ROAD FROM KYOTO-PART 2: KYOTO AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET REQUEST
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1998
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will come to order. Today we continue with our hearings on the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. treaty that would mandate the United States to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. As I said in opening the hearing held by the Science Committee on February 4th, I believe this treaty to be seriously flawed-so flawed, in fact, that it cannot be salvaged. In short, the treaty is based on immature science, costs too much, leaves too many procedural questions unanswered, is grossly unfair because developing countries are not required to participate, and will do nothing to solve the speculative problem it is intended to solve.
Last week, Dr. Jay Hakes, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, testified that the EIA projects the Protocol would require the United States to cut carbon emissions by 550 million metric tons, or 31 percent below the levels expected in 2008 to 2012. Dr. Hakes said that, "It is unlikely the adjustments can be achieved without a significant price mechanism," and that, "Under most scenarios the price mechanism selected would slow somewhat the rate of economic growth."
In plain English, what Dr. Hakes was saying was that the only way we can meet the emissions reduction mandated in the treaty is through a significant increase in energy prices and that this will hurt the economy. Such candor is refreshing, and I hope to hear some more of it today.
There are basically three ways of increasing our energy prices— all harmful to American consumers and the American economy. One is through a carbon or BTU tax, which the Administration has correctly rejected as political poison. The second is through an international trading and joint implementation scheme-outlined in the Protocol, with details to be worked out in Buenos Aires in November-that would require the users of carbon-rich fuels to purchase credits to offset their emissions. And the third is through regulatory fiat. No matter which option is selected, the net result