Page Appendix 1–Continued Potential Climate Change Benefits of DOE Energy Efficiency and Renew. able Energy Programs: Report to the National Renewable Energy Lab. 229 Our Changing Planet: The U.Ś. Global Change Research Program-FY 2000 Implementation Plan and Budget_Overview, Subcommittee on 236 TL 17 Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the 21st Century, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology 339 612 American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) Position Statement on Technology Issues Relating to Global Climate Change Policy, March 680 Technology Implications for the U.S. of the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emis. sion Goals, The Global Climate Change Task Force of The Council 682 Appendix 2: Additional Materials for the Record 696 Charter for Hearing on Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Author. ization Request, April 14, 1999 697 Annual Energy Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, DOE/ EIA-0383(99) (Washington, DC, December 1998) 723 International Energy Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, DOEEIA-0484(99) (Washington, DC, March 1999) 963 What Does the Kyoto Protocol Mean to U.S. Energy Markets and the U.S. Economy?: A Briefing Paper on the Energy Information Adminis- 1187 Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, Energy Information Administration, SRIOLAF/98-03, (Wash- 1210 ......... mociation of Engineering Societies (AAES) Position Statement pgy Issues Relating to Global Climate Change Policy, March 630 aplications for the U.S. of the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emis The Global Climate Change Task Force of The Council ring and Council on Public Affairs, American Society of Engineers, December 1998 onal Materials for the Record 696 aring on Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Author est, April 14, 1999 8097 Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, DOE 723 (Washington, DC, December 1998). mergy Outlook 1999, Energy Information Administration, 983 4(99) (Washington, DC, March 1999) Kyoto Protocol Mean to U.S. Energy Markets and the 7: A Briefing Paper on the Energy Information Adminisvsis and Report Prepared for the Committee on Science , Representatives, Energy Information Administration, SR ontinued 229 ing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program-WY ilementation Plan and Budget Overview, Subcommittee on ange Research, Committee on Environment and Natural Reational Science and Technology Council, March 1999 236 FISCAL YEAR 2000 CLIMATE CHANGE BUDG rgy Research and Development for the Challenges of the 218 AUTHORIZATION REQUEST resident's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology 339 November 1997 lobal Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the 612 2, National Research Council, May 1998 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, D The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Cal (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Chairman CALVERT (presiding). The hearing will come to on Before we have our regular order of business and my ope statement and the gentleman from Illinois' opening statemer would like to recognize the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. senbrenner, for some remarks. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. CH man. Let me say that I think the Administration's elaborately tu lobbying for their Global Warming Treaty that will end up sel out American consumers and American jobs is beginning to ravel. We've heard time and time again of all of the prophet doom and gloom, that the planet is about ready to be fried. yet, in October 1998, Dr. James Hanson, who is the same NE scientist who brought forth claims that global warming would bcatastrophic temperature increases declared in the Journal of National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperat with climate models is all but impossible with today's science. S cifically, he said that, “The forcings that drive long-term clim change are not known with an accuracy significant to define fut climate change." Now here is NASA's chief scientist who has gone back on vious statements relative to the effects of global climate cha that the Kyoto Protocol is supposed to do away with, with a ma wand. Finally, I want to briefly address one other issue relative to day's hearing that I find troubling and that is the lack of tim access to the information and schedules from the United Nati Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which also used extensively by supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. I raised the IPCC issue with Dr. Lane, whom I am glad to here today, in early January. And last week, he responded that had forwarded this concern to the Chairman of the IPCC and ur him to take better advantage of the Internet to make IPCC do ments and information more easily accessible and available. It to (1) Washington, DC, October 1998) 1187 Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Boonomic Information Administration, SROOIAF/98-03, (Washober 1998) 1210 almost 3 months to get that response, which really is nothing but an urging. I would simply note that it has been 3 months since I raised the issue, and the Chairman of the IPCC has taken no action. I don't know why they want to play "I've got a secret," but this is unacceptable and raises a number of questions about the objectivity of the entire IPCC process, a process that I expect the Subcommittee will examine in detail at a future hearing. And I thank the gentleman from California for giving me this time to make these few constructive words to start this hearing out. Chairman CALVERT. I thank the Chairman. Today, the Subcommittee will consider the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for climate change. The Administration is asking for more than $4.14 billion for a variety of spending as well as tax incentive and grant programs across several federal departments and agencies. This includes: $200 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Partnership Fund; nearly $1.4 billion for Climate Change Technology Initiative spending programs, mostly funded by the Department of Energy and EPA, almost $400 million for ČCTI tax incentives; $400 million in other DOE-funded climate-related programs, including coal and natural gas R&D and weatherization and state energy grants; and, lastly, $1.8 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Last year, the Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, but has yet to submit it to the United States Senate for ratification. In the meantime, the Congress has forbidden the use of any funds that implement the protocol. Today, I want to examine whether or not any of these funds are intended to pursue activities, either explicitly or implicitly, prohibited by the United States Congress. Gentlemen, as much as I enjoy your company, I am sad to say that I cannot find anything in this budget proposal that is much different from the request that Congress, in large part, rejected last year—with the exception being the U.S. Global Change Research Program. However, the size and scope of this request still concerns meas do the statements presented by DOE and EPA, which were not only late in being submitted, but also devote nearly as much space to attacking the Energy Information Administration as they do in justifying their own budgets. Since the Administration is barred from implementing or preparing for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified, how can these funds be spent without violating the will of Congress? What goals are to be achieved? And is this proposal anything but a backdoor attempt to implement Kyoto? I also think it is important to consider what other countries are spending on climate change. Last Friday, Vice President Gore announced that the Administration was giving $100 million to the People's Republic of China to allow them to buy U.S.-made environmental technologies. How much of this $100 million is going to be funded by the Administration's climate change budget proposal? And how much is the Chinese government willing to spend on their own? Perhaps China could redirect some of its own funds currently used for spying in the United States to reducing its own carbon emissions. H to get that response, which really is nothing but why they want to play "I've got a secret," but examine in detail at a future hearing. ERT. I thank the Chairman. than $4.14 billion for a variety of spending as Finally, I note that some of the programs within the change budget are voluntary. Programs such as Energy Sta Green Lights have reduced energy consumption and emissi the United States. However, I question whether coordinat these voluntary programs-which subsidize rich private firms-is really a proper role for the Federal Government, cially when they could be doing these things without ta funds, and whether this money could be better spent elsew like protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. The witnesses before us are Dr. Neal F. Lane, Assistant President for Science and Technology and Director of the Of Science and Technology Policy; the Honorable Dan W. Re DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy and Efficiency and Rene Energy; the Honorable David M. Gardiner, EPA Assistant Adı trator for Policy; and Dr. Jay E. Hakes, Administrator for DO ergy Information Administration. Gentlemen, I look forward to hearing today's testimony and suing these subjects in greater detail. But before I get started, once again, I would like to remin members of this Subcommittee and our witnesses, that this he is being broadcast live on the Internet, so, please, keep th mind during today's proceedings. Finally, I would ask unanimous consent that all members wish have their opening statements entered into the record, without objection, so ordered. With that, I would like to ask my good friend, the ranking di guished Minority Member, Mr. Costello, for his opening rema Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to t you for calling this hearing today, reviewing the energy rese and technology programs included in the Administration's Cli Change Technology Initiative. I would note that, although the classification of these progr changes over time we are now referring to them as "clin change” programs the goals of these programs have remained same: to improve energy efficiency and expand energy supplies. Energy continues to play a critical role in our economy and ways will . Consequently, I suspect we will be in the busines seeking improvements in energy efficiency and expansion of en supplies for the foreseeable future. The dimension of this issue has changed is the fact that we now have an environmental cern that we must deal with. We now consider the environmental impacts of energy ex ration, extraction, transportation, and use more carefully and f than in the past, and this consideration has presented us with nificant challenges. We are unlikely to meet these challenges w out prudent investments in research and technology progra These programs help us to better understand the true nature scope of environmental impacts of energy use and help us to des cost-effective technologies to mitigate them-technologies the of the world will be interested in buying for their use in the futu The coal industry is an important industry in my district southwestern and southern Illinois. My district has lost coal m ing jobs and has seen diminished coal production as the coal-fi utilities in the Midwest states have shifted to the use of low-sul col. Today, I want to examine whether or not re intended to pursue activities, either explichibited by the United States Congress. ch as I enjoy your company, I am sad to say nything in this budget proposal that is much uest that Congress, in large part, rejected last tion being the U.S. Global Change Research ne size and scope of this request still concerns ents presented by DOE and EPA, which were submitted, but also devote nearly as much Energy Information Administration as they wn budgets. ration is barred from implementing or prenentation of the Kyoto Protocol before it is funds be spent without violating the will of are to be achieved? And is this proposal any. tempt to implement Kyoto? ortant to consider what other countries are ange. Last Friday, Vice President Gore aninistration was giving $100 million to the ina to allow them to buy U.S.-made environw much of this $100 million is going to be tration's climate change budget proposal? hinese government willing to spend on their uld redirect some of its own funds currently United States to reducing its own carbon coal, western coal, in an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act. Given the recent history, the coal industry's opposition to a pursuit of policies to reduce carbon emissions in understandable. I believe that the debate about pursuing policies to reduce carbon emissions has a focus that is too narrow and too simplistic. This is not a question of whether we will use coal or not. We have abundant domestic coal reserves, as do the Chinese and other nations. We are going to use coal, as are other nations; the question is, how will we burn it inefficiently or efficiently, with high emissions of pollutants or low emissions? I think we should be concentrating our efforts in developing and deploying technologies that enable our Nation and others to utilize this important energy resource as efficiently and cleanly as possible. The same is true for petroleum. I am pleased to have this opportunity to hear about the broad range of programs in the Administration's budget designed to promote cleaner, more efficient energy use. I hope the Committee will evaluate these programs with respect to their potential contribution to multiple national goals of energy security and maintenance of a robust economy and a healthy environment, rather than just from a narrow perspective of carbon emission reduction. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you calling the hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Chairman CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Gentlemen, it is our policy to swear in all witnesses. If you will all rise. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Dr. LANE. I do. Mr. REICHER. I do. Mr. GARDINER. I do. Dr. HAKES. I do. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. You may be seated. Without objection, the full written testimony of all the witnesses will be entered in the record. However, I would ask all of you to please summarize your remarks in 5 minutes so we will have time for questions and answers. So, without any further delay, Dr. Lane, you may begin. DENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR, OF- Dr. LANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, other members of the Committee; I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Administration's science and technology programs that are relevant to the understanding and mitigation of climate change. I request that my full statement be included in the record, along |
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |