hurricane irene and tropical storm lee which cut a path of destruction across the northeast. these major tropical storms in new york over a two-year period, daisy huge issue we have to face. century asf the simply the common the storm of the year. it is not just the stores themselves costing the destruction. sea levels rise and unthreatening search effects meeting that homes sought to be safe for centuries are now at a greater risk of flooding. those who deny the climate change is real often talk about reducing carbon emissions. costst await those against the cost of inaction. inaction on climate change will cost the federal government and our taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars. we have already seen the superstorm sandy cost of more than $60 billion. costtion on climate change homeowners who live in coastal communities and their flood insurance through his have gone up with sea levels rising. fema flood maps released show an expansion of new york city's floodplains by wonder square miles. that is 45%. -- and 100 square miles. state real costs to my and the people live there when the storm strike. rebuilding a home or business is very expensive. suffering the loss of a child or family member because of a storm , you do not recover from it. these are real costs. these are insurmountable losses. to realize that is the fact of the change in our climates. we have to address the issue had on. if we address it head on, we will save lives and lower cost and protect families homes and businesses. we also know for the economy when we look to reduce carbon emissions among well so gain greater innovation and business opportunities and clean energy. showed thatort stakes that do participate in regional greenhouse initiatives have seen carbon pollution reduced by 18% and their economies have actually grown by 8.8%. the report shows since the launch, new york's electricity prices have actually gone down. down by 6%. this nation and some of the greatest entrepreneurs and innovators in the world can solve this problem and do it in a way that can save all of america. clear issue with regard to climate change is that it is a direct we have to take seriously as a nation. we cannot wait for other countries who are even bigger polluters to take leadership. we cannot wait for them to go first. we have to lead. it is who we are. we as americans are always in the forefront of rule reform and change in great innovation. thank you, senator whitehouse for holding this hearing. my stateimportant for and our country and a great opportunity for us to show the new creation of jobs and new innovation and we need to take it head on. >> thank you. these are important issues to you a you spent a lot of effort into mastering these issues. i am pleased to have our guests with us. former epa administrators and we are made a lot of progress in our country since the environmental protection agency was started several years ago. and we appreciate your leadership in that regard. it is great to have the attorney aseral and my successor attorney general of the state of alabama. and dr. mason, it is great to have you and wonderful to have you with us. it'll be a good hearing today i think. we have had some agreement on a ought of issues that we to celebrate. we have a at 1.i thought we would expand nuclear power. we are not making much progress. we love lost for plants and the last few years. plants in the last few years. how did we get clean energy at a reasonable cost? agreement one had ethanol. i wonder if my vote or ideas was as positive as i thought on the time. people disagree on the wisdom of avenal. good legislation and maybe overreaching bus of good legislation on efficiency. we can agree -- we have had a legislation and maybe overreaching, but the good legislation on efficiency. we -- we can agree. the cost that will fall on the backs of many people sitting at our audience today who produce the huge portion of our energy and other production of energy of that will be adversely impacted by the president regulation. we have to ask some tough questions about that and i think we will. we haveeen mentioned had some storms. i would note that hurricane sandy was not a hurricane. it was a tropical storm. we are not seeing increases in hurricanes. daysct, it has been 3100 since we have had a category three hurricane in america. remarkable time, maybe one of the longest ever and the ipcc report released last year said "current data set indicating no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone fregosi over -- frequencyury over the past century." we do not have more droughts or more floods according to the data evaluated. the workers of the united states and the people who pay electricity bills and pay their gas bills to go to work, we would've them, too and to ask ourselves, are we doing something that is not a good -- and we have to ask ourselves, are we doing something that is not good? hereld note for the record and my colleagues need to know our economy is struggling and we are not doing well. since 2009, median household $2300.has fell by one out of six men bank -- men are not working today. it is a cause of concern. we found the regulators are ineffective and inaction which has been improved and we are co2aining the growth of more than most countries in the world. it will be insignificant and the total world's impact. i hope this committee hearing will be positive and we can find some common ground and we can work together. co2 is not the kind of pollutant -- i was going to say gentlemen, but that is not correct. effective.und not in that same kind of pollutant. it just is not. we have to be care -- we have to be careful to achieve something we have very little ability to achieve. >> thank you. statement, senator booker. >> i appreciate this opportunity and i want to thank the ranking member and chairman white house. and i want to thank you for having the right kind of panel assembled which are republican appointed epa leaders. including my former governor and i am glad to see. and i hope you got my text message. clearly, this is not a left/right issue. not an issue of politics. it is an issue of facts and to our republican presidential heads and say clearly, we have a problem and what frustrates me to no end is that this is nothing new. when people tell the truth of an environmental problem, we have the capacity to do something about, you hear the same story over and over again. i would like to put this in the record which is a wonderful article going back and tracing through what everyone used to say about what would happen to the economy if we did certain things. i have a charge which i would put into the record. 1972 cleanen the water act came out everybody said the economy would be distort and it will cost us jobs. our economy increased. and it helped to push our economy forward. everybody said economy would be destroyed and would have horrible effects. but to the contrary. american economy continued to s urge. to protect the ozone layer, everybody said the economy would be destroyed. in fact, quite the contrary if i can. when we do standup, republicans and democrats and work together to address real environmental issues, not just point out by scientists but by republican presidents, we accomplish great things. amendmentlean air act under the bush administration, the honorable william riley is acid which addressed our rain issue had to the tremendous collateral benefit. 160,000 areore than mature deaths. the life of humanity cannot be quantified numerically but the safety of our residents should be our number one mission. 000 heartted 130, attacks and millions and millions of case of respiratory problems and bronchitis and asthma attacks were held to by this republican and democrat coalition. in crude -- including worker .roductivity this is what we can do when we open up and see the facts that and to me, this is the concern. i do not need to restart the stop -- i do not need to restate, we are seeing climate change. i do not see many tornadoes in new jersey but i can't speak to the extreme heat we are having across the country which is real and measurable and unequivocal. what it is doing is costing us and having severe impact on our nation and our nations economy. i see what happened with atlantic city. it is a fast and measurable. we are likely to see on the new jersey shore, the osha rise -- and the ocean rise. i am especially concerned about the health concerns. willegulation up our plans bring us immediate health benefits. it is estimated that in the first year, 100,000 asthma attacks in 2100 heart attacks can be prevented. to me, that is a real. it is often that poor people are the ones that are the impact of was doing nothing much. african-american children are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma attacks. i see it in school systems. and four times more likely to die from asthma. and the beautiful thing about this is by doing the right thing, reality will not hurt the economy but we can help to improve the economy. states uses regulations to make investments, it's estimated we billion -- $279 billion in retro frigate -- a retrofitted buildings. i am excited about the opportunity. i feel the urgency when it comes to behold and safety and long-term economic well-being of our nation. we must act and we must act now. i ended with a simple conclusion. the choice between action and that is wise and adores by republican appointed epa leaders goes to the very evidence of they understand the truth of the matter and truth of humanity. the only thing necessary to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing. >> thank you, senator booker. we have the opportunity to hear from our wonderful panel. i want introduce the panel as a group or right now and we will go from witness to witness. the honorable william was the inaugural rentals later brought back as epa administrator under president reagan. ddt.nned wasthomas served and instrumental and the implementation of the montreux act. whitman christine todd served as epa administrator under george w. bush and oversight implementation of standards that reduce air pollution. the honorable william riley under president george h.w. bush were to to amend the clean air act to control acid rain. .r. daniel botkin general. attorney i welcome a colleague here. is a juniorph mason louisiana bancorp's association at louisiana state university and senior fellow at the wharton school. i welcome our panel. whitehouseu, senator 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 rather than simply sitting back and accepting. haveything, new reports made that needed to act even more urgent. it is hard to believe there's any question of that. 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 presidents 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. layer andn the ozone acid rain are under control. inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interest in controls. the same is true of climate change. 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 willing to we are 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 earth's warming or man' country vision. the models of the leading scientist predict wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. those are the projections of these models. we are seeing impacts already put up since the of -- since the ocean -- we are seeing the impacts already. wethis is the ocean absorbs, thought the ocean was our friend and it is. our friend is paying a penalty. the burning of fossil fuels is causing the ocean to rise and is already threatening to shellfish and coral reef and other species . the culprit is the same -- a carbon debt originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. as cochairman of the committee and 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 state'slion to the economy. 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 sirius about our responsibility to deal with this problem, nothing will happen in the rest of the world. no action is a choice. leave toe of means chance, the kind of future we want to often out of the solution to a problem that we are a big problem. would like to expand -- we like to speak of american eginptionalism, we should bo leading the world away from our appetite of fossil fuels before it is too late. extremely complex problem whose solutions are not straightforward. we believe it is no excuse. >> thank you very much. governor whitman. could you turn your microphone on? i see you need to hit the button. thank you. >> thank you very much. holding this hearing and allowing us the opportunity. i have to begin by expressing my frustration on the discussion aware -- of whether the epa has to be legal authority to regulate emissions. the issue has been settled. 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 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. climate change is not 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 earth's 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 agency's powerplant proposal. itsher it is stretching authority to far. i am sure ebay will be made aware during the comment piano. my hope is that the primary focus will be on the substance. -- i am sure the epa will be made aware during the comment period. it is clear that the clean air act is an imperfect too. l. since congress has declined to act, the epa must and that is the law. it will not come without cost. soughthe nixon, it has -- mutuallyy is not a goalt exclusive . from 1980-2012, the total 67%.ions, it dropped our population grew by 38%. our consumption grew and our gdp constant doubled in dollars. more people consuming more much lesstted pollution without sacrificing economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance of the epa has been able to strike in the past. further reductions are achievable and affordable. mr. chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge climate change is real and the potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action. scientificcific and consensus on this issue and what we need is political consensus. the two parties were able to rally around a common purpose and the early days 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 changes -- challenges our country faces. was nominated in 1988, my first bring the -- my first briefing was on climate. briefings oned by epa reports on climate effects .nd 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. notably the greenhouse effect. which is planes while the atmosphere is hospitable to life. the concern prompted jim baker to signal a policy of no regrets. we will consider those measures, also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. protocol whichl thomas helped negotiate and that was 20 five years ago. the models are far more reliable and buttressed by thousands of credible scientific studies documented changes underway. , listened to senator boozman the pace of change, tipping point, methane emissions and more. 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 .nd more wildfires and diseases it will arrive in america. storm surges. he to waste another impacts on our health and water resources. food production. delay, the more adverse to the impacts will be in the bar expensive it will be to address them. producing greenhouse gas emissions can help send off more 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. foraired a task force 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. china,a action by brazil, india, and other economies, what we do alone will not suffice. action by the urine assays is not sufficient. nonetheless, at first, any mention of climate change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the problem should pay for fixing it globally. impacts, it isen a matter of self-interest. of they need to respond and join constructively. 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 seek clean energy technology. billion people don't have electricity. it will offer new economic opportunities. achnology and innovation are comparative advantage for our country. it will control what we can help find ways to replace the most serious contributors to climate challenge. opportunitynormous for u.s. entrepreneurs even as we deployed more clean energy at home. the president has taken many important steps, full responses 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 humans are not having any impact on the earth's climate. that is simply not a tenable position. how hospitable will the earth remain for future generations and for civilizations as we know it. thank you. formerwe turn to 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. 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 depletion or the impact of lead in gasoline on children's 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. other matterr any that i have dealt with during that six-year. of 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 .ssessment, it is clear we know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40%. dioxide and carbon other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know they have contributed to more than a rise in global temperatures since the 1880's. we know global sea levels have risen eight inches by thermal ofansion caused by melting 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. 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. the economic impact is undeniable. the local governments struggle to address today's impacts of climate change while trying to participate the risk in the future israel. on a broader scale, widespread impact is across the country. shellfishnge from the harvest in the pacific northwest due to ocean acidification or wildfires in the southwest. assessment of the impacts and risks posed by epa has theng, 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. require a will long-term commitment. we also know what many of the solutions are. some of which have been mentioned. improving energy efficiency. increasing low emission energy production. widespread adoption of strategies like these can supplement and is -- an international agreement. a coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries adapting measures dealing with impacts of climate change already taking place today. to address is needed the impacts today while addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding dangerous levels of future warming. the recent steps taken by the reduce greenhouse gas emissions are significant mitigation measures. the u.s. will demonstrate international leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. i would suggest that if the united states is not taking the andership position, international agreement will never come to fruition. give myu for adding me views on what i consider a critically important issue. >> thank you very much, mr. thomas. let me just thank each of you for your service to our country in a challenging office. we turn now to dr. that can. >> i come here today as a scientist. on thepublished research possibility of global warming and the potential ecological effects. i developed a about forests and endangered species. one of my graduate students at it world vegetation to a major climate model. author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity and publish the 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 species and a taint and intellectually must approach. 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 reconceived emotionally-based positions. i was an expert reviewer of the white house climate assessment. we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. 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 more rational approach. the two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion we should be having. i would like to tell you why. 2014ncern is the assessment report is speculative and incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives more than they deserve. they are not based on facts. the two reports assume that the is happeningast and will continue happen and grow worse. these predictions are way off the reality. hasextreme over emphasis taken our attention away from many environmental issues that have been ignored. there are 10 issues which have been mentioned. changer focus on climate of skiers the best solution. in terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues that we should focus. there is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in a steady state. this is the opposite of the reality. environment has always changed and living things have had to adapt. the report says living things are fragile and unable to deal with change. the report repeats the assertion that large fraction of species might go extinct. the model is incorrect. few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years. some of the report conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles. the white house climate change assessment results from climate change. i reviewed the study and found not a single one of the series is supportable by direct observation. these authors state the contrary. they stated that the polar bear population has never had an estimate in a scientific sense. this is a qualified guess. some conclusions are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. terrestrialays that has sequestered the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. i have done the first valid estimates. uptake are not statistically valid. the report uses the term climate change with two meanings. i have heard that today. these are not distinguished in the text area that is confusing. of course the comment is changing. if a statement is about natural change, then it is a truism. if the meaning is taken to be human caused, i do not support the statement. next we'll hear from the attorney general area --. >> 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 reject our natural resources and the help 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. man-madeand firsthand environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective environmental regulations. have a concern with the administration's approach to regulation. the states have flexibility. costlyng the states with policy choices, does not provide any actual flexibility and produces the same outcome. congress did not intend for the clean air act to have such a far-reaching consequence. impacts such as those will flow from the epa proposal, congress limited the authority. given the enormous burdens that , they haveven disregarded the limits of the law. expressed in the clean air act. bidslean air act for regulation. existing utilities is regulated. forbidsn air act also regulations that are based on admission reductions the academy achieved at individual facilities. is for posing guidelines. epa is improperly limiting the express statutory delegation to the states. this jettisons decades of resident establishing state jurisdiction over electricity markets. the state of alabama opposes the epa's mandate. have disastrous consequences for electric reliability and the economy. inse consequences would be oppose and of the clean air act. 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. there's 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 upon captains trade solutions despite consensus among economists that cap and trade does not suit carbon emissions. i don't disagree with the diagnosis. you are presupposing that the treatment is known. it is not. has ricedhistory, carbonate levels prohibit of two emissions. dollars and at five $11 in california. prices in excess of $30 or necessary to cut emissions. attempt tol is an specify quantity goals instead of price goals. there are two problems. quantity, one has to be in control of the thing one targets. the federal reserve learned this years ago. carbon markets determine policy -- this isrom 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 doesn't 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. -- they feelforgo the effects. it is important number that these are not just oil and gas companies. these are companies like walt disney and walmart. onegret the state epa goals a number of pertinent valuables. 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 can't their the political heat. march, the u.k. chancellor announced the government would freeze a tax on carbon emissions to cut consumer energy bills. became aenergy costs campaign plank 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 fraud and theft. if we are not ready to deal with fraud, this is troubled the established markets in recent years, we should not be discussing the implementation on the largest economy in the world. failure of existing carbon policy risks raising energy prices. carbon broke on down this week over this simple fact. members of congress and rem are that the national monetary commission studied central-bank functions around the world for seven years before concluding on the design of the federal reserve system. let's research existing mechanisms before emulating failed schemes around the world. while continuing carbon to grow as a natural and global problem. thank you. question begin with a that is prompted by testimony. of described a number 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. isquestion to each of you how did the reach -- worst fears of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turnout in reality as the rules were applied in your own experience? chairman, let me mention one example. congress in 1970 passed the clean air act. 1975 thew itself by cars would be 95% improved. the claim of the i will bill companies was this was impossible to do by 1975. they were probably right about that. it was overly ambitious. give them aized to one year extension from meeting those 1975 goals if it was warranted. not to grant the extension and in the second we did granite. 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 have thehat let them leeway they needed to achieve the standards. 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 claiminged from one of the end was near to one of let's see if we can't do this and do it in a cost-effective way. they did do it in a cost-effective way. we achieved the standards finally. there was some leeway granted by the congress after the original law. have the cars we 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. 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. .hey 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 hollers. -- dollars. to senatorurn sessions. >> we have made some great ryegrass. 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. co2 is a different kettle of fish. is plant food. it is not a pollutant and any normal definition of it. i will at knowledge the supreme court ruling said otherwise. 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 a pot objection. -- objection. president on november 14, two thousand 12 said the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. 29, he said we know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago. ask each of our former administrators if any of you agree that that is an accurate . if you do, climate raise your hands. the record will reflect that no one raised their hands. 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. categorythe number of couric anes each year, this is not a matter of dispute. we don't have more. yet we have the president and top officials repeating that. attorney general, i have a question i wanted to ask of you. appearance andur your fine leadership. the four administrators today say we need to act now. say it isalso 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 i'm not here to debate the science. i am here to talk about the policy. whatever decision epa makes and what policy it implements, it should follow the law. i think they failed to do that in this case. introducing you that letter into the record. it goes into the legal infirmities of this proposal. they 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 state's role. that is the lane nine and. that is the reason i'm here today. a study onf is done the federalism aspects of the epa. this is a cooperative federalism between the states and epa. powerplant guidelines -- >> i do not think so. what the epa is attempting to do is regulate all the discretion that would reside in the states. experience,y regulators like to regulate. it is an important role that we lay to ensure that when they decide to regulate to they stay within the bounds of their authority. if you are a regulator and you see a problem you want to try to exert as much authority as you can. we think that is what is occurring in this case. importanty it is so to me. to chairman boxer for questions. mason, you remind me of the alarmist that we heard in the 1970's and the 1990's over the clean air act. you are undergoing a boom in the clean energy jobs. you some ofo send christie todd whitman put out. i want to see if they are incorrect. 2012, the total omissions dropped by 67%. our population grew by 38%. our energy consumption increased by 28% and the gdp doubled. 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. for epaant to ask our people if they agree with this. senator sessions i have a disagreement. we respect each other but we have a disagreement on carbon. he says it is not a pollutant that hurt you. there is an endangerment finding. it started under george w. bush and was completed under president obama. there was a national climate assessment that is required i law every four years. republicans voted for that in 1990. ofcalls out the dangers carbon pollution and says it will increase ozone and asthma and hospital admissions. climate change is projected to harm human health by increasing ground-level ozone. they specifically cite more carbon pollution as increasing global temperatures and increasing premature deaths and ozone and particle pollution. is there any one of the four of you that has a problem with that analysis? ok. they agree with that. i want to talk to my friend from alabama. i want to ask you this question. i have respect for your office and your opinion. isn't it true that alabama lost all recent major clean air act cases? challengetheir legal in the supreme court. in the white stallion case they lost to the epa endangerment finding. isn't that a fact? >> i don't doubt what you're saying. >> you don't recall losing those cases? i think you're right. >> i think that is important. i know you have talked about the impact in florida, you are already seeing. i went in a helicopter over the miami region. isn you see how much water 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? the 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. saltwater intrusion, the drainage systems, they impact today's problem. rise of eight inches has a significant impact. because of the level above sea terrain andso the 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 near-term. 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 long-term. they are talking about 10 years. 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. this is the time for senators -- questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i am frustrated again. i am frustrated at the cartoonist nature of the assertions. going after strawmen instead of having a detailed, serious discussion. i think senator boseman's really of the 97% figure goes to that. 97% to leave in this consensus about climate change. that defined so broadly 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. letthat theme of science, me start there. has graduate advanced degrees in the natural sciences? let me ask you. withf these areas cartoonish claims and outlandish claims is about severe weather. record ofe historian 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 of non-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. let's 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? if the united states acts alone it will have a very insignificant effect. open if this is supposed to be a leadership action or a scientific. states acts alone it will be minor. >> could i make a comment about sea level rise? >> go-ahead. time is limited. most of the comments were about sea level rise. it is well-known to geologists 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. it has risen 10 inches in one place since 1930. that is within the natural background. >> this is on my time. >> that is completely natural. >> let's go on to the other big impact that we can measure. theoreticala discussion. this inas been living the last 10 years. ofis in the process essentially reversing course. pain and easeng climate rules. cole returns to german utilities. and housinggy forces some to turn to food banks. it renewable energy in spain. what should we observe and learn from that european experience? in terms of the treatment in this medical analogy, 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. tore is a market developed argue against taking action with respect to carbon. developed forket financial trading desks. undertaketo lobby to this option. it is a strong industry right now. there are interest groups pushing for this. this will not work. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to go to the epa administrators. i have a chart here of u.s. gdp sense to depression. president johnson signed the first clean air act in 1963. 1970, 1977,ed in and 1990. i would like a quick answer. sincep gone up or down each of these clean-air act laws ? >> it has gone up. >> i can't disagree with that. that is fact. >> the clean air act amendments that we are responsible for were followed by 10 record-setting years in gdp growth. >> interesting. not a bloodletting. >> i would not say that. >> i agree with your chart. it has gone up. >> let's keep going. do you think that finding new ways of dealing with climate change could you create jobs in our economy by unleashing innovation in the marketplace? >> there is no question about it. it will create jobs. looked on it, we have one industry already that is producing a lot of jobs and that is the nuclear energy industry. it releases no greenhouse gases while producing power. 1990 amendments created an enormous number of jobs. >> without question jobs will be created. it will impact jobs. i think we have a responsibility focus on how to we provide assistance to those whose jobs are being impacted. let me move to another example. this is the regional initiative across the northeast in terms of the impact that has had in reducing greenhouse gases and overlapping with an economy across the northeast that is continued to grow over those years. since the red g-8 was put in place, there has been a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases in those states on average. it is help to save consumers money and created jobs. 750 millionted dollars in economic value in the state of massachusetts alone from 2009 to 2013. i would like to submit all of that economic data for the record. >> without objection. >> maybe you could talk about that, governor. the job creation aspect of this. it is a core argument here. >> thank you, senator. i think it is fair to say that there are going to be jobs that will be impacted i whenever decisions we make. we have an obligation to the best we can for those who will be impacted to find other ways of earning a living and recognize that these things are real. one of the things you learn as a you cannot make a decision that has an equal impact on everyone. some people will not see the same benefit as others. it is your obligation to do what is in the best interest of the greatest number of people and mitigate the downside for those who will be negatively impacted. we see that time again. and we do that in this country. thomas, there is an argument for more observation of climate variables. you mentioned sea level and heavy rainfall in your testimony. sea level rise and rainfall have been measured by scientists for decades. they are not theoretical or models. what are the impacts of those changes. on your own home state. florida is south dealing with sea level rise as it impacts salt water intrusion in our coastal area and drainage water. drainage systems are critical to the overall well-being of many of the coastal communities in south florida. is an issue. rise just as it is in a number of other states. >> i know the technological delivery of milk obsolete. there was an absence of jobs were created to revolutionize the way that industry operated. we have to embrace it. the creation is obvious. we keep talking about the clean air act amendments. was did i vote for them, i a cosponsor of those. they worked. that was dealing with real pollutants. it was never meant to deal with co2. i think we all understand that. the successes were there. you can use that as an argument. senator bozeman has diffused the 97%. he has answered that. i have a question for the three of you. i have to say this. dr., you're the only scientist on this panel. i was in copenhagen when this broke. everything was predicated on the assumption that this was going to be accurate. i was there when i'm at gate broke. we already are it. they had manipulated reports and covered up errors. they wanted to make their case stronger than it was. the way that was covered up in our media, we have an alarmist biased in our media, it wasn't. telegraph said it was the worst scientific scandal of our generation. it was overpowering. the guardian said it was a major blow. thinkcientist, why do you there are people who still believe that this science that was generated, if you look at my listed hundreds of scientists who disagreed with the ipc see. i have asked myself this question many times. i look at the facts. i checked all the facts. notipc see report is consistent. why do so many people believe that? i puzzled about that a great deal. is one of myy inorite books was published 1841. >> we are running out of time. >> i don't think there is a scientific answer. it is a popular issue. i try to look at the facts. i worked very hard to try and determine the effects of this over my career. i feel this data has changed. less of a danger than we thought before. you being the only economist on this panel, when this first started a lot of us were believing it was true. it happened that i chaired this committee. when i found out that they were theing about the cost, m.i.t. came out. all of them came to the same conclusion that the cost of this , the cost of cap and trade, $300 billion an year and $400 billion a year. i would not be surprised by that. >> that is consistent. billsstion is this, those them were talking about regulating the emissions of entities that committed 25,000 tons or more. the clean air act regulates 250 tons or more. true,economist, if it is what would it cost american people if they were able to successfully regulate the clean air act? >> orders of magnitude more. >> that is a good answer. thank you. >> senator bozeman. >> thank you. addressed arkansas as one of the most of the gold targets. they will be straight -- state level impacts. how will these impact opportunities for states like arkansas and what that will mean for consumers? that consumerst in these states drive energy from lance in those states, they will pay more for their electricity. this is where things get wonky. you will have cross state effects. will arkansas be able to buy commissions from other states to satisfy their admissions? how will we control that? other thorough world countries in the know not to even bother to check the validity of the permits they are selling on the markets. we need to deal with these details. down and look at these and look at the job losses that are very real, the fed does this at every meeting. they look at economic output. we need to look at this with each and every increase. just waving your hands and saying it will be find is a level of policy that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we have done before. they arisespective, because of problems in the market. little security crises. none of them affected the economy. we can do this. we can put the economy at risk. i think we need to think about this hard before we just die then. >> this is why we have a congress and congressional hearings is to go through all that theoretically and make sure haste. do it not in gravity.oned make something not be used, you have to raise the price. that is a method of doing it. you mentioned the $30 figure. what with that due to the cost of utilities? about five dollars and california is at $11. they are just adding to the cost of energy with no upside benefit. $30 is going to raise prices further. 45% in the northeast was cited today. i would expect that they would go up. leadership is not just grabbing this system out of the eu. leadership is really thinking more deeply about the implementation of carbon policy and coming up with something better than the rest of the world has put together so far, implementing it, and then having the rest of the world follow. that is why i cited the national monetary commission. we get that here we have the best central bank and the world. we still lead in that. we owe it to our citizens to put together a very thoughtful approach, meaningful approach to carbon that could actually help the world while also pricing in economic externality that is very real. >> thank you very much. can you be one of the 97% that is talked about? man istainly feel like contributing and this and that, but certainly are not one that feels like the models are acceptable. i suspect you have many of your cohorts are in the same camp. >> i think the key thing here is that science is not a rule by majority method. that is the important thing. it is discovery. i would like to quote jonas salk. a dialogue get into with nature. i put the question to nature, not my colleagues because that is from whence the answer must come." that is what i do. i look at the data. richard feynman, one of the great 20 century quantum physicists, said science is the belief in the experts. majority isng it is not correct. i have spent 50 years working on climate change in a very constructive way and what i can tell you is that since 1990 the the has started to move in 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 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 sitting back orking peoplehard w of arkansas if we are talking about 45% or much greater. increasing utility prices as far as jobs. we talk a lot about income disparity in this country. what does that do to working moms, single moms? what is that due to people on fixed incomes? thank you. >> thank you. that will conclude the questioning. let me just say some final thank yous to our witnesses who are here. i appreciate particularly the efforts of former administrators. mr.uld ask if mr. riley and 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 of thea review investigations that were prompted by what is called climate-gate, but i contend it is more accurately called climate-gate gate. scandal was the phony scandal that was whipped up at the expense of a lot of scientific work that was then reviewed i think by six different authorities, including american investigators, independent investigators, university investigators, and a british investigators. every one of which gave a full, clean bill of health to the scie nce. so to, i think that needs to be part of the record if members are going to bring up so-called climate-gate. and then there has been some reference to the projections by the chamber of commerce as to what this proposed epa regulation might cost. some of our colleagues have left report.te that i think it is important for the hearing that we also include the "washington post" analysis which earned for pinocchios, depending on how far you get from the truth get more pinocchios, relating back to the story of pinocchio, the wooden doll whose nose would grow when he was not being truthful. i will include the "washington pinocchio finding about that. there is an organization named litifact which analyzes claims and tries to do a very neutral analysis of their accuracy. d that atifact rules false for that report. i think it is in the interest of fairness that those be admitted. i will ask unanimous consent that those two documents being admitted. with that said -- >> mr. chairman. >> senator sessions. i thank the panel for your testimony. this is an important issue. i believe the doctor is correct in saying that actual data is not confirming the projections we have seen so far in a host of other areas. think it's appropriate for congress to ask questions. also, i would just say it's unacceptable that certain scientists are being adversely treated as a result of their statements and scientific research that sometimes contradicts the powers that be. so thatnk you. toit is always a pleasure work with my ranking member. however much we may disagree with things, he is very courteous and we always work together well. nk this was not hearing on the science. it was a hearing with the experience of previous it is traders --previous administrators. i think we would add the science nasa,from noaa and and the scientists who backe

Related Keywords

Miami , Florida , United States , New York , Arkansas , Louisiana , Alabama , Copenhagen , Køavn , Denmark , Puget , Washington , Germany , Brazil , China , Rhode Island , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , United Arab Emirates , Connecticut , United Kingdom , New Jersey , Israel , Atlantic City , Massachusetts , Montreux , Sacramento , Lima , Peru , Spain , Americans , America , British , German , Gulf States , American , Arctic Sea , Richard Feynman , Daniel Botkin , Lee Thomas , George W Bush , Joseph Mason , Jim Baker , Christie Todd Whitman , William Riley , Christine Todd Whitman , Jonas Salk ,