Page 2 of 4

treaty but also important existing and new Administration policy initiatives to cut greenhouse gases. These interests oppose President Clinton's measures to use federal tax dollars to spur public and private research and development in energy efficiency as a key step to slowing global warming.

They argue that any action that reduces greenhouse gases should be opposed because it is really a backdoor attempt to implement the Kyoto protocol. The critics of Kyoto may "charge” the President with trying to reduce greenhouse gases, but the real crime would be in stopping America from acting in its own self-interest by making our economy even more efficient while protecting our health and the environment.

The American people overwhelmingly support actions to curb global warming. In my congressional district, slowing the warming of Earth is considered very important. In fact, 71 percent of my constituents recently answered in a questionnaire that they thought the U.S. should take strong steps against global warming even if it costs taxpayers more in the beginning to do so.

In January, Ohio State University conducted a national survey on American Public Opinion on Global Warming, finding that 77% of Americans believed that global warming has been happening, 67% believe steps should be taken to combat global warming and that reducing air pollution will be an effective way to do so. 88% thought that the US government should limit air pollution from businesses, and 77% said they were willing to pay more for electricity, gas and oil to reduce the amount of air pollution.

I am deeply concerned about opposition to steps that will make us more energy efficient. After all, that is the end result of most efforts to combat global warming.

"Efficiency" has been the drumbeat of this century, and it is astounding what American ingenuity has achieved. We are always trying to do more with less.

Thanks to American ingenuity we have fiber optic cables that can carry 600,000 simultaneous calls from Asia to Europe.

The U.S. space program invested tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars in increasing computing power and miniaturization technologies. According to Lucent Technology, the first computer had 18,000 vacuum tubes, took up 1,800 square feet, and weighed 30 tons. Today, that same amount of technology exists in your wristwatch.

Refrigerators today use on average only one-third the energy they did just fifteen years ago because of improvements in compressors.

Investments in biotechnology have led to breakthroughs that now allow us to produce insulin and other bio-pharmaceuticals orders of magnitude faster and cheaper than ever before.

(more)

Page 3 of 4

And we are already working on a new Internet that will would operate up to a thousand times faster than today's does.

I'm sure that critics of the Kyoto protocol support these innovations. And why not? They have meant thousands more jobs and more money into the economy.

But when it comes to raw energy, the global warming critics do not want efficiency.

Efficiency represents positive change. The opposite of efficiency is waste. And while this change will mean a shift from the energy sector to the technology sector, it brings with it far more jobs than would be lost, and it will produce real savings to the average consumer.

The evidence of the benefits of energy efficiency are overwhelming. Numerous studies suggest that a substantial portion of the reductions necessary to meet the Kyoto protocol can be achieved through energy efficiency measures. We should embrace that opportunity.

The global market for energy efficiency products and services is $80 billion per year and is expected to reach $125 billion a year by the year 2015. Several studies estimate that job growth from energy efficiency and technology innovation will exceed 800,000 new jobs over the next 15 years.

How much of this new global market will be controlled by American companies if Congress cuts back on investments in energy efficiency programs?

Later today, you will hear testimony from the Wisconsin Bureau of Air Quality on how its efforts to reduce carbon emissions will create thousands of jobs and increase state residents' incomes. A Denver-based energy management executive will testify that home and building energy efficiency steps provide stunning 20 percent to 26 percent returns on investment.

The reality is that many of the states with the toughest environmental laws, including my state of California, are also those with the strongest economies

It should not be a point of pride to preserve our per capita energy usage, which is the highest in the world here in the United States. The fact is, while the price of oil and gas are at historic lows today, energy is expensive and its production and usage are frequently harmful to our health and the environment. All levels of government and the private sector spend billions cleaning up pollution and dealing with human health impacts directly or indirectly associated with our dependence on fossil fuels.

It is irrational to object to spending money now to reduce our usage when we can derive the same benefits using less energy. This kind of investment has always more than paid for itself in the past and there is no reason to think that it won't continue to do so in the future. But the critics of

(more)

Page 4 of 4

Kyoto are using global warming as an excuse to fight cars with higher gas mileage, renewable energy development, and energy efficiency.

Let's remember that it is the same corporate interests that have opposed nearly every energy efficiency and environmental protection effort this century that have aligned to fight these new efforts. They are, frankly, Luddites. And they should not be allowed to slow the progress we are making toward a healthier, more efficient, and more sustainable economy.

On a positive note, I am pleased to see that at least one major corporation, Shell Oil, USA, recently announced it was dropping out of the corporate coalition fighting the Kyoto protocol.

And while today's hearing is intended to cause Americans to fear the costs of fighting global warming, you will hear from witnesses today about the serious costs of inaction.

The worldwide spread of infectious disease, a rise in sea level, more drought and more floods. Worldwide agricultural catastrophe. More mud slides like those in California, or heat wave deaths like those in Chicago.

Instead of pretending the scientists are all wrong, and instead of hiding from the reality that we need to seek energy alternatives and increase efficiency because of the real threat of global warming and the real costs of energy, let's view this as an economic opportunity and technological challenge.

This type of challenge has always brought out the best in America. We have the world's cuttingedge environmental technology and there's plenty more innovation where that came from. The world is moving forward on greenhouse gas emissions reduction with or without U.S. participation, so let's get in the business of selling the technology needed to do it.

For those that complain of the cost, there are numerous examples in our history of large investments in technology that have paid us back in spades.

If we do not continue to support the Administration's greenhouse gas reduction program and work to seek meaningful participation of all parties in the Kyoto protocol, then the alternative is inaction because of the politics.

Contributions from the oil, coal and auto industries will keep Congress frozen in time, while the earth continues to heat up.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that we're having a hearing today on the issue of global warming. I read your article published in Monday's Roll Call which was the same name as the hearing "Is Clinton Selling Out America With the Kyoto Protocol?" Although I disagreed with much that you wrote, I was pleased to read that you are concerned about the cost of energy-especially for the elderly and for the poor.

Mr. Chairman, there is one way to reduce energy costs and protect the environment-and that's through energy efficiency and an investment in cleaner energy sources. I'm pleased that the President has requested increased funding for these important initiatives. In the President's budget, he has requested $6.3 billion increase in funding for the climate change technology initiative over the next 5 years; $2.7 billion of that amount will fund increased research and development and deployment of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon reduction technologies. It includes funding for the next generation vehicle where the government would help the Big Three automobile manufacturers try to build cars that emit two-thirds less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide without compromising safety, comfort, performance, or affordability. The other $3.6 billion would cover the new tax incentives for consumers and for industry to purchase energy-efficient equipment, homes, buildings, and materials.

This budget request should be supported whether or not you support the Kyoto Protocol, which, as you know, is not before us today or any particular time in the near future. This budget request might be supported whether or not you believe that humans are contributing to global warming. It should be supported whether or not you believe the scientific studies showing the earth is warming. That's because it simply makes economic sense. The United States wastes $300 billion a year in energy. This is more than the entire military budget. The Department of Energy estimates that American companies can save an estimated 11 to 37 percent of the annual energy costs by the year 2015, if they implement energy-efficient technologies.

A 1997 study entitled, "Energy Innovations," by the Alliance to Save Energy and Others, found that American industry could reduce CO2 emissions 10 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2010 largely through implementing energy-efficient technologies while simultaneously saving consumers $58 billion or $530 per household-increasing the gross domestic product by $2.8 billion and creating 773,000 jobs. Similarly, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the mid-Atlantic region-New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania-could reduce energy use by 24 percent by the year 2010, while reducing consumer and business energy bills by more than $150 billion and creating 164,000 jobs between 1997 and 2010. Not only would this effort significantly lower energy bills and create jobs, it would reduce the emittance of air pollutants by 24 percent-including a 29 percent decline in carbon dioxide-one of the main greenhouse gases.

Moreover, the global market for energy-efficiency products and services is about $80 billion a year. It's expected to reach $125 billion a year by the year 2015.

Two economic studies estimated that energy-efficiency and technology innovation would create 800,000 new jobs in the next 15 years. Clearly, we ought to invest in energy efficiency. It makes little sense to attack this effort because it also happens to reduce greenhouse gases. Furthermore, these efforts are necessary whether or not we sign the Kyoto Protocol. They help us move toward meeting our commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and that commitment was undertaken when President Bush signed the Rio Accord.

The Department of Energy concluded that one-third of the emissions reduction necessary to return to 1990 emission levels by 2010 could be achieved through the adoption of existing energy-efficient technologies at no net cost. By supporting energy efficiency, the President's budget request would lower energy costs for consumers while protecting the environment.

Clearly, the President is not selling out America as you quoted. That label more accurately fits those who oppose an investment in energy efficiency and clean technologies. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you've recommended that funding for those efforts be reduced unless we implement the Kyoto Protocol which you oppose. I hope you withdraw that recommendation and support lowering energy bills for the elderly and the poor and industry through energy-efficient and clean technologies. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John Tierney follows:]