Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Holds Hearing on Global Warming

WYDEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to congratulate you for choosing this as the topic for our first session.
And also our colleague, Senator Lieberman, your bipartisan approach is exactly the way to attack this issue.
It seems to me, by any calculus, the United States is now 25 percent of the global climate change problem and is zero percent of the solution. And the fact is, the rest of the world is now moving forward without America.
Our government persists in saying that it's just not possible to do anything more than research. And I think this is a fundamental mistake.

The fact of the matter is, there is clear evidence, with respect to what is causing the problem. And we know that there are concrete actions that can be taken to reduce the problem.

And yet, it seems to me, the United States is, in effect, saying to more than 175 other countries that what they're doing is basically wrong. And somehow, when all this research is completed, we're going to convince them of the fact and they're going to change their minds.

I think that's a mistake. I think we ought to be moving forward. I see my colleague, Senator Brownback, here. He and I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Craig, that is bipartisan. Most recently, the FREE legislation, the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy, would let us move forward with carbon sequestration programs.
We know, for example, that carbon sequestration programs can make a genuine difference with respect to reducing the greenhouse gas problem. But yet, we cannot get support from the administration to move beyond research.I support research. But it is critically important that we act. And the administration's inaction is hobbling our economy. And it is stealing growth opportunities from U.S. companies.

It is robbing U.S. energy production companies of the certainty that they need when they consider whether and how to make capital investments in their plants. And the administration's inaction is robbing U.S. farmers and forest owners of economic opportunities, opportunities that exist today.

And finally, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a huge opportunity to help our technology sector at a time when it is hurting. Our companies are in a position to make significant investments and create a significant number of new jobs in technologies that can reduce the global climate change problem.

And I'm particularly pleased that what you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Lieberman have sought to do—and I congratulate my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, have done—is force some action. It is time to get beyond the research, which is certainly helpful, and translate that work into specific and concrete actions that we know, that the scientists tell us, can make a difference.
Thank you.

WYDEN:
Thank you. Excellent panel.
Mr. Cogen, your presence in central Oregon is much appreciated. I know that there has been an interest in our part of the country.

I think the first question I want to ask is about carbon sequestration. I mean, you fly over my part of the world. And you see these beautiful forests. The same is true of a lot of committee members here today. Beautiful forests, farmland that all is in a position to absorb carbon.

It seems to me carbon sequestration is an ideal example of an area where clearly this country can move beyond research. You can talk about a variety of other considerations. But to me, carbon sequestration is now low-hanging fruit.
This is something we can do. We can do it in central Oregon. We can do it across this country in areas where there are forests and where there are farms.

Response to that? We can't get the administration to move in a serious way even on carbon sequestration, where there is bipartisan support in the United States Senate, where you have all across the country grass roots groups of industry people, environmental people and others. What plausible reason would there be for not moving ahead aggressively here.
Perhaps Ms. Claussen and Mr. Krupp, you would have a response to that.

CLAUSSEN:
I'm sorry, I'm going to say it again. I don't understand it either.

There is no question there are things you can do to sequester carbon in trees and soils. There is no question that that's a benefit for everyone. It's a benefit for the climate. It's a benefit for biodiversity.

It's not a big cost item. Why we can't really get moving in a serious way on that, I really—I'm sorry. I really don't understand it.

WYDEN:
In Oregon State University, they found that forestry alone might be up to a quarter of the solution to the global warming problem. Just forestry, in a way that again brings people together.
Mr. Krupp, do you have a response to this?

KRUPP:
Emissions from deforestation are comparable to the emissions globally of the United States. So it's clear that forestry practices right now are part of the problem and therefore clear that they can be part of the solution.

But I'm glad you asked, Senator Wyden, because I have brought with me a poster of Koto Lumber (ph) in Oregon.

WYDEN:
I didn't want you to go home without having a chance to show it off. We appreciate your being involved in central Oregon.
(LAUGHTER)

KRUPP:
Thank you.
The benefits of such a project—here, this forest has been high graded. The big, healthy trees have all been taken out, leaving the diseased, spindly ones. The company has offered to replant the area with native trees and do so in a way that would lease out the sequestered carbon for 20 years, would not only give us a carbon sequestration benefit, but would restore the riparian ecosystem, would benefit the habitat for endangered salmon species. There would be win-win-wins.

And these are projects that we are involved in, others in Oregon. There are many examples of very good projects in this area that just have all sorts of benefits.

I can't tell you, I can't divine the reasons either for not going forward with this sort of thing. I can tell you that one of the real positives about the legislation, the breakthrough legislation that Senators McCain and Lieberman have introduced, is that in this Climate Stewardship Act, they have said that this should be one of the range of options available to businesses that are given a reduction burden.

And boy, if we could get a system going that financed projects like this and lowered the cost of reducing emissions, I think that's the quickest way to meet our obligation to the global environment.

WYDEN:
I had a town meeting in Prineville just last weekend in central Oregon and they were raving. In fact, timber industry leaders were raving about EDF and your efforts to reach out and bring people together. And what you just described is essentially the legislation I've had, with Senator Craig and Senator Brownback, for several sessions.

And of course, it could be utilized under the McCain-Lieberman legislation through the combination of offsets and banking and the principles in the legislation.

KRUPP:
Yes, I'm aware of your leadership in that area, Senator Wyden. I think that has been a very important initiative to get this subject on the table.

WYDEN:
Question for any of you. I think you heard me talking about the Framework Convention in 1992 and particularly the requirements there. We look back over the last decade. And clearly, there was a commitment long before Kyoto to stabilize greenhouse gases.

And I've quoted this, "at a level that would preference dangerous interference with the climate system." And yet, we've had testimony here saying we're going to face a 43 percent increase between 2000 and 2020.

My question to you is: I don't see any strategy to plausibly attain what was set out in 1992 on a voluntary basis. I just don't see it. I don't see how you're going to get there on a voluntary basis to achieve what was set out in 1992.
Now I want to give you all a chance to respond to that. But that's essentially why I raised it. It is one thing to talk about Kyoto. It's one thing to talk about various steps forward.

But it's quite another to talk about how it was in effect, under President Bush then, the current president's father, we set out a commitment and we're still not even in the ballpark of being able to achieve it voluntarily. And I would like your assessment as to whether there is a chance to achieve what was set out in 1992 on a voluntary basis.
Any of you?

CLAUSSEN:
I could start. The fact is, there have been voluntary programs in effect throughout the 1990s. I don't know if I should be proud of it or ashamed of it. But I actually was responsible for many of them when I was at EPA a long time ago, for those voluntary programs.

And I think they did achieve some reductions. But are they of the magnitude that you need to really address this problem? I think they are not.

And the same is true for the excellent work that has been done by many in the private sector to set their own objectives and to put programs in place to meet them. I mean, some of those are truly terrific. Many of them are much more stringent than the U.S. Kyoto target. And those companies will meet them.

But the reality is, until you get everyone moving in the right direction at a reasonable speed, I think the chances of meeting the goals of the convention are almost nil. So that is why we believe you need some kind of a mandatory system.

WYDEN:
Mr. Cogen, Mr. Krupp, Mr. Overbey? Any of you want to add to that?

COGEN:
No, I think she said it very well.

KRUPP:
I would say, Senator Wyden, that your analysis is accurate. There is no way we are going to get there with a voluntary system. There is no way we are going to meet what that framework convention said that was signed on to by former President Bush. There is no way we are going to do what the world needs on a voluntary system.

The voluntary efforts so far have been commendable. We encourage them. But it's not realistic to expect that it's going to be enough for the climate.

In fact, we heard just a while ago the testimony of Dr. Mahoney, who basically repeated the administration's own projections, that even under their enhanced—so-called enhanced—voluntary program, they are not projecting reductions that would meet the framework that the United States has already signed up for. They are projecting, according to our own analysis, little more than essentially the equivalent to business as usual, what would have happened anyway in terms of emissions reductions, nowhere near adequate. In fact, they amount to emissions increases.

WYDEN:
Mr. Overbey?

OVERBEY:
I had mentioned that in our primary aluminum processes, we have found—and I want to expand on that briefly—we have found technology improvements that reduce our cost, make our process more efficient and reduce emissions. And so that's a wonderful win-win for our business and for the environment. And it's attacking those kinds of things, through technology and through energy efficiency work, that we have found add real value and impact these emissions.

Whether those kinds of process changes and technology changes are available to other processes and other companies, we really don't know that. But we think progress like we have demonstrated here can be made. And as we have said in our testimony, we think some kind of framework will assist the progress though.

WYDEN:
Well, all of you have been excellent. And we have been at it over a couple of hours. But I think what has been very useful about having all of you wrap up is that I think we can use what you have said today to force the administration and force our government to abandon this position of denial.

I mean, if you really think about it, what they are constantly saying is that we just can't get any further than research. We deny, in effect, all of what you all have said, that you can have these positive programs.

I mean, my state, shoot, we put CO2 limits on new power plants. Western civilization is not going to end as a result of some of these innovative approaches that the four of you have talked about and are being practiced in various states and various communities around the country.

And the reason that I asked that last question about the commitment we made in 1992 is I don't see how we're going to achieve what we set out as a goal a decade ago unless we move and move aggressively on the kinds of ideas that you're talking about here today.

And Mr. Krupp, if you can make them work in Prineville, Oregon, I think we can build on that around the country.
Chairman McCain and Senator Lieberman have an excellent approach that I think has considerable merit. There are going to be other bills as well.

I have a chance to wear multiple hats because I sit on this committee and I also sit on the Environmental Committee. So you can count on my being in touch with all of you in the days ahead as we try to build a bipartisan support and end the denial about the possibilities of moving forward in a bold way.

Unless any of you have anything to add further, we'll excuse you at this time.

The committee is adjourned.