[Senate Hearing 111-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-82
ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE:
THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
INSERT DATE HERE deg.JANUARY 28, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-737 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Gore, Hon. Albert A., Jr., former Vice President of the United
States, Nashville, TN.......................................... 7
Prepared statement......................................... 14
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts............. 1
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator From Indiana................ 4
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to additional questions submitted for the record by
members of the committee....................................... 54
(iii)
ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE:
THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, Menendez,
Cardin, Casey, Kaufman, Gillibrand, Lugar, Corker, Risch, and
Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning to all. We're delighted to welcome folks here.
We're particularly grateful and happy today to be able to
welcome back to this committee not only a visionary leader, but
an old friend and Senate classmate of mine, former Vice
President and Nobel Prizewinner, Al Gore. It's well known that
Al and I have a certain political experience in common.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. What is less well known is that we also
teamed up on the first-ever Senate hearing on climate change
for the Commerce Committee back in 1988. On a sweltering June
day, some Senate staff opened up the windows and drove home the
point with everyone sweating in their seats during Dr. James
Hansen's historic and tragically prescient testimony. We're
obviously not going to repeat that gesture today, but I speak
for everyone on this committee when I tell you how much we
appreciate you being here today, Mr. Vice President,
particularly on a day in what passes down here as ``tough
winter weather.'' To the naysayers and the deniers out there,
let me make it clear that a little snow in Washington does
nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis we face. This is
the first substantive hearing of this committee in this
Congress, and we're here because 10 months from now we will be
negotiating the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol, and the world
has appropriately high expectations for the United States of
America.
Delegates will be meeting in March and again in June of
this year to prepare negotiating language to be finalized at
the conference of the parties in Copenhagen this December, and
we need to join them in crafting a new global treaty. That
means there is no time to waste. We must learn from the
mistakes of Kyoto, and we must make Copenhagen a success.
Regrettably, and despite committed efforts from Al Gore and
many, many others in this country and across the globe, today
we are on the brink of an acute crisis that is gathering
momentum daily. The demand for action is more urgent than ever.
It's no accident that we've asked Vice President Gore to
testify at this first hearing of this committee. Climate change
will be increasingly central to our foreign policy and our
national security, and it will be a focal point of this
committee's efforts, as well.
We're here today for the same reason our top military
leaders and intelligence officials have been sounding the
alarms. They describe climate change as a threat multiplier,
and they're warning that the cost of ignoring this issue will
be more famine, more drought, more widespread pandemics, more
natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human
displacement on a massive scale. In other words, our military
leaders predict more of the very drivers that exacerbate
conflict worldwide and create failed states, which, as we all
know too well, present glaring targets of opportunity for the
worst actors in our international system. That endangers all of
us.
Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of our
forces in the Middle East, says that, ``Without action,'' and I
quote, ``we will pay the price later in military terms, and
that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.''
More immediately, as the new administration sets a new tone
with the global community, this issue will be an early test of
our capability to exert thoughtful, forceful diplomatic and
moral leadership on any future challenge that the world faces.
We have willing partners in this endeavor. Mexico, South
Africa, Brazil, Australia, the European Union, and others, have
made meaningful domestic climate-change policy commitments in
recent months. But, all of us are still falling far short of
what the science tells us must be done.
A partnership, led by the University of Pennsylvania, MIT,
and the Heinz Center, recently aggregated the impact of the
domestic policy proposals that every country currently talking
about doing something has laid out--including President Obama's
aggressive goal of 80-percent reductions by 2050. What they
found was sobering. If every nation were to make good on its
existing promises--if they were able to, and there's no
indication yet that we are--we would still see atmospheric
carbon-dioxide levels well above 600 parts per million, 50
percent above where we are today. This translates into global
temperatures at least 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels, and no one in the scientific community disputes that
this would be catastrophic.
That is why we need more than just a policy shift; we need
a transformation in public-policy thinking to embrace the
reality of what science is telling us. We must accept its
implications and then act in accordance with the full scope and
urgency of this problem.
The science is screaming at us. Right now, the most
critical trends and facts all point in the wrong direction.
CO2 emissions grew at a rate four times faster
during the Bush administration than they did in the 1990s. Two
years ago, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), that shared the Nobel Prize with our witness today,
issued a series of projections for global emissions based on
likely energy- and land-use patterns. Today, our emissions have
actually moved beyond all of the worst-case scenarios predicted
by the models of the IPCC. Meanwhile, our oceans and forests,
which act as natural repositories of CO2, are losing
their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. This is a stronger
climate-forcing signal than expected, arriving sooner than
expected. Translated into simple terms, it means that all of
the predictions of the scientists are coming back faster and to
a greater degree than they had predicted.
The result will be a major foreign-policy and national-
security challenge. In the Middle East, more than 6 percent of
the world's population today fights over less than 2 percent of
the world's renewable fresh water. As the region experiences a
demographic explosion, the last thing we need is for climate
change to shrink an already tight water supply. The Himalayan
glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people, could
disappear completely by 2035. The British Government issued a
report estimating that 200 million people may become
permanently-displaced climate migrants, which is ten times the
total number of refugees and internally displaced people in the
world today. A recent study in Science predicts that as much as
half the world's population could face serious food shortages
by the end of this century.
Perversely, Africa, the continent that has done the least
to contribute to climate change, will be the worst affected.
Quite simply, these conditions would result in a world we don't
recognize and a ravaged planet in which all of us would be less
secure.
Vice President Gore and I recently returned from the
climate-change negotiations in Poznan, Poland. There we met
with leaders and dozens of delegations, ranging from the
European community to China to the small island states. The
Vice President will speak for himself, but one clear message
emanated from every corner of the globe, from every meeting
that I had; they said to us, ``This challenge cannot be solved
without the active commitment and leadership of the United
States.''
We need to begin by putting in place a domestic cap-and-
trade program here at home. This will give us leverage to
influence other countries' behavior. As we move towards
Copenhagen, we must not repeat the mistakes of Kyoto. Going
forward, the most important initiative that will determine the
success of our climate diplomacy is how we give life to the
words agreed to in 1992 in Rio, and reiterated in Bali and
Poznan. Those words are ``shared, but differentiated,
responsibilities'' among nations in solving this problem.
In Kyoto, people stiff-armed that discussion; they were
unwilling to have it. And in many ways, an earlier decision
made in Berlin simply made it impossible to have that
discussion. But the landscape has shifted over the past decade.
Now, China is the world's largest emitter. Developing countries
will account for three-quarters of the increase in global
energy use over the next two decades.
A global problem demands a global effort and a global
solution. Today we are working toward a solution, with a role
for developed and developing countries alike. It is absolutely
vital that we achieve that in order to work to build a
consensus here at home.
Finally, some may argue that we cannot afford to address
this issue in the midst of an economic crisis. Walking down to
this hearing room, that was the first question put to the Vice
President in the hall. Vice President Gore will speak to that
in his testimony, and, I'm confident, in the questions. But the
fact is that those who pose that question have it fundamentally
wrong. This is a moment of enormous opportunity for new
technology, new jobs, for the greening and transformation of
our economy. We simply can't afford not to act, because it will
be far more expensive and far more damaging to our economy in
the long run not to.
The question is not whether or not we pay for climate
change. Listen to General Zinni: If there were a cost-free way
forward, of course we'd take it. But, there isn't one, and we
haven't.
The real question is whether we pay now in a way that also
helps to break our addiction to oil, strengthens our global
system and global standing, and catapults us into the 21st-
century economy with millions of new jobs and a jolt of
economic stimulus, or we can pay for it later, on a massive,
unpredictable scale, in the currency of environmental
devastation, military commitments, human misery, and reduced
economic growth for decades to come. And while I am aware of
the unique perils of this economic moment, I believe that the
choice we can't afford is the latter one.
This political season has celebrated the legacy of a new
President and the legacy of a great President that he admires
enormously, a President who called this country, not only ``the
last best hope of Earth,'' but helped to make it so. After
years of being the last place on Earth to get serious about our
climate, this is our moment and an issue that offers us a real
chance to live up to the full meaning of that phrase.
Again, I thank Vice President Gore for joining us today. We
look forward to hearing his insights and ideas about how this
Nation can finally lead the world in crafting a solution to
this enormous challenge.
Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Well, I thank the chairman for calling this
hearing, for his remarkable opening statement, and I join him
in a warm welcome to the Vice President. We welcome you back to
the Senate.
In President Obama's inaugural speech last week, he
declared his intention to restore science to its rightful place
in the operation of our Government. He's demonstrated his
commitment to scientific excellence by appointing respected
scientists, like Steven Chu to be Energy Secretary, John
Holdren to be Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, Jane Lubchenco to be the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. Now, this is an
excellent start that hopefully will facilitate an emphasis on
science and technology in addressing the threat of climate
change and global energy demand.
We should recognize that energy issues are at the core of
most foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues today.
Technological breakthroughs that expand clean energy supplies
for billions of people worldwide will be necessary for
sustained economic growth.
In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy
that are focused on these technological advancements we'll be
risking multiple hazards for our country that could constrain
our living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and
leave us highly vulnerable to economic, political, and
environmental disasters, with an almost existential impact.
The United States should recognize the steps to address
climate change involve economic opportunities and not just
constraints. Thanks to new technology, we can control many
greenhouse gases with proactive, pro growth solutions. Such
technology represents an enormous opportunity for United States
exports. But, we have to have the will to develop, test, and
implement these technologies on a truly urgent basis. President
Obama must demand that research projects related to battery
technology, cellulosic ethanol, carbon capture and storage,
solar and wind power, dozens of other technologies, receive the
highest priority within his administration.
I'm concerned that, even as we discuss ways to limit carbon
emissions, too little is being done in the area of adaptation
to climatic changes that have already started, and will
continue, even with successful mitigation programs. We should
not wait to implement adaptive policies out of fear that
embracing such policies will be an admission of defeat or
undermine support for mitigation measures.
I'm especially concerned, and want to highlight in this
hearing, that even as prevailing science is accepted as the
essential reference point for the debate on climate change, too
many governments and climate-change activists reject scientific
advancements in the area of biotechnology that are necessary to
address dire projections of declining food production due to
climate change.
The important report by Sir Nicolas Stern estimated that a
2 degree Celsius increase in global temperature will cut
agricultural yields in Africa by as much as 35 percent. This
would be a catastrophic outcome that would lead to massive
starvation, migration, and conflict on a continent already
suffering from severe hunger.
Genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to
improve agricultural production in the poorest regions of the
world and to help poor farmers contend with increased drought,
new pests, and other consequences of a changing climate. Yet,
many developing countries, especially in Africa, worry that if
they adopt GM crops, they will not be able to export to markets
in Europe. And they also are deeply influenced by the direct
advocacy of European government agencies and NGOs that are
hostile to biotechnology.
As Robert Paarlberg documents in his book ``Starved for
Science,'' many European development agencies and NGOs campaign
overtly against the use of GM crops in Africa and elsewhere,
and they've done so even as global investment in African
agriculture has declined significantly in recent decades. The
ironic result has been that African nations have developed
stifling European-inspired regulations on GM technology, even
as they continue to struggle to ensure adequate food supplies,
and they rightly worry about the coming impact of climate
change on their agricultural productivity.
The governments and people of Europe must understand that
their unrelenting opposition to cutting-edge biotechnology has
consequences far beyond their own countries. Opposition to safe
GM technology contributes to hunger in Africa, in the short
run, and virtually ensures that these poor countries will lack
the tools, in the long run, to adapt their agriculture to
changing climatic conditions.
As a wealthy continent with a relatively secure food
supply, Europe has the luxury to reject the benefits of GM
technology without fear that its domestic populations will
suffer intensifying hunger, but most African countries have no
such luxury. And if Nicolas Stern's estimates are correct,
Africa is looking at a very bleak future. We must not allow an
aversion to modern agricultural technology to doom a part of
the world's population to chronic hunger and poverty.
Overcoming these agricultural deficiencies in Africa
requires refocused attention on the increasing investments in
better seeds and fertilizers, improved and sustainable farming
techniques, and farmer access to small loans and extension
support. But, even if donor countries expand conventional
agricultural assistance, as I have advocated, African nations
are likely to fall short of satisfying long-term food demands
without sensible GM regulatory framework that facilitates the
use of safe biotechnology.
When committee staff has raised this issue during
international climate change conferences, European negotiators
have responded that GM technology cannot be on the agenda. But,
the depression of global food production is potentially one of
the most deadly and disruptive consequences of climate change.
An international fund for climate change adaptation that does
not include cutting-edge advances in biotechnology will be
unnecessarily limited. If we are rejecting scientific methods
for preventing a food catastrophe, without even allowing them
to be on the agenda, it is difficult to project much optimism
on other climate change proceedings. Yet, when it comes to
these issues, we cannot succumb to exasperation or despair, and
I'm heartened by President Obama's forthright inaugural pledge
to work with poor nations to, ``make your farms flourish and
let clean waters flow to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry
minds.''.
I'm also heartened by the excellence of research at United
States universities and other research facilities that are
using plant genetics to increase farm yields, adapt seed to
challenging conditions, and decrease pesticide use.
Addressing climate change will require extraordinary
leadership by the Obama administration. The President's team
must consistently promote good science to address both the
causes and effects of climate change.
And I appreciate the work that our committee has done under
Chairman Biden on this issue. I look forward to the leadership
of Chairman Kerry for continuing these examinations, and to our
discussion, especially today, with Vice President Gore.
I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lugar, for a thoughtful
opening comment as always. We appreciate it enormously.
Vice President Gore, I know you'll join me in--if I can
just take a moment, we want to welcome to the committee our
newest member. We're delighted to have Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand from New York as a new member of this committee. I
happen to know Kirsten well from the campaign trail, and I know
what a hard worker and thoughtful, smart person she is. I think
she's a terrific addition to this committee, and we're
delighted to have you there. If you're despairing sitting down
there, Senator Dodd and I will tell you that it wasn't so long
ago that both of us remember being way down there, and with
just a little patience and a strong heartbeat----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman [continuing]. So, anyway--And, by the way,
Senator Obama sat somewhere over here, and----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman [continuing]. Senator Biden, sat up here for a
while. So, this committee is a great place to be.
Vice President Gore, thank you. I cannot express enough the
committee's admiration for the work you've done. Not a lot of
people leave public life and go on to have quite the varied and
extraordinary career that you've had. But most important, I
know personally how much you travel, how many different people
in different parts of the world you have shown your slide show
to and educated, and brought along in this effort. We all owe
you a great debt of gratitude, and this morning we look forward
to you lifting it up to the next level of engagement. Thank you
for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT A. GORE, JR., FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, NASHVILLE, TN
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Lugar--am I supposed to press that? Been too
long. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members
of the committee. Indeed, I do join in welcoming your newest
member, and also acknowledging my fellow Tennessean, Senator
Corker, and the many friends that I have on this committee.
It--and may I also acknowledge, in the audience, Theresa
Hines Kerry, who is a long-time activist on the issue that
we're discussing here today.
It is truly a great honor and personal privilege to be
invited to appear before this committee. Mr. Chairman, I want
to compliment you on your long-time leadership on this issue,
and thank you and Senator Lugar for the prominence you're
bringing to this issue by making it the subject of the very
first substantive hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in 2009.
We are here today, of course, to talk about how we as
Americans, and how the United States of America as part of the
global community, should address the dangerous and growing
threat of the climate crisis.
We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home--Earth--
is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the
planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it
hospitable for human beings. Moreover, we must face up to this
urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our
civilization at a time when our Nation must simultaneously
solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest
recession since the 1930s, and our national security is
endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex
challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the
military and political struggle in Afghanistan.
As we search for solutions to all three of these
challenges, it is becoming ever clearer that they are linked by
a common thread: Our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based
fuels. If you grab a hold of that thread and pull it, all three
of these crises yield a solution--and you hold in your hand the
answer--and that is a shift from carbon-based fuels to
renewable energy.
As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of
dollars for foreign oil, year after year, to the most dangerous
and unstable regions of the world, our national security will
continue to be at risk. As long as we continue to allow our
economy to remain shackled to the OPEC roller-coaster of rising
and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will
remain at risk. Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows
rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new
discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that this
roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we're in the front
car.
Most important, as long as we continue to depend on dirty
fossil fuels, like coal and oil, to meet our energy needs and
dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin
shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and
closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists
have repeatedly warned--again, just yesterday--threaten to make
it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the
conditions that make human civilization possible on this
planet.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the
Persian Gulf, and burning it in ways that destroy the planet.
Every bit of that has to change.
For years, our efforts to address the growing climate
crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose
between our planet and our way of life, between our moral duty
and our economic well-being. These are false choices. In fact,
the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions
that will address our economic and national security crises, as
well.
In order to repower our economy, restore American economic
and moral leadership in the world, and regain control of our
own destiny, we must take bold action now. The first step is
already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the
entirety of President Obama's recovery package. The plan's
unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas--
energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy smart
grid, and the move to clean cars--represent an important down
payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will
create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery,
while strengthening our national security and beginning to
solve the climate crisis.
Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity
will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: Placing
a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass
President Obama's recovery package, and then takes decisive
action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for
CO2 emissions, as many of our States and many other
countries have already done, and as many of the leading Fortune
500 corporations in America are pleading with the Congress to
do so they'll have predictability and the basis to become more
competitive in world commerce, then the United States will
regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks
with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair
and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this
year. Not next year. This year.
A fair, effective, and balanced treaty will put in place
the global architecture that will place the world, at long last
and in the nick of time, on a path toward solving the climate
crisis and securing the future of human civilization. I am
hopeful that this can be achieved.
Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism
that I feel.
The Obama administration has already signaled a strong
willingness to regain U.S. leadership on the global stage in
the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical
to success in Copenhagen, and is clearly a top priority of the
administration.
Developing countries, as you said, Mr. Chairman, that were
once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response
to the climate crisis, have, themselves, now become leaders in
demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own
initiatives.
Brazil has proposed a very impressive new plan to halt the
destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged
as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders
have gained a strong understanding of the need for action, and
have already begun important new initiatives. Heads of state
from around the world have begun to personally engage on this
issue, and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a
top priority.
More and more Americans are paying attention to the new
evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much
broader consensus on the need for action than there was when
President George H.W. Bush negotiated, and the Senate ratified,
the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, and there
is much stronger support for action than when we completed the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
The elements that I believe are key to a successful
agreement in Copenhagen include:
First, strong targets and timetables from
industrialized countries and differentiated, but
binding, commitments from developing bystander that put
the entire world under a system with one commitment: to
reduce missions of carbon dioxide and other global
warming pollutants that are the cause of the climate
crisis.
Second, the inclusion of deforestation, which, alone,
accounts for more than 20 percent of the emissions that
cause global warming.
Third, the addition of so-called carbon sinks,
including those from soils, principally from farmlands
and grazing lands, with appropriate methodologies and
accounting. Farmers, such as Senator Lugar, and
ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know
that they can be a part of the solution.
Fourth, the assurance that developing countries will
have access to mechanisms and resources that will help
them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis,
and technologies to solve the problem.
And finally, a strong compliance and verification
regime.
The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed
this ground before. We negotiated the Montreal Protocol, more
than 20 years ago, to protect the ozone layer, and then
strengthened it to the point where we've now banned most of the
major substances that created the ozone hole over Antarctica,
and that is now healing. And we did it with bipartisan support.
President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill
joined hands to lead the way.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and with the permission
of the committee, I would like to discuss in more detail some
of the reasons why I believe this is so serious, and, with your
permission, show just a few new pictures that illustrate the
basics of the problem.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pictures and video shown at this point in the hearing could
not be reproduced due to technical limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Yes, we'd be delighted. Thank you.
Vice President Gore. I know it's hard to see----
The Chairman. Do you need the lights to go down a little
bit?
Vice President Gore. That would be great, if you could put
the lights down. And I know it's hard to see on these monitors,
but----
To start with the broadest overview, the scientific
community--and, most recently, the European Space Agency--has
pointed out that Earth and Venus are exactly the same size,
with exactly the same amount of carbon. No more than 400
kilometers difference in circumference, and the carbon quantity
is identical. The difference is that on Earth most of the
carbon has been sequestered in the soil, pulled out of the
atmosphere by the miracle of life and by the unique geology on
Earth, while most of the carbon on Venus is still in the
atmosphere.
The difference is that the average annual temperature on
Earth is 59 degrees, and on Venus it's 855 degrees, and it
rains sulfuric acid. Not the kind of weather forecast you'd
like to wake up to. And it's not because Venus is closer to the
sun it's three times hotter than Mercury, which is right next
to the sun. It is, in fact, the CO2. And this is a
stark difference that illustrates why it's a problem to follow
a global strategy of pulling as much carbon out of the Earth as
we possibly can, as quickly as possible, and burning it in ways
that leave it in the atmosphere.
The basics of this are well known to everyone. As we
thicken the layer of greenhouse gases, more of the outgoing
heat is trapped, and the temperature increases. In the last 5
years, a very short period of time, the concentrations of
tropospheric CO2 have increased measurably. It is
now at a level of slightly more than 386 parts per million,
comparing to roughly 280 parts per million at the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution.
The 10 hottest years in the recorded record--and this is an
atmospheric record that only goes back 160 years--but, the 10
hottest years have been in the last 11 years. If we stopped
global greenhouse gas emissions today, according to some
scientists--and you referred to this, Mr. Chairman--we would
see an increase in temperatures that many scientists believe
would be extremely challenging for civilization. If we
continued at today's levels, some scientists have said it can
be an increase of up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit. This would bring
a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric
of life everywhere on the Earth. And this is within this
century if we don't change.
Let me briefly discuss a couple of important early
indicators:
The North Polar Ice Cap, for most of the last 3 million
years, has been roughly the size of the lower 48 States. In
1980, just 28 years ago, it appeared this way in the
summertime; last year, it had shrunk to this size. To put this
in perspective, the early part of that graph to the left, up to
the 1970s, the fluctuation stayed within a fairly predictable
range; but, in the 1970s, the decline began, and a new record
was set in 2005.
To illustrate how much of the North Polar Ice Cap that
represents--again, I said it's roughly the size of the lower 48
States; the scientists say if you take out an area roughly the
size of Arizona, it's precise--but, the amount that melted in
2005 is equal to every State east of the Mississippi River.
In 2007, something fairly dramatic happened that startled
the scientists. In 1 year, the drop was really quite
pronounced, as you can see from this slide. And again, to put
that in perspective, the additional melting represented another
whole row and a half of States west of the Mississippi River.
The next slide I'm going to show you illustrates that, in
2008, just--when the measurements were taken a few years ago--
it shrank even further. But, Mr. Chairman, it was not a change
in the surface area, it was a change in the thickness. And
please bear with me on this slide; I don't normally include
this, and it's a little complex, but I want you to see it. This
is 30 years in less than 30 seconds, and what you will see is
like the beating of a heart. In winter, the North Polar Ice Cap
expands, and you'll see a dark blue margin, the annual ice
that's only a foot thick. But, keep your eye on the multiyear
ice, what they call the ``permanent ice.'' It's colored in red.
And it has been spilling out along the coast of Greenland. And
here, you'll see 30 years very quickly. The permanent ice--you
see it expanding year by year, like a beating heart, and the
permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body
along the eastern coast of Greenland. This, up to the mid-
1990s, and it's continuing.
What is left now, when last measured, a few months ago, is
really a very pale shadow of what it used to be. Professor
Wieslaw Maslowski, at the Naval Postgraduate School in
Monterey, has calculated that there is an 80-percent chance
that the entire North Polar Ice Cap will be completely and
totally gone, in summer months, in less than 5 years. Again, 28
years ago it looked like this, and now it looks like this.
Now, the reason this is important is not because it affects
sea level. As you know, the North Polar Ice Cap is a floating
ice cap. Its mass has already been displaced; so when it melts,
it does not change sea level, unlike Greenland and Antarctica.
But, what it does do is reflect 90 percent of the incoming
solar energy, as if it were a giant mirror. And as it
disappears, the Arctic Ocean begins to absorb enormous
quantities of heat, and that causes a series of dramatic
changes.
I just want to talk about two of them. Not the polar bears.
We've heard plenty about them; they are an early indicator.
But, I want to focus your attention on the frozen ground around
the Arctic Ocean. It contains a lot of carbon. The current
amount, in the atmosphere, of CO2 is roughly 730
gigatons, or trillion tons. But, in that frozen soil around the
Arctic, there is roughly an equal quantity. If it thaws and is
allowed to release the methane into the atmosphere, then the
amount in the atmosphere doubles over a relatively short period
of time. And the microbes turn the methane--turn the carbon
into methane as it thaws, and methane is even more powerful
than CO2, but, over 12 to 15 years, it breaks down
into CO2, so it's very similar.
Now, here is--here are two short images from the University
of Fairbanks in Alaska. Dr. Katey Walter went out to a shallow
lake in Alaska and documented methane bubbling up from the
bottom of this lake. And indeed, the scientific community
worldwide is very concerned about the amount of methane
increases that appear to be already starting there. Dr. Wheeler
and her team went out last winter to another site.
[Video presentation.]
Vice President Gore. She's OK. The question is----
[Laughter.]
Vice President Gore [continuing]. The question is, Are we?
When the heat builds up in the Arctic Ocean, it puts
pressure on Greenland. And Greenland has land-based ice, which,
if it melted, has the potential to raise sea level worldwide by
20 feet. The melting pattern for the seasonal ice in--the
seasonal melting pattern in Greenland has steadily increased,
and it is now accelerating.
This famous picture from the University of Manchester, you
see the scientists at the top show one of the new larger
moulins, as they call them, draining water down through the ice
pack.
Now, when sea level increases, it erodes coastlines and
threatens to displace people who live in low-lying areas.
That's why this home in Alaska fell into the sea, and why this
home in Canada fell into the sea. The nation of the Maldives
has just put a new budget in its budget to relocate the entire
country. They're searching to buy territory to move 100 percent
of their population.
You mentioned the issue of climate refugees, Mr. Chairman.
The authorities--the scientists indicate that, for each 1 meter
of sea-level rise, there are roughly 100 million climate
refugees. This committee, with its distinguished tradition and
expertise, knows full well the destabilizing and tragic impacts
of very large flows of refugees.
Now, Greenland is roughly the same size as West Antarctica.
West Antarctica would also lead to a sea-level rise of roughly
20 feet if it melted. Until recently, many scientists had hoped
that the continent of Antarctica would remain relatively stable
over a long period of time. But, a study, just in the past 2
weeks, showed that the melting is now accelerating in
Antarctica, and confirmed that it is warming, along with the
rest of the world.
In 2005, the areas of snowmelt in West Antarctica roughly
equaled, in aggregate, the size of the State of California. The
recent study showing the overall warming of Antarctica focused
on West Antarctica, which is pinned up on top of undersea
islands, which makes it different from East Antarctica. The
ocean comes in under that ice. Its mass is resting on land, so
if it melts, it raises sea level; but, the warming ocean is now
beginning to degrade the structure of the West Antarctic Ice
Shelf.
You have, in the audience, Bob Corell, one of the leading
polar scientific researchers, who's nodding as I present this,
and giving me a little confidence to go forward. [Laughter.]
Now, just a brief word on glaciers, and only one aspect of
the melting of glaciers.
This glacier in South America is the source of water for
this city. The flows of water are increasing. But, when the
glaciers disappear, the source of the water will also
disappear.
West of the Andes, west of the Rockies--in fact, our own
water resources are threatened by the diminishing snowpack in
our mountains; and in every mountain range in the world, this
is happening. But, as you said, Mr. Chairman, most importantly,
in the Himalayas. The great rivers of Asia, the Indus and the
Ganges and the Brahmaputra and the Salween or the Irawadi, the
Mekong, the Yangtze, and the Yellow, all originate in the same
ice field, and 40 percent of the population on Earth gets 50
percent or more of its drinking water from this melting
pattern.
This is a recent satellite picture of one small ridge in
the Himalayas, and you will see, at the top of this image, what
used to be glaciers and are now lakes. In this region of the
world, they worry about the sudden bursting of these lakes
flooding the villages down the slope, but the larger and longer
term concern is what happens when that source of water
disappears in Asia.
I would say to my fellow Tennessean Senator Corker, and to
you, Senator Isakson, you are on either side of the Georgia/
Tennessee border, and you know full well--in fact, there was a
little conflict between our two States when, for some
inexplicable reason, Georgia wanted to change the line down
there to capture one of our reservoirs. But--we'll take that up
later. [Laughter.]
But, the droughts in the Southeast and in the West are
getting longer and deeper, and are related to global warming.
The tree death, particularly in the West, is becoming a
very serious concern. And drier vegetable and vulnerability to
beetles that are no longer held back by the frost are causing
dramatic changes.
The fires--again, Senator Isakson, in Georgia, and also in
Florida, the largest fires in the history of either States--
repeatedly in California, hundreds of thousands of people have
had to be evacuated. And these are not following a normal
pattern, as Senator Boxer knows full well. The increase in
fires on every continent has been quite dramatic. This, from
last fall, a satellite image of the fires from January to
September. And the Government of Greece almost was brought down
by the unprecedented fires there.
I won't spend time on hurricanes, except to say, this fall
we saw more destruction, and we almost didn't pay close
attention, when 1 million people were, once again, evacuated
from New Orleans. Is that the new normal?
This--and I only have two more--this is a chart from the
Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. And you
see, on the left-hand slide, worldwide major weather-related
disasters during the first part of the century. What's been
going on more recently is quite a different pattern.
In the last 30 years, there have been four times more
annual weather-related disasters than in the previous 75, and
the trend is continuing. The reinsurance companies are quite
disturbed, as you would expect, by this. But, if you put this
in perspective, and you look at the predictions, that floods,
droughts, hurricane damage, fires, and other climate-related
disasters will increase even more dramatically the longer we
delay action on this, the cost is quite serious.
This is the final image, Mr. Chairman. It's from a new
study that shows the impact on the global ocean. I mentioned
we're putting 70 million tons of global warming pollution into
the atmosphere each day. Twenty-five million tons are going
into the oceans each day. The oceans are growing more acidic,
and the entire ecology of the world ocean is being disrupted.
Scientists are still grappling to understand what this--what
all of the phenomena related to this result might be, but this
was published in Nature magazine in November.
The legend shows that the dark pink represents severe
oxygen depletion in the oceans. Look at the size of the area in
the eastern Pacific off of the coast of California, Central
America, and northern South America, and look at the Bay of
Bengal and the Arabian Sea on either side of the Indian
subcontinent. This is a catastrophe in the making. Even if it
did not produce warming of the world, the killing of the oceans
would be yet another reason to address this crisis.
Thank you for giving me the chance to show a few images,
and I am eager and, again, honored to respond to any questions
or comments that you and Senator Lugar and members of the
committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Vice President Gore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Al Gore, Former Vice President
of the United States, Nashville, TN
We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the
United States of America as part of the global community should address
the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.
We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home--Earth--is in
grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet
itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for
human beings.
Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat
to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must
simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its
deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is
endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of
ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and
political struggle in Afghanistan.
As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is
becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread--our dangerous
over reliance on carbon-based fuels.
As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for
foreign oil--year after year--to the most dangerous and unstable
regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at
risk.
As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to
the OPEC roller coaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and
our way of life will remain at risk. Moreover, as the demand for oil
worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new
discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller
coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.
Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil
fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million
tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere
surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous
tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned--again just
yesterday--will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid
irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human
civilization possible on this planet.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf
to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to
change.
For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have
been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and
our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well-being.
These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis
are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national
security crises as well.
In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and
moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we
must take bold action now.
The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to
quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The
plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas--energy
efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid, and the move to
clean cars--represent an important down payment and are long overdue.
These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten
our economic recovery--while strengthening our national security and
beginning to solve the climate crisis.
Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will
lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: Placing a price on
carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery
package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-
and-trade system for CO2 emissions--as many of our States
and many other countries have already done--the United States will
regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a
renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective
treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.
A fair, effective, and balanced treaty will put in place the global
architecture that will place the world--at long last and in the nick of
time--on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the
future of human civilization.
I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the
basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.
The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness
to regain U.S. leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks,
reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen
and is clearly a top priority of the administration.
Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first
phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now
become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their
own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the
destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a
new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a
strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun
important new initiatives.
Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally
engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made
this a top priority.
More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence
and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus
on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush
negotiated--and the Senate ratified--the Framework Convention on
Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when
we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in
Copenhagen include:
Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries
and differentiated but binding commitments from developing
countries that put the entire world under a system with one
commitment: To reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
global warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;
The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for 20
percent of the emissions that cause global warming;
The addition of sinks including those from soils,
principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate
methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S.
and around the world need to know that they can be part of the
solution;
The assurance that developing countries will have access to
mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst
impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the
problem; and
A strong compliance and verification regime.
The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this
ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to
protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have
banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over
Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald
Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the
way.
Let me now briefly discuss in more detail why we must do all of
this within the next year, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to show a few new pictures that illustrate the unprecedented
need for bold and speedy action this year.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am eager to respond to any questions that
you and the members of the committee have.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Vice President, that's dramatic and
frankly a remarkable testimony. I'm going to order the full
printing, if we can, of this testimony and the following
questions, and I'm going to distribute it to every single one
of our members in the Senate. I will find some way, if
possible--maybe you could cooperate with us; I know you can't
get the motion in the slides--to get some of those accompanying
slides as a separate entry. I think Bob Corell is nodding; we
can try and get some of those from him. That would be really
helpful.
If ever there was an underscoring of the urgency, I think
you've given it to us in a very important, significant way. And
this is a significant hearing for that reason.
One of the things that struck me as you were talking about
methane being released and instant doubling, is the fact that
many people are not aware that CO2 in the atmosphere
has a half-life around 80 to 100 years if I'm correct.
Let me ask you, if I can, sort of, to--one of the things
that just struck me, as you were talking about the methane
being released and the instant doubling, is the fact, that many
people are not aware of, that CO2 in the atmosphere
has a half-life of something like 80 to 100 years, if I'm
correct.
Vice President Gore. I think the scientists will say that,
100 years from now, 50 percent of it will fall out of the
atmosphere; however, 1,000 years from now, 20 percent of what
we put up this year will still be there. So, it's, as one would
expect, a more complex picture. But, basically, if we can get
half of it out over 100 years, that's a hopeful sign. If a lot
of it remains, after 1,000 years, it's a sobering warning that
the quicker we reduce, the better.
The Chairman. But that which is already up there
continues--absent of it being somehow extracted--to do the
damage it's doing now.
Vice President Gore. Yes. Yes.
The Chairman. Which means that if the temperature has
already increased about .8 degrees Centigrade, with the amounts
that we're adding to what's already up there and the span of
time we're now looking at for reductions we will automatically
see, without anything else interfering, an increase in
temperature up to 1.6/1.7 degrees Centigrade.
Vice President Gore. Roughly .7/.8 degrees Centigrade has
already occurred. Another .7/.8 is already stored in the oceans
and will be re-released. But, the continuing potential for the
CO2 that remains in the atmosphere, as you've
pointed out, will continue to produce further increases, yes.
The Chairman. Our cushion between the tipping point that
scientists have warned us of is 2 degrees Centigrade. And as
you said, we have to achieve 350 parts per million, which is
the goal that most scientists now believe will result in
stability, is that correct?
Vice President Gore. That is the goal that I support, and
that is my reading of the best--what I believe is the best
science. I think that an accurate picture of the science is
that leading researchers, like Professor Jim Hansen--like Dr.
Jim Hansen, at NASA, have now begun to coalesce around the very
strong feeling that 350 is the appropriate goal.
After years of debate within a--an international political
framework, other scientists have despaired about the ability of
the political system to do what the science mandates, and have
coalesced around 450; some, even 550. But, the more the
evidence comes in, the more it becomes increasingly apparent
that 350 is the appropriate goal.
If we're at 386 now, and the entire North Polar Ice Cap is
completely melting in 5 years, and both Greenland and West
Antarctica are now clearly at risk, obviously we need to be
below the level that we're at now.
The Chairman. Now, to get there--that is sort of the key
question. We still have naysayers here, though I think there
are less than there used to be. But obviously the politics of
getting through this are complicated, as we all understand. I
know you've been giving a lot of thought to this, and you've
had a lot of meetings--one of them recently up at Harvard.
Share with us, if you would, what do you say to somebody from a
coal state? There was an article in the New York Times
yesterday about a group within the caucus, even in the
Democratic Party, who are reluctant to move rapidly, because
they have a coal industry or interests in their states, and
they think they're going to lose competitiveness or lose jobs.
What's the direct answer to them about the options here and the
opportunities here?
Vice President Gore. Well, I think it's quite responsible
to support robust research into whether or not it might, in the
future, become possible to safely capture and sequester
CO2 from coal plants. But, we should not delude
ourselves about the likelihood that that's going to occur in
the near term, or even the mid-term. It is extremely expensive.
There is not a single large-scale demonstration plant anywhere
in the United States. The one plant was canceled by the Bush-
Cheney administration.
And the research is one thing. But, we must avoid becoming
vulnerable to the illusion that this is near at hand. It is
not. And, as a result, I believe that we must not have any more
conventional dirty coal plants that do not capture and
sequester CO2.
I proposed, as a member of this body many years ago, a full
employment alternative for any coal miners and workers in the
coal industry that are displaced by the need to protect the
environment of this planet. Just to keep on doing this
incredible damage and harm, in the name of their jobs, when we
can much more effectively create even better jobs for them,
that, I believe, must be the response, even as we aggressively
research the possibility that it might be possible to capture
and sequester carbon.
The Chairman. That's a very direct and honest answer, and I
appreciate it.
You're currently doing a lot of work with technologies and
looking at the energy-sector transformation. Share with us, if
you would, the immediate vision that you see in this
transformative process as we move to this new economy and new
base of power.
Vice President Gore. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Energy
Information----
The Chairman. Let me just share with you, the reason--you
know this full well----
Vice President Gore. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. But we have a vote going on,
which is why members are getting up and moving out. They're
coming back. We'll try to rotate through and keep the hearing
going. Thanks.
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you very much. Indeed, I
am familiar with this.
The Energy Information Administration, in its report from
2007 on the electric power industry, reported that, for the
first time, renewable energy sources represented, by far, the
largest new increment of electricity generation in the United
States of America. We are beginning to see this shift take
place already.
Wind power is now mature and fully competitive. It can
accelerate its role, with the appropriate tax credits and
grants, to make them usable. And a technology called
``concentrating solar thermal'' is now becoming very
competitive. Many plants are under construction in the
Southwest. And this, of course, uses mirrors to concentrate the
solar energy to boil water, just as a nuclear plant or a coal-
fired plant does, to drive steam turbines and generate
electricity.
Scientific American pointed out that, if we took an area of
the Southwestern desert, 100 miles on a side, that would be
enough, in and of itself, to provide 100 percent of all the
electricity needs for the United States of America in a full
year. And, interestingly, this technology matches the peak load
exactly, throughout the day, to the peak-load use. So,
concentrating solar thermal is a very important new source,
along with wind. And most scientists and engineers expect that
the new advances on photovoltaic energy--of course, the kind
that directly translate photons into an electrical current--
will intersect with concentrating solar thermal midway through
this decade. And widely distributed uses of photovoltaics and
small wind will also play an increasing role.
In all of this, efficiency and conservation must be the No.
1 priority. It gives us the quickest and most cost-effective
new sources of energy; indeed, a lot of it is not only cheap,
it actually makes money. And giving the right incentives to use
these approaches is very important.
I would mention one final source, which is geothermal
energy. There are new approaches that fracture the deeper parts
of the Shelf and create the new--new sources of geothermal
energy that have--this has great potential. It is not very far
off.
The Chairman. I sometimes hear people say, ``Oh, gosh,
those are terrific things,'' when I'm trying to describe some
of things you have and they'll say, ``Well, yeah, but you can't
meet the demand fast enough,'' or, ``Those technologies aren't
adequately developed yet,'' or, ``They're not really cost-
competitive.'' In each case you've articulated today that
that's not true. You can meet it that fast, they are, in fact,
competitive, and they're here now.
Vice President Gore. We----
The Chairman. Is that accurate or----
Vice President Gore. I chair the Alliance for Climate
Protection, and we conducted extensive work with energy
modelers and policy experts to prove this case, that if we set
our minds to it, we could, in this country, produce 100 percent
of our electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources
within 10 years. That is possible, if we set our minds to it.
It requires the construction of a National Unified Smart
Grid, which gives us two new tools: The ability to transfer
large amounts of renewable electricity from the solar areas of
the Southwest to the cities where it's used, from the wind
corridor in the mountain States, east and west of the cities,
where it's used, and from the geothermal areas. It would
require a decision to move aggressively to give the incentives
to quickly build the new concentrating solar thermal and wind
facilities that are ready to go right now.
The Chairman. Can you describe those incentives and what
amount of money you think ought to be put on the table to
support them?
Vice President Gore. Well, first of all, I think--and I say
this to Members of the Senate, particularly--the conditionality
on the pending block grants to States for efficiency represents
one of the single most important measures that can be taken. I
know those sounds like buzzwords and terms of art. Basically,
what it applies to is decoupling the current set of incentives
that utilities have to just build more dirty coal plants, and
instead, given them a way to make money from, not only building
new coal plants, but from driving conservation and efficiency
and renewable sources.
California, on its own initiative, passed a measure like
this that has already resulted in an explosion of new
construction for renewable electricity sources in California
and for a sharp decrease in the use of energy per unit of
economic output. So, the California system is what should be
included in the stimulus bill, and the House of Representatives
has already put it in there. It will be decided in conference
if it's not changed on the floor, when the Senate bill is
considered.
The second provision that I would highlight is the
renewable tax credits that have to be coupled with what the
administration has proposed, small grants to make those tax
credits economically usable in an environment in which some of
the--those that would use them don't have any profits and taxes
to pay, so they have to be able to, in some way, shape, or
form, transfer them, get them refunded in ways that give them
market value and provide an immediate incentive to start
construction.
The Chairman. California, which has seen its economy grow--
I forget what the percentage is--has actually seen its energy
use per capita go down----
Vice President Gore. Correct.
The Chairman [continuing]. Even as the population has
grown. That is the perfect model, in a sense.
Vice President Gore. And it's a result of the policy
changes that they made that have helped California's economy.
We could get tremendous job creation and other benefits if we
adopt this, nationwide.
The Chairman. Is there any way to capture these significant
pockets of methane as they become exposed?
Vice President Gore. In the Arctic? I don't know. I have
not heard of any proposal to do that. I'm sure there's
research, but it covers such a broad area, it would not seem to
be feasible. But, if--you know, scientists come up with new
ideas all the time. I have not heard any way of doing that.
The Chairman. Mr. Vice President, share with us also--
perhaps addressing some of the concerns of Senators here and
House members--about the local economic competitive dislocation
and/or cost of doing some of this. The quick hit you hear
repeatedly right now because of the economic downturn is, ``How
are we going to afford to do this?'' Do you want to speak to
that?
Vice President Gore. Well, it may be a classic turn of
phrase, but I think the better question is, How can we afford
not to do this?--not only because it's a question of urgency
for civilization, but also because making this transition is
one of the best and most effective ways to create good, new,
sustainable jobs quickly.
There is a tremendous growth in these new renewable
industries. And the world is beginning to shift dramatically in
this direction. If the United States once again takes its
customary role as the leader of this new trend, then we will
create the most jobs and gain the most economic benefit.
The Chairman. Speak to me for a minute, if you will, or to
all of us, about Copenhagen. You were at Kyoto, you helped lead
that effort, and, indeed, signed that agreement. What is the
key to making Copenhagen a success? You've articulated that we
need to pass a cap-and-trade. But can you give us a sense of
what your thoughts are about the shape of Copenhagen and how to
get there?
Vice President Gore. Yes. I think, for our country, the
road to Copenhagen is to pass the green stimulus measures now
pending, pass the cap-and-trade legislation this year; and
those two measures, combined, will give us not only the moral
authority to lead, but also give us the ability to
prospectively book impressive CO2 reductions in the
years ahead that will make it far easier to meet the goals that
will be negotiated in the Copenhagen treaty.
In the treaty itself, I think we have to have strong
targets and timetables, and binding commitments from industrial
and developing countries. The developing countries, of course,
will have differentiated, but still binding, commitments. And I
think the single goal should be CO2 reduction.
Second element is the inclusion of deforestation. And, as
you know, Mr. Chairman, in the conference in Bali, a year ago
December, there was a successful result in arriving at a
formula that does allow the inclusion of avoided deforestation.
Again, 20 percent of global emissions each year come from
deforestation.
Third----
The Chairman. Mr. Vice President, can I interrupt----
Vice President Gore. Yeah, sure.
The Chairman [continuing]. You for a minute? I've just been
informed I only have 2 minutes to get over there to the vote.
Senator Shaheen is going to benefit enormously by the cycle
here. Oh, Senator Lugar is back. I--you had a moment there. I
apologize. [Laughter.]
Vice President Gore. Congratulations, Chairman Shaheen.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Did you see the excitement on her face?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Lugar? Thank you. And then, Senator
Shaheen. Thanks.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Shaheen.
Mr. Vice President, in my opening statement--I had a narrow
part of the picture, admittedly, but you acknowledged my
farming situation, and I am interested in this. Norman Borlaud
has testified for many years before the Agriculture Committee,
occasionally this committee, on the Green Revolution. He was
not alone in this respect. But, he and many others, including
Bill and Melinda Gates and their work in Africa, have really
had obstacles. They've not struck out, but, nevertheless, the
situation you presented has already led to difficulties with
regard to soil and water conditions, and difficulties for
people in Africa to produce.
Now, as Bob Paarlberg has pointed out in his book, this is
reinforced by prejudices against genetically modified organisms
and biotechnology in agriculture. This is a total disaster
already, and headed toward worse, on the data that you have
shown.
This is why my plea is that this become a part of the
agenda of the picture. Our staff members, at the conference
that you just attended, struck out again in working with this.
And I appreciate, within the green or environmental community,
there are differences on these issues. I've spent some time
with European-community people in Brussels, and they have
differences, although some are now moving in the direction, at
least that I would advocate. But, do you have any further
comment on this that would be helpful today as to how this
might become a part of this important agenda? And some
recognition, as a practical matter, that people in Africa need
to be fed now, quite apart from----
Vice President Gore. Yeah.
Senator Lugar. [continuing]. Catastrophes of 5 or 10 years
from now?
Vice President Gore. Yeah. Well, Senator Lugar, thank you
for your thoughtful comments. Before addressing, specifically,
genetically modified organisms, I'd like to enthusiastically
agree with your overall point, that the impact on agriculture
in developing countries is going to be quite harsh.
If I could briefly illustrate this with a couple of slides,
this is from the United Nations Environment Program, and it's
just an illustrative example. This shows the nation of Uganda,
and the green areas show the areas that are suitable for
coffee-growing, and the yellow shows less suitable, but still
suitable, areas. A 2-degree increase in temperature does this
to the areas for coffee growing.
So, the effort to combat global poverty and to feed those
who are hungry is harshly impacted by the impact of global
warming, and we have to figure out a way to respond.
Developing--responses to climate change in the developing
world can help reduce this poverty, because renewable energy is
the best way to bring electricity to the places that don't have
it. The emissions trading system does help them economically.
And reforestation programs can support rural livelihoods. And
many in this chamber and elsewhere--I'm not proselytizing; this
was a slide in this deck that is out of my own faith
tradition--but, experience suggests that the best way to do
this is to integrate it into the planning.
Now, on genetically modified organisms, the treaty is not a
commercial mechanism, it actually remains up to individual
nation-states to decide, on their own, if they want genetically
modified crops. I do believe the treaty, as you have said,
should have funds for adaptation for Africa and poor countries
in other regions, and that should include money for help in
agriculture.
My own view of the scientific controversy on GMOs is that
most GMOs turn out to be no different in their impact on the
environment than the long, slow process of seed selection that
occurred during the Stone Ages and produced today's main food
crops. However, Mr. Chairman, we have had several--I would say,
too many--examples--a small fraction among the many GMO crops,
but we have had some--that turn out to have had some
unanticipated, dangerous consequences. I, myself, have not yet
seen an adequately sensitive and reliable screening mechanism
to make sure that we catch those few that actually do cause
problems. But, where we find ones that have been cleared, with
long experience, then I, myself, am not opposed to their use.
Senator Lugar. Well, I thank you for that testimony. I
would just say, from the practical use on my own farm through,
now, three generations, the yields we've been able to obtain,
which have been a part of my lifetime, are dramatic. And I
would say, with regard to our own soil, trees, and the
environment, that we've used GMO very satisfactorily. I think
this is possible. But, the point you're making, about certain
elements being screened, is clearly important.
On the farm situation, likewise, the need for building
support in the public is obvious. The Pew Foundation's recent
report, that's often cited, listed global warming or climate
change as number 20 out of 20 issues that were important to the
public now. There may be other months in which the poll does
better, when we're not in an economic crisis. But, I'm
impressed with the fact that the Chicago Climate Exchange--and
maybe as a prelude to some type of cap-and-trade or carbon
pricing system in our country--has at least established a price
for carbon.
Vice President Gore. Yes.
Senator Lugar. I've become--our farm has become--a member
of the Exchange. We are a potential seller of carbon. It is
sequestered in our hardwood trees, which have been measured as
we planted them, so that this is a new situation. And we get a
reading on a Web site every day. Carbon is now $2.05 in
Chicago, as of yesterday.
This is a very small beginning, but it's an important one.
And people from that Exchange have been very active in the
European markets.
I mention all of this because we'll have debates about it
again, when we get back to the fact that--does anybody really
understand how to price, how the exchange occurs, who the
suppliers are. Are these valid suppliers? Is the carbon in my
hardwood trees really carbon that is sequestered? Well, I think
that it is, and we think about no-till planting, likewise, in
this respect. The National Farmers Union came together for a
press conference in which I participated last year. They were
interested in the sequestering of carbon in the soil and how
not to disturb it. How can we go about doing this?
But, to the extent that this becomes an income source----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Lugar [continuing]. For farmers, in addition to a
scientific experiment, then that whole difference in American
public opinion, at least with one large community, occurs in
practical ways.
Now, and I cite this because you've worked with public
opinion for years. These situations are not easy sells.
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Lugar. But, to the extent there are practical
measures, with even portions of our population, there may be
the kind of support. Which leads to my overall question.
Kyoto did not do well on the Senate floor when it came. And
if we have a treaty this year--and I hope that we will--this
one needs to do better. How will we come about, in a bipartisan
stance, with the support of the country, to get either 60 or 67
votes, or whatever is required at that point? Can you give any
thought to that, just as a practical politician, as well as one
who----
Vice President Gore. Yeah.
Senator Lugar [continuing]. Has made a presentation today
which is exemplary?
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you, Senator Lugar. I am a
recovering politician. I'm on about step nine. [Laughter.]
Vice President Gore. I'd like to, first of all, address
your comments, if I may, on soil carbon, because I think it's
an important question that should be addressed.
As a rule of thumb, the amount of carbon now sequestered in
trees and forests around the world is roughly equal to twice
the amount that is in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon
sequestered in soils around the world is up to four times as
much as the amount in trees.
I grew up during the summers on a farm in Tennessee, and
learned from my dad how to recognize the dark, black, rich soil
in the bottomlands. And not until recently did somebody clue me
in that what makes that rich soil black is the carbon. And
there's eight times as much carbon in the soils as in the
atmosphere, though the flux in and out is much lower than from
trees. However, that flux out can increase dramatically from
the thawing of those frozen soils, and the flux in the other
direction, more rapid sequestration of carbon in the soils, can
also be increased--not necessarily with no-till, although I see
that as an improvement, but with new techniques that help
farmers increase yields and rapidly sequester carbon in soils.
They do not yet have the mechanisms to adequately monitor and
measure soil carbon sequestration, though they are close to
developing them.
The two areas of the world that have most wanted soil
carbon included in the treaty are U.S. farmers and the
Continent of Africa. Quite a coalition. And if the monitoring
can be established, then I think it's a very useful measure to
begin that addition to the process in Copenhagen so that it can
be included.
Now, on the prospects for the treaty, as compared to Kyoto.
The general expectation and acceptance, in the developing
world, that they will have binding commitments in the first
phase, makes this a very different kind of outlook than was the
case with Kyoto. The very fact that developing countries, like
Brazil and Indonesia, China, which is in its own category, have
now begun to take initiatives--I think that makes it a very
different situation.
And, of course, the strength of the scientific consensus
worldwide is now far beyond what it was 10 years ago. The
scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops. This
is, properly understood, a planetary emergency. It is out of
the boundaries of scale that we're used to dealing with. And
one of my personal challenges for the last 30 years has been to
understand how to talk about it in a way that breaks through
that denial and resistance. And though some progress has been
made, more work needs to be done.
I think that President Obama's leadership, which has
already been manifested in his statement, just 2 days ago, can,
itself, be an important new element in firming support for what
needs to be done.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. I think I'm acting chairman----
Senator Lugar. Yes.
Senator Dodd [continuing]. So I'll recognize myself, here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. First of all, Mr. Vice President, let me
thank you for your 30 years of effort in this regard. You were
a lonely voice, as I recall, in the House of Representatives,
some 30 years ago, talking about this issue. And occasionally
history provides leadership like that. Not often enough, in my
view, but I thank you for it.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. And I'd be remiss if I didn't also thank the
chairman, Senator Kerry, who's also worked very hard on this
issue, and did a great job yesterday; in fact, in our caucus
lunch, gave a very eloquent exposition about what we needed to
be doing in this coming Congress, in preparation for
Copenhagen.
Senator Boxer has been terrific on this issue, as well.
Jeff Bingaman, my colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman,
and others, have been stalwarts in the efforts to try and make
this issue more prominent.
I have just two or three quick questions. One, you just
alluded to, that I think is so important. I think the public
perception too often in this debate has been that if we, in
fact, go this route, that our lifestyles, and our economic
growth and opportunity are going to be severely hampered. We're
going to have to make a choice, in a sense. Maybe the political
equivalency or the economic equivalency of wearing a hair shirt
if we give up this economic path or dependence on fossil fuels
that we've been on for so long. Changing that mentality,
convincing the public-at-large, both here and elsewhere, that,
in fact, quite the opposite is the case. That's number one.
Number two, I appreciate your emphasis on Brazil, and
talking about Brazil. And obviously they've done some
remarkable things. I was noting that about 50 percent of our
importation of fossil fuels comes from the western hemisphere,
from Venezuela, Mexico, Canada; that about 80 percent of the
renewable energy resources come out of Brazil, with the use of
ethanol coming out of sugar cane. But, renewable energy poses
some issues, as well, in that the deforestation efforts, the
Amazon Basin being that drain that you've talked about, is at
risk if, in fact, we find an expansion of sugar cane to develop
more ethanol for foreign markets, which we encourage, to some
degree, but obviously there are ancillary and related issues
associated with those efforts. And I'd like to hear you comment
on these issues, although I was encouraged by the comments you
made, that Brazil seems to be entering into a stricter regime
when it comes to deforestation programs.
And then, thirdly, is the approach. Obviously, Copenhagen's
coming up. We've had the meetings in Bali and other venues.
What are your thoughts about more regional approaches to this,
tying in the economic issues? I think you made a very strong
point, to begin with, that Iraq, Afghanistan, and our economic
situation are tied very intimately, as a result of our
dependence on fossil fuels, particularly coming out of a very
precarious part of the world. But, does it make some sense
maybe to look more regionally at this, in terms of economic
ties--not to supplement that from the global effort, but could
we potentially have more success on a regional basis, rather
than on the U.N. or global kind of approach to this?
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you for a thoughtful
question, Senator Dodd. I do believe the treaty must be global
in nature. And I think that the efficacy of a cap-and-trade
system goes way up when it is truly global. It becomes much
more efficient, it's not a bucket with a hole in it, it's
actually a complete system.
But, in the introduction of renewable sources of
electricity, it does--it can make a lot of sense to look at
regional tieups. I'll show you one quick example that was
published in Nature magazine last--just a year and a half ago,
that illustrates the proposed super grid in Europe, that links
northern Africa with Western Europe. Just as one of the
arguments for helping Mexico's economy was that it's more
effective to stem illegal immigration by creating more
opportunities for jobs south of the border, one way to deal
with the flows of immigration into Europe from northern Africa,
and through northern Africa, that have generated unfortunate
outbursts of xenophobia in Europe, is to create more economic
opportunity there.
In the Sahara, the sun resource is astonishing. And those
pink dots there represent concentrating solar thermal plants,
the technology that I was talking with the chairman about,
linked in a--what they call a super grid, similar to the
Unified National Smart Grid that President Obama has proposed
for the United States. The yellow triangles are wind
installations on the west coast of Africa. Spain, of course,
and Germany, are already the leading proponents and installers
of solar and wind. And by linking Western Europe to northern
Africa, they can accomplish a shift to renewable electricity.
There are other regional linkages in Asia. For example, in
the western part of India, in Rajasthan, in the areas of desert
where there is a similar very impressive solar resource, there
can be supplies of renewable electricity that supply the entire
region. Similarly, in China--China's already building a lot of
solar plans.
So, this is just one illustration of how a regional
approach can be an effective way to shift to renewable
electricity.
Senator Dodd. . I appreciate that very much. Any comment on
the Brazilian effort, with the possibility of expanding into
that Amazon River Basin with further deforestation to produce
more ethanol out of sugar cane? Is it a worry, apparently,
you're not as concerned about that, because----
Vice President Gore. No, no, I am. Thank you forgiving--I
didn't answer it, and I thank you for giving me another chance.
I simply forgot.
President Lula has recently proposed, on the eve of the
Poznan negotiation last December, a truly impressive large
short-term goal of avoiding the deforestation pattern that has
been so prominent in the Amazon.
What's been going on there is really very troubling, and,
with your permission, I'll show you a very quick example of it,
from the western Amazon basis, over a period of 25 years.
[Video presentation.]
Vice President Gore. President Lula's proposal is to stop
thoughtless destruction of valuable areas of rainforest. And
it's important to note that the exploitation of the sugar-cane
growing areas in Brazil, which gives a highly efficient source
of ethanol that's efficient economically and in terms of energy
balance, does not have to inevitably have the knock-on
consequence of causing destruction in the Amazon. It's a
different area of Brazil, and, with the kind of policy
innovation that President Lula has proposed, I believe they
can, if they enforce it--that's been one of the problems with
past initiatives--if they enforce it, I think that they can
continue to provide global leadership on ethanol production and
avoid deforestation. Of course, everyone hopes--and Senator
Lugar mentioned this--that we will soon be able to move quickly
to the next-generation cellulosic----
Senator Dodd. Right.
Vice President Gore [continuing]. Ethanol that won't
compete with food crops and will give us better options.
Senator Dodd. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senator From Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join my colleagues in
welcoming my good friend, Vice President Gore, this morning, and thank
him for the tremendous work he has done over the years. He has not only
raised awareness of the dangers of global climate change; he has
transformed the debate and brought it into the public consciousness. I
would also like to recognize our distinguished chairman's own work in
confronting global climate change, most recently during his trip to
Poland in December as the leader of the U.S. delegation to the U.N.
Conference on Global Warming.
In spite of the doubts still voiced by some, the debate over
whether human-related activities are contributing to global climate
change is over. The most reliable scientific data we have is crystal
clear on this issue. According to a November 2007 report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international
panel of some of the most respected scientists in the world, the
earth's average temperature has increased between 1.1 to 1.6 F since
the Industrial Revolution, and if nothing is done to curb greenhouse
emissions, the 21st century could see global temperatures rise another
3.2 to 7.2 degrees. While this warming trend may seem minor to the
casual observer, even relatively small fluctuations in global
temperatures could have potentially devastating impacts on numerous
species of plants and wildlife, reduce global agricultural yields,
increase the frequency and severity of storms and hurricanes, and
contribute to the spread of disease. These dangers represent a global
threat, and any real solution to climate change must be a global effort
in which all nations are involved.
Global action is urgently needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in order to prevent serious
environmental damage, economic turmoil and increased global conflict
over resources. However, such an effort is impossible without the full
support and cooperation of the United States. With only 4 percent of
the world's population but responsible for nearly a quarter of all
greenhouse gas emissions, the United States has a moral responsibility
to lead. Nevertheless, in spite of this urgency, the Bush
administration did not. Indeed, for all the treaty's flaws, it was
shameful that the Bush administration abandoned the Kyoto Protocol. It
is high time the United States once again become a leader in addressing
the grave threat of climate change. For 8 long years, sound science has
been ignored, good policy has been ridiculed, and the U.S. relegated
itself to the back bench.
We must also be clear that the dimensions of this phenomenon are
not solely environmental. Our planet's addiction to fossil fuels has
serious ramifications for the global economy. Recent fluctuations in
energy prices have impacted the price of food and other essential
goods, contributing to higher food prices and food insecurity around
the world. Moreover, dependency on fossil fuels has led to increased
political tensions between producer and consumer states, including most
recently Russia and the Ukraine, which led to shortages throughout much
of Europe. The U.S. in particular has become more dependent on foreign
sources of energy in recent years, and Americans have seen more and
more of their hard-earned wealth transferred overseas, often to regimes
hostile to the United States with poor human rights records.
With the commencement of the Copenhagen Conference later this year,
the United States has an opportunity to reengage with the international
community and not simply take a greater role in the global effort
against climate change, but lead the world in doing so. Secretary
Clinton's appointment of Todd Stern as special envoy for climate change
is a welcome sign that the Obama administration plans to treat the
threat of global warming with the seriousness it requires and work with
the international community to find a comprehensive solution. Once
again, I'd like to thank my good friend, Vice President Gore, for
testifying before this committee today. I look forward to our
discussion.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd. Thank you
for your generous comments. I appreciate it.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And I want to join in welcoming you here. Tennessee has a
legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public
service that have been of major consequence and contributed in
a major way to the public debate. And you, no doubt, have
helped build that legacy. And I hope, in some small way, to
follow on. So, I appreciate your being here, and I thank you
for your presentation, and very much enjoyed your sense of
humor, too, I might add. Thank you very much.
Vice President Gore. I benefit from low expectations.
[Laughter.]
Senator Corker. You know, my goal in this debate is to make
sure that, as we move along this road to Copenhagen, that we
also focus on things like energy security, and that we are
transparent with the American people. And I think that actually
is the very best way to build a political consensus that you're
talking about today. And I really do, I appreciate your
comments, on the front end, regarding our dependence on oil. I
certainly appreciate the focus on deforestation. And my goal
here today is actually to build more of a mutuality----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. If we can.
Jeff Bingaman and I spent a week in Europe, meeting with
carbon traders and European Commission members and others. And
I think what we've seen, from the initial steps that have taken
place there, has been a lot of form over substance, in many
ways, that we can learn from. And, on one hand, some steps were
taken, but, with free allocations and offsets and all kinds of
things, there really wasn't the transparency and purity there
that I think would be most beneficial.
We're now firing with real bullets. I mean, I think----
Vice President Gore. That's right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. The stars have lined up. And
my sense is that, this year, something may really occur. And I
hope to sort of be like BASF; they don't make the product, but
they make the product better. And that's my goal in this
debate, as I've mentioned.
You've said some interesting things that I think actually
could have the result of bringing people together. For
instance, you have talked, in the past, about a carbon tax----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. And the fact that, if that is
implemented, then it ought to be 100 percent returned to
people----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. Through a payroll tax, which,
by the way, I agree with and actually had an amendment on the
floor, this last year, to that effect, in some degree. Do you
agree that if--at the end of the day, we're talking--the
bottom-line result for--on the road to Copenhagen, for those
who are on the roads in Carthage, around your family farm, is--
we're really talking about increasing the price of carbon--on
oil, of natural gas, of ethanol, of all those things. And I
think you've talked about returning that increase in price to
people----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. As I have. Should that same
thing--well, let me just mention one other precursor.
USCAP was here last week. A lot of well-respected
companies, CEOs that I've followed throughout my life. They
made a presentation. And unlike--or, like most things that
happen around here, the presentation centered on transference
of wealth from our taxpayers, in most cases, to their
companies. OK? Or, in some ways making their companies more
competitive to others. So, it was obviously put together to
create a competitive advantage for them.
I think we can build consensus around transparency. And if
we were to have a cap-and-trade program--and I think, candidly,
we will, this year--is it your sense that revenues generated
from that, like you had mentioned on carbon tax, should be
returned to the American people?
Vice President Gore. Well, there have been a lot of people
claiming part of those prospective revenues, and that will be
for the Senate to determine.
I think that Senator Lugar's advocacy of funds for
adaptation to those unavoidable consequences already programmed
into the climate system represents one destination for the
global cap-and-trade system; not all of it, by any means, but
some portion of it.
Senator Corker. Yeah.
Vice President Gore. I think that research into the new,
more rapidly deployable renewable technologies is another.
But, I certainly believe that the simplest and easiest way
to solve this problem would be a CO2 tax that is 100
percent refundable. The theoretical architect of President
Reagan's economic plan, Arthur Laffer, who now lives in our
home State, has publicly endorsed this--Billy Crystal, others--
and that sometimes worries me, but----
[Laughter.]
Vice President Gore [continuing]. I think that would be the
most direct way to do it.
But, a cap-and-trade system has--they're not inconsistent,
by the way; I think we need both a cap-and-trade system can be
implemented globally. And I do think that, in implementing a
system here in the United States, we should do it in a way that
pays very close attention to any economic impacts on the
American people, and we should rapidly create the jobs in the
building of the Smart Grid and efficiency and conservation
measures, and renewable energy, and put people to work, and
make sure that we get a net increase in jobs.
Senator Corker. Well, look, I want to tell you that I wish
we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which
would be returned to the American people, so there's no net
dollars that would----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. Come out of the American
people's pockets, and therefore, they're making a value
decision about carbon. And those who use less, benefit; those
who use more obviously do not benefit. But, no money is taken
out of the people's pockets. And actually, I hope that, if we
do a cap-and-trade program, we can implement those same
elements.
Let me talk to you--we talk about a global system, and
obviously the markets in each area, based on the amount of
decreases in the economy and all of that, actually affect the
carbon price. And we've seen--carbon, last year, was at $40 a
ton, and in Europe today it's much less. And obviously, you
know, a good recession takes care of a lot of that, right?--I
mean, just because of energy output. But, the fact is that
allowances play a major role in distorting the markets.
One of the things, if you talk----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. To traders in Europe, they
wish that they really would have auctioned 100 percent of the--
--
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. Allowances. We have companies
here--and much of the public doesn't understand that these
allowances----
Vice President Gore. Very valuable.
Senator Corker [continuing]. Are marketable securities.
And, I mean, this----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. Is cash, OK----
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Corker [continuing]. That you can sell, the very
next day.
Do you agree with me, and, I think, President Obama, that
almost all of the allowances ought to be auctioned, and not
freely given out to companies, that, in essence, again, it's a
huge transference of wealth?
Vice President Gore. Personally, I do agree with you,
Senator Corker. Now, there are people who--for whom I have
great respect, who have studied this for many years, who
believe that a 100-percent auction will be practically--in
practice, very difficult to implement, and that a high
percentage should be auctioned. I believe, with you, that it
should be 100 percent auctioned.
And I appreciate the time you've taken to learn about the
European system. When they implemented their system, they
calculated their base year in a very flawed way. But, over the
recent years, they have modified and changed their system, to
the point where it's much tighter and working much more
effectively.
The fact that they were operating within a global economy,
most of which did not have cap-and-trade, made their challenge
very difficult. And, as I said earlier, if it's a truly global
system, then you'll get the liquidity and the effectiveness
that will really drive it toward higher levels of efficiency.
But, I think the best way to start is with an auction.
Senator Corker. You know, we talk about the ways that we
should lead. And I think a way that we might also lead is to
actually set up a system that is transparent, that is pure,
where the plumbing actually works, because, you know, I think
we'd all have to say, what's happened in Europe has met with
mixed reviews because of all these distortions. One of those,
again, being offsets.
You know, we've--as of November 1, 2008, International
Rivers has calculated that most of these offsets, that are
called clean development mechanisms, that I think hugely
distort the market--hugely distort the market--most of the
projects, three-quarters of them, were already under
construction and were going to happen anyway. And so, the whole
issue of additionality is a pretty big deal.
And I actually think we have to figure out a way to deal
with deforestation in parts of the world. I really believe
that. But, I think that offsets are another one of those things
that hugely distort the market, because, instead of actually
reducing carbon emissions, you're doing things that are highly
questionable and actually outside the market that you're in.
I'd love any comments you might have in that regard.
Vice President Gore. Yeah. Well, another thoughtful
question. I think there's a general agreement that, in
Copenhagen, significant reforms of the CDM, as--collective
development mechanism--has to be--cooperative development
mechanism--have to be implemented. And I think there's general
acceptance of that idea, and there's been a lot of work on how
to reform it and make sure that it's targeted on what it needs
to be focused on, instead of some of these peripheral areas. I
agree with you.
Senator Corker. And if I could just--one last question, Mr.
Chairman--thank you for the succinct responses.
I agree with you that carbon capture and sequestration is a
long ways off. I have a hard time understanding how, on a
commercial scale, we're going to be doing it. One CEO that's
highly involved in coal has said that, ``When donkeys fly,''
OK, ``we will be dealing with that.''
I just have to ask--so, as we look at that, and we look at
energy production in this country--nuclear--one would have to
believe that, as we deal with the issue of carbon, that nuclear
would have to play a huge role in that. And I just wonder what
comments you might have in that regard.
Vice President Gore. Well, first of all, just a brief
comment on your statement about carbon capture.
The one place that--well, one of the places that actually
has sequestered carbon is in Norway. And it refers back to your
earlier comment, because, if you ask them the secret to it,
they say, ``Well, we imposed a CO2 tax, and we told
the gas producers out in the North Sea that''--it has
particularly high CO2 content--``that if they could
capture it and sequester it safely, then they wouldn't have to
pay the tax.'' So, they said, ``OK.'' And they went, and
they've done it fairly successfully. Now, it's a unique set of
conditions. There's a demonstration project in Algeria. It's
not impossible, it's just implausible that it can be done on a
widespread scale.
Now, on nuclear, I used to represent Oak Ridge, as you do
now, where my constituents were, at that--in those years,
immune to the impacts of radiation. So, I was very enthusiastic
about nuclear power. And I came to the Congress, in 1976, as a
very strong supporter of nuclear power.
I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will
expand. I'm not opposed to it, but there is now, in the
industry, absolutely zero ability to predict, with any
confidence, what the cost of construction is. The nuclear waste
storage problem will undoubtedly be solved, but there are other
problems. They only come in one size: Extra large. And when
utilities have a limited construction budget and an uncertain
demand projection, because, with the price of oil going up and
down, and new conservation measures coming in, they think--they
fear we might face the kind of situation that we faced in the
Tennessee Valley area in the 1970s and 1980s, where TVA started
all these new nuclear plants, on an assumption that there was
going to be a 7-percent annual increase in electricity usage,
and then the energy crisis dropped it down to 1 percent, so
they canceled all those plants, and the ratepayers are still
paying for the unbuilt plants.
The utility executives become allergic to placing large
bets on large increments with uncertain construction costs over
a long period of time into the future. And that's why you've
had, in--last year, by far, the largest new construction of
electricity generation was with renewables. Coal has actually
gone down, renewables have gone up, and nuclear has been at
kind of a standstill.
Now, I think there will be some new nuclear plants, but the
proliferation consequences will limit its spread as a worldwide
option. If it did expand dramatically, we would run out of fuel
in relatively short order, unless we went to reprocessing. And
reprocessing makes it hugely more expensive and actually
expands the quantity of high-level waste that has to be safely
sequestered. That's counterintuitive. I used to think that
reprocessing would cut down on the waste; it actually increases
the amount of waste. And so--and the costs.
So, for all those reasons, I think that it'll play a small
extra role. I don't think it's a silver bullet, and I don't
think it'll play a large role.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. And if I
could just say one thing, I think this has been an excellent
meeting.
I hope that we, in the Senate, will, instead of concocting
some Rube Goldberg mechanism that basically disguises what
we're doing from the American public, will do exactly the kind
of thing that Vice President Gore has advocated, and that is,
be transparent, be direct, let people fully understand what it
is we're doing, return those monies to the American people, put
a tax on carbon. I think the American people are intelligent, I
think they get it, if we just explain it to them.
Again, I want to thank you for bringing one of Tennessee's
great public leaders here today, and thank you for having this
hearing.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much----
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. Senator. Let me just say to you
that we're putting a working group together, which will include
Senator Bingaman, Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman, and others,
and we need it to be on a bipartisan basis. We need your
involvement and others so that we piece this thing together
differently from the way we did last year and try to solve a
lot of the problems of transparency and understanding of it up
front and early. Our hope is to do that so we can advance
Copenhagen, as well as our own efforts here in the country. We
need you to be part of that.
With respect to the future plants, a new solar power plant
in California began operating last fall. It used to operate
under old technology, but new technology has empowered it to
come back online. The solar thermal factory for the mirrors is
in Las Vegas. Over the next years--Ausra is the company that's
doing it--they're going to build two gigawatts of solar power
plants, generating 4,000 construction jobs, 1,000 operational
jobs, and clean, green power for over 300,000 American homes. I
think that's what Vice President Gore is talking about. That's
the future. Sempra Generation put together the largest thin-
film solar power plant in North America. It's located in
Nevada, and analysts estimate that it can produce power for
less than the cost of traditional electricity.
That's what's staring us in the face if we will get the
grant money and the incentive money and other efforts out
there.
You've been very patient, thank you.
Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, of course, Vice President Gore, thank you for coming
before the committee to testify, and for your longstanding
leadership on this issue. It's been incredible. And as your
testimony has made clear, climate change is a pressing issue
for the United States, for our environment and economic
stability, our energy security and independence, and ultimately
our national security. We can't afford to continue dragging our
feet on this issue. And you know of my involvement on Africa
issues and chairing the Africa Subcommittee. You've already
referred to it several times. I'm concerned that the impacts of
climate change will be the harshest on those countries least
responsible for and least able to escape its effects.
In many of these countries, rampant environmental changes
are exacerbating droughts, intensifying famine, even
contributing to conflict over scarce resources. Addressing the
capabilities of the poorest countries to adapt to the impacts
of climate change must be a central focus of the upcoming
United Nations negotiations, and I would like to actually
pursue your thoughts on some of that.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put my full statement in the
record, if I could.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
U.S. Senator From Wisconsin
Vice President Gore, thank you for coming before the committee to
testify today and for your longstanding leadership on the issue of
climate change. As your testimony has made clear, climate change is a
pressing issue for the United States--for our environmental and
economic stability; our energy security and independence; and
ultimately our national security. We cannot afford to continue dragging
our feet on global action to address this multifaceted problem. I am
confident that the Obama administration knows the importance of playing
a leadership role in the run up to Copenhagen, and, equally important,
intends to collaborate closely with our friends and allies. I have been
deeply impressed by the increasing number of Americans, including many
in my home State of Wisconsin, who are not only calling attention to
this problem in their communities and beyond, but also working to be
part of the solution.
As chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I am concerned that the
impacts of climate change will be the harshest on those countries least
responsible for and least able to escape its effects. In many of these
countries, rapid environmental changes are exacerbating droughts,
intensifying famine, and even contributing to conflict over scarce
resources. Addressing the capabilities of the poorest countries to
adapt to the impacts of climate change must be a central focus of the
upcoming United Nations negotiations and I look forward to hearing your
thoughts today on how to ensure that is the case.
Finally, I believe that we here in Congress also have an important
role to play. In conjunction with the decisions to be made in
Copenhagen at the end of the year, we must act immediately to require
mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Though climate change
presents one of the most complicated domestic and international policy
challenges of our time, it also brings with it tremendous opportunity
for a new and brighter future. This includes the potential to create
millions of new jobs, revitalize the economy both here at home and
abroad, and forge strong partnerships across the globe.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Vice President, I'd like to hear your
general thoughts on the importance of the United States
participating in international negotiations on climate change.
Specifically, what does it mean for global climate-change
efforts if the United States does not ratify a post-2012
agreement? To assist with U.S. ratification, do you think it's
necessary to establish different obligations for highly-
emitting developing countries, such as China and India, and
then the more low-emitting countries, such as those in Africa?
Vice President Gore. Well, Senator Feingold, thank you for
your kind words and for your leadership on this issue.
I guess all of us here are vulnerable to chauvinism in our
pride in the United States of America, but, that having been
said, I do think it's objectively true that our country is the
only country in the world that can really lead the global
community. Some have speculated that, sometime in the future,
if European Union actually unifies, to a much higher degree,
and has a president and an effective legislative body that has
real power, they might somehow emerge as--with potential for
global leadership. I'm not going to hold my breath. And I don't
know of any other contender that's even on the scene.
And again, I don't want to be too proud, you know, to be
just sort of chest-beating about that, but I just think that
the United States is the only nation that can lead the world.
And this is the most serious challenge the world has ever
faced. Alongside the potential for some nuclear exchange, which
is a possibility that, thankfully, has been receding over the
last couple of decades, this is the one challenge that could
completely end human civilization. And it is rushing at us with
such speed and force, it's completely unprecedented.
And as one strategic analyst in the Pentagon wrote in a
landmark study of why Pearl Harbor wasn't prevented, he said,
``We, as human beings, have a tendency to confuse the
unprecedented with the improbable.'' If something's never
happened before, we tend to think, ``Well, that's not going to
happen.''
The problem is, the exceptions can kill you, and this is
one of them. And if the world's going to respond, theUnited
States has to lead the world. And that's one of many reasons
why I'm so grateful for President Obama's bipartisan outreach
and bold leadership to say the United States has to lead on
this issue.
Senator Feingold. Meaning that we would need to ratify a
post-----
Vice President Gore. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Feingold. And what about the distinction between
highly emitting developing countries, such as China and India,
versus low-emitting countries, creating different obligations?
Is that something you think would be appropriate?
Vice President Gore. Well, you know, the binary categories
of developed and developing were established before the Treaty
of Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, at the so-called Earth Summit.
Senator Kerry and I were there, and I believe some others on
this committee were. And President Bush--President George H.W.
Bush signed that. The Senate ratified it. We are legally
obligated, under that treaty, by the way, to keep the world
below--to keep emissions below dangerous levels. And since that
time, the scientific community has fleshed out, with abundant
clarity, what that means. We are already above dangerous
levels. So, we have a legal obligation, under that treaty, to
do it. But, when those categories were established, China
wasn't what it is today.
In an ideal world, we would change those categories, and we
would not have just A and B, we would have different
categories. But, trying to get that done at the same time when
we're negotiating one of the most complex treaties the world
has ever attempted, I fear is almost certainly impossible,
because those who feel that their equities are damaged by being
transferred from one category to another are going to--are
going to fight the change, and there are enough of them that it
would be very difficult.
I think that the more effective way to do it, Senator
Feingold, is to modify the obligations that are expected of
those in category A and category B, and you can have some
gradations in those expectations to take----
Senator Feingold. As opposed----
Vice President Gore [continuing]. Into account individual--
--
Senator Feingold [continuing]. To changing the categories.
Vice President Gore. Correct.
Senator Feingold. OK.
Vice President Gore. I'd prefer to change the categories. I
just don't----
Senator Feingold. Yeah.
Vice President Gore [continuing]. Think it's doable.
Senator Feingold. Let me quickly go to another subject. I
already said a little bit about it. According to a study, by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, entitled ``Impacts,
Adaptation, Vulnerability,'' Africa is one of the most
vulnerable continents to climate change and climate
variability. And the report goes on to note that the continent
has already started to experience the impacts of climate change
in a manner disproportionate to its emission contributions. So,
looking forward to these negotiations, again, what steps need
to be taken to ensure that the needs and voices of poor,
developing nations, including those in Africa, are fairly
represented? And whole--specific role does the United States
have in helping to achieve this?
Vice President Gore. Well, I agree with comments, earlier
from Senator Lugar, that a large and adequate adaptation fund
should be a part of this treaty, to help areas like Africa that
are already beginning to experience the harshest impacts.
Thirteen countries in Africa experienced all-time record
flooding, just a year and a half ago, and some of them are
still recovering. The epicenter was Ghana. We're seeing,
really, very difficult drought conditions in many of--and
linked to these long-term climate--the rapidly-emerging climate
trends.
But, the other side of that coin, Senator Feingold, is that
the solutions to the climate crisis are, in many cases, more
easily and readily deployable in regions like African than they
are in developed countries. Just as these nations leapfrogged
the old, fixed-line telephone service and went straight to cell
service, they can leapfrog the old, central generating station
electricity and go straight to widely distributed solar and
wind. You're seeing a massive introduction of solar electric
panels in Kenya, for example, and in many other countries.
The reforestation programs, that will be a part of the
solution in Copenhagen, can provide large numbers of new jobs
for employment programs in Africa. Wangari Maathai has
demonstrated this already with her Green Belt program. So, the
solutions to the climate crisis can flip this around and
accelerate the entrance of Africa into the world economy to
lift standards of living there.
Senator Feingold. Thank you so much, Mr. Vice President.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Vice President, it's a pleasure. I
find your presentations always very informative. And I don't
think I've missed a one since you've been here. And I'm going
to take advantage of your being here now. I'd like----
Bertie, would you do me a favor? Would you make sure the
Vice President gets this?
I want to commend you on the talk about open space and
green space and reforestation. For 10 years, I have promoted a
piece of legislation called America's Open-Space Environmental
Infrastructure Act, which deals with creating conservation
easements to protect natural resources, rivers, streams, things
of that nature, open space, green space in forests, where an
individual can still have the quiet enjoyment of their land and
the government can be ensured of the protection for migratory
habitat, for carbon production, which--Mother Nature does it
best by sequestering it, and we both know that. So, I hope
you'll take it and read it. I would--and I have no pride of
authorship. You want to take it and promote it, you're welcome
to do so, because I think it is a key component in what we're
talking about here today.
Second, on the--I want to return to nuclear. Senator Corker
brought it up, and I've--you and I have engaged on this before.
A couple of things. From 2000 to 2006, the leading country in
the world in carbon reduction was France, 6 percent; the United
States, 3 percent. The primary difference, that I can see, is
that they generate almost all of their electric energy from
nuclear.
You--a couple of things you've said, I want to just talk
about for a second. One is, I had always understood--and I
stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, and you're
probably right and I'm probably wrong--but, I'd always been led
to believe that the reprocessing of nuclear fuel--spent fuels
for a second use reduced, by 90 percent, the storage problem.
Now, you said it was a greater storage problem. So, I'm not
questioning you, I'm questioning myself, but the--that's what
I've been told.
Vice President Gore. Well, that was my impression, also,
Senator Isakson, until fairly recently. And it is my
understanding that it--that the volume of waste that has to be
stored safely actually does increase with reprocessing. The
industry has even called it ``recycling,'' and it does give the
impression that it cuts down on the volume, but the information
that I believe is correct, and I--like you, I am always open to
being corrected on these things, but I believe it actually
increases the amount of waste.
Senator Isakson. I don't know if it's appropriate to ask a
Vice President to do this, but if you could ask some of your
staff----
Vice President Gore [continuing]. I----
Senator Isakson [continuing]. To research it and get that
answer to me, I'd----
Vice President Gore. If it's permitted----
Senator Isakson [continuing]. Really like to know----
The Chairman. Absolutely, we'll leave the record open.
Senator Isakson. Anytime we can get facts right, I'm
always--because I--we're--as politicians, we sometimes run off
with a bad idea.
Vice President Gore. Better than the alternative.
The Chairman. We'll get the committee staff also to----
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to above was not available when
this hearing went to press.]
Senator Isakson. Second--now, this I think I am right
about, because I went through it in the 1970s; I was in the
State legislature. The WPPSS bonds collapsed in Washington
State. They stopped building the nuclear plants. TVA had their
difficulty. But, I don't think it's a correct assumption that
they made a misassumption on the growth of demand. What, in
fact, happened was that the formation of capital, and the cost
of servicing it, went so great that the cost of the plants went
through the roof. Washington State Public Power was paying
15\3/4\ percent, tax-free, on those bonds, because that's what
happened to that marketplace at that time.
Which brings me to a suggestion. I am an advocate of
nuclear. I do not think, if you accept every dire circumstance
of climate change--and I'm not saying I don't, I'm just saying
if you accept every dire circumstance, and you take a clean,
reliable source of energy, that we know works, off the table,
or you make it so difficult to do it that you can't do it, I
don't think--I don't think you can ever get to the solution
you're seeking.
But, I will tell you this, the construction, while in
progress, is a mechanism of financing a powerplant by putting
it in the rate base and paying cash as you go for a significant
part of it, that removes the debt service interest component
from the cost of a plant and gives you are liable way to deal
with the cost of building those plants. So, one of the problems
we've had in this country, from the standpoint of nuclear,
since the 1970s, was, one, the adverse reaction to Three Mile
Island, first of all--I recognize that; second of all, was the
cost that blew through the roof in the 1970s, which you
mentioned. But--Bob is a much better businessman than I am, but
there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. And if we have the dire
circumstances we're facing, we need to find every way to skin
every cat. And I think creative mechanisms of financing and a
more open mindset, on our part, to using safe, reliable,
renewable nuclear energy makes a lot of sense.
So, I apologize for making a little speech, there.
Vice President Gore. No, no, I--I also have appreciated
your--the exchanges that we have had. And, as a prelude to
providing information for the record, one of the experts on
this reprocessing issue is Allison MacFarlane, at George Mason
University, who is one of the sources of my information, that
reprocessing increases the overall volume of the waste, but
I'll provide her study for the record, and any other relevant
information.
[The information referred to above was not available when
this hearing went to press.]
Senator Isakson. Thank you.
Vice President Gore. On your comment about what happened to
TVA in the 1970s, I think both things are true. No doubt, the
construction costs went through the roof. In the fall of 1973,
the Arab OPEC oil embargo shot energy prices up. And coal
shouldn't be tied to oil, you would think, but it is, and coal
prices went up, electricity prices went up, and so,
conservation kicked in, and the cost of construction, as you
said, went very high. But, it's also true that, when they
launched their massive program, 21 new reactors, they were
projecting a 7-percent annual increase in electricity demand,
and it fell rapidly to 1 percent per year. And it--they talked
about the decoupling. It used to be one-for-one increases in
energy use and economic output, and that was decoupled during
that period in the 1970s.
I don't take nuclear off the table. I'm not a reflexive
opponent of nuclear. I just don't see any at-risk private
dollars going into it, because they--you know, France--Arriva,
they're a big company there; it's 92-percent owned by the
French Government, and 95 percent of its output goes to the
French Government. So, again, the private at-risk dollars,
that's what is one indicator of whether the market is really
betting on this or not. If it does, fine. We need to solve
these problems. But, I just don't think it's going to play that
much of a bigger role.
Senator Isakson. Well, I appreciated the response, and I
would just--I know I don't have any more time, I'd just respond
a little bit on that.
What we--the parameters that the government allows, vis-a-
vis finance, has a lot of difference in whether private capital
will chase that type of investment or not. And the lack of
belief, right now by most private investment, that nuclear will
be sanctioned by this country in any form, or would not be
subject to a reaction, keeps those dollars from following it,
so it's in our interest, both from a financing mechanism, as
well as from the regulatory side, to develop some level of
confidence. The cost of that capital will go down, and the
formation will expand. But, again, thank you very much----
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Isakson [continuing]. For your testimony today.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Vice President Gore, it's really a pleasure to have you
here. I thank you on behalf of the people of Maryland, but more
importantly the people of the world for your extraordinary
leadership in bringing attention to this issue so that,
politically, we can get something done.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Cardin We all know there's a problem, but to get
the political will has been difficult. I think you've made
progress for us. So, we thank you for that.
The United States must exercise leadership, there's no
question about it. The bill we had last year that started to
move through committee, it accomplished a specific goal on
carbon emission reductions. Internationally, it put the United
States in the leadership role on dealing with global climate
change, and it provided the tools in order to accomplish it. I
agree with the Chairman and other comments that have been made.
We have to put together a broader coalition and we're going to
have look for modifications to last year's bill. But, I thought
it was the right message and I hope a bill at least as strong
will move through this Congress and be signed by President
Obama.
I want to mention one issue that's been mentioned; about
whether the United States can lead without other countries
joining us from the onset. What do we do about India and China?
If the United States adopts strict standards, does that put our
manufacturers at a disadvantage or put our economy at a
disadvantage?
I want to tell you up front, I believe that we should lead,
we should pass legislation, and we shouldn't make a
precondition that China or India or any other country agree to
the standards. But I do think we need to be able to have an
international regime that recognizes the responsibility of
every nation to reduce carbon emissions.
One vehicle could be the World Trade Organization, in
looking for a legitimate way to put a price on products that
enter the international marketplace that have not met
acceptable international standards on carbon reduction. Perhaps
there are other ways to achieve those goals. It seems to me
that the United States needs to exercise international
leadership beyond just the specific bills or treaties that deal
with carbon reductions in the global climate change issue, but
also making sure that the international community carries out
its responsibilities. I will welcome your thoughts as to
whether you believe this is realistic or how we should go about
making sure that other countries follow our leadership,
assuming we get the job done.
Vice President Gore. Well, Thank you, Senator Cardin, and
thank you for your leadership.
One of the differences between today and 2007, when Kyoto
was negotiated, is that there is now a widespread acceptance,
in the developing countries, that they have to have
differentiated, but binding, commitments in the first phases of
a treaty. And back 11 years ago, they were nowhere close to
being willing to join in, in the first phase. They were willing
to be brought in, in the second phase. But, now they are, and
some of them have taken leadership on their own. And I think
it'll make our task, in this country, of getting support for a
treaty much easier.
Senator Cardin. Do you think it's realistic that we could
use an organization such as the WTO to enforce obligations, if
other countries do not? Our bill last year, provided for a
trade remedy. It had a significant enough timeframe so that we
could get international action before any penalties took place.
But, it's also probably problematic right now whether that
would be permitted under the WTO.
Vice President Gore. That is correct, Senator. And one of
the most interesting frontiers in international law is the
intersection of the solution to the climate crisis and the
world trading system.
If the WTO could be modified to allow the inclusion of a
carbon-avoidance component at the border, I personally would
enthusiastically endorse that. If it cannot be negotiated as
part of the WTO, then it becomes very difficult for countries
to do it on their own.
But, I would add one other point. And Senator Kerry and I
were talking about this, this morning at breakfast. And Senator
Lugar and I were talking about soil carbon, earlier. The Doha
round broke down mainly on the issue of agriculture, and the
different viewpoints toward agriculture from developed and
developing nations. If we had soil carbon sequestered in a way
that allowed credits for soil carbon, and a modification of WTO
provisions, this could fill the gap that could restart the Doha
round and integrate the solutions to the climate crisis with
forward progress on a fair and reciprocal trading system
reform.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for those comments.
Let me just mention one additional issue. We've all talked
about making decisions based upon science. And you've mentioned
that many times, and I agree with you. The difficulty is that
there are different views on the scientific information. I
think the conclusion is pretty obvious.
I would just hope that, as we look for our legislation here
in the United States, but also international treaties, that
there be some support for uniform scientific information so
that we all are operating with the same set of facts in what
we're trying to achieve. And I would just like to get that on
the radar screen as you're our ambassador on this issue.
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you, Senator Cardin. And I
would like to associate myself with the remarks Senator Lugar
made in his opening statement about are affirmation of the
importance of science in policymaking. And I share his
commendation of Dr. Jane Lubchenco and Dr. John Holdren and Dr.
Steven Chu, all of whom have now been appointed and confirmed
to important policymaking positions and are outstanding
international leaders in science. I couldn't agree with you
more.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I'll put the rest of my comments in the
record, if that would be permitted.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
U.S. Senator From Maryland
We all know the problem: The U.S. imports over 65 percent of our
oil from foreign countries--many of them openly hostile to our country.
American consumers are literally financing extreme anti-American groups
that we fund through our oil dollars. We have a petroleum habit that
creates national and international security risks, causes long-term
energy price instability for consumers worldwide, and puts our planet
and individual health at risk.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I recognize that this is
a global problem that requires aggressive, coordinated action on the
part of the U.S. and the world community. We must develop a balanced
energy strategy so that our national security, economy, and environment
are no longer held hostage by those who might do us harm. We also must
work with all nations to break our addiction to oil and rebuild our
economy around alternative, renewable energy sources that are friendly
to our environment. The longer we wait to act, the harder these
problems will be to solve.
Scientists from around the world agree: We must address the
critical buildup of dangerous greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or
risk catastrophic results around the world. Rising sea levels could
swamp low-lying areas, displacing millions of people and causing
billions of dollars in damage to property. Weather extremes are likely
to bring extended droughts from areas ranging from central Africa to
America's Midwest. Loss of life, the rising risk of civil unrest, and
the specter of coastal communities underwater by the end of the century
are all clarion calls for immediate action.
This December world diplomats will convene in Copenhagen, Denmark,
to finalize the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). The world community will be called on to set tough greenhouse
gas reduction requirements. This global agreement will have to strike a
balance that spreads the costs and benefits fairly between developed
and developing economies. The task is daunting, but the price of
failure is unimaginably high.
For 8 years the U.S. failed to constructively engage the world
community in this unprecedented challenge. That all changed last week
with the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United
States. In his inaugural address and in statements from the White
House, our new President has made it clear that America intends to take
leadership on this critical challenge to our safety, our economy, and
our environment. Our government's actions will be guided by sound
science, not wishful thinking. And we will approach this challenge with
a renewed sense of international cooperation.
America will not try to dictate the terms of a treaty to a
skeptical world. Instead, as President Obama has promised, we will
follow the lead of our international scientific community, which forged
a powerful consensus based on facts and mutual respect. That same
respect, and a willingness to listen, learn, and compromise, will be
the hallmarks of the Obama administration's international diplomacy.
The challenge of Copenhagen is formidable, but with a healthy respect
for other nations and an abiding trust in science, this administration
is prepared to rise to that challenge.
I applaud President Obama's efforts to ensure that the U.S. is more
involved and open to legitimate negotiations. America will no longer
sit on the sidelines as the world formulates the next round of
commitments by countries to address climate change after the expiration
of the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012. Already, progress has
been made at the early working group meetings in Bali, Indonesia, and
most recently in Poznan, Poland.
I cannot overstate the need for urgent action. My home State of
Maryland already has been hit with the effects of climate change.
Global warming pollution in Maryland has increased 55 percent since
1960. According to the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, Maryland
is the 3rd most vulnerable State to flooding, and has the 5th longest
evacuation times during a tropical storm. About a third of the
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge on the Eastern Shore has been lost in the
past 70 years. Smith Island, situated in the Chesapeake Bay, has lost
30 percent of its land to rising sea levels since 1850. Finally,
Allstate Insurance Corp. has stopped writing new homeowners' policies
in coastal areas of Maryland, citing concerns about a warmer Atlantic
Ocean and the possibility of stronger and more frequent hurricanes
hitting the area.
There is some good news. I am pleased to report that international
companies like BP Solar in Frederick, Maryland, already a leading solar
energy operator, are ready to grow their businesses and they will have
the trained workforce to build, install, and operate a new generation
of electricity-generating equipment.
Maryland is in the forefront of hybrid technology development too.
In Hagerstown, Volvo and Mack truck are designing and building hybrid
truck engines for military use but with great potential for crossover
to the commercial market. And in Baltimore, Allison Transmissions is
building hybrid engines for General Motors for use in buses. The
vehicles being produced in Maryland have significantly greater fuel
efficiency and will dramatically reduce their need for oil. Many also
are being tooled to handle a wide variety of bio-fuels. In the future,
we envision fuel-efficient vehicles powered by home-grown bio-fuels.
Maryland is helping lead our Nation closer to energy independence.
The problems of global warming will manifest itself at the local
level in places like the Chesapeake Bay. And the new jobs of the future
will be found in places like Hagerstown, Maryland. But to address this
problem, we need to act on the international stage.
For the sake of our security, economy, and environment the U.S. and
vulnerable populations around the world, in Copenhagen and beyond, we
must fully engage the international community in a concerted effort to
address global climate change.
Senator Lugar. I thank the Senator.
The chairman has asked me to recognize, now, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vice President, very briefly, because we all have to go
vote----
Thank you, I did.
Mr. Vice President, you've obviously studied this and have
produced a lot of information for us today. And what does your
modeling tell us we will do, as a species, if we don't do what
you're suggesting--or, if America does what you're suggesting,
but other countries don't follow? We--you know, we've been
around a couple of hundred-thousand years, expanded over the
last 60,000 years only. What does your modeling tell you about
how long we're going to be around as a species?
Vice President Gore. Well, I don't--I don't claim the
expertise to answer a question like that, Senator, but there--
there are some distinguished scientists who have expressed
grave concern that, along with all of the catastrophes that
they've predicted over the nearer term if we don't rein in
these emissions, we could cross a point of no return, beyond
which the damage could be irretrievable and would grow worse.
Professor Jim Hansen, in his most recent paper, wrote about
the ``Venus syndrome,'' which basically means that if we set
off catastrophic warming, it could become unstoppable.
Just 2 days ago, Professor Susan Solomon, at NOAA, produced
a--an important study about how these large-scale changes could
become irreversible; indeed, some of the--not the most serious
ones, but some--have already become irreversible; the worst can
still be avoided.
Professor James Lovelock, the originator--cooriginator of
the Gaia hypothesis, has perhaps the darkest view, that human
civilization would be almost completely disrupted if we don't
deal with this challenge.
And these kinds of apocalyptic predictions can,
unfortunately, paralyze action, because people just hear that
and they think, ``Oh, well, you know, there's no hope
anymore.'' But, the scientists tell us that if we act boldly
and in the near term, we can avoid the worst consequences. And
I choose to put the emphasis on that part of it.
Senator Risch. And what--you said, ``They predict what will
happen if we do act.'' Has anybody predicted what will happen
if we don't, if we just stay on the course that we're on? Has
anybody predicted how long we're going to be around?
Vice President Gore. Well, I don't know that anybody has
predicted how long the human species would survive if we don't
act. I think the scenario that those scientists warn us about
is not for any, you know, extinction of the human species, but,
rather, of the risk of the collapse of the basis for
civilization, as we know it.
For example, a sea-level rise that produced hundreds of
millions of climate refugees would certainly destabilize
countries around the world. We've already seen what the influx
of refugees from Chad into the Darfur region of Sudan has done
in complicating the tensions and violence there. There are
other causes, but the head of the U.N. says that's one of the
principal causes. We've seen climate refugees in other parts of
the world. We have seen, also, the migration of tropical
diseases into temperate zones where we don't have the
immunities and habituation to those diseases, and grave risks
from that.
There--the number of threats that are catalogued by these
scientists is--it's a really daunting list. So, prudence alone
would dictate that we take action to avoid 'em.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vice President Gore. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
Vice President Gore, the Chair will call for a temporary
recess, pending the return of the chairman. He is voting, as
you know, and----
Vice President Gore. I'm familiar with the exercise,
Senator. Thank you. I'll be here when you all get back.
Senator Lugar [continuing]. So, we'd ask for your patience,
and that of those who are witnessing the hearing.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Thank you all very much for helping us out
with the schedule.
Senator Menendez, I think you're up.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
your leadership in this context, in using the committee's
jurisdiction to move this issue along.
And, Mr. Vice President, welcome, again.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you for your incredible leadership.
You make this crystalline for those who don't either understand
it or want to understand it.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. And I appreciate your incredible advocacy
in this respect.
As you've well noted, the situation is grim. The challenge
presents us with equally great opportunities for action. And I
believe there are three things we need to do to get past the
old rhetoric and get moving to address climate change. We've
got to work through the fears that addressing climate change
will hurt American competitiveness. We need to gather all the
stakeholders, including business, labor, and the environmental
community, and figure out the real data on how a carbon price
will impact carbon-intensive industries. And once we have that
data, we can address those impacts. And it's time to get past
the rhetoric and get to a set of numbers we can all agree on.
And there are several of us who are working on that.
Second, if costs are a key concern, let's determine what
the true costs of lowering greenhouse gas emissions are, versus
the costs of climate-change impacts from unfettered emissions.
And I think, in Great Britain, they produced that Stern review,
which stated, if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of
climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent
of global GDP each year, now and forever. I think that's pretty
dramatic.
And third, we need the President and other leaders to
prioritize climate change and raise awareness about the
inevitable effects we will all feel as the climate continues to
warm.
So, I want to join my voice to the chorus of voices that
you have brought people to in this respect, as well as the
Chair.
I have a couple of questions.
First, particularly close to my heart is the devastation
that will result from rising sea levels. In a report released
just 2 days ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration noted that even conservative estimates could
mean that, ``many coastal and island features would ultimately
become submerged.'' Mr. Vice President, ``submerged'' is a
frightening word to States, such as New Jersey, that have 127
miles of incredibly important coastline that supports very
complex ecosystems and are an integral part of so many people's
lives. It is also a great part and driver of our economy, as
well, second largest driver of New Jersey's economy, and I'm
sure many coastal States would find themselves in the same set
of circumstances.
So, no one is better at raising awareness of climate
impacts than you are, so, first of all, I have an invitation.
Will you join me, this summer, at the Jersey Shore so that, in
fact, we can see, firsthand, the challenge that we have and the
resources that would be put at risk if, in fact, we don't act,
and act quickly, on global climate change?
Vice President Gore. Well, I love the Jersey Shore----
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. I figured it was an easy one, you know.
Vice President Gore. Well, thank you for the invitation.
We'll try to work that out.
Senator Menendez. Last September you spoke, along with
fellow Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai about the
importance of including forest preservation efforts in a carbon
market. And a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists
stated that, ``If the international community invested a total
of $5 billion annually, we would reduce emissions caused by
clearing tropical forests by 20 percent in the year 2020, which
would be the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the
road.''
Do you support the idea of addressing international
deforestation and degradation through market mechanisms?
Vice President Gore. Yes. I definitely think that the
problem of deforestation should be included in the treaty
negotiated at Copenhagen, because more than 20 percent of the
world's global warming pollution each year comes from
deforestation.
It used to be extremely difficult to put that in the same
conversation with industrial emissions, but, starting in the
conference in Bali, a year ago in December, the formula was
pretty much agreed to, and I think everybody now has a high
degree of confidence that this new treaty will include this
element, and will be included in the market mechanisms.
Senator Menendez. And do you think we can create the
regulatory and enforcement capability to make such a market
work effectively?
Vice President Gore. Yes, I do. And a lot of work's been
done over the last several years, to make that possible, and I
think there's now a high degree of confidence in it.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Vice President, because of the recent
financial scandals and the economic downturn, there has been,
by some, an increasing distrust of market mechanisms. And I
understand the skepticism of some, but I also believe that
properly constructed markets, such as a cap-and-trade system,
can be a powerful tool to lower emissions in an efficient
manner.
How would you respond to those who express doubt about
creating a carbon market? And if we do create a cap-and-trade
system, is there anything wrong with taking some of the auction
revenues and using them for green energy research--making
homes, for example, more energy efficient--and training workers
for a green economy?
Vice President Gore. Well, I certainly agree with the last
part of your comment, and I think your question is a very
important and interesting one, Senator Menendez.
Capitalism itself has been under attack in the wake of the
synchronized global recession and the credit crisis that has
now gripped the global economy. But, we know, from long
experience, that capitalism unlocks a higher fraction of the
human potential than any other system. And when properly
pursued, with adequate and appropriate regulation to protect
the public interest, it is, by far, the best way to proceed.
Now, the most serious defect in the way capitalism has
addressed this climate crisis, up until now, has been what the
economic theorists call ``externalities.'' And--meaning, of
course, that the horrible consequences of dumping 70 million
tons of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere every 24
hours are not anywhere included in the market's calculation of
the costs and benefits of energy choices and economic choices.
If an individual or a business can simply dump the
pollution on others, and not have to reflect the cost of
dealing with it adequately in the economics of what they're
doing, then obviously, if that's a free way to evade the
responsibility for that cost, they're going to do it. And
CO2 has been a particular challenge, because, unlike
most other forms of pollution, it's invisible, tasteless, and
odorless, and it's evenly distributed, globally. So, the old
aphorism, ``out of sight, out of mind,'' certainly applies.
With the new recognition that this is, by far, the most
serious challenge we've ever faced, the efforts to internalize
those environmental costs so that they're not externalities is
the prime challenge to remedy the problems that capitalism has
experienced there. Rejecting a market mechanism as a part of
the solution because one is--whoever it is--skeptical about the
market, is shortsighted if it doesn't take into account the
dire problem with markets that has to be remedied by including
it.
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you very much. I agree with
you wholeheartedly. Again, I appreciate your leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I've had the privilege, in the last Congress,
of chairing our subcommittee that deals with international
environmental agreements, and any way we can complement your
work at the full committee, we're looking forward to doing
that.
The Chairman. Well----
Senator Menendez. Thank you, again.
The Chairman [continuing]. Senator, you've been a terrific
leader on it, and we obviously need your continued input and
look forward to working with you very, very closely.
Senator Shaheen. Finally. [Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for being here, and
for everything that you've done to raise awareness about the
challenges of global warming.
Vice President Gore. Thank you. I can't tell you how glad I
am to say that phrase, ``Senator Shaheen.''
Senator Shaheen. Sounds good to me, too. [Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. In 2007, people in New Hampshire--164 New
Hampshire towns--passed a resolution calling on Congress and
the President to act on climate change in ways to protect the
U.S. economy and environment. It was a very impressive showing
for New Hampshire, as I'm sure you appreciate.
And, as you have pointed out, and others have echoed here,
it's critical that the United States be a leader in the world.
And it seems essential that, if we're going to do that with the
kind of credibility that we need, that we need to act
domestically to address global warming here in the United
States. And, as you pointed out, President Obama has said that
we need to do this, and he's indicated his support for a cap-
and-trade approach.
And Senator Corker talked about a carbon tax and returning
the carbon tax to the people of the country, but--do you have
any comment--one of the proposals about a cap-and-trade
approach which would have the funds raised through the auction
go back to taxpayers in some form, through the payroll tax or
other means?
Vice President Gore. Yes. I think that it is important to
mitigate the impact of any such measure by returning revenues.
I think that, as I said in response to earlier questions, there
are many claimants for that potential pool of revenue, and the
Senate and the House will have to sort that out.
I do believe that a revenue-neutral CO2 tax is
the simplest and best way to proceed. I've proposed it for 20
years, and wasn't even attacked on it, because it was seen as
so implausible.
I think it's more plausible now. I think there is somewhat
more support for it. But, I think it's still widely recognized
as in the highest degree of political difficulty; and
therefore, there's a risk of making the best the enemy of the
better.
And I think--you know, it's not an accident that most every
climate bill that's been introduced is based on cap-and-trade.
Almost every national approach that has been undertaken is the
same, although nations like Norway and Sweden, New Zealand, and
others, have adopted a CO2 tax, part of which is
rebated. The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have also
enacted it, and others are actively considering it.
So, I don't think it should be ruled out just because it's
politically difficult, and it could be coupled with cap-and-
trade. But, in the real world of the political pressures that
this body faces today, I think it's more likely to expect that
a cap-and-trade system will be the instrument of first choice.
Senator Shaheen. Well, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What
I'm suggesting is that the revenues generated from the auction
in a cap-and-trade could--rather than all of them going to
promote other renewable alternative----
Vice President Gore. Yes.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Energy sources, to have
either all, or some percentage of them, come back to----
Vice President Gore. I agree.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Taxpayers in some way, as a
way to help make the cap-and-trade----
Vice President Gore. Absolutely.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. More palatable for those
opponents.
Vice President Gore. Absolutely. I agree with you.
Senator Shaheen. My other question has to do with
transmission. And obviously one of the things we're going to
have to do in this country if we're really going to get where
we need to go, in terms of alternative and renewable energies,
is to change our transmission system.
Vice President Gore. Right.
Senator Shaheen. And one huge issue with respect to
transmission is how the siting gets done and who has
responsibility for that. Obviously, States have tended to hold
on to that responsibility very jealously. Do you have thoughts
about whether there should be a Federal entity that takes
responsibility for transmission siting, or whether there's a
way to address the matter of each State wanting to have control
in a way that makes it so difficult to get any changes to the
transmission system done?
Vice President Gore. I believe that our country needs a
Unified National Smart Grid, with a large Federal role, not to
the complete elimination of State and regional roles. But, we
now have a Balkanized system, with three interconnected grids--
one in the East, one in the West, one in Texas--and lots of
smaller systems within each of the three.
And, you know, utility economics is to economics roughly as
quantum physics is to physics. The normal rules don't appear to
apply. And so, for example, in many regions of the country, no
matter the available of--availability of renewables or
conservation options, the utility is rewarded far greater for
the dirtiest electrons that they can possibly provide. And if,
within that system, they are given the authority to bring in
new dirty coal-fired electricity to replace some of the
renewables that are coming online, that would be a tragic
result.
So, I think we need a Unified National Smart Grid that
places a priority on renewable electricity. And the new grid
has roughly two components. One is the ability to transmit the
power over long distances, with low losses from the solar
energies of the Southwest and the wind corridor in the mountain
States, for example, to Manchester, New Hampshire, and other
places where it's burned.
Second, it has the ability to give consumers--homeowners
and business owners--a much greater, more sophisticated degree
of control over how they can eliminate the wasteful use of
energy and save money at the same time they're reducing
pollution.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thanks a lot, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Kaufman.
Senator Kaufman. Mr. Vice President, I'm very glad to see
you here.
Vice President Gore. I like that phrase, also, ``Senator
Kaufman.'' [Laughter.]
And I'm happy that we've had a chance to work together for
so many years.
Senator Kaufman. We haven't had a chance to talk recently,
but I'd just tell you how impressed I am with----
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
Senator Kaufman [continuing]. What you've been doing on
this issue.
And do you really feel the economic recovery bill is a step
forward, in terms of climate change?
Vice President Gore. I think that the House version of the
bill, H.R. 1, is an excellent bill. There are a few minor
changes, of course, that I think could usefully be made; but,
overall, I think that the President's proposal, and the House
iteration of the bill, is really outstanding.
Since you asked my opinion, I have not gotten the results
of the late-night session on the Senate Finance Committee last
night, because I was coming here to testify, but I'm very
concerned that the committee version would result in a complete
screeching halt to any construction of solar facilities or wind
facilities on a significant scale anywhere in the United
States. And that would be a perverse outcome, if that provision
wasn't changed in the middle of the night, or isn't changed on
the Senate floor, if it's still in the bill.
Second, I think that the Senate legislation, as it
currently stands coming out of committee, is--has a serious
problem, compared to the House bill, in not applying the right
conditionality to the State efficiency grants, particularly on
this issue of decoupling.
And we talked about this a little bit earlier, but, you
know, California came up with a way to give the utilities a
profit making incentive to give the right priority to
conservation and efficiency and renewable energy, and not just
sell more dirty electrons.
And the House bill, as it came out of the House Commerce
Committee and to the floor, has a terrific provision on this.
And special interests are opposed to it, naturally. And I don't
know the reasons why that has been eliminated, thus far, in the
Senate draft. But, again, I know there are many people in the
Senate who will be eager to get the right kind of provision
when that bill comes to the floor and that it comes out of the
conference committee.
Senator Kaufman. You know, you've been incredibly
articulate, both on the scientific and the economic
implications of climate change, but I also know in there lies a
very good political mind, and I'm just trying to just tap into
that for a second. Can you just talk a little bit about how we
get the votes in the Senate to make all this happen, kind of
how you put that together?
Vice President Gore. Well, I think that the road to
Copenhagen is--has three steps to it.
First of all, pass the green stimulus provisions of
President Obama's recovery plan, and book the CO2
reductions that can come from that plan.
Second, pass a cap-and-trade bill here in the Senate.
Having laid the groundwork for the CO2 reductions
that will come with the green recovery program and the Unified
National Smart Grid and the renewables and efficiency and
conservation, then the degree of difficulty in implementing a
cap-and-trade system that's intelligently designed, I think, is
far less.
And then, the third step is to go to Copenhagen, behind
President Obama's leadership, and get a treaty that's ratified
and allows the U.S. to lead the world again.
Senator Kaufman. Can you tell us a little bit about how you
build that coalition at Copenhagen, how the President should
build that coalition at Copenhagen?
Vice President Gore. Well, I think that one of the real
keys is firming up the willingness of the developing countries
to undertake, the phrase is, ``differentiated, but binding,
obligations'' in the first phase. If they were not subject to
some binding obligations in the first phase, then we would,
once again, face a political challenge here in the U.S.,
particularly when IT-empowered outsourcing creates new
competitors in the developing world. So, I think that their new
willingness to accept differentiated, but binding, obligations
is really one of the real keys to building that coalition, and
those countries ought to understand that the ability of the
United States, and therefore the world community, to deal with
this crisis expeditiously and effectively really does depend on
the willingness--well, it depends on a lot of things, but one
of them is the willingness of these developing countries to
accept differentiated, but binding, obligations in the first
phase.
Senator Kaufman. And how do you think the present recession
is affecting our ability to convince them to sign on to this.
Vice President Gore. Well, again, I believe that--you know,
the old cliche is, ``Crisis is both danger and opportunity''--I
believe this is a tremendous opportunity to put a lot of people
to work, quickly, in sustainable, high-paying jobs. And in the
developing countries, you have certain opportunities there that
don't exist here. Just as some of those countries leapfrogged
over the old fixed-line telephone service and went straight to
cell phones, some of them are going to skip over the old dirty
coal-fired generating plants and go straight to solar and wind.
And if you don't have all that existing legacy infrastructure,
the economic advantages of renewables are even more pronounced.
Also, tree-planting programs, which, along with avoided
deforestation, can result in the sequestering of a lot of
CO2 from the atmosphere; that creates a lot of jobs
in the developing countries.
And one final point. We talked, earlier in the committee,
about including, prospectively, soil carbon in the
calculations. That can't happen in Copenhagen, because the
spadework hasn't been done to do the monitoring and compliance
to a degree of reliability and satisfaction that will make it
possible to do it this December. But, we can start that process
going, just as the avoided deforestation was, in previous
meetings.
And if we can include it, then, in these poor countries
that need better agricultural techniques and more income, soil
carbon sequestration can be a very important new element,
prospectively, in getting them integrated into the global
economy.
Senator Kaufman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Kaufman.
Mr. Vice President, just picking up quickly on a couple of
those thoughts, if indeed we can leapfrog,--and I absolutely
agree with you that this is a wonderful opportunity for people
to avoid making the mistakes we made--there's been a lot of
talk about the technology transfer, technical assistance, and
adaptation and other components of this. Do you have a sense of
how much we ought to be putting on the table in order to
advance this conversation as rapidly as possible and to show
our bona fides? It was my impression that if we put multiple
billions on the table as a mark of America's commitment to
helping other countries to be able to do this in a way that
doesn't repeat our mistakes, but at the same time doesn't
handicap their economies in growth, we advance this discussion
much more rapidly.
Vice President Gore. Yeah. Well, I think we should, for a
number of reasons.
First of all, because a shared technology program and a
large adaptation fund, both are keys to gluing together a truly
global agreement.
But, second, if we can kick-start a massive global shift
from an energy infrastructure that depends on dirty and
expensive carbon-based fuels to an infrastructure that is based
on fuels that are free forever--the sun and the wind,
geothermal--then there will be so many opportunities for
business and sustainable growth and jobs creation for Americans
companies, marketing these new technologies all around the
world, everybody that's--that is making these new systems will
have all that they can handle, and more. The supply-chain
bottlenecks will be the constrains, and then there'll be
innovation to get around those.
But, just as the United States led the world in the
economic--post-World War II economic boom, we can lead the
world with our own job creation and higher living standards by
leading this transition to a low-carbon economy. And
technology-sharing and adaptation support, those are two of the
keys to kick-starting this revolution.
The Chairman. I couldn't agree with you more. And as I look
at the imperative that you so brilliantly laid out today and
that the science is telling us requires quick action, as you
measure that, the inclination is to--at least for those of us
who have hook, line, and sinker, bought into that science--say,
``Why aren't we moving more rapidly with respect to that 100-
mile zone that you've described?'' If you've got 100 square
miles----
Vice President Gore. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. And we properly developed it, we
could be completely fossil fuel free in the production of our
electricity for the United States, and then move our
automobiles more into the electric grid--
Vice President Gore. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. Where they're plugged in at
night when you're producing the same amount of electricity.
That's a revolution----
Vice President Gore. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. In and of itself, with respect
to America's national security, the environment, our global
climate change, our health, almost every obligation. So, you
say to yourself, ``Why aren't we doing that?''
Vice President Gore. Well, I think one reason is, we don't
presently have the infrastructure that makes it possible.
That's why the first order of business is the approval and
construction of this Unified National SmartGrid.
The Chairman. But the question was raised earlier about the
state restraints we have. The Obama administration has already
met its own level of frustration as they've sought to try to
accelerate the deployment of that grid, and we find, ``Oh,
gosh, you know, you can't actually get the lines in here,'' or,
``You can't do this.'' Does that require preemption? Is that
the first order of business here, to create the national
structure that facilitates the deployment of that?
Vice President Gore. Yes. I think we need a national
unified system, with a large Federal role, with preemption
being used very carefully, and in support, primarily, of the
renewable electricity options. But, yes, that's what we need.
You know, the introduction of the Internet kicked off a
huge surge of economic growth and job creation. And people talk
about the ``bubble and bust.'' Well, actually, the sustained,
long-term creation of jobs and income and economic activity as
a result of the Internet, and the software explosion that
accompanied it, and the personal computer explosion, and all of
the applications, it has been phenomenal.
Similarly, the construction of the railroads in the 1800s,
the building of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s, these national unifying infrastructure
projects were each accompanied by a wave of sustained economic
growth and higher standards of living.
The next wave will follow the building of the Unified
National Smart Grid. And yes, that, in some cases, will be the
careful and judicious use of preemption, with a careful eye
toward not having it facilitate more dirty electrons, but put a
priority on renewable electricity.
The Chairman. I agree with you. The reason I asked the
question is that it strikes me that there has to be a greater
level of urgency and focus on that central infrastructure
component----
Vice President Gore. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. From which so many other things
will evolve.
With respect to China, it also strikes me that we're
staring at a unique opportunity. And I wonder if you agree that
if the United States were to rapidly reach out to China and try
to establish a joint-venture effort on research, on some of the
technology transfer, and even on some of the technical
assistance, and ahead of Copenhagen at a bilateral level we
were to try to reach an understanding about our joint
leadership role here--we're number one and two emitters in the
world; together, about 40-plus percent, I believe, of all the
greenhouse gas emissions--and we came to that agreement, it
seems to me that would do an enormous amount to leverage what
happens towards Copenhagen.
Vice President Gore. I couldn't agree with you more. And
recent statements by Chinese leaders have made it very clear
that they are changing, and changing rapidly. Resistance, at
the regional level, has been moderating, somewhat. They do have
a somewhat different approach; instead of cap-and-trade, they
have cap-and-imprison. And I don't necessarily endorse that
approach, but it seems to be of some effectiveness in some
regions, and they are beginning to shift.
I put just one illustrative statement by one of the policy
leaders in China, saying, ``It's in China's own interest to
accept greenhouse gas emissions goals, not just in the
international interest. Unless we become one of the biggest
green contributors, we will be one of the biggest victims of
global warming.''
And, of course, President Hu and Premier Win have,
themselves, repeated made bold, and even visionary, statements
on why China has to move quickly to limit the damage from
global warming and to introduce renewable energy.
Now, implementing that, executing those policies, that's a
different story. But, I think the basis for United States-
Chinese cooperation in leading the world on this issue is
certainly there, and I endorse your idea.
The Chairman. Last question, and then I'd like to make one
observation. With respect to India and China, our mutual
friend, Vinod Khosla, has talked about the electric solution
being something that we can talk about here in the United
States, but that there's no electric solution in much of Africa
India, and China, because they just don't have it, and they're
not going to have it in the near term. So, as they bring their
combustion engines online--which they will as more and more
Chinese, Indians, and others want to drive cars--what's your
thought about how we approach the transportation sector in
those countries with respect to global-climate-change
standards?
Vice President Gore. Well, I wouldn't give up on electric
vehicles in those areas, because central--concentrated solar
thermal generating systems actually can be introduced quickly
and profitably in India, in the desert regions of the West, and
connected by their own smart grid to areas where the
electricity can be used.
In Africa--I showed the slide, earlier, of the supergrid
connecting northern Africa to Western Europe--that can also
provide electricity from the Sahel down into sub-Saharan
Africa, as well, as demand grows; a line from the heavily
insulated areas to Lagos, for example, to Nairobi. The
potential is certainly there.
Now, low-emission internal-combustion vehicles will be
introduced. But, advanced biofuels made with cellulosic ethanol
and some of the new technologies that sound like gobbledygook--
enzymatic hydrolysis--some of the new approaches that really do
offer the promise of making liquid biofuels from weedy plants
that don't compete with food in ways that recycle the CO2
through the next year's crop, absent the processing costs, that
does offer the hope for a more renewable, low-emitting advance
in transportation infrastructure in these small countries.
The Chairman. I thank you for that. It's your belief, then,
that the solar can, in fact, be deployed rapidly enough in
those countries?
Vice President Gore. I have no question about it at all.
The Chairman. I would just observe that many people in
their reluctance to believe that we can embrace these goals as
rapidly as many of us think we have to need to recognize that
the states are, on their own, way ahead of the Federal
Government. And, in fact, over half of the American economy is
already voluntarily under mandatorily-accepted reduction
schemes.
Specifically, in the Northeast you have the RGGI agreement
where they've actually promulgated regulations and are, on an
interstate basis, engaged in mutual reductions.
In the Midwest, there are ten states--Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, Ohio, and South
Dakota--together with Manitoba, Canada--who have joined
together in an effort to reduce--they still have to put out the
regulations, but the important thing is that they've agreed
this has to be done and have been able to come to an agreement.
In the West as well, you have five states--Oregon,
California, Washington, New Mexico, and Arizona.
So, more than half of the American economy has already done
what Washington, DC, and the Federal Government have been
unwilling to do, which is to say, ``We recognize this problem,
and we need to do something.''
I see you've put up a--you've come prepared for every
component of this.
Vice President Gore. The latest count--this is as of a
couple of weeks ago, and they may have added a few--but, it's
impressive that 884 cities have voluntarily adopted the central
principles of the Kyoto Protocol. And even more impressive,
what you cited, the State programs that actually start putting
this into effect. And California's been leading the way, of
course.
The Chairman. Right.
Well, Mr. Vice President, I have to tell you, in the years
I've been here, I've been to a lot of hearings, and this is--
and not because I'm chairing it--one of the most substantive
and important messages that we've received in that time. I've
heard that already from my colleagues who are here. They are
enormously appreciative of your presentation--
Vice President Gore. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. Today. This is going to be a
tough slug, but we're going to try to do it. We're going to do
everything in our power to keep the pressure on and keep the
focus on.
But we are forever grateful to you for the power of your
advocacy in this effort. We have nothing but enormous
admiration and respect and gratitude for it.
So, thank you for sharing it with us today. We look forward
to working with you in the days to come.
Vice President Gore. Well, Senator Kerry, it's been my
privilege to work as your partner for so many years on this.
And thank you, again, and thanks to the members of the
committee, for inviting me today.
The Chairman. We're delighted. Thank you.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Statement submitted by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing on a very
important issue facing our Nation and the world today. The threat of
catastrophic global warming may seem to be a second priority after
fixing our current economic crisis, but I believe that if we do not
address both simultaneously we are setting ourselves up for another
crisis in the future that will have untold consequences on the world's
economy and population. We must work aggressively to fix our immediate
problems while ensuring our long-term security and prosperity.
The solution to global warming is a puzzle with two interlocking
pieces. One is our role as part of a global solution. The other is our
domestic policy that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so that
we meet our global commitment. We made a good start last year with the
first major debate on global warming legislation. But while we continue
to work on legislation that will make mandatory reductions in our
greenhouse gas emissions, we must keep our eye on the international
aspect of this debate.
Just 11 months from now, we are scheduled to sign off on an
agreement to address global warming under the U.N. Framework Convention
of Climate Change. We have a lot of work to do between now and then to
reestablish ourselves as a world leader and back that commitment up
with the domestic policy that will achieve the greenhouse gas
reductions we need to make to fulfill our global commitment.
As it stands today, I would characterize the U.S. as being behind
the power curve when it comes to addressing global warming. We spent
much of the last 8 years thinking up reasons that we couldn't act and
excuses for ignoring our role in a global crisis. While we have made
progress, we are still at the beginning of the process of piecing
together a domestic program that will work for all of the different
regions of this country. Embracing the goal of reducing carbon
emissions by 80 percent by 2050 is easier than the actual mechanics
that will achieve the reductions. We have a lot of work to do to answer
some very tough questions. For example, I believe that we must have a
plan for coal. That is, the status quo will obviously not get us the
reductions we need when a full one-third of all of our greenhouse gases
come from generating electricity. But coal is an important domestic
resource that we cannot simply ignore for the sake of expediency.
Furthermore, the impact of the coal industry on Pennsylvania and other
States in our region is such that we cannot simply go on faith alone.
We must have a commonsense future for coal based on science and
investments in technology that will bridge the gap between today and a
carbon-controlled future.
Much of the progress we have made on global warming has been done
by the States, including the most recent petition of States like
California and Pennsylvania to be allowed to regulate automobile
emissions. The States are certainly working hard to keep up their end
of the bargain, and now it's time for us to do our work both
internationally and with a national program to slow, stop, and reverse
global warming.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted
for the Record by Members of the Committee
responses to questions submitted to former vice president
al gore by senator casey
Question. You have worked through the We Campaign to establish an
aggressive goal of repowering America with 100% renewable electricity
in 10 years. How would you propose to transition away from the large
amount of base-load coal electricity we have today? Does development of
new coal technologies fit into the plan?
Answer. In our projections, we can meet the goal either with or
without technologies that include the 100 percent capture and
sequestration of the carbon dioxide from coal. It is my hope that CCS
technology will be developed and that we will see the success of full-
scale demonstrations. That will require government help, including
putting a price on carbon, because the coal industry has no incentive
to spend the considerable sums of money that will be needed to test
this new technology. I strongly support the new initiatives to help
explore CCS so that it can become a solution to the climate crisis.
Question. Coal is also a major part of the tension that is brewing
with China. There is the famous statement now that China builds two new
coal power plants every week, although that has slowed with the
economic crisis. Do you think we should be investing in clean coal
research so that we can sell future technologies to countries like
China who have already committed themselves to a long future with coal?
Answer. Yes, I do believe that we should be investing in CCS
research, but not to the exclusion of aggressive research and
development in other areas such as advanced solar technologies,
storage/battery technologies, enhanced geothermal systems, wind, and a
unified national smart grid.
Question. I have heard concerns that the current economic crisis
and lack of ready credit will make it harder to invest in the
technologies that we need to put on-the-ground in order to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and repower the country. Do you think these
concerns are warranted? Do you have recommendations for actions we can
take that will allow us to remain aggressive in pursuit of our goals in
the midst of this economic downturn?
Answer. I believe that the President and his team of advisers took
some very important steps in the stimulus package to help unfreeze the
credit markets, and I supported those actions. I believe that we must
continue to monitor these markets closely to ensure that they function
properly and take corrective measures quickly if they do not. In
addition to the credit crisis, the recession is also an ongoing threat
to the economy and one of the best ways to address it is the
development of green jobs and the building of green infrastructure.
Question. There is cautious optimism about the potential for green
jobs to revive America's manufacturing economy. My main concern is that
we need to train workers so that we are transitioning the workforce as
we are transitioning the economy. Have you developed any
recommendations on ways we can provide a safety net to workers, while
retraining them for new green jobs? Has there been any analysis on the
net effect of a fossil fuel-free policy on jobs lost in sectors like
the coal industry versus the jobs gained in alternative energy?
Answer. I believe that most of the robust analysis in this area has
focused either upon green jobs over the past decade or upon the near-
term effects of President Obama's policies. I have seen studies from
the NGO community and elsewhere that have attempted to both define
``green jobs'' and look at the gross and net effects of job growth. If
you would like for us to compile some of those for you, please do not
hesitate to ask and my staff will get back to you.
Question. What about our exporting domestic coal resources to
growing economies like China and India? Should the U.S. adopt a ``coal
free'' approach when our coal no longer has a market in the U.S.?This
is an interesting question. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent
greenhouse gas, is a threat no matter where it is emitted because its
heat-trapping potential is the same regardless of its point of origin.
This is why it is so important that if it is to be used, the
CO2 must be safely captured and stored. This is as true in
the U.S. as it is in China.
Question. From a broader economic security perspective, what are
your thoughts on the criticism that a fossil fuel-free energy policy in
the U.S. makes us anti-competitive on the global market, when China and
India are projected to increase their reliance on low-cost coal power
generation?
Answer. I believe that the world's 21st century economy will be
dominated by the nations that will transition as quickly as possible to
renewable sources of energy. The nation that develops and
commercializes these technologies first will have a lasting advantage
in the new economy.
Question. Do you think there is a role for carbon capture and
storage technologies in allowing the U.S. to continue to use vast
domestic coal resources while addressing climate change?
Answer. I do, although the coal industry would have us believe that
large-scale applications for CCS are just around the corner. However,
top experts have indicated that it could be 15-20 years before it is in
widespread use, and that difficult questions must still be answered
before that can happen. This information tells me that CCS is not a
silver bullet and that we must take steps now to ensure that a range of
renewable energy solutions are in place.
Question. Have you consulted Parties to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change on your recommendations for a post-Kyoto accord?
Answer. I have and I would be happy to brief you about my
conversations at your convenience.
__________
responses to questions submitted to former vice president
al gore by senator corker
Question. Mr. Vice President, during Wednesday's hearing we agreed
that if a carbon tax were implemented, 100% of the revenues should be
returned to the American people. When we talked about how to spend the
revenue under a cap-and-trade system, you said that some of the revenue
could go for adaptation and some for research and technology. Would you
support 100% of cap-and-trade revenue being returned to consumers? If
not, what percentage should be returned and what percentage would you
dedicate each for adaptation and for R&D?
Answer. The House of Representatives has completed its work on a
comprehensive piece of climate legislation that includes energy
efficiency measures, a renewable energy standard, and cap-and-trade
provisions. Some of the permits will be auctioned. With regards to how
such proceeds might be allocated in legislation, I believe that we must
protect against a regressive program that disproportionately affects
the poor. We also must evaluate the bill's impact on the budget and on
household energy prices. To date, I believe that the leadership of the
House of Representatives has tried to take these principles into
account.
__________
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT
AL GORE BY SENATOR DEMINT
Question. Because the availability of renewable energy sources--
especially wind, solar, and geothermal energy are heavily dependent on
certain regions of the United States, a major concern is the ability to
transmit energy from parts of the country with high resource potential
to parts of the country where the demand actually exists.
Do you support federal preemption of state and local laws when
determining the rights of way necessary to build the transmission grid?
Answer. I support the development of a more integrated, unified,
national smart grid that will allow us to better transmit electricity
across the country with low losses. Right now, we have three separate
systems that cannot communicate or interconnect effectively with one
another. In developing a national smart grid, the Congress should
consider the best ways to resolve conflicts between national and state
authorities in granting rights of way for new transmission lines to
relieve congestion and enhance our national security from potentially
crippling blackouts.
Question. You have advocated renewable energies as a solution to
reducing dependence on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emission.
First, is it not true that because of the unpredictable nature of
renewable energy--renewable utility companies still rely on fossil
fuels to provide backup energy generation?
Answer. During the transition, we will rely on a mix of renewable
and fossil fuels. However, geothermal power is baseload energy and wind
and solar complement one another in that when one is not available the
other generally is. New energy storage with concentrating solar thermal
will also help address the backup issue.
Question. Currently in the U.S. energy portfolio, coal is among the
cheapest forms of energy followed by nuclear and then the more
expensive natural gas. If the U.S. were to adopt all of your proposed
subsidies for renewable energy, won't the utilities first replace their
most expensive energy source--natural gas--and continue to rely on
cheaper forms of energy such as coal?
Answer. Coal remains inexpensive in part because its true costs are
not calculated--for example--the clean up costs for the massive spill
of coal ash in my home state of Tennessee is not calculated in the
statistics you are citing. Even with those costs excluded, wind power
is cost competitive with coal.
Question. Do you believe at a time of deep recession and job losses
we should be increasing taxpayers' energy bills and the cost of doing
business or should we keep the cost of electricity lower so companies
can afford to keep or hire more workers?
Answer. Fortunately, this is a false choice. A well-constructed,
comprehensive climate and energy bill will include provisions for
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and cap and trade that I believe
will not have the impacts that you describe.
Question. According to the Nashville Electric Service, your home in
Nashville Tennessee consumes more energy in a single month than the
average American household uses in an entire year. In your documentary,
you call on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity
consumption at home.
Answer. Those figures are inaccurate and/or outdated. I live in a
Gold LEED certified home that uses geothermal power, solar power and
Energy Star appliances. I also purchase electricity from the green
power program offered by my electricity supplier--which comes from non-
CO2 producing sources.
Question. You have asked Americans to sacrifice; yet you have been
unwilling to make sacrifices yourself. In addition, just using your
travel schedule last year your carbon footprint was more than 1500 tons
of CO2--roughly the equivalent of driving a Hummer H3 9
million miles.
Answer. Those figures are inaccurate.
Question. How much did you spend in carbon offsets last year? Do
you still purchase carbon offsets through Generation Investment
Management? Are you still Chairman of the Generation Investment
Management?
Answer. I am the chairman of Generation Investment Management. My
family and I offset our emissions through my personal office.
Generation Investment Management operates as a carbon neutral company
and manages its own programs. We do not release the cost of
administering these programs.
Question. In your testimony you stated that ``as long as we
continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil--year
after year--to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world,
our national security will continue to be at risk.''
While American families curbed their consumption of foreign oil
last year, your personal air travel sent over $500,000 to those
countries. If the United States were to build more nuclear plants and,
through the Fischer-Tropsch process, use our domestic coal resources we
could end this dependence you believe is so dangerous. Do you support
this strategy?
Answer. This is simply inaccurate. I drive a hybrid vehicle and
actively conserve energy in a variety of ways, see above. Additionally,
I fly commercially the vast majority of time.
With regards to nuclear power, as I testified, I am not reflexively
opposed to nuclear power. I believe that my testimony fully explained
my views.
Question. Thirty years ago, U.S. politicians enacted policies that
ended the growth of the American nuclear energy industry. As a result,
we haven't seen a new construction license issued since the late 1970's
and energy companies switched from pursuing clean non-polluting nuclear
energy and were forced to rely more and more on coal. Now, politicians
condemn the energy industry for pursuing a path they were forced to
follow.
Europe on the other hand has embraced nuclear energy. Today,
Europeans have almost twice as many nuclear reactors than the United
States and have used nuclear energy to help reduce their dependence on
coal by more than 30 percent, while the U.S. increased our use of coal
by more than 60 percent.
While the United States abandoned already built facilities to
recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved
it, and control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries
are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their
pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements.
Do you support increasing the use of nuclear energy as a way to
create base load energy generation in the United States?
Answer. I addressed this in my testimony. Again, I believe that
nuclear power is not likely to be a large part of the solution here in
the U.S. or around the world, but I do not oppose efforts to explore
its use.
Question. Next to labor costs, energy is the biggest cost of doing
business. In a global market place the United States currently enjoys a
considerable competitive advantage when it comes to the cost and supply
of energy vis-a-vis other nations.
A carbon tax would raise American energy prices on taxpayers and
businesses to a level more commensurate with European energy prices and
undermine one of America's strongest advantages. Do you support
policies that would raise the cost of doing business in America--
especially at a time when businesses are laying workers off?
Answer. I have supported a carbon tax that is completely rebated to
the American people--so there would be no increase in the costs to
Americans, so I respectfully disagree with the premise of your
question. I also support the ACES Act that just passed the U.S. House
of Representatives.
Question. You said on July 17, 2008: ``The leading experts predict
that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global
warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this
environmental crisis.''
You have been warning of a 10 year tipping point for several years
now, but are you aware that the United Nations started a 10-year
tipping point countdown--in 1989? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the
then-director of the New York office of the United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a ``10-year window
of opportunity to solve'' global warming. According tot he 1989
article, ``A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations
could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the
global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding
and crop failures would create an exodus of `eco-refugees,' threatening
political chaos.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. I am citing research from Dr. James Hansen of NASA-GISS.
Question. Given that the first 10-year tipping point warning was
issued 20 years ago, should the public really be concerned about so-
called ``tipping points?''
Answer. Yes, I do, and I would particularly refer them to some new
research that has updated the latest findings from the IPCC--
particularly related to the state of the arctic ice cap, the Greenland
ice sheet, and new studies related to the impacts of climate change on
precipitation
Question. If we should be worried about ``tipping points,'' what
should we use as the starting date?
Answer. I believe that you should consult Dr. Hansen.
Question. In the past month or two there have been several new
research findings that suggest the recent speed-up of many of
Greenland's outlet glaciers is temporary and is now slowing. In making
your projections of rapid sea level rise in the coming century, you
rely on a large contribution from Greenland. Yet these new papers
greatly play down that possibility. In this week's Science magazine,
science writer Richard Kerr sums up the current state-of-knowledge
about Greenland in an article titled ``Galloping Glaciers of Greenland
Have Reined Themselves In'':
Things were looking bad around southeast Greenland a few
years ago. There, the streams of ice flowing from the great ice
sheet into the sea had begun speeding up in the late 1990s.
Then, two of the biggest Greenland outlet glaciers really took
off, and losses from the ice to the sea eventually doubled.
Some climatologists speculated that global warming might have
pushed Greenland past a tipping point into a scary new regime
of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea
level.
The article continues:
So much for Greenland ice's Armageddon. ``It has come to an
end,'' glaciologist Tavi Murray of Swansea University in the
United Kingdom said . . . ``There seems to have been a
synchronous switch-off'' of the speed-up. Nearly everywhere
around southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned
to the levels of 2000 . . . no one should be extrapolating the
ice's recent wild behavior into the future.
Have the opinions of scientists like Tavi Murray and colleagues--
scientists directly working on gaining a better understanding into the
processes of glacial behavior in Greenland--tempered your beliefs about
the amount of sea level rise that we should expect this century? If
not, how is it that you have come to arrive at different conclusions
that those from the scientists directly engaged in studying this
specific issue? \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ References:
-- Joughin, I., et al., 2008. Seasonal speedup along the western
flank of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science, 320, 781-783.
-- Kerr, R. A., 2009. Galloping glaciers of Greenland have reined
themselves in. Science, 323, 458.
-- Murray, T., et al., 2008. Has dynamic thinning switched off in
southeast Greenland? Presentation to the Fall 2008 meeting of the
American Geophysical Union, C32B-08.
-- Nick, F. M., et al., 2009. Large-scale changes in Greenland
outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus. Nature Geoscience,
DOI:10.1038, published on-line January 11, 2009.
-- van de Wal, R. S. W., et al., 2008. Large and rapid melt-induced
velocity changes in the ablation zone of the Greenland ice sheet.
Science, 321, 111-113.
Answer. I would refer you to two major papers: ``The risks of
climate change: A synthesis of new scientific knowledge since the
finalization of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),'' 15 December
2008; and ``Assessing Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the
IPCC `Reasons for Concern' Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,'' February 23, 2009.
I think you'll find them both very helpful on this and other
questions.
Question. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December
details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-
made global warming fears\3\ promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of
the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former
believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in
recent years. (i.e. French scientist Claude Allegre, Israeli
astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, UK scientist David Bellamy)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore--id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-
6e2d71db52d9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the outpouring of scientists declaring themselves skeptical
of man-made warming fears, do you expect the American public to believe
that there is ``no debate'' on this matter?
Answer. I disagree with your characterization of the U.S. Senate
Minority report. All of the top scientific research agencies in the
world, including the National Academy of Sciences, acknowledge that
global warming is real and it is caused by human activities.
Question. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed
the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in
August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical
of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found
that skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with about two
thirds of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive
of, the UN IPCC. In addition, a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian
scientists revealed 68 percent disagree that global warming science is
``settled.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord--id=865 DBE39-802A-
23AD-4949-EE9098538277
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't the fact that prominent scientists at this meeting were
publicly voicing dissent evidence that the claim that the ``debate is
over'' rhetoric may not be an accurate description?
Answer. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
National Academy of Sciences in over 20 countries have long ago
determined that global warming is real and caused by humans. There is
no debate on these points. Scientists are certainly working to
understand complex issues such as how global warming effects certain
regional and local phenomena, but the basics are settled.
Question. Further, a November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted
that a ``growing accumulation'' of science is challenging warming
fears, and added that the ``science behind global warming may still be
too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.'' In addition, Russian
scientists ``rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be
responsible for global warming,'' \5\ an American Physical Society
editor conceded that a ``considerable presence'' of scientific skeptics
exists,\6\ an International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC,
declaring: ``Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,'' \7\ India
issued a report challenging global warming fears,\8\ and International
Scientists demanded the UN IPCC ``be called to account and cease its
deceptive practices.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm
\6\ http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/
heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either
\7\ http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf
\8\ http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord--id=09DF614E-802A-
23AD-46C9-8A90FCB5569A
\9\ http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-
moon.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe the above developments are the key reasons that the
U.S. public has grown so skeptical of man-made climate doom
predictions? \10\ \11\ And if not, despite all the efforts including
your own film, what do you believe accounts for why the American people
do not rate this as an issue of high importance to them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
\11\ http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/
2009/01/20/lawrence-solomon-obama-s-america-a-denier-nation.aspx
Answer. I do not believe that the U.S. public is skeptical and, in
fact, I believe that the emerging consensus for action on Capitol Hill
is a reflection that the country is prepared to grapple with this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
serious problem.
Question. While you testified that the 10 hottest years on record
have occurred within the last couple decades. NASA's James Hansen has
noted that ``the U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the
warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S.
the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.''
If global warming is an imminent crisis, why do NASA satellite
instruments show global temperatures have been falling for most of the
past decade?
Answer. NASA instruments show a solid warming trend for the past 30
years. I would urge you to receive a briefing from scientists from
either NASA GISS or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). I feel confident that they will be able to
ensure that you have absolute clarity about the data.
Question. Why are we to believe we are in some sort of global
warming crisis when scientists report global temperatures for most of
the past 10,000 years have been significantly higher than current
temperatures?
Answer. The global warming pollution we emit, 70 million tons a
day, is threatening to cause carbon dioxide concentrations to rise to
levels higher than at any time since humans have existed on the earth.
The resulting temperature changes are projected to cause huge changes
in the earth's climate that will alter the relative climatic stability
that has enabled us to develop civilization as we know it.
Question. If you are confident in your global warming information
and predictions, are you willing to publicly debate this issue with
people from the scientific community that are just as passionate as
you? Perhaps a few of the scientists who will be presenting material at
the March 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York
City?
Answer. It is time for us to acknowledge the reality of the climate
crisis and shift the debate to how we can solve it.