Hearing of the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee - Learning From a Laureate: Science, Security, and Sustainability

Interview

REP. MARKEY: This hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is called to order.

Last February the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the first report of their fourth assessment, which provided a scientific smoking gun that human activities were unequivocally responsible for global warming.

Three more reports followed throughout 2007. Taken together, the four assessment reports represent the seminal review of the science of global warming, its impacts, and strategies to address it.

For their work in educating the world about both the dangers of global warming and the policies needed to prevent it, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, and his colleagues were jointly awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

With the award of the peace prize, the Nobel committee acknowledged that stopping global warming is not just a matter of economics or environmental stewardship. It is a matter of war and peace.

As the fourth assessment shows, the dangerous buildup of heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere due to human activities is already threatening the peace and security of communities around the world. Sea levels are rising. Rainfall patterns are changing. Public health is suffering. Conflicts are spawned and fed. And the disproportionate amount of injury is occurring in the developing world to the people least responsible for global warming.

And so a scientific report highlights our moral obligation to reduce global warming pollution and prepare for those impacts that have become unavoidable. We can't mortgage the children of the planet's future by continuing to emit global warming pollution in the atmosphere unabated. We need to achieve real reductions now.

The energy bill that becomes law in December -- that has become law in December was a significant down payment on the necessary emission reductions. But it was nowhere near sufficient to meet the enormous challenge which we face. In order to further reduce global warming pollution, the House will consider legislation this year that puts the United States on a path for an 80 percent reduction in our emissions by the year 2050.

The obligations of the United States to adopt such policies is clear and compelling. When the Chinese and Indians look up in the sky, they see red, white and blue CO2. The United States alone is responsible for over a quarter of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.

While China's total annual emissions may not equal those of the United States, U.S. emissions are still four times greater than China's on a per capita basis. It is time for the Congress to re- establish America's position in the fight against global warming as a leader and not a laggard.

In his acceptance speech, Dr. Pachauri quoted fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Willy Brandt's observation that next to reasonable politics, learning is the true credible alternative to force. I believe history will look back upon the work of the IPCC, and especially the fourth assessment, as the very credible force that helped the world avoid catastrophic global warming conflicts and secure an equitable energy peace.

So we're very proud of our witness today, and I think it is going to be an historic hearing. So let me turn and now recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for an opening statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MARKEY: The gentlelady's time has expired.

Over 2,000 of the world's top scientists from more than 130 countries contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment. It takes an exceptionally talented individual to lead such a diverse group and produce such an outstanding analysis. I am honored to have such a person before the select committee this morning, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

On December 10th, 2007, the immense contribution of the IPCC was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, which Dr. Pachauri accepted on behalf of the IPCC. I will enter his Nobel acceptance speech into the Congressional Record.

In addition, his contributions to improving the global environment have been recognized by the Indian and the French governments. He was also named the science journal Nature's first ever newsmaker of the year. Dr. Pachauri is also the director general for the Energy and Resources Institute, TERI, in India, where he has served as the chief executive since 1981.

Understandably, the Indian government has asked him to serve in a variety of advisory roles, including his current member in Prime Minister Singh's Council on Climate Change.

He has a Ph.D. in industrial engineering and a Ph.D. in economics, both from the North Carolina State University in Raleigh. He has taught at a variety of academic institutions in the United States and India and served on a number of nongovernmental organizations and business boards throughout the world.

I am told he is also passionate about cricket and is a handy swing bowler, having taken 348 wickets for the TERI team. But I think it is more likely that Dr. Pachauri will get members of Congress to understand these climate-change science policies than cricket.

It is not often that members get to learn from a Nobel laureate. And so I would ask unanimous consent that he is allowed to speak 10 minutes in his opening remarks before we turn to questions from the subcommittee members.

Dr. Pachauri, it's our honor to have you before us today. Whenever you are comfortable, please begin

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MARKEY: I thank the gentleman very much.

And the chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. And I think we'll have an opportunity to come back to the members if they have other questions which they would like to ask.

You have already spoken, Dr. Pachauri, about the fact that the level of global warming pollution could keep the temperatures to upwards of 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

The IPCC has reviewed over 100 greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios. And recently, Jim Connaughton in the White House on President Bush's staff described all of those scenarios as a range of responsible paths. Do you agree with that statement?

MR. PACHAURI: Well, the IPCC has looked at a whole range of outcomes, and we, of course, are in no position to predict how the economy is going to grow, how technology is going to grow. What we have is a range of plausible scenarios. And we have a high level of confidence that these scenarios essentially represent the kinds of outcomes that we're likely to see in the future. And as part of that, we've examined these stabilization scenarios, one of which I directed your attention to, Mr. Chairman.

It's obvious to me that if we want to limit temperature increase to a level like, say, 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius, then we necessarily have to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases of 445 parts per million of CO2 equivalent and above, slightly above, which is more or less where we are today. And that's precisely why we came up with this deadline, if I could use the term, of 2015 by which we would have to ensure that we start reducing emissions globally.

So I would say that the scenarios we've looked at are plausible. We stand by them. And if we have to limit temperature increase to anything that the world decides on, then those are the kinds of trajectories that we'll have to achieve.

REP. MARKEY: So under the scenarios which you looked at, could you talk about some of them at higher temperatures, higher degrees of Fahrenheit increase, another 2 degrees Fahrenheit, another 4 degrees Fahrenheit, in terms of the impact that it would have upon the world? As you examined those patterns, what was the conclusion the IPCC came to in terms of how the world would be affected?

MR. PACHAURI: For the first time, we have come up with a table which clearly shows temperature increase and a range of impacts that are going to occur in areas like water, ecosystems, food security, human health. And this particular table which I'd be very happy to draw your attention to, Mr. Chairman, clearly indicates that anything that goes above 2 degrees Celsius is really going to cause some very serious problems.

REP. MARKEY: And 2 degrees Celsius translates into what Fahrenheit? About 4 degrees Fahrenheit?

MR. PACHAURI: Roughly, roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit. So I think that if one was to link that temperature increase with the kinds of impacts that we're going to face -- again, one is looking at different regions of the world -- some of them, of course, will be much worse hit than other regions. I mean, I gave some numbers about Africa, for instance. We would find 75 to 250 million people in Africa suffering from water stress by 2020. And that's a pretty serious situation, because there already is a very serious problem of water availability in several parts of Africa. Food security is another area.

And may I mention that climate change is going to add to existing stresses. Now, the entire agricultural subsidy problem really impacts unfavorably on a number of poor countries where farmers really are not able to compete with subsidized food produced, let's say, in Europe or possibly in North America. And on top of that, if they have decline in yields as a result of climate change, it really wipes them out, they really don't know how to survive.

REP. MARKEY: Now, could you talk to us a little bit about some of the other benefits that the world would derive in the public health sector from the efforts to reduce CO2 in terms of how that would also have the same benefits or similar benefits in reduction of sulfur and the reduction of other pollutants that contribute to smog, that contribute to other health problems? How does all of that interrelate in terms of the public health impact on the planet?

MR. PACHAURI: Yes, sir. I think there's a range of health benefits that would accrue from stabilizing the world's climate. Firstly, heat waves -- we know as temperatures increase, as climate change progresses, heat waves will become more frequent, more intense. And these obviously are a great health hazard. They can affect morbidity and mortality of large populations as we've seen, for instance, in the case of the heat wave that took place in Europe in 2003. We know that vectorborne diseases, including diseases like malaria, would be on the increase.

Just to give you an example, recently there's been an increase in diseases in countries like Italy where temperatures have been going up. And a lot of the pests, a lot of the vectorborne diseases would become more prevalent with higher temperatures and changes that are taking place. The increase in floods and droughts have major implications for health. Every time there's a flood anywhere in the world, the biggest challenge for policymakers and health officials is to see that you minimize and control the outbreak of disease as a result of flooding.

So there is a whole range of these health benefits that would arise if we were able to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases and temperatures.

And the converse of that is if we don't do anything, then I think the health problems all over the world will also have major economic impacts. If one looks at factories and businesses and if we find people are going to suffer from disease to a much greater extent, this would obviously have a major, harmful impact on productivity of various goods and services.

REP. MARKEY: Could you tell us what the most recent developments that have been identified in global warming are of greatest concern to you that scientists never anticipated three to five years ago?

MR. PACHAURI: I think one issues that's causing a lot of concern among scientists, Mr. Chairman, is the possibility of collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. And if that were to happen, then essentially we would be changing the geography of this planet. Because you would have sea level rise of several meters. Now, I'm not saying that there is any great certainty attached to that happening, but recent writings seem to raise that concern to a much greater extent than was the case five years ago. Because we find that there is much greater evidence of changes taking place in these large bodies of ice that are sitting on large areas of land. And if they were to collapse, then we'd really have a very serious crisis as far as sea level rise is concerned.

REP. MARKEY: Now, we just failed in the United States Congress by a small number of votes to put on the statutes of the United States a requirement for the production of renewable electricity as a national standard. Is it important for the United States to set a national standard, to set an example for the rest of the world? And if that did happen, what would the benefits be to the planet if we had a revolution in renewable electrical generation?

MR. PACHAURI: I could draw an analogy with the CAFE standards for the automobile industry. They clearly had a major impact in terms of producing global benefits through energy security, because automobiles across the world improved their efficiency levels.

And I would say that in the case of renewable energy, any such measure will spur a substantial amount of research and development, bring about reduction in costs of some of these technologies. And this would have global benefits, and this would also provide commercial opportunities to American companies. I mean, if one looks at what has happened to the renewable energy industry, say, in Germany, there's been a renaissance of this particular industry. And a number of companies that were in the conventional energy business are now thriving, because they are producing renewable energy goods. Because there's been a very proactive policy, for instance, in that country, in Germany, which has promoted renewable energy in a big way.

So I think there would be just substantial benefits. And the benefits in terms of energy security worldwide and certainly for this country which is so dependent on oil imports, I would say, are incalculable. They would be huge. So I think a measure of this nature would really make an enormous difference in stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases.

REP. MARKEY: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MARKEY: The gentleman's time has expired and I think we might be able to come back to each of you one more time.

You know, there was a lot of good news generated right at the end of 2007 and here in the United States, an astounding new number -- of all of the new electrical generating capacity installed in the United States in 2007, 30 percent of all of the new installed capacity was wind; 56 percent of the new installed capacity was natural gas; 10 percent was coal; 1 percent was oil; and 3 percent was other renewables. Now that's an incredible revolution in the United States without a national renewable electricity standard.

So wind is moving very, very rapidly and globally, last year there was 16,000 new megawatts of wind installed globally and only 3,000 new megawatts of nuclear installed globally. And in the United States, there was no new nuclear last year. There'll be no new nuclear this year or next year or the year after or the year after or the year after. In fact, there's an expectation that by the end of 2010 that we'll see 80,000 new megawatts of wind installed globally -- just by the end of 2010. There's only 80,000 megawatts of installed capacity of nuclear in the country of France.

So there's obviously something happening here that is working. It's working in the marketplace and it's something that we, I think, as a nation should put in place as a policy that can give the leadership to the rest of the world because in many, many instances in third-world countries -- in developing countries, wind is a better option than a huge nuclear power plant, than a huge coal-fired plant in some remote village. It'll bring them electricity more quickly, more efficiently and with much fewer environmental impacts right in that local community as well.

Can you talk a little bit about this technological revolution and how already the regulations that maybe 20 states in the United States have put in place and certain countries around the world have put in place have already generated this tremendous revolutions that we're beginning to identify in a significant way occurring here and around the world?

MR. PACHAURI: Thank you, sir.

Yes, I -- I'd like to say -- let me first refer to wind energy. I mean, this is a remarkable record of technological development that has made such a difference in the last 25 to 30 years. Wind energy technology has progressed so substantially and the costs of power generation from wind and under regimes of wind speeds has changed so drastically that the whole thing has become completely viable. And I expect that this will continue. The kinds of sizes of machines that are now being produced in Europe and in this country are so much bigger, so much lower in terms of cost per unit, that it would make a sea change to the economics of this particular option.

There are several other areas and one area that I'd like to mention for the reference of the honorable members is the fact that there are 1.6 billion people in this world who have no access to modern forms of energy, and certainly no electricity. And essentially, these are people who really don't have any means for lighting their homes. They live in small homes. They are poor people, large numbers of people crowded together in a small one-room dwelling and no form of lighting. Now I have decided as a mission, personally and through my institute, to launch something that I call Lighting a Billion Lights

We have developed a set of solar lanterns that cost the equivalent of about $70; and a set of solar flashlights, or torches, these cost the equivalent of about $8.

And I think if one can get these financed, either through corporate philanthropy, through development assistance -- not free of cost, but we price them in a manner that's affordable for the poor people of the world, it can make such a difference. And more than anything else, this obviates the possibility of setting up large, centralized, coal-based power stations just to supply electricity to rural areas through transmission and distribution systems that are often terribly wasteful.

So I think one has to jump-start this kind of process. And I think biomass gasification has enormous potential. There's a lot of agricultural residue, as I mentioned, in several parts of the world which can be gasified for power generation, for local and decentralized distribution. So I think we're on the verge of a revolution of this nature.

And it would help enormously if the U.S. could get into some partnership activities with the developing countries, because you can then develop technological solutions that would have relevance, certainly to this country, but to several other parts of the world. And you are then, therefore, forestalling the possibility of conventional energy development, which obviously would have greenhouse gas emissions over a period of time.

So, I think as you said, Mr. Chairman, I think we are on the verge of a revolution. But if we could assist this -- through policy measures, through legislation, we'd be able to achieve results that much faster.

REP. MARKEY: Well, Dr. Pachauri, that is the goal of the Select Committee this year. We are going to be visiting Brazil in February, and it will give us an opportunity to begin to think through what we should do to find ways to partner with countries that are emerging economically, but with sometimes too high of a price paid in terms of the environmental impact inside of that country, which we now realize, has an effect upon the rest of the world, because there is only one sky, and we're all going to be affected by it.

So it's in our interest, in the United States, in Europe, to find ways of partnering with these countries -- with new technologies, with ways of compensating these countries not to engage in the same kind of destructive behavior that we did in our first generation of industrialization. So, we're going to explore that in a very, very aggressive way this year, to try to develop policy recommendations to achieve that goal.

The time of the chair has expired. Let me turn, once again, and recognize the gentlelady from South Dakota if she has any other questions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MARKEY: Thank you, Doctor. That was very eloquent.

I want to conclude just by thanking you, and telling you that a year ago when Speaker Pelosi created this Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, that there was still a debate going on as to whether or not human beings were having an effect upon the climate, and whether or not that change in climate was dangerous for the planet, and for human beings, and other living things.

Because of your work, because of your panel's work, that debate is now over. And one by one, as each one of your four reports were issued in 2007, it ended the debate over that issue. And now we are moving on to the question of, what should we do about it?

But your constant warnings about what the impacts are, your international leadership is something that was justifiably recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize, because from Darfur to Somalia, and increasingly other countries all across the planet, the impacts of climate change have profound effects upon the stability of nations. And you have now made it no longer a debatable issue.

And, like Gandhi, you have now made an incredible change in the way in which the world views these issues. And we thank you for that.

What I would ask, if you could, is to give us your final summary, give us -- your final warning to us, in terms of what the world's expectations are of the United States in 2008, because you do believe that we are so close to that tipping point.

MR. PACHAURI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I must thank you for giving me this opportunity -- and the honorable members of this Select Committee. It's, indeed, a great privilege for me to appear before you.

And, as a final summary of what I feel on the subject, may I submit, as you rightly emphasized, Mr. Chairman, that the science is very clear. The impacts of climate change are serious, they are measurable, and we know that they are going to get worse over time and over space.

So, therefore, if we want to be responsible in terms of saving all forms of life and humanity across the globe -- both in this generation and the coming generations, we need to act. We need to act by ensuring that we adapt to climate change, and there are some societies which just don't have the ability or the capacity to be able to adapt. I think, as a humanitarian measure, we must help those societies to adapt to climate change.

While also looking at how we might be able to prevent or delay impacts that would cause serious problems in the future, mitigation is absolutely essential. And I'd like to say that, based on our reports, we find that the cost of mitigation, if anything, is going to be minimal. And, in some cases, it might lead to so many benefits that the minor cost that we incur would be largely offset with the benefits that we reap from mitigation measures.

And I think we also have to ensure that the U.S. is in step with the rest of the world. And the rest of the world -- if I may say, from all that I've been able to understand of what's happening, is moving in a direction where we will have a low carbon economy. The U.S. has to be in a leadership position to bring about this transition to a low carbon economy. It's not going to be costly, it's going to be of enormous importance and benefit to business to take early action in this area.

And I think, more than anything else, the rest of the world looks at the U.S. for leadership. It has been a leader in so many respects. After the Second World War, what the U.S. brought about is really what we see as the benefits across the world -- of thriving democracies, of economies that are doing so well. We're at a similar juncture today. And I think if we can take leadership in this country to move in the right direction, there would be huge benefits, and certainly an avoidance of huge costs that otherwise would accrue.

So I would like to salute this Select Committee for the initiatives that you've taken. And I think if we move along rapidly -- along the lines that you've outlined, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole world will look up to you, will salute you. And I'm sure this society, overall, would benefit enormously along with the rest of the world.

REP. MARKEY: Thank you, Dr. Pachauri.

And, as we close this hearing I think you, as well, deserve the recognition for the work which you did, and the difference that it's made in the way in which the world and the United States views these issues. And I think that you deserve the warm recognition as we conclude this committee hearing, in addition to the Nobel Peace Prize which you received.

I think that we should give you our own warm response as well. Thank you so much -- (inaudible) --

(Applause.)

REP. MARKEY: This hearing is adjourned.

Source