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

63–005 2010

NOT GOING AWAY: AMERICA’S ENERGY 

SECURITY, JOBS AND CLIMATE CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 1, 2010 

Serial No. 111–20 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

MICHAEL GOO, Staff Director 

SARAH BUTLER, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 7 

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

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 9 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

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

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 11 

WITNESSES

PANEL I

General Wesley K. Clark, United States Army (Ret.), NATO Supreme Allied 

Commander Europe 1997–2000, prepared statement ....................................... 3 

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, United States Navy (Ret.) ................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 16 

Dr. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment 

and Security .......................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 105 

Mr. Richard L. Kauffman, Chairman of the Board, Levi Strauss & Co. ............ 50 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 52 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 111 

Mr. Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute ............................................ 66 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 69 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 114 

PANEL II

Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Waterkeepers Alliance ................ 84 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 90 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Mr. Kenneth Green, copy of article from AIE, ‘‘Climate Change: Caps vs. 

Taxes,’’ by Kenneth P. Green, Steven F. Hayward, and Kevin A. Hassett, 

June 2007 .............................................................................................................. 135 

Mr. Kenneth Green, copy of article from AIE, ‘‘Climate Change: The Resilience Option,’’ by Kenneth P. Green, October 2009 .......................................... 147 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

NOT GOING AWAY: AMERICA’S ENERGY 

SECURITY, JOBS AND CLIMATE CHALLENGES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in room 210, 

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

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Herseth 

Sandlin, Cleaver, Hall, Sensenbrenner, Blackburn, and Capito. 

Staff Present: Ana Unruh-Cohen, Morgan Gray, Jonathan Phillips, Jeff Sharp and Jonah Steinbuck. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome. Welcome to the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

In April of 2007, the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming held its first hearing. At that inaugural gathering, we discussed the twin challenges of climate change and our 

dependence on foreign oil. Since that time, Congress passed new 

fuel economy standards. We made investments into renewable energy, advanced battery technology and efficiency measures that 

save families and small businesses money. The House passed a 

comprehensive energy and climate bill. The world, including China 

and India, committed to reduce carbon pollution in the Copenhagen 

Accord. Our troops continue to fight bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our energy interests remain entangled. The Gulf of 

Mexico was sullied by BP’s oil spill, which became the worst environmental disaster in United States history. And here in this committee, we discussed and debated it all, paving the way for informed action. 

Over the last few years, the politics of energy have changed and 

shifted more times than we can count, yet what has not changed 

are the problems we face as a Nation and as a planet. Today’s 

hearing is called ‘‘Not Going Away’’, a fitting title for issues that 

will be central to the health and survival of our planet and our 

economy for decades and centuries to follow. The national security 

challenges from our dependence on oil are not going away. 

Today before our committee we have Vice Admiral Dennis 

McGinn, who was a witness at our very first hearing. He knows the 

price of our dependence on foreign oil borne out not in this rhetorical battlefield but in the theater of actual war where bullets and 

bombs are spent to defend or acquire barrels of oil. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
2 

The national security threats from climate change are not going 

away. During the first select committee hearing, we discussed the 

drought-influenced Somali conflict that led to Black Hawk down. A 

warming world exacerbated a military hotspot. 

This September, we hosted the Pakistani ambassador to discuss 

his country’s devastating floods. He discussed how his country diverted resources like helicopters away from fighting Al Qaeda to 

assist in the flood response. An increasingly destabilized climate 

will invariably lead to more of these destabilizing geopolitical 

events. 

The economic security threats stemming from America’s lack of 

an energy plan are not going away. China is pushing ahead with 

clean energy investment along with other emerging technologies to 

capture and store carbon from coal. Twice as much money was invested in clean energy in China as was invested by the United 

States last year. As we heard from the private investment community, this move by China will attract trillions in private capital 

money that could be invested in jobs here at home in the United 

States. And China is not alone. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and 

other countries recognize that dominating the trillion dollar market 

of tomorrow requires foresight and public investment today. 

Regardless of our political party, we can all agree that second 

place in the clean energy race is not an acceptable goal for the 

United States, and the carbon pollution that we have already 

spewed into the atmosphere warming our earth is not going away. 

The pollution we emit today will still be in the atmosphere centuries from now. Every day that we wait to act to stem the tide 

of carbon emissions will be felt for decades and centuries to come 

as our planet warms and our weather patterns become less stable. 

And, today, as the world’s climate community gathers in Mexico, 

those of us who accept that cutting carbon pollution is this generation’s responsibility are saying that we are not going away. We are 

not going away because the problems that climate change presents 

are too dangerous, too urgent for us to disappear into the abyss of 

cynicism and lost opportunity. We are not going away because 

China and India and Germany are not going away as competitors 

for global energy dominance. We are not going away because the 

national security threats from our continued dependence on foreign 

oil are not going away. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming today, and I look 

forward to their testimony. Unfortunately, General Wesley Clark 

was unable to make it here today. We look forward to having him 

back here soon, and we will submit his testimony for the record. 

[The statement of General Clark follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
3 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 63005A.001
4 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 63005A.002
5 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 63005A.003
6 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I close, I would also like to thank the 

members of this committee and their staff for their service over the 

last two sessions of Congress. It has been an honor and a pleasure 

to explore and understand these global issues with each and every 

one of you, and I thank each of you on both sides of the aisle for 

your service to our country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
7 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 63005A.004
8 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 63005A.005
9 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to turn and recognize my 

friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner. 

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

This hearing will be the last of the Select Committee; and, while 

I was initially skeptical of the Select Committee’s mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity 

for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face. 

I would like to thank Chairman Markey for his fair and firm 

leadership of this committee. He has showed courtesy, respect for 

the rules, and a willingness to rise above partisanship. I consider 

respect for the rights of the minority to be a hallmark of great congressional leadership, and I commend Chairman Markey for giving 

us the resources and platform that we needed to express our ideas. 

Chairman Markey and I disagree on policy choices, but we do 

agree that America needs to diversify its energy supply and increase our energy efficiency. When Senator Dodd of Connecticut 

gave his valedictory speech in the Senate yesterday, he made a 

comment saying that even though people can be friends and respect each other despite policy differences, a lot can get accomplished; and, unfortunately, there has been too little of this in this 

Congress as time has gone on. 

I can say that I consider Chairman Markey a friend. I can say 

that Chairman Markey believes that what Senator Dodd has said 

is good for America in this respect, and I hope that in the Congress 

ahead, where there will be a partisan divide between the two ends 

of the Capitol building, that we will be able to establish respect for 

each other without compromising our policy ideals. Because the 

American people want action. The American people do respect positions that are opposite, and it is going to be a tough task ahead. 

Now, I think that this select committee has shown a very, very 

wide division on how to approach our shared goals. 

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article in a special 

report on energy which I am holding up so that everybody can see. 

On the red side are arguments that have been made and which 

have failed in the forum of domestic and international public opinion and on the green side there are ideas and advocacy on what 

looks like is achievable in the road ahead. And on the red side it 

says, old, set a high tax on carbon to make alternative energy 

sources more competitive; old, impose strict controls on carbon dioxide emissions; old, force wealthy countries responsible for most 

emissions to send money to help poorer ones adapt to the effects 

of climate change; old, use the United Nations to work out comprehensive agreements. 

All of those were eloquently advocated by the chairman and people on the majority side of the aisle, and they have been rejected 

both in international forums and here in America. 

Now, let’s look at what is on the new side. New, invest in making 

new clean energy technologies cheaper; new, focus on modest emission reductions such as replacing old diesel generators; new, encourage development aid that helps poorer countries deal with the 

effects of drought or flooding, no matter what the cause; and, new, 

focus on agreement amongst the world’s 20 largest economies. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
10 

All of these new things were advocated by the Republican minority on this select committee; and I believe that the select committee, unlike any other committee in Congress, was really the 

focus of the debate between what this article refers to as old and 

what this article refers to as new. And I would urge my friends on 

the other side of the aisle to forsake the old and embrace the new 

because I think in the years ahead we can make progress by looking forward rather than backward. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for your leadership of this chairmanship and able guiding of this committee. It 

has been a privilege to serve and learn all the things I have 

learned from the witnesses over the last 4 years who have come before the select committee, and I will waive an opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. We thank the 

gentleman from New York for his incredible commitment to exploring these issues, raising them higher and higher as a national priority; and your service to our country is gradually appreciated. 

Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from West Virginia. The 

gentlelady waives her time. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
11 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 63005A.006
12 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 63005A.007
13 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Let us turn then to our opening panel; and I will 

recognize Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn. 

Admiral McGinn spent 35 years with the United States Navy as 

a naval aviator, test pilot, aircraft carrier commanding officer, and 

national security strategist. Since completing his service with the 

Navy, Admiral McGinn has been an active climate change and 

clean energy advocate in national forums, stressing the need to develop comprehensive solutions to create a sustainable global environment. Admiral McGinn testified at the very first hearing of the 

select committee, and he will be our first witness today. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF VICE ADMIRAL DENNIS MCGINN, U.S. NAVY 

(RET.); ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., CHAIRMAN, WATERKEEPERS ALLIANCE; RICHARD L. KAUFFMAN, CHAIRMAN OF 

THE BOARD, LEVI STRAUSS & CO.; PETER GLEICK, COFOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT, AND SECURITY; AND 

KENNETH GREEN, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DENNIS MCGINN 

Admiral MCGINN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

privilege for me to be back before this committee. Mr. Sensenbrenner, great to see you again, sir, and all the members of the 

committee. 

Since April 18, 2007, when I first appeared before this committee, I have been on the road a lot. I have traveled from Maine 

to California, from Alaska to Florida, from North Dakota to Louisiana and Texas; and I have been doing that to talk about these 

issues to the American people. And recognizing that there are always regional differences, regional assets, and liabilities related to 

energy or environmental challenges, the consistent thing that I 

brought from all of these travels and I share with the committee 

today is that the American people are concerned about energy security. They are concerned about environmental issues locally, regionally, and globally, including greenhouse gases. 

The question, as it always is, is what do we do about it and how 

urgently should we do it. In 2007, at that hearing we had the then 

chairman of the CNA Military Advisory Board, General Gordon 

Sullivan, who was a witness and talked about the first report that 

the CNA Military Advisory Board put out. The Advisory Board consists of about a dozen or 15 retired generals and admirals from all 

four of the military services, including the Coast Guard and the 

National Guard, and came up with the consensus in that report 

that climate change was a threat to national security because it 

will act as a threat multiplier for instability in critical regions of 

the world. 

This can be manifested in many different ways, but it occurred 

to me this summer when Pakistan had 20 million people affected 

by torrential monsoon flood, historical levels of flooding, that here 

is a nation that is nuclear armed, has an ongoing Taliban insurgency that threatens the stability of that government, and is essential to our success and the success of NATO in Afghanistan. And 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
14 

we have 20 million people that are affected by severe weather, the 

type of scenario that was exactly in the minds of the Military Advisory Board when we said climate change is a threat to national security. 

Another aspect of this was that the board recognized that our 

economy, energy, climate change, and national security are all inextricably linked. If you want to develop policies and solutions to 

address any one of those, you have to carefully think through the 

effects on all of the others. 

So, as a result of that, we got together and put out a report in 

May of 2009 that focused on the energy aspect of these interlinked 

challenges. And our main conclusion in that report was unequivocal. America’s energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent 

threat to our national security—diplomatically, economically, and 

militarily. In the military venue, we see it manifesting in Iraq with 

roadside bombs now in Afghanistan. We saw burning NATO fuel 

convoys that were along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. We see 

from intelligence reports that petro dollars that are going to Iran 

are finding their way into the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda 

and being used to buy the equipment and the very lethal projectiles 

and components that are killing and maiming our troops on a 

weekly basis over there. That money is coming from global purchase of oil, and the United States purchases one-quarter of that 

oil every year. 

Diplomatically, we are trying to do something about preventing 

a nuclear armed Iran from emerging. Our leverage in the international diplomatic community is undercut by the fact that we use 

25 percent of the world’s oil every year and we sit on perhaps 3 

percent. 

And economically, make no mistake, the recession that we are 

hopefully and too slowly starting to come out of, has as a fundamental cause factor the tremendous cost of our addiction to oil in 

the past. In fact, if you go back in history, over the past four recessions, every one of them has been preceded within 6 months by oil 

spikes, oil price spikes. 

This is not going to go away. We are going to come out of this 

recession. The economy of the world and the United States is going 

to heat up and so will the appetite for oil and so will return the 

volatile cycle but ever higher prices and ever scarcer availability, 

certainly over the next 10 years but perhaps even sooner than that. 

We have got to find ways to break that addiction. 

Finally, in July of this year, the Military Advisory Board put out 

a report titled Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at 

the Crossroads of National Security Challenges; and the key finding of this report was that our economy and our national security 

are so inextricably linked. As we look at ways to deal with our deficit, as we look for ways to afford all of the priorities of America, 

one of the things that will be inevitably on the table is how much 

do we pay for defense. If you don’t have a good and strong economy, you don’t have a good and strong defense structure in armed 

services. So there is an inextricable link. And the fact that our energy choices in the past and certainly going forward are going to 

have a tremendous effect for the good or for not good on our economic strength is the key part. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
15 

The main recommendation from this report that was published 

in July of this year was simply that the United States Government 

should take bold and aggressive action to support clean energy 

technology innovation and rapidly decrease the Nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. 

Lastly, I want to share a quote from Admiral Mike Mullen, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He addressed a Department 

of Defense energy forum on October 13th of this year: 

‘‘I am proud of the work that the men and women of the Department of Defense are doing, the work many of you are leading to 

ensure we turn our own energy security from a vulnerability to the 

strength that it could be. Few of us can argue that the need is not 

there. Many of us can see that the right technology is emerging, 

and I hope all of us can agree that the time for change is now.’’ 

He was addressing a Department of Defense armed services audience. His comments apply to every aspect of American society 

and the American economy. 

And I would like to close my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, by a summary that I made 3 years ago on 

April 18th. I will simply quote. 

‘‘Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is an American challenge. It is 

one that Americans together will meet. It doesn’t have partisan labels on it. The solutions are available today. They need to be guided by leadership and good policy which enables us to advance our 

energy efficiency and to increase our choices of clean, renewable 

fuels in order to create opportunity for our economy, create opportunity for our society, and raise our level of national security and 

to be a leader in the global sense in meeting these energy and climate challenges.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request that my written statement 

be included in the record. 

[The statement of Admiral McGinn follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
16 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 63005A.008
17 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 63005A.009
18 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 63005A.010
19 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 63005A.011
20 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 63005A.012
21 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 63005A.013
22 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 63005A.014
23 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 63005A.015
24 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 63005A.016
25 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 63005A.017
26 

The CHAIRMAN. It will. Thank you, Admiral, very much. It will 

be included without objection. 

Our next witness is Dr. Peter Gleick. Dr. Gleick is an internationally recognized water expert and the cofounder and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, a nonpartisan research institute that works to 

advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity. 

Doctor, we welcome you. Whenever you feel comfortable, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF PETER GLEICK 

Mr. GLEICK. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey, Ranking 

Member Sensenbrenner, and committee members. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today. 

My training and background is in the field of environmental 

science, hydrology, climatology, engineering. I have been asked to 

offer comments on the science of climate change and some thoughts 

about appropriate responses. My longer written testimony has been 

provided to the committee, and I would just like to make six brief 

points. 

First, the science of climate change is clear and convincing that 

climate change is happening, happening rapidly, and happening because of human activities. Based on a combination of our understanding of basic laws of science, laboratory experiments, observations of the real world, mathematical and computer modeling, the 

science of climate change is compelling and strong. Emissions of 

greenhouse gases from human activities not only will change the 

climate but are already changing the climate. The evidence is now 

incontrovertible. 

Second, despite continued efforts on the part of a small group of 

skeptics and deniers to mislead, misrepresent, and misuse the 

science, our understanding of human-caused climate change continues to strengthen and improve. There is nothing identified in recent efforts to discredit climate science that remotely changes these 

fundamental conclusions about climate change, and no credible alternative explanation has ever been offered that explains the 

science of what we observe around the world. 

A recent letter from 255 members of the U.S. National Academy 

of Sciences, of which I am a member, was published in Science 

magazine in May. I have attached it with my testimony, and it addresses this area as well. 

Third, every major international scientific organization working 

in the areas of geophysics, climate, geology, biology, chemistry, 

physics, human health, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and 

every National Academy of Science of every country of the world, 

including our own, agrees that humans are changing the climate. 

Again, a list is attached with my written testimony. Conversely, 

there is no scientific body of national or international standing that 

rejects the findings of human-induced climate change. 

Fourth, the Nation now only faces three options: mitigation, that 

is, reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; adaptation, that is, 

dealing with the unavoidable consequences of climate change; and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
27 

suffering. The only question that remains is what combination of 

those three things are we going to experience. 

The argument that all we have to do is adapt to climate change 

is simplistic. We have no choice but to do all three. If we do nothing to work on mitigation, the impacts of climate change will continue to accelerate and continue to become more and more extreme. 

We are now faced already with unavoidable climate change because 

we have already delayed too long to implement policies to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it appears that many of our estimates of the rate of climate change have been too low, not too high, 

and that climate changes are happening faster than expected. 

Fifth, a wide range of impacts, ranging from sea level rise to 

changing water availability to altered food production to human 

health effects from heat and spreading tropical diseases to very 

clear threats to our national security, as Admiral McGinn just 

talked about and as others have talked about, are already beginning to appear. These impacts will be costly to society, far more 

costly, I believe, than efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse 

gases. 

I offer one example in my testimony of the massive consequences 

expected simply from sea level rise along the California coast from 

an analysis my Institute did for the State of California. The value 

of infrastructure at risk along the coast of California from expected 

sea level rise is already $100 billion. There are 500,000 people in 

areas that are expected to be flooded from sea level rise, and that 

is one small impact in one small area of the world that we are 

going to have to deal with. Those costs are real, if badly quantified. 

Finally, the good news is that there are smart and effective 

things that can be done immediately with a focus on energy policy, 

land use policy, and water policy. Robert Kennedy, Richard 

Kauffman, General Clark all offer concrete examples in their written testimony. These kind of options include national energy policy 

that you have been discussing for a long time. Focused on non-carbon energy sources with Federal financing, tax credit, loan guarantees, there are many different ways of approaching that problem. 

We need environmental standards for greenhouse gas emissions, 

including not just carbon dioxide but methane, hydroflurocarbons 

carbons, and black carbon. We need to begin the process of adapting to unavoidable impacts of climate change through smarter land 

use and water use planning. If we act to slow climate change and 

the impacts turn out to be less severe than we predict, we will still 

have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels. We will have cut our 

export of money to countries that fund extremism and terror. We 

will have reduced our emissions of pollutant. We will have boosted 

our economy with new technologies and jobs. 

But if we do nothing, as some argue we should do, and climate 

changes are indeed more severe than we expect, we will have made 

things far worse than they need to be. Congress should step up and 

do its job. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Gleick follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
28 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 63005A.018
29 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 63005A.019
30 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 63005A.020
31 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 63005A.021
32 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 63005A.022
33 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 63005A.023
34 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 63005A.024
35 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 63005A.025
36 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 63005A.026
37 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 63005A.027
38 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 63005A.028
39 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 63005A.029
40 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 63005A.030
41 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 63005A.031
42 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 63005A.032
43 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 63005A.033
44 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 63005A.034
45 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 63005A.035
46 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 63005A.036
47 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 63005A.037
48 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 63005A.038
49 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 63005A.039
50 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Richard Kauffman. Mr. Kauffman is 

chairman of the board of Levi Strauss & Company. During his long 

career, Mr. Kauffman has had broad experience in capital markets 

and corporate finance and recently stepped down as the chief executive officer of Good Energies, one of the largest investors in renewable energy. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. KAUFFMAN 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, members of the committee. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Richard Kauffman. I am indeed the chairman of the 

board of Levi Strauss, although I must say that I am not dressed 

that way today. 

I would like to give you a view from the business community. 

Levi Strauss cares deeply about energy and climate change not just 

because we want to be a good corporate citizen but because of our 

business. 

First, we rely upon an agricultural product, in this case cotton, 

to make 95 percent of our product. Extreme weather events in 

Pakistan have driven up prices of cotton 50 percent since July, 100 

percent since the beginning of the year. So we are actually seeing 

prices that we haven’t seen since Levi Strauss himself was around. 

Climate change puts consumers of agricultural products at risk for 

crop availability, quality, and pricing. 

Second, climate change has a major effect on another part of our 

supply chain, our manufacturing facilities, which are already feeling the effects of extreme weather. Our products are manufactured 

in more than 45 countries, many of which are in the developing 

world that are expected to bear the risks of water shortage, such 

as India or Nicaragua, disease, such as in Cambodia, and flooding 

and saltwater intrusions, such as in Bangladesh and Vietnam. 

Third, we care about climate change because of our brand. Levi 

Strauss, like many other American companies, is the beneficiary of 

globalization not only in terms of establishing a global supply network but in terms of demand for our products. Our biggest growth 

markets are outside the United States and in particular the developing markets of China, India, Russia, and Brazil. 

I think we all recognize that Levi Strauss is an American brand. 

We respect the best of American cultural values: honesty, integrity, 

hard work, and the pioneer can-do spirit. These values speak to 

consumers around the world. But to the degree to which consumers 

see the U.S. as being resistant to the science of climate change and 

as wasteful of natural resources, our brand is at risk. I think all 

of us have had the experience, but young people in particular 

around the world care about climate change since it will affect 

them more than any of us in the room. 

Fourth, our own people care about our being a leader in environmental stewardship. Like other companies, we are in a constant 

battle for talent. Great people make great companies. What we do 

to help make our products more sustainable helps us attract and 

retain the best people. When we have done a lifestyle assessment 

of our products and identify environmental impacts and we work 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
51 

to address them, for example, educating consumers on how to care 

for their clothes more responsibly, including washing less or washing in cold water and line drying, we are not only reducing environmental impact but helping our people feel that their work has 

meaning. 

Fifth, we also see commercial opportunity in addressing the challenges of energy and climate change. There are product innovations 

that offer more environmental benefits that will differentiate us 

from lower cost commodity suppliers. All companies have to deal 

with that issue of competing with commodity suppliers. 

A good example of such products is our recently announced waterless jeans. A single jean uses over 10 gallons of water in its finishing process. The waterless jeans, as the name implies, can save 

over 90 percent of this water. 

Another opportunity for us is energy efficiency. At a single distribution facility—and we have quite a number of them—we could 

save over $600,000 a year, a 33 percent savings at this site. The 

millions of dollars that we could save from energy efficiency we 

would be able to reinvest in our business. 

Our goal as a company is to achieve carbon neutrality by reducing the amount of energy we use and moving to 100 percent renewable energy. The immediate short-term target is to reduce energy 

use in our globally owned and operated locations by 11 percent 

compared to 2007. 

One of the problems we have in achieving our goal of carbon neutrality is uncertain and stop-start government policy and this can 

be measured in a lot of ways, from a failure to enact comprehensive 

climate and energy legislation to uncertainty about whether there 

will be an extension of the grant in lieu of tax credits for renewable 

energy we will be able to acquire and the cost of that energy. 

And in terms of energy efficiency, we could do more faster and 

cheaper with Federal legislation that incentivizes utilities to work 

with us. Utilities generally still have the incentive to sell more 

electricity rather than invest in energy efficiency. 

In terms of energy efficiency, there are substantial upfront costs 

we must make to invest that are difficult for us to finance. We see 

that the financing system for renewables and energy efficiency is 

not up to the task. And while we applaud government policy in 

supporting more R&D, the emphasis on innovation over deployment 

make it difficult for us to achieve our objectives by using good 

enough technology that is available today. 

My experience as renewable energy entrepreneur has taught me 

a lot about the promise and perils of the business that I hope we 

can explore in questions and answers. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Kauffman follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
52 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 63005A.040
53 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 63005A.041
54 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 63005A.042
55 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 63005A.043
56 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 63005A.044
57 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 63005A.045
58 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 63005A.046
59 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 63005A.047
60 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 63005A.048
61 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 63005A.049
62 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 63005A.050
63 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 63005A.051
64 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 63005A.052
65 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 63005A.053
66 

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

Our next witness is Kenneth Green. Mr. Green is a resident 

scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for public policy research. He has studied public policy involving risk, regulation, and 

environment for over 16 years. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH GREEN 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be 

back with you again. 

I am Dr. Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute, a 

resident scholar there for going on 5 years now. My training is in 

the environmental sciences. I hold a doctorate in environmental 

science and engineering from UCLA, and I have twice served as an 

expert reviewer for reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations’ IPCC. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on what continues to be an 

important question of the day: How can we best manage the risks 

involving America’s energy security, jobs, and climate challenges? 

Thank you also for the job security suggested in the title of this 

session: Not Going Away. If it did go away, so would my job security. 

First and foremost, I believe that it is critical for America that 

we shift our focus from mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions toward an agenda of building energy and climate resilience. Whether 

you believe that climate change is a looming disaster or whether, 

as I believe, it is a real but modest threat, there is really no rational argument for continuing to focus on mitigation of greenhouse gas 

emissions in the near or midterm. And that is because, despite the 

claims of renewable energy and efficiency rent seekers—for that is 

what they are—we do not have the technologies needed to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions without causing significant 

economic destruction, and the money and attention we are spending on mitigation is largely wasted. Even if we shut the United 

States and the EU off, the savings on the greenhouse gas emissions 

would be overcome by emissions from China, which is now the 

world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. So the environmental benefit of our mitigation would be precisely zero. 

The fact of the matter is, also, mitigation is immiseration. Let us 

start with what was mentioned earlier, the legislation that was 

passed in the House, cap and trade, which, while seemingly dead, 

could come back to haunt us in the future under other guises such 

as buried in clean energy standards. 

For an emission treaty to work, certain conditions must apply. 

You need readily available technology to capture emissions or lessemission-intensive input fuels. We do not have those with greenhouse gases. 

You need a single regulatory jurisdiction. We do not have that. 

You need a single trading currency that can’t be manipulated. 

We do not have that. 

We need the ability to confirm emission reductions and a manageable number of actors, preferably uniformly distributed; and you 

need to auction all permits to prevent rampant corruption of the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
67 

scheme by seekers and special interests. We had those conditions 

for sulfur dioxide, which is why acid rain trading worked, but we 

don’t have them for carbon dioxide. 

And even the economists who develop emissions trading for pollution control have acknowledged that it is not a suitable vehicle 

for controlling greenhouse gases. All that instituting cap and trade 

or, for that matter, a carbon tax would do is raise our energy costs, 

raise the costs of our goods and services, make our economy less 

productive, and make us less competitive internationally. 

The same is true of EPA’s misguided efforts to use regulation to 

force down emissions of greenhouse gases. There are few, if any, affordable ways to do this. That is why it has proven so intractable 

in Europe and elsewhere. The methods of mostly switching to natural gas from coal are expensive and will render many businesses 

uncompetitive both domestically and internationally. 

We hear about efficiency gains. The idea that there are massive 

efficiency gains just laying around is an economic fallacy. There are 

not $100 bills laying on the ground to get picked up by actors who 

internalize that value. If they have to go to the government to do 

something, it is because it doesn’t really make sense for them to 

do it without the government. It is not actual real efficiency. It is 

faux efficiency. 

My extended remarks, of course, will cover more things. What I 

want to say, though, is if we shouldn’t regulate and we shouldn’t 

institute cap and trade, what should we do? And, in fact, there is 

a very ambitious agenda of what we can do. 

First and foremost, though, we should stop making things worse. 

Right now, governments incentivize people to live in climatically 

fragile areas. If they are flooded out of a coast, we rebuild them on 

the same coast. If they have a drought area, we subsidize bringing 

water in to remedy their drought. Government as an insurer of last 

resort is a risk subsidizer. 

Infrastructure was mentioned earlier. And one of the things I 

wanted to talk about—I am running out of time, I am afraid. But 

we do build infrastructure. Governments are great at building infrastructure. But they don’t price it. Therefore, there is no pricing 

signal to tell you what the risk to the infrastructure is from climate 

change. 

If our infrastructure was fully priced, the infrastructure that was 

mentioned earlier in California, for example, and sea levels rise, 

you get two things that happen: One, you have a price signal to tell 

you what to do about it, to reroute the highway, elevate the highway, put up seawalls along the highway and pass the cost onto the 

commuters on that road, which would move those away who can’t 

afford the value at risk. The same is true of our water infrastructure. The same is true of our electrical infrastructure. We are making the issues much worse because of the way government manages 

our infrastructure, and that should change. 

The same is true of zoning. If the climate changes and people 

seek to move north, they will face a welter of zoning restrictions, 

national parks, State parks, and other barriers to entry. And this 

is particularly true of poor people who have faced difficulties moving into areas that are zoned and highly regulated and which have 

higher prices. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
68 

Finally, I will say that we should trust in resilience but tie up 

our camel. I think the government should redirect research funds 

into geo engineering and into carbon capture technologies. Those 

will give us an option in case the worst case scenarios are correct 

but not cost us an arm and a leg and sacrifice our economic growth 

in the meantime. 

I would like to point out somebody recently from the Tyndall 

Center in the U.K., one of their scientists, said that in order to 

really deal with climate change the developed world—the entire developed world—must forgo 20 years of economic growth. Does anyone realistically think that is going to happen? I don’t think so. 

And I think it is a waste of time and money and energy to focus 

on attempting to do what will not be done. 

I have submitted extensive remarks for the record as well as two 

policy studies backing up my comments, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Green follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
69 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 63005A.054
70 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 63005A.055
71 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 63005A.056
72 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 63005A.057
73 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Green; and we will include your 

studies in the record. 

Let me now turn and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is interesting to think about where we are ending up. I, for 

one, have appreciated the opportunity over the last 4 years to work 

with you and the committee in constructing a record and hearing 

from distinguished panelists such as we are graced with today. 

Nothing to me suggests that 10 years hence people are going to feel 

like these were exaggerated concerns, that somehow government 

did too much during this period. I fear that 10 years hence the consensus will be we made a start in the House, there was aggressive 

effort, but that we have fallen short of the mark. 

I listened again to Dr. Green, and I do agree with him in one 

area, that we are not appropriately pricing the risks, that government is involved because we would like to help everybody. Having 

spent a lot of time dealing with flood insurance reform over the 

years, we subsidize people to be in harm’s way, and we put them 

back afterwards, and that is wrong, and it is going to create a problem. But we have any number of Federal policies where we are 

paying people lavishly to grow cotton in the desert and then paying 

off Brazilian cotton farmers because we cheat internationally. A 

whole host of these things are going to come into play, and I think 

we will be making some significant changes. 

But the record that has been developed is replete with references 

that the cost of making these adjustments are a tiny fraction of 

what is to be expected that we will be contending with because of 

the problems that our witnesses have pointed out. And, in fact, it 

is not 20 years of growth that will lose. It is perhaps a fraction of 

a percent of GDP which may be redirected if we undertake the 

right policies. 

I conclude these hearings feeling actually a little more encouraged, even though we haven’t done what we should have. I am encouraged because of what we are hearing from business. Mr. 

Kauffman, I appreciate very much both what you have done and 

what you have said. We are seeing businesses understanding the 

opportunities and the risks, and have been moving forward, not 

waiting for government. We have seen over 1,050 communities that 

haven’t waited for the Federal government, that have started 

ahead with their own climate policies. This includes my own hometown of Portland, Oregon, which is essentially Kyoto compliant at 

this point and people can still earn a living and get across town. 

We are watching what is happening with the community of faith, 

with education in the communities and, frankly, with a lot of other 

governments. 

Part of my concern listening to Mr. Green, is his notion that we 

shouldn’t do anything because there are other problems that are 

growing in India and China and that our actions will make no difference. First of all, this is not accepted scientific fact. If we move 

to mitigate and make a change, it does make a change. It doesn’t 

maybe offset others’ pollution entirely. But looking at what governments are doing in Brazil and Mexico, in China with stronger enviVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:11 Dec 29, 2010 Jkt 063005 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B005.XXX B005

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
74 

ronmental standards than we have in some areas, I am heartened 

by what we have encountered. 

Last but not least, there is nothing that suggests that we 

shouldn’t move forward with a more rational energy policy, rational 

water policy, even if you didn’t believe in climate change. In terms 

of national security, in terms of not wasting energy, in terms of 

getting the economics right, the case is compelling. 

I am wondering if, Mr. Kauffman, you could comment briefly on 

what you are seeing in the business community even in the absence perhaps of appropriate pricing signals from the Federal Government. What do you see now that we may be able even in this 

more restricted climate you will face politically in Congress, 

things—simple things to do that would reinforce your interests and 

things that you think are opportunities? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. If I understand your question, what are the 

things that Congress can do? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That you think either in a scaled down—that 

might be helpful in making the initiatives you talked about possible. 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Well, I do think that there is much more to be 

done in terms of a focus on energy efficiency. I am afraid I don’t 

agree with Dr. Green. I do think that there are actually lots of dollars that are on the ground, but there are lots of market failures 

that could be addressed. I don’t want to go into all of them. But 

I think efficiency is an area. 

I also think, as I say, on the financing side—and maybe this is 

one example I could talk about in terms of energy efficiency—there 

is some terrific energy efficiency technology that works that is 

available today off in little companies that are trying to go up 

against giants. They can’t offer a leasing product to the market, 

they can’t get financing, and the challenge with that is that the 

person often at a company that is responsible for the capital budget 

is different from the person responsible for the operating budget. 

So it seems very kind of prosaic, but it really creates a lot of issues. 

So the ability to create a financing vehicle that would help energy efficiency would go a very, very long way to accelerating energy efficiency and it really, really does pay for itself and it will 

help the economy. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Dr. Gleick, you have referenced the scientific consensus which I 

believe was reflected in our record, notwithstanding Dr. Green’s notion that we have to forego 20 years of economic development and 

that it really would make no difference what the United States did 

because other countries are polluting more. Do you want to make 

a brief reaction to that, which seems to fly in the face of your testimony and research? 

Mr. GLEICK. Yes, I would be happy to. 

There are a number of things with which Dr. Green and I don’t 

see eye to eye. That is one of them. The United States is still a 

massive emitter of greenhouse gases. There is no doubt that anything we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have an effect 

on the ultimate concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the extent and severity and speed of climate change. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
75 

Certainly, without a global agreement to reduce emissions, we 

will not turn emissions around, but we have the enormous opportunity just from a technical side of slowing the rate of climate 

change and that by itself has a huge economic value. That is a critical issue. 

I don’t often tell jokes at congressional hearings—and I am not 

an economist—but there is a classic economics joke about an economist walking down the street with his little girl. And the little 

girl—they are holding hands, and the little girl says, daddy, there 

is a $20 bill on the ground. And the economist says, don’t be silly, 

dear. If there was a $20 bill on the ground, someone would have 

found it already. 

And the truth is the potential for efficiency improvements, as you 

have said already yourself and as Mr. Kauffman has said, are enormous. The ability to improve the efficiency with which we use energy in this country, do the things we want to do with much less 

energy, and I would argue water efficiency as well, which has an 

enormous greenhouse gas savings as well, is largely untapped. We 

have made progress in that area, but there is enormous progress 

to be made. And it is far, far cheaper to do that than for the Federal Government to be spending money on expensive, unreliable efforts to sequester carbon. The cost benefit of expenditures at the 

Federal level on efficiency versus carbon sequestration are very different. I am not saying don’t do research, but we should do research in that area as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

By the way, our final witness, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has been 

delayed on the tarmac at La Guardia because of this violent weather that is going up and down the east coast. He is still trying to 

arrive for the hearing. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate all of you being here with us, and I appreciate that 

this is our final hearing. We thank you for the leadership that you 

have shown. 

I think that we can agree that we—quite frankly, I have never 

met anyone that wants to pay more on their utility bill. We are all 

seeking better ways to use and to conserve and to achieve energy 

efficiency. I think the underlying question is, do you do that at the 

expense of American jobs? And that is something this committee 

has looked at and I think in the next Congress we will continue 

to look at. 

Dr. Green, I will have to say you have a friend in me. I may be 

the only one on this panel that is in agreement with what you have 

to say. 

Mr. Kauffman, first for you, what percentage of Levi jeans are 

manufactured in the U.S.? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. We do comparatively little manufacturing in the 

United States. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And primarily that manufacturing is held 

where? 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
76 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. It is outside the United States. That is the nature of the global apparel industry. We would like to manufacture 

more in the United States. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. What percentage of that is in China? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. What percentage of—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Of your manufacturing. 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. I don’t know the exact percentage. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And then what percentage of Levi jeans are 

marketed in the U.S.? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Well, in terms of the United States, the United 

States is our biggest single market. But, as I said before, the 

growth of our business is outside the United States. It grows more 

rapidly than in the United States. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for that. 

You talked a little bit about clean energy and VC capital. Let me 

ask you this. Are you familiar with the experiences of the Spanish 

government’s efforts to subsidize renewable energies over the past 

several years and the results of those efforts? And do you think the 

U.S. government should look at Spain as a model to imitate? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. I don’t think that we should—yes, I am familiar 

with it, and I don’t believe the United States government should 

emulate that experience. Do you want me to explain why? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is fine, but I am running out of time. So 

let us make it fast if we can. 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. In part, the Spanish government changed the 

rules of the game, and that is one of the problems that the United 

States has had as well. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So uncertainty of regulation and uncertainty of 

policy. 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. That is correct. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We hear that a lot from companies. 

Okay, Dr. Gleick, I wanted to ask you, how can you talk about 

green jobs as a way to boost our economy in light of the colossal 

failures in Europe where each green job in Spain costs 2.2 jobs 

elsewhere in the economy and each green job in Italy cost 6.9 jobs 

in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy? 

Mr. GLEICK. Let me first say I am not an economist. I am not 

familiar with the statistics you are using and their source or their 

quality. 

I do believe that the potential for jobs in new American technologies in energy efficiency, water efficiency, renewable energy 

technology, non-carbon technology, whatever it is, is very significant. Obviously, you don’t want those jobs to come at the expense 

of other jobs, but I think that is probably a fallacy. I think we are 

probably smart enough to develop new jobs without losing old jobs. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Dr. Green, how do you respond to that? 

Mr. GREEN. Well, this is the Hayek’s fatal conceit, that somehow, 

despite all experience elsewhere, that somehow we just have the 

ability to centrally plan the economy in a way to make jobs in this 

sector or that sector and create them on net. It is a fallacy that has 

been badly, many times, debunked. 

I am familiar with the studies you mentioned in Spain and Italy. 

I am not an economist, also. I play one on TV sometimes, but that 

is about as close as it gets. Those studies are quite robust. In fact, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
77 

the Spanish government recently acknowledged that the 2.2 job 

study that you pointed out is accurate. They are cutting their subsidies to wind and solar power, and rampant corruption has been 

discovered in the Spanish example, especially of solar power, where 

some of the criminal cartels moved heavily into solar power and 

were using diesel generators to sell solar power, quote, unquote, at 

night to the Spanish government at a fixed rate higher than the 

competitive sources of energy. These things are, frankly, boondoggles. They are promoted by rent seekers, and this has been 

shown time after time after time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I have some other questions and 

I will submit those for written response. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentlelady very much. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have, unfortunately, 

a meeting that I must chair beginning at 12 noon. And I did want 

to have the opportunity to thank you in leading us in what I consider to be a great and important information gathering. And I appreciate all of your comments today and your willingness to provide 

us with information. We received it from scholars and thoughtful 

men and women from all over the world, actually, and I appreciate 

it. 

I look at this whole issue a little, perhaps differently. In a book 

that I read, frankly, often, there is a little-read line that says: The 

Earth is the Lord’s and everything that is in it. 

We are, in a real sense, only squatters, not owners. It is our responsibility to care for the Earth. And we have no more right to 

change the climate of Earth than we have the right to change the 

thermostat in another person’s home. And I think that in the years 

to come, one of the great questions will be—and I can see television 

clips of it, I probably won’t be around—of people denying that the 

Earth is warming or denying that humans are the cause. And I 

have looked at TV program special documentaries on things in the 

past how they show people saying this won’t happen and so forth. 

And I hope for my children and my children’s children that what 

we have attempted to begin will, in future days, rise to the surface 

of national consciousness, and certainly the Congress, and we will 

find ourselves taking an appropriate stand. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for everything that you have 

done in leading this committee. 

Mr. MARKEY. And thank you. And thank you for everything that 

you are doing in Kansas City to make it a model for the installation of the energy efficiency and renewable energy that I think will 

ultimately be the model for the country, and we thank you for your 

great leadership as well. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Just one comment as we wrap up our 

hearing and our work of this committee. I want to thank my colleagues for working on this. If some archeologist happens to dig up 

the records of this committee 100 years from now, some of us will 

be shown to have been right and some of us will have been shown 

to be wrong. And none of us knows that for sure, but I want to 

thank all members for working on this important issue. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
78 

I want to thank Dr. Gleick for being here, who is the author of 

a great book, ‘‘Bottled and Sold, The Story Behind Our Obsession 

with Bottled Water.’’ My wife has turned me on to that work, and 

I enjoy it very much. 

Dr. Gleick, tell me, why do you think there has been a group of 

folks that refuse to accept this, you described as uncontroverted 

science? And I think that is an accurate description given that 

every scientific group of any esteem has recognized this phenomenon as uncontroverted at this point. Why do you think there 

is any discussion to the contrary in our society today? 

Mr. GLEICK. Thank you, Congressman. I was wondering where 

that copy of the book had been sold. Thank your wife for me. 

I am very reluctant to get into motive. I don’t think it is useful 

for me—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me ask a different question then. What do you 

think is the most successful dialogue when you have had dialogue 

with people who have expressed doubts about that clear science? 

What do you think is most successful in a dialogue in that regard? 

Mr. GLEICK. When I talk to people who are unsure about the 

science of climate change or skeptical, don’t believe it is happening, 

I do like to find out why they believe that. Sometimes it is ignorance; they don’t know anything about the science, they haven’t 

read the science, they don’t know where to go for good information. 

Sometimes it is ideological. They just don’t want to believe that humans could possibly change the climate of something as great as 

the planet. Sometimes it is fear about what we might have to do 

to change emissions of greenhouse gases. There is concern about 

economics, there is concern about politics, there is concern about 

government versus nongovernmental action. 

There are a lot of things that drive it. And I find that people are 

willing to be convinced about the science when they understand 

that there is still plenty to debate on the policy side that the fact 

that the climate is changing, the fact that humans are changing 

the climate is a reality doesn’t necessarily dictate what the response should be. There is a lot of difficult discussion that, frankly, 

you in Congress have to deal with about what to do about it, about 

where to put the effort on mitigation versus adaptation versus not 

doing anything. 

Mr. INSLEE. So one thing, I hope you will have license to be 

vocal. We need the scientific community to step up to the plate 

here and be vocal on the issues. There is a tendency to be academic 

and we understand that, and that is important. But there is a time 

to be vocal, too. I hope you and your fellows will be vocal. 

Mr. Kauffman, you were talking about the need for financing 

mechanisms, particularly for efficiency and deployment of things 

that are ready to go now. We tried to pass a green bank to try to 

help finance the sort of first commercial-scale plants of a lot of 

these technologies. Could you give us some thoughts on what a financing mechanism could be for efficiency or those first new technologies and production? 

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Okay. Thank you. One of the issues about financing efficiency is just one of the questions about who has the 

relative legal standing of the efficiency loan relative to the mortgage. And so Great Britain has actually been able to solve that by 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
79 

putting it on the utility bill. And so I think there are some financing structures that can be used, but fundamentally the problem is 

right now when we think about trying to finance energy efficiency, 

we have, first, that problem. And the other thing is if, in some 

cases, if you are using innovative technology, you think that would 

require a kind of specialized financing entity. Well, you couldn’t get 

a bank license to do that, so we have bank regulations that are opposed to that. 

The other issue, broadly, in terms of some of the financing problems, is the proposed new capital rules for banks which will have 

the effect, not because of this reason, it is an unintended consequence of reducing the amount of credit that will be made available to below investment grade or marginal investment grade companies, unless they can generate a lot of business for the bank because the amount of capital needs to be reserved against those assets are very high. 

Mr. INSLEE. Just so you know, we are working on the pace bond 

issue that will do exactly what Britain has done essentially. And 

if you have any influence with Freddie or Fannie right now, we 

have been trying to browbeat them into doing the right thing. 

Thank you for that insight. 

Dr. Green, I want to ask you about this issue. When you have 

an empty pop can and you are driving the car, do you throw it out 

the window? 

Mr. GREEN. Well, first of all—— 

Mr. INSLEE. That should be easy. That is a yes or no. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I don’t have a car. So the answer would have 

to be no. 

Mr. INSLEE. If you had a car, would you throw it out the window? 

Mr. GREEN. Of course not. 

Mr. INSLEE. Why not? 

Mr. GREEN. Mostly because it would be littering. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, you realize that even though you don’t throw 

it out the window, somebody else might throw theirs out the window anyway. You can’t stop other people from throwing theirs out 

the window. Right? But you decide, because it is unethical to do 

that, you just don’t do that. Right? 

Mr. GREEN. Right. 

Mr. INSLEE. Doesn’t that logic, isn’t that logic, shouldn’t it be the 

same for all of us on the planet at this point to have an ethic of 

not polluting even though others somewhere else may do so? And 

if that should be the ethic, would you not urge the U.S. Congress 

to ask America to lead in that direction? Isn’t that the same reason 

we don’t throw junk out our window? 

Mr. GREEN. No. And the reason is this: As was mentioned earlier, that we are stewards of the planet. That is true. There are, 

however, at this point in time billions of people living in abject energy poverty. They are starving to death, they are dying of lung 

disease because they are using wood and dung fires. They are leveling the rain forests and destroying massive amounts of ecosystems because they are poor. 

If we raise the cost of energy, we raise the cost of everything. We 

slow the development and the elevation of those people out of poverty. And I think that is a much more important moral imperative 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
80 

than banging our head against the wall of litigation, which will not 

produce significant environmental benefits and will only impose 

significant costs. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you say just keep throwing the cans out the window as long as somebody else wants pop. And I just disagree with 

you with that, and I will close with that. Thank you, all of our panelists. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. And now we will 

recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panelists 

all. 

Dr. Green, I was listening to NPR on the way in this morning. 

They were talking about interviewing some insurance executives 

who would say that their industry has already decided that the 

science is in, and they agree with you, and so do I, that we 

shouldn’t—governments shouldn’t keep paying to rebuild houses on 

the Outer Banks or, you know, flood plains, places where they will 

obviously be destroyed again by another storm or another flood. 

But what they have done, in fact, many insurance companies, is 

withdraw completely from the market in south Florida and the Bahamas and places that they have taken a beating. 

When Hurricane Frances and Jeanne came through the Bahamas, they lost so much money that most insurance companies have 

completely pulled out. So that is a statement, a market statement 

in which the people on the show who were being interviewed are 

saying that the markets will arrive at the conclusion before the 

governments do, and I think people do as well. 

I just want to address a couple things that were said by the 

gentlelady from Tennessee, who I am sorry is not here any longer, 

and others. The idea that some of us on this committee or some of 

those who feel that we need to take action to prevent the worstcase scenario of climate change want to forego 20 years of economic 

growth. That is just not true. None of us said that. That is something being stated for us or imputed to my—first of all, I don’t 

think that is the choice. That is a false choice. 

I will tell you a couple quick stories in the little bit of time before 

we have to vote. I think those were votes on the floor looming. 

One of my case workers, who handles veterans issues in the district in the Hudson Valley, asked me to come over in October to 

her house to see her husband’s low head hydro project. He had 

come to a workshop that we held with some people who deal with 

low head hydro. And DOE’s Web site, in fact, has 4,000 small dams 

and waterfalls listed in New York State alone that are unused, 

many of them powered mills of the previous century, and the water 

is going—tons of water a second going over and being wasted. And 

these are not dams that can be removed because downstream has 

been developed. There are houses and restaurants and marinas 

and other things downstream. 

So these are opportunities for huge numbers of people to be employed. All the trades people. It would be mechanics and sheet 

metal workers and electrical workers and on and on, and engineers, lawyers to deal with the liability issues when you have an 

orphan dam and so on. But Idaho National Laboratory of our DOE, 

not a lefty environmental group by any means, estimates greater 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
81 

than 1,200 megawatts in New York just by harvesting the water 

that is already falling over existing infrastructure, some of which 

needs to be upgraded. 

Now, my staffer’s husband, who I went up to their house, has— 

they don’t have a waterfall, but they have a little stream about this 

wide that runs down their property and maybe about a 70-foot drop 

from the top of their property to the lower part, and he decided, 

after going to our workshop, that he was going to try something, 

and he dug a trench, created a little pool up at the top with some 

boulders to get a little depth of water in the stream, put a grate 

with a screen on it to keep debris from clogging it and a 6-inch 

plastic pipe buried under the ground down to about 70 feet less elevation and landed into what looks like a doghouse, but you open 

it up, looks like a big blue motor there upside down. He is running 

it backwards. He put the blades on it and split one pipe into four 

pipes to blow water at the four blades as they turn around in, and 

the motor is acting as a generator running backwards and he is 

using a quarter of the power to power their entire house. He could 

power three other houses. They are selling power back into the grid 

from the project that he did because his eyes lit up when he got 

the information that this was possible and that other people were 

doing it. 

As for the other 4,000 in New York and many more thousands 

in New England, these are one of the untapped, unused regional 

resources. The Midwest doesn’t have the geography, the topography 

to have these kinds of waterfalls or dams or stream flows, but they 

have other things. And I think we really do need to diversify and 

use all these things. And my experience and the studies that I have 

seen show that these jobs are real, that, in fact, the more decentralized our power is, the more people are hired. It is capital intensive projects are the big goal of national gas or nuclear plants. 

They are really good for the banks that lend the money and then 

get the interest on it. Labor intensive, job producing are the many 

decentralized and mostly renewable projects that are available, like 

these 4,000 low head hydro sites in New York. 

Lastly, I just want to say there is another staffer I am very 

proud of who is with the Wounded Warrior project, did two tours 

in Afghanistan, was stop-lossed for 287 days on his second tour, a 

medic with a paratrooper unit, a fabulous guy. Josh Van Sanders 

is his name, and I spent a good deal of time riding around in the 

car with him and going to events, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Veterans Disabilities, we had a lot to talk about. He 

is also a Purple Heart recipient. But he said that one time he was 

on a mountaintop exchanging fire. His unit was exchanging fire 

with a Taliban unit on another mountaintop, and the Taliban unit 

was solar powered and our unit was using a diesel generator. And 

he said, that is wrong. You know? They don’t have to worry about 

the supply chain and the tankers blown up in the paths coming 

across from Pakistan. 

So we can make the sensible choices, whatever the reason is, 

whether you believe that the climate is warming or not, there are 

many reasons to want to do these same things. And I think that 

we should try to cooperate, and I hope the next Congress will do 

so. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership of this committee. 

And I yield the rest of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, I can’t thank the gentleman enough. There 

has been no more conscientious and committed person to ensuring 

that this issue is dealt with in a historically responsible way than 

you have been. We thank you so much for your service. 

Mr. Kennedy’s plane has just landed. So what I think might be 

appropriate for him, just to make sure that we recognize his efforts, is that I am going to deliver my closing remarks right now 

with this panel here. And then, at the conclusion of my remarks 

because there are six roll calls pending on the House floor right 

now, we will then stand in recess so that Mr. Kennedy can testify 

himself, perhaps an hour and 15 minutes from now, to the committee so the record will be complete with all of those who had 

been intending to testify. 

So I want to close by thanking Speaker Nancy Pelosi who created 

this select committee. She did so with her grandchildren in mind, 

hoping to ensure that the world we leave behind is safe, prosperous, and filled with all the natural treasures that God intended. 

I want to thank my friend, ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner, 

for his bipartisan cooperation in the way in which we conducted 

business, the way in which we went to countries around the world, 

China, India, and many other places to study this issue. We may 

have disagreed on what the remedies are to deal with the issue, 

but we traveled, we conducted these hearings with a measure of bipartisanship that I believe is a model for how these important historic debates should be conducted. 

The select committee held over 75 hearings. We have focused on 

developing solutions to end our dangerous addiction to foreign oil 

and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The select committee 

looked to domestic energy resources, new technologies, and efficiency measures that cut waste and save consumers money. The select committee brought in hundreds of the world’s leading energy 

and national security experts, from military generals, energy 

CEO’s, Nobel Prize winning scientists, private-sector inventors and 

entrepreneurs and innovators who are creating the next generation 

of clean energy technology. Each and every energy industry had a 

seat at our table, from giants like oil and coal, to startups like the 

solar innovators at 1366 technologies and synthetic genomics who 

have traveled the globe in search of fuel-producing algae. Their 

message is clear: If Congress can provide regulatory certainty and 

an even playing field, then we can unleash American innovation 

and harness our technological advantage. 

While some in Congress may question the science of global 

warming, the rest of the world does not. The members of this committee met with world leaders from Germany, China, India, and 

other nations large and small. Our members from both sides of the 

aisle represented the United States in this global conversation on 

energy and climate with dignity, substance, and class. 

As I said in my opening statement, the politics may change, but 

the problem isn’t going away. To illustrate this point, I want to 

share with you a few numbers. Number one, 1.3 trillion. That is 

the amount of money consumers have shipped overseas for foreign 

oil since the select committee was created in 2007. Imported oil 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
83 

represents nearly half of our trade deficit. This massive transfer of 

wealth is an albatross on our economy and a boon for terrorist activities around the globe. As long as foreign oil continues to jeopardize our national security and economic security, our work in 

Congress is not done. 

Number two, 738 billion. That is the amount of money China 

plans to invest in clean energy over the next decade. This will create jobs that should be created here in the United States. We have 

the technological advantage. We have the entrepreneurial might. 

But unless we generate the political will, we will continue to lose 

our innovation and manufacturing edge. Losing the jobs race with 

China is not an outcome that any of my colleagues would support. Number three, $4. In the summer of 2008, that was the price of 

gasoline that focused this Nation like a laser on finding alternatives to oil. As the global economy recovers, China and India continue to grow and supplies remain tight. It is inevitable that these 

prices will return. Consumers should not be forced to suffer for our 

inaction. 

And, number 4, finally, is the number one. We have one planet. 

We all share it. We are all responsible for it. 2010 is on track to 

be the hottest year on record following the warmest decade on 

record. We have heard the warnings from scientists. We have seen 

the damage with our own eyes. Some day our children and grandchildren will read the record of the select committee. Maybe they 

will watch our hearings on YouTube. They will see a respectful and 

rigorous debate and an unprecedented understanding of the problem. 

Whether or not they see action taken on the solutions remains 

to be seen. But trust me, it is a fight that is far from over. A fight 

that they will most certainly be watching to see what decisions we 

make in order to make sure that we have not passed on this problem to generations yet to come. 

So we thank each of our witnesses for their participation in this 

final hearing and with the thanks of the committee, we will now 

stand in recess and we will return at the conclusion of the roll 

calls. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming is reconvened to hear its final witness. And we 

could have no more distinguished American than Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He was delayed because of a violent storm that went up 

the East Coast that made it impossible for him to make it earlier 

today, but I felt it was very important for him to be able to present 

his testimony to this committee so that it is part of a permanent 

record that will document the need for aggressive, urgent action to 

deal with this issue. 

Mr. Kennedy is the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson 

Riverkeeper and president of the Waterkeepers Alliance, an environmental organization that protects the ecological integrity of the 

Hudson River and its tributaries. 

Throughout his career, Mr. Kennedy has been a champion of environmental issues and has established a reputation as a successful 

historic defender of the environment. He has been named one of 

Time Magazine’s heroes of the planet. He is a hero to me as well. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
84 

We welcome you, Mr. Kennedy. Whenever you feel comfortable, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you to the other members of the committee and thank you for reconvening here to accommodate the difficulties that I had this 

morning. I want to thank you first of all, Mr. Chairman, for your 

years that you put into service in this committee and that you 

brought to us, and the ideologic views that you have to this country. And as you know, as I know, it should not be a partisan issue 

and I hope it does not become a partisan issue over the coming 

years. There is no such thing as Republican children or Democratic 

children. Our country ought to be the leaders of the world on this, 

these issues; and instead, we are looking at the future by staring 

at a rearview mirror, and it is not good for our country and it is 

not good for the world. 

I want to just make one brief remark to this committee, because 

yesterday the New York State Legislature, New York State Assembly—and you have my written remarks and I am going to depart 

from those. But yesterday, the New York State Assembly passed a 

bill that was previously passed by the New York State Legislature 

to establish a moratorium on natural gas drilling in New York 

State. 

This is a controversial area. Sheldon Silver, who is the chair of 

the Assembly in New York State, said that they got more calls on 

this bill than they have on any other bill. They had hundreds of 

bills to consider yesterday. It is a bad sign for the natural gas industry, it is a bad sign for our country. We have a thousand trillion 

cubic feet of natural gas that have become available for the past 

couple of years. There is so much distrust in the grassroots community of the natural gas industry, and of the regulators, that this bill 

has become necessary. 

It is not good for our country. We should be replacing the coal. 

We have 320 gigawatts of build capacity for coal in this country. 

We have 450 gigawatts of natural gas capacity. The coal capacity 

is used 99 percent of the time, the gas capacity is used between 37, 

38 percent of the time. And that is not good for the environment, 

it is not good for jobs, it is not good for our country. And it is because of the reckless drilling protocols that are being employed by 

the lowest producers in the natural gas—the lowest cost producers 

in the natural gas industry. They are doing bad things, and they 

don’t have to. 

There are three problems with natural gas with fracking. One is 

a water management problem. There are technological solutions. 

They should be required to do close-looped systems and they should 

be required to have transparency in their drilling fluids. That 

would solve the problem of water management. 

Number two, there is a problem with migration of methane, not 

from the target formations, but usually from high pressure–low 

pressure formations that the drop well goes through as it is trying 

to reach the target formation. And the reason that migrates up and 

blows up the houses or catches the faucets on fire or contaminates 

drinking water is because of poor casing protocols. NRDC has 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
85 

worked with the gas industry to develop very, very high-quality 

casing protocols that would prevent those kinds of migrations. 

Those ought to be the law in all the States. We ought to have Federal regulations of that. Then we need very, very strong Federal 

enforcement. 

Number three, the industrialization of the landscapes. And that 

can be dealt with—and this is controversial, in the environmental 

community too—but in my view, the best way to do that is through 

pooling, saying we can do this horizontal drilling. We don’t need to 

have 40 or 50 wells per square mile. You can have a single well 

per county in many places. And it increases the revenues that the 

industry gets, it increases the revenue of the landowners and of the 

people of that community. 

That is all I am going to say about that. We need government 

action on this in order to free up this vast reservoir, because natural gas isn’t just a good replacement for coal. It is also a natural 

companion for wind and solar. It gets rid of the variability problems and lets wind and solar deliver baseloads to the utilities. So 

we need to do that, and I hope that this committee will consider 

that in the future. It is a critical issue. Republicans and Democrats 

ought to get together on this. 

The big issue and the issue that you have been working on for 

years, that this committee is trying to solve, is the issue of our dependence on carbon and on the decarbonization of American society, which is good for our country. Put aside the environmental 

issues. Everything we have got to do to deal with global warming 

are things we ought to be doing anyway, for the sake of our national prosperity, for the sake of building jobs, for the sake of our 

national security, our energy security, our independence, and our 

international leadership. We are borrowing $1 billion a day today, mainly from nations that don’t share our values. In order to spend $1 billion to import 

oil into this country, again largely from nations that don’t share 

our values, we are—through our deadly addiction to oil—we are 

funding both sides of the war against terror. And we give about 

$1.3 trillion in subsidies to the oil industry every year. If you doubt 

that figure, look at Terry Tamminen’s new book, ‘‘Lives Per Gallon,’’ direct Federal subsidies through the oil depletion allowance, 

then the indirect subsidies, the military expenditures, the crop 

damage, the air damage, et cetera, et cetera. 

We give about half a trillion a year, half a trillion to the nuke 

industry, about 1 trillion—nobody has ever done the calculations— 

to the coal industry. And these have allowed the incumbents to 

dominate the marketplace which otherwise would be dominated by 

renewables. 

We have extraordinary renewables in this country. We are the 

best in the world. My home in Mount Kisco, New York is powered 

by geothermal. We could do that with virtually every home in our 

country outside of the major cities we have, that we are number 

two in solar resources in the world. The Scientific American just 

did a study saying that if we were to harness the solar in an area 

that is 75 miles by 75 miles in desert southwest, we could power 

100 percent of the existing grid. The Great Plains States, the Saudi 

Arabia of wind. We have enough wind in Montana, North Dakota, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
86 

and Texas to provide 100 percent of the energy grid of North America three times over, even if every American owned an electric car. 

The problem is developing a marketplace that is rational in this 

country. 

People have said to me for years, What is the biggest answer to 

environmental problems? I have always said, Free market capitalism, true free market capitalism, which we do not have in the 

energy sector, and we don’t have much in this country anymore. 

But the energy sector is almost completely based on a kind of corporate crony capitalism model that is funded by subsidies to the big 

incumbents. 

We need to develop a grid system in this country. And I know 

your prejudices against a national unified grid because of the ease 

with which that would facilitate coal power into New England 

when we already have a New England extraordinary wind resource 

that we ought to be exporting. But we need a grid system. We need 

a grid system, whether it is regional grids or national unified grids, 

that are going to create a marketplace that is governed by rational 

rules, rather than having 50 different public utility commissions in 

50 different States, each with its own arcane, Byzantine set of 

rules, a vulcanized set of rules that restricts access to the grid. 

We need a system that creates a rational marketplace that coordinates the public interest with the marketplace rules. And right 

now we have a marketplace—we need a marketplace that does 

what a market is supposed to do—which is to reward good behavior, which is efficiency, and to punish bad behavior, which is inefficiency and waste. 

Today we have a marketplace in the energy sector that is governed by rules that were rigged by the incumbents to reward the 

dirtiest, filthiest, most poisonous, most destructive, most addictive 

fuels from hell, rather than the cheap, clean, green, abundant, and 

wholesome and local fuels from heaven. We need to reverse that 

dynamic. We need a market system. 

You know, I have my home—I have geothermal in my home and 

I have two solar systems. My home, 24 hours a day, produces more 

energy than it uses. It is a power plant. I ought to be able to sell 

that back on the grid and get market rates for it. We need a grid 

system that will turn every American into an energy entrepreneur, 

every home into a power plant, power our country based upon 

American ingenuity, resourcefulness, human energy, what Franklin 

Roosevelt called American industrial genius, rather than Saudi 

Arabian oil. We can do that in our country. And let me give you 

two examples of when we have done this before. 

In 1979, the Federal Government created an alternate grid in 

this country that connected every American home to the Internet. 

A year after that, the CEO of IBM in 1980 said that personal computers were a dead-end technology. And there were a lot of other 

computer companies that we knew about back then that made that 

same bet, that are no longer around today or moved out of the computer business, companies like Honeywell and others. 

Now, today most of us have PCs, and the reason is we created 

a national marketplace that rewarded their use. And what happened to the cost of information, of bits and bytes? It plummeted 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
87 

to virtually zero. That is what is going to happen to electrons in 

this country as soon as we build a national grid for energy. 

In 1996, we created a national unified grid for telecommunications. Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act. He told all 

the baby bells, you have got to unify your lines. You can no longer 

restrict access to anybody. The lowest cost providers can prevail in 

the marketplace. And that triggered a telecommunications revolution in this country, and all of these little gadgets that we now 

have like I-phones are the offspring of that revolution. 

But what happened to the cost of telecommunications? Well, yesterday afternoon I was watching TV with my children. I saw an ad 

on TV by a company called Vonage, by a company that promises 

unlimited long distance overseas and local telephone calls for $19. 

Well, that is practically free. Two months ago, I made a call from 

Miami to London that cost $74. That is the old way. The new way 

is free telecommunications forever, because we created that national marketplace. 

As soon as we create a national marketplace for electrons, we 

build out that grid system so that every American can participate 

and sell and buy energy on the grid and have a rational marketplace with rational drivers, we are going to have essentially free 

energy forever in this country. 

Two weeks ago on Wednesday, one of my companies—I am on 

the board of the biggest green-tech venture capital firm in this 

country, Vantage Point. I also work as a special adviser to 

Starwood Energy, which is one of the largest players in transmission construction field and generation field. Two weeks ago we 

broke ground on one of the largest power plants ever built in this 

country, which is Bright Sources power plant, which you know 

well, because you helped get this done in the Mohave Desert. We 

are going to complete construction in 2 years. It is 2.7 gigawatts, 

and we have power purchase agreements with the two biggest utilities in California. A typical nuke plant, as you know, is about 1,000 

megawatts, so it is about 21⁄2 times the size of a nuke plant. Well, 

we are going to build it in 2 years. A nuke plant will take, who 

knows, 20 years to build. A coal plant and a nuke plant costs 15 

to $20 billion a gigawatt. This plant costs $3 billion a gigawatt. A 

coal plant takes 10 years to build and a coal plant costs 3 billion 

a gigawatt, the same as an oil plant, the same as ours. But once 

you build our plant, once Bright Source builds its plant, it is free 

energy forever because the photons are hitting the Earth every day 

for free. All we have to do is build the infrastructure to harvest 

them and put them in the lines; then it is free energy forever. 

Once you build that coal plant, now the big costs are just starting because you have got to go cut down the Appalachian mountains, ship them across the country in railcars, burn the coal, poison every fish in America with mercury, acidify the oceans, acidify 

the high peaks of the Appalachians, poison, kill 60,000 people a 

year, according to EPA’s Web site, from ozone and particulates, and 

all the other hidden costs of coal. 

Once you build an oil plant, now you have got to go to Saudi Arabia, punch holes in the ground, bring up the oil, refine it expensively, genuflect to the sheiks who despise democracy and are 

hated by their own people, get in periodic wars that cost $4.3 trilVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:11 Dec 29, 2010 Jkt 063005 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B005.XXX B005

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
88 

lion, according to OMB—that is what this one is going to cost over 

the next 20 years—bring it across the Atlantic, with a military export that Exxon doesn’t pay for, but you and I pay for, then spill 

it all over the Gulf, spill it all over Valdez, burn it, and poison everybody in America. So the big costs of oil occur after you build that $3 billion plant. 

Once you build that solar plant, it is free energy forever. 

Here is the math. We use 1,000 gigawatts a day of peak demand 

in our country; 500 of those are carbon-based. So to replace the 

500—wind is even cheaper than solar. So to replace those 500 

gigawatts, if we had the transmission system, it is going to cost 

about $1.5 trillion—that is less than the Iraq war—to give us a 

decarbonized economy that will bring us free energy forever. 

Let me just say one last thing. In 1929, just before the stock 

market crash, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 385. In 

1942, 13 years later, it was at 85. So the stimulus package we now 

call the New Deal put millions of Americans to work, left millions 

of Americans—kept them in their homes, kept millions of farmers 

in their farms, kept 1,000 banks from closing. But it did not—it 

was not robust enough to restore the American marketplace economy. 

Then, a year before Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt made his 

biggest stimulus package ever, which was the preparation for 

World War II. And he gave a famous radio speech, and my grandfather was a part of this because he was part of the shipbuilding 

industry that built more tonnage of ships than had ever been done 

in history. But Franklin Roosevelt said to this country, We are 

going to build 50,000 airplanes a year. His aides later admitted 

that just before the radio address, he had picked that number out 

of thin air. The year before, we had built 2,800 aircraft in this 

country; he said we are going to build 25,000 tanks a year, we are 

going to build a ship a day, we are going to build a battleship every 

3 months, an aircraft carrier every 6 months. We are going to do 

it until the war is over and won, and on and on. People laughed 

at him. He was ridiculed by editorials from the left and from the 

right. They said no industrial mobilization of this kind has ever 

happened in the history of the world. How are we going to do it 

here? He has overpromised, he has overcommitted. 

But Roosevelt went to Detroit and told the automakers, You are 

not building cars anymore. You are building tanks and aircraft and 

half tracks and amphibious vehicles and bombs and detonators. 

Within 6 weeks, they retooled their factories. Within 6 months, 

they had met his goals. Within 12 months, they had surpassed 

them. 

The following year we built 96,000 aircraft in this country. You 

had full employment; 160,000 women went to Detroit and found 

jobs where they had been black-balled before; 200,000 blacks went 

to Detroit and found jobs. And that full employment created aggregate demand for this country, which stimulated the marketplace 

and then made us the richest country on Earth, with half the 

wealth in the world, for the next 50 years. 

We have the opportunity to do that same thing now by transforming our country into a green-tech economy, to employ thousands of people, to build pylons across the country and string wires 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
89 

down the existing railroad tracks and right-of-ways to create a national grid system, and to build off the coast of New England, the 

Google grid that is being contemplated today, to employ thousands 

of people building solar thermal plants in the desert southwest, 

erecting wind turbines on every farm in the Midwest that wants 

them, to go—teams of tens of thousands to go into people’s homes 

to pressure-test the homes, to spray in cellulosic insulation. And, 

at the end of that we will have a system in place that gives our 

country free energy forever, and that will be the largest tax break 

in the history of the world. A permanent tax break. Because that 

is the biggest cost to American enterprise, the cost of our energy. 

And if we can eliminate that or reduce it significantly, we all of a 

sudden become the greatest competitor on the global marketplace. 

And that is the way we need to start thinking about this country. 

Instead of starting thinking about all the impediments to doing 

this and all the things that are going to go wrong, we need to start 

adopting a view of this country that has been the traditional view, 

which is an idealistic view, a hopeful view, a view that can allow 

our children to have a future that they can embrace, and us to be 

something that we can give them that we can be proud of. Thank 

you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
90 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 63005A.058
91 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 63005A.059
92 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 63005A.060
93 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 63005A.061
94 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 63005A.062
95 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 63005A.063
96 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 63005A.064
97 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 63005A.065
98 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 63005A.066
99 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you so much for that incredible statement 

that you made. In a lot of ways, we are going to be challenged, 

from the end of this hearing on, for 2 years to ensure that this vision of what our country can become remains in front of the American people. Because ultimately as you are saying, what we need 

to do is to inject Darwinian paranoia, inducing competition into the 

energy marketplace. 

We have to make sure that the energy giants, just as the telecommunications giants, feel the threat of smaller, more nimble, 

more cost-efficient ways of communicating or generating electricity, 

generating energy generally, to enter into this marketplace. 

And that is ultimately what the Waxman-Markey bill is intended 

to accomplish. It was modeled on the telecommunications laws of 

the 1990s. I happened to be the chairman of the committee that 

passed them, and it turned that into a different reality. And as you 

are saying, Wang Digital, and many other large companies that 

were household names no longer exist because they did not understand the change that was taking place. They did not have to go 

out of business, but they did not evolve. They did not see this future. 

I think that the attitude that the coal companies have, the attitude that the oil companies have, is that they can stop progress indefinitely. But I don’t believe they are right. I do believe there is 

a green generation out there in the same way that there was a suffragette movement that rose up to get the vote for women, and the 

same way that the young people went south to be part of the movement to bring the vote to disenfranchised African Americans in the 

South. There is a new green generation out here. And as each year 

goes by, they are going to be pressing for the change that has to 

take place, and I do think it is going to happen. 

So I am still an optimist, as I know you are. We know that this 

is inevitable. We know that this change has to take place. But it 

will take place, because technology always triumphs. 

And the question for America, from my perspective, is not whether or not technology is going to triumph, but whether America will 

be the country that is number one, looking over its shoulder at 

number two and three in the world. Or, are we just importing 

things that say ‘‘made in China,’’ ‘‘made in Germany, ‘‘made in 

India, ‘‘made in Brazil,’’ made in countries all over the word? 

But we decided, because of the oil and coal industry, that we are 

going to tie the hands of entrepreneurs, our venture capitalists, our 

young people, to be able to be the global leaders. That is the challenge. 

And what this hearing, this last hearing of the Select Committee 

on Energy Independence and Global Warming, needed ultimately 

was this kind of inspirational vision which you give us, Mr. Kennedy, of what the future can be, and will be, because we are going 

to make it our future. Each and every revolution has taken years 

to happen, but at the end of the day, I think truth does triumph. 

So if you can—and I would ask you to just relate to—a little bit 

about this vision that you laid out for us and what happened in the 

Gulf of Mexico this spring and summer in terms of the two alternative paths that our country can travel over the next generation. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
100 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the two are connected. And actually, what 

people need to understand is this is part of the cost of oil, the same 

way that the Gulf War is part of the cause of our addiction to oil. 

You know, and the Bush administration, the most recent Bush 

administration was kind of coy about this not being an oil war. The 

original Bush administration was not coy. They said—in fact, they 

had to explain to the American people why are we going to war to 

stop Iraq, one dictatorship, from invading Kuwait, another dictatorship? Why is that a concern of the American people? And he proffered at that time what he called the Bush Doctrine, which was 

that the United States had a right to intervene in the affairs, the 

sovereign affairs of other countries, to protect the vital interests of 

our oil lines. So that was the justification for that war. 

And the second Gulf War, which we are now still involved in, 

grew out of the failure of Saddam Hussein to obey the treaties from 

the first Gulf War. 

So clearly this is a cost of oil. But it is not the only cost of oil. 

And I said, you know, I will refer you again to Terry Tamminen’s 

book, ‘‘Lives Per Gallon,’’ where he—Terry Tamminen just stepped 

down as head of California EPA, and he scrupulously, meticulously 

inventories the vast raft of subsidies that we hand over to the oil 

industry every year. And they include crop damage, they include 

human health damage, the cost of all that. They include the direct 

Federal subsidies, like the oil depletion allowance, which is about 

$5 billion a year, but also all these indirect subsidies. And among 

those are the cost to our country of the Gulf oil spill. And it is hard 

to even calculate what that cost will be. 

We are finding now that—yesterday there was an announcement 

that seafood from the Gulf is in fact contaminated with dangerous 

levels of hydrocarbon. The government has tried to gloss over this 

fact by doing tests which are smell tests, you know, to try to smell 

hydrocarbons in the fish. Of course you can’t do that. And the consumers in the Gulf have been saying, Wait a minute. We want to 

know more than just the smell test. Well, now a number of groups 

have gone out, including NOAA, and done these tests and found 

out there are high levels of contamination in fish from all over the 

Gulf. So that is going to be part of the legacy of the oil industry 

to our country. 

Let me just talk about some of the subsidies of coal. The National Academy of Sciences in August of last year, and the National 

Research Council, both research arms of the Federal Government, 

completed a 10-year study where they found that every freshwater 

fish in the United States is now contaminated with mercury. Well, 

that is a cost of coal to our country. When coal says, Oh, we are 

only 11 cents a kilowatt hour, they are not telling you that every 

fish in our country is now contaminated with mercury. 

If you go to EPA’s Web site, there are two studies on there, one 

by the Harvard School of Public Health that says that ozone and 

particulate emissions from coal-burning power plants kill 60 million Americans every year. That is 20 times the number of people 

who were killed in the World Trade Center attacks, but not just 

once, year after year after year. And that is part of the cost of coal. 

A million asthma attacks, a million lost workdays. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
101 

Another more recent study on EPA’s Web site estimates the cost 

of ozones and particulates to the public health system in this country to be $156 billion a year. You have got people out there complaining about the cost of ObamaCare. Well, if you want to eliminate all the costs of national healthcare in this country, just get rid 

of ozone and particulates from coal-burning power plants. That is 

$156 billion a year. You have got acid rain. 

You know, I live 2 hours south of the Adirondacks. I take my 

kids fishing and camping and kayaking and swimming up there 

and recreating. The oldest protected wilderness on the face of the 

Earth has been protected forever as wild since 1988. One-fifth of 

the lakes in the Adirondacks is now sterilized from acid rain. That 

is the cost of coal, which has also destroyed the forest cover from 

the high peaks of the Appalachians, from Georgia to northern Quebec. 

If you fly over the Appalachians today, you will see a national 

disgrace. I flew over, not long ago, the Cumberland Plateau. We are 

literally cutting down the Appalachian Mountains. During the 

Bush administration, we flattened 1.4 million acres, an area larger 

than the State of Delaware. We have buried 2,000 miles of rivers 

and streams, according to EPA. We have cut down 500 of the largest mountains in West Virginia, these historic landscapes where 

Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett roamed. Well, these were all parts 

of the cost of coal that they don’t tell you about when they say it 

is only 11 cents a kilowatt hour. 

If you really added up the price of coal, you would find that it 

was the most catastrophically expensive method ever devised to 

boil a pot of water. And we can do it a lot cheaper with solar and 

wind, and we can keep our country healthy and we can keep it 

independent, and we can create a lot more jobs. 

Mr. MARKEY. So let’s move to solar and wind, if we could. Everybody knows that there is a Moore’s law for semiconductors, and it 

told us that today’s iPhones would be more powerful than the last 

generation’s supercomputers. But there is also a Moore’s law for 

solar photovoltaics as well. Every time deployment of solar 

photovoltaics doubles, the cost of solar falls by 18 percent. So you 

can see, going back to 1978 when it was $5 a kilowatt hour, as production globally doubled we are now down to maybe 23, 24 cents 

a kilowatt hour, but on this track to ultimately, by the year 2020, 

have it be competitive with coal, because the marketplace works. 

Over the last 2 years, the cost of solar has dropped by 50 percent, 5–0 percent, in 2 years, and the industry expects it to drop 

by another 50 percent over the next few years. So the markets play 

a huge role in this phenomenon, because Moore’s law is not an 

independent law of physics; but it rests on the role of markets, because without a vibrant market into which you sell integrated circuits, the shape of the performance curve would look very different. 

And so that is the same thing that is true for solar. It is the marketplace that creates the incentive for the physics to have the 

breakthroughs that then reduce the cost. 

Could you expand now a little bit on your own personal experience, using the companies that you work with or other observations 

that kind of reflect this reality in terms of what is happening out 

in the marketplace? 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
102 

Mr. KENNEDY. I mean, kind of the collateral accessory that I 

would add to that is that the country that creates the infrastructure for solar or for wind is going to own the technologies that the 

rest of the world wants to buy. 

And you look at Germany which now has the largest deployment—Germany has solar because it was one of the first ones to 

develop feed-in tariffs for solar. And Germany has the largest deployment in the world of solar, but it has less sunlight than Alaska. 

I just came back from China. And When you go into—I toured 

all the major solar photovoltaic plants in China, which is now a 

Chinese industry. The interesting thing was they are using American infrastructure in their factories. Their furnaces are made by 

GT Solar, which you and I talked about before, which is a New 

Hampshire union company. And they have dozens of them in every 

factory. Their fusion furnaces are made by Dispatch, which is a 

Minnesota company. And those are technologies that were developed at a time when they were encouraging solar through rational 

policies from the Federal Government. We had companies all over 

this country that were developing new ways of creating solar. And 

a lot of those are still viable, they are still the marketplace leaders. 

But in the last 8 years, you have seen Germany take over that. 

So about three-quarters of the infrastructure in these Chinese 

plants is German-made. And Germany is now losing its lead because the Chinese are so aggressively moving forward. The Chinese 

have committed, as you know, $738 billion. They are spending 

three times what we are right now. They are going to increase 

their wind deployment over the next 5 years by 20,000 percent. 

They are increasing their solar deployment by 1,200 percent. They 

see this as the arms race of the future. They know whoever controls this industry is going to be the winner on the world economic 

stage. And they are moving aggressively to do it, and we are sitting 

on our hands over here. 

But now a lot of that original technology, that innovation technology is being developed in China. All the major research labs are 

moving to China. They are going to own that technology. 

So what I am saying is the country that creates the infrastructure—when I was a little boy, I went to Europe with my father in 

the 1960s. Everybody wanted to own an American car because we 

made the best cars in the world. Everybody wanted an American 

car. They had contempt for their own cars and they all wanted an 

American car. Why is that? Because we built a national highway 

system. We built the infrastructure that made—you know, building 

cars and a marketplace for those cars right here at home, something that was advantageous for local industries. So we owned the 

automobile industry. We developed all of the modern innovations 

for the automobile industry here in this country. And we sold them 

later to the Japanese, et cetera, as they improved their infrastructure. 

But the countries that have the infrastructure—and what that 

means today when it comes to solar, when it comes to wind, it 

means the rational economic incentive system that encourages or 

incentivizes the quick adaptation, the rapid adaptation of wind and 

solar. Whoever has the best legal infrastructure and incentive and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
103 

marketplace infrastructures for quick adaptation is also going to be 

the nation that owns the technologies that they are going to be selling to the rest of the world, because that is part of the industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. So here is what I would ask then, Mr. Kennedy. 

Let us have you give us the last word for the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming. What is it that you 

want this committee, this Congress to know. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The Republicans now control Congress. A lot of 

them talk about free-market capitalism. And I have said for many 

years, the free market is something that will give us the advantage 

in these areas. But the marketplace is not a god. It is a tool. It is 

like a hammer. You wouldn’t worship a hammer. You would use it 

to build something that was good for your children. 

And what we have to do is build marketplace incentives that create competition and create that ferment and incentivize. The market is an economic engine, but it has to be harnessed to a social 

purpose. And the social purpose in this case would be what do we 

want as a country. We want energy independence. We want national security. We want economic independence and we want prosperity. How do we do that? We create it by creating rational market incentives that encourage people to invest in solar and wind, 

which is economic independence, which is going to create local jobs, 

which is going to use local resources, rather than having to get our 

resources from the Gulf. So I would say that would be the best future for our country, to live up to the values that we have espoused 

since the beginning of our history. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. And thank you for 

your eloquence and thank you for your continued commitment to 

raising the profile of this issue so that Congress, the States, individuals, take the action which we need. The politics may have 

changed, but the problems have not changed. We have to continue 

to work to make sure that we solve the problems that you have 

brought before our committee. 

Since this select committee was created 4 years ago, we have imported $1.3 trillion of oil into our country. It represents about half 

of America’s trade deficit and it goes largely to countries that are 

not our friends. The Chinese have announced that they are going 

to spend $750 billion over the next 10 years on solar and wind and 

developing that as an economic engine of growth. 

In the 1960s, we had the space race. Now we have a jobs race. 

Who will, which country will control these jobs, this manufacturing 

sector? The United States cannot sit on the sidelines. The price of 

a gallon of gas is going back up to $4 a gallon. It is inevitable. And 

when that happens, consumers in America are going to turn to 

Congress once again and say, What were you people doing? Why 

didn’t you put something in place that can break our dependence 

on OPEC’s ability to tip us upside down at the gas pump and make 

us pay this $4 or $5 again? 

And ultimately, it will be the green generation that is following 

on this generation of politicians, and they are going to ask the 

question, Why didn’t you protect this one planet that we have? 

Why didn’t you understand the interrelationship, the 

interconnectivity of all people on the planet? 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
104 

That is what this select committee has tried to do over the last 

4 years, to raise these issues, to show how they are all interconnected, how it all goes to our national security, our economic security, our environmental security and how ultimately it is a moral 

issue. God created this planet. Our responsibility is to pass it on 

better than we found it. Maybe just a small bit better, but better 

than we found it be. 

And right now, the baby boomers, this generation of political 

leaders, has failed. They have failed all subsequent generations. So 

we cannot stop. We have a responsibility to stand up to, to fight 

these interests that want to keep us addicted to fuels which harm 

our environment, harm our national security, and harm our ability 

to create a new generation of jobs for American workers. 

That is my personal commitment. That is what I am going to be 

doing for the rest of my career here in Congress and for the rest 

of my life. And I am going to join with you, Mr. Kennedy, and millions of others out there who are committed to this same cause. 

I thank you for your great service to our country and I thank all 

of you who have helped us over the last 4 years to create this incredible record, led by Speaker Pelosi who made this her flagship 

issue 4 years ago. And 35 miles per gallon as an average fuel economy was considered to be impossible in January of 2007. Now people realize that it might be the best thing that can happen economically for General Motors or Nissan or all of these companies 

that are in this electric car revolution. 

The same thing is going to happen in every area of American economic competitiveness once we get the right market-based incentives on the book. I thank everybody for everything they have done 

to help us, the staff especially, over the last 4 years. With that, this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
105 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 63005A.067
106 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 63005A.068
107 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 63005A.069
108 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 63005A.070
109 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 63005A.071
110 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 63005A.072
111 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 63005A.073
112 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 63005A.074
113 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 63005A.075
114 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 63005A.076
115 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 63005A.077
116 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 63005A.078
117 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 63005A.079
118 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 63005A.080
119 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 63005A.081
120 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 63005A.082
121 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 63005A.083
122 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 63005A.084
123 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 63005A.085
124 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 63005A.086
125 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 63005A.087
126 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 63005A.088
127 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 63005A.089
128 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 63005A.090
129 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 63005A.091
130 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 63005A.092
131 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 63005A.093
132 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 63005A.094
133 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 63005A.095
134 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 63005A.096
135 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 63005A.097
136 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 63005A.098
137 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 63005A.099
138 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 63005A.100
139 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 63005A.101
140 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 63005A.102
141 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 63005A.103
142 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 63005A.104
143 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 63005A.105
144 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 63005A.106
145 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 63005A.107
146 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 63005A.108
147 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 63005A.109
148 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 63005A.110
149 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 63005A.111
150 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 63005A.112
151 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 63005A.113
152 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 63005A.114
153 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 63005A.115
154 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 63005A.116
155 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 63005A.117
156 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206/250 here 63005A.118