[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PERSPECTIVES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-23
(Committee on Energy and Commerce)
Serial No. 110-14
(Committee on Science and Technology)
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-552 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
BART GORDON, Tennessee
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BART STUPAK, Michigan
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman
LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANE HARMAN, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana JOE BARTON, Texas
Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRED UPTON, Michigan
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of
Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
Bud Albright, Minority Staff
Director
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
Vice Chairman
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANE HARMAN, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio) J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois,
Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
(ii)
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
Professional Staff
Chuck Atkins, Staff Director
Jim Turner, Chief Counsel
Deborah L. Samantar, Legislative Clerk
Leslee Gilbert, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
Jean Fruci, Democratic Professional Staff
Chris King, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Shimere Williams, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Elaine Paulionia, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Stacey Steep, Research Assistant
Margaret Caravelli, Republican Chief Counsel
Amy Carroll, Republican Professional Staff
Elizabeth Stack, Republican Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee, opening statement................................... 7
Witnesses
Hon. Al Gore, Jr.,............................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor, Copenhagen Consensus Center,
Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark................ 52
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Submitted Material
Follow-up questions for the record to Mr. Gore, letter of June 5,
2007........................................................... 138
Letter of March 6, 2007 from Mr. Barton and Mr. Hastert to His
Excellency Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic....... 141
Answers to submitted questions............................... 143
``Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO\2\ Around the Last Three
Glacial Terminations'', by Hubertus Fletcher et al., Science
Magazine, March 12, 1999....................................... 147
``400 Years of Sunspot Observations'', submitted by Mr. Akin..... 150
PERSPECTIVES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality, Committee on Energy and Commerce; joint with the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on
Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:48 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Dingell
(chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) presiding.
Present from the Committee on Energy and Commerce:
Representatives Boucher (chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality); Butterfield, Melancon, Barrow, Waxman, Markey,
Wynn, Doyle, Harman, Allen, Gonzalez, Inslee, Baldwin, Ross,
Hooley, Weiner, Matheson, Barton, Hastert, Upton, Whitfield,
Shimkus, Shadegg, Pickering, Buyer, Bono, Walden, Rogers,
Myrick, Sullivan, and Burgess.
Present from the Committee on Science and Technology:
Representatives Gordon (chairman, Committee on Science and
Technology) Lampson (chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment); Costello, Woolsey, Lipinski, Giffords, McNerney,
Udall, Baird, Hall, Inglis, Bartlett, Biggert, Akin,
Neugebauer, and McCaul.
Staff present from the Committee on Energy and Commerce:
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Gregg A. Rothschild, Sharon E. Davis,
Jonathan Cordone, Sue Sheridan, Lorie Schmidt, Bruce Harris,
Chris Treanor, David McCarthy, Kurt Bilas, Tom Hassenboehler,
Matt Johnson, and Peter Kielty.
Staff present from the Committee on Science and Technology:
Chuck Atkins, John Piazza, John Fruci, Louis Finkel, Deborah
Samantar, Leslee Gilbert, Margaret Caravelli, Amy Carroll, and
Elizabeth Stack.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Chairman Dingell. The committee will come to order.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and our distinguished
friends from the Committee on Science and Technology are having
a joint hearing today amongst the two subcommittees which have
the responsibility of addressing the problem of climate change
and energy security.
The joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of
the Committee on Science and Technology has been scheduled for
a goodly while. I want to welcome my colleagues from both of
the committees, especially our colleagues from across the hall,
in particular Chairman Gordon and Subcommittee Chairman
Lampson.
By agreement amongst the majority and the minority of both
committees, the hearing will be conducted under the Rules of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As such, Members who were
here when the committee was called to order will be recognized
in the order of seniority alternating between the two
subcommittees, and other Members will then be recognized in the
order in which they have arrived.
Members of both full committees who do not serve on the
relevant subcommittees will not be able to participate in
today's hearing. Many of them are seated in the front row of
the audience, and I want to thank them for their efforts and
their interest in these important subjects. Under the rules of
the committee, all written statements of the Members will be
inserted into the record, and all Members may ask additional
questions of the witnesses in writing through the chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
These questions will be included in the official hearing
record along with the response of the witness.
I am sure all will know that the committees will seek to
see to it that this matter is handled to the full satisfaction
of all.
All will be notified in subsequent days of the proper
procedures for submitting statements and questions. By
agreements with our good friends and colleagues in the
minority, only the chairmen and ranking members of the full
committees and relevant subcommittees will be recognized for
opening statements.
Other Members will be permitted to make their opening
statements which will be inserted in the record in proper
fashion.
Our first witness has been dedicated to the issues of
energy security and global warming throughout his career. We
are delighted to welcome him back to this room where he served
with such distinction for so long.
His resume includes many impressive titles, including
Academy Award winner, most notably, and former member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is I think perhaps the
most important of his accomplishments. And incidentally he also
served as Vice President of the United States, as we will all
recall, for 8 years and was the Democratic nominee for the
President of the United States.
To allow the Vice President to interact with our members as
much as possible, the Chair will forgo his opening statement.
With that, it is now my privilege to recognize the ranking
member of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, our colleague, Mr. Barton,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, before I do that, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, when we
adopted the rules for this committee in the organizational
meeting, you and I entered into a colloquy which became a part
of the rules package that stated at hearings like this members
of the committee that are not a member of the subcommittee and
members of other committees that wish to attend would be
welcome to sit in.
I noticed that we have at least three members of the Energy
and Commerce Committee or the Science Committee in the
audience, and there may, I see several other Members I am not
sure if they are members of the Science Committee.
I would like to know why it is that they are not allowed to
sit up on the dais. I respect the right that they may not be
able to ask questions, because this is a joint hearing, but I
do not understand why we are violating the rules that we just
adopted and they can't even sit at the dais with the other
members of the committee that they are a member of.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair would advise my good friend and
colleague that that is a matter within the discretion of the
Chair. I have this matter under very careful consideration and
there is a fair probability that some subsequent action will be
taken by the Chair on this matter. I would note that we have
here a gathering of Members which is at least as large as
either of the two committees. And there are problems with
availability of seating. The Chair will work the with the
gentleman to try to resolve these questions in a fashion----
Mr. Barton. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman continues to be recognized.
Mr. Barton. My understanding is that, once we adopted,
after the colloquy, the rules package, that it is not the
prerogative of the Chair, that if the Chair wishes to waive
that rule, he has to ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Stupak. With all respect, the Chair is going to inform
my good friend that it is a prerogative of the Chair and the
present occupant of the Chair deems it to be a prerogative of
the Chair and will act accordingly.
Now having said these things, the Chair is going to remind
my good friend, we have a lot of Members who are sitting here
who wish to be recognized and be heard. I don't want to deny my
good friend the right to be heard on any points of concern.
I do want to remind him, however, though, that the time
that he and I are taking for these purposes are probably
denying the Members the opportunity to be heard at a later time
to ask questions.
Mr. Barton. Well, I have two more parliamentary inquiries.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Barton. On this last parliamentary, I am not going to
press the point and ask for a actual parliamentary ruling and
appeal the ruling of the Chair because I support the fact that
we are holding this hearing. But I will ask the chairman if he
is going to use his good offices to try to find seats for the
members of the full committee at the dais.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair will inform the gentleman the
Chair is thinking very actively on this matter and will
probably advise the gentleman shortly of any further decisions
made.
Mr. Barton. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman continues to be recognized.
Mr. Barton. We have another rule. And I believe this is a
rule also of the Science Committee, and I think it is a rule of
every committee, that witnesses that voluntarily agree to
testify are required to have their testimony in writing 48
hours in advance. Now, Mr. Gore is not only a former Vice
President, he is a former Member of the House, a former member
of this committee, and I believe a former subcommittee chairman
of this committee.
We, on the minority received, his written testimony at
about 7 o'clock this morning. It apparently got to the majority
offices about 1 o'clock this morning.
How are we supposed to prepare questions for our esteemed
witness when we are basically given testimony 2 hours before he
shows up? And that is a clear violation of the rules.
Chairman Dingell. Well, if the gentleman would permit, the
Chair will respond.
First of all, it is not a violation because this is a
matter which is addressed again in the discretion of the Chair.
And the Chair has made the decision that we would not enforce
this rule according to its absolute terms in view of the power
of the Chair to act in his discretion on this particular
matter.
The Chair will note that I have observed the gentleman from
Texas and my colleagues on the Republican side, and have
observed them to be members of great talent and ability.
I have watched them ask questions for many years. I have
never found them to be tongue tied or lacking in the ability to
address these questions. The statements are available. I am
sure the gentleman knows how to ask questions. And I have great
confidence in him and the fact that he will ask good questions.
I also would note that we have a very fine copy of the Vice
President's book, ``An Inconvenient Truth''. If the gentleman
wishes to have a little reading that he may enjoy during the
matter or at later times, I would be happy to make my copy
available to him.
Mr. Barton. Further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Waxman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. I can do it in regular order. If you want to
spend 2 hours and have an absolute cat fight, we will do it
that way.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair wants to accommodate my good
friend from Texas, and I am going to do my level best to see to
it that it is done. And the gentleman will continue to state
his parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair will try to respond.
Mr. Barton. Well, nowhere in the rules, as the minority
reads them is it prerogative of the Chair to waive written
testimony. That requires unanimous consent. Now, again, because
of my affection for the esteemed chairman, I am not going to
press that point today because of the importance of this
hearing. But this is the last day that we are going to just let
regular order be overridden.
Chairman Dingell. Well, the Chair, again, with all respect
and great affection observes to the gentleman, my good friend
from Texas, that under rule 4(b)(1) of the rules of this
committee, there appears the language requirements for
testimony. I quote, ``The chairman of the committee may waive
the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof.''
Under that provision, the Chair has waived the requirement
with regard to the production of books, papers and records and
testimony on this particular time. At this particular time and
we will try to see to it that that is complied with to whenever
the circumstances permit. And I do want to accommodate my good
friend and have a harmonious consideration of the difficult
questions before us.
Mr. Barton. I have one more parliamentary inquiry, and this
will honestly be the last one.
Under the rules of the committee, individuals who waive
their right to opening statements are given that time in the
question period. That is at the discretion of the chairman.
What is your ruling going to be on waiving opening statements
if we get additional time in the question period?
Chairman Dingell. The Chair is going to respond this way.
This is a rule. It will be applied on the insistence of any
Member. The Chair reminds my good friend that we are in the
position of a fairly limited amount of time. We are going to
see it to that we try to see to it that the younger members get
a full opportunity to be heard. And for the more senior members
to take advantage of this is simply to deny the younger members
the opportunity to ask questions or to have an adequate amount
of time for questions. So the Chair will respect this. But I
want to inform my good friend that I think it would be unwise
and perhaps unfair for us to do this at this particular time.
So, does the gentleman seek recognition for any further
purposes?
Mr. Barton. No, sir.
Chairman Dingell. Well, with respect and affection, then
the Chair thanks my good friend.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Barton, for such opening statements he chooses to
give for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I am going to waive the opening
statement with the understanding that I will have that time in
my question period which has been the practice of this
committee.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman asserts that right, and it
will be respected.
The Chair recognizes now my dear friend, the gentleman from
Tennessee, who is the chairman of the Science and Technology
Committee, for the purpose of introducing our guest. I would
note that the gentleman from Tennessee, is also the
distinguished representative of the district of which, in which
our former colleague and good friend, the Vice President,
lives. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Chairman Dingell, I waive my
opening statements so that Members will have more time to
question later.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
Committee on Science and Technology, who is also a member of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our good friend, Mr. Hall
of Texas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hall. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the two
committees, I thank you and thank you for holding this hearing.
And I hope that we all benefit from it.
Today we are witnessing an all out assault on all forms of
fossil fuels and all forms of nuclear energy. We have to be
energy conscious and sensible enough to know that fossil fuels
will continue to be the major source of energy in the near
future. If we allow this attack on energy to go unanswered and
have it result in lessening our domestic reliance on fossil
fuels, we will force the reliance on the OPEC from the dangers
of 60 percent presently to a recklessly dangerous and likely 80
percent of our total energy supply.
Forcing a continued reliance on OPEC will make our energy
markets more unstable and dismantle jobs for workers, such as
drillers, tool pushers, rough necks and others who furnish the
manpower and the woman power necessary to continue the search
and the capture of various sources of energy. It would also
establish OPEC countries as even more dominant than they are
today. Abandoning America's energy producers would result in
the death of an energy industry, an industry that helped win
world wars and continues to fuel our energy interest today. It
could also result in the loss of a generation of young American
men and women who would have to fight for energy when and if
the OPEC nations abandon the U.S.A. by canceling all sales and
casting their future with other than Americans.
We must press for energy self-reliance and continue to
pursue technology to combat the threat of increased carbon
dioxide. These two goals are interconnected. If we tap into
American ingenuity, we not only unleash the power of our
Nation's competitiveness, but we also find domestic solutions
for our future that are affordable, that are reliable and that
are clean.
Republicans in Congress have taken this pro-growth approach
over the past several years. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 for
instance, included numerous initiatives for greater energy
efficiency and alternative energy research and development. In
the coming weeks, I plan on introducing legislation that
expands on many of these initiatives so that we can continue to
develop innovative solutions to our domestic energy needs.
I understand that Dr. Lomborg will be discussing the role
of energy research and development and how this approach will
cost a lot less than the Kyoto-like policies and yet could
potentially have a much greater impact on our climate. These
are the types of solutions our country needs, solutions that
create jobs, foster American innovation and allow our country
to become more energy independent.
The legislation the present congressional leadership is
advocating brings about Kyoto-like policies that will cost our
Nation a lot of money and won't stop global warming in the
future. Moreover, it is clear that other countries who are
major polluters are not willing to help offset the giant costs
entailed in this type of legislation.
You can bring in testimony of expert after expert, all of
whom can say that global warming is a threat to world health,
but not one of them will discuss the cost of their
recommendations and the lack of the benefit gained at that
cost. Yes, the Americans--and the cost to all Americans--must
be a part of this discussion.
Finally, the American people will not guess today at what
mother nature will do 100 or 1,000 years from now and will not
be cajoled, frightened, bullied or sullied into nor lead into a
dangerous world that envisions us without a reliable energy
supply.
It is not going to happen because it can't happen. Working
Americans will not tolerate shipping our jobs to China, one of
the world's worst polluters. We should not abandon our
obligation to all Americans by allowing the renewed attack on
energy by a handful of pro-Kyoto self-styled experts who never
mention the cost to be paid by us, the American people--when
China, Russia, Mexico, India and others offer more and more
pollution and not one penny for the cleanup.
I have used the word ``cost'' eight times in this speech
alone. I have never heard the word used by the Kyoto-ites of
this Congress. This Congress will listen to Americans who
realize that someone has to pay the cost. I yield back my time.
Chairman Dingell. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce who has been performing extraordinarily
well in addressing in a very aggressive and responsible fashion
the subcommittee's review of these important matters. The Chair
recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Boucher.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your comments. I, too, will waive an opening
statement and reserve my time for propounding questions.
Chairman Dingell. Chair recognizes now the distinguished
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our good friend and
colleague, the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert of
Illinois, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, thank you
for holding this hearing. I will waive my opening statement and
reserve my time as an option in questions. Thank you.
Chairman Dingell. Statement of the gentleman is waived.
The Chair recognizes now the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and
Technology, our good friend, Mr. Lampson of Texas, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will waive my
comments and thank you for holding this hearing and, out of
respect for both our witnesses and other members of our
committee, waive the statements at this time, thank you.
Chairman Dingell. Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and
Technology, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I, too, waive my time and reserve
it for questions.
Chairman Dingell. Gentleman has waived.
The Chair now recognizes our distinguished friend, our good
friend from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, for the chairman of the
Committee on Science and Technology for the privilege of
introducing Representative Gore, who happens to be a
constituent of his.
The distinguished gentleman is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Dingell, in 1984, a young
Congressman from Tennessee, named Al Gore, Jr., with a lot of
help from his wife, Tipper, was elected to the United States
Senate. I was fortunate enough to succeed him in the Sixth
Congressional District. And for those first few weeks when I
went around in the congressional district, Al was really a
legend. He was known for constituency work. He was known for
the work he did here legislatively as well as for his
oversight.
And so everywhere I would go, people would say you have got
some big shoes to fill following Al Gore. Mighty big shoes. And
they were correct. But I finally got tired of hearing about it.
And I said, they ought not talk about Al's feet that way.
And even though Al represented the entire State, we still
shared mutual constituents within the Sixth District, and one
of those constituents was a lady named Barbara Mandrell, and it
was about that time that she had a song out entitled, ``I was
country when country wasn't cool.'' Certainly Albert Gore has
had a long passion and dedication to make the world understand
that global warming was real and that it had consequences.
We all know that recently the IPCC report stated that with
100 percent certainty, there is global warming. This was
unanimously adopted by 113 nations, including the United States
and by President Bush. But over 25 years ago, Congressman
Albert Gore, Jr., had some of the first hearings on the climate
change as chairman of a subcommittee on the Science and
Technology Committee. So many hearings later, both in the
Congress and the Senate, a few books, an Oscar winning
documentary, countless frequent flier miles and literally
hundreds of small group slide show presentations later, the
world finally is paying attention.
And so, Mr. Vice President, I want to thank you for your
passion and dedication. I want to welcome you to this
unprecedented joint hearing, the Science and Technology
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. And seeing
Tipper Gore here, I have to say one last thing, and that is
that, my little red-headed daughter Peyton's birthday is today.
And we are going to have a little party for her tonight. And I
doubt that she is going to ask me what I did today to avert
global warming, but I am sure that in the years ahead she is
going to ask me, was I a part of the problem, or was I a part
of the solution? And thanks to your leadership, I am going to
be a part of the solution.
Thank you for being here, and I yield such time as you may
consume.
Mr. Gore. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dingell. Other than to say welcome back, welcome
home. You served for a long time on this committee and in this
room. And I am sure that you feel comfortable and welcome, and
that is the way we want you to feel. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL GORE, JR.
Mr. Gore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is an
emotional occasion for me to come back to this hearing room.
I learned a lot from you, Chairman Dingell, when I first
came here in the fall of 1976 and then became a member of this
committee and was sworn-in in January 1977.
And, Chairman Gordon, thank you for your friendship all
these years and for your leadership on this issue and so many
others and thank you for calling me on the telephone in
Tennessee the day after the election last November, when it
became clear that you were going to be chairing the Science and
Technology Committee and you were the first to say, ``I want
you to come and talk about this issue, and we want to work on
it.'' Chairman Dingell, thank you for calling me and inviting
me to come and testify as well.
And to the ranking members, thank you, Congressman Barton,
Congressman Hall, we were close friends before you went over to
what we jokingly refer to as ``the dark side''.
And we are friends still. And I want to acknowledge my
friends on both sides.
Mr. Barton. He is threatening to come back over to your
side.
Mr. Gore. He would be more than welcome. He would be more
than welcome. Always. East Texas and Tennessee have a lot in
common.
And Chairman Boucher, thank you. We worked just across the
State line for so many years. And I have many friends on both
of the committees that are represented here. And I am very
grateful for the opportunity to testify before two committees
that I did in fact have the privilege of serving on.
Congressman Dingell, I want to say a special word of thanks
to you, because our fathers served together. This is the second
generation of friendship. And I was reflecting yesterday and
doing, just taking a pencil and paper, and at the time when
your father and my father served together in the House of
Representatives, the concentrations of CO\2\ in the atmosphere
up here on Capitol Hill and all over the world were just about
300 parts per million. And they really had never gone above 300
parts per million, at least as far back as a million years in
the ice record.
And yet, here we are today, and it is already 383 parts per
million, just in that short span of time. And that ultimately
is what brings me here.
There is a sense of hope in this country that this United
States Congress will rise to the occasion and present
meaningful solutions to this crisis.
This is the greatest country on the face of this Earth. And
the hopes for freedom and the viability and efficacy of self-
government rests with the legislative branch of our government
in this day and time.
There have been times in the past when our Nation has been
called upon to rise above partisanship, above political
calculations, above the pressures that have always been present
for two and a quarter centuries from special interests of this,
that or the other kind, and reach across the aisle and do what
history is calling upon all of us as Americans to do.
America is the natural leader of the world. And our world
faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds
shrill. And I know it is a challenge to the moral imagination
to see and feel and understand that the entire relationship
between humanity and our planet has been radically altered.
We quadrupled human population in less than one century
from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.56 billion today. Population is
stabilizing of its own accord as girls are educated and women
are empowered and family planning that is culturally acceptable
in country after country becomes widely available and, most
importantly, as child survival rates increase and infant
mortality decreases. When those things happen and especially
when literacy among women increases around the world, the birth
rates come down. The death rates come down, and then the birth
rates come down. And it is stabilizing.
But having multiplied by four the number of people on this
planet--and we are going from over 6.5 now to over 9.1 almost
certainly within the next 40, 45 years--that in itself causes a
big change in the relationship between humanity and the planet.
Second, our technologies are thousands of times more
powerful than any our grandparents had at their disposal. And
so we are even more skillful and more effective in doing the
things we have always done, exploiting the Earth for sustenance
and providing for our families and going about productive
lives. The side effects of what we are doing sometimes now
outstrip the development of extra wisdom to make sure that we
handle these new powers in a way that doesn't do unintended
harm. And somehow we have also adopted a kind of a short-term
way of thinking that is also different from what our
grandparents more commonly used.
In the markets, Congressman Bartlett said global warming is
the biggest market failure in history. I kind of agree with
that. If you look at the markets, the short-term focus is just
dominant now. Quarterly reports, day traders, if you look at
the entertainment business and the media business and even the
news business, it is overnight polls and how many eyeballs can
you glue to the screen. You know the phrases.
And in the honorable profession of politics back in that
year when I first came to serve on these two committees, I
never took a public opinion poll. And that was partly because,
back in those days, it wasn't very common and also as
Congressman Gordon knows, it is largely a rural district and
you get out and meet people. But that has all changed now. And
by the time I left politics, overnight polls were common. Now,
as you all know, the so-called dial meters, it is just one long
continuous poll. And I don't think the results for our
democracy are all that good.
But this short-term focus is a part of the problem that we
call the climate crisis. And we in the United States of America
and you in the Congress are the repository of the hopes and
dreams of people all across this Earth.
It is an unusual time.
One of the popular movies out there now is 300, about the
small group that defended a pass at Thermopylae to save the
prospects for democracy.
There are times, rare though they be, when a relatively
small group is called upon to make decisions and show courage
because the results of what they do will shape the prospects
not only for themselves and for their kin, but for all future
generations. This Congress is now the 535; really and truly, it
is one of those times.
Congressman Dingell, you are perhaps the youngest member of
the Greatest Generation having thought fought in World War II
as a very young man. And we owe you and your generation--as we
have all acknowledged many times--a great debt. But you were
part of a relatively small group that saved the world.
And when you and your colleagues, on the ground and at sea
and in the air, won the struggle against global fascism in the
Atlantic and the Pacific simultaneously, your generation came
back home transformed, no longer 19-, 20-, 21-year olds, having
walked through the fire, having emerged victorious; you came
home with a different capacity for vision, a deeper moral
authority.
And when your wartime leaders, like George Marshall, said,
we ought to lift up our adversaries from their knees and walk
with them from the battlefield toward peace and prosperity, we
need a European Recovery Program, that became known as the
Marshall Plan. Your generation said, yes, we don't want to have
a repetition of these world wars coming out of Europe, but you
knew it took vision and a 50-year time frame.
The United Nations was established. Taxes were involved.
The ``GI's General'' Omar Bradley, said ``It is time that we
steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing
ship.'' And your generation said, yes, that's right.
And here in the Congress, Republicans, Arthur Vandenberg
and others, stood up and reached across the aisle and said, we
are Americans first. And Democrats reached across from the
other side. And under Presidents of both parties, we stood down
communism. And for 50 years, we were faithful to that mandate.
I say all that, Mr. Chairman, because what we are facing
now is a crisis that is by far the most serious we have ever
faced. And the way we are going to solve it is by asking you on
both sides of the aisle to do what some people have, as you
know, begun to fear we don't have the capacity to do any more.
I know they are wrong. I know that politics can seem
frustratingly slow, like it doesn't move but an inch a year.
But when there are enough people who become seized of the
gravity of the challenge and talk with you and you yourselves
immerse yourselves in it and learn what is at stake, all of a
sudden it can move very quickly.
I came here today, Mr. Chairman, with some messages to the
Congress. And they will be delivered to your offices. They are
from 516,000 people who just in the last few days have
responded to an e-mail request that I sent out to say this
hearing has been scheduled and I would like to be able to tell
the members of these committees that I am not here by myself,
there are lots of Americans who feel as strongly as I do. And
so the folks that have contacted Algore.com, we have been
getting 100 new contacts per second in the last couple of days.
We just started this a short time ago.
This is building. And it is building in both parties. The
faith communities, the evangelical communities, the business
leaders, ten of the CEOs of the biggest corporations in America
just the day before the State of the Union Address last month,
most of them in their personal lives have been supporters of
President Bush. That is irrelevant to this issue. They had a
press conference the day before the State of the Union Address
calling on you to act, adopt legislation that will address this
crisis. These are not normal times.
Congressman Gordon, I want you to tell Peyton happy
birthday, and I felt the emotion in your voice as you got to
the end of your statement. I have felt that, too.
Because I promise you, I say this to each of you as
individuals, I promise you, the day will come when our children
and grandchildren will look back. And they will ask one of two
questions. Either they will ask, what in God's name were they
doing? Didn't they see the evidence? Didn't they realize that
four times in 15 years, the entire scientific community of this
world issued unanimous reports calling upon them to act? What
was wrong them? Were they too blinded and numbed by the
business of political life or daily life to take a deep breath
and look at the reality of what we are facing? Did they think
it was perfectly all right to keep dumping 70 million tons
every single day of global warming pollution into this Earth's
atmosphere? Did they think all of the scientists were wrong?
What were they thinking?
Or they will ask another question. They may look back, and
they will say, how did they find the uncommon moral courage to
rise above politics and redeem the promise of American
democracy and do what some said was impossible and shake things
up and tell the special interests, OK, we have heard you and we
are going to do the best we can to take your considerations
into account, but we are going to do what is right?
I am going to do my part to make sure that you have all the
support that I and lots of other folks can muster for you in
both parties when you do the right thing. If some of you in
tough districts face pressures that just are overwhelming, I
would ask you to walk through that fire.
I have got a few specific suggestions that I would like to
make and thank you for the courtesy of giving me a longer than
normal opening statement.
First of all, the new evidence, let it be said here, that
has come out just in the last few months shows that this may
well be even worse than has been described. Three days ago, two
new studies were reported in the peer-reviewed science journal,
Journal of Science magazine. One of them shows that the arctic
ice cap is melting more rapidly than had been predicted. One of
them shows that it could completely disappear in summertime in
as little as 34 years. Most of the computer runs--and this is a
respected computer modeling group, peer-reviewed--stretch it
out 35, 45, 55, could be as little as 34 years.
This problem is burning a hole in the top of the world in
the ice cover that is one of the principal ways our planet
cools itself. If it goes, it won't come back on any time scale
relevant to the human species.
Another study shows that the Earth is shaking because of
what is going on in Greenland. Glacial earthquakes,
seismographers all over the planet are hearing them; 1993,
there were seven of them, between 4.5 and 5 on the Richter
scale; by 1999, the number doubled to 14. This past year, there
were 32 between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter Scale.
One of the science magazine articles I referred to points
out in detail why the international scientific report decided
that it was impossible to include the fate of Greenland and
west Antarctica in their projections because they don't
understand how this could be happening so quickly.
Another study shows that among the billions of tons of
frozen methane in the Tundra areas that have locked it up in
ice, melting is proceeding more quickly than anyone had
predicted. Methane is much more powerful as a global warming
gas than CO\2\, about 23 times, they say, as powerful. We need
to turn the thermostat back down before that melts.
Fires, some of you all from the west have had a terrible
time with fires. New study correlates it precisely with the
warming temperatures; and not just the warming temperatures,
the earlier spring, the earlier melting of the snow pack and
the decreased precipitation available. You have got the study
there, Congressman. Thank you.
And what it shows is that the drier soils lead to drier
vegetation. And that means kindling. And the incidents of large
fires in the west, in Russia, in Australia, they have what some
are calling a thousand year drought now. It is correlated with
these warming temperatures. There are many other signs that we
do not have time to play around with this. We do not have the
luxury of making it a political football and exercising
politics as usual.
Here is what I think we should do. Number 1, I think we
should immediately freeze CO\2\ emissions in the United States
of America and then begin a program of sharp reductions to
reach at least 90 percent reductions by 2050. All of the
complex formulas of how we might start reductions years from
now and have a little bit in the first year and a little bit
more in the second year, I think we need to freeze it right
now, and then start the reductions.
Second, I believe--and I know how difficult this is to
contemplate--but I believe that we should start using the Tax
Code to reduce taxes on employment and production, and make up
the difference with pollution taxes, principally CO\2\. Now I
fully understand that this is considered politically
impossible. But part of our challenge is to expand the limits
of what is possible. Right now we are discouraging work and
encouraging the destruction of the planet's habitability.
We are also in a new world, Mr. Chairman. We have talked
many times about the competitive challenges that America faces
in an outsourcing world. And with information-technology
empowering these developing countries with large and fast-
growing populations and lower wage rates, our biggest
disadvantage is in the area of our high wage rates. We don't
want to lower our wages, but we shouldn't worsen that
disadvantage by stacking on top of the wages the full cost of
our health and welfare and social programs. I understand this
is a longer-term shift. But we ought to start making that
shift. It would make us more competitive. It would also
discourage pollution while encouraging work.
I understand how difficult it is, I will say again, but
carbon pollution is not presently priced into the marketplace.
It does not have a price tag. It is considered an externality.
And there are reasons for that. But if you think about the
externalities, they include air and water. I internalize air
and water, as most of us do. And I think the economic system
should, too. And I think that one way to do it is by this
revenue-neutral tax shift.
Third, a portion of those revenues must be earmarked for
those in lower-income groups who will have a more difficult
time making this transition unless you in the Congress make
sure that we are giving them the assistance that they need.
Fourth, we need to be part of a strong global treaty. Now,
I am in favor of Kyoto, but I fully understand that Kyoto, as a
brand if you will, has been demonized. I remember, Mr.
Chairman, when I first came to this Congress, one of the issues
I worked on was nuclear arms control. Some of the Members here
I worked with closely. In those years, Former President Carter
had a treaty pending the SALT II treaty. And for a variety of
reasons, including the invasion of Afghanistan by the former
Soviet Union, it was withdrawn, and the name itself became a
political liability.
President Reagan was elected. And I worked across the aisle
with President Reagan on arms control. And after only a couple
of years in office, he came to a realization, we need nuclear
arms control. He had been against it but the realities of the
situation made it clear that we needed to move forward.
And he came up with even deeper reductions and a new name
called the START Treaty, and people who had been opposed to
SALT II all of a sudden were in favor of the START Treaty.
I think that we should work toward de facto compliance with
Kyoto. If we can ratify it, fine. But, again, I understand the
difficulty. But we should work toward de facto compliance.
And here is my formal proposal. We ought to move forward
the starting date of the next treaty now scheduled to begin in
2012, to 2010 so that whoever is elected President and is
sworn-in in January 2009 can use his or her political chips, if
you will, all of the good will that comes out of that election
campaign and the new inauguration, not just on trying to fight
a rear guard action in a bitter battle to ratify a treaty that
will expire by the time it is ratified, but to work toward de
facto compliance and then start an all out sprint to negotiate
and ratify a new tougher treaty that will begin in 2010.
And we have to find a creative way to build more confidence
that China and India and the developing nations will be a party
to that treaty sooner rather than later. Land cover and methane
and soot may be opportunities to have provisions that are
binding upon them sooner rather than later, but some creative
way must be found to make them a part of this effort.
Next, this Congress should enact a moratorium on the
construction of any new coal-fired power plant that is not
compatible with carbon capture and sequestration. And that
means that we should have an all-out push to develop carbon
capture and sequestration.
Next, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that just as this committee
and the Science and Technology Committee were instrumental in
the early years of assisting the scientists and engineers to
take what was then known as ARPA-Net and DARPA Net and develop
the new switches and the new high-performance computers and
assist them in their creation of what became the Internet, that
I believe this Congress should develop an ElectroNet, a smart
grid. Just as the widely distributed processing of information
everywhere in this country and around the world led to the
biggest new surge of productivity that we have ever seen in
this Nation, we ought to have a law that allows homeowners and
small business people, to put up photable generators and small
wind mills and any other new sources of widely distributed
generation that they can come up with and allow them to sell
that electricity into the grid without any artificial caps at a
rate that is determined, not by a monopsony--as you know, that
is the flip side of a monopoly. You can have the tyranny of a
single seller; you can also have the tyranny of a single buyer.
And if a utility sets the price, it will never get off the
ground. But if it is a tariff, if it is regulated according to
the market for electricity the same way public utility
commissions do it now, then you may not ever need another
central station generating plant. In the same way that the
Internet took off and stimulated the information revolution, we
could see a revolution all across this country with small-scale
generation of electricity everywhere. And let people sell it.
Don't reserve it for the single big seller.
Next, I believe that we should raise the CAFE standards,
and I support your initiative, Congressman Markey. But I
support your idea, Chairman Dingell, as well, that it ought to
be part of a comprehensive package. And I have taken note of
your statements and also some of the automobile industry
statements that as long as it is part of a comprehensive
package that includes the utilities and includes buildings and
all the other sources--don't single out cars and trucks and
pretend that that is all the problem. It is only a slice of the
problem. And it is not even the biggest part of it. But it is a
big part of it.
Make it a part of the comprehensive solution. But let's not
bring up the rear anymore on these auto standards. Basically,
the problem is cars, coal and buildings, so you have got to
address all three of them in an intelligent way.
Next, I believe that, along with using the tax system and
a cap and trade treaty approach, you should also not shy away
from using the regulatory power. And I believe that this
Congress should set a date in the future for the ban on
incandescent light bulbs, give the industry enough time to make
sure they have got all of the socket sizes worked out and all
of the different features, like dimmers and the rest that
people want and to improve the quality of life. They will do
it. You set the date.
Tell them we are not going to be able to sell that old,
inefficient, wasteful kind at a set date in the future. They
will adjust. As long as everybody plays by the same rules, they
will adjust, and they will surprise you.
Next, where buildings are concerned, I would like to see
you pass a law that I call Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral
mortgage association and here's why. I used to be, in a small
way, in the home-building business when I came back from the
Army and before I was elected to the Congress. And the selling
price of a new house is something the market is very sensitive
to. Some of you all know this a lot better than I do because
you have been in the business in a bigger way. And so the
selling price is what people look at, both the sellers and the
buyers. But all of the things that we need to do to cut back
down on carbon emissions are things that add to the selling
price but don't pay for themselves until a couple or 3 years
have passed.
And so the appropriate thing of insulation, the window
treatments, the improvements that will sharply reduce the
operating costs of that home or building is routinely excluded
from the initial purchase price because the market
discriminates against it.
We ought to set up a carbon-neutral mortgage association
where all of those costs are set aside. They will pay for
themselves. But just like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, put them
in an instrument that is separate from the purchase price, and
when you go to closing on a house, you sign the mortgage, and
they will say, well, now here is your Connie Mae home
improvement package here. You don't have to worry about paying
for that because it will pay for itself. The Congress of the
United States has made sure of that. I recommend that strongly.
Next, I think that you ought to require this committee, the
Commerce Committee oversees financial services. I think the FCC
ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in the
corporate reporting. Just the day before yesterday, the largest
pension funds in this country, $4 trillion worth of assets
managed by them, called upon the FCC and the Congress to
require disclosure because it is a material risk. There are
lots of companies where investors need to know if there is an
exposure to carbon constraints, if they are going to be in real
trouble because of some aspect of the climate crisis that they
are not disclosing to their investors. Stockholders ought to
know that, and those disclosures ought to be required.
Now I want to close, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and thank
all of you again for the courtesy of allowing me to present
these ideas to you.
I would like to close by referring back to the
unprecedented nature of the challenge. As many of you know, the
way the Chinese and the Japanese, both of whom use the so-
called Kanji characters, express the concept of crisis, they
use two symbols together. And the first one means danger, and
the second one means opportunity. This is the most dangerous
crisis we have ever faced. But it is also the greatest
opportunity we have ever been confronted with.
And there are people who look around the world, Mr.
Chairman, and look at the genocide in Darfur and the chronic
civil wars and, in places like the Congo, fought by child
soldiers; and they look at the tens of millions that die of
easily preventable diseases and the destruction of the Asian
fisheries and the rain forest and these other things; and they
say, we just have all of these problems, isn't it terrible?
Well, there were problems back in those days after World
War II as well. But when your generation rose to meet them, the
vision they acquired in facing down fascism served them well in
giving them the ability to see that these other challenges were
not political problems; they were moral imperatives. And that
is what our opportunity is today, not only to solve this and to
say to the future generations, we did our part, this was our
Thermopylae, and we defended civilization's gate, and we rose
to the challenge; but to also say, in the process, we dug
deeply, and we found a capacity we didn't know we had. It is
there. We all know that. And that is what will give us the
ability to successfully solve these other crises. That is the
greatest opportunity of all that comes out of this climate
crisis.
It really is up to this Congress, and Mr. Chairman, and to
all of you, I cannot possibly overstate the strength of the
hope and good feeling that people all over this country have
about this Congress and the new approach that they feel is
being taken here. And I am going to be out there, as I said,
trying to stir up as much support for you all doing the right
thing as I possibly can. I wish you well as you undertake this
historic challenge.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.003
Chairman Dingell. The committee thanks you for your
presence and for your very valuable statement and for your
help.
I want to welcome you back. We have worked together in this
room for a lot of years, you and I, and you have made a
valuable contribution to the public in this room for which we
are all thankful, and I want to appreciate your recalling the
friendship that has existed between our two families for more
years than I think either of us can remember. And I want to
tell you my personal appreciation.
The Chair will note that I am going to defer on questions,
and I am going to begin by recognizing my colleagues for
questions for 5 minutes. We are going to adhere to those 5-
minute limitations very carefully.
The distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of
the Science and Technology Committee.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. When we deferred, at least I understood that we
would have that additional opening statement time to ask
questions. Have you changed your mind about that?
Chairman Dingell. I haven't changed my mind at all. If the
gentleman wishes, he could have that additional 5 minutes. The
Chair does remind him, however, that 5 minutes at this level is
going to deny members at the other levels 5 minutes as the
gentleman is fully entitled to take his time, and we will
respect that. Some of us will probably respect it more than
others.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
Did you want your 5 minutes?
Chairman Gordon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair apologizes, and the gentleman
from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Chairman Gordon. I want to recognize Sherie Boehlert, the
former chairman of the Science Committee in our audience today,
and I think Sherry represents how this really can be and should
be a bipartisan solution. Sherry has been a long advocate of
the concerns about climate change, and we are glad you are
here.
My friend and ranking member on the Science Committee, Mr.
Hall, raised a good question earlier, and so I want to follow
up on that. And that is the cost. What is going to be the cost
associated?
And I notice, Mr. Vice President, in your written
statement, you made the following statement, and I quote,
``There are some who will say that acting to solve this crisis
will be costly. I don't agree. If we solve it the right way, we
will save money and boost productivity.''
Would you mind elaborating on that?
Mr. Gore. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I meant to
acknowledge Chairman Boehlert, and I want to thank him publicly
for agreeing to work with me on the Alliance for Climate
Protection, which is a bipartisan group. Larry Schweiger with
the National Wildlife Foundation, another board member, is
here. Brent Scowcroft is on the board. Lee Thomas, President
Reagan's former EPA head, is on the board.
On July 7, we will launch a 3-year mass persuasion
campaign, completely bipartisan in nature. It will involve
television and radio advertisements in all of your districts, a
very active net-based campaign. This is not going away. The
problem is not going away. It is getting worse. The efforts to
build public support for a solution to it are going to be
increasing steadily, and I thank former Congressman Boehlert
for his part in that.
Now, on the cost, I remember back on the Science and
Technology Committee, we used to get testimony from this fellow
at the Rocky Mountain Institute Amory Levins. He is one of
these guys that is so smart, you feel like you are drinking out
of two fire hoses at the same time. And he doesn't get as much
attraction for his ideas as he should because people can't keep
up with him, can't understand him always. But he has been right
for 30 years on a lot of this.
And one of the things he used to say in talking about the
cost of this, the alleged cost, the solutions he said, ``They
have got the sign wrong. They have got the sign wrong.'' Well,
see, I thought he was so smart, I thought he was talking about
trigonometry with cosigns and whatever the rest of that stuff
is. And then I realized, no, no. He has brought it down to
where I can get to it. He is talking about a plus sign and a
minus sign, and what he means is that if you go about this in
the right way instead of putting a minus sign in front of the
expenditures that are needed to solve this crisis, you need to
put a plus sign in the sense that it is going to save you
money, and it is going to help make the economy stronger.
Harry Truman once said, when he was President, he said, ``I
spend 95 percent of my time trying to convince people to do
things that they ought to damn well do for their own benefit
anyway.'' And sometimes the people who really work with the
details of the solutions of the climate crisis feel exactly the
same way.
Now it is not that easy because when you look really
closely at it, there are some solutions that have minus signs
as well as plus signs.
But let us take, for example, in Sweden, they have this
program to have zero-carbon buildings. OK. And in some areas,
you can't do it unless it is zero-carbon. Well, the people that
do that, they put in the expenditures for more insulation in
the window treatments, and they use the new computer-assisted
design to orient to the sun just right, and there are things
they can do now that are fairly simple once they understand
what they are doing. And it ends up being zero-carbon. Well, it
more than pays for itself. And that is an example of a plus
sign where we are going to benefit from the expenditures.
There are some other approaches that would be costly. But
if we pick and choose correctly, we can improve our economy's
productivity and performance and save money.
Now this is not some alchemy or some mysterious process.
Pollution is waste. You have got to buy raw materials in order
to make pollution. And if you can figure out how to be more
productive and put more of those raw materials into your
product and less into the waste stream, you are going to save
money in the process.
Now the Stern report came out in the United Kingdom, and I
was asked to serve as an adviser to the government over there.
It has been an interesting process. And incidentally, I just
came back from there this past week. And I will say this to my
friends on the Republican side of the committee, over there,
the Tories and the Labour Party are all on the same side on
this. They are competing with one another vigorously. But they
are competing on the basis of who can present the most
effective solutions for it. They don't argue about the science.
The debate on science is over with.
And so now the Stern report, which came out of there, said
that the cost to our economy of not solving this crisis would
be devastating. And so if we go about it in the right way, we
can save money. If we don't confront the problem, the cost to
the economy would be enormous.
I am sorry to take up your time.
Chairman Dingell. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes now the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I would like the additional 5
minutes.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman will be recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. Barton. First. I do want to again welcome the Vice
President. I sincerely don't agree with your conclusions, but I
sincerely appreciate your passion and your willingness to try
to make a difference. I honestly commend you for standing up
for what you believe in and being willing to put your
considerable prestige on the line.
Mr. Gore. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Barton. I will point out in passing that your actual
testimony bears little resemblance to your written statement. I
would hope that we could get your legislative recommendations,
which were numerous, in writing so that we could actually study
them.
Will that be possible?
Mr. Gore. Could I have permission to revise and extend for
the record?
Mr. Barton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gore. I will put all of this in written form.
Mr. Barton. At least the legislative proposal.
Chairman Dingell. If the gentleman would yield, the Chair
is going to see to it that we leave the record open and that
suggestion, Mr. Vice President it would be very much
appreciated by the committee if you would be able to assist us
in.
The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
The first thing that I want to address is the science of
global warming as portrayed in the Vice President's film, ``An
Inconvenient Truth''. This is something that I think we
absolutely have to get right. Even the mainstream media, Mr.
Vice President, are now noticing that global warming science is
uneven and evolving. We need to be deliberative and careful
when we talk about so-called scientific facts.
In your movie, you display over a time line of temperature
and compare it to CO\2\ levels over a 650-year period as
reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is
conclusive proof of the link of increase CO\2\ emissions in
global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveal
something entirely different.
I have an article from the Science Magazine, which I will
put into the record at the appropriate time, that explains
historically a rise in CO\2\ concentrations did not precede a
rise in temperatures but actually lagged temperatures by 200 to
1,000 years. Yes, lagged. CO\2\ levels went up after the
temperature rose. It appears that the temperature appears to
drive CO\2\, not vice versa.
On this point, Mr. Vice President, you are not just off a
little; you are totally wrong. And it is not just this one
article. The president of the National Academy of Sciences
agreed under oath last summer in an O&I Subcommittee hearing on
this very point.
We know that CO\2\ levels have historically and repeatedly
far exceeded the levels of concentrations that we are now
experiencing, which you, in your opening statement, correctly
said was 380 parts per million. Indeed, CO\2\ levels in the
past have exceeded over a thousand parts per million, and the
average Earth temperatures have been much higher than they are
today. We know these things. But because some of these levels
occurred millions of years ago, reliable data regarding the
details of these is limited. We do not know whether the
temperature rose before or after the rise in CO\2\ levels that
far back.
But it remains a fact, and it is clear from the data that
we do have that, for hundreds of thousands of years, CO\2\
levels have followed temperature rise, not the other way around
as you preach.
You have also asserted that global warming is going to
cause sea levels to rise by over 20 feet. Twenty feet. The
recent IPCC report indicates a rise of at most 23 inches.
Inches. Twelve inches equals a foot.
You state that there will be more and stronger hurricanes
because of global warming. The IPCC report does not support
this claim.
You have also stated that malaria has been exacerbated in
Nairobi because of global warming. The World Health
Organization report does not support this allegation. In fact,
malaria is not an exclusively warm weather disease. Inhabitants
in Siberia have long experienced malaria outbreaks.
Your ideas aren't all bad, Mr. Vice President. You list a
number of thoughtful responses to global climate change for
this committee to consider. They include: more efficient use of
electricity in heating, cooling appliances and lighting; more
energy-efficient buildings and businesses; more fuel-efficient
cars, both hybrid and fuel-cell cars; better designed cities,
mass transit; and fuel-efficient trucks; increased use of
renewables and carbon-capture and sequestration. These are good
ideas. They are not just reasonable responses to climate
change, but they are good energy policies as well.
We have before us one of your tables from your book, I
believe, and I am happy to report that, in the last Congress,
under the chairmanship of myself with the strong and able
support of Mr. Dingell, the current chairman, we reported out
and passed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a
bipartisan basis. If we look at that piece of legislation, we
will see that many of the things that you recommended, we have
already done.
You want more efficient heating and cooling systems,
lighting, appliances and electronic equipment. In the Energy
Policy Act, we did that in titles I, IX, and XIII. You want
end-use efficiency design of buildings and businesses to use
far less energy than they currently do. We did that in titles
I, IX and XIII.
You want increased vehicle efficiency cars that run on less
gas, and more hybrid and fuel-cell cars. We attempted to start
that process in EPAct titles VII, VIII, IX, XIII and XV.
You want to make other changes in transportation
efficiency, better use of mass transit systems and heavy
trucks. We do that in title VII and IX.
You want increased renewable energy, wind, solar biofuels.
We do that in EPA title II, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIII, XV, XVI,
XVII and XVIII.
And, finally, you think that we need to research and try to
capture and store carbon from power plants and factories. We
start that process in EPA titles IV, IX and XVII.
So, in many of the things that you recommend, we not only
agree with you; we have already done it.
Some of your ideas, though, Mr. Vice President, I think are
just flawed.
Your suggestion of a carbon tax is something that would
harm our competitiveness, raise costs to American families,
export jobs and actually do very little to improve our
environment. Likewise, a Kyoto state cap and trade system for
CO\2\ will mainly increase the price of electricity while
providing few, if any, environmental benefits. These proposals,
especially considering that neither of them includes large
emitters of greenhouse gasses, such as China and India, fail
the commonsense test that any legislation should meet. They
provide little benefit at a huge cost.
Instilling a carbon tax on the American people or
instituting a cap on carbon without the participation of
nations like China and India is an attempt to reverse global
warming similar to a doctor telling an overweight and sedentary
chain smoker that he or she needs to wear a seatbelt. China is
adding a coal power plant a week and will add more coal-fired
electricity generation this year than the entire State of Texas
currently has.
When you were Vice President and you jetted into Kyoto to
sign the Kyoto Protocol, you rejected requests of people like
myself and Chairman Dingell to insist that China and the
developing nations be included in that same protocol.
Let us look at what has happened in Europe as they have
tried to instigate their carbon cap and trade. In Germany,
electricity wholesale rates have risen 30 to 40 percent, and
they are facing huge job losses. Despite all of the efforts of
the European nations that signed Kyoto, almost none of those
countries are on target to meet their Kyoto obligations. Cap
and trade isn't working in Europe. It will not even be tried in
Asia, and it should not be unilaterally imposed in the United
States of America.
You just gave us an idea for a flat straight CO\2\ freeze,
if I heard you correctly. I think that is an idea that is
flawed. If you take that literally, we can add no new industry,
no new cars and trucks on the streets and apparently no new
people because people are mobile source emitters. Every person
emits 0.2 tons of CO\2\ a year. So an absolute true freeze, no
new industry, no new people and no new cars.
I think we need to approach a legislative initiative in
these areas with an eye on four basic principles: we first want
to be sure that it actually helps the environment. We want to
keep our lights on at an affordable price. We want to keep the
American economy strong, and we want to keep American jobs here
in America. And, finally, we can't get out in front of things
that are not technologically possible with at the current time,
as I have noted.
On some of your ideas, we agree and we have already taken
action. And hopefully in this Congress, we will take additional
action.
Now I want to ask, in my last 19 seconds, this question.
You said that you support a CAFE increase. Do you support the
CAFE increase like they have in Japan that is over 45 miles per
gallon, or do you support a CAFE increase more like they have
in China which is around 35 miles per gallon, and what is your
time frame for this increase that you do support?
Mr. Gore. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. I would
like to respond to several of the things that you asked me
about.
First of all, I think that the committees should be under
no illusion about what the scientific consensus is. The
National Academy of Science, not only in this country but in
every major country in the world, has endorsed the scientific
consensus and is calling upon you to act.
The IPCC, the most extensive and elaborate in-depth
highest-quality international scientific collaboration in all
of history, has now four times in the last 15 years, as
recently as 6 weeks ago, unanimously endorsed the consensus.
Scientific American had a special issue in September saying
the debate on global warming is over. The editor-in-chief of
Science Magazine said it is very rare to have a consensus in
science as strong as this one. One of the leading experts said
it is a stronger consensus than on practically anything except
perhaps gravity. So I think the consensus is, it is something
that we ought to acknowledge and accept.
Now the fact that more CO\2\ traps more heat in the lower
parts of the Earth atmosphere is really beyond dispute. I mean,
that is not me saying that. That is what the scientists have
known for 180 years. And for a hundred years, they have done
the calculations on pretty much exactly what the magnitude of
the heating effect is.
And you know, for those who say that there may be some kind
of magic solar system phenomena at work here, how come it is
getting cooler in the stratosphere at the same time it is
getting warmer in the troposphere, the lower atmosphere? That
is exactly what the models predict.
Mr. Barton. My time expired 2 minutes ago.
Mr. Gore. But if I could complete my response, Congressman.
Mr. Barton. I hope there is an answer in this.
Mr. Gore. May I?
Mr. Barton. I would like to have an answer to the straight
question.
Mr. Gore. Well, you asked quite a few of them, and I am
doing my best.
Now, on CO\2\ and temperature, when CO\2\ goes up,
temperature goes up. That is why 20 of the 21 hottest years
ever measured in the human record have been in the last 25
years. The 10 hottest have been since 1990. The hottest was
2005. The hottest in the United States of America was 2006. The
hottest winter ever measured globally was December of last year
and January and February of this year, last month. This is
going on right now. The planet has a fever. If your baby has a
fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says, you need to
intervene here, you don't say, well, I read a scientific
magazine that tells me it is not a problem. If the crib is on
fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You
take action.
The planet has a fever. And 5 degrees may not sound like
much the range it is in the range that is projected, but the
difference between 98.6 and 103.6 is 5 degrees. We have to take
action on this.
Now in the ice core record, as I have said every time I
give my slide show, it is a coupled system. They go up and down
together, and indeed, there have been times since the entire
interglacial record is driven, the scientists tell us, by these
cycles, the Earth orbits around the sun, gets thinner and
wider. On a 100,000-year cycle, the tilt oscillates a degree
and a half. On a 41,000-year cycle, there is a wobble called
presession. On a 22,000-year cycle--and when those three
overlap, it creates that historic pattern. That has been true
for 3 million years.
Mr. Barton. The temperature goes up before the sea level
goes up.
Mr. Gore. Sometimes that has been true in the past. The
opposite has also been true in the past. But what is happening
now is that we, because of human action, are overwhelming all
of those cycles.
Just a couple more brief points, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes
to global warming, and I have never said there is. It is the
intensity of hurricanes. It is also true the scientists say you
can't take an individual storm and say, this is caused by
global warming. But the odds of stronger storms are going up.
I see the gavel, and I would like to respond to the other
three questions you asked, but in courtesy to the other
members, I will try to weave them into other--I ask your
direction, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to briefly answer them
now?
Chairman Dingell. The Chair is in a pickle. I have a lot of
Members that have to be heard.
Mr. Gore. I understand. I will answer the other questions
for the record if that is OK.
Chairman Dingell. That would be splendid. Without
objection, so ordered.
We are going to see to it that there is broad opportunity
for insertions in the record by all Members and by our
distinguished witness.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Boucher, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Vice President, we welcome you here this morning.
Thank you for taking time with us and thank you, also, for the
groundbreaking work that you have done in drawing global
attention to the human contribution to climate change and the
need to control greenhouse gas emissions. We congratulate you
on that work.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. We are planning in our committee for later
this spring the drafting of a greenhouse gas control measure.
We have not made decisions as of this point about the control
methodology. And we are evaluating a number of different
alternatives that could achieve significant reductions.
I would welcome your advice today on what those various
methodologies might be. You mentioned in your testimony the
possibility of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions followed by
some form of emission trading program: We adopted such a
program in 1990 in our Clean Air Act amendments applicable to
sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and that
program has been a sterling success. In fact, it succeeded far
better than even those of us responsible for drafting that
thought that it would.
The European Union, on the strength of that success,
decided to apply a cap and trade regime so it is--to satisfy in
the Kyoto Treaty obligation on greenhouse gasses. But I think
the consensus now after several years of experience with that
in Europe is that their program was flawed. And so I would
welcome your views this morning on what the Europeans did
properly with regard to their cap and trade; what they did not
do properly; and what could have been done better; and your
evaluation of whether cap and trade is an approach that we
should seriously consider for adoption here in the U.S. as we
devise an approach to greenhouse gas controls.
Mr. Gore. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a great
question, and I do recommend a cap and trade approach, and when
the first President Bush first proposed the sulfur dioxide cap
and trade system, I was a supporter of it, but you are right.
Even the most enthusiastic supporters underestimated how
effective that was. We got much sharper reductions at much
lower costs. Trust the market. Make it work for us instead of
against us.
Now the European system is in fact working, and it is
beginning to work extremely well. I disagree respectfully that
they are not meeting their targets. It is a Europe-wide target,
and they are going to be on track to meet it. It is not
individual countries. Some of them are ahead of their internal
targets. Others are behind. As a region, they are not only
meeting them; they just adopted binding targets last week when
I was over there that go much deeper than their obligations
under Kyoto, a 20 percent reduction, and they will take it to
30 percent if we join in the regime. So they are finding that
it is much easier to do, and they are moving more quickly.
Now here is what they did wrong when they started. They
miscalculated their base year, and so, since all of the
reductions have to be measured against the base year, it
matters a lot if they get that wrong. They also had a first
phase, a start-up period that was way too long. Now they have
recognized that, and they have adjusted both of those things.
They are really on this case. At the prime minister level, they
had all of them meeting just last week. This is the number one
issue over there in lots of those countries, and again, as in
the UK, it is bipartisan. It is across the party lines, and
people are up in arms about it. And the business leaders are
demanding that the government act, and the governments are
acting. So I think they fixed the two problems that they had.
Now, the U.S. is about 23 percent of the ongoing annual
carbon emissions. On a historic basis, we are responsible for
about 30 percent of the CO\2\ that is up there, and if we stop
completely tomorrow, it would be a hundred years before half of
it fell out. So it is a difficult challenge. But since we are
not participating in the cap and trade system, it is a little
bit like a bucket with a hole in it. You can still use a bucket
with a hole in it, but it will be a lot more efficient if that
23 percent hole is plugged. Then what you will find is the
global market in carbon trading will reach much higher levels
of efficiency.
Now, here is what it is doing at the company level. I gave
the keynote speech last week at a conference called Point
Carbon, where they had companies from all over the world,
simultaneous translation through Japanese, that and the other.
And they are focused on how this trading system works.
A year ago, at the same conference, they did a study of the
thousands of companies represented there and asked them how
many of these companies are reducing internally their carbon
and managing it. It was 15 percent. Last week, this year, 65
percent. So, just in 1 year's time, you have had that big
increase. And I think the same thing is beginning to happen
here in this country.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Chairman Dingell. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And Al, I do respect you and your great family, and I am
older than Mr. Dingell, and I remember the services of your
father that worked alongside our Sam Rayburn. And I have read
of and some people think I remember Sam Houston, another great
Tennessean.
Mr. Gore. Also from Tennessee.
Mr. Hall. And Bart Gordon is really helping me. I don't
know that he really realizes it or not, but he is a great guy
and a Tennessean, and I never met a Tennessean that I didn't
like, honestly. Barton says that every time somebody left
Tennessee and came to Texas, it raised the character in both
States. That is a good statement to make.
But I have to differ with you on some things, and let me
tell you. I have admired you. We sat right side by side on
these committees and worked together. We held a conference one
time, a hearing on my boat out in front of Thomas Jefferson's
home there.
Mr. Gore. Yes.
Mr. Hall. And when your little one was injured, you had the
prayers of everybody up here.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. And you are dear to us, but I just don't agree
with you on this. But Bart mentioned, and I want to thank him
for mentioning it, he mentioned it himself, I heard him say
cost. That is 12 times that we heard it here in just a little
bit. If you say it costs nothing now, and I think you said
``There are some who will say that acting to solve this crisis
will be costly; I don't agree.'' Then you go on to say some
ways to where it won't be costly, but I think that you are
going to--we are going to hear from Dr. Lomborg here in just a
little bit. In his testimony, he said, and we are talking about
the Kyoto Protocol, which even if it had been successfully
adopted by all signatories, including the United States and
Australia, and even if it had been adhered to throughout the
century, it would postpone warming by just 5 years in 2100.
That is 90 years from now; 89 years from now, I believe. I am
not good at math. At a cost of $180 billion annually, and it
would hold off global warming 4 years. That doesn't look like a
very good deal to me, and who is going to pay for it?
Ask China what they think about paying for it. Ask Mexico.
Ask India. Ask a number of other countries. My question,
though, to get around to my question is that, if the United
States and China and India do not incur the cost of reducing
their emissions--at the same time, are you concerned that the
United States will be at a competitive disadvantage?
Let me go a little further. If developing countries are not
required to take action at the same time as the United States,
what will happen to the United States manufacturing sector when
you add in the costs of reducing emissions to the products
produced domestically versus those products produced overseas
that do not incur such costs at the same time?
I guess my question is, how would you prevent the United
States manufacturers from being harmed?
Mr. Gore. Well, Congressman Hall, Ralph, if I may, thank
you so much.
I was thinking, remembering fondly that evening on your
boat out there, and I would love to do that again some time.
Mr. Hall. We will do it any time you want to.
Mr. Gore. Thank you. I enjoyed working with you when we
were on the committee together, and I really do believe what I
said earlier, Ralph, that we have got to find a way to reach
across the aisle on this and recreate what used to be a
bipartisan consensus in support of the environment here in this
Congress, and even when these measures, like the ones we are
talking about here, are involved.
Now, on China and India, it is a very serious challenge and
here is the reality of it: Every single global treaty since the
end of World War II has had the same basic design. The
countries that have higher per capita incomes are put in one
category, and the countries that have, just one one-hundredths
in some cases, of what the per capita income in Europe, Japan,
the U.S. is, they are in another category. And they say, look,
we don't have the ability to bear that burden in the same way.
We don't have the technologies, and you all created this
problem. You start, and then we will come along.
And in every treaty that has been written since 1945, that
has been the approach that has had to be taken. I wish it to be
otherwise. But in a negotiation, when you have got all of these
power countries banding together, nobody has found a way to
crack that walnut open with another kind of formula. The way to
improve the odds that they are going to come on board is for
the United States to take the lead.
Now we have got something else going for us, and that is
that these countries now are beginning to understand very
clearly that they have to act in their own self interest. You
take China, for example. Both the Yellow River and the Yangtze
River originate on the ice fields on the Tibetan Plateau. They
are having terrible water shortages in many parts of China,
particularly northern China. They are having terrible pollution
problems related to their coal expenditures. They now have
these mass demonstrations over there, believe it or not. They
are not covered in their news media, of course, but they are
really having a difficult time. That is why their two top
leaders have both made important speeches just in the last 2
weeks saying that they have got to address this; they have
expressed their determination, too.
I don't put much stock in those words until they follow it
up, but the way to improve the odds, if they do, is for us to
show the leadership. And I think most of what we do is going to
make us more competitive with them.
Mr. Hall. My time is up, but I just want to tell you that
negotiations spawn treaties, and every negotiation we have had
from China, Lord knows, I have heard the word no when it comes
to talk about cost.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hall. And I yield back my time.
Chairman Dingell. You owe us about 15 seconds.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman, Mr.
Lampson.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for joining us
today. Your public service is most appreciated.
In 1945, the United States Army published a book cautioning
our country about our reliance on fossil fuels. It has been 62
years since that message was published, since that statement
was published. Even you with your message, your positions that
you have held have been--you have had a very difficult time
getting the message out to the rest of this world, but your
relentlessness is hopefully going to pay off, and I thank you
for that.
I have two questions if I can get them both in.
First, if we take action to address our climate change
challenges, don't we also address many other problems that we
face? For example, can we also achieve air quality benefits,
greater energy independence and reduced traffic congestion and
maybe even more? And would you comment on that, please?
Mr. Gore. Is that both of your questions?
Mr. Lampson. That is just one.
Mr. Gore. Yes, I think that is absolutely the case. And
there was an effort to include the CO\2\ pollution in with the
other pollutants so that the utilities could address them at
the same time when they modernize and update, and I still think
that is the way to go. But there is no doubt that if you cut
down on the global warming pollution, you are also going to
make the air cleaner. Asthma rates will likely go down. Lung
diseases will likely be less severe. Congestion, if we enact
some of the sensible solutions on transportation, yes, you will
solve some other problems that need to be addressed anyway. I
agree with you totally.
Mr. Lampson. So significant potential savings. As we
probably all know, coal is the least expensive and the most
abundant fuel that we have in this country and the fuel that is
most available in India and China as well. Recently, in Texas,
TXU had a plan to build eight new coal-fired plants, and that
caused a great deal of controversy due to the concerns about
air quality and carbon dioxide emissions. What do we need to do
to make clean coal viable? And what are the key areas of
research and investment that we need?
Mr. Gore. Well, first of all, I want to compliment the
people of Texas who rose up en masse to block that cynical plan
by TXU to move forward. And you know, if you look at what
happened, it was Republican mayors alongside Democratic mayors,
virtually every significant mayor in the State of Texas was
involved in protesting that going forward. You and your group,
Nick, were just terrific in that. And this is a grassroots
movement. And it is bipartisan.
And now to your question, we need to make sure that we
accelerate the development of carbon capture and sequestration.
And we need to avoid the easy assertion that if you just use it
for enhanced oil recovery, that is sequestering it, because the
geological deposits have to be ones that are not porous. We
can't pretend that it won't come back up through if it is put
in the wrong places. But if it is done right, then this does
open up the opportunity to continue using coal.
Now, pulverized coal, according to the old approach where
they just heat it up, then you are producing so much nitrogen
along with the CO\2\, there is no way to capture it. New
designs with oxygen enrichment--this is above my pay grade--but
they say there are ways to design these plants that make them
capture and sequestration friendly.
Now, a lot of times, the problem is, you have to have the
geological formation close enough to the coal deposits and also
close enough to the places where you are going to sell the
electricity to make it all economically feasible. The places
that are doing the best job appear to be Norway and Iceland.
And they are storing it offshore under the seabed where the
water pressure holds it in place safely. But coal's future
depends on getting an accurate price for carbon in the
marketplace and the speedy development of carbon capture and
sequestration technology.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much. I have other questions. I
would like to submit them for the record, and I yield my time.
Chairman Dingell. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hastert, our former Speaker, for 10 minutes.
Mr. Hastert. I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gore, welcome back to the Energy and Commerce
Committee. We appreciate you and Professor Lomborg appearing
before us today to discuss the very important issues
surrounding global climate change. I listened to you and
sometimes in wonderment, and we talk sometimes in very general
language and talk about modernizing and upgrades. We talk about
capital investment, research and development. But all of those
have costs, and you are able to develop to be able to pay for
things, costs, you go two places. You can tax the American
people and tax the American industry, or you can have the old
fashioned way, the things that our Forefathers did basically is
have economic activity and market economy and investment and
coming from the free market and people's pockets.
There are two ways to get money out of people's pockets:
investment and taxing. I was somewhat amazed to go through your
10 or 15 issues here or your recommendations. I think a lot of
those recommendations I can agree with. But a lot of those
recommendations are more regulation and more taxation. And we
find out in this economy, this world, when we tend to regulate,
when we tend to tax, you depress the ability of the free market
to work. And sometimes people in this dark side of the aisle,
as you said, talk about less regulation and less taxation to
make our economy work to give the free people freedom to
invest.
Let me just say, Mr. Vice President, I agree with you. I
agree with you that the debate over climate change is over. I
believe the Earth climate is constantly changing. As a farmer,
I could tell you that I see evidence of this fact every year.
Any one of my constituents can tell you the same thing, and I
also agree that the science tells us the Earth's average
temperature increased in the 20th century, and financially, I
agree with you that human activity and economic development has
an impact on our environment.
But I am less certain about the nature and extent of man's
contribution. But we will let history debate and determine what
that is.
The fact is, you have laid out some things and places that
we need to go. And as a thinker, as a personality and now a
movie star, you can come back with those general themes, those
broad things and say, ``Do this.''
Mr. Gore. Rin Tin Tin was a movie star. I just have a slide
show.
Mr. Hastert. The fact is, I have pledged my cooperation
with Mr. Dingell the esteemed chairman of this committee, and
Mr. Boucher, who is the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee. I
think there are answers. But the fact is, 50 percent of our
energy is coal. There is more energy under Gillette, WY, than
there is in all of Saudi Arabia. We have the potential in
States like Virginia and Kentucky and southern Illinois and
southern Indiana and Wyoming and Montana and others to be able
to harness that energy, but it happens to be coal energy.
We also have natural gas. We have some oil. But we can't
sustain the need for the growth in energy in this country that
we are going to need in the next 10 years, a 40 percent
increase, because we do have an increase in population. And
although our population has curved down, probably doesn't keep
up with the rest of the world, but that is a fact. I have a new
grandson. I am proud of it. I hope he has grandsons to come.
But that is the fact, that we are going to have to have
that growth. So how do we meet that? How do we do it? How do we
find the new technologies and the new ideas and the new
sciences to be able to do it? Nine times out of 10 it is going
to be individual investment. It is going to be people saying,
this is a good idea, I am going to put money in this idea, and
I am going to help create a better world because of it, and by
the way, we may make a little profit off of it on the side. And
that just happens to be how this country works.
So I think we can find answers to use the coal energy, to
use the natural gas energy that we have, to use the renewable
fuels of ethanol and soy diesel.
And there is another issue, too. We need to use atomic
energy, and we have the ability today--you know, I wrote the
Public Utility Act in Illinois in 1984 when 14 nuclear units
were coming on line and the cost went from $400 million to $5
billion per unit. And I predicted we would never see another
nuclear plant built in the country for 25 years. And,
ironically, I was right.
But it is time to review this and renew it because we can
have clean air with nuclear energy. But there is a problem.
There is a gentleman over in the Senate that has his hand in--
not a veto hand, a debate hand, a filibuster hand on the
finishing of Yucca Mountain where our rate payers put $18
billion into that to make it happen.
So that is a political reality, but we need to change that.
We need to find the solutions so that we can deposit nuclear
waste.
I would say, Mr. Vice President, there are a lot of things
that we can do. And there is a lot of potential for the future
of this Nation. And I understand the problems with China and
India and Mexico and Brazil and other nations that you say have
low income. But you find out today that China has amassed more
capital, real capital, than almost any other country over the
last 5 years. That capital needs to be spent, not just on
highways, but they are building those coal-fired plants. They
can also be investing in new technology and new ideas, and that
needs to be done, because they are building the equivalent of
500-megawatt plants of pure coal, no clean up, every week. And
no matter what we do in this country--we have stopped every
car, stopped every coal-fired electric plant, and we couldn't
match in our drop in energy what they add in energy in
pollution every year--every week.
So we have a challenge. We not only have a challenge to
this country; we certainly have a global challenge. I was there
in Kyoto. I watched this development. I also remember when you
came in and signed the agreement and changed it a bit. The fact
is, not everything has worked. And I believe in international
relations. I believe that we need to have international
compacts, but we also need to make sure that, when we do it,
they do work.
So what I am asking and what I am saying is that I think
there are answers, answers using the resources we have. I know
you disagree with us on coal, but I think there are ways we
could use the coal in this country. But there are some things
we can do with atomic energy. There are some things that we can
do with renewable fuels.
And the other part of this is we have become so dependent
on foreign fuels that we are tied to sheiks and dictators and
who knows what; countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and
Iran and Iraq and Qatar--with all due purposes--and places like
Nigeria, and I can go on and on.
When somebody decides to turn the spigot off, we don't have
energy. And we lose jobs. And we lose the ability to produce in
this country.
I spent last weekend in Detroit, the home of our esteemed
chairman, and I happened to be at the wrestling tournament, Mr.
Chairman. I wasn't raising money in your district. I just
wanted to let you know that. Maybe a little. But anyway, what I
saw in a place called Dearborn, Michigan, going down the street
were block after block after block of empty factories where
people once worked, store after store after store closed where
people used to do commerce and buy things. And as we increase
regulation, we force jobs out of this country. And if we cut
off CO\2\ emissions and froze them today, we would have
literally tens of thousands of jobs that would be moved to
China and India and other places in the world, and we would
lose them. We would have more empty factories. We need to work
on solutions and find the legislative language and the
legislative fixes that make that work.
Can you help us do that?
Mr. Gore. Congratulations on your new grandson. Is that
your first grandchild?
Mr. Hastert. First grandchild.
Mr. Gore. You are going to find grandparenting is not
overrated, and it is rated pretty high. Tipper and I had a new
grandson also just 2 months ago, and you are going to love it.
And it is really without being corny about it, it really is
for them that we are all trying to find a way to the right
solutions here.
I know that time is short so let me just be brief in
response to your several comments and questions.
In your initial recitation of what you agree with,
Congressman, maybe I heard you wrong, but I think you stopped
short of the part of the consensus that acknowledges that human
activity is the principal cause of the warming.
Mr. Hastert. I think I said that.
Mr. Gore. I just wanted to make sure because, once that is
established, then we have got a moral imperative to act here.
And then you pose the choice between taxing and investing.
That may be an unfair compression of what you said, but the
investments in TXU that were mentioned earlier came to naught
because the investors decided that there was such
unpredictability about the price of carbon that they just
couldn't go forward with the plan, and so they had to
completely re-jigger it.
I don't think we should raise taxes at all. I think that we
should shift the burden away from working people and small
business people and put it on pollution instead. And I think,
if we do that, we are going to make our businesses more
competitive. Some of the Rust Belt devastation that you
described, some of it has been due to the fact that old
inefficient polluting approaches no longer work in a
competitive world economy and actually focusing on reducing the
pollution turns out often to be one of the shortcuts to finding
the most competitive new approaches that can restore jobs and
make us more productive and more competitive in the global
economy.
You mentioned nuclear. I am sure that will come up again. I
am not an absolutist in being opposed to nuclear. I think it is
likely to play some role. I don't think it is going to play a
major role. But I think it will play some additional role, and
I think the reason it is going to be limited is mainly the
costs. They are so expensive, and they take so long to build,
and at present, they only come in one size: extra large. And
people don't want to make that kind of investment on an
uncertain market for energy demand.
Chairman Dingell. The Chair observes that the time of the
gentleman has expired.
The Chair is going to recognize next the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this hearing today.
You told us a few weeks ago that you were going to exert
bold leadership in this area, and today is an example of your
leadership. Thank you so very much.
I also want to thank the Vice President for coming forward
today and thank you for your past leadership on this issue and
your future leadership on this issue. Thank you very much for
coming.
Mr. Vice President, as I was telling you in the ante room
before we started, I will continue that now, some of my friends
on the other side of the aisle make the argument that
greenhouse gas emissions substantially consist of water vapors
and that CO\2\ is only a minute fraction of those vapors of
those gasses. Would you elaborate on that and help us with it?
Mr. Gore. First of all, thank you for your service,
Congressman, as vice chairman of the committee, and I
appreciate your focus on this.
Water vapor is indeed the most common greenhouse gas. But
there are two things about it that are really significant.
Number 1, the residence time is only a few days in the
atmosphere, up to 10 days, and it recycles constantly. Second
and most important, it is a slave to CO\2\. In other words, it
goes up and down depending upon the warming that is initially
driven by the CO\2\. Whatever the cause is, whether it is
methane in the ancient past, these long-term hundred thousand
year cycles, whenever it is warmer, the water vapor increases,
and it magnifies the warming phenomena. But in the time frames
that we are dealing with and in the policy framework in the
science that they tell us is relevant to the policy choices we
have, it is completely a slave to CO\2\.
So less CO\2\ reduces the water vapor at the same time. It
magnifies it in either direction.
Mr. Butterfield. It is clear, Mr. Vice President, from your
film that you have spent a great deal of time in China. There
is a perception here that China is doing nothing, absolutely
nothing to control their greenhouse gas emissions. But the big
four accounting firm, Ernst & Young, indicates that China is
one of the top 10 countries for clean energy investment. And it
is closing fast on our country.
What are the Chinese really doing to promote clean energy?
Mr. Gore. Well, they have announced grand plans, but as I
said earlier, I think the proof is going to be in the pudding.
There is no question that the top leadership in China is seized
of this issue. They have made a bold commitment on it. The
leader of China, Hu, has made several statements on it. They
have made it a prominent goal in their new 5-year plan, co-
equal allegedly with GDP. Wu Xintao has made two speeches in
the last 10 days on this. They are deeply concerned that their
coming out party at the Olympics is going to be spoiled by all
of their pollution. The Yellow River often doesn't reach the
sea anymore for some months. And the melting of ice on the
Tibetan Plateau has been one of the major factors in driving
uncertainty about water supplies in many parts of China,
principally in northern China but throughout China. They are
deeply concerned about the sea level issue.
I have given my slide show multiple times in China and went
to the trouble to get it all translated into Mandarin and so
forth. And when I was Vice President, I gave the presentation
in the Great Hall of the People.
They have scientists that are right out there on the
cutting edge. And they have got national leaders who can
describe the problem and tell you why it is serious. They are
riding a tiger in the sense that their growth is so rapid and
they are having trouble they say with their regional leaders. I
think they can do this if they want to. And I think that they
are preparing to initiate big policy changes.
But again, the way to improve the odds that they will get
on board with this is by the United States showing leadership.
Their emissions of CO\2\ will likely surpass ours within the
next 2 years or so. And that, again, puts the focus on the
follow-on to Kyoto, which I think should be moved forward to
2010.
Mr. Butterfield. Do you agree or disagree that it is too
late to prevent the carbon dioxide emissions from increasing to
450?
Mr. Gore. I do not agree that it is too late at all. And
may I say, I respect those who try to set some concentration
level to aim at, 450, 550, whatever, I think the present level
is too high. And I think 450 would be exceedingly dangerous. I
understand that we are now in a time where the maximum that is
considered politically feasible now still falls short of the
minimum that will really address the problem.
So our challenge is to expand the limits of what is
feasible. And the good news is once we start and shift our
momentum, then we will find it is a whole lot easier to do than
people are saying now, and businesses already getting on board.
You have an outfit like Wal-Mart, they are not doing that
because they want to commit economic suicide. They are making
money at it because they figured out that they can be more
productive and more profitable by cutting their emissions. And
I think as more businesses get with that program, we are going
to find this all gets a lot easier.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, sir. I think we have run out of
time.
Chairman Dingell. Time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Inglis. The Chair inquires would the gentleman
like 5 minutes or 10 minutes?
Mr. Inglis. I would like to reclaim my time. I may not use
it all.
Chairman Dingell. The gentleman has the right.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gore,
for being here. I am one of the people that paid for seeing The
Inconvenient Truth.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Mr. Inglis. And there are PowerPoints that I would have
paid to get out of--a lot of them. But this is one I actually
enjoyed seeing and it is a great work and I appreciate the work
you have done there.
Mr. Gore. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Inglis. As a conservative, I think it is important to
note a couple of things. One is we really should internalize
the externals. Because as a conservative, I believe in markets.
And the only way a market can work is if it rightly judges the
price of our product. And actually that is not just economics,
that is Biblical notions, the concept that I can't do on my
land something that hurts your land. I have got to keep on my
land the products of my land and not harm your land. That is
the basis of Biblical law. It is the basis of English common-
law. It is the basis of what we have in our country now. It is
a conservative concept.
Also I think we have wonderful conservative opportunities
with things like net metering. What a deal if I can invest in
my house and make it a profit center, recoup some of my
investment in my roof by making it create electricity.
Also, I am one of these folks who believes, as a
conservative, you teach your kids to do the right thing even
when nobody is watching. So, yes, we have to somehow cajole
China and India along. But you have to do the right thing even
when no one is watching. That is what conservatives believe.
Conservatives also believe we struggle around here a lot
with dynamic as opposed to static scoring. We get upset with
CBO all the time for not dynamically scoring our tax bills. I
think we have to dynamically score this can-do American spirit
that did the Transcontinental Railroad, that finished the
Panama Canal, and then went to the moon. There is a way to
break our addiction to oil. There is a way to unleash the
inventors and entrepreneurs of America to deliver new and
better sources of energy, cellulosic ethanol, better solar
cells, next generation nuclear power and hydrogen power for our
cars.
So I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily have to be
a lose proposition that really this can be a win proposition
for the American economy.
Now, the question is, how did you get there? Because there
are some scary costs that we face, and Mr. Hall has mentioned
that word.
And there are trade-offs. And I have a case study to put
before you. One of those CEOs that you mentioned earlier is Jim
Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy.
He was in my office recently and told me of a decision he
faces. It is either to build in South Carolina a nuclear plant
which he would prefer to build, or a coal fired plant which he
would prefer not to build. But the problem is, it is very
difficult to get all the ducks in a row, if you will, for a
nuclear plant, although that really would be their preference.
I wonder if you could, having established a series of
agreements here if you would agree that part of the solution
here is to make it possible for a Duke Energy to build that
nuclear power plant, rather than to build that coal-fired plant
which is 24, 7, 365 days a year going to belch out CO\2\.
Is that something we can agree on to advance this nuclear
option so that this real world decision right now being made
within--by the way--the next several weeks they are going to
make this decision.
Signal them there can be bipartisan agreement here, that
they got a future in that nuclear plant.
Mr. Gore. First of all, Congressman thank you for your
statements. And I know you went down to Antarctica with former
Congressman Boehlert, and I have noticed some of your
statements over the last few years. And I really, I yearn for
the day when there are more of you on your side--and I think
the number is increasing all the time--so that we can have a
really healthy debate where you all bring your core principles
to the table, and the Democratic side brings their core
principles to the table. And then we try to get the most
effective solutions in this. I couldn't agree more.
That is what was happening in the United Kingdom, as I said
earlier, that is the way we ought to be doing it. And yes, our
faith traditions teach us about this and without proselytizing,
all the different faith traditions teach similar things. I come
out of the Judeo Christian tradition, as you do, and I am
taught the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. I
believe the purpose of life is to glorify God and we can't do
that if we are heaping contempt on the creation. And there are
multiple teachings that all point in the same direction.
Now, on conservative principles, I have always believed
that one conservative principle is decentralization put more
options into the hands of the individuals and the small
business people. And that is one of the reasons why I think the
single best thing we could do on electricity is to adopt what
is called a feed and tariff system to eliminate the limits on
the ability of individuals to sell decentralized electricity
back into the grid and have a fair rate for it, and that will
avoid the difficult choice that you say Jim Rogers is facing
right now.
I think that decentralization is the wave of the future.
And also on liquid fuels for road transport, by the way, and
the next generation ethanol the enzymatic hydrolysis stuff that
is coming on line. But on your core choice, I am not opposed to
nuclear. I have deep questions about it. I am concerned about
it. I used to be enthusiastic about it. Back when I represented
Congressman Gordon's district, TVA had 21 nuclear power plants
under construction. And then later, I had represented Oak Ridge
where we were immune to the effects of nuclear radiation so I
was very enthusiastic about it.
But 19 of those 21 plants were canceled. And I am sure Bart
gets the same questions I used to get about whether those
partly finished cooling towers might be used for a grain silo.
But people are upset still that they have to pay for them and
not be able to get any electricity for them.
And I think the stoppage of the nuclear industry was really
less due to 3-mile island and Chernobyl and environmental
concerns and more due to the fact that after the OPEC oil
crisis of 1973 and 1979, the projection for electricity demand
went from 7 percent annualized compounded down to 1 percent.
And when energy prices are going up, the uncertainty over
how much they can plan for also goes up. Now electricity ought
not follow the price of oil, but it does because there is just
enough fungibility between oil and coal on the margins that
electricity chases oil. Now oil is back at $60 a barrel. Where
is it going to be a year from now? We don't know. But the fact
of the uncertainty is itself the reason why these utilities do
not want to place all their chips in one large bet that doesn't
mature for another 15 years at a very expensive cost. The new
generation, there may be smaller incremental power plants,
standardized, safer more reliable, perhaps we may get a
solution to the long-term storage of waste issue. I am assuming
that we will, the reactor error. But go ahead.
Mr. Inglis. In this case, we have a real live company
offering to build that nuclear plant that would produce no
CO\2\. It does create waste and as the speaker pointed out we
need a place to put that waste and it is a problem. But
comparing that to the CO\2\ that is going to come out of that
plant 24, 7, 365 days a year, seems to me to be a wonderful
case where a company is willing to put that much capital at
risk and actually help solve the problem. We, it seems to me we
should help them out.
South Carolina, I understand we get 65 percent of our power
from nuclear; California, I understand it is 55 percent from
natural gas. I can't imagine a worse use of a natural gas
resource than burning it to make electricity.
So, that being the case, shouldn't we be moving as quickly
as possible--and this is not theoretical. This is a decision
that could be made within the next several weeks to decide to
do something that would actually reduce CO\2\ levels?
Mr. Gore. Yes.
Mr. Inglis. In the little bit of time I have left, let me
ask this question. I wonder if there is a way the concern is
China and India and the other countries that won't agree to
anything and that has been well stated on our side. I think
that is a very legitimate concern.
I wonder if you have given any thought to the possibility
of some sort of a system where the developed world has an
agreement that if you are going to build a plant in our areas,
then you will comply with our notions of CO\2\ if you build a
plant in China or in India so that, in other words, in order to
get a permit back here, you have to agree that there, you will
abide by the rules that are going on here.
It is sort of takes it beyond the Chinese and Indians and
says, we, because this is fungible air, are going to help you
make this decision so that it also reduces one reason for
exporting jobs, by the way, because it then becomes--I don't
know if you given any thought to that kind of concept?
Mr. Gore. Yes, I have. It is very difficult to integrate
the social and environmental factors into the world trading
system, but I think we should do it more effectively than we
have.
I think that using the market is a more effective way to do
it. I am not opposed to including it in the terms of trade
agreements to the extent that we can do that. But a cap in
trade system that puts a price on the carbon--and you could
even auction off the carbon price--that will allow the market
to help you establish a price and integrate it more quickly
across national boundaries so that we get the sharpest
reductions globally.
Mr. Inglis. Thanks.
Chairman Dingell. Time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Barrow.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you.
Mr. Vice President, thank you for being here today. As you
stated a number of times today, the debate in the scientific
community about whether there is a problem, whether we are
behind it and whether we can do anything about it may be over.
But as you can see today, the debate in the political community
about a couple of core issues still goes on. We get folks who
agree with the idea that there is some change, but they will
quibble with whether or not we are the cause of it. They will
agree that there is a climate change going on, but they will
quibble with the question of whether or not we can do anything
about it.
And just in the hearings we have had, I detected something
of a pattern on this subject. We opened up with a hearing with
the representatives of the scientific community who came before
us and said in no uncertain terms there is a problem. We are
behind it. And we have to do something about it. Then we had a
series of hearings with what I might call the impact community
or the solution community, a series of hearings where we are
consulting with various sectors of the economy to go over with
them the impacts of various solutions are and what they are
doing about it; the automobile industry, the utility company,
the private sector, the automobile industry. We have a series
of--in fact, this is about eighth hearing that I can remember
we have had so far on this subject.
And in the course of these hearings, in the course of them,
I detected sort of a pattern that has emerged. When the experts
on the problem were here, there wasn't much going on. There
wasn't much back and forth on the subject of whether there was
a problem or not. But when we get into the solution hearings
and impact hearings, we get a lot of folks pooh-poohing or
putting down the issue and raising questions, some of which we
have heard today.
One of the questions I want to follow up on is sort of like
a follow-up on what Congressman Butterfield was asking earlier.
He asked about the question about the relationship between
water vapor as a greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas. I want to follow up on similar statements that
have been made, because just recently--well, earlier in this
series of hearings in March, March 7, there was a statement
made by one of the members of this committee to the effect that
natural emissions overwhelm manmade emissions.
The ratio of emissions of greenhouse gases that are natural
to those that are manmade is so overwhelming that it calls into
question or casts doubt on whether or not we are actually
responsible for any part of the problem or can do anything
about it.
What do you say to folks who argue that there really isn't
a problem or it is a problem we haven't got our fingerprints on
or can't do nothing about? What do you say to folks who argue
that natural emissions are overwhelming manmade emissions in
this scenario?
Mr. Gore. Well, Congressman, first of all, thank you for
the time you put in delving into this issue. We have known each
other almost 20 years now, and I appreciate your service very
much.
Each one of these CO\2\ molecules has a kind of a chemical
signature. And they can determine with a very high degree of
accuracy that the extra amount that has been added to the
atmosphere in the last 100, 150 years, since the beginning of
the industrial revolution--but really in this past century are
manmade.
Now, sometimes you will hear about the vast volumes of
emissions that come from volcanoes for example. Here is what
the scientists say is the difference there. They are heavy
particulates and they fall out of, back to the ground over a
period of a year and a half or so. And for that brief period of
time they can have an impact. Mount Pinatubo had an impact. Way
back in 1815, I guess it was, we had a year without a summer
because of a huge volcano in Indonesia.
And one of the ways they have improved their understanding
of the whole science of global warming is by studying these
natural emissions. But most of them have the short residence
times, short life times in the atmosphere.
What the problem is is CO\2\. Now, methane is also a
problem. Nitrous oxide is a problem. But the vast majority of
the problem is CO\2\--70 million tons every single day that we
are putting up there. And it stays there for so long--as I
mentioned earlier, it takes 100 years for half of it to come
back out. So it is the old saying a journey of a thousand miles
starts with a single step. We have got to take a lot of steps.
And we have to do it quickly. It is not the natural emissions
that is causing this. We are overwhelming the natural cycles.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I am running out
of time, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back the balance. Thank you.
Chairman Dingell. Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
observes that the next of our colleagues to be recognized is
Mr. Upton of Michigan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Vice
President, we welcome you today and we appreciated your
testimony. I want to say that as you ticked off a number of
different recommendations, I think that there are a good number
of them that many of us can support. And I would note that in a
hearing in the last couple of weeks, my chairman, Mr. Boucher,
said this, any bill which we would support must have bipartisan
support and industry support. It must be an economywide, not
restricted to just certain economic sectors. It should be
capable of passage not just in the House, but in the Senate as
well.
And we take that as a good challenge and we intend to work
on a bipartisan basis to see that.
Some of the things specifically that I appreciated in your
comments were these, obviously, a move toward clean coal
technology, something that we have started and we need to
finish. We do need to use the Tax Code in a number of different
ways.
For me, coming from Michigan where we have the highest
unemployment rate in the Nation, jobs are certainly a big
issue. And I want to help the auto industry. And I must say
that I am co-chair of the auto caucus with my colleague Dale
Kildee, the second largest bipartisan caucus in the Congress.
What we are seeking is not unfunded mandates but actually
to try and help the auto industry and therefore the consumers
indeed get better mileage and fuel economy standards with their
vehicles.
Wind and electricity, obviously, those are issues that we
all need to move forward on. And I want to commend Ms. Harman
and Mr. Hastert and Mr. Boucher and myself, a number of us are
looking at technology for light bulbs to see a real change
where we can see true savings in that. And I would just note
take in the bipartisan energy bill that passed, the President
signed in 2005, Mr. Markey and I had a provision on daylight
savings time that as we learned for every day that we extended
day light savings time we saved an average of 100,000 barrels
of oil energy equivalent.
As it turned out, a nonprofit study came out and it
indicated that we would, by the 4-week extension of daylight
savings time, emit 11 million metric tons less of carbon
between now and 2020.
But the questions that I have for you--and I really saw it
missing in the debate as it related not only to your book but
also in the movie, you have touched on it briefly here--was the
whole issue of nuclear energy.
And now, Mr. Markey and I might agree on daylight savings
time and a few other things. But we disagreed strongly on Yucca
Mountain. And it was my bill along with Mr. Hastert and Mr.
Barton and Mr. Dingell that we are truly helpful to begin to
try and see the funding for Yucca Mountain. And I remember that
it was your old boss, Mr. Clinton, who on a campaign stop back
in the 1990's, indicated to the voters in Nevada, that if he
was elected President, he would veto that bill. And I think
that is, in essence, what happened. We had to run over him to
get where we were.
And you were quoted not too long ago, at least according to
the Nuclear Energy Information Resource Center, is ``I do not
support any increased reliance on nuclear energy; moreover, I
have disagreed with those who have classified nuclear energy as
clean or renewable.''
Today we are seeing a new, new-coal fired plant being built
in China almost every 4 days, literally, 2 every week. Many of
these as I am told don't have scrubbers. And as you talk about
the big dog in this fight, the nuclear industry--and I know
that France is about, I think 90 percent reliant on nuclear
energy, and this country we are about 20 percent.
Right now there are about 24, 25 different nuclear plants
being promoted around the world--none of them in the United
States. And I am glad to hear my friend, Mr. Inglis, talk a
little bit about Duke Power down in South Carolina, because I
am a supporter of nuclear energy. And I do think that can be an
enormous asset for this country and the consumers. I am one
that believes that the energy cost of $60 dollars a barrel they
aren't going to stay there. They are only going to go up. And
so as we look at a relationship between the cost of energy and
where we are nuclear, I think that this is one of the savings
that we can have. And I would hope that because this was
missing in the debate, in your book and the movie, that perhaps
in light of today's hearings, perhaps you will have a little
change of mind, and I yield my 18 seconds back for you to
respond.
Mr. Gore. I don't recognize the quote that you used as one
of mine. I am not saying it wasn't, but I don't really agree
with the way that was phrased.
I am not a reflexive opponent of nuclear power,
Congressman. I am just a skeptic about nuclear power's
viability in the marketplace. I think that if we let the market
allow the most competitive forms to surface, what we will see
is decentralized generation, widely distributed, we will see an
emphasis on conservation and efficiency and renewable energy.
But where nuclear power is concerned I have expressed my views,
previously, I am not a reflexive opponent, I think there will
be some new nuclear power plants.
But you mention China. Look at their 5-year plan right now.
You are right, they plan 55 new coal fired power plants per
year. Only three nuclear plants per year. Now why? They don't
have any opposition that they can't overcome pretty easily from
Beijing. But they see the same problems just in practical terms
that a lot of our utilities see. These things are expensive and
complicated. They take a long time and the fragility of the
operating regime has already been seen. I have been to
Chernobyl. I have been to Three Mile Island and I don't want to
exaggerate those problems.
I think that we can come up with solutions for the dangers
of operator error. I think we can come up with solutions for
long term storage of waste. I don't think Yucca Mountain is it.
And I think if you don't skate past the real scientific
evidence of what they found at Yucca Mountain. What they found
on the geology there makes it simply wrong to put stuff that is
going to need to be contained for tens of thousands of years in
a place that is really not appropriate for it. Now that is my
reading of what the geological survey has said about that. But
I am not opposed to it as a category.
Chairman Dingell. Chair recognizes now the distinguished
gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vice
President, it is a pleasure to see you. And I want to commend
you for the enormous leadership role you are playing on
educating the American people and today educating the Congress
about the greatest threat to our planet. It is a threat not
only because of the environmental problem, but it is a threat
as well to our national security because burning of fossil
fuels makes us more and more dependent on unstable sources of
petroleum from the Middle East.
When we look at this issue, it seems to me when we talk
about market forces. If government did nothing, there is no
reason why any business would want to spend the money to reduce
emissions unless they knew that every one of their competitors
had to do it. So when we hear about market forces, but don't
put any requirements on industries, that just won't work
because then the incentives are to pollute more because you
don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage.
When we put something in place to deal with this problem,
it strikes me that what we need to do is to look for renewable
energy, to look to alternative energy and greater energy
efficiency.
I introduced a bill yesterday, the Safe Climate Act, and we
tried to use this comprehensive approach of looking at all
these areas. But we tried to use market systems as well in
order to drive the technology. The market systems would be a
cap and trade, but the levels that we have called for
reductions in our pollution would be to get to 1990 levels by
2020 and 80 percent below that by 2050.
I would like to know whether you think these kinds of
reductions are the kinds of reductions that the scientists are
calling for? A lot of people want to do less because they think
it is more politically palatable. But if we are going to deal
with this problem, let's follow the science, in my view, and
get to the reductions we need. Do you think these are realistic
and important levels for reduction?
Mr. Gore. I really do, Congressman Waxman. And I commend
you on your legislation. I saw it yesterday. And I don't feel
that I have the expertise to get into every part of all the
different the bills that have been introduced, but I sure do
like your legislation a lot. And I think the level of
reductions that you are calling for are in keeping with what
the scientists would want us to do.
And some of them would want us to do even more. As I said
earlier, I think that the current levels of 383 parts per
million are already dangerously high.
I mean, if we see that the disappearance of the Arctic ice
cap in the next few decades, that would be a radically
dangerous change for our planet. A few years from now, we are
going to be back here or will be in conversations, all of us,
about this, and the world is going to look so different.
The range of things we are talking about now are just going
to seem so small compared to what people are going to be
demanding then. I am telling you the awareness on this is just
on a straight upwards trajectory. And it is not partisan. It is
not partisan. This is not a political issue. It is a moral
issue.
And our children are going to be demanding this.
Now, so in terms of your legislation, I think you have done
a great thing there. And I think it is related to the energy
security crisis. We are at a carbon crisis. We are borrowing
all this money from China and buying all this oil from unstable
places and burning it in ways that are destroying the
habitability of the planet. That whole pattern has to change.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Vice President, we on this committee have
fought conventional air pollution in the Clean Air Act and we
had a strong Clean Air Act, good legislation, consensus
legislation that we adopted in 1990. But conventional air
pollution can also contribute to global warming. Shouldn't we
work to address conventional pollutants like black carbon even
while we press forward on reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
Mr. Gore. Absolutely, and the so-called four pollutant
standard, or ``four P'' approach is, I think, the most
efficient for utilities, most efficient for industry. If they
are going to retrofit--and of course, if they are going to
expand, the law requires them to upgrade--they should be doing
all four of them at the same time. I agree with you totally.
Mr. Waxman. I hear a lot from people who express hesitancy
about this issue. They say it is going to destroy our economy.
Well, that smacks of fear. And fear can be very paralyzing. I
also hear people say, well, they have a magic solution: nuclear
power. I think your approach is a smart one. It is a business-
like approach. Nuclear power is an option. You don't want to
rule it out but it is certainly no magic solution. It almost
becomes a theological expression whenever I hear a discussion
of these environmental issues. My view--and I think it is what
I hear you saying as well--let's unleash the ingenuity of the
marketplace, give people the incentives to do the right thing,
and then just watch out because people are going to develop
technology that we don't even know about today that will help
us deal with this problem.
But if we don't put something in place to insist on those
reductions, we jeopardize our planet. And some people have told
us we only have a small window of opportunity to act. I thank
you for your leadership on this issue.
Mr. Gore. Thank you for your leadership Congressman.
Chairman Dingell. Time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Bartlett for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, my
wife notes that she thinks there ought to be some relationship
between conservative and conservation.
And indeed, I think it is probably possible to be a
conservative without appearing to be an idiot.
Mr. Vice President, there are several groups that have
common cause with you in wanting to reduce CO\2\ levels, CO\2\
production through conservation, through efficiency and through
more use of renewables. These include those who are concerned
with national security, the fact that we have only 2 percent of
the world's oil, use 25 percent of the world's oil, importing
almost two-thirds of what we use. Those that are concerned that
fossil fuels are not infinite, that we have probably reached
about the midpoint of oil, which is about peak oil, that it is
going to be downhill after this, those who are concerned about
a challenge for increased economic development, more
manufacturing export, which certainly could come from a focus
on moving to renewable and the general environmentalist who
understands that when you produce CO\2\, you also produce other
pollutants, and isn't the air polluted enough, thank you.
We don't have to agree with the premise of these other
groups, but I am a member of each of those groups, I would like
to note, to embrace a common solution.
And my question is, how can we get together to combine our
forces?
The second question I want to ask stems from a trip that I
just took to China. I led a delegation of eight other Members
to China. And we went to talk to them about energy. And I was
stunned they began their conversation by talking about post
oil. And they have a five-point plan, the first of which is
conservation; second and third, diversify your energy sources,
get as much as you can from your own country; and fourth, be
kind to the environment, to the planet. They know their awful
polluters. They are asking for help.
And the fifth one is international cooperation. They
recognize we need international cooperation. And indeed,
whichever one of these camps you belong to global warming or
national security or peak oil, it is going to require
international cooperation.
My second question is, are we adequately reaching out to
China and these other countries?
Mr. Gore. I don't think we are. I think that the group
that was put together with U.S. and China and Australia and a
couple other countries has been unfortunately just an
opportunity to talk and not really do anything. In order to
have success with them, I think that we do need to take action
ourselves, and I think that there are aspects of this challenge
beyond CO\2\ involving methane and land cover, for example,
that may offer some interesting possibilities for getting them
to join earlier rather than later.
And of course, they bridge the categories. They are still a
developing country, but they are the Saudi Arabia of
manufacturing now. And their emissions will, before too long,
be more than ours. So we have got to find a way to get them
involved. But it is a negotiation.
Now, if they are the outlier, and if the rest of the world
is acting, I don't think there is any doubt that they will
join. I really think that that is the best way to get them on
board.
But we don't have an option of just forcing them to do it.
I wanted to say, Congressman, that I have followed some of
your comments over the last several years, and you heard me
quote one of your comments in my opening statement. I do think
that one of the keys to getting a true bipartisan dialog here
is by focusing early on one of the realizations that you
expressed early on, that there are some places where the market
is currently failing to internalize enough of the cost to give
us an accurate picture of what the choices are. And if the
decision to pollute is free, and you can dump as much of your
pollution as you want on to everybody else, then the actual
cost there are misleading you because you are seeing them as
free. They are really not free.
And the way to get our businesses--to give them a better
chance to really compete effectively is to internalize those
costs so that they can make more accurate calculations and get
with the program. As soon as carbon has a price, you are going
to do a wave of investment that just will boggle the mind.
Just last week, Morgan Stanley executed the first trade in
the marketplace for carbon emissions post 2012, no legal regime
out there. The market is seeking to put a price on carbon. And
I think if this Congress can help them do so, that is one of
the real keys to unleashing this investment.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Dingell. Time of the gentlemen has expired. The
Chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much and welcome
back, Al.
You and I were elected 30 years ago and sat down on this
bottom row. It seems like yesterday, but----
Mr. Gore. You had 3-week seniority on me.
Mr. Markey. You never forgot that or forgave me the 3 weeks
of seniority.
But back then, Congress had just passed a new law, which
mandated the doubling of the fuel economy standards for the
automotive fleet in the United States from 13\1/2\ miles per
gallon to 27 miles per gallon. Over the next 10 years, American
dependence upon imported oil dropped from 46 percent to 27
percent by 1986.
We had made a dramatic change in our relationship with
imported oil.
But that number has stagnated since then and actually
declined, even as other countries had increased their fuel
economy standard requirements.
So as part of this discussion--and I know it is in your
book, and you have referred to it in your testimony--there is a
conclusion reached by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002
that using existing automotive technologies, not including
hybrid technology, that we can improve our fuel economy
standard to 35 miles per gallon over a 10-year period, and in
that period of time back out all the Persian Gulf oil, and as a
result, reduce carbon emissions the equivalent of about 170
coal-fired plants per year.
Could you talk about that issue and the centrality of our
need to improve dramatically the fuel economy standards for our
vehicles?
Mr. Gore. Well, I support your legislation, Congressman,
and I congratulate you on your new select committee, and in any
way I can help you, I want to and we have been friends and
allies on so many things for all these years now, and I am
really excited about your leadership on this issue.
I mentioned earlier that in addition to supporting your
bill, I also support the general idea that your legislation
should be part of a comprehensive package. And my fondest dream
is that this Congress will come up with a series of initiatives
that, taken together, constitute a really bold step in helping
us sharply reduce CO\2\ emissions.
And I think it is easy to see how Congressman Dingell would
be concerned as anyone would representing an area where there
is a concentration of a very important legacy industry and
future industry in our country if it seems like that is being
singled out. And so I respectfully suggest that we ought to--I
encourage the passage of your legislation and as part of the
comprehensive package and the cap-and-trade system, could lead
to some very interesting bargains between the fuel suppliers
and the industries that make cars and other things that burn
the fuel and find the most efficient ways to get the
reductions.
Now, let me say something controversial. I don't think it
is controversial but I know it is not necessarily welcome. I
really believe that the old saying--and I will say this to you,
Congressman Inglis, be careful what you pray for. I think it
would be amended be careful for what you lobby for. Because
successful lobbying for the lowest of auto efficiency standards
has not been good for our automobile industry. And we all know
that the less efficient vehicles that cost more money to
operate when the price of oil goes up--which was not completely
unpredictable by the way--are a hard sell now. And the
companies that are doing better are ones that have more
efficient vehicles.
And it is a complicated story. We need to solve it. We need
national health care, and you get that off the backs of the
auto companies as well and it is all interconnected, but
efficiency goes hand in hand with marketability in this new age
that is rushing toward us here.
Mr. Markey. Well, I want to say I thank you, very much,
that I obviously sat here with you 30 years ago and what you
are saying about information technologies, what you were saying
about environmental issues back then, now retrospectively
really do make you look like a prophet. You had your finger on
the pulse of the issues of the 21st century, and that is the
reason you are here today. And I think that it would be wise
for the Congress to listen to your warnings, because I think
that history has now borne you out. Thank you for being here.
Chairman Dingell. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gore. I appreciate your kind words.
Chairman Dingell. Chair recognizes now the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Vice
President, we are delighted you are here today and we certainly
appreciate the time that you are spending with this joint
committee. You would be the last person I think that I would
probably have to say that we all recognize that we live in a
pretty polarizing country today.
Chairman Dingell. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir.
Chairman Dingell. Just for a housekeeping matter here I
apologize. I will not take it out of the gentleman's time. We
are going to have a vote in about 5 minutes or so on the House
floor. And our distinguished witness has informed us that he
has to be elsewhere and so the gentleman from Kentucky will be
the last member of the committee that will be recognized for
purposes of the questions. And then the Chair would observe
that we will after that adjourn, go over to the House floor and
vote. And we will return to hear our next witness. I hope that
our members will come back, because the Chair wants to have
both a complete record, full participation of the members, and
very frankly, an opportunity for all members to appreciate the
seriousness of the matters before us. So, the gentleman from
Kentucky is now recognized.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Vice
President, this is one of those issues that certainly there is
a lot of division on. I think everyone recognizes as you have
said, and the scientific community agrees, that there is global
warming caused by human activity.
But I was reading a statement that either you made or was a
part of your movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth'', and it said we
have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send
our entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction involving
extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat
waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
And those kinds of statements--I think one of the
attributes that you have is that you are very passionate about
these issues. And that is one of the things that attracts
people to you, that passion. But at the same time, and I am not
quoting these for their truthfulness, but simply to say these
are some statements that we read in recent articles about these
kind of statements.
It says, this is overstating our certainty about knowing
the future.
We agree on fundamentals that warming is real, but we do
not agree on the urgency or the consequences of that. And then
one scientist was quoted as saying that this is shrill
alarmism. And then Mr. Lomborg is to be testifying later today
after we vote. And he brought a group of imminent economists to
Copenhagen and they looked at major issues facing humanity
today. And the point was that the world's financial resources
is limited. And so, how should we spend these resources to the
most effective use and help of humankind today?
And they listed 17 issues that face mankind today, like
disease, and malaria and HIV and water safety, water sanitation
issues, education, whatever, whatever, and climate change came
down as the very last issue that should be addressed.
And so, I guess the comment that I would make, I think
everyone agrees that we do have global warming. But then the
question becomes, what is the urgency of it? What is the
consequence of it? And when you have people coming from
diametrically opposed positions, what advice would you give us
in to trying to address this and spending these limited
resources?
Mr. Gore. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. Again,
the initial quote that you attributed to me, I don't recognize
those words. I have said things similar to that but I have
tried to say it more carefully and in different ways. Let me
tell you exactly what I do believe. And it is not coming from
my analysis of the science. It is coming from those scientists
whose judgment I most respect on this.
Way back, I used to hear people say we only have 10 years,
this kind of thing. And I never endorsed that. I never endorsed
it. First time I made a statement similar to that was less than
1 year ago, and I will tell you why. The scientist I most
respect, including Jim Hansen, who runs the most sophisticated
modeling program for NASA and others, have now, have recently
come on the conclusion, within the last year, that the evidence
now does show that we may have as little as 10 years within
which to begin making dramatic changes, lest this problem gains
so much momentum, our ability to forestall it will be lost to
us.
Now let me tell you what they are referring to.
A couple of theories. Arctic ice cap, Greenland, west
Antarctica, the frozen methane and frozen carbon and other
forms not only in Siberia and Alaska, but also in the shallow
seas where they have these formations that they have now seen
are vulnerable to melting and releasing huge amounts of
methane.
Let me take them one by one. First of all, the Arctic ice
cap--it is a floating ice cap. And it is only 6 to 8 feet thick
on average. Captain William Anderson just died a couple of
weeks ago. He was a Member of this House of Representatives. He
was the captain of the Nautilus and made the first voyage to
the North Pole in a nuclear submarine in 1958. For almost 50
years, they have kept a record of that thickness. Finally they
declassified it in ways that could make it usable to the
scientists.
Those and other data series now make it clear that this
floating ice is melting very rapidly. Ninety percent of the
incoming solar radiation that hits that ice cap now bounces
off. It only hits up there 6 months of the year. But in our
summer it bounces off. It is one of the ways our planet cools
itself. If it melts--as it is melting--the open ocean absorbs
80 percent. So that is a big change. That is not just a gradual
change. That is a big change. That is already why the
temperatures in the Arctic are increasing more than twice as
fast as anywhere else in the world outside the Antarctic
Peninsula.
If it goes completely, if it just goes to the seasonal ice
which is just 1 or 2 feet thick, then it will be gone. And that
will be become one of the biggest heat sinks on the planet. And
if that happens, our ability to retrieve this favorable climate
balance that we have developed then as a species, would be
potentially lost to us.
Now, if the Arctic ocean starts heating up radically that
puts more pressure on Greenland. There is an amount of ice on
Greenland that you know is 7 to 8,000 feet thick, a huge ice
dome. It is equal to 6- to 7-meter increase in sea level
worldwide. In the past, it has broken up in some of these
ancient eras. And it has raised sea level that much. If
Greenland goes, then again our ability to retrieve this problem
might be lost to us.
West Antarctica, same thing, more stable than Greenland,
they believe but they, the science magazine article just came
out 3 days ago shows--and I recommend it to the committee. I
will provide it along with my testimony--it shows exactly why
these ice sheets are moving far more rapidly than anybody
predicted. It has really shocked the scientists. And if that
goes, that is another 6 to 7 meters.
Now, then the frozen methane and other forms of carbon in
the tundra and the shallow seas. There have been tipping points
in the ancient past where temperatures reached the point where
that is suddenly--that is released. Methane is 22, 23 times as
powerful a greenhouse gas, as CO\2\. If we don't stop turning
the thermostat up before we cross that tipping point, that is
another reason why these scientists are saying, we have a short
time frame in which to act.
And I hear the bells. Mr. Chairman, if I may, briefly
conclude by expressing my deep thanks, to you, to Chairman
Gordon, to your ranking members, to the other subcommittee
chairs and ranking members, and to each member of this
committee my apologies to the extent that I may have
contributed to the longevity of this dialog at the expense of
your time, I am very grateful for the honor of being here and
participating in this dialog and I wish you well in the crucial
legislative tasks you have before you.
Chairman Dingell. Well, Mr. Vice President, we thank you
for your kindness to us, the Chair recognizes, first, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. We thank you Mr. Vice President, and we look
forward to continuing the dialog. We appreciate your sincerity
on this issue.
Chairman Dingell. I am delighted that you are back here, we
remember you with great affection and respect for your time and
on this committee.
Mr. Gore. I learned about another new rule from you just
this morning, Mr. Chairman. Every time I come here, I am
freshly educated about the rules of this committee.
Chairman Dingell. They are the only defense that the Chair
has. The Chair recognizes now our distinguished friend from
Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Vice President, on behalf of your old
Science and Technology Committee, Energy and Commerce
Committee, this is really unprecedented as well as on behalf of
the whole United States Congress, as well as your new grandson
Oscar, we thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Gore. Tell Peggy happy birthday.
Chairman Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. And it is
a pleasure to see you, Mrs. Gore, too. Thank you for being with
us.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, will we reconvene immediately for
votes?
Chairman Dingell. The Chair is going the ask for order
because there is an announcement here. The Chair is going to
announce there is a vote on the floor at this time. It will be
followed by a number of other votes, the Chair is advised.
We will therefore return--I am not quite sure exactly when
that will be, but 15 minutes after the last vote has been
concluded. At that time we will hear from a distinguished
witness suggested by the minority, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, from
Copenhagen Consensus Center, and we will look forward to
hearing your testimony sir.
Th committee stands in recess then, until 15 minutes after
the last vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Inslee [presiding]. The committee will be in order. We
have before us Professor Bjorn Lomborg who is the adjunct
professor at Copenhagen Consensus Center at the Copenhagen
Business School. Professor Lomborg is author of ``The Skeptical
Environmentalist'', great title, and Professor Lomborg, we
would like to hear your comments for as much as time you as you
like within reason. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BJORN LOMBORG, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, COPENHAGEN
CONSENSUS CENTER, COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Mr. Lomborg. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, thank you
members. I am very happy to be here and I think it is a very
important issue that we are discussing. Obviously I would like
to go through--and I have a PowerPoint up here, I hope everyone
can see it.
I think it is important to say climate is back on the
agenda and I think we should recognize that that is still to a
large degree thanks to my co-presenter, Mr. Al Gore. The
climate discussion was strong back in 1992 when it was put on
the agenda by Earth Summit in Rio. It was also strong when we
talked about the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. And to a large extent,
Mr. Gore deserves applause for making global warming cool
again.
However in this presentation I will move beyond recognizing
the importance of global warming and ask, how we should deal
with it, how we should view it, and how we should put it in
perspective? And so I will make four basic points which will
come up in the next slide.
First, global warming is real and manmade. I think that
point is best made by the U.N. Climate Panel, the so-called
IPPC, latest in its 2007 edition, as Mr. Al Gore also pointed
out.
Second, the consequences of statements about strong,
ominous, and immediate consequences of global warming are often
wildly exaggerated, as I will also be showing you later on.
The third point is we need smarter solutions that
basically, yes, we need to focus on solutions, but very often
those proposed are excessive; even if they are well
intentioned, they are actually going to cost a lot and do
fairly little good.
And that leads me to the fourth and final point that
climate change is really not the only issue. We need to listen,
as this hearing asks to make a global perspective on global
warming and say climate change is not the only issue on the
agenda. There are many other issues and we need to ask, where
we can do the most good first?
And so I think it is important to say, if I should sum up
what I am going to be saying here, we need to be frank. Al Gore
and the many people he has inspired have goodwill and great
intentions. However, he has got carried away and has come to
show only worst-case scenarios and I think we need to recognize
that. This is unlikely to form the basis of good judgment. The
problem is compounded in that if we follow Al Gore's
recommendations, we will likely end up choosing very bad
policies to solve the many problems that we agree need to be
addressed. In short, Mr. Gore's logic, with all its good
intentions and sincerity, would in effect present an obstacle
to saving millions of lives.
But I think it is also an opportunity. This very debate is
a remarkable occasion to recapture our goodwill, as Al Gore
talked about earlier. It is a chance to recap our policies. It
is an opportunity, I would argue, for America to reclaim its
leadership, both enacting sensible global warming policies and
smartly addressing the many other ills of the world. And so I
would like to focus, instead of rhetoric, actually try to
present you with some of the important facts I think are
important to have this conversation.
The first point--and I am simply going to go through these
four issues I pointed out--is that that global warming is real
and it is manmade. It is on the agenda, thanks to Al Gore, and
I think we need to make sure to thank him for that.
The best information comes from the U.N. Climate Panel. The
likely temperature rise by 2100 is going to be about 5 degrees
Fahrenheit. The total cost of global warming is about $15
trillion. That is a remarkable sum of money. We should be
realizing that, of course, and we ought to make it clear that
we need to be sure we do the right thing about this.
On the other hand you also need to put in perspective the
total net worth of the 21st century is about $3,000 trillion.
So it is about 0.5 percent of the total cost, and that puts it
into perspective. We need to take this seriously. We always
need to have smart policies.
The second policy--and I would like to dwell a little bit
on this--is the consequences are often vastly exaggerated. And
that leads, I would argue, to bad judgments as to what we
actually focus on.
If I could first look at the sort of Al Gore standard
story. There was actually a gentleman here earlier that read
out this quote, and Gore couldn't quite recognize it. But I can
assure you it is at least correct--it comes from his Web site
for the movie where he talks about a planetary emergency. ``We
have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send
our entire planet into a tail spin of epic destruction
involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics, killer
heat waves, beyond anything we have ever experienced.''
Obviously there are many, many more of these kinds of
statements. I would like to take you through four of these
issues: heat deaths, sea level rise, hurricanes and malaria.
Look at the first one. If you talk about heat deaths, it is
absolutely true that with global warming we will see more heat
deaths. We will basically have an increase in heat deaths. If
you look at the U.K. where we have some of the best estimates,
for 2080 we will probably see about 2,000 more heat deaths.
That is definitely something we should know. However, we should
also realize that global warming will mean fewer cold deaths.
And we need to be able to say both of these--for Britain it is
estimated the fewer cold deaths will run into about 20,000
fewer cold deaths. We need to have both the pieces of
information. It is unlikely we will make good judgments if we
don't.
If we look at the numbers from the U.S., which is the
newest numbers we have from a global survey in 2006, peer
reviewed, as for the U.S. there will probably be about 174,000
net fewer cold deaths and heat deaths in the United States. We
need to have this information. It doesn't mean that there are
no problems with climate change. But it does mean if we only
focus on one part of that argument, we are likely to make bad
judgments.
Likewise, if we look sea levels rise, sea levels will rise;
that is absolutely true. But it is not going to be a
catastrophe. The U.N. Climate Panel estimates that it is
probably going to be about 30 centimeters, or 1-foot, over the
next 100 years in the standard scenario A-1 B. It is not going
to be Al Gore's 20 feet. And, again, it is important to say 1-
foot is something we can deal with; 20 feet would undoubtedly
would be very, very hard to deal with.
Of course we need to realize we also saw 1-foot of sea
level rise over last 150 years. Now, was that a big problem? It
was certainly something we dealt with. The thing I like to
imagine is if we ask an old survivor from the last century,
probably an old woman, what she remembers of the last 100
years, she is likely to talk about the two world wars, the
Great Depression, maybe the invention of the internal
combustion engine, maybe even the IT revolution, but it is
unlikely she will say, oh, and the sea levels rose simply
because we dealt with these issues. So we need to get a sense
of proportion. This is a problem, but it is not the end of
civilization.
If I could just show you, this is the difference between
what the U.N. Climate Panel is telling us will happen with
Greenland, which is essentially 1.4 inches, and Gore's
predicted 20 feet. I think making that kind of
misrepresentation of the data is just simply not helpful.
Now, notice again I am not saying that Al Gore has not been
good on putting global warming on the agenda; but I am saying
it is unlikely by exaggerating the events of global warming to
this point is going to help us. It is unlikely that it will.
If I could take a look at the next slide, hurricanes, it
has been pointed out by many that we will see ever more damage
costs from hurricanes. This is actually the statistics for the
U.S. for the last 105 years, the damage cost. And what you can
clearly see is basically just 2005 outweighing virtually
anything else. Of course it is especially Katrina, but also
several others. You can also see 1992 Hurricane Andrew. Again,
this seems to indicate the very dramatic rise in the cost and
seems to enforce there is really something going on; maybe this
is due to global warming.
But, of course, you actually have to realize that it is
predominantly because we have many more people living much
closer to where harm's way is, and with much more good.
If you actually recreated--and this is what researchers
did--you can see the result up here. If you imagine all
hurricanes from the last 105 years hitting the U.S. as it
looked in 2007, you see this graph instead. You actually see
the highest cost of hurricane as the great Miami storm in 1926.
Of course back then, it just basically hit a lot of sheds--not
entirely--but it only cost about $700 million. Had it hit
today, it would probably have cost more than Katrina and
dramatically more, probably about twice as much as what
Hurricane Katrina did. And what this really shows is that it is
something entirely different that is driving the increase in
cost.
If I could have the next slide, please. It is basically
social vulnerability. Just imagine you know the population of
just Dade and Broward today in Florida is a similar number of
people as the entire gulf and Atlantic coast of the U.S. in
1930. So, obviously, we will see much more damage today than we
would see back then.
So if you actually ask the researchers, how much can we do
if we do something about climate change, the answer is over the
next 50 years if we could stop climate change--which of course
we cannot--but even if we could, we would probably prevent 10
percent of the damage increase; whereas if we could end social
vulnerability, which of course we can't either--but we can
prevent part of it--we could probably prevent about 480 percent
of the damage increase.
So the simple question here is if we really care about
trying to make people less vulnerable, if we want to have them
less hit by hurricanes into the future, should we be focusing
on the 10 percent up there or should we be focusing on the 480
percent? And, perhaps more importantly, the 480 is going to be
fairly cheap, whereas the 10 percent is going to be very, very
expensive.
So, again, this is a question about taking the rhetoric
down and letting us have the conversation of where can we do
the most good.
The last thing I want to show you is malaria. Al Gore also
focuses on malaria. A lot of people actually talk about malaria
and say that with more heat we will see more malaria. That is
also weakly true because it is weakly related to increasing
temperatures. On the other hand it is much, much more dependent
on wealth and treatment. If you look at we had malaria endemic
both in Europe and the United States during the Little Ice Age.
We had malaria in the Arctic Circle, and even malaria in Moscow
in the 1940's. Italy wasn't clear from malaria until the
1970's.
Essentially, if you get rich you deal with malaria. If you
get a well-functioning health system, you deal with malaria.
And so the question is, again, are we turning the right
knob if we are worried about climate change?
And let me show the next slide, if you look at how much
Kyoto can do and how much a targeted malaria policy can do over
the next century. The basic point is if we do something about
malaria for about $3 billion a year, we could probably avoid
about 28 billion cases of malaria over the next century. If we
do it through Kyoto, which is probably going to cost 60 times
as much, we will end up doing 400 times as little.
And so the question here is not to say, yes, climate change
is true; yes, in a perfect world we would also want to deal
with climate change. But we have to ask ourselves do we want to
be remembered as the generation who did a lot for a little
money, or do we want to be remembered as the generation who did
a little for a lot of money? When I present it like that it is
obviously not such a hard question.
But let's go through and look at some more of these issues.
I just wanted to show you one thing. This is the cover of
Science News from 1975. Back then we were worried about global
cooling. It is not to say we are not much smarter now. But it
is to say, look at how we always hear the worst case of
whatever it is that we are worried about. Back then we worried
enormously about global cooling. You can actually see New York
there, being flooded over by a glacier. I am sure that is
actually going to go very slowly. But still, what you see there
is basically they told us all the worst things that they could
from global cooling.
But it is curious if you think about it, if we worry about
temperatures rising and saying that is going to mean more
malaria, how come when we worried about global cooling nobody
said, but at least it is going to mean less malaria. We never
seem to see the other other side of the argument. I am not
saying that overall global warming is not going to be bad. I am
saying it is unlikely we will make good judgments if we don't
see both sides of the argument and if we don't get a sense of
proportion.
That brings me to the third point; namely, that we need
smarter solutions. The ones we have proffered right now are
just simply very costly and not going to do very much good.
Let me briefly show you if we do Kyoto--this is perfectly
standard analysis--the cost of Kyoto is about $180 billion a
year, yet it will do very little about the temperature.
What you see here is over the next century. If you look at
the black line--that is if we don't do anything. The red line
is if we do Kyoto--that is, if the U.S. also did Kyoto and
everybody stuck to this for the rest of the century, you would
basically see postponing global warming for about 5 years.
Next slide.
You have all heard that the EU has just come out and
proposed they would do a 20 percent cut of carbon emissions by
2020, yet the cost that will have will probably be about $90
billion. And it will do even less than Kyoto. It will only
postpone global warming for about 2 years.
If you look at the last side, here which is Gore's
solution, which is the one I have heard him say--until today
where he obviously said a much greater number--he was actually
suggesting cutting emissions by 90 percent, which will be
horrendously expensive; but if you look at the payroll tax
proposal that he has come out with in 2006, the cost would be
about $160 billion. It would mean $1.25 rise per gallon of gas.
And it would basically postpone warming for about 4.5 years.
What this essentially tells us is that we can do, if we do
it right now, we can cut emissions. Yes, it will be fairly
costly and it will do very little good. That is not a very good
idea.
Next slide, please.
Al Gore also in his discussion, and many others, will say,
well, but maybe it is not actually going to be costly, maybe it
will actually be an advantage to us. And then he also referred
to the Stern report which actually came out and said, yes, it
is actually going to be an advantage. I would like to remind
you that all peer-reviewed research shows that doing a lot
about climate change is essentially a losing position.
If you look at this, this is an overview of all these
studies that we have. The peer-reviewed you see over in the
left-hand side of the corner. You basically see the damages are
about 1 percent of GDP, on average, and the cost of doing parts
of this is about 2 percent.
So it is a bad idea to give 2 percent to obtain less than 1
percent. And the Stern report turned those figures around. But
I should also warn you that they were basically basing
themselves on all the other peer-reviewed studies. So I would
say, if anything, the Stern report probably was not very
representative of what they were actually purporting to show.
If anything, all peer-reviewed research that shows a cost/
benefit tells us we should do fairly little now.
And I would like to just briefly show you why this is the
case. And these are the same models that also the Stern review
and also Al Gore would base himself on. It is basically because
the cost comes now. The benefits come way into the future.
And this particular model--but I will submit they all look
pretty much the same--you see the costs rising dramatically
from now up until about the middle of next century, and then
they level off. Whereas the benefits only cross far into the
next century and, of course, you have to remember by then we
will have built up a debt. So essentially the first generations
to start profiting from the things that we do now against
climate change are going to be born early in the 23d century.
You have to ask yourself whether there isn't better things
to spend our money on first. And so my argument would be to
say--and this is my solution that I think I would like to
submit to you to consider--is to say we need a much longer-
term, smarter way to deal with these issues. That would be, for
instance, investing 0.05 percent of GDP in research and
development in noncarbon-emitting energy technologies.
Essentially it would be much cheaper, about $25 billion a
year on a global level. It would let each country do what they
think is the best way. We are not going to be picking winners.
We are essentially going to let markets do this. And in the
long term, the point is we will be able to solve global warming
much better than some of these proposals we have seen with EU
and other proposals of cutting emissions, like the Kyoto. This
is simply a much cheaper way of doing much more good in the
long run.
That leads me to the last and fourth point I want to
briefly mention to you is that there are many other things
where we need to focus. I also notice that one of the members
talked about the Copenhagen Consensus. Basically Gore talks
about our generational mission. And he talks about that we need
to think about what is the future going to ask us. I think that
is entirely right. We need to think about what is the future
going to ask of us. He says they are going to say, what were
you thinking? What on Earth were you thinking? Why weren't you
concerned about doing the most good first? And I think that is
entirely true.
But of course what they are going to be asking us is why
were you spending $180 billion a year doing virtually no good
100 years ago from now, where you could have spent so much more
money on better things. I would like to compare this very
briefly, for $75 billion a year we could solve all major basic
problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water,
sanitation, basic health care and primary education to every
single human being on the planet.
So, again, the question is do we want to be remembered as
the generation who did a little good or a lot of good for a lot
of money or a little money? The basic point here is that it is
not that hard of a question.
And that of course leads me to the Copenhagen Consensus
where we asked some of the world's top economists, including
four Nobel laureates, to look at all the different things we
can do in the world. And we asked them, where do you get the
most bang for the buck? This is what they came up with. They
basically told us we should prevent HIV-AIDS; we should prevent
micronutrient malnutrition, ensure free trade, and prevent
malaria. If we do that, for every dollar we spend we would
probably end up doing about $40 worth of social good. That is a
very good investment.
On the other hand they showed, down at the bottom they
showed the Kyoto Protocol and several other ways to deal with
global warming, basically telling us it is a bad investment,
not that you waste the money, but for every dollar you spend
you probably end up doing 25, 30 cents worth of good.
And so the question is, do we want to be remembered as the
generation who spent dollars and did 30 cents' worth of good
for each dollar, or do we actually want to be remembered as the
one who did $40 worth of good for the world?
And so basically my point here is not that there is no
global warming. There is. And Al Gore should be thanked for
putting that on the agenda.
On the other hand, we also need to get a sense of
proportion. We are not likely to make good judgments if we
vastly exaggerate the bad consequences of global warming and
forget the positive incidences of global warming. And that also
means we need smarter solutions. The solutions that are being
proffered right now are doing very little good at very high
cost. There are much better ways to do it; for instance,
investment in research and development. That will enable our
kids and grandkids to deal with many of these issues instead of
having a situation where we virtually spend lots of money doing
very little good. And we also need to remember if we are really
talking about our generational mission, global warming is not
the only issue. There are many other things that our kids and
grandkids will judge us: Did you actually do the best you could
with the money you were going to spend? Did you spend it on
vast, frivolous projects like the Kyoto Protocol? Or did you
actually spend it on a lot of things that would end up doing a
lot of good for the world first?
The point is we need to think about other issues. But as
this is a discussion on climate change, we need to ensure that
we do it smartly and efficiently.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomborg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.053
Mr. Inslee. Thank you Dr. Lomborg. We will now have another
great leader on this issue from Tennessee, Bart Gordon, 5
minutes.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you Mr. Inslee.
And, Mr. Lomborg, welcome to the Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Science and Technology Committee and welcome
to America.
Mr. Lomborg. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. We take great pride in our freedom of
speech here, but I do think it is fair to point out the
different speech and opinion, and I just want for the record to
give some of the reviews of your work from your home country.
The Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty was called
to evaluate your work. Their analysis of your book concluded
the following and I quote: ``The publication is deemed clearly
contrary to the standards of good scientific practice. Further,
there has been such pervasion of the scientific message in the
form of systematically biased representation that the objective
criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty has been met.''
Scientific America has a 12-page article entitled
``Misleading Math About the Earth'' dedicated solely to your
book.
The National Academy of Sciences also here in America,
member Norman Mayer said that you have not done a fraction of
the homework that could give him a preliminary understanding of
the science in question.
Finally, the prestigious scientific journal Nature
described your work as, and again I am quoting, I don't really
like this but I am quoting, ``Employs a strategy of those who
argue that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis.''
I just want to get this on record again. You are welcome
here and your opinion is welcome. But for the record, I want to
note that your opinion has been disputed in your country and
elsewhere.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Chairman Gordon. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Lomborg. Can I comment on that?
Mr. Inslee. Certainly, yes.
Mr. Lomborg. Thank you very much for your welcome here. I
do believe that it is important to say that the--I mean, there
is clearly a lot of people out there who have been very
critical of my work. That is absolutely true. I think it is
curious, given the fact that this is the work not of me but,
for instance, of the thing I was presenting here of the
priority list of some of the world's most esteemed economists,
including four Nobel laureates.
But you do mention the Scientific Committee of Dishonesty.
Yes, it is very true that a lot people wanted me to be
convicted. And the committee actually did just what you said.
However, it also turned out on appeal that they actually hadn't
done their homework. They actually had not done any
justification for that decision.
And so what it really shows is that there are a lot of
people out there who really would like me to be wrong, but they
couldn't uphold it. It was actually canceled, and the quotation
that you made actually comes from a verdict that has been
overturned. I just want to make sure that that also gets into
the record.
And likewise, Scientific American took four people to go
through my book, three of whom I criticized strongly in the
book. It is perhaps not very surprising that they came up with
the conclusion that I was wrong.
Now the curious thing--and I am not even going to talk
about I think a lot of people felt it was very, very bad of
Nature to do the Holocaust Jew thing now. But I would like to
take just a moment, because it is not really a question of
whether there are a lot of people out there criticizing me; it
is much more a question saying, isn't it at least something we
should be considering, that maybe our spending a lot of money
right now, for instance, on Kyoto is not the best way to do
this?
And at least I would like to engage here, and that is why I
think this is such an important discussion to have. It is not a
question of saying, you should buy all my views. But it is a
question of at least thinking that just because there is this
great momentum of oh, yes, let's do a lot of good, if our
analyses show it is going to be very costly, if our analyses
show that it is going to do very little good, shouldn't we at
least consider whether there are smarter ways of moving towards
this goal? And that, I think, is really my purpose of coming
here, to make sure that we think this through and at least try
to be smart about this.
Chairman Gordon. That is the reason you are here, to give
another opinion, and we welcome you for that. And, as you say,
it is healthy to be able to discuss it.
He was given my time.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. We will move on to Mr. Barton now.
Mr. Gordon has yielded to Mr. Barton of Texas, 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lomborg, thank you for being here. This is your book. I
understand you have a new book coming out in September. I want
the record to show that I haven't read all of it but I have
read a good part of it. It is 350 pages, and then there are
over 150 pages of bibliography and footnotes. What Dr. Lomborg
has actually done is compiled, to the best of his ability, the
most recent statistics and studies on not just climate change,
but a minimum of other environmental issues and tried to get as
much expert witnesses or experts' testimonies he can, and then
use his own mind to evaluate the facts.
And my good friend from Tennessee put into the record the
Denmark Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, what they said in
January 2003 about his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. I
want to put on the record that was in January 2003.
In December 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and
Technology and Innovation, of which the DCST is a subdivision,
completely rejected, completely rejected the DCST's finding
that Lomborg's bomb was objectively dishonest. In fact, the
Ministry found that the DCST's decision was not supported by
documentation, offered no substantiation and was, I quote,
``completely void of argumentation,'' and had shown--again I
quote, ``a significant neglect in its analysis.''
So, I want to compliment you, Doctor, for agreeing to use
your own mind to evaluate some of these theories and be willing
to state opinions that are contrary to the politically accepted
position. You are doing a service to mankind and a service to
this debate to be here today.
Now my question for you. You are the originator and I think
coordinator of something called the Copenhagen Consensus, where
you invited leading experts in the environmental community and
the social welfare community from all over the world to come to
Copenhagen and try to rank various world problems and solutions
to those world problems. Is that correct?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Barton. Now, in that ranking, what was the No. 1
problem, and where did global warming/climate change rank?
Mr. Lomborg. If I could just answer the question slightly
broader, because I think that also goes to Mr. Gordon's point.
It is not to say that climate change is not important.
Obviously people who work in climate change are going to say
this is important, and that is indeed what the scientific
community is telling us, and that is what Mr. Gordon is telling
us. But likewise, of course, when you ask a malaria expert what
is important, don't be surprised that the malaria experts say
malaria is important. Everybody will say their turf is the most
important thing; this is what we should be dealing with.
What we then try to do at the Copenhagen Consensus is
essentially try to make a menu, with prices of all the
different things we can look at. Yes, we can solve all these
problems. Clearly we don't.
So at least we should have a conversation of, well, where
can we do the most good first. And what they came out with is
essentially telling us if we invest a dollar in HIV-AIDS we
will probably end up doing $40 worth of social good. Investing
it in malnutrition for micronutrients will probably do about
$30 worth of good; free trade, probably $20; malaria, about $10
to $15 worth of good. Whereas Kyoto, as you also asked, came
out next to the bottom. Probably for every dollar you spend you
probably do somewhere between 25 and 30 cents' worth of good.
So it gives you a sense of what is it you want to shop. At
the end of the day, of course, it is your job to make those
decisions. But you at least now have a price list. So we are
hoping instead, if you went into a restaurant and just got a
menu and there were all these great options but no prices, that
would make you a little uncomfortable. Now at least we put
prices on there. And then, of course, democracies can
deliberate what they want to pick first.
Mr. Barton. Finally, in my last 20 seconds, I pointed out
to the Vice President that in his charts he portrays that
greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO\2\, go up and then
temperature goes up, when in point of fact the data that we
have over the last 650,000 years shows that when temperature
goes up first by an average of between 200 to 800 years. I
pointed that fact out to the Vice President and he seemed
unimpressed by it.
First of all, do I have my facts correct, or is the Vice
President correct?
Mr. Lomborg. You are correct. And you are also correct that
that is a general point. On the other hand, I also tend to
think it is an interesting discussion, I see why he would have
picked out that because it is a very strong graph. It is
probably he is right for the wrong reasons on that particular
point.
Mr. Barton. I was happy with, yes, I am correct.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, for being
here.
Mr. Inslee. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Doctor Lomborg, my name is Jay Inslee. I am from Seattle. I
want to compliment Denmark on some of your successes as you are
heading to go 50 percent windpower on your electrical grid.
That is an accomplishment. We think we could do great things in
this country as well as if we adopt some policies to deal with
this issue.
You have come to us, giving us sort of an analysis, largely
an economic analysis. But many of us, many of our constituents,
believe that we have a moral obligation not to damage the
planet. And they believe, because of their belief in a higher
power, that we have an obligation to take care of the Creator's
garden. In Genesis we were given that obligation. Many people
of different faiths share that moral obligation that we are not
going to take away the polar bear from the grandkids or the
salmon from streams or the Orcas or walruses, or you name it.
This is a moral obligation that our generation has.
And I want to make sure I understand you. You are not here
to tell us that under your belief, under your belief in a
higher power, whether you have one or not, that that should be
diminished and that we should believe in a God that would allow
us to destroy the meaningful parts of this planet that we hold
dear. You are not telling us that, are you?
Mr. Lomborg. No.
Mr. Inslee. I want to make sure of that.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. I want to make very sure that you have come to
us, telling us up here in Congress that if our constituents
believe that they have a belief in a God that gives them an
obligation to turn this planet over to our grandchildren as
good as we found it, you are not telling us that that is not
something we shouldn't follow, are you?
Mr. Lomborg. No. Can I elaborate on that?
Mr. Inslee. Not now. I only have 5 minutes. Well--go ahead.
If you think that doesn't answer the question, go ahead.
Mr. Lomborg. Basically, I think you are absolutely right,
and I think we want to leave this planet as a better planet.
However, I would also argue that it is hard to imagine that we
would have a God that would not want us to save somewhere
between 10 and 15 million people from HIV-AIDS over the next 10
years, and so on. There are a lot of things, 28 billion people
who are getting infected by malaria. So we definitely want to
do all these good things. My point is simply we want to leave
the best planet we can.
Mr. Inslee. I think I understand your point. Your point is
to think that the United States isn't capable of dealing with
HIV, malaria, and global warming at the same time.
Now maybe Denmark, with all due respect, isn't capable of
dealing with those things. But I will tell you something about
America. We are capable of dealing with HIV, malaria, and the
commitment to our grandkids to not despoil the planet, because
it is a moral obligation to do all three and we are going to do
all three in the country.
Now, you have given us an economic analysis and I want to
test your economic analysis, just how good you are in knowing
what the future costs or benefits of these actions will be.
Many of us believe in America, because we are the people that
put a man on the Moon, we are the people that perfected the
Internet, we are the people that invented the lightbulb, that
this is a tremendous economic opportunity for the United States
of America.
And we believe that we have as much opportunity to grow our
economy as opposed to being a cost to our economy. And the
reason we believe that in the United States of America is
because we have tremendous innovators in this country who have
done a real crackerjack job whenever we have had a
technological challenge.
So I want to ask what you know about the American economy.
Are you familiar with the Nanosolar Company in Palo Alto,
California?
Mr. Lomborg. No.
Mr. Inslee. They make a PV thin solar cell that could be
market-based grid solar power in the next year.
Are you familiar with the Oscar of solar thermal power?
They make solar thermal that may be grid competitive in the
next 18 months. Do you know about the Verdiem Company in
Seattle, Washington?
Mr. Lomborg. No.
Mr. Inslee. They make a product that can basically save 10
to 30 percent of your electricity because it will shut off your
PC when you are not using it.
Do you know about the Range Company of Georgia?
Mr. Lomborg. No.
Mr. Inslee. It is a company that makes cellulosic ethanol
that is up--they are going to start construction shortly--that
can have a significantly reduced CO\2\ footprint with
cellulosic ethanol.
Do you know about the General Motors Volt?
Mr. Lomborg. I have heard about it, yes.
Mr. Inslee. General Motors Volt is where you plug in an
electric car that is going to get 150 miles a gallon with zero
CO\2\ for the first 40 miles.
Now, the point I want to make is, with all due respect,
your projections of the cost of what this is going to do, you
have the sign wrong, as the Vice President said this morning.
We believe that this is an opportunity to sell products to
China and to Denmark. You got the drop on us on Vestus, but we
intend to do better next time. And we are going to start
filling up ships, selling them to Beijing, with solar thermal
technology and efficiency technology, and we are going to ship
to the rest of the world the best clean energy technology ever
invented. Now, that is a prospective Seattle.
If you want to make any comments, go ahead.
Mr. Lomborg. Thank you very much. I appreciate your points.
I will just really make two points.
One is you say America is a great country, and it is
absolutely a great country, and it is definitely much bigger
than Denmark. You say also that you will deal with both
malaria, HIV, and global warming. And we could add on a few
others like clean drinking water, and education, and all the
problems in the world. I am very happy to hear that.
I would, however, ask respectfully why you didn't do so the
last 10 years? Why haven't you solved all these problems? And I
would like to at least have you recognize that apparently doing
all these things is not so easy.
And let me just reflect on the point that while Gore was
Vice President, the CO\2\ emissions of the U.S. increased 18
percent and the development assistance declined from point 14
to point 10.
And so it does seem to say, suggest to me, that, no, not
only can't you do everything, but actually you didn't do either
of these issues. And that seems at least to be an important
point.
The second thing that you talk about that is an
opportunity----
Mr. Inslee. Just conclude. I have to get to other speakers,
if you can conclude fairly shortly.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. And the other one on the opportunity in
cost, and I got the sign wrong. It is very easy for the Vice
President to say you got the sign wrong. All I can say is just
as we trust the IPCC, the U.N. Climate Panel, because it is a
very large group of esteemed scientists looking at the world
climate, looking at what the world climate looked like, I would
probably imagine that the Nobel laureates and all the climate
economists that we have are better able to get the sign right
than I do--you or me.
So the point here, again really on the idea of saying the
things that you mention, if they are indeed marketable and they
actually work in this market now, great. But then we don't
actually have to be considering it here. If they don't, then at
least we have to have the conversation of saying, is that where
we want to spend our money or would we rather want to spend it
in a lot of other inventions that America could also greatly
enhance humanity with?
Mr. Inslee. I would decline your kind offer to comment on
what would have happened had the election turned out
differently.
Thank you very much. I would like to now recognize Mr. Hall
of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hall. Dr. Lomborg you were here when the Vice President
was testifying, were you not?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes, I was.
Mr. Hall. And you heard me go over the word ``costs'' with
him, and that I had repeated it, I think, eight times in there.
And Mr. Bartlett helped me. He put two more words of ``cost''
in there and I asked Mr. Gore about the cost and read back to
him what he said, that there are some who will say that acting
to solve this crisis will be costly. I don't agree.
And then he goes on to say the way he would solve it would
save money. And he pointed out, makes some sense that
consequences of inaction would be devastating to both
environment and economy. That is, of course, it would be
devastating if we could afford even to get to that point.
Now, you had calculated, I think, that it costs about $25
billion a year worldwide, as opposed to $180 billion a year in
the Kyoto-like system, and that it actually resulted in more
reductions, had you not?
Give us the benefit of your opinion. You mentioned in your
testimony that we need to be much smarter about climate change,
meaning that we need to abandon expensive and inefficient
strategies like Kyoto and search for other opportunities.
How about elaborating for us a little bit on that, if you
would, on how investing in R&D would be a smarter way of
dealing with this problem? And should we invest exclusively in
next-generation energy sources or should we also invest in
technologies to make existing resources more efficient, more
affordable, and cleaner?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Give us for the record, your opinion on that and
enlarge on it a little.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes, thank you very much. Two things. Again,
you are absolutely right. I didn't think that Al Gore answered
the question about costs very well, and certainly if the cost
really is negligible or even if it is going to be an advantage,
it is hard really to see why we need to have these
conversations because clearly everybody would just jump on it.
Essentially if all you have are lots of $50 bills lying
around, you would imagine some people would be picking them up,
and that doesn't seem to be something we would need to
regulate. So at the end of the day, I think we need to realize
that all peer-reviewed economic research tells us yes, costs
are going to be significant. They are not going to be damaging
our economy. I think one of the Democrats pointed out that some
people go out and scare us with saying that this is going to
ruin our economy. We are all going to basically have go to the
poor house. That is not what we are talking about.
Kyoto is going to cost $180 billion of a $50 trillion
economy in the world. It is not going to drive us to the poor
house. But we could definitely spend that money better.
The second part of your question of how could investment in
research and development actually do better, well the idea here
really is to say right now estimates show that the cost of
emitting an extra ton of carbon dioxide is about $2 per ton of
carbon dioxide. It is the maximum reasonable--this is the
latest of the meta study from Richard Toll, one of the most
respected climate economists--the largest cost that we could
reasonably envision is about $15 per ton of carbon dioxide.
Now, the problem is that most of the cost of cutting carbon
emissions are much, much higher. The typical Kyoto cost is
around $30, $40. Many of the proposals that we have seen here
today, also Al Gore's proposal, is probably in the $100 or
more. That is certainly also true for the Stern report.
So essentially we are standing in a situation where we say
the damage is only $2, but we only have technology to deal with
it if we are going to spend $100 per ton. That is a bad deal.
We need to get those costs down.
Now, there are ways of doing that. One is to say let's cut
emissions and thereby force industries and others to do those
cuts. And, of course, they will probably try to find the
smartest way to do it. But we pretty much know the answer to
that. Maybe they can get it down to $100, down to I don't know,
$80. But we would much, much rather say let's actually spend
the money in research and development so that we can get that
cost fundamentally much further down. And that is what research
and development does. No, it shouldn't just be in renewables.
It should be in all the different areas.
Mr. Hall. You do have people who don't believe in your
summations or your conclusions in your home area, do you not?
Mr. Lomborg. Oh, sure.
Mr. Hall. And people write good and bad about you?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Well, you are normal then. We suffer that same
problem here.
My time is about out. I really wanted to get to you about
the global cooling scare in the mid-1970's and how the
scientists thought they knew what was causing the cooling, and
then all of a sudden the debate shifted to global warming. So
like an old lady at home, her husband died at 92, she said that
old pipe finally got him. Here they ease off from cooling to
warming.
And when did the debate shift to global warning, if you
know?
Mr. Lomborg. It shifted several times. We were worried
about global cooling----
Mr. Hall. In the 1970's cooling scare.
Mr. Lomborg. We worried about cooling in the early part of
the 1900's, and 1930 we worried about warming, and we worried
about cooling in the 1970's. The point is, though, I think it
is important to say we have much better reason to worry about
warming now. So I think we need to recognize that warming is a
serious issue. And it is people that are much smarter than any
of us in this room, although I am not sure I know everyone in
here--but the really best people that we have in the planet
telling us that this is a problem. I think we need to listen to
them, but we also need to say, yes, but how much is it going to
cost and how much good can it do?
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I yield back thank you.
Chairman Gordon [presiding]. Mr. Hastert is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Lomborg, I
appreciate you coming and spending some time. I know you had to
fly all night to get here from Denmark, but I appreciate it.
You talk about malaria and HIV-AIDS and Asian flu and
micronutrients, and we talk about the free trade and clean
drinking water and education. I think that is part of the
things that--I happened to be Speaker here for a number of
years, and at every appropriation and every foreign
appropriation we do, we have probably been the leader in HIV-
AIDS and other issues and making sure that children have the
nutrients they have, along with NGOs, and a lot of that is
American money as well that is given outside the government.
But I guess we could always do more. And I think that is a
choice that we can always make and what is available.
But I want to go back to what our view is, some of our
views are.
If we could do something to help ourselves to make our
environment cleaner, make the world environment cleaner, and we
can do it, I think that is something that we ought to try to
do.
Also we find ourselves in this country energy dependent on
other countries. You haven't had the effect so much in Europe,
but there are people who can turn the spigot and turn off
energy, or raise the price and cause the loss of jobs and
people having huge heating bills and things like that.
So I think one of our goals is energy independence. And I
think we get down to the point of what can we do. I think in
this country we can do several things. We can do alternative
fuels. We have the ability now to look at ethanol and soy
diesel and bring other types of fuels into play and,
eventually, hydrogen if we do the research.
We also have the ability to look at what we have; 80
percent of the energy that we have in this country happens to
be coal. How do you unlock coal? How do you do the research to
make sure you can use that energy? Because that is what we
happen to have. And I think we need to do that research. We
need to find the way. And I am not sure that we have that
research yet. I am not sure that we found that way.
But we need to do the engineering, research, and the
science to do it. And I think the key is doing it in a clean
way.
So our ancestors have been doing it the dirty way for a
long time; just dig it out of the ground and put it in a
furnace and heat up steel or heat up water in boilers or
whatever.
We have to do this in a clean way.
I remember in 1992 I sat on this dais and one of our goals
was to find what is the future energy source for this country.
And we all agreed it was going to be natural gas. So in the
last 15 years every energy unit that has been built in this
country--well, small energy unit that has been built in this
country, happened to be gas peaker plants. Well today, all of a
sudden, we see the possibility of shortage of natural gas. We
don't have enough natural gas. So that wasn't a good choice.
But we invested a lot of money and then we will have to be
able to make sure that our source of gas, natural gas, keeps
flowing.
Unfortunately, we don't want to have to get liquid natural
gas from someplace offshore, because that spigot could be shut
off as well.
So we have a dilemma in front of us. First of all, how much
good can we do? Then what are our resources and how do we bring
those together? And I say probably, I am speaking probably out
of my own knowledge here, but we probably do more good around
the world economically in dollars than any other Nation. We
could probably do more. But we do it because of our free market
enterprise system and the ability to make money and pay taxes
and have the government be able to do that and the private
sector doing it too; individuals.
Do you think that course of trying to develop our own
resources in a cleaner, better way is reasonable?
Mr. Lomborg. The very short version is yes. It would be
very obvious to say if you were going to increase your research
and development you would probably do a lot on clean coal, you
would do a lot on carbon capture, and that also seems like one
of the very promising technologies. It is still in the high
end, again, if the damage cost is $2 per ton of carbon dioxide;
the cheapest carbon capture I have heard about is about $20. So
it is a still a factor 10 off. That doesn't mean it has to be
that way in 20 years.
But the point is, don't try to do it now simply because it
makes you feel good that you somehow have done something about
the problem, if it means that you are just spending a lot of
money but not actually using very much for research and
development.
A lot of people will argue that if you put up restrictions,
it will increase research and development as a byproduct. Now,
theoretical arguments actually indicate that is, at least in
the sign, true. But it turns out that that is actually not what
happens.
If we look at the the international data on research and
development, both in renewables and on conservation, where we
can look at them from the international energy agencies, they
have been going down and down and down despite Kyoto. So the
whole point--and if you look at all the countries that have
accepted Kyoto. The point is that when you put up very strict
limits, people focus more on how can they just duck under these
limits than thinking about how can they solve these problems in
10, 20, 30 years down the line.
And so I would like to just leave you with two things. I
don't talk about energy independence because that is not an
economic discussion. I fully agree that that is part of the
argument that you could go for, saying we want to have less
dependence on fossil fuels, and that is a valid argument. That
is not one that I look at.
The other one----
Mr. Inslee [presiding]. Could you wrap up your point Dr.
Lomborg?
Mr. Hastert. I thank the chairman for reminding him. Go
ahead, you have another point to make.
Mr. Lomborg. The last one is simply you mention that you
are a very rich country, and if you do can do something you
possibly should do it. And again that is, of course, the moral
point; yes, in principle, we should solve all problems. The
great thing about this Nation is that you can virtually do
anything you want, only you can't do all of it at once, so
there still is a discussion of saying, well, which of the many
great things do you want to focus your attention on?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Doctor
Mr. Hastert. Dr. Lomborg, thank you very much. We
appreciate you being here and your testimony. I yield back my
time.
Mr. Inslee. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you for being here, Dr. Lomborg. I am
interested in one of your charts. I don't know if we can
somehow get it up on the monitor there, but it is the one about
cost/benefit analysis.
It is an interesting trajectory.
Mr. Lomborg. The one with the 1990 stabilizations?
Mr. Inglis. There it is, up on the board there. I suppose
what we are seeing on that chart is something typical of a
capital investment, right? And that is, the early years of any
capital investment involve more costs than benefit, I think.
Isn't that right? If I buy a new air-conditioner, for example,
for my house, with a higher efficiency, and replace the one I
have got, it is going to take me a number of years to recoup
the investment.
So I wonder how standard those lines are in terms of an
average capital investment? Particularly the trajectory of the
benefit line going off the chart there intrigues me. In other
words, is it continuing on headed up in that fashion? If so,
then it depends on the time frame as to whether or not that was
actually a very good investment. If I was an investor I might
buy that product.
Mr. Lomborg. I would love to sell that to you, then.
Mr. Inglis. I don't know how specific you can be with that
chart. But it just seems to me a fairly standard discussion
that you have about any capital investment, isn't it?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. The difference is that your air-
conditioner will probably pay itself back, if you like air
conditioning, within 2 or 3 or 4 years and not 2, 3 or 400
years. And that is the big difference.
The real discussion here is if you couldn't do it better
later on, then maybe you should do it right now, yes. But the
point is we expect that all of the costs in complying--for
instance, we know, for instance, renewables have been coming
down in price about 50 percent per decade. So if we could
postpone investing in renewables and make up for it by
investing more in them, we at least know there is a backstop
technology that would make it much much cheaper to do it in 10,
20, 30 years.
Mr. Inglis. That is an interesting point. The question is,
at what point can you get the market going such that
entrepreneurs and inventors drive the market? Because there is
a market for it. The early technology is always going to look
antiquated. If it is a fast-moving market or fast-moving
innovation, it is going to be antiquated very quickly.
But the question, of course, for a great country is how do
you start moving so that you actually get out of the laboratory
and toward the market?
My goal as a conservative is to have the market drive a lot
of this. Isn't that the idea? We can't really wait forever for
the best technology to come along, because then you don't have
market forces at work, right?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes, you are absolutely right. It is a little
bit like waiting for a computer. At some point you actually
have to buy it and you can't just say it is going to get better
next year.
But on the other hand, you can't buy too early. Denmark was
a leader in wind technology, for instance. And we put up way
too many windmills way too soon, because we thought it was a
cool thing to do.
The problem is now we actually have to take all of them
down because we have much better technology that actually
allows us to put up new windmills that are much more efficient.
And an argument could certainly be made that we should
probably invest it in those windmills 10 years later and that
overall, the Danish Economic Council showed that overall, that
was a bad investment for Denmark. Now it is probably a good
investment.
And as the chairman also pointed out, there are many good
things to be done and we should certainly do those. But we
should actually ask ourselves if some of these things are great
investments. Do that. That is fine.
But some of these we shouldn't do right now.
Mr. Inglis. Let me ask you this. You think that Mr. Gore is
basically taking the worst-case scenario in all of these cases.
I wonder if the line there, the benefit line changes if you
assume that those aren't the worst-case projections; in other
words, that you really do have a situation, let's say, that you
get an exponential increase in the problem is your projection.
This chart is too general, I am sure, to answer this
question with a chart, but it seems to me that it is perhaps
possible that the benefits would change if you assumed that
actually those weren't the worst-case scenarios, they were more
likely scenarios.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. Actually, this particular model does
allow for that. It takes into account there is a probability
that something very bad will happen, and typically you will be
willing to pay an insurance price for that. But the point is
that it doesn't, what is the word, it doesn't change it
dramatically. It changes it a little bit. And so I am not
advocating you should do nothing. I am, for instance, saying
you shall put $2 carbon tax. You should also invest in research
and development. If you have more probability of very bad
things happening, you should perhaps set the recovery tax at $3
and invest $30 billion on research and development. Yes. I also
say that in my papers. Sorry.
Mr. Inslee. We now have Mr. Bartlett for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I am sorry I couldn't be
here for all of your testimony. I would like to refer to your
ranking chart that you have where you show from 4 down to 16.
Is this a ranking of problems, or is this a ranking of the bang
for the buck in solving problems?
Mr. Lomborg. It is a ranking of solutions, a bang for the
buck.
Mr. Bartlett. Is energy anywhere on the list?
Mr. Lomborg. No.
Mr. Bartlett. That is just stunning because I think this
energy, which is why you are putting up all of those wind
machines, thank you, energy is probably the biggest challenge
facing--we may bumble through the global warming thing. If I
was in Siberia, you might have a hard time convincing me a
little global warming might be bad, but we are not going to
just bumble through a peapod. I mean, the energy crisis is
real. If it is not here now, it is going to be here very
quickly. So I am just stunned that that is not on your list.
When my wife goes to the grocery store shopping, one of the
things that will be on her list is thyroid because she needs
thyroid medicine. Now if she has only a short-term view,
nothing is going to happen if she doesn't take thyroid today or
tomorrow or even the day after tomorrow. But if she doesn't
take it for the long term, it is going to be absolutely
disastrous.
How far down the road, where you are looking when you put
together that chart or the folks who put it together, how far
down the road were they looking?
Mr. Lomborg. It depends because we are comparing very many
different models. But, for instance, with global warming, it
was 300 years. Some of these models, when you look at HIV/AIDS,
they don't nearly stretch that far. They should, but they
don't.
Mr. Bartlett. If any of this didn't make your list, how
come you put up all of those wind machines?
Mr. Lomborg. It is a good question. We actually did spend a
fair amount of time thinking about which problems should get in
there. And what we believe is that, for instance, for energy,
the private markets do actually provide many of the solutions.
If you look at the whole discussion about peak oil----
Mr. Bartlett. You read the HSC report? The big HSC report?
They believe unless you anticipate peak oil by 20 years, you
cannot avoid economic consequences. If you anticipate it only
by 10 years, there will be meaningful economic consequences.
And if you do not anticipate it at all, which is where we are
very near peak oil, then there will be very meaningful,
meaningful economic consequences. I am a strong conservative.
And I know most of my friends worship the market. They believe
it is both omniscient and omnipotent. But there are even some
things God can't do. God can't make a square circle, and there
are some things the market can't do. You can't pump oil that is
not there and you can't build a wind machine at only a certain
rate, and you can't exploit the oil shales of our west at only
a certain rate. There is only a ramp up time that you need for
those things.
For those who you looking for market persons to solve the
energy problem. I think they are going to be bitterly
disappointed. That is what the Hirsch report said. You don't
agree?
Mr. Lomborg. I don't think I want to get into that
discussion, particularly because I don't know that report. I
will just leave you, though, with the point that the Stern
report, the one that Al Gore was also mentioning, points out
that from the economists' points of view, there is definitely
enough oil, at least for the next 50 years. Also on increasing
demand.
Mr. Bartlett. I would discourage you of illusion. That just
flat out isn't true. There is almost nobody. No authority in
the world who believes that comes anywhere close to being true.
Is there information out about that that that is the case? Yes.
Will it be in the quantities we want to use or the prices we
are paying now? Not on your life. It is just not going to be
here. It is $60 a barrel now. That may come down momentarily.
It won't come down for long. It keeps going up and the oil
keeps getting smaller and demand is higher. It isn't true that
we don't have to worry about it for 50 years.
If you haven't heard the HSC Report, HSC is a big
international corporation that paid for our energy department.
There is also a report by the core of engineers paid for by our
military. We are now having a third report prepared by the,
what is it, the National Council of Oil Council, whatever it is
that is doing this for our Energy Department. Because they were
concerned that the two reports they got indicated that we had
an imminent crisis, and they needed to respond.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Inslee. We will hear from Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Lomborg. It is great to have
you here. I am curious on the political spectrum, just
personally, not to go into specifics, I am assuming you would
define yourself as center left; is that true?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Just so the Democrats understand that just
because you are our witness, you probably don't ascribe with a
lot of the conservative Republican ideology, but you are an
economist and that is what separates you and brings you some
credibility to this debate. I would much rather trust an
economist to understand what the sign is on this, whether it is
a cost or a benefit than a politician or a lawyer. I appreciate
your testimony.
You did say something in response to one of the questions,
and I just want to highlight before Roscoe leaves, there will
be other research in capital investments, into other
technologies like coal to liquid, Roscoe, that will help
fulfill our need for fuel in the future, and that is the
importance of that debate.
Having said that, you did talk about research and
development. You made a very good point, because my friends on
the other side say put restrictions up and we are going to have
research and development. You said, in answer to a question,
history does not prove that. And can you restate it briefly how
you responded to that?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. I would actually like to expand it. Yes,
for instance, Kyoto, we do not see increases in research and
development being allocated because people think about how can
we just slip under instead of worrying about how can we develop
technologies 30, 50 years down the line. The second part is
also that doing something about climate change means getting
very new technologies that have huge public benefits. But it is
very hard for private companies to capture them typically
because what you develop will not actually go to market in a
marketable form but will feed into the next process, into the
next development, into the next invection, which will
eventually lead to something marketable.
So what you can show is typically these research and
development projects perhaps have a return from 30 to 50
percent, but companies can typically only perhaps allocate 20
percent. And so that is why you need public investment. That is
actually one of very good places to advocate public investment.
Mr. Shimkus. In the Vice President's book, he talks about
this, ``What are you going to tell your kids in 2023,'' 17
years from now based upon when the book was printed, what are
you going to tell them? That you failed in the moral
leadership? I have kids. It is a very real question. If the
sign is a negative cost to the governments of the world and the
economy and we slide into a recession, there is another
question. They are going to ask you did you jump for the
political expediency in the scientific demagoguery that the
world was coming to an end throwing us into a recession and now
we have no jobs. Where were you, dad? Did you stand up against
the demagogs, or did you say slow down, let us see if this is
real science. What is the cost benefit analysis.
I want to read a section that kind of proves this. Imagine
that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an
impending crisis and points to a way out. This theory quickly
draws support from leading scientists, politicians and
celebrities around the world. Research is funded by
distinguished philanthropists and carried out in prestigious
universities. This crisis is reported frequently in the media,
the scientists taught in college and high school classes. I
don't mean global warming. I am talking about another theory
which rose the promise a century ago. I don't know if you know
what this is. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston
Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Alexander Graham Bell, and it
was the scientists' theory of eugenics, which was proven
obviously a terrible, terrible process. And if we are not
careful, global warming will be the next eugenic failure and a
scourge on mankind if we don't look at the--where is the sign
going to be and how do we appropriately address that?
I would recommend also, folks, to go to www.Lomborg.com. I
did see your 18-minute presentation that you did at Monterey,
California. You didn't have much time. 18 minutes. You got it
all in. And I encourage my colleagues to go to that
presentation. Thank you for spending your time with us.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Lomborg. Can I briefly comment?
Mr. Inslee. No, because there was no question there. If
there had been a question, that would have been great.
Was there a question? Did I miss it? If you would like to
ask a question.
Mr. Shimkus. No. That is fine.
Mr. Inslee. I think we are going to have a lot of time for
you to get to the meat of this.
We move to Mr. Akin from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Akin. We are delighted to have you here, and I was
going to get into something that is a little bit more in the
weeds, but let me first of all say that we appreciate your
standing up, and I guess apparently some people didn't like to
hear what you were saying, and yet you are taking legitimate
data and just saying hey, think about this. So we appreciate
that.
My office has been communicating with a Dr. Jeffrey Hull.
He is an associate director at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff,
Arizona. And they are looking into the ongoing research on
solar influences on Earth climate. Dr. Hull has been gracious
enough to provide us actually reports from our office, and he
notes an important component of the discussion about the
existence, severity, causes, and consequences of global warming
is the role played by the sun in recent and historical climate
change.
One of the interesting things in his summary was that
astronomers have been observing solar cycles since the mid
1600's. This gives us about 400 years of solar observation.
From this record, I am told that we can see an 11-year
cycle of sunspot activity that affects the sun's luminosity, in
a sense how powerfully the sun is radiating. And some
scientists also believe there seems to be a general increase in
solar activity since 1715, and that, in essence, there is a
general increase in luminosity of our sun. It appears that this
increased solar activity is--that is sun spots--is generally
associated with greater luminosity of our sun, that a minimum
of sun spots is associated with less radiation coming from the
sun.
I was also interested to learn that from 1645 to 1750 there
was a period when there were virtually no sun spots observed in
so-called mold or minimum. There is a chart we distributed, and
I think is now on the overheads through direct space base
measurements of the sun. We didn't start beginning to do that
until the 1980's. There is speculation that the severity of the
years of the mold or minimum was associated with less solar
energy reaching the Earth in that cold time period.
Is it tempting to speculate that a general 400-year warming
trend to be linked to a general increase in solar activity and
that type of question is being addressed by current
researchers. And let me be clear that Dr. Hull is not saying
that all of global warming is caused by solar variance. That it
is a part of the complex phenomena.
Now here is my question. I heard some experts are
speculating that it is possible that the sun could be heading
into another long-term absence of solar activity. If so, we may
be heading into a long-term cooling period. Do you have an
opinion on the potential of a general cooling because of a
possible downturn in solar activity, and what do you believe is
the role of solar variance on global climate overall.
Also I might throw in as well that we have observed, as I
understand it, the melting of poles on Mars which again would
not be from CO\2\. So if you could respond to those questions,
please.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. Again it is important to say I am not a
scientist. I just read basically the same thing I am sure that
you do and many others, and so I would say yes, it is very
interesting. It is certainly something we should be aware of. I
also know there is a tendency as there is in any scientific
endeavor of some models being more popular than others. And so
it is harder for some of the solar hypotheses to get through.
With that said, I would still say if we are going to make good
public policy, we need to base it on the best available
research we know today. Now we might be surprised in 20 years
and know something else. But right now, the best scientific
knowledge we have, I would say, comes from the year end climate
panels so it tells us yes, the Earth is warming. A large part
of that is due to mankind. Of course, realizing we are going to
be spending enormous amount of money on this issue. But we
don't have the luxury in any situation in history to act in
full and certain information. So we just simply have got to say
well, until 2007, that was as good as we could do it.
Mr. Akin. Thank you very much. I read about half of your
book. I appreciate you being very careful in saying this is
what we do know, and this is speculative. There is a
difference, isn't there.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Mr. Akin yields back. Mr. Shadegg
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shadegg. Professor Lomborg, I want to thank you for
being here. I want to compliment you on the courage to stand up
and speak your own view when it sometimes runs against the
common threads of others in the field, and to incur their
criticism. I must express for the record how sad I am that the
other side of the dais is completely empty. Not a single member
from the majority has decided to stay for your testimony.
I suggest that they fear what you might say or at least
that they are not open minded to hearing it. This morning, when
Vice President Gore testified, the room was full on both sides
of the aisle. The minority showed in full number, the majority
showed and now for some reason they are afraid to hear your
testimony or don't want to keep their minds open to it. I don't
suggest that suggests a very balanced discussion of this issue
here in the Congress.
I want to go over some of the points in your charts to try
to reemphasize your point.
You say global climate change is real. You agree with that?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. And you believe it is, at least, in part,
human caused?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. On the chart, it is about a third of the way
in, you talk about it, and you say that on the issue of climate
change being real, you say that by 2100, the likely rise in
temperature is only 2.6 degrees Celsius. Do you believe that is
going to be catastrophic for the world or wipe out humanity?
Mr. Lomborg. No, of course not.
Mr. Shadegg. You point out on that same page that .5
percent, the cost would be $15 trillion, and that would amount
to less than one half of one percent of the 21st century $3,000
trillion economy GDP; is that correct?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. So that is a relatively minor issue in the
grand scheme of things; is that correct.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to make sure that gets across. So the
point would be the severity of this is overstated, is that
correct?
Mr. Lomborg. There is definitely a tendency to one side,
yes. I would also add, if you look at the U.N. climate panel
scenarios, this comes from the U.N. climate panels scenarios of
$3,000 trillion estimate. If you chose another route, which was
not so economically focused and not so globally focused which
you could argue is the kind of approach that is suggested by
Gore and others, the U.N. estimate is that we would end up with
about $550 trillion less over the century. So you could very
easily end up by trying to solve a trillion dollar deficit,
that is a bad idea.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that point. Further on the sea
level rise, you point out that it is expected to be, according
to the IPCC, believe, 1 foot over the next 100 years, and yet
you are aware that in his movie, Mr. Gore presents it as a rise
of 20 feet.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. And that is one of the exaggerations that you
are critical.
Mr. Lomborg. That is absolutely unsupportable. Imagine if I
went out and made the opposite exaggeration. If I said instead
of 1-foot, it would only be half an inch over the next hundreds
of years. That is just as much exaggeration to the other side.
I would imagine a lot of people would come out and rightly so,
criticizing me.
Mr. Shadegg. And they would lynch you. And they would
criticize you severely. I found it fascinating that you also
pointed out that over the last 150 years, it has already been
about 1 foot. I take it that is also based on IPCC or impurity
of science.
Mr. Lomborg. The IPCC only talks about 100 years, but this
is the best knowledge we have over the last 150 years.
Mr. Shadegg. On the next page of your PowerPoint, and I
would urge people to go look at it, you point out that with
regard to Greenland, Mr. Gore is predicting a 20-foot increase
in sea level and IPCC is predicting a 1.4 inch increase; is
that correct?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. That is another example of the kind of
exaggeration in this debate?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. It is unlikely to make good judgements.
Mr. Shadegg. Are you familiar with an article which
appeared in the New York Times, kind of a right-wing journal
entitled ``From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype'' by
William Broad that talks about these exaggerations?
Mr. Lomborg. I saw that, yes.
Mr. Shadegg. And in it, it points out that many scientists
are concerned about Mr. Gore's point being exaggerated and
erroneous.
Mr. Lomborg. It is true that there is a lot of scientists
that will back Al Gore, but I think it is also because they are
saying, well it is possible. Well everything is possible, but
we need to get a sense of how probable it is and yes, there are
a number of scientists----
Mr. Shadegg. I would encourage people to look at that
article. I want to conclude by asking you, could you give us an
estimate of how realistic two goals that Mr. Gore cited for us
today are? One, how realistic is it to immediately freeze all
CO\2\ emissions, and two, how realistic or economically
reasonable is it to reach a 90 percent reduction by 2050?
Mr. Lomborg. You could reasonably freeze CO\2\ emissions.
It would be costly but not overly so. It would also have
absolutely no effect on the climate, certainly no measurable
effect for the next 50 years, probably 100 years. Reduction by
90 percent by 2050. I just thought I had never heard him say
that before, and I think it is ludicrous. It is really not
something that is going to happen. The British have been toying
about, and have now decided on 60 percent by 2050 and most
people seem to think that that is on the verge of not being
possible. It is certainly going to be very, very costly, and we
know the estimates of trying to do 90 percent cut from the cost
benefit models and that indicates that the cost is in excess of
$85 trillion, and you have got to ask yourself whether that is
the right way to tell your grandchildren yes, we cared so we
spent that much money.
Mr. Inslee. The gentleman's time has expired.
Five minutes from Mr. Sullivan from Oklahoma.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here today. And I was reading some of the information
that we had here, and you were actually a member of Greenpeace
at one time?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Sullivan. And you were considered one of those
environmentalist extremists at one time?
Mr. Lomborg. I wasn't out on a rubber boat or anything but
yes.
Mr. Sullivan. You obviously aren't doing that anymore. What
made you change your mind? What did you see when you were
active in Greenpeace that maybe turned you away from being a
member anymore?
Mr. Lomborg. Unfortunately, it is a much more mundane
story. I was a student. I ran out of money. I think it is
important to say if it wasn't going to be a provocation, I
would still be a member of Greenpeace. I think Greenpeace does
an important piece of work. They point out that there are
problems and issues that we should be concerned about. But of
course we shouldn't trust them exclusively. And I think the
problem that I have with many green organizations is that they
so very one-sidedly come out and just tell us one side of that
story.
And that is unlikely to make good judgements, and that is
why I think it is important that we hear sort of the full story
both on the disadvantages. Yes, 2,000 people are going to die
from heat deaths, but also the advantages, 20,000 are not going
to die from cold deaths and get a sense of the proportion of
the costs.
Mr. Sullivan. Some of these groups, like Greenpeace and
others, do present themselves one-sidedly, like maybe Vice
President Al Gore. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Sullivan. Out of Al Gore's testimony, you are here
today, and you are doing a great job, and it is not as crowded
as it was with Al Gore, the media is not clicking the cameras
like they were when he was in here. Do you see that when you go
around? Why is it? What is so captivating to the American
people? What do you think it is that is getting this attention?
Mr. Lomborg. It is important to say that is not something I
have any expertise in. I would imagine politicians would know
that much better. But I will offer this slight thought that I
think there is something very soothing about having just one
thing that we need to worry about. And climate change does give
that sort of purpose a little bit like the Cold War was oddly
comforting because at least we knew there was just one thing we
were up against and that was the one coordinating view point of
the world.
Maybe it is that, I don't know. But it is certainly
incorrect in the sense of saying yes, climate change is a
problem. It is not going to be the end of the world as we said
before. And we need to realize there are many other problems
that our kids are also going to ask us why didn't we do
something about those.
Mr. Sullivan. What would you say was the most erroneous
thing Al Gore says when he gives his PowerPoint presentation?
Mr. Lomborg. Well, two things. First of all, the 7 meters
of sea level rise, 20 feet sea level rise is simply
unbelievable that he can get away with saying these kinds of
things. He is saying it correctly in the sense he simply says
if Greenland melted, or if Antarctica melted, but you come up
with a lot of ifs that are not very relevant for public policy.
It is probably the most played clip from his movie, and of
course, it looks very, very dangerous, when you look at it. Of
course, had he actually shown a foot and the same levels, you
wouldn't have been able to see it on his graphs. I can see why
he chose to do so, but it doesn't make better information.
The other thing he said here today is that it is actually
going to be costless. That we are actually going to make money
off of it. I think we have to be honest and say things that we
don't already do and things that are worth while having, cost
money and there is nothing strange about that. The whole
discussion is to say how much money are we willing to pay for
it. At least, let us be honest that it will cost money. How
much money are we going to be willing to pay for it. How much
good are we going to get out of it and unfortunately, all peer
reviewed research shows that it is not actually worth going
down the road that Al Gore is suggesting?
Mr. Sullivan. It kind of reminds me, Doctor, remember the
Y2K, everyone thought that was going to be the end of the world
too, and I remember I got up the next day and everyone thought
things seemed to be going fine. I think there were some things
that needed to be fixed with computers and changing dates and
whatever they need to do, but maybe they did simply overreact
in the financial industry and other things and spent money.
On the 20-foot sea level. Now you say sea levels or the
consensus of scientists is it would rise 23 inches in the next
100 years is that correct? He says 20 feet. What do you think?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. About a foot. It is from 18-centimeters
to----
Mr. Sullivan. OK. In the previous 100 years prior to that,
how much did the seas rise?
Mr. Lomborg. They rose about 20 centimeters.
Mr. Sullivan. Did that have a detrimental effect to the
globe.
Mr. Lomborg. It probably had some cost, yes. Every change
has a cost, but it was a very, very slight one. And we also
know pretty much that it is going to be a future slight one.
Mr. Sullivan. Do you think in the next 10 years, we won't
know the planet as we do today? It will be a disaster, as Al
Gore says.
Mr. Lomborg. No. Of course not. It won't.
Mr. Inslee. We have two more upcoming votes. So we would
like to hear from Mr. Burgess of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you for your patience today. I almost
feel like I should apologize for some of the questions you were
asked earlier when you opened your session. Let me ask you
about the Copenhagen Consensus, the program that you worked on.
The participants in that process and the reception you received
from them, when you began that project, do you think they had a
concept of going into that project that climate change was
going to be so low on the scale of incidents that you had
listed there? Do you think they were surprised about the
results.
Mr. Lomborg. That is hard to know actually. I don't know. I
mean, obviously, all of these people who are Noble laureates
are pretty knowledgeable people. I am sure they have given some
thought to these issues. On the other hand, I don't think that
they have ever systematicized them in the way that we ask them
to do. They were probably somewhat surprised. I would imagine
you can't be entirely surprised about your own actions, even if
you get more knowledge.
Mr. Burgess. But did they suggest from their comments after
the ranking was ascertained and then made public, were there
any comments from the participants that gee, I thought Mr.
Bartlett, I thought energy would have been on there somewhere.
Mr. Lomborg. They made those choices and they didn't
suggest anything. I think, moreover, if you ask people to
prioritize, it is a very strange experience, because you come
in and think all you oh, I can easily do that, but suddenly you
realize, which I am sure you have to do every year when you do
the budget, you basically realize I can't actually do
everything, and I have to say if I want more of this, I will
have to have less of that.
Mr. Burgess. No, it never stops us.
Mr. Lomborg. I know a slight problem with that. But still,
but the issue, of course, was that actually does affect you,
and that was the main thing that a lot of these people came
away with that it does sharpen your mind in saying what do you
want to do first.
Mr. Burgess. It seems like part of your argument is one of
the smartest ways to address this problem is to have people
invest in their own health and welfare. Do you think that is a
fair statement?
Mr. Lomborg. It is certainly important if we care about
people who get malaria, we have got to ask isn't there much
better ways. If we care about people who get hurt by
hurricanes, isn't there much better ways to deal with that than
investing in global warming and the answer is yes.
Mr. Burgess. And Kyoto takes a different approach to that?
Mr. Lomborg. Kyoto is not a very efficient way of dealing
with any problem, not even malaria or hurricanes, and not even
global warming.
Mr. Burgess. What about the European Union approach?
Mr. Lomborg. Not very economic either.
Mr. Burgess. Vice President Gore ran through about seven
things. He went through them fairly quickly. We didn't have
that in his prepared testimony, but I would just like to go
through those quickly with you and get an idea of those which
you think are reasonable suggestions and those which you think
are less reasonable.
The first one, I guess, we have already answered with the
European Union approach accelerating Kyoto from 2012 to 2010. I
am going to assume you would not put that high on a list if you
were prioritizing.
Mr. Lomborg. I think it is unrealistic.
Mr. Burgess. What about the concerns of methane from the
tundra and landfills?
Mr. Lomborg. It is important to say that dealing with land
cover methane is probably a good suggestion. It is probably one
of the cost efficient ways of dealing with it. So I think the
Vice President is absolutely right there.
Mr. Burgess. What about, he talks about a moratorium on
coal plants an absolute moratorium on coal plants, unless we
deal with carbon dioxide or carbon capture from those coal
plants.
Mr. Lomborg. I think there is a general problem in trying
to say we want to regulate individual areas. You want to put a
general carbon tax. That was actually Mr. Gore's second
proposal, and I fully agree with that. Of course, that should
be a scientifically-based carbon tax and that should be a $2
carbon tax, but then you should leave it up to the market to
decide where should you basically take it into account that
extra malady. You shouldn't ban building of coal-fired power
plants. You should make sure they pay the right price.
Mr. Burgess. We heard testimony in this committee, I think,
it was yesterday that in order to capture 60 percent of the
carbon from coal-fired power plants, it would retire
duplicating the existing natural gas pipeline in just this
country in order to sequester carbon. The electronet which we
talked about, we actually have that in Texas. I am going to
assume that is a reasonable suggestion.
Mr. Lomborg. Probably yes.
Mr. Burgess. One of the things he talked about that
actually sounded intriguing, in the very little bit of time I
have left, was the concept that you build environmentally in a
more sensible fashion, more energy-efficient fashion, since a
lot of these things are going to cost more at the outset of
building a house or business that you be able to amortize those
over the life of the loan or the life of the business. Does
that seem like a reasonable suggestion.
Mr. Lomborg. It is possible that it could be a good
suggestion. You should also be very aware that many of these
estimates have turned out to be wildly exaggerated in the
sense--there is an enormous technology optimism in many of
these kinds of projects. I don't know if you remember the
similar technology optimism against nuclear power in the
1950's. We have a tendency to expect that this is going to be
very cheap. It is going to pay itself back very quickly, and
the reason why people don't do it is typically because they
know there are more problems than what is being taken into
account.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Doctor. We will now allow 5 minutes
from Mrs. Bono of California.
Mrs. Bono. Thank you, Professor, for your testimony and for
staying with us this long and sitting through Al Gore's
testimony as well.
I have probably a bigger fear than most people do here in
this room. Certainly, I also, like my colleague Congressman
Shadegg, wish Democrats were here to hear what you have to say,
because I am actually undecided on this issue, and am trying to
find a way to move forward into the future. I am completely
open-minded. I appreciated Vice President Gore's testimony as
well as yours. But in California, we have experienced energy
crises. I live in the Palm Springs area. It is beautiful 9
months out of the year, but 3 months are quite hot. We have
worked in Congress to enact public policies that expand the
LAHI Program, which is public assistance, generally speaking,
for the cold areas to pay for heating costs. We have moved that
into the desert Southwest region for people to pay for high
cost cooling costs.
But I am concerned that we in this town will enact policies
too quickly that may cause deaths. And I know you said that by
2008, that we might have 2,000 more heat-related deaths because
of global warming, but I am concerned that immediately, because
if it is flawed public policy, it will create more deaths in
hot climates, because of people not being able to afford their
cooling.
There is some thinking, and actually, Senator Boxer is a
constituent of mine. We share a region. She moved to my area. I
love working with her on most issues but on this one, I am
concerned. Today, I read in a local paper, Roll Call, where she
says, and I quote, ``If the President chooses to veto a bill,
that sets it up as a huge issue in the presidential election,
Boxer said.'' She goes on to say. ``So we will do our best to
get as many bills on his desk as we can that deals with
greenhouse gas reduction. I think it is key that we do that,
because I do want to set it up for the presidential campaign,
which is another one of my goals.''
So as a resident of southern California when I see people
die every year because they can't afford their cooling costs,
this sort of thinking scares me and I would appreciate your
bringing some common sense and trying to slow the pendulum down
from going the other way.
My question is simple, and perhaps I am setting myself up
for a loss. But is it possible that we can enact and pass some
of these policies that will actually increase costs in the
immediate sense that right away, these cooling costs will get
to be too high for my constituents, and I will see more people
die. It is a very simple question, but I am afraid of that.
Mr. Lomborg. I am absolutely sure you can make bad deals,
make bad policies. I am sure everyone here recognizes the
possibility of making bad political deals. So you have to be
careful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enact any policies, but
it means we need to carefully weigh cost and benefits on both
sides. I don't know anything about this particular area of Palm
Springs.
Mrs. Bono. It was 1:30 Saturday. So it was a record for us.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. And absolutely we will see more of these
records, because global warming is right as we believe it is.
We will see increasing temperatures. But we have got to
remember that there will also be fewer cold deaths. And the
whole point here is to say there is something curious--in
Britain, we have these numbers how people talk incessantly
about the 2,000 Brits who died in the 2003 European heat wave,
but don't talk about the 25 to 50,000 Britons who die every
year from cold. And we need to have that conversation. It is
not the same thing as saying that the outcome is obvious but it
is to say we shouldn't just go down one road. We shouldn't just
be concerned about one issue.
Mrs. Bono. The question I have, the public policy,
California passed a very flawed bill that created the energy
crisis that we lived through, and we are continuing to see the
effects from. So really, for me as a policymaker, to be
completely open minded, and I appreciate your being here, as my
colleagues have pointed out, you are not a traditional witness
for us, but I appreciate you brought to the dialog a different
point of view.
And that is my concern, that this shouldn't be set up by
election timetables. It really ought to be set on public policy
that really affects people's lives.
Mr. Lomborg. Absolutely. As one of the economists point
out, which I think is very, very true, that global warming is a
100-year problem. And there is something wrong in believing
that it is something that we can fix within 10 or 15 years. It
is going to require long-term work between--what they say it is
a problem that will need work between continents, between
generations and between political parties. And you can only do
that by not trying to force the issue and try to say we need to
now. That is going to turn out actually to be
counterproductive, because people are going to fall apart. That
was essentially what we saw with the Kyoto protocol. We need to
make sure that we do smart moves that are going to lead us down
the right path but recognizing there are many other problems.
Mrs. Bono. Thank you.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. We will have a vote fairly shortly.
It would be the Chair's intention to continue until we run up
against the vote when we gavel that. So I will yield myself 5
minutes.
Dr. Lomborg, this is really interesting to me for a lot of
different reasons. One of them is you are the sort of
designated hitters for the Republicans. We have a baseball game
every year, and you are the designated hitter for the
Republican Party. And you have come across the pond and one of
the things you said, I think if I understand this correctly,
that you believe it is an appropriate policy to adopt a carbon
tax on energy sources that use carbon. And I think I heard you,
something in the neighborhood of $2 a liter, or gallon.
Mr. Lomborg. Oh, no. $2 per ton of carbon dioxide.
Mr. Inslee. I am glad you clarified that. But the point is,
it is stunning to me if the Republicans essentially brought you
here to diminish this problem and to diminish the necessity of
having a policy to deal with it, the only person they could get
in the world came here to tell us that we ought to have a
carbon tax.
Now, I tell you why that is stunning. It does not exactly
fit in the Republican sort of approach to these issues. And
what it tells me, what it tells me is that at least one
economist in the world, and that is you, believes this problem
is bad enough, that it deserves a tax on carbon which is a
fairly significant event. That is what it tells me. And I want
to ask you why, and with this question: I know President Note
of the Marshall Islands. He is the president of the Marshall
Islands. It a very low atoll in the South Pacific. He is
contemplating a day when he will have to move his entire nation
and abandon his entire nation because of this 1 foot rise,
which is anticipated on a more likely-than-not basis in the
next century.
Now, maybe to some of us, that is not a big deal. But to
him, it is a really, really big deal that he has to move his
entire nation. And is now already trying to barricade the
Pacific, and we haven't talked about the acidification of the
ocean today, which is killing the corals, which according to
the science, we won't have any coral reefs that are healthy
which protects his island nation.
I also know a guy named, a Mayor Tocktoo, who is the mayor
of Shishmaref. It is an American city. It is on the Arctic
Ocean on the northern coast of Alaska. Shishmaref, Alaska is
going to be the first city in Alaska that has to be abandoned
because of global warming. Now, maybe that 1-foot rise doesn't
mean much to many of us here, but I can tell you to Mayor
Tocktoo, who has lived there with his people for 4,000 years,
and because of this issue, we are going to have abandon the
first American city, not hypothetically. But they got plans to
do it and they know where they are going, 13 miles to Tin
Creek, Alaska. They are going to have to pick up and move.
Now what I sense you are telling us, in sum, after
listening to you here for quite a while, is that this problem
is big enough, bad enough, and serious enough that we ought to
have a tax on carbon. And I am not saying I agree with that,
but I want to know what your position is on that regard?
Mr. Lomborg. Thank you very much. There were a couple of
questions in there. I am not here because I am going to support
one side or the other. I think I was also asked earlier on. I
probably consider myself slightly left-wing in a Danish
perspective, which probably makes me a socialist, or worse,
here.
But the whole point is, as the Vice President also pointed
out, if there is a negative impact from carbon dioxide, any
economist will tell you you should tax that. You should
essentially make sure that you tax the externality.
What I am saying though, and I hope I am also getting that
message through, is that the only scientifically justifiable
amount is somewhere between $2 and $15. So that is much lower
tax than what most people are suggesting.
Mr. Inslee. Could you give a brief answer?
Mr. Lomborg. Alaska, Marshall Islands, I think it is
important to say as we also realize in the last 150 years, it
is very rare that we actually give up lands. We actually do
defend it and it turns out to be very, very cost efficient.
Mr. Inslee. With all due respect, the president of the
Marshall Islands doesn't have anywhere to defend. It is all
going to be underwater.
You have continually questioned the former Vice President
of the United States, suggesting that he essentially was saying
something inaccurate about Greenland melting, and I believe you
have continually misstated what he has told the public. And I
want to read to you what it says on page 196 of his book of
``An Inconvenient Truth''. It says ``If Greenland melted or
broke up and flipped into the sea, or if half of Greenland and
half of Antarctica melted or broke up or slipped into the sea,
sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20
feet.''
Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. And the reason you agreed to it is because it
is true, and that is what former Vice President Gore has told
people. And I frankly, am a little bit taken aback that you
would try to misstate his statement because he has told
repeatedly that we are looking at 1 foot rises during the next
century in a more probable-than-not basis. There are phenomena
that could rapidly, rapidly cause melts that we don't
understand.
And in the last 4 weeks, scientists in my home town have
found melting of the Arctic way, way, way beyond anything
anybody predicted. And in the last 2 months, and my time has
expired. I will allow you to comment, if you would like, to
comment on that.
Mr. Lomborg. Three things. You do say that the Marshall
Islands have no way of solving this. I do know of the only peer
reviewed study we have of all of the land area and actually
shows that we will lose very, very little land area. Because
people can actually take action. I don't know about the
Marshall Islands. I am sorry. I didn't bring that study, but I
do know for instance, about the Shasalsa, the Maldives, the
Tulavu, all of the other islands that we worry about, and they
are not going to lose significant amounts of land areas simply
because we are rich enough and they will be rich enough to deal
with that and that is very likely the case with Alaska.
When you talk about my misrepresenting the Vice President,
I would like to refer you back to the statements earlier. I did
actually say that was exactly what the Vice President said.
However, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to point out that when you put
that image into the public area, which the Vice President has
done very clearly with the movie, it is being projected as
something that could happen. He also talks about, and I quote
from the book, how it could lead to an evacuation of the
Beijing area. That is not something that happens over 100, 200
years. That is something that would happen very rapidly.
Mr. Inslee. Excuse me. I am sorry to put further comments
into the record, but I have gone way over my time, and I am
going to now yield to Mr. Barton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you ask a full 5-
minute second round or just one question? I just want to know.
Mr. Inslee. Our intention is go as far as we can until the
next vote.
Mr. Barton. I wanted to know what the constraint was.
Dr. Lomborg, I want to read the same quote that Chairman
Inslee just read. If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped
into the sea, or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica
melted and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would
increase by 18 to 20 feet. You said that would agree with that.
My question to you is what is the probability, in your
mind, or in the consensus in the scientific community today, of
Greenland melting and breaking up, or half of Greenland and
half of Antarctica melting and breaking up? What is the
probability of that?
Mr. Lomborg. I don't think we can answer that very well,
but it is clearly not very big and it was not one that was
considered reasonably----
Mr. Barton. Is it 1 in 100, 1 in a 1,000?
Mr. Lomborg. Probably lower than 1 in 100 and of course,
that is why I would like to take issue with the statement of
saying I am misrepresenting the Vice President. It is clearly
the most viewed clip from his whole movie. It scares people and
it scares people because it makes them think this might
actually happen. Now it is true that everything might actually
happen. Everything has a non-zero probability.
Mr. Barton. Well, if Texas fell into the sea, the sea level
would probably lower by 2 or 3 feet, because Texas is very big.
So I mean I could point out that, too.
Mr. Lomborg. If we are going to have serious and reasonable
conversation on this issue, you have to present the facts in
the best possible way that we can. And Mr. Vice President Al
Gore certainly didn't do that when he chose to only focus on
the 18 to 20 and not----
Mr. Barton. Isn't it true that the IPCC, not Vice President
Gore, but the IPCC says based on the best scientific evidence
that they have today, sea levels are going to go up about 23
inches in the next 100 years?
Mr. Lomborg. Twenty-three inches must be the top level,
yes, of 59 centimeters yes.
Mr. Barton. If you have answered this question, you don't
have to answer it again. The Vice President seemed to indicate
in his testimony, that if we just do some of these mandatory
things on carbon in the U.S., the Chinese would be morally
obligated to follow us. In your interaction with the
international community, do you see any evidence that the
Chinese will follow us out of some sense of moral obligation
given the fact they are building one coal-fired plant a week
and as far as I know, they don't seem to be using the best
control technology and they are not building many nuclear
plants?
Do you share the Vice President's view that the Chinese are
on the verge of becoming born again true believers in doing the
right thing environmentally, even if it costs them four or five
times when it would cost them to build the kind of plants they
are building right now?
Mr. Lomborg. No. But I actually thought Al Gore was pretty
moderate in that particular estimate. He told us what they say
is something very different from what they do. And he said it
has been more likely that the U.S. enacted greenhouse gas curbs
that it probably still is fairly----
Mr. Barton. It is my view of the Chinese and given what
they have done on intellectual property, what they have done
with their military technology, in fact what they have done in
every area is that they do the least absolute possible and
still be involved in international commerce. That they have
almost no sense. I won't say they have none. But they have
minimal sense of any kind of a western civilization type moral
obligation.
And when Chairman Dingell and I were at Kyoto back in the
early 1990's, he asked the Chinese when they would see fit to
engage in some sort of Kyoto type protocol. They said they
wouldn't do it in 10 years. They wouldn't do it in 100 years,
and they finally admitted to Chairman Dingell, they probably
wouldn't do it in 1,000 years.
Now that was their position in the early 1990's. It is
possible that they have changed, but I think it is unlikely.
And with that, we thank you for your testimony and I yield
back.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Dr. Lomborg. We are going to have
one more question area, and we are going to have a vote. So we
are going to have to excuse ourselves. So if you can keep your
answers relatively succinct, so we can make sure Mr. Shimkus
gets through.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Dr. Lomborg, what is the cost of
fear and how does it affect the economic analysis that you try
to do?
Mr. Lomborg. We certainly know from the biggest study of
the cost of saving human lives in the U.S. through different
policy areas and they only looked at policies that were
designed to save human lives, both in traffic, health, safety.
Mr. Shimkus. But what about----
Mr. Lomborg. No. I am sorry. I have a very specific answer
to that question. The cost there turned out to be that you
avoid, or you forego saving about 60,000 Americans each year
because you overworry about some very highly publicized but
fairly low incident fears and forget some of the very many and
much more amenable fears.
Mr. Shimkus. So there is a great cost of fear?
I bring this up because I want to read a quote from a Dr.
Stephen Schneider, who is quoted in Discover Magazine in
October of 1989. He says this, and I will just read the small
part,
To do that we need to get some broad-based support to
capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails
getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer you up
scary scenarios to make simplified dramatic statements and make
little mention of any doubts that we might have. This double
ethical bind we frequently find ourselves and cannot be solved
by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
I hope that means being both. And this is in response to
scientists who have data--facts are tough things. They have
data. They know the questions but for the sake of pushing a
cause, like the whole Greenland quotes, what the Vice President
has done and I think in conjunction with your testimony, is he
is doing this double bind ethical--this is not a cost benefit
analysis approach. This is the ends justify the means. Let us
scare the world, let us say there is going to be 20 feet sea
rises and let us bend the economic assumptions, which you have
tried to analyze, really get distorted. Is that so?
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. Very much so.
Mr. Shimkus. So you have been attacked by the scientific
community because my analysis is you are trying to expose and
just say come on scientists, let us just use the facts. And
that helps the decisionmakers apportion our public policy on a
cost benefit analysis approach.
Mr. Lomborg. Yes. I might also just add that Dr. Schneider
who made that quote, I am sure he has regretted that quote many
times. He was actually one of the esteemed people that wrote
criticism of me in Scientific American which I find a little
amusing and slightly ironic.
Mr. Shimkus. So the guy who attacked you for being
disingenuous is a guy who admitted to falsifying or distorting
for political purposes----
Mr. Lomborg. Or at least not being alien to that concept.
Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate your time here and your patience
with us. And I can yield back. I yield my time to the Speaker.
Mr. Inslee. The Speaker for the remaining time.
Mr. Hastert. I have a letter here from President Klaus that
I would like to submit. I think you have seen it.
Mr. Inslee. Without objection. So ordered.
Mr. Hastert. I also want to thank our witness today who
came a long way. You have taken a few bumps. You have performed
very well. I am sure that we don't really see eye to eye on
everything that you have to talk about, but I think you have
brought a new perspective and made us look at this issue much
deeper, and I appreciate, Dr. Lomborg, your being here and your
participation.
Mr. Inslee. Dr. Lomborg, if you run into Svin Aukin in
Copenhagen, say hello for me and tell him we are going to do
some wind turbine construction and cogeneration and green
building here in this country, and we are going to do some
great things with those.
Mr. Lomborg. He is going to be absolutely thrilled.
Mr. Inslee. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
June 5, 2007
The Honorable Al Gore, Jr.
Nashville, TN 37203
Dear Mr. Vice President:
Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality on Wednesday, March 21, 2007, at the joint
hearing with the Committee on Science and Technology entitled
``Perspectives on Climate Change.'' We appreciate the time and
effort you gave as a witness before the subcommittee.
Under the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the hearing record remains open to permit Members to submit
additional questions to the witnesses. Attached are questions
directed to you from certain members of the committee. In
preparing your answers to these questions, please address your
response to the Member who has submitted the questions and
include the text of the Member's question along with your
response.
To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, your
responses to these questions should be received no later than
the close of business on June 19, 2007. Your written responses
should be delivered to 2125 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC, 20515, and faxed to (202) 225-2899 to the
attention of Rachel Bleshman. An electronic version of your
response should also be sent by e-mail to Ms. Bleshman at
[email protected]. Please send your response in a
single Word or WordPerfect formatted document.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. If
you need additional information or have other questions, please
contact me or have your staff contact Ms. Bleshman at (202)
225-2927.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell
Chairman
Cc: The Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
The Honorable Bart Gordon, Chairman
Committee on Science and Technology
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Questions from the Honorable Ralph Hall
1. Mr. Gore, in your testimony you stressed that climate
change should be an issue where partisan politics are put
aside. Unfortunately, the complexity of the issue lends itself
to confusion and criticism of those that ask questions in the
quest of understanding. For example, Congressman Reichert and I
want to learn more and investigate the facts of what has caused
global warming and to what level man has contributed prior to
determining the best course of action to address the problem.
So please assist in resolving areas of conflicting information
for me.
Your movie makes a compelling argument for how mankind has
contributed to C0\2\ in the atmosphere. However, some
scientists, including those on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change say they have a ``low'' level of understanding
surrounding water vapor in the atmosphere. Scientists say that
water vapor makes up 95 percent of the atmosphere and is a
major greenhouse gas. The remaining 5 percent of the atmosphere
is where scientists have a greater level of understanding.
a. What are your thoughts on this and in your view how
much more do we have to learn about the content of the
atmosphere and the effect on global warming?
b. Certain scientists argue that throughout history,
while there is a correlation between C0\2\ and warming, it is
reversed. C0\2\ increases after warming, not before. In fact,
the strongest causal correlation found has to do with sun spot
activity. Can you help me reconcile competing views on this
topic?
c. Are you open to having a dialog with those whose
scientific conclusions seem to conflict with what you are
saying so there is a better understanding of the differences
amongst various scientific conclusions?
2. Is it your opinion that in order to stabilize
atmospheric C0\2\ concentrations, other countries will have to
reduce their emissions as much as the United States? Do you
expect countries like China to reduce their emissions at
roughly the same time as the United States? What will happen to
the United States companies/industries in the near term that
face competition from countries that do not reduce their
emissions until much later?
3. In developing a long term, comprehensive climate change
strategy for the United States, do you believe adaptation
should play a role? If so, what role do you think adaptation
should play? How would you measure and compare the costs and
benefits of adaptation to the costs and benefits of carbon
controls?
Questions from the Honorable Tammy Baldwin
1. As an esteemed lawmaker and a leader on environmental
matters, it was a pleasure to have your unique perspective as
we continue our series of hearings on climate change and move
forward with legislation to address the issue.
You have made it your life's mission to raise the profile
of global warming--and through your work on the Energy &
Commerce Committee, your participation in the Kyoto Protocol,
the publication of two books, and the documentary production of
``An Inconvenient Truth,'' you have alerted the world to the
dangers of climate change and the opportunities that lie ahead
in addressing this global challenge.
I agree that the science is clear--and now it is time for
action. This means the creation of sound policy that will
result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved energy
efficiency, and increased fuel economy standards. These issues
must be confronted head on, by taking aggressive steps that put
our Nation at the forefront of the world and allow us to be
global leaders in the movement for change.
Unfortunately, over recent years, there has been a
disconnect. Despite the growing body of knowledge about the
rising global climate, it has not been met with the kind of
bold action that is needed to meaningfully bring about change.
What do you consider the greatest impediments individuals,
businesses, and government face in taking bold action to
respond to the challenge of climate change?
2. We all agree that it will be a challenge to enact
meaningful legislation that will push the envelope in terms of
creating efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly
climate change programs. But it can be done. In fact, it must
be done.
And our role in addressing this issue matters. People
around the world are watching us--looking to us to set an
example. As Americans, we have an obligation to ourselves and
to the world to take on this task and become teachers and
leaders to show the world that we are willing to take bold
action to protect humankind and the planet itself.
Last year, I joined many of my colleagues on the Energy &
Commerce Committee on a fact-finding tour of some countries
that are innovators in clean, efficient, renewable, energy
production. We visited countries that have significantly
smaller footprints on the world than we have, both in terms of
geography and population, yet they are making significant
advances that improve the quality of the air they breathe, the
food and water they consume, and the lifestyles they pursue.
I was particularly impressed by what I saw in Denmark--the
world's leading producer of wind energy, and in Sweden, a
country in the process of phasing out its nuclear energy
because they have reached a political decision that it is not a
sustainable resource.
You, too, have traveled the world and seen the impact of
sound energy and environmental policies. How can we match the
progress made by these innovative nations and emerge as an
international leader?
3. For decades, America's economy has been the world's
strongest--and for decades we have maintained that distinction,
due to the bold commitment of previous generations of American
leaders who made investments in our people and their
potential.In my district in south central Wisconsin, the
potential for innovation is great. In fact, Wisconsin is
emerging as a leader in advancing innovative solutions to
address climate change. For instance, the University of
Wisconsin-Madison is contributing to an international fusion
energy program that will provide a viable energy source with no
greenhouse gas emissions. Also, a company in my district,
Virent Energy Systems, has been able to turn biomass into
gasoline--not ethanol, but gasoline. And, yet another company,
Spectrum Brands, is developing a unique, safe, and on-demand
hydrogen fuel generator.
Despite the amazing ingenuity, challenges exist in terms of
funding and making products commercially viable. What
recommendations can you offer to increase America's
opportunities for innovation?
4. My home State of Wisconsin has a proud and historic
tradition, known as the Wisconsin Idea--the notion that our
great research institution, The University of Wisconsin-
Madison, serves not just those on campus, but all the people of
the state and, in fact, the Nation. (You'll recall that our
Nation's Social Security Plan was formulated by some UW
Professors).
Today, the University of Wisconsin is fostering innovative
research and has, as an institution, taken many steps to reduce
its emissions by becoming more energy efficient and investing
in clean energy sources.
Our capital city, Madison (and 12 others in our State) have
become ``Cool Cities'' by signing the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement. These Wisconsin cities are aiming to
reduce their global warming emissions by an amount equal to
what would be required under the Kyoto Protocol.
What can Congress do to help local governments,
universities and other private entities (institutions), in
Wisconsin and across the country contribute more to finding
solutions that will slow, stop and reverse global climate
change?
----------
[Editor's note: Responses from Mr. Gore to these additional
questions had not been received when this hearing was printed.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7579.064