CLEAN AIR ACT OVERSIGHT ISSUES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room 628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Robert C. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding.

SCIENCE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Present: Senators Smith, Voinovich, Wyden, Chafee, Corzine, Reid, Clinton, Inhofe, Warner, Specter, and Lieberman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SMITH. The hearing will come to order.

Senator Voinovich is going to be chairing the hearing. He will be here shortly, but I thought since the time has gone past 9:30 that I would begin.

Also, I would indicate that I have to leave. I will be in and out of here during the hearing. I apologize for that to the witnesses and to my colleagues.

Just a brief statement before I recognize Senator Wyden: Local climate change is an issue that has generated a lot of discussion across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, I think from my perspective a lot of that discussion has been driven more by politics. When President Bush recently confirmed what everyone in the room already knew, that the Kyoto Protocol was dead, he was loudly jeered. While there are those who will continue to demand the Administration reverse itself, the reality is that if we, the Senate, were to vote on Kyoto today, it would be turned down by a pretty strong bipartisan vote, I believe. I think that was shown in 1997 with a vote of 95 to 0, that this body would not support the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto may be a lightning rod, but the treaty itself is flawed and I think a false issue. To continue to push forward on this failed treaty is to invite continual bipartisan bickering and, ultimately, in my view delay a productive discussion on climate change.

I applaud the President for taking Kyoto off the table. I know that will invite some controversy, but efforts to paint the President's position as extreme or reckless are not warranted. I think we have proven that again with the bipartisan vote here. The purpose for such charges must be looked at.

I suggest that what we need is not more attacks, but instead let's get beyond Kyoto and focus on collective efforts of a more serious examination of this issue. Our challenge is to look at the issue based on a hard examination of what we know, what we do not know, and what we must do in the name of prudence.

Not to steal the thunder of any witnesses who may be coming here today, but I would like to briefly just boil down the state of the science that I believe is necessary for policymakers to understand.

First, what do we know for certain? Well, I think we know three things. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing. Human activities are responsible for a significant portion of that increase, No. 2, and at some point the increased concentrations will cause serious changes in the chemistry of our planet. I think those are facts that are pretty much not disputable.

What don't we know? Pretty much everything else about climate change. All the projections about sea level rises, temperature increases, the future rate of concentration increase, and the cost of emission reductions, all of those things are speculation. They are derived from models or assumptions and predictions, and the uncertainty in the results of this work is tremendous.

So how do we craft policy with that kind of uncertainty? Well, I guess I would have to say cautiously, very cautiously. Many of those who have supported the Kyoto Protocol have argued that, because emissions related to human activities have the potential to lead to adverse climate changes over the course of this new century, we must err on the side of caution by dramatically reducing industrial emissions of CO2.

To that I say, caution is a good thing, but only when appropriately applied. We should apply the precautionary principle not only to the examination of possible harm from emissions, but also to the possible harm to the economy from overly aggressive emission curves. An appropriate policy should recognize both the economic and the environmental hazards of too little or too much action regarding climate change. How far away is Armageddon, if there is an Armageddon? Is it tomorrow? Is it a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now? We don't know the answer to that question.

If we are too aggressive, we could damage our economy and cripple our ability to address this issue and other environmental matters. If we are too timid, we could invite the environmental peril that could cause economic ruin in parts of the nation.

I believe all of us would like to make a policy decision based on more complete information. We should aggressively seek necessary information, so that we may make intelligent decisions. But also we know that we are not going to have all the information we would like to have. It is not exact science. The steps we eventually do take to address environmental concerns should be consistent with sound economic and energy policies as well.

I want to say, many companies and I've talked to many of them are pursuing this type of activity today. Hundreds of American companies are investing in energy efficiencies that make good short-term economic sense and at the same time avoid emissions in significant quantities.

For example, to boast a little bit about New Hampshire, more than 73 companies and public entities are committed to using energy efficient heating, cooling, and lighting fixtures in more than 22 million square feet of office space. This will result in a reduction of 2.5 billion pounds of CO2, an annual energy savings of $10 million. That is just New Hampshire.

It is not just New Hampshire. Similar efforts in Ohio-the chairman knows where that is [laughter]—will result in the elimination of 45 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually. Investments in energy efficient technologies in Oklahoma have prevented the release of 3.8 billion pounds of CO2. You don't hear too much about these things from some of the critics.

Chevron has invested billions to reduce gas from flaring. Just a single project currently in the planning phase will reduce greenhouse emissions by 100 million metric tons over the 20-year life of the project. This is only one idea that Chevron is working on.

CMS Energy is also working on similar efforts that will result in the reduction of nearly 3 million metric tons of carbon per year. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the written testimony be inserted into the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Global climate change is an issue that has generated a great deal of excitement across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, much of that excitement has been driven by politics. For example, when President Bush recently confirmed what everyone in this room already knew-that the Kyoto Protocol was dead-he was loudly jeered. While there are those who will continue to demand the Administration reverse itself, the reality is that if we, the Senate, were to vote on Kyoto today, it would certainly be defeated by a strong bipartisan vote.

We made it very clear by an overwhelming 1997 vote of 95-0, that this body would not support the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto may be a political lighting rod, but the treaty itself is a false issue. To continue to push forward on this failed treaty is to invite continual partisan bickering and ultimately delay a productive discussion on Climate Change.

I, for one, applaud the President for taking Kyoto off of the table.

Efforts to paint the President's position as extreme or reckless are not warranted, and the purpose for such charges must be closely examined. I strongly suggest that what we need is not more attacks but, instead, to get beyond Kyoto and focus our collective efforts on a more serious examination of the issue.

Our challenge is to look at the issue based on a hard examination of what we know, what we do not know, and what we must do in the name of prudence.

Not to steal the thunder of any of our excellent witnesses today, but let me attempt to boil down the state of the science that I believe is necessary for policymakers to understand.

First, what do we know for certain? Just three things:

1. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are increasing.

2. Human activities are responsible for a significant portion of that increase.

3. Like a high school chemistry experiment, at some point the increased concentrations will cause serious changes in the chemistry of our planet.

What don't we know? Pretty much everything else about climate change. All of the projections about sea level rises, temperature increases, the future rate of concentration increase and the cost of emission reductions are speculation; they are derived from models based on assumptions and predictions. The uncertainty in the results of this work is tremendous.

So, how do we craft policy from that much uncertainty? Cautiously. Very cautiously. Many of those who have supported the Kyoto Protocol have argued that because emissions related to human activities have the potential to lead to adverse climate changes over the course of this new century, then we must err to the side

of caution by dramatically reducing industrial emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

To that I say, caution is a good thing, but only when appropriately applied. We should apply the precautionary principle not only to the examination of possible harm from emissions, but also to the possible harm to the economy from overly aggressive emission curbs. An appropriate policy should recognize both the economic and environmental hazards of too little or too much action regarding climate change. If we are too aggressive we could damage our economy and cripple our ability to address this and other pending environmental matters. If we are too timid we could invite environmental peril, that could cause economic ruin in parts of the nation.

I believe all of us would like to make a policy decision based on more complete information. We should aggressively seek necessary information so that we may make an intelligent decision, and the steps that we eventually do take to address environmental concerns should be consistent with sound economic and energy poli

cies.

The steps that we consider today should be based on sound science-to buy time. Many companies are pursuing this type of activity today. Hundreds of American companies are investing in energy efficiencies that make good short-term economic sense, and at the same time avoid emissions in significant quantities.

For example in New Hampshire: More than 73 companies and public entities are committed to using energy efficient heating, cooling, and lighting fixtures in more than 22 million square feet of office space. This will result in a reduction of 2.5 billion pounds of CO2—an annual energy saving of $10 million. Similar efforts in Ohio will result in the elimination of 45 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually. Investments in energy efficient technologies in Oklahoma have prevented the release of 3.8 billion pounds of CO2.

Chevron has invested billions in efforts to reduce gas flaring. In just a single project, currently in the planning phase, will reduce greenhouse emissions by 100 million metric tons over the 20 year life of the project. This is only one of many ideas Chevron is working on.

CMS Energy is also working on similar efforts that will result in a reduction of nearly 3 million metric tons of Carbon per year.

This is the direction our policy should lead. These are actions that make good economic sense, and may even lead to the development of technologies that all the world will buy from us in the future in order to address their own emissions. At the same time, we can begin to make slow our rate of emissions to buy more time for us to understand the problem we face.

One thing is for certain we all care about our children and future generations. We owe it to future generation to leave them a healthy environment and a solid strong economy. The choices we make today will determine that future.

Senator SMITH. This is the direction that our policy should lead. What happens when we export that technology to those nations, to get them to buy it, to those nations who now are saying they either can't or won't adhere to any treaty, Kyoto or otherwise? These are actions that make good economic sense and may even lead to the development of further technologies that the world will be buying from us. At the same time we begin to make slow our rate of emissions, buy more time for us to understand the problem we face.

One thing for certain: I hope we can all agree that we all care about our children and we care about the future. We owe it to the future, all of our children and grandchildren, to leave them a healthy environment and a solid, strong economy. The choices we make today will determine that future. I believe that if we look at the science we know, try to find out the science we don't know, take the technology that we have and export it around the world, and use it here effectively in the United States, we will reduce the emissions, Mr. Chairman, that we are concerned about, including carbon, and we will do it in a way that will enhance our environment and enhance our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will turn the gavel over to you.