations in the Arctic ice. 

By the way, through this whole period, when the ice was much 

less and it was much warmer up there, the polar bears survived. 

Mr. CAMP. I think Dr. Hansen has written that global greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to no more than 350 parts 

per million. I asked you a question about total elimination of greenhouse gases. 

If they were reduced to that level, what would be the impact on 

the global climate system, in your opinion? 

Mr. CHRISTY. By what time at 350? 

Mr. CAMP. You name the timeframe, whether it is 100 years. 

Mr. CHRISTY. It is something I have not calculated because that 

is fewer emissions—that is a lower concentration than there is 

right now. I do not know how to get to there in reality. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair expects a vote soon. For the witnesses, we will be inconveniencing you because we expect to be on 

the Floor for several votes, which will take approximately 30 minutes. 

At this point in time, I would like to yield the Chair to my friend, 

Mr. Levin, who will proceed to call the witnesses until such time 

as the bells ring, and then we will resume the hearing as soon as 

the last vote takes place. I do not want to put any more inconvenVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
38 

ience on these outstanding witnesses than our legislative agenda 

has. 

I do hope that each and every one of you recognize that we are 

only leaving and recessing because of the call of the Chair in legislating and voting. 

We want you to know both Mr. Camp and I are pleased you have 

inconvenienced yourselves to share the basis of your research over 

the years with us as we move forward on this very complicated but 

important legislation. 

I will be returning with the rest of the Members of this Committee. At this time, I yield to Mr. Levin from Michigan. 

Mr. LEVIN [presiding.] Thank you very much. Welcome. 

I want to ask the three of you to comment on Dr. Christy’s testimony, so we get to the basic issue of whether there is a problem, 

and then others will question how we best solve it. 

Let me say to my colleague from Michigan, no one is talking 

about doing this thing alone. I think while it is not easy to carry 

that out, it is really a bit of a straw person to say we are going 

to do this alone. 

Secondly, I do not think any of us have to be told about the importance of manufacturing in this country. I just do not think that 

using that as an excuse to do nothing is tenable. 

The real challenge is how we combine our emphasis on manufacturing and other sources of jobs with addressing this issue of global 

warming. 

I must say that I think this division that is embodied in this testimony really is a threat to bipartisanship because if we start from 

opposite assumptions, we will never work out something together. 

I just to want to ask the two of you who disagree with Dr. 

Christy to comment on his two basic statements, and we have to 

resolve this if we are going to move on a bipartisan basis. 

He says actions being considered to stop global warming will 

have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do. 

Each of you will have at best a minute, but be very pointed. Do 

not pull your punches because you are sitting there together. 

The second is we have found that climate models in popular surface temperature datasets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. 

We will start with you, Dr. Hansen, down the row, and then 

maybe Dr. Christy will have a chance to respond within my 5 minutes. Maybe not. Others can carry that on. 

On those two statements, be very succinct. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is a tactic of those who want to do nothing to 

make it sound like there is a debate. In fact, I think that is the 

wrong road to go down. I think if there is any question about the 

reality of this, which scientifically, there is not, then you should 

ask, Congress should ask the National Academy of Sciences, which 

is the most authoritative scientific body in the world, to deliver a 

report back to Congress or the President should ask for that. 

The science has become crystal clear. There is an issue and we 

can see it happening. It is not based on climate models. It is looking at what is happening in the real world. Arctic sea ice is decreasing. The tundra regions at high latitudes are beginning to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
39 

lease methane. The ice sheets are now unstable and are losing 

mass at the rate of a couple of hundred cubic kilometers per year. 

The science is clear. 

Mr. LEVIN. Let me just go down the row. That green light will 

change to red soon. Dr. Ekwurzel? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. Very quickly addressing one issue. 

It is very well known that we have driven the climate beyond all 

reasonable doubt, that it is a greater than 90 percent likelihood humans have caused global warming, the warming we have seen, 

above natural cycles since 1950. 

The models are in fact under-predicting the changes that we are 

observing on the ground, in the Arctic, and in Dr. Hansen’s and 

many other temperature records that are out there, as well as 

many other changes that we are seeing with species migrations 

and so on, but, the models are not getting the pace of change because models tend to be conservative. 

They are not exactly accurate and they are not accurate in the 

wrong way for us, which means the urgency of action is even more 

prudent and we have to have the National Academy of Sciences reporting back so that Congress can know the latest science. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LEVIN. My time is up. Dr. Christy, maybe another will ask 

you to respond. I hope you might answer the question what happens if you are wrong. 

I think, Mr. Herger, you are next. I do not have the list. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I represent a rural northern California district with some nine 

national forests in it. We have experienced some very severe fires 

in the past year. 

It is my understanding that wild fires emit an average of 105 

million tons of greenhouse gases every year. Putting this number 

in perspective, it is about 40 percent more than the total emissions 

of all the cars in the State of California. 

As you noted in a 2004 article in ‘‘Southwest Hydrology’’, poor 

management practices have led to an excess of underbrush in western forests which contributes to the size and intensity of wild fires. 

This excess growth could be removed from the forests, thus reducing emissions from fires and used to produce renewable carbonneutral biomass energy. 

Would you and your organization agree that one part of our effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be responsible forest management to banned excess growth and if the risk of climate 

change is as severe as you have stated today, would you agree that 

the Committee should consider incentives for the production of 

clean energy from excess forest biomass? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. You bring up a very important 

feedback mechanism that is amplifying global warning, and in contrast to that study, that article I wrote in ‘‘Southwest Hydrology’’, 

there have been since studies that also have looked at unmanaged 

forests at high elevation in the western states. 

What they found is when we have global warming amplifying the 

drying out of the soils of these high alpine systems, that by the 

time you get to the end of the summer, if there is a lightning 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
40 

strike, you can start a fire naturally but the extent of the damage 

can be quite immense. 

Without that managed forest system—these are natural systems, 

so we are seeing the global warming making it more likely that we 

are turning our forests into a tinder box, sending that precious 

stored carbon back into the air, making it harder for us. 

This is another mechanism in addition to the ocean slowing down 

its absorption of carbon dioxide, that it is getting harder for us to 

manage this system that we have unleashed by our excess carbon 

dioxide. 

Mr. HERGER. Again, my question is would your organization 

support our going in and thinning these forests, which we are not 

able to do right now, and also an incentive to do so? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager but I do understand 

that very smart forest management systems to adapt to the climate 

change that is happening would be prudent, but also we need to 

do mitigation of the climate change itself so that all of our good effort to preserve a forest does not go up in smoke. 

Mr. HERGER. Does that mean you would support this? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I would have to see the details of what the 

management design—— 

Mr. HERGER. Thinning these forests and getting at the problem 

that you have very accurately pointed out—— 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager. We need healthy 

forests and that means a biodiverse forest. It depends on what you 

mean by ‘‘thinning.’’ If you thin a forest so much, it could be an 

unhealthy environment and there are also pests such as the bark 

beetle that take advantage of the increased temperatures. 

It is a very difficult problem and it is out of my area of expertise. 

Mr. HERGER. You agree that they are far too dense now? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager. Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. That is what your article referred to. 

Dr. Hansen, on December 29, 2008, you wrote on your website 

‘‘It is essential that dogmatic environmentalists opposed to all nuclear power not be allowed to delay the research and development 

on fourth generation nuclear power.’’ 

Could you elaborate further on your views on nuclear power as 

part of the effort to address climate change? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I think everyone hopes that increased energy 

efficiency—and that would be encouraged by a higher price on carbon emissions, and renewable energies—could do the job. 

Most energy experts are skeptical about that. They think we 

need base load power, and it cannot be coal if we are going to avoid 

climate catastrophes. 

I think we should do the research and development on an urgent 

basis to see what is the potential of fourth generation nuclear 

power. Fourth generation nuclear power could burn nuclear waste 

and help us solve the nuclear waste problem. 

We had our Argonne National Laboratory in the nineties ready 

to make a demonstration plant, but the Clinton Administration decided to stop the research on that, and I think that was a mistake. 

I am not sure that we need the nuclear power, but it looks like— 

China and India, it is a little difficult to see them using wind and 

solar to provide all of their energy. They are using mostly coal. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
41 

If we are going to phase that out, which we have to do, then next 

generation nuclear power is a candidate that should be looked at. 

That is all I am saying. I am not saying we are ready to begin 

to implement it, but we should not be afraid to do the research and 

development and see what its potential is. 

Mr. HERGER. I could not agree more. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. McDermott? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I put on the monitors the volatility in the cap and trade system 

in the European system. I really think our issue here is to decide 

between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system. To do nothing 

as Dr. Christy suggests or allow ourselves to be bullied or 

blackmailed by the industrialists of Alabama is not an option. 

What I would like the two of you to talk about between yourselves is why your system is better. My understanding is that the 

environmentalists would like to have an absolute cap and industry 

would like to have absolute certainty in the cost. Those seem to be 

the polar things that this Committee is going to have to balance 

off in any system. 

I would like to hear the two of you talk about why you are falling 

on one side and you are falling on the other. 

Dr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Caps have several disadvantages, as I mentioned. 

They worked in the case of sulfur dioxide because you had a single 

source and you had relatively easy solutions to it. 

The Kyoto protocol is a perfect attempt. That is a cap system. It 

did not work at all, even the countries that claimed they were 

meeting their target, in fact, their emissions went up because there 

are escape valves. 

Cap and trade is good for lobbyists and speculators. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It looks like from that chart that is really 

what we are seeing. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes; exactly. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The stock market makes a lot of money out 

of a system and there is nothing to put back into the system. 

Mr. HANSEN. Right. The tax is much more honest. Unfortunately, the main reason for a cap is for the sake of pretending that 

it is not a tax. In fact, either one increases the price of energy for 

the user. Either one is a tax. We should insist that the cap people 

call it a cap tax because that is what it is. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Dr. Ekwurzel? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. I think we can draw upon the lessons from the European Union and their cap and invest program, 

as well as in the northeastern U.S. That is why we advocate for 

100 percent auction that sufficiently has tight limits on emissions. 

The reason is that the European Union originally gave away free 

allowances. We saw this collapse of the price. It was not an assurance for someone at British Petroleum or the oil industry to be investing long term infrastructure decisions or a coal power plant designer to design next generation power plants. 

You cannot make that decision without some 40 year certainty, 

which a cap and invest program gives you because we are 

ratcheting down the cap over 40 years. That is a 40-year economic 

frame that business can work within, which is very attractive. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
42 

Also, there is no guarantee that the use of funds in the dividend 

situation will go toward activities that will reduce emissions. Especially because we have not reinvested in a targeted way, we do not 

provide a guarantee that people will have choices available to them 

to purchase energy efficient homes, cars, and consumer goods 

through standards and investment and research to try to get more 

choices on the car dealership floor, for example. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. In a cap and trade system, how do you deal 

with the impact on the lower income people in society who get hit 

with the cost of increased energy or fluctuating energy prices? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Exactly. An attractive thing with the fluctuating prices is when you have a down turn in the economy, the 

price is going down, it is mimicking the economy. If we set a level, 

then you might have an undue burden across the board during the 

down turn in the economy, so the price following the economy is 

somewhat attractive. 

Also, my economist colleagues tell me that when you reinvest a 

well-designed cap-and-invest program, you buffer low income residents from the price spikes because we know we can have programs for weatherization of homes. We can have cash and dividends that are set out in a targeted way to those who are most vulnerable to the price change. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. How do you give the oil or the energy entrepreneurs the ability to know what the price they are competing 

against is going to be? 

If you are going to build a solar plant, if you are going to build 

a wind plant, whatever, and the thing is jumping up and down, 

how do you know as an investor or a venture capitalist how you 

are going to put your money into that? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes. I see we are running out of time. I am not 

an economist but what I understand, my colleagues tell me if, for 

example, on the acid rain program, the prices were the most efficient and low cost way to go because the market adjusted to the 

cap on sulfur emissions from that successful program. The prices 

were lower, and it was a much more efficient system and the acid 

rain problem was solved. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LEVIN. Five/six minutes. Mr. Brady, do you want to take 

three of those or do you want to wait? 

Mr. BRADY. That would be real quick, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to submit a statement for the record dealing with this issue 

and its trade implications as well. 

Most of the legislation introduced in the last Congress that composed a cap and trade scheme on the U.S. include provisions to impose additional tariffs on imports from countries that do not have 

similar policies. 

This has significant trade implications for the United States, as 

well as developed and developing countries, which could result in 

violations of WTO obligations or inviting retaliatory measures. 

My belief, Mr. Chairman, is these consequences deserve a thorough and comprehensive examination by the Committee. 

I would submit that for the record. 

Mr. LEVIN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Kevin Brady follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
43 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.013
44 

f 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Hansen, very quickly, how do you measure the 

amount of carbon—you are calling on a carbon tax on imports from 

other countries. How big would that tax be? How do you measure 

what the amount of carbon is in an import? 

Mr. HANSEN. The tax has to be large enough to affect people’s 

decisions. I gave you an example of quite a large tax. You would 

impose presumptive import duty on any country that does not have 

comparable tax rate. That would allow them if they could show 

that their manufacturing did not use carbon, then you would allow 

them that option of proving that and then you remove that duty. 

Otherwise, you assume that the standard amount of carbon that 

is used in making that product has been used in their country. 

It is an easy way to make this international. While cap and 

trade, we negotiated 10 years and could not get everybody to agree 

to the Kyoto protocol. If you have a tax, all you need is a few major 

countries to agree to this and then they will say we will put an import duty on you if you do not have a similar tax. 

Very quickly they will realize you are collecting the money instead of us, so they will put a tax on it. That is the fastest way. 

Mr. BRADY. Would the EU and Australia that has cap and trade 

schemes be excluded from this carbon tax or included? 

Mr. HANSEN. A cap can be included amongst a system that has 

a tax and dividend. You can have internal to that some limited 

caps and trade on a given industry, for example. 

Mr. BRADY. Thanks, Dr. Hansen. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Lewis had hoped to inquire. Do you want to be 

very brief so we can escape to vote? 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I will try to get it in, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Christy, are you suggesting that we do not do anything, that 

we do not use the Tax Code to do something about climate change, 

global warming? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I think what you are getting into here is changing behavior of people who have a fairly high standard of living, 

and that is going to be a very tough sell. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGg:\graphics\\50224a.014
45 

Scientifically, the carbon dioxide is not a toxic gas. It does not 

harm anything in that way. Plants love it. They grow better with 

carbon dioxide. 

Its effect on the climate is the only thing at issue, and our studies show when we go and create the numbers and test these 

hypotheses, that these dramatic changes just are not occurring at 

the rate climate models say they are. 

I have the numbers right in the testimony. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I do not want to cut you off but time 

is short and we have to go vote. 

Dr. Hansen said in his statement not to act is immoral. I notice 

you are a scientist but you also have a divinity degree. Does that 

not say something about what type of planet, what type of piece 

of real estate we are going to leave for the unborn generation? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I can say this, I have gone to a village like 

Kimahordery to tell the parents of a child that the child has died 

because they live in a place of very low standards of living. They 

will not stand for that because they love their children as much as 

we do and they are experiencing grief inconsolably. They need to 

increase their standard of living. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Are you buying this line well, maybe 

China would not act or India would not act, so we will not act? Is 

this not something that says something is good in itself, to save the 

planet, that people have a right to know what is in the food we eat, 

what is in the water we drink, the air we breathe? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Carbon dioxide does not affect those things you 

just talked about. Yes, there are many reasons to find alternative 

energies than carbon based; many reasons. I mentioned some about 

the balance of trade or creating energy locally. 

We are Americans. We innovate. I think we will find new ways 

to create energy. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. We will threaten the planet, Dr. 

Christy. 

Mr. CHRISTY. In the datasets we create to test those very 

hypotheses, we do not see the planet threatened. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I think Dr. Hansen will probably disagree with you. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is clear that we see things happening. The 

ocean is becoming more acid. That is not good for the life in the 

ocean. This is very clear. We are pushing the system well beyond 

limits which are going to have major consequences and already beginning to do so. 

Mr. LEVIN. We will stand in recess for about 20 minutes or so. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman RANGEL [presiding.] The Committee will resume the 

hearing. Again, I apologize to our distinguished guests. It is unavoidable. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. Ryan. He is not here. Mr. Linder 

of Georgia. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is strange that we are sitting here today talking about 

making trillion dollar decisions based on computer models and 

what we have just been dealing with for the past 6 months as a 

trillion dollar collapse based on computer models. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
46 

For 30 years, Wall Street got rid of their risk managers and replaced them with mathematicians and computer experts, and they 

gauged risk by algorithms. It appears that those computer models 

did not have a place for fear and greed, so it failed. 

Of the 20 or so climate computer models, none of them take into 

account natural impulses by nature. For example, Dr. Christy referred to the iris effect observed some years ago over the Equator 

with the natural release of heat, but not any of the computer models take into consideration the iris effect. 

We are told that the science is clear. I think Dr. Hansen said the 

science is clear. Others say the science is settled. In my 50 plus 

years observing science and being a part of it, I have never seen 

settled science. I do not believe there is such a thing, only settled 

scientists. Galileo would understand that. So, would Einstein. 

In fact, if the science was settled, not by observation in some instances, but by pencil and paper, it has been noted that the 1995 

IPC report highlighted key phrases by the scientists who did the 

work. 

None of the studies said by clear evidence, we contribute it to humans, and five different ways were stated. All five of those statements were removed from the report and replaced by one, ‘‘The biostatistical evidence in chapter eight when examined in the context 

of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to 

a discernable human influence on the global climate.’’ 

When the bureaucrat was asked under oath why that change 

was made, he said immense pressure from the top of the Federal 

Government. 

I do not know what the ideal carbon dioxide level in the environment is. I think, Dr. Ekwurzel, said it should be 450 parts per million max. I think Dr. Hansen said 350 parts per million. 

Either of you should then explain to us the experience 542 million years ago, when in a very short period of time, all of plant and 

animal life that we have ever known came to be found in the fossil 

evidence within five to ten million years, in a blink of an eye in 

a four and a half billion year old planet. 

CO2 levels were 7,000 parts per million. The planet not only survived, it thrived. 300 million years ago, the CO2 levels were 2,000 

parts per million. The planet did fine. It seems to me you need to 

explain that. 

It has been said here who is going to get hurt if we try this. Only 

the 1.6 billion most vulnerable people in the world. The people who 

are starving and consigned by this to a life of poverty and hunger 

because they need CO2 to grow the plants to live. They need power. 

We have enjoyed it for 100 years. China and India are enjoying 

it now. The Sub-Sahara area in the African region desperately 

needs CO2 to plant their farms, to feed their families. 

This is a huge mistake based on faulty computer modeling. 

Dr. Ekwurzel, you were astonished to sail into the Arctic and 

find very little ice there. That is what Emerson said in 1903 when 

he sailed it in a sailboat. As Dr. Christy has pointed out many 

times here, these things change back and forth. 

This is based on computer modeling, not observation, because if 

it was based on empirical observation, you would note that the eviVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
47 

dence of a hot spot over the Equator is absent, although on the 20 

plus computer models, it is necessary. 

Dr. Christy, would you just comment on that? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes, the experiment was very simple or the paper 

we published. If a climate model has the same surface temperature 

record as the real observations, what happens in the upper air, and 

then we found a significant difference between observations and climate model estimates. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Richard 

Neal for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panelists as well and thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing. 

One of the verdicts that emerged from the last election was that 

we ought to proceed with our faith in science and how important 

that is to the debate on climate change. 

I have had a number of meetings in recent weeks with a lot of 

people who have wanted to discuss the Massachusetts’ model as it 

relates to health care reform. 

I am pretty happy with the fact that Massachusetts has kind of 

led the way on how to proceed in the health care debate, and your 

presence today is helpful to this argument as well. 

If we use Massachusetts as the model of what we might do, Dr. 

Hansen, what would you suggest in terms of criticism of what some 

other countries have or have not done on the global warming front? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, the principal criticism, what I have learned 

is that even the countries that seem to be the greenest where the 

politicians say they understand there is a global warming problem 

and they will take action, it turns out that the actions are inconsistent with that. 

In Germany, for example, I wrote a letter to the Chancellor and 

they asked me to come over and talk to them. They are saying they 

will have a cap on their emissions, but they are going to build 20 

new coal fired power plants. You cannot do that and have any 

chance of getting CO2 back to a safe level. 

There is a finite amount of carbon in oil, gas and coal. What we 

can see is oil and gas, which we are going to use, readily available 

oil and gas, it is going to get us well into the dangerous zone. 

The only way we can solve the problem is phasing out coal. I 

think the way to do that is with a price on the carbon emissions, 

but I do not think the governments have yet faced up to what is 

going to be needed in order to get us to a safe level of CO2. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the question for 

all three of you to answer starting with Dr. Hansen, probably a follow up to what Mr. Neal talked about, you have developed countries, you have developing countries in the world today, and China 

is one country that obviously is using more and more coal operating 

or opening new coal power plants every year, many. 

In my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, we did an analysis and said 

in less than ten years, emissions from developing countries will exceed the total amount of emissions from all currently developed 

countries. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
48 

In such a scenario, you could argue that if the United States goes 

to zero, abandons your point, coal, we could still see a scenario 

where countries that we are competing with economically are creating more global warming. 

What is your response to that, Dr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. These developing countries have very strong incentives for wanting to reduce the emissions and the air pollution 

and water pollution that goes with it. China is very concerned 

about that. They are beginning investments in many ways aimed 

at clean energy. 

That is why a carbon price is so important. Once the major countries—our few major trading partners, Europe and China, agree to 

a carbon price, then because you can impose import duties on those 

countries that do not make products that do not have a carbon tax, 

you can in the most efficient way phase out the carbon emissions. 

The developing countries have as much or more incentive to do 

that as we do. 

Mr. TIBERI. Doctor? 

Ms. Ekwurzel. Thank you. I think because the U.S. actions alone 

will not be enough further underscores the need for the U.S. leadership in the international agreements. 

The U.S. accounts for around 20 percent of the worldwide emissions, and also the tropical deforestation accounts for another 20 

percent. 

If you were to add up European Union and the United States, 

that is almost 55 percent of the world’s emissions. 

We know that the world has already chosen a market based cap 

and invest system we currently limit our ability to compete within 

that market. I think it is very important that we engage in the carbon trading that is already going on and including in our own 

United States, because we have a northeast carbon trading cap and 

invest system as well. 

Mr. TIBERI. Dr. Christy? 

Mr. CHRISTY. This is where it becomes a moral issue. The third 

world will develop with affordable energy. Making energy more expensive for them will limit their ability to grow and develop. 

As I said before, without energy, life is brutal and short, and I 

saw it. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, can I follow Mr. Larson? He has a conflict. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

witnesses as well. I especially want to say from the outset how we 

all share the fierce urgency of now with respect to addressing this 

issue. 

The Friends of Earth did a study that said a carbon or greenhouse gas auction would create the world’s largest new derivatives 

market. In fact, the Commodities Future and Trading Commissioner, Art Children, called carbon futures the biggest of any derivatives’ product. 

Many of my colleagues, including Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Van 

Hollen, have worked for years to introduce oversight into the commodities futures markets to little avail. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
49 

There is still the over the counter dark unregulated markets, 

which in a recent 60 Minutes’ investigation claimed was on the 

scale of 40 to $60 trillion. 

My question is what makes you think that an auction for carbon 

emissions where the market sets the price would not turn into the 

unregulated speculative mess that we have witnessed in other markets? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think that is one of the dangers. I think you are 

bound to get—it is really hard to avoid speculators from getting involved. That is why you want a simple, honest tax and dividend, 

I think. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I would argue that with a well designed cap 

and trade, we can buffer the prices through banking and borrowing. Also, what is more important with the cap and invest system is that in that type of system, all actors who can contribute, 

such as farmers, forest managers, and tropical forest protection, 

can be part of the market cap and invest system. 

Mr. LARSON. I realize you said in your testimony that you are 

not an economist. I respect that. I am not trying to put you on the 

hook for that. 

I have a difficult time explaining to constituents at Augie & 

Ray’s what an ‘‘auction is,’’ and it will actually take place and who 

benefits. 

I think a number of people on the Committee starting certainly 

with Mr. McDermott raised valid points in terms of volatility, and 

how will volatility impact the constituents we are all sworn to 

serve, and what will be the cost savings that is passed along as Mr. 

Hansen indicated. How will constituents benefit from this as opposed to the obvious benefactors on Wall Street. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I would cite the Center for Budget and Policy 

Priorities. They have recommended that about 14 percent of the 

auction revenues would go directly into a low income credit, a credit card, for energy prices, to buffer them from that price volatility, 

as well as making sure that the revenues that are generated—— 

Mr. LARSON. Fourteen percent of trillions of dollars, that is 

what would trickle down to the ultimate end user and the person 

that is going to have to bear the brunt of the price increases that 

will come? 

Ms. Ekwurzel. One advantage is that when you reinvest in creating more choices, especially in energy efficiency, the costs of energy are going to go down. 

Mr. LARSON. How will China and India in a not so transparent 

system, and as we look, as some of the questions of Mr. Levin and 

others have raised with respect to trade, be able to brought along 

in a system that is not transparent and accountable and direct? 

I think it masks itself in many respects as opposed to this 

straightforward leveling with the American people what the sacrifice will be, but also what the benefit of their participation will 

be in terms of either lowering their payroll taxes or getting a direct 

dividend as Mr. Hansen and others have suggested. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I would say that my top priority is solving the 

climate crisis. Having a cap directly addresses that. 

Mr. LARSON. Are you open to something other than a cap? Are 

you open to not falling into the trap that we saw with the derivaVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
50 

tives market and the less than transparent means of collecting this 

money and then passing it on to the people who will be truly impacted? 

Are you open to it, at least? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I think there has to be a suite of policies and 

cap and invest is a part of it. We also need to have incentives. We 

need to have standards to make sure that our plasma TV’s are not 

emitting and using as much energy as they currently do. When you 

replace a TV. with a plasma TV., we are taking many steps backward. 

These types of incentives and carrot and stick methods will have 

to be across all sectors, but with cap and invest, we can bring in 

the agricultural sector. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Doctor. I agree with your scientific 

goals. I hope you are open to achieving some of the economic results downstream on our constituents who will be impacted. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Boustany is recognized. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

None of the three of you are politicians or economists. You are 

scientists. For a moment, I want to just focus on the context of 

what has been said here in the hearing. 

Dr. Hansen, you said the science is crystal clear based on a lot 

of empirical findings with the diminishment in the Arctic ice and 

other findings that have been observed. 

Dr. Ekwurzel, you stated that models have actually under stated 

the actual pace of change. 

Dr. Christy has talked about models, planet models overstating 

average temperature. 

There is a lot of difference of opinion right here, just in the context of this hearing. 

Could each of you point out to me what you see as flaws in the 

current scientific modeling, and what needs to be improved, what 

steps need to be taken to bring these models up to speed to give 

us a better indication of what is going on empirically? 

Dr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. First of all, I did not mention models. I think by 

far, our best indication of how the Earth responds to changes in its 

boundary conditions and its atmospheric composition is based on 

the history of the earth. That is what has improved enormously in 

recent years, the paleoclimate information. 

Also, we see what is happening with the changes that are occurring now. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Is not the causality or the assumption of causality between emissions and global warming based on models? 

Mr. HANSEN. No. Our knowledge of climate sensitivity to 

changes in atmospheric composition is far more precise based on 

the Earth’s history, based on how the Earth has responded in the 

past. Then that automatically includes every physical mechanism 

that exists in the real world, while models are always deficient. 

You never know whether you have all the processes in there or 

whether you have the physics right. 

Indeed, by setting different scientists up at a table, you will always get differences of opinion. That is why I strongly recommend, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
51 

if you want to have the best assessment or summary of our knowledge, that you ask the National Academy of Sciences. Then we can 

stop debating things which are already in fact quite clear. 

I do not mean to imply that every detail of the science is settled, 

but the broad picture—you need to look at the forest, not just the 

individual trees. The best body to help us look at the forest, I 

think, would be the National Academy of Sciences. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Dr. Ekwurzel? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I think it was very clear we all agree that the 

climate is warming. We are a big part of the problem. That gives 

me hope. That means we can be part of the solution. Otherwise, 

we would be at the vagaries of natural processes, and the Earth’s 

history has taught us a lot, how sensitive the climate is. 

Where the science is leading now is to try to figure out what are 

going to be the local impacts, how fast are the changes going to be, 

and how can we adapt. 

That is where the science is. The broad reason behind it and factors that we have understood for many years, indeed some of the 

concepts were proven over 200 years ago and still remain robust. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I understand that. Does not the modeling give 

us some sort of an indication of how we should intervene? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. We have plenty of evidence just based on what 

has happened in the past and observations, especially very high 

quality scientific records, especially over the last century. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Try to explain the fact that the models based 

on emissions do not account for the rapid pace of warming, what 

are the other factors? 

Mr. HANSEN. What has become clear is there are amplifying 

feedbacks in the climate system. One of them is in the Arctic where 

as the sea ice melts, it exposes a darker ocean that then absorbs 

more sunlight and it speeds the melting of ice there. 

Even slow feedback, things that we thought were slow, like ice 

sheet disintegration and like melting tundra and release of methane, we did not include that in the models, but in fact we are seeing it begin to happen, still modest in its size. 

When we look at the Earth’s history, we see that when those 

things got started in the past, they sometimes then began to grow 

quite rapidly. Ice sheets disintegrated at a rate that had sea level 

going up one meter every 20 years. 

Those kind of processes are not really included in the models. In 

that sense, the models are less dynamic than the real world. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for conducting this hearing and involving this Committee in finding a solution to this critical issue. 

It is timely particularly because as you recall, last night in his 

address, President Obama asked ‘‘Congress to send him legislation 

that places a market based cap on carbon pollution and drives the 

production of more renewable energy in America.’’ 

I think it is not too much to say that this President is committed 

to changing the White House into a greenhouse, not just an efficient house as a model for the country, but a greenhouse in the 

sense of cultivating, of creating, of applying science based apVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
52 

proaches to how we solve the critical national security issue of climate change. 

I think our President gets it. We need to help him get the 

progress that we seek by moving forward in the very near future, 

in the next few months, in offering legislation to address this issue. 

The time to act was really long ago and it is with the economic 

crisis that only swift bold action can help us be pulled back from 

the abyss that you have described this morning. 

Fortunately, the world climate, while it is worsening, the climate 

here on the Hill for change is greatly improving. Last Congress, I 

introduced the Climate Matters Act cosponsored by a majority of 

the Democratic Members of this Committee, almost 100 cosponsors, 

that set limits on greenhouse gas pollutants. 

Now, with Chairman Henry Waxman at the helm of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee, I believe our two Committees can work 

together as partners to lead a Congressional response in reaction 

to President Obama’s leadership. 

While disagreeing with your conclusions on the best remedy, I 

particularly applaud the years of commitment of Dr. Hansen, and 

I share, Dr. Hansen, your zeal for action and the need to have 

acted yesterday. 

Most Americans, I think, understand that it is not whether we 

respond to the crisis of climate change, but how quickly we respond 

to it. 

I am very pleased that Dr. Ekwurzel is here. The Union of Concerned Scientists was one of a large number of groups that appeared in this room last Summer when we had hotter weather and 

when we also had a broad consensus in favor of climate legislation, 

and I appreciate the role the Union has played in exploring this 

and certainly in the supportive comments it has offered on the climate change bill. 

Any time you have a problem that is this massive but where the 

benefits of solving it are felt years down the road and the difficulty 

and pain of coming up with a solution is felt now, there will be 

many excuses for inaction that are very appealing from a political 

standpoint. 

The economic crisis is the latest excuse for doing nothing. In fact, 

I believe, as your testimony indicates, that the crisis that we have 

now is directly linked to our over dependence on fossil fuels and 

fossilized thinking, and that we need to be creating green jobs now 

to get us out of that crisis. 

Another excuse that we have heard this morning is that what we 

need to do is let India and China dictate our policy in this country. 

You know, it is not so many years ago that Exxon Mobil, one of 

the current advocates for a carbon tax, was over telling the Chinese 

and the Indians that they needed to not be concerned about this 

problem and not participate in helping us to find the solution. 

I believe that you have outlined the fact that we need all of these 

countries cooperating, of course, to solve the climate change. It is 

a false discussion to say let us just look at what the United States 

could do to contribute. We can do a great deal. 

My state of Texas, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the country that is either number one or number two with 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
53 

the Chinese in greenhouse emissions, can do a great deal to solve 

this problem. 

We have to do it through cooperation and also through the kind 

of trade mechanisms that we outlined in the Climate Matters bill. 

Secretary of State Clinton has been there placing this at the top 

of the foreign policy agenda. 

One of the things, Dr. Ekwurzel, that you referred to that I think 

is so central to the Climate Matters Bill, is we have to have a rapid 

response in terms of scientific review, periodic review. 

As we get into this, we learn even more and more and we may 

see an even more rapid deterioration and the fact that the worse 

case scenario we have heard about is maybe not as far reaching as 

the facts dictate. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Ekwurzel, as far as the cap and invest approach, if you believe that an investment of some of these revenues 

that would be gained is critical to helping us resolve the problem 

and provide additional resources for energy efficiency, clean transportation and green energy technology? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes, I think it is absolutely critical as well as 

buffering low income constituents that are so critical in this path 

forward. We need that one-two punch of the early cap and also 

ratcheting down in the second punch of reinvestment so we can 

have the longer term solutions when the cap is so low and the price 

goes up. 

We need those better technologies down the road over the next 

40 years. Thank you. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman RANGEL. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank each 

of you and thanks for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Hansen, some have criticized carbon tax proposals because 

they say they do not provide certain reductions in emissions. How 

would you address this criticism? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think in fact, carbon tax is your root to the fastest reductions. What the science has told us is that we need to 

make reductions as fast as we can. 

The cap, the problem is attempts to define caps then result in escape hatches, and we see in the Kyoto protocol that in fact, we did 

not get reductions, even the countries that accepted the targets of 

large reductions did not achieve them. Instead, they would use 

some escape hatch and plant a tree in some country or something. 

The most effective way is to put a price on the emissions and 

that will give a big incentive to develop those technologies that do 

not emit carbon and move us in that direction as fast as possible. 

We can adjust that rate by changing or increasing the tax rate. 

If we are giving back 100 percent of the money to the public, the 

public will not object to a higher rate. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I met with a group this morning, and obviously, different groups have different issues as it relates to whether 

it is capping trade or tax, and certainly, the agricultural industry 

in this country, depending on whether it be people who grow animals or whatever, there is a different degree of where you are, and 

you will have a certain group that will love capping trade because 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
54 

they are going to make money at it, because they can have offsets 

from industry. 

Otherwise, one issue was raised this morning. Dr. Ekwurzel, I 

would be interested in your comment. The issue they raised was 

not so much getting there, they were willing to do certain things, 

but fertilizer and a lot of the components in agriculture is really 

tied to natural gas, has a significant impact on the input costs and 

the fluctuations that take place. 

If within the process of what we are doing we have adequate natural gas in place, then you have a level playingfield over the long 

run, but if not, and this gets to other areas, you are going to have 

tremendous peaks in the cost of food, et cetera. 

Would you feel comfortable in commenting on that? I have a follow up question I really want to get to. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I think the price volatility would be something 

that a well designed cap and invest program would have to address. Your point to other actors, for example, a farmer, a dairy 

farmer, who can get power from the methane emissions or the nitrous oxide that comes from the farming practices that can last in 

the atmosphere for about a century, these types of issues can be 

well addressed with a well designed cap and invest program. 

We could bring more actors that can help solve the problem of 

climate change, which is what I am most interested in. 

I cannot speak to your natural gas issue. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I will save that for a later day. 

Your proposal focuses on preventing a greater than two degree 

change in temperature. My question is what are the risks associated with allowing a two degree change in temperature, and secondly, what is the level—why is that acceptable when three degrees would not be or one degree? 

What is that break point? I have heard the consequences but I 

would like to get it on the record. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. I would just caution that with the understanding of the science, for example, some projections of disintegration of some of the ice sheet, contributions to sea level rise, some 

of those range from between 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial up to higher, so perhaps two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial might not save the worse case of the scenario’s of some of the 

models for ice sheets, but many of the impacts—what we are saying is that two degrees is an absolute maximum. 

The atmospheric concentrations that go along with a good temperature, it may be more prudent to go even lower. Some issues for 

example, you can lose are species that are sitting at the top of 

mountain tops or at the polar regions that do not have other places 

to escape, as well as our own coastal infrastructure. 

We developed our economy, our agricultural system over the past 

2,000 years with a relatively benign situation. We knew the sea 

levels, where they were, and that type of rapid change is something 

that would be an immense cost to us as well as threats to many 

people around the world for food supply, water resources, flooding 

and destruction, and more extreme weather events. 

These are some of the impacts we would like to avoid. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Pomeroy. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
55 

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the Chairman. Thank you for this important hearing, Mr. Chairman. I commend the panel. I think each 

of you have been extremely interesting and quite clear in discussing a complex scientific matter. 

I represent the State of North Dakota. We farm up there. We 

have a substantial coal industry, lignite coal. We use it to generate 

power, another major source of economic activity. We heat our 

homes through long cold winters. We drive long distances between 

our towns. 

We are anxious about this. On the other hand, we care more 

than anything about the world we will pass on to our children and 

our grandchildren. 

We are trying to find our way here. A course that I think Congress needs to pursue is we have to keep a mind on ultimate political sustainability of changing course and beginning to address this 

issue. 

What would be the impact of what you think might be an optimal answer in a place like North Dakota? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think North Dakota, as the price on carbon 

emissions goes up, the coal industry is going to go down. North Dakota has an abundance of wind resources. It also could be a contributor to well designed biofuels programs, not corn based ethanol, 

but there is a role for biofuels in our future energy supplies. 

I think that it is not going to be necessarily detrimental to even 

a state like North Dakota. 

Mr. POMEROY. Dr. Hansen, coal is the most abundant, most affordable energy source in the world. I flew out coincidentally Monday from Bismarck with an engineer working for North American 

Coal heading to India, where he is going to spend the next 3 

months assisting them in the construction of a power plant. They 

are building a pile of them. He’s on the mining side. He did not 

think there was a heck of a lot of investment going in on the environmental side of that plant, which will be four times larger than 

any plant in North Dakota. 

Talk about extraordinary air deprivation, deterioration already, 

per capita energy consumption at about one-sixth of what we have 

in this country there, full speed ahead in terms of expanding 

power. 

What about coal? If our Nation decides—are we truly going to 

shift the cost to the consumer, going without this energy resource, 

and even if we would, what about the rest of the world which is 

unlikely to follow this example? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. It is not a trivial problem. The science has 

really made clear we cannot burn all of that coal without sending 

us back to where the planet was when that carbon dioxide was in 

the atmosphere before. Where it was, there was no ice on the planet. Seventy meter sea level rise. 

It would not happen instantly. We would set in motion processes 

that would be affecting our children and grandchildren for many 

generations. 

We simply cannot do it. We have to figure out a way. Coal could 

be part of it if you really developed a carbon capture and sequestration. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
56 

My guess is—I do recommend there should be real effort to do 

that. Not the imaginary one we had over the last seven or 8 years 

where we pretended we were doing it and then did not do it. 

That is a possibility. I would compare that to fourth generation 

nuclear power. I would work on both of those and figure out which 

one is more effective. Maybe both. My suspicion is we do need baseload electrical power and I doubt that the renewables will do that. 

Mr. POMEROY. Not to interrupt, I see my time is running. We 

have a very substantial coal sequestration initiative in North Dakota that enhances all recovery in Canada. It does not capture 50 

percent of emissions, but it was not even constructed for that purpose. I think we can do much better. 

Would you say as part of the approach a substantial investment 

in clean coal to see what we can achieve needs to be part of a sustainable political answer? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think that is a role that a government should 

be expected to play. The carbon price will then encourage private 

investment if it looks like that is a viable way. 

I think on a really big issue like that, which is a decade long type 

thing, that the government should contribute to that and also to 

nuclear power. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. I did not have time to include the 

other panelists, but thank you. 

Chairman RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Mr. 

Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me tell you, lady and gentlemen, at the outset, I think I am 

in the camp that Mr. Pomeroy represents, my very learned colleague from North Dakota. 

We are searching for—the phrase ‘‘middle ground’’ is tried, it is 

over used. For lack of a better term, both of us, and I think Mr. 

Etheridge, are searching for some sort of a path in the middle. 

I want to use my time to tell you, Dr. Hansen, what I find 

unsatisfying about your testimony, and then Dr. Christy, I will tell 

you frankly what I find unsatisfying about your testimony. 

Beginning with Dr. Hansen, when Mr. Pomeroy asked you questions about what the impact would be if we were to have a dramatic departure from coal based sources of energy, your answer essentially was well, we would certainly lose coal based sources of energy under your scenario, but there are numerous other ways that 

North Dakota could pick up the slack. 

This is my concern with that answer. It is not a theoretical abstract issue. If coal based sources of energy were to deteriorate in 

major portions of this country, you would lose whole mining communities, you would lose whole job sources for people, and the average age of people in the mining industry is not young. These are 

individuals often, I think, in their late 40s/early fifties. 

It is not uncommon for people to be at that age and working very 

productively in the mining industry. They are not going to be retrained in this phase of their career to do something. There will not 

be a seamless transition at all. 

Mr. Etheridge, I think, may have voiced some concerns about 

some of the impact of some of the renewable electricity standards 

on southern states. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
57 

That is a genuine concern that some of us have, that you could 

see acute impacts on particular regions, on particular sectors of the 

economy, those impacts will be magnified by the effects of 

globalization in many ways, and they are also magnified by the 

now 26 year deterioration in the manufacturing sector in this economy, and again, the costs are not academic. They are real families 

that are not likely to be retrofitted for different kinds of work. 

Having said all of that, Dr. Christy, I had a chance to review 

your written testimony. I am going to tell you what I find unsatisfactory about your approach. 

Number one, I am not a scientist and will not play one on close 

circuit TV. here today, but I am not overly sympathetic of the 

science and the scientific argument you have advanced, but I do 

not want to dwell on that. 

Frankly, I was more bothered by another observation you made 

in your written testimony. You say that you are paraphrasing, but 

there is a quote from you based on a conversation you had with a 

manufacturer, ‘‘Alabama is our last stop in the United States. If 

energy costs rise, we will be taking all these jobs to Mexico or 

China and building our products, leaving more emissions and less 

efficient plants than we create here.’’ 

That is some version of an argument that I hear a lot as a Member of Congress from Alabama. This is how a typical week often 

goes. On Monday, I will hear someone in the business community 

say unions are bad for my state and we have been selling Alabama 

on the grounds that we do not have a lot of unions, so if we bring 

in unions, we will lose that competitive edge. 

On Tuesday, someone will say in the context of the stimulus 

package that just passed, this will make us expand our unemployment insurance, and we have been selling Alabama on the grounds 

that we do not require very much in the way of unemployment insurance, that is a competitive edge that we have had. 

On Wednesday, particularly until last August, someone would 

come to me and say yes, it is true, we are 49th in the country in 

our water protection standards when it comes to the amount of carcinogens we tolerate in the water supply, but we use that to get 

a competitive edge over other states. 

Now I hear from you well, the particular energy profile that we 

have in our state is a competitive advantage that we have on other 

states. 

I am waiting for, I guess, the Friday when somebody comes in 

and says maybe the competitive edge that we ought to be developing in Alabama and states like it is that we are producing very 

good workers, developing very high quality schools, and developing 

very good comprehensive workforce development programs. 

I just want to hear that as the solution advanced by people one 

of these days. I have a hunch that if we are serious about where 

your state and my state is going to be 10 years from now, 15 years 

from now, it is going to require that we frankly, yes, invest in nuclear. Yes, we invest in alternative sources of energy. 

It is also going to require a focus on education, on job creation. 

I just do not like hearing this argument that Alabama’s competitive 

advantage is that we protect our workers less and we protect our 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
58 

environment less and demand less of industry and the people 

around us. 

I imagine the states that surround us want jobs as much as we 

do. I imagine they want a strong economy as much as we do, but 

they seem to be choosing different courses than the ones that some 

policy makers in Alabama are encouraging. 

My time has run out. If any of you want to respond to what I 

said and the Chairman will allow it, that is fine. 

Mr. HANSEN. You are certainly right. If we phase out coal, the 

coal mining jobs are gone. The studies have shown that the jobs 

created by the alternative energies actually are more labor intensive and will produce more jobs than the coal mining. 

Of course, the coal miner—the United States has always moved 

fairly quickly from one thing to another, and that does create a 

hardship if a person is not retrainable. 

You will need to take some steps to try to minimize that impact. 

I think overall for the country, it will not be a reduction in number 

of jobs. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Van Hollen is recognized. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all 

of our witnesses for their testimony. 

Dr. Hansen, if I could start with you. Dr. Ekwurzel has argued 

for an initial target of 25-percent reductions off the 1990 levels by 

the year 2020. Consistent with both meeting the science and the 

evidence with respect to global warming and also not doing undue 

harm to the economy, does that path make sense to you? Is that 

something you think is an appropriate target? 

Mr. HANSEN. That would be reasonably consistent with phasing 

out coal as rapidly as practical. In order to actually achieve that, 

when we set goals before, it has not been a very effective approach. 

We have to identify where the main source is and the one that we 

are going to have to cut back, and that is coal, and we will need, 

I think, in order to achieve that, to have a price that encourages 

it to happen. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You anticipated my next question, which is 

really for both of you. Let us assume that is the path we want to 

reductions on that schedule. What would be the effective price for 

carbon in order to hit that goal and any schedule in terms of price 

increases? 

I understand you mentioned the number of $115 per metric ton 

of carbon. Is that the kind of price we are talking about and at 

what point in this schedule. These are obviously the real considerations for the Committee. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is difficult to set that. That is why I like the 

carbon price as the tuning knob because it is a stable one with a 

linear, while in the case of caps, there is too much volatility. 

The price has to be high enough that the consumer feels the impact and it affects their choices in vehicles they buy and it encourages them to weatherize their home and things like that. It has to 

be a substantial price. That is where the discussions on the cap 

have really been, I think, inadequate, to really get the major 

changes that we are going to need. 

I am saying I cannot tell you exactly. By the way, the $115 is 

per ton of CO2, not carbon. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
59 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. CO2. I am sorry. Doctor, do you have a sense 

of what the price would have to be if you do a cap or a tax? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Certainly, as the cap ratchets down, theoretically the price is going to go up. We have limited allowances. I 

would not be able to say what the price would end up being. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. For you, Dr. Ekwurzel, Dr. Hansen has proposed that in order to address the price impact on the consumer, 

you essentially have a rebate, a 100 percent rebate. As we all 

know, one of the impacts of this will be to increase the price of carbon products. 

I know you have said we should use some of the revenue for 

some of these purposes in clean technologies. 

I guess the question on the minds of many consumers is not Dr. 

Hansen’s approach a more direct approach to ameliorating that 

cost impact on a consumer, and does it not also allow them to draw 

a more direct connection between increase in prices but also the relief that they will feel in terms of the additional costs through a 

rebate? 

Dr. EKWURZEL. In some senses, it could be seen as regressive 

in that one rebate across the board per capita is for everyone, 

whereas if you directly target the investments toward those who 

have low income, you might be able to give even more money than 

what the rebate is. 

There is also no guarantee that what they are buying is necessarily reaching our goal. That is from my perspective of wanting 

to reduce the cap on emissions. I am not so sure you get there with 

the dividend. 

What is important is you really need to provide more choices for 

the American consumer so that when they do spend their money 

or if they have energy credits, depending on if it is a well designed 

program, then we want to have more choices that are very energy 

efficient and allow them to weatherize their homes and get windows and have wonderful new options when they buy appliances 

and have new standards on plasma TV.’s that are really climate 

friendly products that are out there, so that requires a suite of programs. 

I do not know how a dividend would necessarily provide similar 

guarantees. If you send the money over to other countries that are 

producing consumer products, I am not sure how that incentivizes 

climate friendly products. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, a brief follow up on that. I 

think we should all agree the primary mechanism we are using 

here to try and drive investments in alternative energy sources, 

non-carbon based sources, is by setting the price on carbon, and 

that will drive investments in these other technologies because consumers will want to buy them. 

I could not agree with you more on weatherization as a good investment. As you know, we have a major investment in the economic recovery plan. 

Just in terms of consumers understanding that we are going to 

offset some of the increased costs they are going to incur through 

a rebate, I think there is probably a good argument to be made, 

that that is a more visible and direct impact. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
60 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Mr. Kind? 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the 

guests for your patience. You have given us a lot of time today. I 

apologize if you have already addressed the issue I want to delve 

into briefly with you. I have had to run in and out. 

Dr. Ekwurzel, let me start with you because I was looking over 

your PowerPoint first thing when I came in, and noticed that in the 

share of the emissions’ pie, you have it broken down between industrial and developing nations, where the industrial, as far as 

projected nations’ emissions, comprises about 40 percent impact on 

the globe, and developing nations, roughly 60 percent. 

My question for you and anyone else on the panel here today is 

how do we create a system to incentivize the full participation of 

the developing world in what we are doing? 

Even if we try to make the right decisions and get everything 

right here at home, if we do not get that buy in from the rest of 

the world, especially China and India, we may be just tilting at 

windmills here. 

I do not know if you have an opportunity to think about what 

we can do in working in concert with the developing world and 

some of the faster emerging nations that are emitting a lot. In fact, 

China just surpassed us recently as the number one emitter in the 

globe. 

Dr. EKWURZEL. Those were 2005 numbers. It was just an illustration really to show how deep our emissions would be, even if we 

based it on our current emissions, which are quite high. In fact, 

China and India—China has surpassed us. We are number two. 

India is coming fast along, and Russia. 

What I see is that in fact if we were to create cheaper forms of 

energy from many different sources all on the table and we developed the products here and engaged in that, instead of Germany 

selling the products to the rest of the world, I would like us to be 

selling energy efficient products to the rest of the world. 

If we can generate revenues and invest it in our companies here 

at home to create the new energy infrastructure and the jobs of the 

future, we can have instead of a person going over there building 

a new coal plant, we could have a person over building a plant that 

perhaps is much more climate friendly, and that would be really 

beneficial to our economy as well as the climate. I like both happening at the same time. 

Mr. KIND. It is certainly what the President was alluding to in 

his speech last night, how we need to ramp up our investment in 

clean technology, clean energy sources. Of course, what we were 

trying to accomplish in the recovery package as Mr. Van Hollen 

just pointed out as well, how do we ramp this up capacity wise in 

this country so we can lead the world and share with the rest of 

the world. 

Mr. Hansen, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. HANSEN. With regard to China and India and the likelihood that they would cooperate, it should be pointed out they will 

suffer more from climate change than we will. They have a few 

hundred million people living near sea level. They are already suffering from coal pollution, a few hundred thousand people per year 

are dying of air pollution. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
61 

They will have strong incentives to go in the same direction as 

we do. I have had workshops with Chinese and Indian scientists. 

I find they are eager to move in these directions. We just have to 

have the incentives there to make sure it happens. 

That is why I think the price incentive with the tax and 100 percent dividend gives that kind of push. 

Mr. KIND. Dr. Hansen, do you feel with your contacts with the 

scientists in India and China that they are basically where established science is today or do they have a raging debate in their own 

society? 

Mr. HANSEN. No, this raging debate is not unique to the U.S. 

It is certainly occurring in other countries, in Europe now also. Not 

to the degree that it is here. 

That is why I really think that we should ask the National Academy of Sciences. I know what you see on television is not representative of where the science really stands. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Christy? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. I object to that comment. I am one of those 

few people that actually builds these climate datasets. If we could 

show number three up there, I just want to show one thing to dispel some of the things you have heard here today. 

The climate is not changing or more sensitive than what models 

say it is. This is the range of climate model trends in temperature 

for the planet. 

The red is the highest range. The orange is the low range. The 

blue and the green lines are where the real world is. In other 

words, the real world is responding in the climate system at the 

very lowest of the sensitivity, the mean sensitivity is not being 

achieved by the real world. 

These are numbers that we build and we know they can be repeated. That is the point I am trying to make. We are not changing 

at the rates that are being promoted primarily by the media, I 

think. 

Mr. KIND. Right. I want to thank you all again. You were very 

generous with your time and testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Let me thank the three of you 

on behalf of the Committee and share with you the thinking of the 

Chair and the Committee. 

As you know, the President has accelerated our hearings in getting something done, the leadership of the House and Senate have 

indicated a priority, and we intend to meet with the other Members 

of the Committees of jurisdiction to see how we can consolidate our 

thinking and get a consensus on the direction. 

I do hope that you would continue to be generous with your time, 

advice and direction, and we will try to make certain that we can 

avoid all of the Committees calling you down to say the same 

things. I will try to consolidate your time if you would be kind 

enough to continue to give us the benefit of your research and advice. 

You have been very, very helpful. I suspect that we have the capabilities as we certainly have the willingness to do this and perhaps that would be your rewards for a lifetime of research that 

your country has finally responded. 

Thank you very, very much. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
62 

1We have written this paper as concerned citizens and parents. Our educational background 

includes undergraduate degrees from Yale College (Laurie) and the University of California, 

Santa Cruz (Allan) and J.D.’s from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, 

Berkeley. We are employees of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’), Region 9, in San Francisco, however, we are writing only in our personal capacities, and nothing 

in this paper is an attempt to present the views of EPA or the Administration. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement by Laurie Williams and Allen Zabel of www.carbonfees.org 

The single biggest obstacle to solving the climate crisis is the fact that the cost 

of fossil fuel energy remains relatively low, creating little incentive for conservation 

or for the scale-up of clean energy. While prices for clean energy have fallen, clean 

energy remains significantly more expensive than fossil fuel energy. For instance, 

fossil fuel-generated electricity currently averages between 6 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour, while, depending on its design and location, solar currently averages 2 

to 3 times that amount. As we explain here, a cap-and-trade approach (the Acid 

Rain template), widely presumed to be an appropriate tool for addressing climate 

change, has several fatal flaws, including the fact that it will not insure a competitive price advantage for clean energy over fossil fuel energy in the near future. As 

a result, cap-and-trade will not create the incentives for investment in a rapid scaleup of clean energy substitutes. Cap-and-trade keeps our eyes focused on the wrong 

ball—on maintaining low costs for fossil fuel energy. Instead, our eyes need to be 

focused on a very different ball (the CFC-tax template)—on changing the relative 

cost of fossil fuel energy and clean energy, while keeping the energy needed for everyday life and in everyday products affordable for everyone and minimizing economic disruption. Carbon fees with a 100% rebate, delivered monthly in equal payments to all, is the tool that can swiftly and effectively accomplish this goal. 

Illustration 1: Fossil fuel energy provided approximately 86% of U.S. energy 

in 2006. 

The Role of Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006 

(See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport 

.html) 

1. What is Cap-and-Trade and How Did It Become the Leading Proposal to 

Address Climate Change? 

Cap-and-trade is a program that sets a collective declining emissions limit (‘‘cap’’) 

for particular pollutants from all sources within the program. The idea is to gradually lower the total amount of pollutants emitted from these sources until the environmental goal is achieved (in this case massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions). The trade portion of the program allows participating sources to lower the 

cost of reducing their emissions by purchasing permits to pollute from others who 

may be able to cut back more cheaply, thereby helping to keep the overall costs of 

the commodities manufactured, in this case fossil fuel energy, as low as possible. 

Outside Offsets: An additional concept that has been part of most cap-and-trade 

proposals for climate change is the idea of outside offsets. Outside offsets mean allowing additional pollution above the cap for sources within the program, if they are 

able to pay for decreases in the pollutant outside the program. For instance, a coalfired power plant (a source within the program) could continue emitting CO2 above 

the levels that would otherwise be permitted, if the owners of the facility have purchased an offset, such as a reforestation project expected to capture CO2, i.e., a carbon ‘‘sink,’’ outside the capped sources. In most cases, cap-and-trade proposals for 

climate change suggest allowing ‘‘offset’’ projects in other countries. 

Support for Cap-and-Trade: Many prominent people and organizations have supported cap-and-trade as a next step for addressing climate change. President Obama 

has said that his administration will seek enactment of a cap-and-trade program to 

reduce greenhouse gases to 80% of their 1990 levels by 2050. Although individual 

state programs may be preempted by a future federal program, the trend toward 

cap-and-trade is also shown by the California Air Resources Board’s 2008 decision 

to rely heavily on cap-and-trade for reducing California’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Western Climate Initiative, a group of western U.S. states and Canadian provinces, anticipates collaboration among its members on a cap-and-trade program. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of the Natural Resources Defense Council (‘‘NRDC’’) has said 

that adopting cap-and-trade to address climate change is a ‘‘no brainer’’ in his forVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
63 

2See Harvard economist, Greg Mankiw’s blog at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/ 

16view.html. 

ward to ‘‘The Green Collar Economy’’ by Van Jones. In addition, using cap-and-trade 

for climate change is endorsed by an array of U.S. organizations, including oil companies (BP America, ConocoPhillips and Shell) and environmental groups (Environmental Defense, NRDC and World Wildlife Fund), many of whom joined an industry/environmental coalition called ‘‘USCAP,’’ the stated purpose of which is to bring 

about enactment of a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. See USCAP’s proposed 

program at www.us-cap.org. 

Given the high profile of the cap-and-trade idea, it is somewhat shocking to many 

to find that the analysis supporting this approach is seriously flawed and is rejected 

by many prominent economists.2 A combination of factors led to this disconnect: 

(1) The Acid Rain Myth: Cap-and-trade advocates have claimed that the success 

of EPA’s Acid Rain program has proved that cap-and-trade will work for climate change, failing to appreciate the critical differences between the climate 

change challenge and the acid rain problem. As discussed below, the U.S. 

chlorofluorocarbon (‘‘CFC’’) tax to address ozone depletion under the Montreal 

Protocol provides a much more applicable analogy. 

(2) No New Taxes: Many analysts, including Peter Orszag, Director of the U.S. 

Congressional Budget Office (‘‘CBO’’), have recognized that carbon taxes (or 

fees) would be a more efficient method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

See Orszag, Nov. 2007, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8769/11-01- 

CO2Emissions.pdf. However, many politicians have viewed any new taxes as 

politically unacceptable to voters, even before the economic collapse of 2008. 

These evaluations fail to consider the possibility of 100% rebate, the economic 

advantages of fees with rebates over cap-and-trade for most individuals, and 

the potential of public education on the policy choice to address this concern; 

and 

(3) Urgency: Favorable analyses of the applicability of cap-and-trade to climate 

change originated when scientists believed we might have several more decades to achieve an 80% reduction in CO2. However, recent studies indicate 

that the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (385 parts per 

million (‘‘ppm’’) CO2) will lead to dangerous climate change, even if no additional increases occur. Since CO2 levels have been increasing at approximately 

2 ppm per year over the last eight years, many scientists have concluded that 

the climate problem is much more urgent than they believed it to be earlier 

in this decade. This evidence suggests we have a much shorter time to a transition away from fossil fuels, especially coal, in order to reduce the risk of runaway climate change and ecological disaster. See the 2008 discussion of climate evidence by James Hansen, et al at http://www.columbia.edu/∼jeh1/2008/ 

TargetCO2_20080407.pdf. Specifically, Dr. Hansen and his team found: ‘‘Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically 

eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.’’ (Emphasis added.) Given 

growing demand for energy world-wide, only strong incentives for conservation 

and a rapid scale-up of clean energy can stem the continued growth of emissions that Hansen and his team have determined are likely to spell disaster. 

While people we admire, people of good faith, great intelligence and real integrity, 

have supported cap-and-trade, our hope is to explain why moving forward with a 

cap-and-trade approach creates an unacceptable risk of catastrophic global warming 

and why there is a much more effective alternative that could become politically feasible with appropriate public education and leadership from President Obama. 

2. Why is Cap and Trade the Wrong Tool? 

The Acid Rain Myth: As noted above, those who champion using cap-and-trade to 

address climate change claim that it has been ‘‘proven’’ to work in the U.S. Acid 

Rain program. See e.g., Bill Chameides of Environmental Defense at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/102851/837. However, this assertion ignores crucial distinctions between the challenges we faced in 1990 with Acid Rain and the challenges we face today with global warming. Most importantly, the success of the Acid 

Rain program did not depend on replacing the vast majority of our existing energy 

infrastructure with new infrastructure in a relatively short time. Nor did it depend 

on spurring major innovation. Rather, the Acid Rain program was successful as a 

mechanism to guide existing facilities to undertake a fuel switch to a readily available substitute, the low sulfur coal in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Existing faVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
64 

3See http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/dispelling-the-myths-of-the-acid-rain-hb/. 4While the coal industry has lobbied for support for ‘‘clean coal,’’ sequestration of greenhouse 

gas emissions from burning coal has not been demonstrated to be safe or permanent and is expected to be costly. 

cilities needed only the addition of a few new railway lines, burner modifications 

to accommodate lower sulfur fuel, and, in some cases, new or more efficient scrubbers. Little new technology or infrastructure was needed and little was created.3

The goal of the Acid Rain program was to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, while 

keeping the cost of energy from coal low. To be effective, climate change legislation 

must do the opposite; it must gradually increase the relative price of energy from 

coal and other fossil fuels to create the appropriate incentives for both conservation 

and the scale-up of clean energy.4

Further, the Acid Rain program did not allow any outside offsets and so provides 

no basis for the widespread assumption that an offset program will help with climate change. In addition, the success of the program was aided by the low, competitive price of low-sulfur coal. According to Professor Don Munton, author of ‘‘Dispelling the Myths of the Acid Rain Story’’ the impact of the program has been overstated: 

The potential for a massive switch to low sulfur coal was no secret. Such coal was 

cheap and available, and it became cheaper and more available throughout the 

1980s. Indeed, low-sulfur coal became very competitive with high-sulfur supplied 

well before the Clean Air Act became law. 

See http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/dispelling-the-myths-of-the-acid-rain-hb/. 

Accurate Measurement: In addition to cap-and-trade’s focus on keeping the cost 

of fossil fuel energy low, the program is vulnerable to inaccurate measurements. Unless all cap-and-trade elements, including outside offsets, are limited to systems 

with accurate emissions measurement, the cap on total emissions is likely be inflated and claimed reductions exaggerated. While the emissions of large electrical 

generating facilities with continuous emission monitoring systems can be accurately 

tracked (the Acid Rain program was limited to such sources), many other sources 

of emissions and offsets cannot be as closely monitored or quantified. Where these 

less-accurately-measured sources participate, the integrity of the cap-and-trade program is undermined, as is the certainty of the reductions sought and claimed. Most 

recently proposed cap-and-trade programs do not limit their proposals to sources 

with accurate measurement. 

Fraudulent Outside Offsets: Most U.S. proposals and the European Union are 

planning to make extensive use of outside offsets in their cap-and-trade program. 

The idea is to use outside offsets as a mechanism for keeping fossil fuel energy inexpensive and for encouraging ‘‘additional’’ projects that reduce carbon emissions in 

the developing world. Research to date on these projects indicates they will be subject to extensive fraud and will undermine pressure for reductions within the capped 

economies. First, the underlying concept of ‘‘additionality’’ (i.e., the reductions would 

not have happened without offset funding) is flawed because this key component of 

the program cannot be proven. The definition of additionality is therefore subjective, 

inviting intense lobbying by sophisticated, 

profit-seeking market participants and their consultants, and defeating program 

integrity in terms of net emissions reductions. Further, since people (and profit-motivated corporations) will always seek the cheapest offsets that they can purchase, 

there is a race to the bottom, through selection of the most flawed (least additional 

and measurable) projects, as documented by two Stanford researchers, David Victor 

and Michael Wara in their research paper available at: http://pesd.stanford.edu/publications/a_realistic_policy_on_international_carbon_offsets/. In addition, offsets have 

become a source of negative unintended consequences, such as the production in 

China of HCFC 23, a potent greenhouse gas which is a by-product of manufacturing 

HCFC 22. Research indicates that manufacturing of these products may be occurring solely for the purpose of destroying HCFC 23’s and selling this activity as a 

carbon offset. (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Clean_Development 

_Mechanism_and_HCFC-23_destruction.) Finally, an investigation into expenditures 

by the U.S. Congress of carbon offsets indicated that most of the projects were already completed at the time of the purchase, i.e., not additional. See: http:// 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/story/2008/01/8/ST2008012800764.html 

Rationing, Manipulation and Price Volatility: Even if the cap-and-trade market 

were limited to facilities with continuous emission monitors and no outside offsets, 

the program would essentially be a form of rationing. Unlike a fee or tax, a cap requires Soviet-style preplanning. Program managers would try to choose a level of 

reductions in fossil fuel emissions that the economy could adjust to without energy 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
65 

shortages. Rolling blackouts/gas station lines could become a reality if demand for 

fossil fuels exceeds the supply and appropriate clean energy alternatives have not 

yet been built to fill in for reduced availability of fossil fuel energy. This type of 

problem occurred in a Los Angeles cap-and-trade program called RECLAIM in 2000 

(described below). The program was put on hold for a period of time because, if the 

cap had been enforced, it would have resulted in a lengthy period of rolling blackouts. 

Permits to pollute can easily be subject to gaming and manipulation, creating artificial scarcity that is likely to result in disruptions and unfairness, as initial and 

future allocations of the right to emit are distributed (whether by auction or other 

means) and traded. A preview of such disruptions was provided by the market manipulations that created the California energy crisis early in this decade. This potential was also demonstrated in a 2008 simulation at the University of California at 

Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, in which students gamed a carbon-trading market for individual gain, leading to scarcity and high prices. (See, article on the UC 

Berkeley simulation: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId 

=91625716.) 

This potential for market manipulation is likely to contribute to undesirable price 

volatility. The resulting lack of price predictability in a cap-and-trade system (specifically, the lack of certainty concerning when the price of energy from fossil fuels 

will exceed the price of clean energy) reduces the incentive for the substantial investments in the new infrastructure and innovation necessary to provide alternative 

energy at affordable prices. (For additional information on price volatility and the 

resulting delay in clean energy investment, see the January 2009 study by the 

Brattle Group described at http://www.brattle.com/NewsEvents/NewsDetail.asp 

?RecordID=589). 

Complex Bureaucracy, Lack of Enforceability and Inertia: In addition, setting up 

a cap-and-trade system will be very complex and time consuming. Once begun, a 

cap-and-trade program would have a great deal of inertia. It would be difficult to 

dismantle and would create a variety of interest groups with investments in maintaining the program, however ineffective it proved to be for addressing climate 

change. Further, the complex system of permits and offsets would be extremely difficult to police. A lack of effective enforcement (virtually impossible for offsets given 

the murky standards for additionality and plans to allow international trading) will 

encourage fraud and make the program a sham, while interest groups with a stake 

in the program fight to maintain and to ‘‘fix’’ it. 

RECLAIM and Over-allocation: In contrast to Acid Rain, the Los Angeles cap-andtrade program known as RECLAIM (the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market) 

failed spectacularly. The program was aimed at reducing ground level ozone. In RECLAIM, despite the presence of accurate monitors and sophisticated regulators, the 

initial cap was inflated (set too high, 

also called ‘‘over-allocation’’), which delayed most emission reductions for approximately seven years. At the end of that time, companies were accustomed to artificially low credit prices and almost no one had invested in emission control. As a 

result, the market collapsed when prices soared because the gradually declining 

number of permits no longer exceeded actual emissions. Following market collapse, 

the necessary control technology was required by regulation. http:// 

www.law.duke.edu/journals/cite.php?9+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol’y+F.+231 

European Trading Scheme (‘‘ETS’’): Similarly, attempts to 

design an effective carbon cap-and-trade system have failed in Europe under the 

Kyoto Protocol—a 1997 international accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions which 

the U.S. never ratified. In a demonstration of the many flaws of the cap-and-trade 

approach, utilities and other sources have underreported their emissions, purchased 

flawed offsets, driven up prices, reaped billions in undeserved profits and generally 

failed to produce promised emission reductions or any significant scale-up of clean 

energy. While Europe has indicated it can fix the problems it experienced in the 

first phase of its program, there are many indications that this is a flawed assertion. 

See analysis of problems with ETS at http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/ 

etsp2.pdf and in a November 2008 GAO report at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO09-151. 

Conclusion on Cap-and-Trade: A cap-and-trade program for climate change focuses on keeping the price of fossil fuel energy low. Even a cap-and-trade program 

that did not include offsets or facilities without accurate monitoring (most plans include both of these components) will only have an indirect impact on the relative 

price of fossil fuel and clean energy. This lack of price predictability makes analyses 

of when clean energy investments will become profitable very uncertain, thereby delaying crucial investments in clean energy technology research, development and infrastructure scale-up. In addition, the integrity of cap-and-trade programs is vulnerVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
66 

5While the debate has not been framed this way to date, we use the term ‘‘fees’’ and ‘‘rebate’’ 

rather than the terminology of ‘‘taxes’’ and ‘‘dividend,’’ because we believe these terms may more 

accurately convey two important points to the general public. First, a ‘‘fee’’ is generally a charge 

for doing a specific activity (here using destructive fossil fuels), and when fees are collected, they 

are generally used for a specific purpose, not just dumped into the general revenue fund. Similarly, a ‘‘rebate’’ is more familiar to the general public as a return of funds previously spent 

than the concept of a ‘‘dividend.’’ 

able to over-allocation, poor quantification of emissions, invalid offsets, market manipulation and a lack of enforceability. In a cap-and-trade system, prices are raised 

and resources are drained by the profits and costs of brokers, traders, certifiers, lawyers and investors in carbon offsets, all of whom develop a vested financial interest 

in maintaining the program. Cap-and-trade will also require a huge oversight bureaucracy whose efforts will be thwarted by the inherent flaws in the program. 

3. What are Carbon Fees with 100% Monthly Per Capita Rebate? 

Even if you accept our conclusion that cap-and-trade is virtually certain to fail, 

you may reasonably wonder whether there is a better alternative. Many economists, 

former EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus, the former Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office Peter Orszag and the CEO of ExxonMobil agree that carbon tax (or 

as we prefer to call it ‘‘carbon fees’’5) is a better alternative, with many advantages 

in transparency, fairness and likelihood of effectively reducing emissions. See Congressional Budget Office report dated February 2008 at p.VIII, (‘‘A tax on emissions 

would be the most efficient incentive-based option for reducing emissions and could 

be relatively easy to implement’’) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12- 

Carbon.pdf. 

What are Carbon Fees? Carbon fees are amounts that would be paid when fossil 

fuels enter the economy. These fees would be charged when oil, gas or coal are imported or extracted from the ground. We think that the term ‘‘fees’’ rather than the 

‘‘tax’’ is most applicable because this is not a charge on income or property, but rather a targeted charge on a substance that is doing a major environmental damage. 

Since other taxes and fees are often applied at the point of importation or extraction, the additional cost of tracking and imposing carbon fees on fossil fuels should 

be relatively low. 

What is the Purpose of Carbon Fees? The purpose of carbon fees is to insure that, 

within a set time period, the price of fossil fuel energy exceeds the price of clean 

energy from sources such as wind and the sun. Only an absolute commitment to 

insuring that the price of fossil fuel energy will exceed the price of today’s clean energy alternatives will insure the substantial level of investments in the panoply of 

possible clean energy technologies that are needed to rapidly transition away from 

fossil fuels and to do so in a way that is fair to all. 

Over What Period of Time Would Carbon Fees Be Phased In? In our example 

below (Illustration 2, provided as Attachment 1), we show carbon fees being phased 

in over a period of ten (10) years. This is a time frame that has been mentioned 

by Al Gore and other leaders as workable for weaning the U.S. economy from fossil 

fuels. However, fully phasing in carbon fees does not require a cessation in fossil 

fuel use. (See article ‘‘Gore Pitches 10-year plan’’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 

25718230/.) It would only be the time within which even costly solar projects would 

have a price advantage over fossil fuels. Citizens would continue to receive monthly 

payments for the average amount of fossil fuel fees paid in the prior month, allowing them to continue to afford the average amount of fossil fuel fees paid by everyone. What Would Carbon Fees Be Used For? Our proposal is that one hundred percent 

(100%) of all carbon fees collected when fossil fuels are first introduced into the U.S. 

economy would be returned in equal monthly payments to all adults (a smaller 

share for children). The purpose of returning the entire amount to all adults is twofold. First, this rebate would ensure that everyone could afford the average amount 

of fossil fuels introduced into the economy and that no one would suffer unfairly 

during the transition to a clean energy economy. Second, the monthly payments 

would create an incentive for conservation, as everyone would be very aware of the 

amount of their monthly payment and would be working to insure that they spent 

no more than that amount on fossil fuels. Because low-income people generally use 

less energy (but spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy), equal rebates 

would insure that lower income families would still be able to afford the fossil fuel 

energy they need. Finally, receiving equal monthly payments would help reinforce 

a collaborative spirit, a sense that all of us are working together to reduce the risks 

of damage to our climate from fossil fuels. 

Some people may believe that a portion of carbon fees should be used for the other 

critical measures described below. We are not strongly opposed to this but believe 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
67 

that the goal of cushioning the transition away from fossil fuels for individuals 

should not be compromised. In addition, we believe that regional adjustments in the 

amount of the fossil fuel rebate may be appropriate to reflect greater dependence 

on fossil fuels in certain regions at this time and, as a result, greater stress during 

the transition. 

How would Carbon Fees help Clean Energy Development? Carbon Fees would help 

clean-energy development by giving prospective investors certainty in two areas. 

First, investors would be confident that every unit of clean energy available at the 

end of the ten-year time period would be more affordable to consumers than any 

unit of fossil fuel energy. This would mean that, while investors would not know 

which clean energy technology or firm would be most successful, they would know 

for sure that any firm able to actually produce such energy would be able to compete 

successfully with all existing fossil fuel energy products. Carbon Fees would also insure that there is little additional investment in fossil fuel projects, such as new 

coal-fired power plants or new exploration to develop shale oil. 

What Historical Example Demonstrates that Carbon Fees Would Be an Effective Market Mechanism for Climate Change? 

The Montreal Protocol—William Reilly: At the same time that the Acid Rain program was enacted, in 1990, the United States used a very different approach to create additional economic incentives for the scale-up of substitutes for ozone depleting 

CFC’s pursuant to the Montreal Protocol. William Reilly, the EPA Administrator, 

noted the crucial facts in his opening statement at the second meeting of parties 

to the Montreal Protocol: 

‘‘On January 1, 1990, a new tax went into effect in the United States, a tax on 

the manufacture of CFCs. This tax exceeds in value the cost of CFCs themselves 

and it will rise steeply in the years ahead, raising $400 million in new revenues 

this year, and raising $5 billion over the next five years. This added cost of CFCs 

sends a powerful signal: it says bring on the substitutes fast! And it reduces 

the comparative economic advantage CFCs would otherwise enjoy over the 

more expensive substitutes. This tax on CFCs has already caused the United 

States to reach the agreed targets for reduction earlier than required.’’ (http:// 

www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/04.htm) (Emphasis added.) 

As this experience with the CFC tax demonstrates, a carbon fee or tax can help 

reach agreed targets for reductions quickly. The entire economy will be stimulated 

by the rush to develop the most cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels. This CFC 

tax example, rather than the Acid Rain example, is the appropriate model for the 

problem we face today with climate change. The difference is that, given the enormous cost and scope of the transition to clean energy, a monthly per capita 100% 

rebate will be needed to keep energy affordable for everyone, while still sending the 

critical message with respect to the relative price of damaging as opposed to nondamaging sources of energy. 

Thank you! 

Please reference our longer discussion paper at 

http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf 

Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, as parents and citizens, 

6005 Auburn Ave., 

Oakland, California 94618 

www.carbonfees.org 

Email: Williams.zabel@gmail.com; williams.zabel@sbcglobal.net 

f 

** Attached for the record is testimony that was previously submitted to the 

House Intelligence Committee. Many of the environmental and ecosystem impacts 

of climate change could significantly affect national security issues. We hope that 

you will take these aspects into consideration when establishing environmental objectives and ultimately in crafting your climate change legislation. 

Paul G. Gaffney II (Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)) 

President, Monmouth University, 

Before a Joint Hearing of the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management 

and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
68 

House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 

Dear Chairwoman Eshoo, Chairman Markey, Congressman Rush Holt (my Representative) and Members of the Committees: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning at this joint hearing of your 

Committees. I am honored by your invitation to briefly discuss the national security 

implications of climate change, and to provide you with thoughts about some steps 

that the Federal Government can take to more specifically measure climate change 

indicators. 

In sum, my recommendations to the Committees are two-fold: The Federal Government must plan seriously for the potential impact of environmental effects on 

both the nation’s security and the security of regions around the world; and, To help 

ensure that environmental threats are properly understood, we should focus our national investments and technical capabilities to measure specifically, when we can, 

the most critical physical processes of our planet. 

These issues are, in my opinion, intertwined and mutually supportive. I have 

come to these conclusions as a result of my work since 1991. Since that time, I have 

served as: Commander of the Naval Research Laboratory; Commander of the Naval 

Meteorology and Oceanography Command; Chief of Naval Research; member of 

MEDEA and its U.S. Environmental Task Force (ETF) and its related Environmental Working Group (EWG) within the ‘‘Gore-Chernomyrdin Program;’’ member 

of the Military Advisory Board of the 2007 CNA Study ‘‘National Security and the 

Threat of Climate Change (hereinafter the ‘‘2007 CNA Report);’’ President of the National Defense University; Commissioner on the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission; 

member of the Joint Ocean Commissions Initiative; and presently as Vice Chair of 

the statutory Ocean Research/Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) and President of 

Monmouth University. 

The need to focus the proper attention on environmental threats and studying the 

Earth’s critical physical processes has only become more urgent by the climate 

change discussion. To explain my reasoning behind my recommendations, I would 

like to discuss briefly the findings of the 2007 CNA Report and, then, the power 

of leveraging defense and intelligence data to both better measure the progress (or 

even the non-progress) of global climate change and inform climate change policy. 

I was a member of the Military Advisory Board (a group of eleven retired threeand four-star generals and admirals for all the military branches) that sat with 

CNA as it developed its Report on the national security implications of climate 

change. I support the Report’s discussion, findings and recommendations and 

present my own narrow view of one aspect of the report as recorded on the Report’s 

23rd page. Further, I applaud CNA for its timely attention to this heretofore largely 

unaddressed aspect of climate change. 

The Report, like the recent draft NIA on security and climate change, does not 

judge whether climate change is occurring, whether mankind is responsible for it 

or whether humans can turn it around. Rather, it points to the international and 

regional security consequences of climate change if the disturbing environmental 

signals measured in recent years continue unabated. 

The CNA Report likens the threat of climate change to that of the strategic 

threats we endured during the Cold War. That is: while the probability of disastrous 

climate change cannot be determined certainly, the effects of climate change (if current trends continue) on international security are so great that one must prepare 

to deal with severe security consequences. First principle: whether one believes climate change will happen or not, the effects if it does happen are dangerous enough 

that security forces must plan for it. 

Within the Report, we cite water and water-related issues (such as: drought, famine, flooding and disease and resultant migration of rather desperate peoples) as 

major threats to regional security, globally. 

The CNA Report finds that the least developed nations of the world as most likely 

to be affected by climate change phenomena and are least likely to be able to cope 

with them. 

In the Report we call for deliberate planning by U.S. security organizations including the Defense, Intelligence and diplomatic communities. I personally think it 

is most useful if the climate science community, both from inside Government and 

outside, can be as specific as possible about regional effects. Global climate change 

may prove to show an overall average warming of global air and sea temperatures, 

but global climate change is far from average. In some regions it can be warmer, 

others much colder (especially if an abrupt climate change scenario occurs in the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
69 

North Atlantic). Some areas could witness more rain or sea level rise; both imply 

flooding. In still other areas, we could see drought and inevitable famine. 

I think the CNA Report correctly wraps its findings in a gloomy theme: adverse 

environmental conditions created by climate change, if unabated, affect undeveloped 

nations first, and whether it is too much water or too little, the intermediate results 

will be trans-national migrations of desperate peoples who are trying to survive 

which leads, finally, to regional strife. 

The question is: where will the effects of climate change be seen and what will 

be those changes be so that U.S. security leaders can deliberately include expected 

effects in their regional plans? Second principle: Understand more specifically, 

through better measurements, what is going on with climate change especially in 

key natural environments (such as: the Arctic, desert fringe environments, low lying 

coastal areas, historical breadbasket regions and glaciers) and geopolitically sensitive areas (such as: the Subcontinent, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and 

China). 

I have recently heard that the National Academies, with the personal leadership 

of its President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, is working to establish indices and metrics to 

inform future long term requirements for measurements of change on our planet. 

I mentioned earlier, the U.S. security community, specifically, needs to understand 

where climate change effects have the highest potential to affect regional security. 

The nation, generally, needs to understand if climate change is progressing. And, 

if the nation takes any policy steps to stem perceived climate change, it needs to 

know whether those steps (policy, lifestyle or investment changes) are having any 

impact. 

To this end I remain confident that the Defense and Intelligence communities can 

and should be leveraged by the civil U.S. climate science community to better understand perceived climate change signals. 

I have seen the value of leveraging the talent, sensor/analysis/computation capabilities, global presence, and data collected (or to be collected) and archived by these 

government agencies. I saw it during the period 1991—2000 while MEDEA and its 

related groups were in action. Two general benefits derive for such undertakings: 

a) previously un-released data and information from national security systems 

may help civil scientists get a fuller or clearer picture of what is going on in 

nature, and 

b) government scientists and decision makers from the security community may 

get a better insight into their own mission-related challenges by conferring 

with top civil scientists who have received security clearances. 

The following is a sample list of techniques that could be (have been) used in civilgovernment collaborations that are designed to cross security boundaries: 

Data can be simply released if deemed no longer classified; it may never have 

been classified or outlived its classification and just never been released. 

Raw data can be reclassified, after very deliberate review following carefully 

structured processes. 

Useful unclassified information can be derived from classified, un-releasable data 

Defense and Intelligence scientists can confer continually with appropriately (and 

rigorously) cleared civil climate scientists so both sides can benefit. 

Future space, ship, submarine, aircraft, human and in situ sensor collections can 

consider both mission-agency and environmental needs in system design, operational employment decisions and data distribution. 

‘‘Fiducial sites’’ (geographic sites predetermined as scientifically important to observe) can set up at which measurements from every possible civil, commercial and 

classified sensor can be made, repeatedly, over long time periods—allowing climate 

change to be actually measured, not just estimated. An example is recently released 

sea ice imagery from the Arctic. 

Certainly, the deliberate acts of releasing data or deriving unclassified products 

from un-releasable data sets will require additional security processing and actual 

environmental analysis work, but such costs will be considerably less than replicating data collection missions, perhaps too late. 

This cost-benefit point is more important when one considers the stakes involved 

in either underestimating the effects of or over-reacting to global climate change or 

their security-jeopardizing regional effects. I would make the same comment about 

costs to appropriately clear and keep updated a few dozen of the nation’s top climate 

scientists who would work with government scientists with all data and all talent 

available to both. 

If national security leaders are to make actionable regional security plans that 

consider climate change, then they need climate change effects specificity for their 

respective regions/theaters. Even the best scientists cooperating with government 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
70 

planners, but without access to the best scale or time-series data, will not be able 

to help enough. In those trouble parts of the world about which we worry most, indigenous populations and governments are not prepared (not willing) to collect sophisticated, long-time-series data necessary for measuring climate change speed, 

magnitude or direction. We can get more precise data, incidental to other missionrelated collection efforts, in the regions where it has been least collectable by open 

source means, if we leverage existing and planned Defense and Intelligence assets 

more fully. Yes, the successes of MEDEA are about a decade old and many new sensor systems have come into being in the civil and commercial world. I have recently 

seen a comprehensive unclassified compilation of open source ‘‘collectors’’ that can 

help us monitor the environment. Yes, again, we do have access to more ‘‘open’’ information, but the national security communities may have different flexibilities in 

satellite orbits, undersea access and resolution, for example. The Defense and Intelligence community may also have useful archives going back generations and regional specialists who can add to specificity determinations and understanding. 

I would like to close with a general comment about potential U.S. national policies 

and investments to stem perceived climate change. Climate change is probably occurring, as it has so many times over the geologic history scale. Man may have created it or may be contributing to it. Man may be able to turn it around. Maybe, 

maybe, maybe. But, if our government makes substantive policy decisions that substantially consume our wealth or substantially change our life quality, then we have 

an obligation to use every asset at out disposal to determine if those ‘‘substantive 

(perhaps uncomfortable) policies’’ are bearing fruit. We cannot say that today. New 

efforts including sufficient investments in fundamental research, development of an 

integrated ocean observing system (IOOS) and the leveraging of Defense and Intelligence capabilities—to measure the efficacy of our huge investments are warranted. 

f 

Statement of Richard Pauli 

It does not have a name like treason or treachery, but the effects are just as bad— 

or worse. 

Our purposeful ignorance and deliberate scientific deception at the service of 

branding and market share is no less than treason to our civilization. Call them 

deniers, or denialists, skeptics, deniasaurs: be they professional PR firms, pundits 

or pseudo scientists who deny Global warming or that humans have caused it. I accuse them of helping to cripple our future. Purposefully promoting confusion by 

the corporation, the state or any organization is a horrible crime. This clearly harms our children and our future. It is a serious crime, only the punishment 

is undefined. 

The by-product of our carbon industry is a greenhouse gas assault on atmosphere 

and oceans. We know of this damage now, so with purposeful diversion from this 

danger, this is causing harm. 

To pick one of many accused: Since 1998 ExxonMobil has spent over $23 million 

in publicly declared funding to support denialist organizations campaigning to disrupt public understanding of global warming. Exxon’s stated goal was to fund a 

campaign where ‘‘average citizens understand’’ (recognise) uncertainties in climate 

science; recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom’’. Their PR 

campaign was to present ‘‘scientific uncertainties in language that the media and 

public can understand‘‘—to confuse people. They have recently halted this funding, 

saying it diverts attention from addressing energy in an ‘‘environmentally responsible manner’’. 

Global citizens assaulted by floods, heat waves, storms have begun to feel the 

changes, but somebody continues to manufacture uncertainty. Now well-funded 

denialists begrudgingly accept climate change but will insist that human industry 

has no influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Even though all sane and sober 

climatologists say humans caused global warming—certainly caused the problem. 

Denialists are foisting a message that humans cannot possibly understand the problem, hence not understand the solution required. Denialists seize the smallest errant factoid and nurture and amplify those doubts as worthy of dismissing all. 

This same tactic applied to tobacco wars, ‘‘nicotine is not addictive’’ delayed for 

50 years . . . to many deaths. And for the anti darwinist intelligent designers, this 

now moves into our textbooks and curriculum. the harm is difficult to calculate. 

Pushing this message of deception and confusion is as treacherous as any other 

way of lying to children, worse since this robs their future, and denies the hope for 

facing problems. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
71 

For over 2 decades thousands of scientists world-wide have been combining research for United Nations IPCC reports on global warming. Using compromising 

language of consensus—the group of IPCC scientists say that AGW is highly likely 

with over 90% assurance. By contrast, Exxon’s tactical brief asked denialists to: ‘‘Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘‘conventional wisdom‘‘on climate science.’’ 

Global warming is radically dangerous for humans, we face huge changes. Statistically small odds for implausible outcomes deserve small consideration—but the demand for attention is diversionary. In the early days of automobile seat belt deployment [there was a seatbelt free age], the public resisted with a notion that if a car 

ended upside down, we would not want to be trapped by our seatbelt, or if hurtling 

off a cliff—we want to be unrestrained by a seat belt so to be thrown clear 

unharmed. Certainly this was possible, but completely implausible. And humans 

may miraculously avoid significant global warming, it is just not plausible. 

Humans can respond heroically to clear displays of danger—So another PR 

and denialist tactic is to label scientific warnings as ‘‘alarmist’’ As if all hysterical 

or alarmist speech is false. This forces responsible climatologists other scientist into 

using tame, milque-toast language. THe IPCC report was forced to use the terms 

‘‘likely’’ , unlikely and the most serious warning allowed ‘‘highly likely’’. Does your 

fire alarm or smoke detector say ‘‘It is highly likely this smoke suggests a fire may 

be near’’ If other famous danger warnings were delivered as carefully as today’s convoluted messages what might have happened? Paul Revere: ‘‘It is highly likely the 

British are coming!’’ Can we see past the mask of tame phrasing to act appropriately? Is this speech wrong. Illegal? 

Or with the Titanic, ‘‘There is a 90% chance there is an iceberg dead ahead, highly likely we will impact’’ So how should we act with a 90% assurance of the outcome? 

Who is telling us otherwise, and why? The press has abrogated support of democracy by giving air and ink to the anti science and industrial PR. Tame, confusing 

language has worked to stifle public policy, prevent government from regulating 

these toxins 

Somehow because a few Carbon industrialists whine or complain—this somehow 

constitutes a serious challenge to the science? And no, nicotine is not addictive. And 

perhaps they will find Iraqi WMDs too. And carefully polite scientists fail to rise 

up to that PR fight. Business supported by cheap carbon does little to restrain the 

rope-making that forms nooses around our necks. I see no science here, only pure 

business interests pushing muddled thinking. 

With the recent Exxon mea culpa, we see denialists begrudgingly accept that global warming is happening, but stridently claim that humans had no role in causing 

it and even Anthropogenic Global Warming (human caused) is a hoax. This allows 

their conclusion: ‘‘Since humans did not cause it, humans cannot possibly fix it‘‘ And 

works nicely to reinforce the false notion that humans are powerless and should instead continue carbon consumption. So the fossil fuelers deliver the message: ‘‘Do 

not dare interfere with coal, oil, or any other carbon consumption’’. 

This is a PR campaign. And it is global carbon industries—unconstrained by ethics or science—that has helped cause this problem. 

Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists may seem tragic and make us angry, 

and may even have business motives—but where is the crime? We should charge 

them with global ecological treason, being an enemy of the people, fostering rapacious greed, accelerating the destruction of civilization and robbing the future from 

our children. This issue concerns all beings on the planet. No one has the right to 

ask us to die before we fully pursue a life. Do they? 

If denialists believed in a flat earth—I could regard this as charmingly eccentric— 

unless they demand we change navigation principles in our travels. Or, if some folks 

believe the lunar landing was a hoax; what do I care? unless it restricts real space 

exploration. Some still believe in phlogiston, or Bigfoot. But advocating scientific 

suppression by confusion and the clouding of conclusions regarding our 

dangerous future; Asking me to live in the danger that you create—This is 

an undefined criminal act that I cannot accept. 

The IPCC says there is a 90% chance of real danger is ahead. If someone said 

it is highly likely that you will fall through thin ice and drown, or a 90% consensus 

that your beach-front property will be flooded within 20 years—how will you act differently with that information? With this warning, I know I have to act differently. 

These dangers are real. We see them clearly, and we know more change 

is coming. I want to know of dangers ahead. 

I speak directly to denialists with these words: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
72 

If you fail to see danger ahead, failing to help defend, then just wake up 

and open your eyes and ears. If you see danger ahead, and you are quiet, 

failing to say anything about it, staying silent—well shame on you. 

Some think that unethical. 

When you try to tell me, using mass media to tell me that real and serious 

dangers ahead are just hallucinations, if you divert attention and falsely 

challenge the science, and you act to deceive, and you try to sew doubt, 

and you cancel further studies, you manipulate public policy, and you deny 

the entire problem—then damn you as evil. 

Whether you are delusional, a fool or a paid stooge of business interests, 

that is treachery amounting to global treason on the human race and all 

beings. Beyond shame, may you descend to that special place in hell. 

If it is OK to yell ‘‘Fire!’’ in a crowded theater, do you think the opposite is OK? 

In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat and smell smoke, we move toward the exits—are you telling me is it OK for the usher to yell ‘‘There is no fire!, 

sit down?’’ or even ‘‘There is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate.’’ 

Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts. 

You know you are talking about politics, not science 

You know the data refutes you, 

Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion, 

Everything to do with diversion and delay. 

And nothing to do with science. 

We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades beyond their proper 

life—all by a professionally unified denial campaign. You kept a toxic drug delivery 

mechanism out of the FDA and deflected legislation that properly should have 

banned nicotine. And you cemented the flow of profit. Now the very same PR agency 

and individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement—this time 

paid for by the carbon fuel industries. 

Could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually caused climate instability? 

Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful denialism is here just 

to prevent any interference to their business operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science and delay responsible legislation? 

It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the courts may find 

you liable. Eventually you will be shunned and reviled for your words and actions. 

We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here. The stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization. Call it Climaticide We need lots of science 

focused on knowing the extent of the problem. We don’t need paid obstructionists, 

willful skeptics, and professional denialists distracting the quest for more information. We need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans. First off, carbon fuel 

companies should stop these PR campaigns. And we have contempt for your ignorant followers that you trick into academic suicide just to sabotage research and 

cripple public policy. 

Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to inflict potential harm 

to the innocent. If you don’t see that then try these common analogies: 

Let’s say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes are bad and 

maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the brakes are fine and we 

should keep going in fast traffic. The driver is worried and wants to slow down and 

check the brakes. Any skeptic that denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and let the driver decide. 

Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened highway; the radio 

reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed. You start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of your passengers insists that you keep driving 

the speed limit. He claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything 

is OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would say Shut 

Up. 

Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa that finds 

it has poison water that kills people—all the townspeople violently deny the facts, 

just to keep their commerce going. The difference here is that EVERYONE on the 

planet will suffer in some way. No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is 

even suspicion then everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don’t fight these correct acts. 

Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was seen on 

radar. Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen before, someone 

was skeptical, and doubted what they saw. They said it must have been a flock of 

birds, or friendly flights. But they certainly did not cling to that skepticism after 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
73 

seeing the smoke and fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not 

sure how a denialist of today would have been regarded back then. 

We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are getting in trouble and people are dying. You are pandering to human denial and cultivating 

human weakness for self-deception. Then you try to redirect public attention with 

debates about the shape of the arguments instead of the substance. Stop it. 

And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the 

stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9–11 or even Katrina. Until someone is 

brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or to haul you into court, 

or to win a lawsuit—and that may happen soon—until then, just shut-up. 

We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad the problem is, 

and you don’t want to help, you don’t want to do research. You just want to promote 

delay and engage in ideological squabbling. Well, you can think your own thoughts, 

but don’t obstruct the important progress of science and government and industry 

and community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by merely examining the process of a phony debate. There’s important work to do. 

Many have served or now serve in the military, Army, Navy or AirForce. And 

right now we all serve in the global survival campaign. And each of us is on guard 

duty observing changes and learning the science and calling out errors and blunders, stupidity and folly. 

We are looking to know the enemy so we may better act. 

If someone can’t do guard duty, that’s OK, we give them a shovel because everyone pitches in—there is plenty to do. If we’re on guard duty and we fall asleep and 

miss seeing the enemy, then our buddies may cover for us; we quickly learn the consequences and we promise never to do that again. And we keep that promise If we 

misperceive and cannot identify the enemy then we will need more training to better see the dangers. We learn and we change. 

But if the soldier on guard duty deliberately turns away from the danger, closes 

eyes, turns away from the watch, mis-reports, misdirects our defenses, and lies 

about the crisis ahead, and then works to sew doubt in the troops—then that is 

treachery. 

All soldiers know this. 

Neither fellow soldiers nor generals will tolerate this. 

There is no confusion about sabotage. 

Warriors will accept no less than loyalty. 

The first action is to halt the behavior that amounts to treachery and treason. 

Richard Pauli 

Seattle 

f 

February 2009 

Statement of Wayne Pacelle 

Dear Chairman Rangel: 

On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest animal protection organization, and our global division, Humane Society International (HSI), representing nearly 11 million members and constituents, I welcome 

the opportunity to submit comments to the Ways and Means Committee regarding 

scientific objectives for climate change legislation. 

The HSUS/HSI are encouraged that Congress is seeking input on the future of 

climate change legislation. We are hopeful that recent scientific evidence from the 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding the role of animal agriculture in climate 

change will be taken into account as legislation to mitigate the effects of global 

warming is implemented. 

We have provided a number of recommendations to help achieve this 

goal. 

Background 

Agriculture is both a driver of climate change and is also influenced by climactic 

fluctuations, such as increases in temperature and rainfall that result from a changing climate. Although experts disagree on the precise totals, agriculture and its related land-use changes, such as deforestation for feed crop cultivation, are responVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Oct 21, 2009 Jkt 050224 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\50224.XXX 50224

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
74 

1Paustian K, Antle J, Sheehan J, et al. 2006. Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas mitigation. 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, p. 18. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agricul 

ture%27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%20Mitigation.pdf. 2Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s 

long shadow: environmental issues and options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, p. xxi). 3Scherr S and Sthapit S. 2009. Farming and land use to cool the planet. In: State of the 

World 2009 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009) citing Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel 

V, Rosales M, and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options 

(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 4Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s 

long shadow: environmental issues and options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, p. xxi). 5 Id. at 88–9. 6 Id. 7 Id. at 90. 8 Id. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

and sinks: 1990–2005. Draft for public review, p. 6–7. February 20. www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

emissions/downloads07/07CR.pdf. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

and sinks: 1990–2005. Draft for public review, p. 6–7. February 20. www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

emissions/downloads07/07CR.pdf. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Fact sheet: concentrated animal feeding operations proposed rulemaking. June. www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/cafo_revisedrule_factsheet 

.pdf. 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permit regulation and effluent limitation guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7180 (February 12, 2003). 13Smil V. Distinguished Professor University of Manitoba. 2008. Personal communication 

with Danielle Nierenberg. 

sible for at least one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1 As well, agriculture is the human endeavor that will likely be the most affected by climate 

change or global warming. 

Animal agriculture, in particular, contributes significantly to GHG emissions— 

more than 50% of emissions from agriculture and its associated land-use changes. 

An FAO report in 2006 found that the farmed animal sector is responsible for 18% 

of global GHGs measured in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, more than the entire 

transportation sector.2 In addition, FAO estimates that a cow/calf pair on a beef 

farm is responsible for more GHG emissions than a person traveling 8,000 miles in 

a mid-sized car.3

Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for 9% of CO2 emissions,4 accounting 

for sources such as on-farm fossil-fuel use for lighting, temperature control, automated machinery, and ventilation (90 million tonnes per year);5 the packaging, 

transportation, and application of nitrogen fertilizer for feed crops (more than 40 

million tonnes per year);6 and deforestation for grazing (2.4 billion tonnes per 

year).7

Furthermore, animal agriculture is responsible for 40% of global methane emissions and 65% of global nitrous oxide emissions.8

GHG Emissions from Industrial Farm Animal Production 

In the United States, a substantial portion of the GHGs emitted from agriculture 

come from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Specifically, the EPA 

noted in 2006 that the primary reason for the overall increase in methane emissions 

is the shift towards confining pigs and cows used for milk production in larger facilities that use liquid manure management systems.9 In addition, according to the 

EPA, the overall increase in nitrous oxide emissions is largely due to the concentration and industrialization of the poultry industries, namely the shift toward litterbased manure management systems, confinement in high-rise houses, and an overall increase in the U.S. poultry population.10

Because of their size and production levels, each CAFO is capable of emitting 

hundreds or thousands of tons of pollutants into the ambient air annually. CAFOs 

are responsible for 47–60%11 of the 500 million tons of manure produced by animal 

feeding operations each year, more than three times the amount of waste produced 

by humans in the United States each year.12

At least two-thirds of all arable land in the world is used to grow annual grains, 

such as corn and soybeans, which depend heavily on chemical inputs, as well as mechanical tilling of the soil. Nearly half of all that grain—some 40% of the global corn 

crop and up to 80% of the global soybean crop—is used to feed farm animals, not 

people.13


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
75 

14Gurian-Sherman, D. 2008. CAFOs Uncovered. Union of Concerned Scientists, pp. 3, 54. 15 Radostits O, Gay C, Blood D, et al. 2000. Veterinary Medicine: A Textbook of the Diseases 

of Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats and Horses, 9th Edition, p. 285. 16Paustian K, Antle J, Sheehan J, et al. 2006. Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas mitigation. 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change, p. 18. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agriculture% 

27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%20Mitigation.pdf. 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

and sinks: 1990–1996, 5–5. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/98CR.pdf. 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

and sinks: 1990–1996, 5–5. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/98CR.pdf. 19 Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow D, et al. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United 

States. BioScience 55(1):27–38. 20Kotschi J and Miller-Semann K. 2004. The Role of Organic Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change: A Scoping Study. Bonn, Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. 21 Casey JW and Holden NM. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units. Journal of Environmental Quality 

35:231–239. 22Kotschi J and Miller-Semann K. 2004. The Role of Organic Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change: A Scoping Study. Bonn, Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. 

Recommendations 

Reducing GHG emissions through improved management strategies: The 

GHG emissions from animal agriculture can be reduced. Simple work-practice 

changes, such as reducing the time between surface application of manure and incorporation into soil, ensuring proper soil drainage, ensuring adequate oxygen exposure to stockpiles, ensuring proper nutrition for animals, or irrigating directly after 

application, for example, can significantly reduce emissions. 

Reducing GHG emissions through more natural animal feeding practices: The transition from farm animal production systems reliant on feed crops, like grain 

and soy, to pasture-raised, organic, or other extensive farming systems can result 

in less methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide, and is potentially more cost-effective 

as these extensive farming methods require less inputs, maintenance, and energy 

on-farm.14 Typically, cattle confined in feedlots or in intensive confinement dairy operations are fed an unnatural diet of concentrated high-protein feed consisting of 

corn and soybeans. Although cattle may gain weight rapidly when fed this diet,15

thereby reaching slaughter weight in a shorter period of time, such concentrated 

diets may also lead to increased methane emissions from the animals.16 The standard diet fed to cattle raised for beef confined in feedlots contributes to manure with 

a ‘‘high methane producing capacity.’’17 In contrast, cattle raised on pasture, eating 

a more natural, low-energy diet composed of grasses and other forages, may produce 

manure with about half of the potential to generate methane.18

Increasing carbon sequestration through pasture-based production: In addition, well-managed and rotational grazing systems can likely sequester more carbon than feedlots where animals are raised on energy-intensive corn and soybeans. 

Soils and pastures can act as ‘‘carbon sinks,’’ soaking up carbon from the atmosphere. A 2005 study found that not only do pasture-raised animals require less operational fuel and less feed than do confined animals, but pasture-based farming systems could ‘‘tie up 14 million to 21 million metric tons of CO2 and 5.2 million to 

7.8 million metric tons of N2O in the organic matter of pasture soils.’’19

Reducing fossil-fuel dependency and on-farm GHG emissions through organic farming methods: Organic meat production typically uses less fossil-fuel energy, in part because thousands of transport miles for shipping feed may be eliminated,20 and can also significantly reduce on-farm GHG emissions. A 2006 life cycle 

analysis of three modes of Irish beef production—conventional, agri-environmental, 

and organic—found that both types of extensive systems (i.e., agri-environmental 

and organic) generate less GHGs than the conventional system, with the organic 

system producing the least GHGs (17% less than conventional). The difference 

would likely be even more dramatic in comparison to U.S. conventional beef production, since Irish beef cattle are primarily finished on grass rather than on grain.21

Specifically examining nitrous oxide outputs, organic farming has reduced emissions 

compared with conventional production systems. The organic production method 

avoids overproduction of manure due to its practice of limiting animal stocking densities to the land available for manure application—i.e., on an organic farm, farm 

animal populations usually do not exceed the land’s ability to responsibly absorb 

and utilize nutrients from their manure.22

Investing in scientific analysis and research of the impacts of farm animal production systems on GHG emissions: Although preliminary studies have 

been published, there is a continued and urgent need for more analysis and research 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
76 

23For more information, see ‘‘An HSUS Report: The Impact of Industrialized Animal Agriculture on the Environment’’ at www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/enviro/industrial 

_animal_ag_environment.html. 24 Chee-Sanford J, Aminov R, Krapac I, Garrigues-Jeanjean N, and Mackie R. 2001. Occurrence and diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two 

swine production facilities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 4(67): 1494–1502. 25 Colburn T, vom Saal F, and Soto A. 1993. Developmental effects of endrocrine disrupting 

chemicals on wildlife and humans. Environmental Health Perspectives 101:378–83. 26Soto A, Calabro J, Prechtal N, et al. 2004. Androgenic and estrogenic activity in water bodies receiving cattle feedlot affluent in Eastern Nebraska, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:346. 27For more information, see ‘‘Factory Farming in America: The True Cost of Animal Agribusiness for Rural Communities, Public Health, Families, Farmers, the Environment, and Animals’’ at www.hsus.org/farm/resources/research/enviro/factory_farming_in_america.html. 

regarding GHG emissions from different farm animal production systems, as well 

as different mitigation strategies. Later this year, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Iowa will release a study comparing beef feedlot systems to pasture-based cattle production and the University of California 

Davis will publish a study analyzing the GHGs emitted by beef cattle, dairy cow, 

and pig CAFOs. This type of research will be crucial for stakeholders, including 

farmers, lawmakers, businesses, and consumers, to better identify which kind of 

production systems will reduce GHGs, as well as understand the impact food choices 

can have on both personal health and climate change. 

Protecting valuable carbon sinks: Another area of needed additional study is 

the role of forests in mitigating climate change. Keeping tropical and domestic forests, which are increasingly threatened by feed crop cultivation and unsustainable 

grazing practices for animal agriculture industries, and other carbon sinks intact 

may be one of the best ways for fast, cost-effective GHG mitigation. At the same 

time, protecting forests has the added advantage of protecting wildlife, as these animals depend on healthy, functioning forests for habitat and survival. 

Assessing climate change-induced impacts on wildlife: Federal legislation on 

climate change should also direct more funding toward research on the impacts of 

changes in temperature and more extreme weather events as a result of climate 

change on endangered species, the monitoring of species populations, and the development of potential climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies for wildlife. 

Evaluating the potential risks of large-scale anaerobic digesters and performing a cost/benefit analysis: In addition, the GHG-reducing potential of mitigation technologies—such as the installation of large-scale anaerobic digesters at 

CAFOs or the production of biofuels from farm animals’ waste and fat—should be 

more thoroughly investigated. Despite some of the potential environmental advantages of the production and use of different kinds of biofuels under certain circumstances and with strict oversight, these technologies can allow large-scale, industrial farmed animal production operators to profit from the huge amounts of 

waste they create—millions of tons of poultry litter and the manure from pig and 

cattle facilities. Bioenergy production from farmed animal waste has the potential 

to perpetuate the environmental problems23 created by producing and storing massive quantities of manure, while giving animal agribusiness the opportunity to 

greenwash its unsustainable practices that jeopardize the welfare of animals in the 

meat, egg, and dairy production industries. These farmed animal-based biofuels are 

not currently reducing consumption of fossil fuel because biodiesel and the construction and operation of anaerobic digesters require electricity use from the burning 

of coal or petroleum. In addition, unlike the waste created on smaller, more environmentally sustainable farms raising both crops and animals, where manure and 

urine can be utilized effectively for fertilizer, factory-farm waste is produced in extremely large quantities, making it all but impossible to use on farmland. Furthermore, the manure excreted by animals in factory farms often has a range of toxins 

including antibiotic-resistant residue,24 endocrine-disrupting chemicals,25,26 and 

other pollutants that not only impair environmental integrity, but negatively impact 

communities surrounding industrial farm animal production facilities.27

Requiring CAFOs to measure and reduce their GHG emissions: Finally, 

Congress should require CAFOs to measure their emissions and institute plans to 

reduce GHGs from their facilities. Currently, these operations are not required to 

reduce GHGs, despite their excessive emissions. 

As the impacts of climate change become more evident, the need to transition 

from industrial farm animal production systems to more sustainable, responsible 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
77 

farming methods that provide benefits to the environment, public health, and animal welfare becomes more time-sensitive. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Wayne Pacelle 

President and CEO 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING