Following the conference, Science Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, who had led the delegation, held three "Road From Kyoto" hearings.

I would like to share with you a little of what we learned at those hearings, in particular as it bears on the topic before you today.

First, as to the science, it is clear there is no consensus on precisely how or if increases in greenhouse gas emissions will affect the world's climate.

Scientists continue to speak out despite severe pressure from the Administration to tow the line. For example, the Secretary of the Interior implied recently that any scientist who disagreed with him on global warming was “un-American."

Nevertheless, just two weeks ago, at the National Hurricane Conference in Virginia, Neil Frank, a familiar face from his days as Director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said that "climate change has nothing to do with carbon dioxide," that "the atmosphere is too complex and the computers too slow to make long-term climate forecasts."

Next, as to the economic effects. David Montgomery of Charles River Associates, a recognized expert on the economics of energy policy, told us he found the Administration claim that technologies will be deployed between now and 2010 that would reduce emissions sufficiently to meet the Kyoto mandate at no cost to be "extremely implausible."

We heard Michael Buckner of the United Mine Workers say that independent economic studies they commissioned from DRI/McGraw Hill and the Economic Policy Institute showed reductions in greenhouse gases of the magnitude called for in the Protocol would result in "lost jobs, lost wages, higher energy prices and higher trade deficits that would create a perverse economic incentive for American companies to relocate their operations abroad."

Dr. Jay Hakes, the Administrator of the Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration, testified the Kyoto Protocol would require a 31 percent reduction in carbon emissions from what could be expected around 2010. In a remarkably candid statement for an Administration official, Dr. Hakes went on to say that "it is unlikely the adjustments can be achieved without a significant price mechanism" and that any price mechanism selected would "slow somewhat the rate of economic growth." Now, translating that into plain English, Hakes is saying that no matter how you look at it, implementing the Kyoto Protocol means higher energy prices that will hurt the

economy.

Finally, let's look at the end result. Even if you accept the Gore "apocalypse" theory of global warming, and even if you believe that the threat is so serious it is worth sacrificing our hardwon prosperity to meet it, we have an agreement that won't work.

Again, just yesterday, the Energy Information

Administration, in its 1998 International Energy Outlook, stated that “even if the parties to the Kyoto Protocol were able to achieve the proposed target reductions, worldwide emissions levels would continue to rise by 32 percent between 1990 and 2010."

The Protocol does not include some of the fastest-growing countries in the world, including China. Domestically, it excludes whole groups of emissions, including Defense Department equipment and aircraft, which we now know to be one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.

So, Mr. Chairman, who will the burden fall on? Why, our constituents, of course. Yours in Muncie and mine in Riverside. It is the Administration's hope that resistance from the American people to imposing these burdens can be overcome by doomsday scenarios of apocalyptic floods and diseases and tactics designed to demonize the opposition.

So it is all the more important that hearings like this one continue to be held throughout the process and I look forward to learning more from the testimony today.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

53-426 99-2

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you. Mr. Calvert, let me just make sure I understood one point correctly. You had expert witnesses at the Science Committee saying that they thought CO2 was not a factor in the climate change projections?

Mr. CALVERT. We have scientists that believe that's exactly correct. If you take a look at CO2 or greenhouse emissions, it's approximately 4 percent of total emissions-100 of the global emissions that you have, about 4-some people say up to 5-percent of those emissions are from human activity. So even if you cut down to zero all human greenhouse emissions, you're still going to have 95 percent greenhouse gas emissions just by natural activity.

Mr. MCINTOSH. And I guess I'm going to-I would like to ask several people's opinion today on this, but do you believe CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated?

Mr. CALVERT. Of course not. If it is, then your exhaling would be an illegal act. [Laughter.]

Mr. MCINTOSH. That's a very good way of putting it. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Any other questions for Mr. Calvert?

[No response.]

Mr. MCINTOSH. Let's turn now to Ms. McCarthy, also.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. Wise had arrived before me and is more senior. As a courtesy I was going to-alright.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. I apologize to the committee because I work in Longworth and a fire ensued in the basement and I don't have copies of any of my handouts or testimony for you, but we will make those available when we're up and running again across the street.

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you, sorry to hear that. My office is over there; I hope everything's OK.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, me too.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with you and the committee today. In particular, I want to talk to you about the Missouri experience. But before I do, I want to acknowledge that there were several breakthroughs since those of us who went to Kyoto returned with regard to this issue-one of them being, of course, that the Big Three automakers in the United States with some of the key Japanese firms announced that they could produce vehicles with nearly triple the fuel efficiency in 35 years. That is indeed good news for all of us who are looking for energy efficiency, as Mr. Tierney mentioned in his opening remarks.

In the March 3rd Washington Post article on "Global Warming Gets a Second Look"-I do have a copy that I can leave with the committee several oil company executives were quoted and their spokespersons indicated that they really are re-thinking their prior stances on fossil fuels. In particular, are now addressing reducing fossil fuel emissions and no longer questioning the scientific findings on global warming to the degree that occurred in the past. In fact, for Texaco, which I'll lift from the article and will leave the entire article with you, they're looking at it as an economic opportunity. The technology that can be developed to convert natural gas into clean-burning high-efficiency diesel fuel they have already achieved, it would help to reduce the amount of natural gas that

is flared at the top of smoke stacks which contributes to the buildup of greenhouse gases. The article goes on to talk about the business opportunities that they're looking forward and some of the tax credits that the President is proposing.

That's quite a potential for clean technology investment in the United States. That's good for us because, when we develop those technologies, we can export them to other developing countries-to other parts of the world—that's an economic stimulus to industrial sectors. That's job growth and that's exactly what we were looking for out in Missouri.

I chaired a commission on global climate change in the very early 1990's out in Missouri where I served in the legislature. I must confess to you, Mr. Chairman, I did it more out of a fiscal responsible feeling than for total environmental issues. If you recall in the 1980's, State governments were in a dire position of having to cut and recut a line item veto-the Governors' budgets-because of the economic situation. I chaired the Ways and Means Committee-the committee that raised the money. Tax increases were unpalatable. We had to look for economic savings in our-the way we did business out in the State of Missouri and State government. That's why we gathered together experts on the issue both from the private sector, public sector, academics, citizens and scholars, and began discussing what could we do out in Missouri to reduce our dependence on energy.

We import 80-some percent of our energy use in Missouri and also achieve reductions and emissions and get the quality of our air ambience in the St. Louis and Kansas City to meet with the Federal guidelines. We have always been bumping up against those as well.

So we reviewed the agricultural policy options, forestry, reforestation-that's very big in Missouri-the ecosystems and biodiversity and our bio-mass energy potentials; as well as our fossil fuel and energy efficiency potentials; what utilities could do; the components of solar, wind, and nuclear for the future. We do have one nuclear plant. Of course, transportation issues. The question always came up in the Budget Committee, "what about our State fleets." There was always a need for more cars-it was never enough money. So we took a look at all of these things. In order to get the services out to the people they were demanding-have the resources we needed to do that and also achieve energy savings in the State because those are a real cost in any budget item.

I would like to get to you a copy of that report, Mr. Chairman. I don't have it because of the dysfunction next door. It really-now many of the things we discovered in the early 1990's, as the budget chairman out in Missouri and the House I served on it and he was kind of skeptical of this effort. I put him on the commission for that very reason. We all were we had a healthy skepticism about how much we could achieve and what it would mean. But in the end, years later before I left to come here, we were seeing real savings as we built our buildings-our State buildings-more efficiently; as we converted our fleet to other forms of fuel. The vehicles that run around in the Capitol complex are solar and electric. We just did a number of sensible things-saving money and improving the quality of life there.