Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONDUCT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY A REGULATORY AGENCY

I would say that one open question here that I believe this Committee should address, and that is whether the scientific research effort within EPA should be conducted by a regulatory agency. We have had problems with that originally with the AEC and separated that out. It may be time to separate out the environmental research and put it under some other agency either NSF or NOAA, or some other agency-rather than the regulatory agency. Chairman CALVERT. And as the gentleman

Dr. LANE. May I respond?

Chairman CALVERT. And as the gentleman knows, I agree with you. I would be more than happy to pursue to that.

Dr. Lane, you may respond on my time. How is that?

Dr. LANE. I will make a quick response then.

I understand the question and what the concern might be, but I believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the peer-reviewed science is separated from any influence having to do with the other responsibilities of the agency. It is very important that that be the case.

But I believe it is also very important that each of our mission agencies, including the regulatory agencies, have a component of research activity and peer-reviewed research activity, where they interact with the larger science community. That corporeality of support ensures that the important scientific questions are addressed that they are addressed by the best minds, best ideas, in a fully objective review process.

So I stand in favor of each of our agencies having an important research arm.

Chairman CALVERT. Well, following what Mr. Ehlers' point was, is some of the issues beyond climate change-let's say particulate studies, which are going on now within the same body that is going to regulate particulates once we understand the small particulate issue better, is somewhat troubling to many, and certainly to me. And I think when we take on that regulatory burden which will be a significant one, we better make sure that the science is correct. Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say on behalf of EPA, I think that Dr. Lane said that the key to this at least certainly in our view-is the question of whether you are having independent peer review of the scientific research as well as for that matter, to your point, Congressman Ehlers, about the grant proposals themselves that come in from researchers, which is exactly as Dr. Lane pointed out.

What we do at EPA, we have very strong external peer review of all of our scientific products, both the grants that come in, as well as the products that are produced under those grants. And when we take regulatory actions, as we did in the case of the particulate standards, we did that based on a series of over 80 independently peer-reviewed scientific studies. And that is the approach that we are going to take, and I think that is the approach that the scientific community would suggest and other scientific agencies would suggest, as the way to ensure that you don't get biased in your studies of any sort, whether it is of the grant proposals or of the ultimate scientific research.

Chairman CALVERT. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I found this panel very interesting.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS

Dr. Hakes, in your written testimony, you indicate that the focus of the programs that you have looked at are climate change, but that, quote, "they often have additional benefits for improved air quality and the like."

In your judgment, do these additional benefits-are they significant enough to warrant pursuit of these programs? Or, did you not evaluate that aspect? Is this just an aside in your testimony?

Dr. HAKES. Well, I think you can assume that the benefits in these other areas would sort of track the carbon savings. I mean there would be some benefits for other air quality issues. You would probably get some impact in a reduction in oil imports, other issues like that. We really didn't have time to quantify all that. But in areas where the carbon benefits are fairly modest, those benefits would also probably be quite modest.

ACCESS TO SUPERCOMPUTERS

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask Dr. Lane-and it is a pleasure to see you again in your new capacity-about the supercomputer issue. You mentioned that the NRC identified lack of access to powerful supercomputers as a key problem and that the Information Technology Initiative is going to address that with additional computers, and the like.

What are the applications, other than use for climate modeling, for these supercomputer resources? And, do we know how many additional computers we are talking about? And, where will they be located? And, who will have access to them?

Dr. LANE. Ms. Lofgren, the Information Technology Initiative referred to, of course, is separate from

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes.

Dr. LANE [continuing]. The Climate Change Technology Initiative.

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Dr. LANE. But I wanted to point out the benefits that it will provide.

The Information Technology Initiative is focused on several objectives. One is to increase substantially our investment in long-term research, so that is to ensure that we are working on the computers that we are just now imagining and the software and all of the fundamental computer science, computer engineering questions that need to be addressed.

Second is to make available the cutting edge systems-the most capable hardware, software for some of the most important science and engineering, and most challenging science and engineering research questions. And one of those is global climate change modeling, because the facts are that as good as our models are-and our researchers are outstanding, certainly leaders in the world-but the largest, most sophisticated models are in Europe. And that is, in large measure, because they have invested in the

computational capability that they need to carry out those calculations.

So, we think we can the sum is much bigger than the parts here, by making the investment in teraflop-initially, a few teraflops; then, 10 teraflops; then, of the order, 40 or so trillion operations per second computer capability-we can, in fact, be again leaders in the world in modeling, not only intellectually which we are now, but also in terms of actually carrying out the model calculations.

So, the kind of computer capability we are talking about is comparable to what currently the Department of Energy is making available for their stockpile stewardship program. It is also a very challenging set of research issues. We are going to learn from what is being done on that defense-side of DOE to do some important work on the civilian side, and climate change is just one example of that. Combustion may be another area, certain materials research, those problems that would require large team efforts and this level of computer capability.

Maybe Mr. Reicher could answer.

Mr. REICHER. Yes, just a very brief additional comment.

Increasingly, with these faster and faster computers on the weapons-side, we are making the capability available on the civilian-side, building systems that can be switched from defense work to civilian work so that at the weapons labs, for example, we are more and more able to do the kind of modeling of climate combustion and other kinds of key challenges that we face in the world today.

NOAA OCEAN-OBSERVING NETWORKS

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could, just one quick follow-up question-and you can maybe give me your answer not here since we are out of time but I do notice your comments on page 10, Dr. Lane, about the NOAA ocean-observing networks. We had a big spat about that last year, and I am wondering if you could let us know whether, in your judgment, the resources allocated to that aspect of this is sufficient?

Dr. LANE. I definitely will respond to your question.

[The information follows:]

(Dr. Lane refused to submit the information for the record.) Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you.

Chairman CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

COST OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

I would like to focus on the emission fumes and the effect of some of the modeling and some of the research, and determine and get some response as to whether or not there is a reason why we can't get a clear picture in cost, because it seems that, in my particular area, and, of course, around the Nation, some environmental damage we can't do much control over; with emissions, we, hopefully, can.

So, I would like further comment from any panel member if we can get that.

Mr. GARDINER. Well, let me see if I can start, Congresswoman Johnson.

I think the as I tried to indicate in my opening statement-that the sense that we have from the programs that we run at EPA that are largely about deploying new technologies is that they are extremely effective at both our reducing emissions, not only of greenhouse gases but of other air pollutants as well, which clearly is very important in a number of areas around the country. But, also, that they have substantial economic benefits because they are largely about making these institutions-whether they are hospitals or universities or businesses-more energy efficient and saving them money in the short run.

So, we believe that there are substantial benefits, both environmentally as well as economically, that result from the kinds of programs that we are already running today, and which the President's initiative asks be expanded, both especially at the Department of Energy and at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes?

Mr. REICHER. Just a few quick examples. In individuals' homes, by improving the efficiency of appliances like the refrigerators and dishwashers, and you actually can radically cut energy use and, thereby, cut pollution in a community-and a very direct linkage and huge opportunities in that area. În cars, obviously, the extent to which we can improve the mileage of cars, we are obviously cutting pollution at the same time. And in industry-the steel industry, the aluminum industry, pulp and paper, a whole host of industries as we go into those facilities and work within those industries to cut their energy use, what comes out the stack at those plants and what comes out in the stack at the local power plant can be dramatically reduced.

So, if-in our efforts to address carbon dioxide emissions from a global warming perspective, we are very clearly cutting the more localized and regional air pollutants that affect people's health every day.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, thank you.

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH 00

I was hoping someone would comment on some of the research that is going on now, in terms of the electric car or some of the technologies that are, hopefully, getting near being marketed.

Mr. REICHER. There is very exciting research, Congresswoman, and actually very exciting products coming to the market, in the automobile industry. Where we are headed is essentially two areas, in terms of the next generation of automobiles.

One are hybrid automobiles that link electric motors and either gas or diesel engines in a very efficient combination where we can foresee mileage on the order of-in fact, our goal of 80 miles per gallon in a car that seats five or six people and is as affordable as an average automobile.

We are also looking at fuel cell-powered vehicles. You may have seen a few weeks ago Daimler-Chrysler announced a prototype fuel cell vehicle that they are working to put on the road, in partner

ship with our Government-sponsored programs, some time early in the next decade.

A whole host of car companies are focused on both of these approaches. There is a very robust partnership between Government and industry to get them on the road.

I would only add that there is also a very intense race across the globe for market share the Japanese, the Germans, U.S. manufacturers-realizing that these high-mileage, low-polluting cars are the future. And we want to make sure that U.S. workers, U.S. companies, have the lion's share of that new market as it emerges. MS. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Costello.

TAX INCENTIVES FOR COAL

Mr. COSTELLO. One last question; Dr. Lane, you mentioned in your testimony about moving us away from fossil fuels as one approach to our energy policy in the 21st century. You also point out about our dependency on imported oil from overseas.

Wouldn't it be wouldn't it make sense for us, as a Government, to encourage the partnership that we talked about earlier and to provide tax incentives in order to have utilities use the abundance of coal that we have in the United States today?

Dr. LANE. Well, Mr. Costello, I think that there is a place for R&D; there is a place for tax incentives. The Climate Change Technology Initiative is a broad initiative; it has all aspects of this. We talked earlier about the situation with coal. The report that I referred to earlier put out by PCAST on energy R&D makes this point very clearly; that we are going to need coal, but we are going to need new technologies, not the ones we currently know about. And so there is a place where we are really going to have to invest in high-risk technologies. The cost of that R&D is high enough so it is just not natural for industry to do that on its own, and that is where partnerships play a very important role

Mr. COSTELLO. We are short

Dr. LANE [continuing]. As part of this.

Mr. COSTELLO. We are short of time, but I would just encourage you to ask the Administration to aggressively pursue a large role for the tax incentives and the partnership with the private sector and public utilities to use coal.

Dr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

Chairman CALVERT. Thank the gentlemen, and I thank our witnesses today.

We are adjourned.

« PreviousContinue »