RGC Homes Syska and Hennessey The Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association Tucson Electric Power U.S. Green Buildings Council Whirlpool We, the undersigned companies and related organizations vigorously support a renewed and expanded national commitment to making building technology research, development and demonstration a top priority for the U.S. government. As business leaders, we call for the continuation of valuable government partnerships with the private sector that enable U.S. companies to compete for growing domestic and international clean energy markets. More specifically, we support the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs fiscal year 1999 budget request of $317.5 million. Supporting the proposed increase in this budget from the fiscal year 1998 level (still well below Fiscal Year 1995 level) creates thousands of new jobs for American communities. In its 1997 review of the national energy R & D portfolio, the bipartisan President's Committee on Advisors on Science and Technology recommended expansion of a number of building research programs and it targeted energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for the greatest increases in funding. The Committee highlighted the substantial benefits resulting from investments in building technologies, including public benefits, air emission reductions, reduced dependence on imported oil and lower costs to households and businesses. We applaud recent efforts the Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs has undertaken to include industry in the strategic planning of its programs. We also believe the proposed funding for competitive solicitations and a new emphasis on peer-reviewed research and results-oriented "whole buildings" research will benefit the American public in many important ways. Further, we urge the office to undertake a public education program designed to encourage consumers to replace their existing home appliances with new highly energy efficient models now available in the marketplace. Every major poll taken over the last decade shows that the American public also strongly supports increases in funding for these programs. The American public knows that increasing energy productivity by using energy more efficiently and investing in clean energy technologies, such as windows, lighting, energy-efficient appliances, insulation, fuel cells, microturbines, advanced heating and cooling systems, photovoltaics, and solar thermal research makes sound economic sense. Production costs in many of these industries continue to decline and the relatively small annual federal investment in these technologies reaps huge future economic and environmental benefits. It is time for American leadership in buildings-related research, development and demonstration. Supporting reasonable budget increases in these buildings programs is an appropriate investment strategy for the United States economy as we move into the 21 Century. THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: IS THE CLINTONGORE ADMINISTRATION SELLING AMERICANS? PART V OUT WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1998 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David McIntosh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives McIntosh, Shadegg, Sununu, Kucinich, and Tierney. Staff present: Mildred Webber, staff director; Larisa Dobriansky, senior counsel; Andrew Wilder, clerk; Barbara Kahlow and Karen Barnes, professional staff members; and Elizabeth Mundinger, minority counsel. Mr. MCINTOSH. The Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs will come to order. Today the subcommittee is conducting its fifth hearing on the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol on American citizens, American businesses and labor, the U.S. economy, and the U.S. energy markets. At prior hearings, we heard from citizens, elected officials from State and local governments, business and labor leaders, and economic experts who believe that this treaty, which the ClintonGore administration negotiated in December of last year, could potentially have very serious adverse economic consequences for all Americans. The Kyoto Protocol commits the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent below the 1990 levels within the timeframe of 2008, 2012. That's a long, sort of convoluted way of saying about a 550-million-ton reduction in emissions. To meet this target, we will have to decrease energy use by 40 percent or more in this country. Let me point out that, even if we stopped operating every car, every truck, every boat, every train, and every airplane in this country, the energy savings-about 458 million tons-would not be enough to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, while the treaty imposes these very onerous requirements on the United States and other industrialized nations, it exempts developing nations from any new commitments, regardless of their economic development or the quantity of greenhouse gases (947) they emit. Huge emissions producers, such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, and Mexico are totally excluded from these requirements. So contrast that. We're going to have to eliminate our entire transportation sector, and still wouldn't meet our requirement, versus absolutely no requirement for reductions by these developing nations. At our hearings on May 19, Dr. Janet Yellen, the President's economic adviser, assured my subcommittee that the cost to Americans of complying with the Kyoto Protocol would be modest. According to the administration's calculations, it would only cost onetenth of 1 percent of the projected gross domestic product in the year 2010 about $7 to $12 billion per year, with an emissions price in the range of $14 to $23 per ton of carbon. Now to reach these rosy projections, Dr. Yellen used unrealistic assumptions. First, that the Clinton-Gore administration will be able to convince other nations, including the developing nations that were exempted from the treaty, to agree to participate in an unrestricted global emissions trading system that they now firmly oppose. And, second, that the system will work as efficiently as the New York Stock Exchange. She also neglects to recognize the Department of Energy's own conclusion that it will require luck— "luck"-to reach energy efficiency goals in the transportation sector that will be necessary to meet the Kyoto Treaty. In contrast, in our April 23 hearing, the WEFA, Inc. economist, Dr. Mary Novak, testified that the Kyoto target for the United States could not be met without significant increases in energy prices. Dr. Novak predicted the protocol would result in a loss of GDP of 3.2 percent or approximately $300 billion annually. In addition, the United States would lose 2.4 million jobs during that timeframe. Gasoline prices would increase 65 percent per gallon and industrial gas and electricity prices would double in this country. This translates to an increase of $2,700 cost per family for energy and other related products. The real question before us is whether the administration intends to rely on luck or whether it will analyze thoroughly the risk the United States would face if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented. This hearing will examine what it would mean for the auto and trucking industries and workers in those industries if the ClintonGore administration proceeds with signing this treaty. First, let me say that one thing there is definite agreement on by business, labor, Congress, and the general public: We should use the best information available to make decisions on our global warming policies. Therefore, it is amazing to me that the White House has been unwilling to disclose to Congress information and analysis to justify the President's request for a huge increase in funding, $6.3 billion, for its climate change agenda and to support fully its policy positions about the major initiative, including Dr. Yellen's so-called economic analysis. In the tradition of former Chairman John Dingell, we have asked a lot of questions and requested the administration to share with us a lot of their key documents. But unlike former prior Republican presidents and their responses to Chairman Dingell, the Clinton and Gore administration has stonewalled our efforts and Chairman Burton has so far had to issue three subpoenas to obtain key docu ments. As the chart shows-do we have that chart? Near the flag, the White House continues to delay in production, even in responses to subpoenas. To see additional key documents, we may be forced to issue additional subpoenas in order for other executive offices and President's agencies, such as the Council of Economic Advisers, and other executive branch agencies as well. [The information referred to follows:] |