GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENERGY STRATEGIES FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1991 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Senators Baucus, Lieberman, Durenberger, and Chafee. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator BAUCUs. The purpose of the hearing today is to examine the environmental consequences of the present and future energy policy decisions. Our interest here is not theoretical, rather, it is a real and practical interest, one for the concern and condition of this planet. At an earlier hearing, in fact, at several earlier hearings, this committee has heard from scientists on the subject of climate change and we found that there is a surprising and discouraging consensus, namely that the greenhouse effect is, in fact, a real phenomenon. We are warming the globe at an unprecedented rate and already we have committed this planet to the global warming of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees centigrade by the end of the next century. Bringing the earth to its warmest level in at least 150,000 years. Certain greenhouse gases, fluorocarbons in particular, are also depleting the earth's protective ozone layer. According to newly released data from The National Aeronautic and Space Administration, between 4 and 5 percent of the ozone layer over North America, Europe and the mid latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, has been destroyed in the last decade. This rate is twice as fast as believed earlier by NASA scientists. Among individual countries, the United States is the leading contributor of greenhouse gases. With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States accounts for about 20 percent of the world's warming commitment. Our carbon dioxide emissions, 20 percent of the global total, originate almost exclusively from the burning of fossil fuels. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that if no actions are taken, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will likely rise by 50 percent during the next 25 years. We have heard from the Administration. Their response has been to come forward with a plan that calls not for reductions in use of fossil fuels, but for continued heavy reliance on oil. By the Administration's own reckoning, the National Energy Strategy allows carbon dioxide emissions to rise by 15 percent in the year 2000, and 25 percent in the year 2010. Meanwhile, Germany, a leading industrial competitor of the United States, plans to cut emissions by 30 percent by the year 2005. While other developed countries are seeking, through an international protocol, to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide. The United States stands alone; unwilling to commit itself to fixed targets and dates for reductions. Today we will hear from technical experts from the industries. Our focus will be on technical options to decrease domestic emissions of carbon dioxide. The witness will tell us that there is a lot we could do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the most important measures would actually both increase energy conservation and reduce economic costs. We are fortunate to have with us from the Office of Technology Assessment the lead author of OTA's recent report on policies for control climate change. We will discuss electric utility demand-side management programs with members of the utility industry. We will hear about the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector. In the United States, mobile sources account for 50 percent of oil consumption and 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. For every 15 gallon fill-up at the service station, about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Increased motor vehicle fuel economy is necessary to check carbon dioxide emissions growth. We will hear about energy efficient lighting. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, converting to energy efficient lighting can reduce energy consumption for lighting by 50 percent, and aggregate national energy electricity demand by 10 percent. It will also reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 232 million tons, four percent of the National total. The equivalent of 42 million cars or one-third of all cars in the United States. We will hear about building deficiency, particularly with respect to Federal energy use. Buildings have long life times. About 100 years for a home and 50 years for a commercial building. Therefore, it is vital to retrofit existing buildings so they can become more energy efficient, and make new buildings as energy efficient as possible. Finally, we will hear about fuel cells. An emerging technology that is more energy efficient and less polluting can conventional power plants. It is my intention to use the information presented at this hearing, and the previous two hearings, to develop legislation that will protect our climate and environment and promote wise energy choices. In addition to this morning's witnesses, written testimony will be submitted by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; the Northwest Power Planning Council; the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the General Services Administration. Witnesses from these organizations and agencies were invited to appear today, but were unable to attend. [See table of contents for location of the statements referred to above.] Senator BAUCUs. I will turn to my colleague, Senator Lieberman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for your opening statement and for holding the hearing. I agree with you that the testimony that we will hear today can be extremely useful to the committee in developing clean energy and global warming legislation. For my part, I'd particularly like to extend a welcome to Bill Podolny from the International Fuel Cells company in South Windsor, Connecticut. Who, I think, will have a very interesting story to tell this committee about the potential for fuel cell technology. Recently, two widely respected organizations have released major studies which strongly support the need for prompt action on global warming. And I speak of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Academy of Sciences. While both reports warn that, without any action, carbon dioxide emissions will rise substantially and, as the NAS report says, greenhouse warming is a potential threat that justifies action now. Each of the reports also contain more positive recommendations, that is to say, a long list of cost-effective energy efficiency measures that we can adopt now to respond to the threat of global warming. The NAS has indicated that the United States can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 40 percent of current levels at very little cost. Some reductions may be at a net cost savings, in fact. The OTA report identifies a modest set of policies which, if implemented, will result in cost savings. Unfortunately, these modest policies will only curb the increase of carbon dioxide emissions not decrease the annual emissions. A tougher set of proposals would bring reductions in carbon dioxide 20 to 35 percent below 87 levels and, OTA tells us that they can be implemented without technological breakthroughs. That is to say, using technology which is already available and close to commercialization. I think that one of the most important findings in the OTA report is that the United States now has the opportunity to develop and produce technologies in ways that are both energy efficient and beneficial to the environment and the economy. I'm pleased that OTA singles out fuel cells as one of the most promising technologies for reducing greenhouse emissions, and also one of the technologies which needs, and would benefit from, Government demonstration programs. As we will hear from Mr. Podolny and others, fuel cells are essentially large scale batteries that use hydrocarbon fuel, without combustion, to reduce electricity. These are superlative energy producers, reaching efficiencies of over 80 percent if heat is recovered, compared to about 30 percent for traditional powerplants. And, they are virtually pollution free, because of their great efficiency. They emit far less carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than the traditional power generating devices. Today, I believe that we are going to hear about one very creative way fuel cells can reduce the threat of global warming. That has to do with methane. Methane is one of the most potent contributors to global warming. Per molecule, methane is about 25 times more effective, if I can put it that way, more forceful, in trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane concentrations have approximately doubled over the past two centuries, and are currently higher than at any time during the last 160,000 years. Without action to reduce emissions, EPA projects that the worldwide methane emissions will increase by about 10 to 30 percent by the year 2025. The largest increases, interestingly enough, are projected from landfills and, of course, distribution of fossil fuels. Today, landfill emissions around the world, of methane, account for between 5 and 18 percent of all methane emissions. Now, the good news here is that methane from landfills and sewage treatment plants can be recovered and processed for energy, OTA notes. Because methane is a more potent short- term greenhouse gas. From a climate prospective, it would be most desirable to recover and process it for energy. Yet today, out of the 6,000 landfills in the United States, which were in operation in 1986, only 123 collected methane for recovery. Mr. Podolny will describe the, working together with EPA, has developed for capturing methane from landfills and sewage treatment plants and processing this methane to provide a clean source of energy and heat. Mr. Chairman, I hope that our Government can finally recognize that these alternative energy industries must form the basis of not only an aggressive energy strategy, but an aggressive economic development strategy. Both Japan and Germany are making massive investments in alternative energy technology. Japan, for instance, plans to satisfy up to 15 percent of its electric power requirements from fuel cell technology by the year 2005. To that end, it is actively pursuing alliances with American companies to capitalize on technological developments which our country pioneered. Similarly, West German and Japanese governments are both enthusiastically embracing solar energy. Each has made major investments in American solar companies. On the other hand, the United States is now a net importer of solar-thermal and wind technology, after we dominated the market as recently as the mid-1980's. So, Mr. Chairman, I think the time is now for us to develop an energy strategy which builds on these technologies which are efficient, which do not harm the environment, and which will help our economy. The Administration, in my opinion, has failed, totally, to submit a plan to us that will do this. I think it now up to us in Congress to develop such a plan. I believe that the OTA report provides us with an excellent list of proposals which can serve as the basis for such legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator. We note the arrival of the ranking member of the committee, Senator Chafee, and I believe Senator Durenberger has a pressing meeting. Senator DURENBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator Rockefeller is testifying before the Labor and Human Re |