Page images
PDF
EPUB

partnerships where we start to very aggressively look at those types of things because down the road, you know, we are sitting on hundreds of years of coal right here in this country.

U.S. LEAD IN ENERGY-EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. DOYLE. As someone who is from western Pennsylvania, I am not about to say, you know, we just should not use that resource anymore. I want to see us start developing aggressively some responses to that. I want to ask the Department of Energy, right now as we speak, does the United States have a competitive advantage over Japan and the European Union in energy efficiency and renewable technologies, and what are we spending relative to what countries like Japan and others are spending on these types of technologies?

Mr. ROMM. If I could answer that question, I think it is widely viewed that the United States is the leader or a leader in most relevant energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies. This is based on longstanding funding. But it must be said that in 1980, we were the undisputed leader, and we outspent the rest of the world combined in energy R&D by a factor of two or more, and today, unfortunately, the rest of the world combined outspends us by a factor of two, so I could not agree more with you that, indeed, the rest of the world is nipping at our heels in key industries like photovoltaics and wind, fuel cells. As I say, we remain the leader, but you can definitely name those major companies in Germany and Japan who are close or in some instances a little bit ahead or a little bit behind.

So it is certainly our view that we are going to capture a lot of these markets, but, again, are going to have to redouble our efforts.

CAPTURING CO2

Mr. DOYLE. It just seems to me that if we talk about engaging in a policy that could actually create some economic prosperity for this country, and I am talking down the road, it could be with some of the technologies that we could develop to help some of these developing countries to capture their CO2 emissions, but to put this country in a situation and other industrial countries, to bind us to limits that we are not binding developing countries to, just makes absolutely no sense to me, and I really think we need to rethink our position going into Kyoto along the lines of the Berlin Mandate. Mr. Chupka, maybe you could also make some additional responses in that regard.

Mr. CHUPKA. Yes. I would like to actually get back to your initial point, Congressman. You observed that we should be taking some steps now to increase our funding and understanding of potential CO2 capture and sequestration kinds of technologies, and, in fact, the Department of Energy Policy Office sponsored a workshop in July that actually took a very hard look at some of the emerging and, frankly, off-the-shelf technologies that exist today for just that purpose.

Some of these things are undoubtedly far in the future, but I could not agree with you more that we need to pay more attention to potential options that would allow us to burn coal, oil, and natural gas without, in fact, emitting CO2. It is technically feasible, the

economics do need to be better understood, but we believe that there is sufficient promise in this area of research, that we would propose, I hope, in subsequent budgets to expand that. The workshop was very successful. It brought to light some very interesting technological opportunities, and I think you are right on this. We can probably explore some of these things and get going on the research.

Mr. DOYLE. Doctor?

TREATY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. DECANIO. Representative Doyle and Representative Ehlers, I would like to just comment on one theme that both of you have touched on, and that is the unfairness of having the United States be committed to certain reduction targets and developing countries not be. And it actually relates to the questions on research and development of new technologies.

You will recall that when the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, China and India did not sign the Protocol. They were absent from the initial list of signatories. They only joined when they saw that the other countries, the industrialized countries of Europe, Japan, and the United States, had taken the initial steps and were successful in reducing their dependence on CFCs. Once that had been demonstrated by action, then China and India joined and are now full participants in the treaty, which everyone recognizes is one of the successes of global environmental protection.

I think the same kind of dynamic would apply in the case of the Kyoto agreement. If and when the industrialized countries begin to demonstrate that it is possible to move on this path of greater efficiency in research and development of new technologies, then through participation in the process, all of the countries will eventually join. It certainly is true that everyone has to cooperate to solve the global problem. The question is where the leadership comes from, and like it or not, the United States is the leader. We are technologically, economically, and politically the leader of the world, and we have to step up and take that responsibility. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Buckner.

Mr. BUCKNER. Yes. I believe that the analogy to the Montreal Protocol is a little bit misplaced. It was a much more concentrated problem. You were dealing with chemicals that were made by a handful of companies around the world who also had the capability of producing the alternatives, and whatever employment dislocation that occurred as a result of retooling those plants was temporary in nature.

So I think it is a mistake to point to the Montreal Protocol as somehow a model of what is going to happen here because, again, it is a handful of companies versus every human activity that takes place on the planet; and, Congressman, I just want to commend you for the statements that you made. It is a serious, fundamental negotiating error that we made in Berlin in 1995 by excluding half of the world's future emissions. We think it is fundamentally unfair to ask American workers and consumers to sacrifice for a treaty that admittedly is going to have a negligible effect.

If we are going to be serious about addressing climate change, if you believe that the science is compelling and that it drives us to

ward the conclusion that we need to do this, then everyone has to be involved, and we should not kid ourselves that we are going to do this at no cost.

It is a very serious undertaking that we are talking about. The President of the Friends of the Earth was quoted in The Washington Post a couple of weeks ago as saying that this involves the "entire structure of modern industrial society," and I do not think you can adjust the entire structure of modern industrial society at little or no cost. This is going to be a significant undertaking. But clearly, without the participation of the rest of the world, we are asking American workers and consumers to sacrifice, and we are going to be asking American companies to relocate elsewhere. Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

CHINA

Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. I have a couple of comments. Mr. Rohrabacher will be back shortly.

The United States is the leader. I think everyone here agrees that we have probably done more in the last 20 years or so to clean up our act than probably most of the world, though we are still the largest energy user and we have a long ways to go.

I was in China last December, and one of the things that hit me when I was there in Beijing was the number of coal-powered plants everywhere. They do not build power plants as we do, in centralization to distribute power more efficiently and so forth. They have a power plant, it seems, for every factory and every village and every use all around. You see smokestacks virtually like trees because there are no trees left; they are everywhere.

And one thing that does strike you, they do not even use the simplest technologies that we developed in this country in the 1960's— bag-house technology and other technology-and I asked about it, and they just did not want to spend the money to do it, it seemed to them there was no reason to do it, and that they had to keep their costs of production down. And here we are today talking about excluding China.

Based upon the chart that Mr. Doyle pointed out earlier, China will exceed the United States in coal use, or CO2 output, I should say, based primarily on their use of coal, when they can cut back a lot of that CO2, Mr. Doyle also pointed out, for relatively less money if they just put in simple technology. Any comment on that, why should we exclude China from cleaning up their act a little bit if we are going to start imposing things upon ourselves, anyone?

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. CHUPKA. Yes. I will comment on that. One of the important proposals that the United States has made, and continues to advocate for under the Berlin Mandate, is joint implementation, and under a joint implementation scheme, it is envisioned that if we were subject to limitations in this country and there were cheap opportunities in other countries, that some of the investments that we would otherwise have to make here could be made in those countries.

There are some estimates that suggest that emission reductions could be had on the order of $5, $10, $15 a ton in developing coun

tries, and if we can avail ourselves of some of those opportunities, we would be able to, in some respects, lower our own costs and allow a certain amount of emissions growth to occur in this country but garner the emission reductions elsewhere.

Chairman CALVERT. Are you saying we should help China become more competitive in their energy efficiency?

Mr. CHUPKA. Well, these investments can take a variety of shapes and forms. Right now, our current experience in joint implementation is mostly in forest planning across the globe, where U.S. companies have planted forests or prevented deforestation as a way to offset some of their emissions under the pilot program.

CHINA

Chairman CALVERT. The government folks that I have talked to in China, they did not seem to be very interested in putting in a technology, even a very inexpensive technology, and really not so much to cut down on CO2 output; if they would just do it to help the environment within the community, just on coal dust, because of the amount of coal dust which is around in those high production areas. Why do you think that they would agree, if they are not going to be a signatory to this agreement, to cut back on CO2 output?

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. CHUPKA. Well, let me make two points on that. First of all, the joint implementation is, in fact, a voluntary mechanism. In other words, if a company in the United States wanted to reduce its emissions but found it was expensive to do so here and found a relatively cheap opportunity elsewhere, they would, in some respects, try to contract directly for that, and it could be to the benefit of a Chinese firm or some forest planting somewhere else.

NUCLEAR POWER

Chairman CALVERT. I want to go back to on voluntary, obviously we have not been able to cut back, the argument is, on CO2 output here in the United States, where Europe has. Now, Europe, would it be the impression of this panel that the reason why Europe has cut back on its CO2 output is because of its reliance on nuclear power, especially France? Mr. Montgomery?

CO2 REDUCTION IN EUROPE

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I think that nuclear industry is certainly very important in Europe in limiting its use of fossil fuel per dollar of GDP, and it has been for a long time; but I think Europe has also had two other events that were entirely unrelated to climate policy. One is the unification of East and West Germany and essentially shutting down the East German economy and its very energy-inefficient, coal-fired power plants and industries. The other is the United Kingdom in its decision long before climate change was an issue and, again, for entirely different political reasons, its decision to, again, close down its coal industry and shift to natural gas.

Those are the two countries that are making Europe appear to be doing a good job on meeting its emission goals, but they are entirely unrelated to climate policy and two very different events,

both of which involved basically getting rid of coal in large parts of the European economy.

Chairman CALVERT. Any other comment?

Mr. BUCKNER. Yes. I would agree with Dr. Montgomery that the reason the Europeans are proposing a much more aggressive stance than what we believe is plausible is because of the reunification of Germany and Great Britain. But if you look at the cost to the workers in those communities, in Eastern Europe you have got unemployment rates of 18, 19 percent, and we have talked to our colleagues in the Trade Union Congress in Great Britain, and they tell us that the real unemployment rates in the coal-mining communities are approaching 40 percent.

Now, obviously that leads to huge social problems and long-term generational economic problems that the workers in those communities and their children are going to have to live with for a long, long time.

CHINA

Mr. BUCKNER. Mr. Chairman, to comment on your question about China and Secretary Chupka's reference to joint implementation, we should understand that there has been no agreement by China and the G-7 nations that they are going to accept a carbonpermit trading program or joint implementation in their countries. China has been adamant in the negotiations, saying that if we want to do this trading among the Annex I countries that are legally bound to this treaty, that is fine; but do not come to China and expect to get any credits for what you have done here.

They are willing to take our money and our technology, but they are resisting what Secretary Chupka is indicating in terms of joint implementation and trading. They are saying, do not come to China and expect the United States to get any credit for it.

Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher has not had an opportunity to ask a round of questions, so Mr. Rohrabacher.

POLITICS OF GLOBAL WARMING

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your understanding that I am running back and forth between a markup in another Committee and for giving me this opportunity.

First of all, let me state unequivocally that the discussion of global warming in this country has been skewed. From the very beginning this Administration has let people go from positions of high authority if they disagreed with global warming. Scientists who want government grants understand they had better not say anything that gives any indication that they oppose his cockamamie theory, and I believe that the American people are unaware that this country is being rushed into an agreement based on science that is very questionable, because all you hear about is you cannot question it. And this treaty that we are being rushed into could dramatically_and drastically affect the standard of living of our people, and I have never seen anything like this in the 10 years that I have been a Congressman, but we can see where it has been building.

We called it being politically incorrect. I mean, this is what politically incorrect is all about. No one in the scientific community

« PreviousContinue »