« PreviousContinue »
n coal, in an effort to comply with the Clean Air Act
reduce carbon emissions in understandable.
to use coal, as are other nations; the question is, how
more efficient energy use. I hope the Committee will
programs with respect to their potential contribu-
, rather than just
hearing from the witnesses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry that Chairman Sensenbrenner could not stay
First is that the letter I received from Mr. Sensenbrenr many, many questions, not just the request for information We did want to give thoughtful answers to those questions, have done so in my response to the Chairman recently.
The Chairman's letter also noted that IPCC information creasingly-on my letter--noted that the IPCC information creasingly on the web. The U.S. Global Change Research P. Office has put IPCC information on its website. Increasing want to use electronic means of communication, as you are in your deliberations.
And, finally, with regard to Dr. Hanson's comments, I can from Dr. Hanson. He says and I do quote, "There are large tainties about future climate change, especially because of t] certainties about how the climate forcings will continue to cl But as long as we let greenhouse gases continue to increas idly, we almost surely are headed to a much warmer planet." of quote.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks this morning will focus on th mate Change Technology Initiative and the U.S. Global Chang search Program.
I know the members of this Committee share my strong that America's world-leading science and technology enter must be sustained and nurtured, and today I come before y suggest that we can bring that same common appreciati science to the issue of climate change.
Mr. Chairman, the Climate Change Technology Initiative i Administration's response to a call from the President's Comm of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST. And what have asked for is a greater investment in a broad, balanced er R&D portfolio that can help us simultaneously meet our Nat multiple energy challenges and reduce greenhouse gas emission
A little over a year ago, PCAST issued a report that concl that the federal energy R&D programs were not commensura scope and in scale with the energy challenges and opportunities 21st century will present. PCAST warned that the contin shortfall of investment in clean energy technologies would li translate into higher oil import dependence, higher energy cos industrial and residential consumers, smaller U.S. energy t nology exports, and worse air quality than would otherwise be case, as well as the diminished capacity to reduce greenhouse emissions cost effectively.
The Climate Change Technology Initiative was developed to dress those issues, as well as help achieve short-term greenho gas emission reductions. These investments in efficiency, ren ables, and other clean energy technologies will help provide An ica with a diverse, strong, and affordable energy future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly discuss our proposals in climate research area.
U.S. climate change science is largely supported through the U Global Change Research Program. The Administration is co mitted to continued strong support for the scientific research ne
lp you, God?
. I do. lo. VERT. Thank you. You may be seated. ion, the full written testimony of all the witnesses in the record. However, I would ask all of you to e your remarks in 5 minutes so we will have time answers.
further delay, Dr. Lane, you may begin. DR. NEAL F. LANE, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR, OP. CE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY k you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, the Committee; I very much appreciate this op 18s the Administration's science and technology relevant to the understanding and mitigation of
y full statement be included in the record, along lento-the Fiscal Year 2000 edition of "Our which is the annual report of U.S. Global Program, and the PCAST report, that is the tee of Advisors on Science Technology nem RT. Without objection is contained in Appendix 1.) ving). On energy R&D. cowbith ons
ed to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of the Earth's climate system, the likely future course of climate change, and the potential impacts of such change on the environment and human society.
The Fiscal Year 2000 Global Change Research budget of $1.8 billion supports a wide array of scientific investigations. I would like to note two areas of special importance for Fiscal Year 2000.
First of all, a new Carbon Cycle Science Initiative will provide critical scientific information on the fate of carbon in the environment, on the sources and sinks of carbon on continental and regional scales, and on how they might change naturally over time and the potential to enhance sinks through agriculture and forestry practices.
Second, the U.S. climate modeling effort will be a beneficiary of the Administration's separate initiative on information technology for the 21st century. A new generation of U.S. supercomputers and software funded by the IT initiative will help U.S. climate modelers hone their ability to simulate environmental prophecies to examine a range of longer-term scenarios for the future and predict nearterm climate events like El Niño.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to carry on the longstanding bipartisan tradition of support for climate research and energy technology R&D.
Mr. Chairman, I believe-as do most scientists who have carefully studied this problem—that we need to confront the challenge now. The evidence is compelling that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are amplifying the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and warming the planet's surface. Computer models suggest that such warming is likely to lead to further climate disruptions and ecological impacts as the sea levels rise, patterns of precipitation change, and atmospheric and ocean currents shift.
So, the question facing us is, what specific constructive steps do we take? First, it requires a sustained and enhanced commitment to energy research, development, and deployment. The earlier we act to develop, adopt, and adopt clean and efficient
technologies, the greater the future benefits we will reap. Second, it requires continued research into the science of climate change to help guide our understanding of impacts and mitigation and adaption options.
Mr. Chairman, doing nothing is a high-risk option. What is at stake is the health and the well-being of our children and future generations, as well as our environmental quality and global stability. The same scientific and technical capabilities that have helped identify this problem can help us overcome it. The Administration's climate change science and energy technology proposals are important initial steps in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for your attention today, and I look forward to your questions.
ve our understanding of the mechanisms of the Earth's
1 Year 2000 Global Change Research budget of $1.8 bil.
sources and sinks of carbon on continental and re-
APRIL 14, 1999
U.S. climate modeling effort will be a beneficiary of ration's separate initiative on information technology entury. A new generation of U.S. supercomputers and ed by the IT initiative will help U.S. climate modelers lity to simulate environmental prophecies to examine nger-term scenarios for the future and predict near
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the Administration's science and techn programs that are relevant to the understanding and mitigation of climate change. I have e the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Science and several of its Subcommitte several occasions, first as Director of the National Science Foundation and, more recently, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. I know the Members of this Committee share my strong belief that America's world-leading science and technology enterprise must be sustained and nurtured. While we sometimes differ on precisely how a where to invest our taxpayers' funds, we share a bipartisan understanding that the future prosperity of this country depends on strong federal support for all areas of scientific inqui
Today I come before you to suggest that we can bring that same common appreciation for to an area of considerable policy disagreement -- the issue of climate change. Whatever y policy views may be on the wisdom of the Kyoto Protocol, I respectfully suggest that the President's budget proposal for climate change science and the climate change technology initiative makes good, sound economic and scientific sense for this nation.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks this moming will focus on the Climate Change Technology Init (CCTI) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).
vents like El Niño.
longstanding bipartisan tradition of support for cli-
. on facing us is, what specific constructive steps do it requires a sustained and enhanced commitment ch, development, and deployment. The earlier we adopt, and adopt clean and efficient energy techater the future benefits we will reap. Second, it reresearch into the science of climate change to help
A little more than a year ago, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Techn(PCAST) concluded in its study, "Federal Energy Research and Development for the Chall. of the Twenty-First Century," that the current energy R&D programs of the Federal govem "are not commensurate in scope and in scale with the energy challenges and opportunities th twenty-first century will present." PCAST found that, while many high-tech industries consistently invest 5 to 15 percent of revenues in research and development, the sum of prív and public investments in energy R&D in the United States amounts to less than one percen the nation's expenditure on energy. As a fraction of GDP, the Federal government's investm in energy R&D in the late 1990s are less than half what they were thirty years ago.
standing of impacts and mitigation and adaption
doing nothing is a high-risk option. What is at th and the well-being of our children and future ell as our environmental quality and global stascientific and technical capabilities that have is problem can help us overcome it. The Adminishange science and energy technology proposals al steps in this regard. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for ly, and I look forward to your questions. nd biography of Dr. Lane follow:
As the PCAST panel emphasized, innovation in clean energy technologies would bring many other benefits besides the possibility of cost-effective greenhouse-gas reductions. It would also: reduce consumer costs for energy supplies and services; increase the productivity of U.S. manufacturing; improve U.S. competitiveness in the world market for energy technologies; reduce costly and dangerous over-dependence on imported oil; improve air and water quality; improve the safety and proliferation-resistance of nuclear-energy operations around the world; and enhance the prospects for environmentally sustainable and politically stabilizing economic development in many of the world's potential trouble spots.
PCAST recommended that Federal funding for applied energy technology R&D in the areas of fossil fuels, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, renewable energy sources, and energy end-use efficiency, be increased from a total of about $1.3 billion per year in FY 1998 to $1.8 billion in FY 1999 and $2.4 billion by FY 2003. (In constant-dollar terms, the figure in 2003 would be about the same as annual spending for these purposes at the beginning of the 1990s, during the Bush Administration.) The largest shares of the proposed increases would go to R&D in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, but nuclear fusion and fission would also receive increases. The composition of R&D on advanced fossil-fuel technologies would change in favor of longer-term opportunities, including fuel cells and carbon-sequestration technologies, but the overall spending in the fossil-fuel area would remain approximately constant in real terms.
The twenty-one members of the PCAST panel came from the private sector, academia, and
We agree with PCAST that our energy challenges and opportunities are significant. We have made little progress in reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the 25 years since the first OPEC oil embargo. Record-low oil prices are shutting down our small independent wells and increasing our dependence on foreign sources. The United States currently imports roughly half of its oil, about 45% from OPEC countries including the Persian Gulf.
Improving energy efficiency not only reduces our dependence on oil, but saves us real money. Since that first oil shock, energy R&D and deployment of advanced energy efficiency and supply technologies, along with other structural changes in our economy, have reduced the energy intensity of U.S. economic activity by nearly one-third, saving U.S. consumers some $150-$200 billion per year. But low oil prices have slowed or stopped further reductions in our national energy intensity.
The Climate Change Technology Initiative
panel emphasized, innovation in clean energy technologies would bring many sides the possibility of cost-effective greenhouse-gas reductions. It would also: r costs for energy supplies and services, increase the productivity of U.S. improve U.S. competitiveness in the world market for energy technologies; | dangerous over-dependence on imported oil; improve air and water quality, ty and proliferation-resistance of nuclear energy operations around the world; prospects for environmentally sustainable and politically stabilizing economic zany of the world's potential trouble spots.
The President's FY 2000 Climate Change Technology Initiative budget is a direct response recommendations of the PCAST report. The President's FY2000 budget proposes $1.4 bill the R&D and deployment of clean and efficient energy supply and end use technologies. T a $347 million increase over FY1999 investments.
nded that Federal funding for applied energy technology R&D in the areas of a fission, nuclear fusion, renewable energy sources, and energy end-use eased from a total of about $1.3 billion per year in FY 1998 to $1.8 billion in billion by FY 2003. (In constant-dollar terms, the figure in 2003 would be annual spending for these purposes at the beginning of the 1990s, during the on.) The largest shares of the proposed increases would go to R&D in energy wable energy technologies, but nuclear fusion and fission would also receive mposition of R&D on advanced fossil-fuel technologies would change in favor ortunities, including fuel cells and carbon-sequestration technologies
, but the the fossil-fuel area would remain approximately constant in real terms.
The CCTI programs build on PCAST's recommendations for increased investment in a bro balanced energy R&D portfolio that can serve the long-term goal of diversifying our energ. base
, moving us away from our dependence on fossil fuels, and finding more environmenta benign ways to use our fossil fuel resources. At the same time, these programs will improv production and delivery of reliable, cost-effective supplies of energy and help meet the ener needs identified by PCAST. While CCTI will help stimulate the development and deployn of energy technologies which can help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short-term has never been CCTI's primary goal, and it would be inappropriate to judge it solely on that basis. These investments will help provide America with a diverse, strong, and affordable e future.
The Need to Act
mbers of the PCAST panel came from the private sector, academia, and nizations and included members with expertise in the full range of energy
gas, nuclear, renewables, end-use efficiency. There were also members of nience in non-energy fields, who did not start out with any presumption that R&D would be desirable. Notwithstanding this diversity within the panel views on the pace and seriousness of climate disruption by greenhouse combustion), all of the panel's recommendations were unanimous.
The science of climate change is extremely complex and continuing to evolve. It is fair to sa however, that the last several decades have seen a remarkable increase in our understanding how the Earth's climate system functions, how the climate has changed in the past, and how likely to change in the future. Most importantly, we have identified a number of independer lines of evidence that human activities are affecting the climate system and that a continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions is likely to result in more climate change during the ne century than we have observed during the last century. The Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the most comprehensive and rigorous overall assessment of climate change science and impacts, puts it this way: “The ba of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
T that our energy challenges and opportunities are significant
. We have reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the 25 years since the first ccord-low oil prices are shutting down our small independent wells and ence on foreign sources. The United States currently imports roughly half om OPEC countries including the Persian Gulf.
Significant uncertainties remain in the science of climate change, particularly with regard to precise regional distribution of changes in precipitation and temperature and the simultaneou effects of multiple impacts on ecosystems. Yet we know enough about climate change and in causes and consequences to take reasonable actions to mitigate and adapt to change, and thus minimize its effects on the environments and human health and well being.
iency not only reduces our dependence on oil, but saves us real money. k, energy R&D and deployment of advanced energy efficiency and supply h other structural changes in our economy, have reduced the energy nic activity by nearly one-third, saving U.S. consumers some $150-S200 w oil prices have slowed or stopped further reductions in our national
The U.S. Global Change Research Program
Our current understanding of climate change is the result of the significant progress that has occurred over the last several decades in climate change science. U.S. climate change researc largely supported through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The Administration is committed to continued strong support for the scientific research needed to