GLOBAL WARMING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Philip R. Sharp (chairman) presiding. Mr. SHARP. The subcommittee will please come to order. Today, we welcome witnesses from three Federal agencies deeply involved in the climate change issue to learn more about the climate change action plan that President Clinton announced last week. As members of this subcommittee know only too well, our society faces a welter of important environmental issues which cannot be addressed independent of other considerations. None is more important than climate change issue, and on no other issue are we more constrained in the development of policy. Limits affecting the climate change debate include: (1) major scientific uncertainties, how much change are we facing, and how much concern is warranted; (2) technical questions, which agents are responsible for climate change, in what proportion and how can they be best abated; and, (3) perhaps most difficult and important, are what changes in terms of government spending, industry impact and alternatives to our way of life should we seriously consider? I have argued that the lack of consensus on these ultimate questions should not prevent the United States from taking sensible and strong measures, steps that would mitigate the risks climate change might pose for us. Neither the obvious limits on government resources nor reluctance to impose command and control obligations on U.S. industry should keep us from doing what is doable now. For these reasons, I commend the President's action plan for exploring every possible nook and cranny of existing Federal authority, including the still new provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and every opportunity for voluntary partnerships with industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. By exploiting the full potential of policies on which there is consensus, such as maximizing conservation and energy efficiency, we also hedge our bets on the outcome of the global warming science debate. No one will regret taking the sorts of action the President's plan proposes, even in the unlikely event that greenhouse gases are determined not to pose major environmental problems. (185) I also want to stress my support for the foundation which this plan, which is domestic in focus, lays for future U.S. negotiations regarding our international obligations. I am well aware that the joint implementation concept acknowledged by the President's action plan is anathema to some. I think they are terribly mistaken, however. I strongly believe that joint implementation will prove beneficial to all parties, from the highly industrialized nations which have expertise worth sharing, to the developing countries which need to pursue growth in an environmentally sustainable manner. If it is true that environmental problems know no political boundaries, it is also true that solutions to those problems can be transboundary in character. Before I turn to our distinguished panel of administration witnesses, I am going to take the occasion to announce the subcommittee will hold a second hearing on the President's action plan on November 16 which we will be soliciting comments from a variety of viewpoints for that occasion. Let me also add that while I believe it is imperative that we move forward, we want to see that we monitor what the Federal Government does and what the private sector does and we share that responsibility with the administration to see to it that we do make progress under this plan and that we also make progress, I might say, under the clean car initiative which hopefully provides the opportunity in the next century for a leap forward, not just further incremental improvements, but a true leap forward that will have consequences for global warming and for other significant pollutants. I think it is very important to recognize the current political situation. I understand our witnesses were berated yesterday in the House and the Senate for insufficient action. I really find this extraordinary. Some of those in the Senate who seem most distressed could not support the Btu tax, could not bring together the political courage and the will to take any action and why they think the Congress is prepared to take more action is beyond me. Second, there are outside groups who say that this is the highest priority that the world faces, and yet they did not come forward, they did not energize their memberships, they did not produce results on the Btu tax that might have had some impact on this country. Now, that all went by the boards as a result. So I find it a little hypocritical when some politicians in the Congress and some private organizations find it possible to berate those who are trying to take action. It is true, we may need to take stronger and further actions in the future. It is also true that there is going to be a real test for the private sector here, a real test for the administration and the Congress as to whether or not these private public partnerships pay off. And it behooves industry in this country to take this extremely seriously because many of us are going to be watching as to whether we can go that route or whether we must turn to command and control measures which are so resented and some people see as economically inefficient, as our only alternative to deal with this. But let me be stress my own attitude about politicians who can't understand that if they can't deliver on something that might have had some reasonable hope, that had minimal economic impact, then I think it really is out of line for them to be trying to chop up the administration for not taking stronger measures that there is no prayer in hell the Congress would ever adopt. With that, let me ask my other colleagues if they have an opening statement on the panel. The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. KLUG. I can't begin to top that statement. I will just sit and listen. Thanks. Mr. SHARP. Mr. Synar, the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. SYNAR. Hear, hear, to that part you went off script on. Real briefly, and I will turn in my remarks. Obviously, we are here to hear the panel. But I want to join with you, Phil, in saying that I do support what the President and Vice President have done in the climate change area and I applaud the really heavy reliance on the voluntary market-based approach. However, I am like you, I think more can be done and we have missed some opportunities already. If it becomes clear in the future that the United States cannot meet the stabilization goal, I think we all ought to consider offering some real emissions caps at a desired level. We also, as you said, Phil, ought to include Federal programs, everything from export promotion to improved management of our national forest plans to increase these reductions. The fact is that we now have some leadership. Global warming and economic development are mutually beneficial, and that this is a very first important step that we make and I think, as you said, let's all make it work and we are serious about it. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Synar follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SYNAR I congratulate President Clinton and Vice-President Gore for putting forward an impressive and sensible Climate Change Action Plan. This plan is an important first step toward reducing the gases which cause global warming and showing the rest of the world that the United States takes the global warming issue seriously. The administration's plan attacks global warming on a wide variety of fronts, from increasing the efficiency of energy use to encouraging the use of natural carbon sinks, like trees, which act as sponges to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. The plan wisely provides for pilot programs to encourage the use of joint implementation programs under which U.S. companies finance global warming reductions abroad. Such projects are a win-win proposition in the fight against global warming since they encourage activities in countries that otherwise could not afford them and get the job done at lower cost than if the same improvements were made here in the United States. I am pleased that over 50 utilities, including Public Service Company of Oklahoma, as part of the Central and Southwest Corporation, have pledged to work with the administration to stabilize their emissions of greenhouse gases, and, in some cases, actually reduce emissions by as much as 20 percent. Together these utilities represent 60 percent of U.S. generating capacity and carbon dioxide emissions. Under this plan, utilities have many choices in reducing emissions, from creating sinks and switching to efficient natural gas from more polluting fuels to encouraging more conservation through demand-size management programs. Best of all, Americans should be impressed that these companies voluntarily agreed to make reductions without the need for additional governmental requirements or mandates. The administration also tapped this cooperative spirit by negotiating a series of agreements increasing the efficiency of heavy industrial motors and other large energy users. These agreements are modeled on the successful EPA and industry programs for improving the efficiency of electric lighting and refrigerators, known respectively as "Green Lights" and "Golden Carrot." These programs have proven to be effective tools in taming the appetite for energy by two of the biggest electricity users. Together, the entire package of voluntary reductions should decrease greenhouse gases by about 100 million tons by the year 2000 and leverage $60 billion of new private money to get the job done. Strict monitoring and "mid-course corrections" will be needed to insure the program lives up to its advance billing and returns emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The administration must effectively use section 1605 of last year's Energy Policy Act to measure and assess the progress the Nation makes toward the goal of stabilization of global warming gases. Section 1605, which I coauthored with Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN), provides a program to account for the voluntary_reductions in greenhouse gases made by industry. Only a strong, accurate and effective section 1605 will assure the public that reductions are legitimate and not the result of double counting or inflated claims. The Federal Government must also do its part in reducing greenhouse gases. The Clinton administration must follow through on two of the most important initiatives from the Energy Policy Act-increased Federal energy efficiency and greater use of efficient alternative fuels by the Federal vehicle fleet. The Federal Government must lead by example and shed its image as the Nation's biggest energy waster. I support the President's and Vice-President's plan for climate change and applaud its heavy reliance on voluntary, market-based approaches. However, I believe that more can be done. If it becomes clear in the future that the United States will not meet the stabilization goal I would consider offering a real emissions cap to get us to the desired level. We should also include other Federal programs, from export promotion to improved management of our National Forests in our plan for increased emissions reductions. The Clinton administration has shown that global warming and economic development can be mutually beneficial. It's up to all of us to make it work. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Washington, if he has an opening remark, Mr. Kreidler. Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing on the President's climate change action plan. I have a real interest in this issue since I sit on the Health and Environment Subcommittee which held hearings yesterday on the components of this plan relating to air pollution. As I said at that hearing, I found a lot to like about the President's plan and support many of the actions. I am particularly interested in the provisions relating to forest management and carbon sequestration. I have some questions on that for the record, Mr. Chairman. I do want to be sure, however, that the effects of this plan are rigorously reviewed and that there is an opportunity to implement new actions earlier rather than later if these prove inadequate. We must not wait until the year 2000 to come up with new actions if this plan does not meet its goals. I want to thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to asking some questions of the witnesses at the appropriate time. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentleman. We now welcome our distinguished panel. We are very pleased to have with us Ms. Susan Tierney, the Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Policy with the Department of Energy; Mr. Rafe Pomerance, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Development with the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs of the U.S. Department of State; and pleased to have Doctor Karl Hausker, the Deputy Assistant Administrator with the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ladies and gentlemen, we are very pleased to have you with us. I think you know our processes. We will make your written statement a part of the record, and I think, Ms. Tierney, you are going to provide the main testimony.with others to offer backup. We will be pleased to hear from you now. STATEMENTS OF SUSAN F. TIERNEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; RAFE POMERANCE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, STATE DEPARTMENT; AND KARL HAUSKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is a great pleasure to be here today and I can't tell you how much we appreciate the remarks that you opened this hearing with, but let me add to that, of course, by first giving you an overview of our plan and then spending a few minutes very briefly to talk about a couple of points from the Department of Energy's perspective. First, let me start with the overview. This plan is based on the strong foundation that climate change is the most serious environmental risk that this country and this globe faces. That is what prompted President Clinton to make a political commitment that moved aggressively to reduce our emissions by the year 2000 to their 1990 levels. It was the philosophy that this is our most important environmental challenge, that made us move so aggressively and so quickly to develop the plan before you. This is our first step. We developed it very quickly. There are many things that we still need to do. But the important thing is this is not a one-shot, put-on-the-shelf plan. That is my first point. This is the beginning. We worked very hard in a short period of time to make it specific, concrete, comprehensive. It lays out a process for verifying emissions reductions, for monitoring progress, and we will move forward on that. Additionally, it lays out a process for taking further steps to look beyond the year 2000, to bring emissions reductions to bear during that period, and to do what we need with regard to the transportation sector, to add to the program that we have before us. Those next steps are extremely important, but this one is what we needed to do as fast as we could. My second point is that this is a robust and credible plan. It is the most specific, detailed and comprehensive plan that any country has delivered to date. It is based largely on existing authorities, as the chairman noticed. It meets the President's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels, with domestic programs. Now, what does that mean in terms of the job that we have before us? Let me direct your attention to the charts that we have here. This gives you some indication of the amount of reduction that we faced when we looked at what kind of job we had ahead of us. The column on the left shows the baseline emissions-excuse me, the starting point emissions in the year 1990, which is the mark that we want to achieve when we reach the year 2000. [Charts begin on p. 196.] 79-995 O-94-7 |