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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Welcome, Mr. Connaughton. I think that 2008 is the year for us to take bold action to deal with this urgent problem of global warming. I think we should build on the energy bill's success and this year pass a mandatory cap and auction and trade bill that reduces greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050. And we should do that here domestically.

Internationally, I think we have to move from aspirational goals, which can turn into procrastinational goals, and reach an agreement internationally using the best science in order to ensure that there are global targets that are going to be met by countries around the world, led by the United States. My first question to you, Mr. Connaughton, is do CO2 emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: CO2 emissions contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and there's a lot of studies about the positive and negative consequences of that. And I would not want to get into particular conclusions because when you read the IPCC reports you have manifold conclusions. So I'd just defer to the scientists on that.

REP. MARKEY: So you haven't reached a conclusion yet as to whether or not CO2 is a danger to the public health and welfare?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: In its -- with the exception of very high localized concentrations, in terms of its present effects on health and the environment -- we are see observed effects when it comes to sea ice melt. We're seeing -- you can then attribute to the extent that sea ice is on land that contributes to sea level rise. And then right now, it's accelerating the rise --

REP. MARKEY: Is that a danger to the public health and welfare?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: There's a lot of studies doing forward projections as to whether and the extent to which that could be. And again, there's a wide body of literature on that.

REP. MARKEY: So your administration has spent billions of dollars trying to get an answer to that question.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: That's correct.

REP. MARKEY: And it's touted to be aiming towards a conclusion, and it just seems to me since the other industrialized countries in the world have all reached a conclusion that CO2 is a danger to public health and welfare, that it would help if this administration reached that conclusion, because that would then make it easier for us to reach the decisions as to what we should do about it. When can we expect a decision from the Bush administration on the question of whether or not CO2 is a danger to the public health and welfare?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: You're speaking specifically, I think, to the Clean Air Act determination that was remanded by the Supreme Court to the EPA. I mean, that's in the hands of the EPA administrator. He is in the process of developing both the rules to implement the recent energy bill and taking a look at the process by which we'll be making that determination one way or the other. I don't actually know his calendar.

REP. MARKEY: The EPA was tasked in the Supreme Court decision in April of 2007 to make that decision. And it's a decision that's made separate from the energy bill. It's a specific question because obviously once the EPA makes that decision, once the Bush administration makes that decision, it not only triggers action on cars but also on stationary sources: on factories, on utilities.

So it's important to know when the Bush administration will be making that decision. And the longer we wait on that decision is the longer it then takes to begin to put in place the solutions to that set of problems that are identified. Can you give us any idea as to when those decisions will be made?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Again, specifically on the endangerment finding, I can't yet because we are now going back -- that was one of the issues that came up in the context of the development of the regulatory package we were working on, not, you know, as an alternative to Congressional passage of the bill last year. And so we didn't, you know -- the president was dedicated to getting these policies through and we were delighted the Congress was able to act so quickly. And so now as a result we have to take on board what we just got from the energy bill and then put that in the context then of what we were working on with the original rulemaking.

REP. MARKEY: I do understand that.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: It's proven to be an interesting place for lawyers and scientists to engage and I wish I could tell you specifically but I really don't know when that will be made.

REP. MARKEY: It's a separate question, though. And finally, the Treasury Department recently announced its intention to establish a multi-million dollar, multi-lateral fund for transfer of clean technology to developing countries. Why, given that initiative, did the United States simultaneously oppose strengthening international technology transfer mechanisms in the UN negotiations in Bali?

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Those are two different issues. The fund that we're working on and we hope to provide you the details on soon -- at least our thinking -- we have to get other countries to subscribe to, you know, and reach agreement on that, is aimed at getting the best of today's technologies out into the marketplace, you know, at a much greater scale. The technology transfer discussion, those are two interesting words which in the UN context bring with them many different interpretations, one of which on the part of some developing countries is that U.S. technology innovators should give up their intellectual property and their right to make any profit off of their innovation.

And, of course, most of us understand the dramatic negative consequences if we were to agree to that as a matter of international commitment. It is our view that innovators are entitled to a reasonable return on their innovation. And what we want to do is facilitate the cost-effective purchase of that while protecting those rights.

REP. MARKEY: They were discussing a specific fund at Bali and it just seemed to me that was a great opportunity for the United States to be the leader. The Treasury Department had made a statement and I just think it was a, you know, a real opportunity for the United States.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Those are two different issues. We weren't talking about -- those are two different issues. There's a lot of support and interest in the major fund that we're going to be creating, hopefully with your support, because it will only work if we have Congressional support. The tech transfer issue was more one of a matter of policy and principle, not a matter of fund. So I want to be sure we're, you know, we're clear that those are two different discussions.

REP. MARKEY: I thank you, Mr. Connaughton and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source