Governor Christine Todd whitman under governors bush. Rightly isle william an epa administrator under the president george h. W. Bush and worked to amend the clean air. Ct to control acid rain dr. Daniel botkin. The honorable louvre strange Luther Strange is alabamas attorney general. I welcome a colleague here. And dr. Joseph mason is a junior louisiana bancorps association in doubt professor of banking at Louisiana State university and senior fellow at the wharton school. I welcome our panel. We will begin with the honorable dr. Thank you, senator whitehouse and other members of the subcommittee for convening this panel on the matter of enormous importance. I am pleased to be here and reassure some of you i am still alive. It is several months ago after speaking to former epa administrator sitting in front of you, we were convinced by the overwhelming verdict of scientists the earth was warming. And we humans are the only controllable contributors. Given those facts, we all signed an op ed piece that america gets serious about reducing our contribution rather than simply sitting back and accepting. If anything, new reports have made that needed to act even more urgent. It is hard to believe theres any question of that. The ipcc report validates to the strongest terms of the science of Climate Change and projected impacts. The National Climate assessment documents impacts occurring in this country right now. And a report from the Cna Corporation made up of retired high military officers note the readiness concern due to Climate Change. We have as epa administrators served 4 president s and we have successfully rustled with a number of Public Health and environmental problems all contingent including severe automobile and industrial dilution of a widespread Water Pollution and the unacceptable effects of pesticides like ddt. We made progress. We cut automobile emissions by 95 and improved air quality while the number of cars have doubled. The hole in the ozone layer and acid rain are under control. Inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interest resisting controls. The same is true of Climate Change. In all cases, cited, the solution did not result in the predicted social calamity for the scientific uncertainty are the inevitable resistance does not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction. We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of Climate Change but no legitimate debate of the effect of the earths warming or mans contribution. The models of the leading scientists predict wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. Those are the projections of these models. We are seeing the impacts already. Since the ocean absorbs 25 percent30 of carbon from stationary or mobile sources we , thought the ocean was our friend. It was, keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Our friend is paying a penalty. The carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the of oceans to rise and is already threatening to shellfish and coral reef and other species. The culprit is the same a carbon that originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. As cochairman of the committee in my home state of washington appointed by the governor to look at the impacts of ocean on puget sound, it is directly threatening shellfish industry in puget sound that contributes 275 million to the states economy. Finding out what the nature of the problem was and taking steps to adapt and try to reduce the amount of carbon in puget sound has begun to have some beneficial effects. We also know that if america does not get serious about our responsibility to deal with this problem, nothing will happen in the rest of the world. No action is a choice. It is a choice that means we leave to chance the kind of future we want to often out of the solution to a problem that we are a big problem. We like to speak of american exceptionalism, we should begin leading the world away from our unacceptable effects of our increasing appetite for fossil fuels before it is too late. It is an extremely complex problem whose solutions are not straightforward. We believe this is no excuse for the complacency or not stepping up to our responsibility. Thank you very much. Governor whitman. Could you turn your microphone on . I think you need to hit the button. I did. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing us the opportunity. I have to begin by expressing my frustration on the discussion of whether the epa has to be legal has the Legal Authority to reggae carbon omissions that are still taking place in some quarters. The issue has been settled. The epa does have the authority. The law says so and the Supreme Court has said so and that should be put to rest. Given that fact, the agency has decided, properly in my view, that it should act now to reduce Carbon Emissions to improve the quality of our air and as part of an International Effort to address change. For the United States climate , change is not just an environmental issue or economic issue. Climate change has very real implications or our national security. Those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. We all know the earths climate is changing and human activity although not solely responsible , and we should freely , acknowledge that is what , contributing to the change and increasing the risk will push the environment beyond the point of which we can repair it. And we should know that once one is contributing, one has an obligation to be part of the solution. That is what the epa is trying to do. There is honest disagreement about aspects of the agencys powerplant proposal. Whether it is stretching its authority to far. I am sure the epa will be made aware during the comment period. My hope is that the primary focus will be on the substance. It is clear that the Clean Air Act is an imperfect tool. Congressional action and leadership would be a preferable approach. Since congress has declined to act, the epa must and that is the law. Action will not come without cost. Since president nixon created the epa in 1970, it has sought to carry out its mandate in a balanced way. Environmental protection and Economic Prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The epa has not been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium. A balance that protects the health of the environment and the economy. From 19802012, the total omissions in the United States of six common pollutants have dropped 67 . At the same time our population , grew by 38 . Our Energy Consumption grew by 27 and our gdp more than doubled in constant dollars. More people consuming more energy emitted much less pollution without sacrificing Economic Growth. That is clear evidence of the balance that epa has been able to strike in the past. If the past is prologue further , reductions are achievable and affordable. Mr. Chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge Climate Change is real, that humans are contributing to it and the , potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action. We have specific and Scientific Consensus on this issue and what we need is political consensus. The two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of policymaking and it is urgent that they do so again. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, governor whitman. We now turn to mr. William riley. Welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this session. One of the critical challenges our country faces. It is a privilege to appear with two of my predecessors. After i was nominated in 1988, my first briefing was on climate. It was followed by briefings on epas reports on climate effects and options commissioned. Incidentally, 11 National Academies of science have formally reflected upon study science and concluded that humans are affecting the climate and Greenhouse Gases are changing it. At that time, Climate Science was a matter of computer modeling. It was coupled with theory notably the greenhouse effect. Explains why the earths atmosphere is hospitable to life. The concern prompted jim baker to signal a policy of no regrets. We will consider those measures, he said, that address current priorities that also help reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. In 1987 montreal protocol which thomas helped negotiate and that negotiate was an example of that thinking and that was 25 years ago. The models are far more reliable and buttressed by thousands of credible scientific studies documenting changes underway. I listened to senator boozman, and there are still many outstanding chest ands outstanding questions. The pace of change, tipping point, methane emissions and more. The caught the climate is a complex system and we do not have a complete picture. We welcome serious critiques to examine gaps and anomalies and uncertainties. That is how science advances our understanding of complex issues. Change is underway. We can expect to see many more disruptions or intense storms and more wildfires and diseases. Dengue fever will arrive in america. Storm surges can overwhelm coastal communities. Heat waves and another impacts on our health and water resources. Food production. The longer we delay, the more be in the impacts will the more expensive it will be to address them. Reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions can help fend off off more draconian impacts later this century. Increasingly i believe we have a sector on an agenda and our federal agencies to begin to adapt likely changes and build up resiliency. Dealing with flooding and meeting future projections will be costly. It will add to growing demands on federal and local budgets. I chaired a task force for governor schwarzenegger and we concluded the 1100 levees and the sacramento basin will not survive anticipated sealevel rise. Climate change and the disruptions as pointed out our a global problem. Absent action by china, brazil, india, and other economies, what we do alone will not suffice. Action by the United States is not sufficient. It is nonetheless necessary if we have any credibility to negotiate with other countries who worry that carbon constraints will towards their needs for legitimate growth. The debate on focus countries has been focused on Financial Aid rather than the substance of how much and how to reduce emissions in those nations. I participated for number of years in the china Sustainable Energy forum. At first, any mention of Climate Change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the problem should pay for fixing it globally. As china has begun to them back experience serious impacts it , is a matter of selfinterest. That they need to respond and join constructively. China announced one day after the announcement by epa of its new carbon rule that they intend to build a cap on Carbon Dioxide. This is a response to the United States. It is a significant one and is further demonstration of u. S. Leadership. Markets the world over Seek Clean Energy technology. Well over one billion people dont have electricity. For many, it will be smallscale Renewable Technologies that help improve their lives and offer new economic opportunities. Technology and innovation are a comparative advantage for our country. It will control what we can help find ways to replace the most serious contributors to climate challenge. This is an enormous opportunity for u. S. Entrepreneurs even as we deploy more clean energy at home. While the president has taken many important steps, full response is needed from congress. I have little doubt that the planet will endure major disruptions. There have and many in the past due to natural causes. You would have to reject the greenhouse effect out right to conclude human activities, pumping millions of tons of co2 and other Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere every year are , not having any impact on the earths climate. That is simply not a tenable position. For me to question is how hospitable will the earth remain for future generations and for civilizations as we know it. Thank you. Now we turn to former administrator thomas. I think you may need to turn your microphone. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding the hearing and giving me an opportunity to offer perspective on Climate Change based upon my experience at epa dealing with many complex Environmental Issues during the reagan years. I have approached the issue using a riskmanagement process. This is the approach we used during my time at epa as we addressed a range of environmental problems. Whether it was assessing the impact of stratospheric ozone letion caused by cscs cfcs or the impact of lead in gasoline on childrens health, Scientific Data and analysis were the first step in evaluating the risk posed by the problem. In my six years at epa i dealt with many contentious issues. I cant remember any other matter that i have dealt with ofing that sixyear period time a that were not controversial. Some more than others. The issue of Climate Change is one that the epa and the Global Scientific Community have studied and analyzed for decades. Whether it is the panel on Climate Change or the latest scientific evaluation on climate assessment, it is clear. We know that Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40 . We know that Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases are warming the atmosphere. We know they have contributed to more than a 1. 5 degree fahrenheit rise in Global Temperatures since the 1880s. We know global sea levels have risen 80 inches since 1870 primarily by thermal expansion caused by melting of glaciers. We know that Ocean Acidification is occurring. This is harming our coral reefs and marine ecosystem. We know the communities in our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. In florida, we see increasing salt water intrusion in our Drinking Water supply along the coast due to Sea Level Rise. We see coastal communities dealing with Sea Level Rise on their drainage systems. Major parts of the systems in south florida are being impacted. The Economic Impact is undeniable. The local governments struggle to address todays impacts of Climate Change while trying to anticipate the increased risk in the future is real. On a broader scale, widespread impact is across the country. It will range from the depleted shellfish harvest in the Pacific Northwest due to Ocean Acidification or the increased route and wildfires in the southwest. Given this assessment of the impacts and risks posed by Global Warming, epa has the responsibility given to it by congress and affirmed by the courts to address the Risk Management challenge. We know there are many approaches that can be taken. We know that all of them are controversial. We know the gases we have committed will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. A solution will require a longterm commitment. We also know what many of the solutions are. Some of which have been mentioned. Improving Energy Efficiency and increasing low Emission Energy production. Widespread adoption of strategies like these can supplement an International Agreement. A coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries implement adaptation measures dealing with impacts of Climate Change already taking place today. More action is needed to address the impacts today while addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding Dangerous Levels of future warming. The recent steps taken by the epa to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions are significant mitigation measures. Once again, it positions the u. S. To demonstrate International Leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. I would suggest that if the United States is not taking the leadership position, an International Agreement will never come to fruition. Thank you for the opportunity to give my views to the subcommittee on what i consider a critically important issue. Thank you very much, mr. Thomas. Before i go on to the next witnesses let me just thank each , of you for your service to our country in a challenging office. I come here today as a scientist. I have published research on the possibility of humaninduced Global Warming and the potential ecological effects. I developed a computer model of forest use to then to the present to forecast climate effects on endangered species. One of my graduate students at added world vegetation to a major climate model. I was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast Global Warming impacts on and published on biodiversity and published a paper comparing Arctic Sea Ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species and attempting to maintain an objective, intellectually honest approach in the best of scientific endeavors. I have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should Work Together as scientists instead of arguing about preconceived emotionallybased positions. , i was an expert reviewer of the ipc see and the white house climate assessment. We have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However it is my view that this , is not unusual and contrary to the characterization of the two reports, these are not apocalyptic or a reversible. I hope my testifying will lead to a calmer more rational , approach to leading to Climate Change. The two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why. My biggest concern is that the ipccs 2014 assessment report is speculative and incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives more than they deserve. The reports are scientific sounding instead of based on clear fax. The two reports assume that the climate forecast is happening and will continue happen and grow worse. As you can see these predictions , are way off the reality. The extreme overemphasis on humaninduced Global Warming has taken our attention away from many Environmental Issues that used to be front and center but have been largely ignored in the 21st century. There are 10 issues which have been mentioned. A singer focus on Climate Change as a driver of the upper nine of secures the best solution to this. It of environmental challenges we face. In terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues that we should focus with a concern of Global Warming prioritized properly in that group. There is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in a steady state. That all changes negative and undesirable. This is the opposite of the reality. Environment has always changed and living things have had to adapt. Many require a change. The report says living things are fragile and unable to deal with change. The opposite is the case. The report repeats the assertion that large fraction of species might go extinct. Overwhelming evidence contradicts this. The model uses incorrect assumptions. Few species became extinct during the past 2. 5 million years. Some of the report conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. The white house Climate Change assessment results from Climate Change. I reviewed the studies cited and found not a single one of the series is supportable by direct observation. Ipcc report says that seven of 19 polar bear species are declining in numbers. These authors state the contrary. They stated that the polar bear population has never had an estimate in a scientific sense. This is simply a qualified toimate, a qualified guess satisfy public the man. Some conclusions are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. The report says that terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have sequestered about one quarter of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere by our activities. I have done the first valid estimates. The estimates of carbon uptake of vegetation used by ipcc are not statistically valid. They all estimate overestimate by up to almost 300 . The report uses the term Climate Change with two meanings. Natural and humaninduced. I have heard that today. These are not distinguished in the text area that is confusing. Of course the comment is the climate is changing. It will always change. If a statement is about natural change, then it is a truism. If the meaning is taken to be humancaused, the available data do not support the statements. Thank you. Next we will hear from attorney general strange. I am very pleased to be here. As the attorney general of the state of alabama it is my duty to uphold the rule of law. That duty includes enforcing environmental laws that help protect our Natural Resources and the health of our citizens. One of the most important matters i am involved with as attorney general is being the gulf states bp oil spill litigation. Our coastline was covered in oil. Our economy would shut down for months as a result of this bill. Of the spill. I understand firsthand manmade environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective environmental regulations. My comments have a concern with the administrations approach to environmental regulation. The defense of this proposal will be that the states have flexibility. Providing the states with costly policy choices, does not provide any actual flexibility and produces the same outcome. Higher electricity prices and decreased generation. Repeating over and over again the word flexibility is not an adequate answer for the lowincome consumers in my state who will ask why they must pay more to reduce co2 emissions when those reductions cannot and will not affect the global climate. Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act to have such a farreaching consequence. To prevent impacts such as those that will flow from the epa emission guidelines, congress limited the authority. Given the enormous burdens that that would be imposed by the guidelines, it may be obvious that epa has disregarded the limits of the law. These limits are not questionable or controversial. They are expressed in the Clean Air Act. Act forbidsr regulation under parts of the act. Existing utilities is regulated. The Clean Air Act also forbids section 111 d regulations that , are based on admission reductions the academy achieved at individual facilities. Epa has proposed it emuission oppose the mission guidelines. Epa is improperly limiting the express statutory delegation to the states. In doing so, they normally reject state discretion but jettisons decades of resident establishing state jurisdiction over electricity markets. The state of alabama opposes the epas mandate. It would have disastrous consequences for electric reliability and the economy. Those consequences would be in when all stem from a patently unlawful part of the Clean Air Act. It would do so at the expense of state authority that is identified and preserved in the Clean Air Act. It would do all of these things for no benefit. Theres no rationale that consists for such regulation. And now dr. , please proceed. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me. This is a crucially important topic. My Research Specialty is market failures. I studied cap and trade in 2005. I did so because the natural push among lawmakers to embark upon cap and trade solutions despite consensus among economists that cap and trade does not suit Carbon Emissions. With respect to the medical analogy earlier i dont disagree , with the diagnosis. But with the supposedly been. You are presupposing that the treatment is known. It is not. System hasistory, no priced carbonate levels prohibitive of omissions. Prices hover at five dollars and 11 in california. It is widely viewed that prices in excess of 30 are necessary to cut emissions. The proposal is an attempt to specify quantity goals instead of price goals. There are two problems. To control quantity, one has to be in control of the thing one targets. The Federal Reserve learned this years ago. Carbon markets determine policy of carbon from this is unworkable. In a serious of famous cases, they have sovereignty over the number of permits they issue. Invalid permits infiltrated and the exchange had to close for three days. Swat backs had to be arranged. It doesnt matter which side of the price quantity you look at, the effects of the same. Quantity will go down only a price goes up. When real prices go up, output declines in unemployment increases. Corporations forgo they feel the effects. It is important number that these are not just oil and gas companies. These are Companies Like walt disney and walmart. In preparing for this hearing, i regressed the state epa goals on a number of pertinent valuables. Perhaps most importantly, the regression shows that states with lagging economies coming out of the Great Recession have tougher goals to meet than others. There are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate that. If we just think about those for a moment. No government has yet accepted the lower Economic Growth to curb Carbon Emissions. Prices should go up that they cant their the political heat. In march, the u. K. Chancellor announced the government would freeze a tax on Carbon Emissions as part as a broad plan to cut Consumer Energy bills. While his party backs carbon reform, computer Consumer Energy costs become a Campaign Point for the opposition which vowed to freeze Energy Prices if they win. A similar issue is growing in germany. By far the worst effects of Carbon Markets has been the regulatory fraud and theft. If we are not ready to deal with the existing corporate fraud and bribery, tax fog, counterfeiting, and hacking on markets that have troubled the established markets in recent years, we should not be discussing the implementation on the largest economy in the world. Denying the failure of existing carbon policy risks raising Energy Prices without inducing carbon output. Climate talks on carbon broke down this week over this simple economic fact. Extending my analogy with central banking members of , congress and rem are that the National Monetary commission studied centralbank functions around the world for seven years before concluding on the design of the Federal Reserve system. Lets take our time now and Research Existing carbonabatement mechanisms before emulating demonstratively failed schemes around the world. While continuing carbon to grow as a natural and global problem. Thank you. Let me begin with a question that is prompted by testimony. You described a number of environmental improvements the took place on your watch. You mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting controls. You said that in all the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. Each of you has had experience with having to make decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about dire consequences of your decisions. Each of you have made that decision and seen the consequences that played out in the aftermath. My question to each of you is how did the worst fears of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turnout in reality as the rules were applied in your own experience . Mr. Chairman, let me mention one example. The congress in 1970 passed the Clean Air Act. It provided that in the law itself by 1975 the cars would be 95 improved. In three main pollutants. Automobilef the companies was this was impossible to do by 1975. They were probably right about that. It was overly ambitious. As administrator i was , authorized to give them a one year extension from meeting those 1975 goals if it was warranted. We had extensive hearings and decided in the first instance not to grant the extension and and in the second, an extension was granted. By 1976, most of the Automobile Companies were on the way toward achieving the standards as required by the statute. The claims during those hearings and during the passage of the laws was that the industry would collapse. Ford predicted they would have to shut down the their entire company if the law passed. There was enough flexibility in the law that let them have the leeway they needed to achieve the standards. Once they saw the rule was serious and we were going to pursue it as rigorously as we could, then they began to focus on reducing the cost. The motivation of trying to resist the regulation and the law changed from one of claiming the end was near to one of lets see if we cant do this and do it in a costeffective way. They did do it in a costeffective way. We achieved the standards finally. There was some leeway granted by the congress after the original law. Today the cars we have have three times as many cars on the road and the omissions from the mobiles are 95 reduced. Let me ask you to fill in if we have a second round. I am running out of time. The best example i can give is and we were increasing air conditioner efficiency we were resisted by everybody. They said it was impossible. This was going to kill the industry. We went ahead and found one company that said no we can do this very carrier said they could do it. They started producing them. Now everybody has exceeded those rules by 23 . The ingenuity in the american system kicked in. The minute that they knew it was real and it was going to happen, we did not see a loss in jobs or dollars. We saw this whole industry achieve new levels we did not think were possible. Let me turn to senator sessions. We have made some great progress. In america the water is so much , cleaner than it has been. We are seeing situations in china and we know that we are proud of what we have accomplished. However, i would say that co2 is a different kettle of fish. Its. Not particular it is plant food. It is not a pollutant and any normal definition of it. Governor whitman, i will knowledge that the Supreme Court ruling said otherwise. I would offer the letter about the epa authority. The authority of states of the Clean Air Act to determine standards as applied to individual sources. Without objection. Thank you. The president on november 14, 2012, said the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. On may 29, he said we know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago. I would ask each of our former administrators if any of you agree that that is an accurate statement on climate. If you do, raise your hands. The record will reflect that no one raised their hands. Attorney general, one of the things that the doctor mentioned was this is difficult when we have assertions repeated that are not established by the facts. The same is true about hurricanes. Up thent up and count number of category of hurricanes each year. This is not a matter of dispute. We dont have more. Yet we have the president and top officials repeating that. Attorney general, i have a question i wanted to ask of you. I appreciate your appearance and your fine leadership. The four administrators today say we need to act now. Would you also say it is important that we act according to the law and do you believe epa powerplant guidelines are consistent with the law . Thank you, senator. That is why i am here and im not here to debate the science. I am here to talk about the my concern is whatever decision epa makes and what policy it implements, it should follow the law. I think they failed to do that in this case. I appreciate you introducing into the record that letter from my colleague, the attorney general of West Virginia that goes into great deal about the legal infirmities of this deal. As was the letter from the other 17 attorney generals that feel the same way. That is our role. This is to make sure that whatever the epa comes up with that it follows the law and respects the states role. And in working to achieve the kind of regulations of the country decides it wants to have. That is the lane that i am in. That is the reason im here today. Our staff is done a study on the federalism aspects of the epa. The Clean Air Act establishes itself a cooperative federalism between states and epa. You think the proposed powerplant guidelines adhere to the Clean Air Act process . I do not think so. In a nutshell what the epa is , attempting to do is regulate at the federal level, removing almost all the discretion that would reside in the states. I guess in my experience, and maybe it was your experience in attorney general when you preceded me regulators like to , regulate. It is an Important Role that we play to ensure that when they decide to regulate to they stay within the bounds of their authority. Oftentimes if you are a regulator and you see a problem you want to regulate and you try to exert as much authority as you can. We think that is what is occurring in this case. That is why it is so important at only to me and alabama, but to attorneys general across the country. We turn to chairman boxer for questions. Im going to go rapidfire. Dr. Mason, when you talk you remind me of the alarmist that we heard in the 1970s and the 1990s over the Clean Air Act. Coming from a state that is undergoing a boom in clean energy jobs, im here to say i am going to send you some of the stats that Christie Todd whitman put out. I want to see if they are incorrect. From 1980 to 2012, the total omissions in the u. S. Of six common air pollutants dropped by 67 . Our population grew by 38 . Our Energy Consumption increased by 27 and the gdp doubled. This is my statistic jobs increased 88 . I am going to send that to you for your commentary. We have always heard this every time there is an initiative. It always turns out to be completely wrong. The alarmists are wrong. I also want to ask our for epa folks if they agree with this. That is senator sessions i have , a disagreement. He is my friend and we respect each other but we have a disagreement on carbon. He says it is not a pollutant that hurts you. There is an endangerment finding. It started under george w. Bush and was completed under barack obama. There was a National Climate assessment that is required i i law every four years. 1000icans voted for that in 1990. It calls out the dangers of Carbon Pollution and says it will increase ozone and asthma and hospital admissions. To quote it directly, Climate Change is projected to Harm Human Health by increasing groundlevel ozone. They specifically cite more Carbon Pollution as increasing Global Temperatures and increasing premature deaths and worsened ozone and particle pollution. Is there any one of the four of you that has a problem with that analysis . Ok. Let the record show they agree with that. I want to talk to my friend from alabama. I want to ask you this question. I have Great Respect for your office and your opinion. Isnt it true that alabama lost all recent major Clean Air Act cases . Alabama lost their legal challenge to the epa in the Supreme Court. In the White Stallion case they lost to the epa endangerment finding. Isnt that a fact . I dont doubt what youre saying. I do not recall but you dont recall losing those cases . I do and i think youre right. Yes, maam. I think that is important. The me ask a question to mr. Thomas. I know you have talked about the impacts in florida, you are already seeing. I had the privilege of going in a helicopter over the miami region. When you see how much water is there it takes your breath away. I wonder if you could talk about how local communities are joining together to address the Climate Change. Do they have bipartisan support . I only have 58 seconds left. Particularly in the south florida area, six counties have basically come together specifically to work on adaptation measures dealing with the problems they are already facing. As i indicated saltwater , intrusion, the drainage systems, they Impact Todays problem. The Sea Level Rise of eight inches has a significant impact. Both because of the level above sea level but also the terrain and the sub surface, this causes a significant issue in that part of the state. We see local governments struggling with the issue and spending significant amounts of money. My sense is that is going to be an expanding issue. It is going to be an expanding problem in the south florida area. In the nearterm. I met with the group in the miami area including scientists, they are concerned about what is happening today and how it will be exaggerated over the next 10 years. They are not talking about longterm. They are talking about 10 years. Let me close by letting everyone knows this. When it comes to environment we have big differences. When it comes to preparing we have come together. I want to mention that we have taken steps. Steps for coastal state and also the sacramento issue that you mentioned. It is not in order. This is the time for senators to ask questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i always am in these discussions, i am frustrated again at some of the cartoonist nature of the assertions. Going after strawmen instead of having a detailed, serious discussion. I think senator bosemans comment of the 97 figure really goes to that. 97 believe in this consensus about Climate Change. It is defined so broadly that all the republican members of this committee would be among the 97 . I hope we can get beyond going after strawmen and having these cartoonish conversations. With that theme of science, let me start there. Who has graduate advanced degrees in the Natural Sciences . Let me ask you. One of these areas with cartoonish claims and outlandish claims is about severe weather. What is the historian record of the severity and frequency overall of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and floods. You are on now. As you have had in past testimony, the Analysis Shows that these have not increased in terms of major storms. If that is the specific question, there has not been an increase in tornadoes and major storms according to his analysis. That is one of the most common rallying cries about this cartoonish debate. Lets talk about real science. We have a huge issue which is whatever we do, what is the rest of the world doing . These posters illustrate what china is doing. There are other countries that are a factor. With this in mind, will the epa rule as constructed have a significant affect on global average temperatures or Sea Level Rise . The analyses show that if the United States acts alone it will have a very insignificant effect. That does leave open if this is supposed to be a leadership action or a scientific. In terms of the United States acting alone, it will have a minor effect. Thank you. Could i make a comment about Sea Level Rise . Goahead. Time is limited. Most of the comments were about Sea Level Rise. It is wellknown to geologists oceanographers that the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The average estimated rate has been afoot a century. That is natural background. The mentioned specifically by one of the senators that was it has risen 10 inches in one place since 1930. That is within the natural background. I dont mean to cut you off but this is on my limited time. That is completely natural. Lets go on to the other big impact that we can measure. That is Economic Impact. Dr. Mason this is not a , theoretical discussion. Europe has been living this in the last 10 years. It is in the process of essentially reversing course. Europe facing economic pain, may ease climate rules. Coal returnss to german utilities. The guardian soaring energy and housing forces some to turn to food banks. Renewablerk times energy in spain is taking a beating. What should we observe and learn from that European Experience . You have to would knowledge that in terms of the treatment , in this medical analogy, prior carbon policy is the equivalent of medieval bloodletting. It has not worked. It is not constraining admissions in world markets. There are two things you have to notice. There is a market developed to argue against taking action with respect to carbon. There is a market developed for setting up these financial trading desks that trade carbon that want to lobby to undertake this option. It is a strong industry right now. There are Interest Groups pushing for this. This will not work. Senator markey . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to go to the e. P. A. Administrators. Thank you all so much for your service over the years. I have a chart here of u. S. G. D. P. Since the Great Depression in 1929. President johnson signed the first Clean Air Act into law in 1963. It was amended in 1970 and 1977 and 1990 as indicated on the chart. So i would just like a quick answer from each of you, has g. D. P. Gone up or down since each of these Clean Air Act laws have certainly not going to argue with your chart, senator. It has gone up. Thank you, governor. I cant disagree with that. That is a fact. Thank you. Well, the Clean Air Act amendments that we were responsible for in 1990 were followed by 10 recordsetting years in g. D. P. Growth. Interesting. Not a bloodletting then, that what you are saying . No, i wouldnt say so. You wouldnt say that . No. I agree with your chart. It has gone up. Do you think that finding new ways of dealing with Climate Change can actually create jobs in our economy by unleashing innovation to accomplish that goal . No question it will create jobs. It will also have impact on existing employment. I look at it not only will it create new jobs in some of the renewable fields but we have one industry already producing a lot of jobs and can produce a lot more and that is the Nuclear Energy which is a base power which releases none was Greenhouse Gases or other regulate pollutants while it is producing power. The 1990 amendsments crowiated an enormous number of jobs in gas and natural clean coal. Jobs will be created on i think it will impact jobs and we have the responsibility to focus on how do we provide assistance to those whose jobs are being impacted. Let me move to another example which is the regional Greenhouse Gas initiative across the northeast in terms of the impact that that has had in reducing Greenhouse Gases and at the same time overlapping with an economy across the northeast which has continued to grow over those years. So since the rege was put in place there has been a 40 redukes in greenhouse gsa on average in those states where it was put in place. In addition, it has helped to save consumers money, created jobs, generated over 750 million in economic value in the state of massachusetts alone from 2009 to 2013. And mr. Chairman, i would like to submit all of that Economic Data for the record. Without objection. Maybe governor, maybe you could talk about that issue about the job creation aspect of this and especially since it seems to be a core argument here using medieval blood it is letting terms to describe what the impact is since the states in the rege have seen Economic Growth. I think it is absolutely fair to say there will be jobs this will be impacted with whatever actions we take. That has always been true and we have an obligation to ensure that we do the best that we can for those that will be impacted and find other ways of earning a living and recognize that this is real and people get hurt. And one of the things you learn as a governor or anybody in a position where you have to make decisions is you cannot make a decision this has an equal impact on everyone. Some people will not see the same benefits and they may see a downturn and it is your obligation to do when is in the best interest of the greatest number. We have been able to do that in this country and been able to increase jobs. Thank you, mr. Thomas, dr. Batkin argued for climate variables. You mentioned Sea Level Rise and rainfall. They have been measured for decades. They are not theoretical or models. What are the impacts of those changes on your own home state, mr. Thomas . Excowboy me, senator, could you youxcuse me, senator, could could you please allow administrator thomas to answer the question he has been asked . Senator, as i indicated to senator boxer, clearly south florida, particularly is dealing today with Sea Level Rise as it impacts both saltwater intrusion. Drainage systems critical to the well being in south florida. Todays Sea Level Rise is, indeed, an issue in our state just as it is in a number of other states. Thank you. And im the son of a milkman so i know that technological change can occur. Refrigerators made obsolete the delivery of milk. The fact that there werent more milkmen that were created doesnt mean there werent jobs created to revolutionize the way in which that industry operated. We seen that since the beginning of time and we to embrace that job creation is obvious. I enjoyed that. Pretty good. We keep talking about the clean air county amendments of act amendments of 1990. Not only did i vote for them but i was the original cosponsor of those. And he worked. That was dealing with real pollutants, sox, nox. Never meant to deal with co 2. I think we all understand this. You could use that as an argument against going into regulating something that most of us dont believe is a pollutant. He would wont make that argument. Senator bowsman diffused is 97 and we will hear that over and over again but he pretty well answered that. I have a we for the throw of you but i will skip you now, general strange because jeff already asked the question. Scott pruitt holds you in the highest regard among all of the attorneys general in the United States, i have to say this. Dr. Batkin you are the only scientist on the panel. Yes. And i would like to ask you i happened to be in copenhagen when the whole thing broke loose and everything was predicated on the assumption that ipcc was going to be accurate and they were the ones that started this whole thing. And i was there when climategate broke. That is when they uncovered the ipcc manipulated reports and covered up errors to make the Global Warming case stronger than it was. The way that was kind of covered up in our media over here, we have an alarmist boy ras in the media bias in the media here. Throughout the world it wasnt. The u. K. Telegraph, i think that is the largest printed publication in the u. K. Says the worst scientific scan tal of our generation. The Financial Times said the stink of intellectual corruption is alarming. I ask you as a scientist, highway to you think that why do you think that there are people who still believe that this science that was generated and the reason im asking this question because if you go back and look at my website in 2002 you will see that i listed not a few but hundreds of scientists who disagreed with ipcc. Comments on that . Well, senator, i have asked myself this question many times because what i do is look at the facts and check all of the facts and i found that the ipcc reports are not consistent and are biased. Now, are you asking me why do so many people believe that or . That is good. Im puzzled about that a great deal. What i can say is that one of my favorite books is by charles mcky published in 1841 called popular we are running out of time. Ok. But as a scientist i dont think there is a scientific answer as to why so many poem have come to believe people have come to believe this. It has become a popular issue. I tried to look at the facts. I worked very hard on to try to determine the effects this of over my career. And i feel this data has changed and that it is less of an effect and danger than we thought before and im surprised and shocked how much very good. Dr. Mason, you being the only economist on the panel let me ask you a question. Years ago when this first started a lot of us really were believing it was true because that was what was supposed to be believed. It happened at that time that i chaired this committee and when i found out that they were talking about what the cost would be and if you remember the economy econometric survey came out and charles rivers came out and all came to the same conclusion as to the cost of this and we were talking about the cost of cap and trade would be between 300 billion and 400 billion a year. First of all, i ask if you agree with that . I wouldnt be surprised at all by that. That is the one thing that is consistent. We haventhood a lot of people disagreeing with that. My question would be this. Those bills that they were talking about, the first one was the mccain live lieberman bill and then Warner Lieberman and then senator markey. All of them were talking about regulating the emissions of entities that emitted 25,000tons or more. Now, the Clean Air Act regulates 250tons or more. I would ask you as an economist if it is true that it would be between 300 billion and 400 billion a year for the 25,000 tons or more. Do you any idea what it would cost the American People if they were able to successfully regulate this under the Clean Air Act . Orders of magnitude more. Well, i think that is that is a good answer. Thank you very much. Senator bozeman . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Professor mason, in your testimony you addressed across states. Arkansas is one of the most difficult targets in the country. You said there will be state level impacts that affect jobs and growth. Would you explain how the impacts could impact opportunities in states like arkansas and what that will mean for consumers . Well, very simply, to the extent that consumers in these states derive energy from plants in those states, again, those consumers will pay more for their electricity. This is where things get wonky because you will have crossstate effects. Will arkansas be able to, for instance, buy emissions from other states to satisfy their emissions . How are we going to control that . What can they can any buy permits or offsets internationally from hungary which defauxed investors leading to this market shutdown that i cited . Or other third world countries this have been known not to even bother to check the validity of the permits that they are selling on markets leading to this fraud and International Problems . We node to deal with these we need to deal with these details. And until we are actually going to sit down and look at these and look at the job losses that are very well, the fed does this every meeting when they talk about raising rates. They look at job losses. They look at economic output. I think that we need to look at this with each and every increase and energy costs and just waving your hands and saying it will be fine is another story because we are getting to a level of policy implementation that is orders of magnitude greater than anything he would have done before. And to me, from my perspective on financial crises arise in part because of problems in the market but scale and magnitude relative to the economic system. We have lots of mini securitization crises since 1990. None affected the economy until we had it happen with mortgages a big enough product to throw us into row section. Do this and put the economy at risk but i think we need to think about this hard before just diving in. This is different. And that is why we have the congress and congressional hearings is to go through all that theoretically and make sure we do it not in haste but to get the unintended consequences out on the table. You mentioned that in order so basic it is like gravity that in order to make something not be used you have to raise the price or that is a method of doing it. And you mentioned the 30 figure. What would that do to the cost of utilities . Well, rggi right now is at about 5. California is at 11. Interesting those might not have pushed back Economic Growth but they are not pricing carbon either. Add together cost of energy with no upside benefit in terms of consider bon. 30 ising if to raise prices earlier. 35 in the northeast was cited today. I would expect prices would go up by orders of magnitude greater than that. There has been talked to about leadership in terms of carbon policy. Leadership is not just grabbing this failed system out of the e. U. Or this effective system out of california and plopping it down nationwide. Leadership is thinking more deeply about the implementation of carbon policy and coming up with Something Better than the rest of the world has put together and implementing it and then having the rest of the world follow. That is why i cited the National Monetary commission with respect to the Federal Reserve. We did this. We have the best central bank in the world, like or hate the details of it. We still lead in that throughout the world and think we owe it to our citizens to put together a very thoughtful approach tortion put together a meaningful approach to carbon that can actually help the world while also pricing an economic externality that is very real. Thank you very much. So, dr. Batkin, you would be one of the 97 that is talked about and certainly you feel like man is contributing and this and that but certainly you are not one that feels like the models are acceptable. I expect you have many cohorts in the same camp . The key thing is that science is not a rule by majority method. That is the important thing. That is from whence the answer must come. And that is what i do. I always look at the data and richard thineman one of the great 20th century quantum physicists said science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. So to keep say tags majority, that is not saying it is a majority is not a scientific statement and it is not correct. I spent 50 years working on Climate Change in a very constructive way and what i can tell you is that since about 1990, the data has started to move in the other direction away from an important effect by human beings. And that is just what the facts show. Thank you very much. My concern is, you know, certainly we need to examine the increased risk of this, but i can tell you there is tremendous increased risk for the men and women that are sitting back there, and the hardworking people of arkansas if we are talking about a 45 or much greater probably in our case increase in utility prices as far as jobs. Let me just say some final thank yous to our witnesses who are here. I appreciate particularly the efforts of the former administrators. I would ask if mr. Roily and mr. Thomas would mr. Riley and mr. Thomas would answer my question for the record. The record will be kept open for an additional two weeks for anybody who wishes to add material to the record. I will ask unanimous consent to put in a review of the investigations that were prompted by what is called climategate but i contend is more accurately called climategate gate. In moi view the scandal is the phone any sandal that was whipped up by scientific work that was then reviewed by i think six different authorities including american investigators, independent investigators, university investigators, and british investigators and every one of which gave a full clean bill of health to the science. So, to i think that needs to be part of the record if members are going to bring up so called climategate. And then there has been some reference to the projections by the chamber of commerce as to what this proposed e. P. A. Regulation might cost. Some of our colleagues have leapt to cited that report but i think it is important for the hearing this we also include the Washington Post analysis of their claims which earned four pinocchios depending on how far you get from the truth you get more pinocchios relating back to the story of the pinocchio the wooden doll whose nose would grow when he wasnt being truthful. I will include the Washington Post four pinocchio finding about that. Also an organization named politifact which analyzes claims made in the political debate and tries to do a very neutral analysis of their accuracy. And politifact ruled that a false for that report. I think it is in the interest of fairness that those be admitted and i will ask unanimous consent that those two documents be admitted. With that said mr. Chairman senator sessions . To wrap up, i thank the panel for your testimony. This is an important issue. I believe dr. Batkin is correct in the saying that actual Empirical Data is not confirming the projections we have seen so far in a host of other areas and i will be spinning maybe some documents to that effect. I think it is important for congress and to ask questions. Also, i would just say it is unacceptable that scientists like dr. Botkin and others are being adversely trotted result of their treated as a result of their statements and Scientific Research that sometimes contradicts the powers that be. So thank you. You are very welcome. Always a pleasure to work with my ranking member. However much we might disagree he is courtesy colleague and we always work well together. I think that this was not a hearing on the science, it was a hearing with the experience of previous administrators. If we were to do a hearing on the science, then i think we would be adding the scientists from noaa and the scientists from nasa and the science entities to back the United States defense establishment and a great establishment of every Scientific Organization in the country. Perhaps dr. Botkin is right and they are all wronger but im not sure that would be the prudent course for our country. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] tomorrow on newsmakers, indiana governor mike pence talks about issues. He frequently mentioned as a potential president ial candidate in 2016. Watch the interview sunday at 10 00 a. M. At 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. And tomorrow on q a, new york congressman Charlie Rangel talks about his more than 40 years in the house of representatives and his life before public office. Watch the interview at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan. During his weekly address president obama discusses jobs in the economy and the importance of the u. S. Export import bank. Priebus has the republican response. He talks about Government Spending and the agenda. Hi, everybody. Nearly six years after the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, our businesses have added nearly 10 million new jobs over the past 53 months. Thats the longest streak of privatesector job creation in our history. And were in a sixmonth streak with our economy creating at least 200,000 new jobs each month the first time thats happened since 1997. Thanks to the decisions we made to rescue and rebuild our economy, and your hard work and resilience, america is leading again. Areas like manufacturing, energy, technology, and autos are all booming. And heres the thing. Were selling more goods made in america to the rest of the world than ever before. American exports are at an alltime high. Over the past five years, weve worked hard to open new markets for our businesses, and to help them compete on a level Playing Field in those markets. And weve broken records for exports four years running. Last year, our exports supported more than 11 million american jobs about 1. 6 million more than when i took office. Theyre good jobs that typically pay about 15 more than the national average. And more Small Businesses are selling their goods abroad than ever before nearly 300,000 last year alone. We should be doing everything we can to accelerate this progress, not stall it. One place to start is by supporting something called the u. S. Exportimport bank. Its sole mission is to create american jobs. Thats it. It helps Many American entrepreneurs take that next step and take their Small Business global. But next month, its charter will expire unless members of congress do their job and reauthorize it. Now, past congresses have done this 16 times, always with support from both parties. Republican and democratic president s have supported the bank, too. This time around shouldnt be any different. Because the bank works. Its independent. It pays for itself. But if Congress Fails to act, thousands of businesses, large and small, that sell their products abroad will take a completely unnecessary hit. Small Business Owners have had to overcome a lot these past several years. We all saw local businesses close their doors during the crisis. And in the past few years, weve seen more and more open their doors and do their part to help lead americas comeback. At the very least, they deserve a congress that doesnt stand in the way of their success. Your members of congress are home this month. If youre a Small Business owner or employee of a Large Business that depends on financing to tackle new markets and create new jobs, tell them to quit treating your business like its expendable, and start treating it for what it is vital to americas success. Tell them to do their jobs keep americas exports growing, and keep americas recovery going. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Hi, im reince priebus, chairman of the Republican National committee. Here in my office at the rnc, i keep a couple pictures on my desk. Photos of my two kids, jack and grace. Its to remind me why i come to work in the morning. To help elect leaders who will secure a Better Future for all our kids. If you have kids, you know what i mean when i say i want them to have every opportunity i had growing up in america and more. We all want our kids to have it better than we did. And thats why so many people i talk to are frustrated about what weve seen happening under president obamas leadership. For over five years, hes failed to get Government Spending down to a reasonable level. And i just dont think its fair for the next generation to have to pay the bills of this generation. This month, president obamas been on vacation. He attended his 401st fundraiser. Hes now played over 190 rounds of golf as president. Now, we all deserve some time off. But you have to wonder where are his priorities . We all watch the news. We see whats happening overseas in place likes iraq and syria and ukraine. And we see the tensions at home in missouri. And we lost a Young American journalist at the hands of fanatical terrorists. And yet, president obama is on vacation. He did fly back to washington briefly this past week. But i think many observers got it right when they called it a photo op. He spent about a million in taxpayer dollars to fly back from Marthas Vineyard on air force one to take a few pictures. Then it was back to vacationing and the golf course. Our country deserves better. And republicans offer a better way. In the last 18 months the house of representatives, which is run by republicans, has passed hundreds of bills to improve the lives of americans. The sad part is, over 350 of those bills, including 43 jobs bills, are stuck in the democratcontrolled u. S. Senate. Harry reid and his fellow democrats are standing in the way of progress. And president obama has other priorities. Thankfully, we have a chance to change things up in november. By winning just six more seats, we can elect a republican majority to the u. S. Senate. And i can promise you when republicans lead both houses of congress our priorities will be clear. Spending less. Making energy more affordable. Improving education for kids. Reforming healthcare to give you flexibility and lower costs. Meeting the daily concerns of middle class americans. But, our top priority will be the same reason so many of us go to work each day. Our kids future. Priority number one. Thank you for listening. God bless you. And god bless america. On the next washington journal, a discussion of race in america following the shooting of Michael Brown and the on trusunrest in ferguson, missour. Our panelists include elinor clift, armstrong williams, and Georgetown University law professor paul butler, the author of lets get free, a hip hop theory of justice. We will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal live at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Is nextmunicators with highlights from this years Consumer Electronics tradeshow on capitol hill. Then remarks from retired chipmanar general dana who has recently chosen to investigate the benghazi attack. At 8 00, some of this years new york ideas festival beginning with a look at the latest in Cancer Research technology. Cspan, created by americas Cable Companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider