Hearing of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The attention focused on the issue of climate change has clearly reached a new level. We are no longer questioning whether we should act, but rather how and when we will act. And as participants in the U.N. climate change conference arrived in Bali, the answers were clear. We must act now with firm, bold and decisive actions that push the envelope and provide us with a roadmap for repairing the damage we have done to our planet.

I'm continuously struck by the efforts to combat climate change in our country, whether through environmental advocacy, private sector initiatives, or local, state and regional agreements. These programs demonstrate America's commitment and drive to be stewards of our environment.

But I often wonder, is the rest of the world aware of most of these efforts? Do they know that there's a movement here in America to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase our energy efficiency, and protect our planet for generations to come?

Unfortunately, I believe too often what the international community hears is how our administration has done everything in its power to stifle the debate on climate change through sidelining science, editing government reports out of EPA or NASA, or refusing to back firm goals for reducing emissions. It is clear that not only do we lack a strong national strategy for addressing climate change, but also that we're missing the leadership that is committed to set one in place.

And herein lies the problem with the agreement reached in Bali. Our Administration sent representatives poised as our nation's voice to lead the talks in Bali. And rather than uniting around a policy that reflects the views of Americans, one that demonstrates a finite commitment to addressing climate change, the agreement reached shows how our leaders can water down, avoid and delay our actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The perception of the United States through the eyes of our international friends has taken a hit. Criticism has been widespread, and the calls for true leadership from our country have been loud and clear. As one participant put it during the debate, the international community looks to us for leadership, but if we're not going to do so, we must move out of the way.

Mr. Chairman, the climate in Bali and the rest of the world may be changing for the better, but the forecast here in Washington for the next year appears to be politics as usual. Our Administration had the opportunity to catch the momentum and bring our nation up to speed. And I just hope that by the time the temperatures change it won't be too late for us to take action.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also. Mr. Chairman, my questions, I think, follow in an interesting way, although I ask them from a different perspective. You were talking about some of the crux of the battles that were being fought and negotiations that were occurring in Bali. And many had an interest in seeing more specific targets and specific goals rather than a more generalized roadmap, and especially in light of the urgency that many people view this situation globally and here in the United States; and with the sort of foundation for a lot of the discussions being the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and their cited recommendations to -- that we need to cut emissions by reaching specific targets of 25 percent to 40 percent for developed nations by 2020, and the credibility of that report with over 600 participating scientists around the world.

So, the European Union obviously came to Bali, other government delegations came to Bali wanting to officially recognize these findings. And yet, the United States opposed having that specific scientific data as a part of the agreement coming out of Bali. And in fact, you have to dig really hard. There's a footnote and that footnote references the IPCC document, in order to even find the reference that I just made of those strong and urgent recommendations.

I'm wondering if the administration's decision to really obscure these IPCC findings and specific targets and goals, if that decision was based on other scientific data or whether it was a non- scientific negotiating position? And then I want to probe a little further of when do we get to the specifics and the targets, whether it's through the Honolulu discussions or the ones in December of 2008? But please first tell me if this was a scientific driven negotiating position or other considerations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BALDWIN: I read their bargaining position is a little -- I mean just -- recognizing the urgent need to reduce emissions between 25 and 40 percent for developed nations by 2020 doesn't commit to one of those 176 particular paths. It is basically one of the headlines from that particular report. But let's move on. You are about to convene -- I think it's next month, you said, in Honolulu?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BALDWIN: Two weeks. The largest emitters will gather there. What are the specific goals for that conference? Will we see any targets, specific targets, specific goals for emissions reductions emerging from that particular conference?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source