Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20151021

I also want to address my concerns about the administrations 3 billion pledge to the Green Climate fund. The American Public does not support paying their hardearned taxpayer dollars into a slush fund that spends billions of International Climate change programs in developing nations to address the impacts of extreme weather. The need for spending our natural disasters is down historically while other International Priorities have increased. According to the 2014 annual Global Climate and catastrophe report released, Global Natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of 132 billion. 37 below the tenyear average of 211 billion. With immediate global priorities such as the upheaval in the middle east and syria and iraq to a resurgent russia in Eastern Europe and abroad we should be focusing our resources on countering global terrorist threats with humanitarian assistance, democracy promotion and Embassy Security measures. The only reason i can see the administration wants to provide this funding is that there would be no deal without this wealth transfer to developing nations. Despite talk of American Leadership bringing everyone to the table to save the planet, its apparently american taxpayer cash that will pay off developing nations to act. American taxpayer cash is the only green the International Bureaucrats in paris seem to care about and the only green that results from any Climate Change agreement because after all is said and done this deal wont achieve the environmental gains that have been promised or will be promise. In fact, the environment will be in worse shape. Nations like china, that are the main emitters internationally, are getting a pass on having to take any shared economic pain. If china doesnt play a major role and contribute significantly, all that will result environmentally from paris is hot air from bureaucrats and politicians, overpromising and underdelivering in front of the cameras. There will be no temperature reductions, meanwhile, International Priorities will go underfunded. So i have serious concerns about what will occur in paris and ask that the members of this committee consider these concerns as we approach the Climate Change conference. Id like to now turn to Ranking Member senator udal to offer his opening, a. Chairman barrasso, thank you very much today. I think youre right, its very appropriate for us to have this hearing at this paint and thank you mr. Stern before appearing before our subcommittee today. We face an urgent task in paris, to bring the International Community together, to chart a more Sustainable Future for our children and our grandchildren. Nasa estimates that 2015 is 93 likely to be the warmest year on record. And the Current Record holder, last year, 2014. Global warming is one of our greatest challenges. It requires a global effort. Through a comprehensive International Agreement. Thats the only way we can tackle this problem. Its an environmental challenge, an energy challenge, a Public Health challenge and its a National Security challenge. It is a challenge to preserve our planet. And no one, no country, is imflun thi immune from that challenge or can meet that challenge alone. For years the Global Community has looked for answers to the problem. We have gone through various International Agreements and protocols. Sadly, the u. S. Has failed to lead on this in the past. But today im more optimistic. Im optimistic even with the tremendous political challenges here in congress. I have lead the charge in our Appropriations Committee to fight against dangerous environmental riders. Those riders would do great damage to our efforts in paris. I will continue to fight them and im sure that they will fail and with increased u. S. Leadership over the last five years weve made Great International progress. Weve been working on an agreement that will be applicable to all. That is what we need, an agreement that is comprehensive, that is fair, and that ensures every country does its fair share on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement takes us in the right direction, signing up countries developed and developing to halt the climate crisis. The United States must lead and set an example for other countries. This is the right thing to do to protect our economy in the long term. More importantly, its the essential thing to do for future generations. Over 150 countries will be part of the Paris Agreement, each country is setting how how they will tackle the problem on their own terms. This is encouraging and it is an important change from the past. The largest emitters in the developing world china and india are making serious commitments. Opponents of u. S. Climate action have argued that other nations, especially china, would never act to limit their emissions. Well, now they are. This is critical to ensure we act globally and fight climate pollution that leads to catastrophic Climate Change. Another sign of progress, the Worlds Largest oil and Gas Companies are supporting a climate agreement. B. P. , shell, and the massive state Oil Companies of saudi arabia and mexico are among the ten major Oil Companies making commitments. The United States can help lead this effort not only at the negotiating table in paris but on the front lines in new mexico and florida and alaska and every state. We can create clean energy jobs, we can put Energy Independence and climate stability at the forefront. My state of new mexico will benefit greatly from this agreement. New mexico is at the bullseye for climate clang with historic drought and other harsh impacts but we are also leading in new and innovative ways for Renewable Energy and break through technologies. There are currently more than 98 Solar Companies in mexico employing 1,600 people. There are now more solar jobs in the United States than coal jobs. Renewable energy jobs and solutions are in abundance in new mexico and this is true for many other states. Support for Renewable Energy is strong. Nearly half of the u. S. Senate supported my amendment in january for a renewable electricity standard that would have mandated 25 of our energy come from Renewable Resources by 2025. So while each state faces unique climate impacts and challenges. Each state has unique strengths and solutions to contribute. Together we can tackle this challenge as a unified country and so we can lead the Global Community as we confront this challenge as a unified planet. Together we can find a path forward that works. The Paris Agreement represents a historic opportunity to build a global effort to address Climate Change. Its an opportunity and an obligation and one history will show was the right thing to do. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you so very much, senator udall. I also without objection would like to submit for the record a statement from senator inhofe who is not a member of this subcommittee. Once again i would like to thank the special envoy on Climate Change, todd stern, for joining us today. Your full statement will be entered into the record and i would ask you to summarize in the about five minutes in order for the members to have an opportunity to ask questions. For that, we please turn to you, mr. Stern. Thank you. That works better. Okay. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, i am pleased to be here and appreciate the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee. Today i want to explain the approach we have taken to the International Climate change negotiations over the last number of years and what we hope to accomplish in paris. The Obama Administration came into office convinced that we had to take bold action to tackle Climate Change, but we also knew that a fundamental reframing of our approach to International Climate negotiations would be needed. We absorbed the hard lessons of kyoto and heated concerns. We concluded targets should be set by countries themselves, not imposed on them. That all countries should be expected to act, recognizing that developing countries face unique challenges. And that we should expect strong transparency and accountability from all countries. Thats the deal weve been fighting for. The president and secretary kerry have worked hard on Building International support for this approach, working the leaders from china to brazil to india, from african countries and small island states that are facing clear and present threats from a changing climate. In particular, the historic joint announcement last year between president obama and president xi supplemented by their recent statement marked a new era of climate diplomacy. We now live in a new reality where china has pledged to peak its emissions, to bring online an average of a gigawatt of clean energy every week from now to 2030, to provide 3. 1 billion in climate finance and were where more than 150 countries have announced their own plans to address Climate Change. U. S. Leadership has been at the heart of this progress. Most fundamentally we have leveled the Playing Field by leading on a structure and process that has led to those 150 plus submissions, including 110 from developing countries. This by itself is a testament to the buy in of countries around the world and a demonstration that the old rigid bifurcation between developed and developing countries is changing. In particular, we proposed the structure of nationally determined mitigation contributions to ensure maximum participation we needed to reassure countries that they could join the agreement without disrupting their economic and development priorities. We proposed that parties commit their targets early rather than the end of paris because such exposure would push all to do their best and the result has been a drum beat of submissions. We have pushed for the idea of successive rounds of targets. We have pressed for an approach that continues to recognize that developing countries have unique challenges but asks all countries to take actions to address the global challenge. We are leading proponents of a robust transparency system of reporting and review with flexibility for those who need it based on their capacity. And we have backed nonlegally binding targets as the best way to ensure broad participation since many countries would be unwilling to accept binding targets and we are unwilling to have a structure based on kyoto and we are convinced this approach will bolster rather than undermine ambition. An agreement like this if i may say is exactly what voices from both sides of of the aisle have been calling for for a long time. A strong Paris Agreement of this kind is in the interest of the United States. Its in our economic interests because the costs of inaction properly accounted for will dwarf the cost of acting and because no one is better positioned than the United States to win big in the multitrillion dollar 21st century market for low Carbon Energy innovation. Its in our diplomatic interest because Climate Change is a high and rising priority for countries all over the world and it is untenable for the United States to stand apart. It is in our National Security interest because unchecked Climate Change threatens global disruptions. Admiral samuel locklear, then commander of Pacific Command in 2013 said upheaval related to Climate Change is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen. The thing that will cripple the security environment probably more likely than the other scenarios with all often talk about. Mr. Chairman, the climate deal is far from done but we will strive to produce a strong solid outcome and ill be happy to take your questions. Thank you so much for joining us today, thank you for your succinct summary, statement and id like to start with questioning and go with sevenminute rounds that gives plenty of time for everyone to ask questions. On august 26 of this past year, the New York Times had a story entitled obama pursuing climate accord in lieu of treaty. The article states the Obama Administration is working to forge a sweeping International Climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planetwarming fossil fuel emissions but without ratification from congress. It also talks about the Administration Working on a politically binding deal to cut emissions rather than a legally binding treaty that would require approval by twothirds of the senate. In addition, the French Foreign minist minister fabius indicated that to be successful in paris we must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the u. S. Without going to congress. Will any Paris Agreement be legally binding on the United States . Mr. Chairman, the negotiations obviously are still under way and what elements of the Paris Agreement will or wont be binding is not something that is worked out yet. There are i would say different views. There are different views from many different parties. If you were to look at the draft text which is being discussed now you would see in provision after provision brackets that indicate the language which signifies legally binding and also language which signifies not legally binding so the short answer is we dont know. Although i will say as i said in my testimony that a core part of our own approach is that the targets countries are undertaking should not be legally binding. But some parts would be legally binding . I wonder if you think it serves the interest of this country to establish a precedent that International Commitments are made in a manner designed to thwart the constitutionally derived oversight role of congress. Of the United States senate. Well, i would not think that would serve the interest of the country, mr. Chairman. We are going to look at the agreement once we have an agreement and we will evaluate at that time and we will act fully in accordance with laws. You know there are different procedures by which United States has historically and continues to join International Agreement so we will act fully in accordance with law. Does the Administration Plan to submit any Climate Change agreement produced in paris to the senate for its advice and consent . Mr. Chairman, we dont know yet what the elements of the agreement are going to be so it would its hard to speculate at this time. As i said, were trying to were pushing hard for an agreement that does not include binding targets so were looking for something not binding. So something that is not legally binding. If there are parts that are legally binding would you submit that start. Senator, it depends entirely on it depends actually on a lot of factors. The content and what provisions are and are not binding is one of those issues. Ist existing u. S. Law is another issue. Other authorities and relevant past practice are other issues. So we will evaluate this in such time as we have an agreement then we will act as i say according to law. Because that gets into the issue of future administrations or congress would be bound by such a commitment. So i wonder if the president signs a unilateral political commitment or agreement in paris without Consulting Congress what effect the agreement would have domestically and whether it holds up long term. I would say two things, mr. Chairman, certainly theres no question that congress should be consulted. We have been up here briefing different members and staff all during this year and will continue that before and after the paris negotiations so that goes without saying. With respect to whether an agreement that is not legally blinding is has meaning, look, there is a long standing practice in the United States to do all manner of agreements sometimes quite sensitive sometimes quite high profile Via Executive agreements or nonlegally binding around. S and its the practice of both sides of the aisle to respect what has happened and to abide by the political commitments that are made by Previous Administrations. Thats true whether the Previous Administration was a republican, one being succeeded by a democratic one, or vice versa. So i think that that practice certainly should continue with but whether youre talking about the Atlantic Charter or helsinki accords or any number of nuclear arrangements, the notion of agreements being entered into in some form other than advice and consent is quite common. Just when you talk about congress being briefed, theres a difference between that and being consulted. I think both of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that over the years with different administrations huge difference between being brief and consulted. If the president signs on to this Paris Agreement at the end of this year and the courts rule that the Clean Power Plant is illegal, would the United States be able to reach the goal of its intended nationally determined contribution . Or its indc . Im trying to figure out how to resolve a commitment dependent upon the implementation of an unauthorized regulatory action like the Clean Power Plan which the court may rule to be illegal. Well, mr. Chairman, we have a good deal of confidence that the Clean Power Plan is very solidly grounded in law and grounded in the first instance in Supreme Court law. We now that there will be legal challenges. Theres never theres never a significant epa regulation where there are not significant challenges and we i wont speculate about what would happen in a situation that we dont contemplate. My final question and ill turn to my colleagues. In november of 2014 president obama pledged 3 billion for a brand new Green Climate fund. It was a unilateral decision by the president without the buyin or support from congress. International Climate Change funding may be the top priority for the president but i will tell you it isnt the top priority for the American Public. Our nation is facing a tight budget environment. We need to focus on humanitarian assistance, democracy promotion, Embassy Security measure, countering global terrorist threats. Will other countries back out of the negotiations without the administration paying these u. S. Taxpayer dollars in the form of climate reparations . Well, let me make a few comments about that and on the subject of climate reparations i might just call your attention to i could call your attention to the Opening Press conference in kyoto, in clo copenhagen in 2009 where i was asked whether the United States i was asked whether the United States would be supportive of that in particular and i answered very emphatically that we didnt that we rejected the idea. So but let me get back to the broader question of the Green Climate fund. First of all i think that this honestly should not be a partisan issue. If Green Climate fund is in essence a successor of the clean Investment Funds that president bush started in 2008. President bush committed to 2 billion over three years. We have put forward a pledge of 3 billion over four years. Seven years later thats very, very consistent in quality and in quantity. I think that president bush saw this kind of assistance to developing count trees do real stuff. This is not what the climate Investment Funds have done has been to build Clean Energy Infrastructure in developing countries and i think that they concluded that it would be good politics, good diplomacy and good economics and we agree. The Green Climate fund is a kind of successor to that so i dont think were off on some old toot doing this. I think this is a solid and responsible thing to do and i would also say that we dont see assistance to developing countries with respect to Climate Change as being any kind of an either or as between the investments that should be made in the United States and what should be done abroad. Its part of a long bipartisan tradition that foreign assistance is provided by to help prevent instability and protect National Security and expand market access. On the climate front it does all of those things as also shoerg up Food Security and health and Poverty Reduction and the like. So i think all of these things are in the u. S. Interest economically and diplomatically. And the last thing i would say is that the amount the United States has put forward you hear 100 billion and you think a huge number. The amount that the United States has put forward both from appropriated funds and from funds that popec has provided b has been in the range of about 2. 5 billion and the overall 100 billion comes from a lot of different sources, the world bank, multilateral bank, Development Finance institutions around the world, public, private and so forth. A recent report was issued by the oecd which indicated that we are so far at about 62 billion based on 2014 numbers. And with additional pledges that were made by france, germany, uk and some of the Multilateral Development banks indicated that we are probably on the way to well into the 80s. Already with the u. S. Amount being what i told, i dont think this is a huge problem. Senator udall . I yield my time to senator boxer. And mr. Chairman, here we are again. We have two different venues where we can argue about climate. [ laughter ] and always very pleasant. Were friends. But here we go. I continue to be perplexed by those who wish to obstruct action to reduce Carbon Pollution. Some are deniers, and weve been through this before, they say theyre not scientists and i would agree with them. They ought to be listening to the 97 , 98 of scientists who tell us human action and activities is causing too much Carbon Pollution. And some just dont seem to grasp the incredible advantags s that we have in moving toward clean energy and im not going to go into it because were not the environment and Public Works Committee and its not about Public Health but its so clear that when we do this we also create a tremendous number of jobs that cannot be exported out of this country. You have to have very long arms to have someone in china putting on a roof top, a solar roof top. The fact is, these are good paying jobs and the proof is in the pudding in our state which is on path to cut emissions. By the way, thats california. On a path to cut emissions 80 by 2050 during the first year and a half of californias capandtrade program the stated aed listen to this 491,000 jobs. A growth of 3. 3 . And we have the tenthcheapest electricity costs in the nation. So its the right thing to do. Americas always been a leader on every issue and i agree with you, mr. Stern, this is not an option. We need to lead on this and to say lets wait until china leads, im not waiting for china to lead on anything, frankly. I have much more faith in our systems here and our commitments here to the right thing. I want to thank you for your work on this. Ive had the opportunity to talk with you several times i think that our resolve thats going on here has brought others to the table. It gives us the opportunity to reach global agreements and my own view is that the reason weve been able to make so many strides even with the obstruction in the congress, congress is the only place that doesnt seem to want to do something, it seems, is because of the clean air act, the Supreme Court upholding the fact that, yes, Carbon Emissions are covered and the president of the United States. Who has taken jabs every single day and still understands this question. So i want to talk to you about developing countries because its always a problem. People say, oh, the developing countries doing anything. Are developing countries submitting the indcs with Firm Commitments to reduce carbon collusion . Senator, first of all, i want to thank you for your consistent leadership on this issue this year and throughout the year so appreciate that very, very much. Yes, developing countries are submitting indcs to limit their cut their Greenhouse Gas emissions. We have 152 total indcs that have been submitted. I believe its around 110 or 112 from developing countries, which is an extraordinary thing as compared to the history weve come from. Let me follow that up. I know that developing countries are mexico and south korea are considered developing countries. And i know that they have made significant pledges to reduce Carbon Pollution. Can you explain why these countries do that . Sure, senator, i think its for a few reasons. First of all, people all over the world see Climate Change as so a serious threat. Its having impacts all over the world, whether its in the form of drought, floods, or huge storms. Stress on their water supplies. Fires. Just a whole panoply of issues and countries see that. Thats one thing. The second thing is the international kno International Negotiation is also a very useful tool to bring countries into a place of wanting to take action and of wanting to take ambitious action, more so than they would have thought at the beginning. So you think they see the damage that can be done . Theres a movie out called its an old movie called climate refugees. Its a documentary that was done and i tell you, mr. Chairman, its stunning to see already some of the island nations that are essentially losing people are losing their homes. Losing the place of their birth and for generations. Mr. Stern, some have criticized chinas 2030 Carbon Pollution pledge claiming it means the country doesnt have to do anything for 15 years. Do you agree with that . No, i emphatically dont agree with it. The targets that china agreed to with president obama in the joint announcement last year are quite significant targets. That i agreed to peak in 2030 or earlier and they agreed, very important second piece of this, is to get 20 of their energy mix from nonfossil sources. Thats a pledge that will require them to build in the order of 900 gigawatts of Renewable Energy, nonfossil energy between now and 2030. Compare that to the fact that the entire United States system is 1,100. So they have agreed to build 900 nonfossil. So they have to start now. You cant turn an ocean liner around on a dime. They have to do big things, they have to start now and theyre going to do that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, senator udall, for your generosity and thank you. Thank you, senator boxer. Senator markey . Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Stern, did the United States join the u. N. Framework convention on Climate Change in 1992 after the senate ratified that treaty . Yes, senator. Are you negotiating this agreement under that framework . We are, senator, explicitly so. So there is an existing treaty, youre negotiating under that treaty which is an authority which Congress Gave to you and i just think we should make that clear. Youre not in violation of any historical precedent. Its something that we want you to do and its something that the congress passed. This Foreign Relations committee had to pass it first, now, what i hear in the voice of those who object to this agreement is this that we may not meet those goals and of course thats a very mess mistic way of viewing what is unfolding here in the United States. Were going to pledge we will reduce our Greenhouse Gases by 26 to 28 by the year 20225. Were on pace right now to reduce our Greenhouse Gases by 17 by the year 2020. So were well on our way towards this goal of 26 to 28 . Now, the hypothesis that the chairman is making is that you cant rely upon congress or you cant rely upon america to uphold its commitments so to the extent to which the president has propound add new law, the Clean Power Plant rule that will reduce Greenhouse Gases by 32 by the year 2030 in our utility sector theres no question that the chairman and others in the senate and the house, they can try to overturn that but right now its the law of the United States and the president is making a commitment based upon that law. Its on the books. Secondly, the president propounded a new fuel economy standards for the vehicles which we drive which hits 54. 5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. Its the law in the United States. Its not going to stop members of this panel on the senate for trying to overturn the law but the president is making this commitment to the world based upon the law. We only installed 70 meg watts of solar in the United States in 2005. Last year we installed 7,000 meg watts, not 70. And between 2015 and 2016 were going to install 20,000 new meg watts of solar. The price is collapsing. The same thing is true for wind. And so what we now have is 6 of all electricity coming from wind and solar in the United States. In 2005 it was 1 . We keep on this pathway and we keep the state renewable electricity standards on the books, we keep the tax breaks on the books as law well be at 15 to 220 renewable electricity b 2025 unless people work hard to repeal the law that the president is operating under. So the chairman the right. There is always within our constitutional system an ability toll overturn what is existing law but theres nothing the president is doing which is not consistent with the law which we have and if those laws stay on the books this goal will be met. So there are climate deniers. There are those that obviously dont want to see this goal met, that would be principally the fossil fuel industry. But under existing laws the president is making a commitment which is completely and totally achievable and legal. Now i think its interesting for us to then move to whats the assesment which the chinese or the indians have made with regard to this commitment made by the United States. So its my understanding that two weeks ago, three weeks ago when the chinese president was in town that he committed to installing as much clean energy, Renewable Energy, by the year 2030 as all of the existing electricity capacity in the United States today combined. Now thats a response. And then in turn, the indians then had to respond to the United States and china and made made a very huge commitment can you talk about that and the imexact the United States is having as the leader in showing that you can do it in terms of the unleashing of new challentey around the world, especially in the areas that people were most concerned about, that werent, in fact, meeting their obligations, countries like china and india and others . Thank you very much, senator and, again, thank you very much for your historic leadership on this issue. Ive known you for a long time and its been tremendously impressive. The u. S. Role, what the president has been leading this administration on has had tremendous impact, i think, with respect to other countries and china the agreement that you cited dates to the joint announcement from last year and then again reaffirmed and extended by the joint statement this year. Is hugely important. In india Prime Minister modi has made a pledge for to build 175 gigawatts of Renewable Energy. Thats a gargantuan amount for india and to do it by 2022. 100 from solar, 60 from wind and 15 from other renewable sources so a tremendous amount. To put it another way, that would be equal to the entire installed Nuclear Energy capacity in the United States today and theyre going to do that in renewables. Right, and i think you see countries, whether its brazil or mexico or others also inspired by what the United States is doing so i think its had a very, very important impact. Thank you and i want to thank you. Your work is going to go down in history. Paris is i think on track to be a big success and much of it is due to the incredible skill and leadership. Thank you. Senator murphy . Thank you very much, militr. Chairman. Theres a lot of scary moments when youre a new parent. First trip to the e. R. , first day of school. But for me i rank up there as one of the scariest moment as a young parent the day that i learned that the waxmanmarquee bi markey bill was not going to be called up for debate in the senate, thus effectively ending for the time being congresss participation in this exercise that as i think senator boxer pointed out everyone in the world has been engaged in in the private and public sector. The idea that the body that i saturday in wasnt going to do anything about the fact that by the end of the century at a moment when i hope either or both my threeyearold and sevenyearold are going to still be on this earth, Global Temperatures will be six to ten degrees higher, sea levels will be seven to 23 inches higher, as many as a million species on the planet today when theyre three and seven that wont be on the planet in their final days of life. That was a scary day. But i took some solace because the primary argument that i heard from opponents of the United States congresss unilateral action was that we shouldnt move forward on something as ambitious as wax manmarkey in the absence of serious commitments from developing nations. It was in part an invitation for this vexing catastrophic global problem to be solved at the paris negotiating table. And now it seems as if opponents are back to the same old game, do everything they can to undermine these negotiates as well and so im so grateful for your work and your teams work and i think you have done an amazing job to set the platform for success but remain as scared as i was back in those fateful days of 2009 2010. Mr. Stern, i want to just talk to you about what yard stakes we should use to measure the success of the talks. The president has been open already that were probably not going to be able to get enough commitments, binding or nonbinding, in order to hit that two degree celsius mark that has been our standard in many of our conversations over the last few years. What should we use as a measurement of whether these talks have been successful if its not two degrees celsius number . Thank you very much, senator. I would say two things. First of all as a broad structural comment, it will be enormously important for us to achieve an agreement that is ambitious and durable, transparent, that moves beyond the old firewall weve been talking about between developed and developing countries, that elevates the important of adaptation and resilience which this agreement is going to do and in general advances us toward the global transition to low carbon and resilient economies. With respect to the specific of two degrees i would say this. I agree with what the president has said, were not going to be all the way there yet. But two things to keep in mind. First of all, according to one of the most reliable analysts of what we stand with respect to the temperature goal, carbon the Climate Action tracker, they came out recently with an analysis that says as compared to last year, go back one year their assessment was we were on track for 3. 5 degrees. Now the new number this month is 2. 7. 2. 7 is not two, but thats a powerful move in the right direction, more than halfway in the right direction. So thats step one. The second point is we are looking at ambitious as essentially a fivepart package. The first is the initial indcs need to be as strong as possible and i referenced what climate tracker how the climate tracker looked at them. Second weve argued that the agreement has to include success i have periods to update and strength thing and ratchet up ambition over time. We would like to see those every five years. Its important that successive rounds be included. Third, we have supported a proposal that calls on countries to put forward what we might call white papers. Not commitments but an outline, a strategy on how you would reach deeper level of reductions by midcentury. And, fourth, a longterm goal by the course of the century for deep decarbonization and then the fifth element is the nonstate act or arena which th french have been quite frequentalfrequent ally correctly and we also have had collaborative action among countries. All of those things are part of what the french are referring to as pillar 4 but its basically nonstate actor activity. If you put those together, thats a pack thank is that is the best answer we can give for ambition, not as far as we can get but a big step already and then these other elements. Mr. Chairman, i thank you for having this learing today. I want to make one final comment which is to build on another by senator markey about the commitments in law that have been made at the federal level. Id also note there are a lot of commitments in law being made at the state and regional level as well that are serious and have enough history behind them to tell us what happens when you make a real commitment to reducing carbon. Kansas is part of the regional Greenhouse Gas Trading Program called reggie and weve been in this for long enough to have good data as to what it means when you make a commitment to reduce carbon. Its pretty miraculous whats happened since weve entered into the agreement. Weve cut carbon from 133 million tons to 86 million tons. Thats 30 reduction in carbon. But heres the real story. Independent Economic Analysis shows that during that same time, because of that investment in clean energy we added 1400 new jobs to the region during that period of time and maybe most impressively reduced the costs of electricity and heating for consumers by 460 million. Why . Because we took the vast majority of that money and put it right back into Energy Efficiency. So we helped individuals use less, find more Cost Effective means of heating their homes and providing electricity. We got a triple whammy. We created jobs, we reduced costs and carbon and this isnt guess work any longer. It isnt theoretical. Were doing in the the northeast. We have the practical results to show what happens when you make these commitments. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator murphy. Senator cain . Thank you. Mr. Chair and to you, mr. Stern. My understanding is theres an independent report out from the e oecd about the compliance with goals set out in copenhagen in 2009 and that the report indicates that the developed world is well on its way toward meeting those on ligations. Do you read the report the same way . Thanks, very much, senator. Yes, i do. The specifics the specific focus of that oecd report is on the joint donor pledge to mobilize 100 billion a year from all sources, public, private, carbon markets, etc. , by 2020 and the oecd report showed based on not even all the information yet but based on most of the information they have that we are at about 62 billion as of 2014. Is probably a few billion more will be added when they get everything counted. And then on top of that there have been some new pledges made by the uk, france, germany, Asian Development bank, the world bank which totalled together will probably add perhaps 20 billion more on top of that over the course of the next few years so if you think about this as a 2020 pledge, were probably at least in the mid80s based on where we can see things right now and maybe even more than that and theres still six years go so that was encouraging. That bodes well. In addition to the climate finance goals of developed nation, copenhagen involved the u. S. Making commitments as well. Talk about how the u. S. Has achieved on its own path toward the emissions goals that we embraced in copenhagen. Thank you, senator. Were doing quite well. The president has put in place a whole raft of actions under the Climate Action plan he announced in 2013 and some of those are actually predated that. The fuel economy standards senator marquee refkey referred earlier were at the time, i still recall from an environmental activist, often a critic of the administration, actually, said that that action back then was the single biggest action taken to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions than that any country had ever taken. That was in the first term. Now you have to Clean Power Plant, heavyduty vehicle standards. You have probably more than two dozen, somewhere between two and three dozen appliance stan cards that the department of energy has issues. All the building and appliances and equipment that are on buildings we have a methane strategy which includes mandatory methane actions to make some significant reductions of methane in the oil and gas and landfill sectors. We are also trying to implement a broader amendment that comes under the montreal protocol, different treaty. So the president is acting across the board in order to set us up to meet the 2025 target both. You have been involved in this process since 2009. So the basic underpinning that s that we proposed the structure of this agreement would have to be national. Have countries know that they were going to be scrutinized by other countries, by the press. So youve had this drum beat of submissions the so called indcs and theres been nothing like that before and go back to kyoto and theres no indication that even if you go back to 2009 in copenhagen there were a number of developing countries came forward but, a, after the fact in most cases and, b, it was about 40 or 45 developing countries at that time. We have about 110 developing countries right now and all of the developing countries. Last question i want to ask you is about the Clean Power Plant. I support the president s plan. Ive spent time digging into its effect on virginia. The virginia others are strongly in support of it. And the reason i like it, and i want to yyou to analogize this what we would hope to see coming out of paris, its not one size fits all. So states kind of are treated differently depending on where they start from, what their particular mix of fuel production is. So the goals are not one size fits all and how a state chooses to meet its goals are also flexible to local initiative and creativity in kind of deciding how to meet the goals. So to me those are salutary. Analogize that to what you hope to see come out of paris. I think its right on point because the whole idea of a nationally determined contribution in the lingo of the negotiations is that each country will have to decide based on its open circumstances, its own capabilities, hopefully with as much salutary pressure as possible to do your best, but each country would have to make the decision about what to it and how do it. And it goes for developed countries as well as developing. But even developing countries trying to reassure that they can take on the fight for Climate Change without imperilling their own priorities. So that flexibility is essential and really in some sense the core of our approach. Thank you very much. Thank you for holding this hearing and mr. Stern for your hard work and creativity in pursuing such an important global goal. Let me start i think in some ways where senator cain was pursuing a conversation about some limitations of previous agreements and how this hoped for agreement will succeed where others had some challenges. Kyoto really did not envision a comparable framework for developed and developing countries. At the United Nations last month, new sustainable goals were announced and calls for all nations to take urgent action. So talk to me how we will inv t incentivize developing countries. I think the agreement with china and the trajectory we have going into paris with china is very encouraging. But tell me how you think we will incentivize that and how that will make a difference in this round of climate negotiations. Thank you, senator. Look, i think that there are a number of ways to think about this. One of the things that is or one of the areas that we think are important has to with the whole way in which Financial Assistance is provided. And what we have said is that there really needs to be in essence a partnership between all countries. That there needs to be a shared effort among countries so that, yes, many developing country, not all, but many need some assistance, but they also have to bring their own action to the table. So if you look at the kind of provisions that were in the financing for Development Negotiation that just finished in july, it talked about not just the importance of countries in getting some assistance, but the importance for those countries to mobilize their own domestic resources, the importance to build enabling and investing environments within their countries so there is a pull for investment to come in. Weve seen this happen with extraordinarily positive impact. The most recent case is nicaragua which decided just a few years ago i think around 2010 or so that the power they were getting was too expensive. That they were going to make a move and put in place regulatory measures that would open the door. That they would make a move toward Renewable Energy. They have had an explosion of Renewable Energy and well over a billion dollars of Foreign Investment have come into build it. Were trying to spread that message to developing countries so that you can get investment, but dont look at this all in the sense of context of government grants. Thats just a small piece. Lets take care of your own situation and lets have assistance where needed and then you can bring in much bigger amounts of money by tracking it. So let me follow up on that. Weve been presented at times with a picture of a competing choice between sustained Economic Development and reduction in carbon foot print. Can we provide access to electricity for millions more people without sacrificing our work to improve the trajectory of Climate Change and if you would, reference the summit that happened at the white house yesterday. I was excited to see that more than 80 Companies Operating in all 50 states employing more than 9 Million People made pledges of their own to take their own steps to improve their sustainability, reduce their Carbon Footprint or increase investment in sustainable financing as part of the lead up to negotiations. Is it the private sector agree that we can improve the trajectory and it continue with Economic Growth . It the private that we can improve the trajectory and it continue with Economic Growth . I think absolutely. Let me make a quick comment. First of all, the answer has to be yes. You cant expect countries to go backwards with respect to their own Economic Development. My office started a program together with opec a few years ago called the Africa Clean Energy facility and through that program, we have provided a small amount of money to go along with what opec can do and now there are a few dozen projects under way. There was a problem of proper skrekts not being able to get going just for a lack of seed money. Those are all projects designed to help in a clean way and really i think about 20 million from my office joined in the investment. I yes wiagree with you with abo event yesterday at the white house. We have been working hard to communicate with and bring in cooperation corporate participation. And i think Companies Come see this. But a great many more in the United Statesand i think compan this. But a great many more in the United States see Climate Change is real and you have to act to it. I forget which, but one of our colleagues referenced pledge by ten of the biggest countries to support paris and the goal of 2 degrees. People who are fact based fundamentally, its the military, the intelligence community, ceos, if youre fact based, youre going to see that actions have to get taken. Ive been stuck in meetings where a whole series of ceos where their companies have already taken steps and they have achieved Bottom Line Results that matter for their countries in addition to a positive public benefit. Im from the state with the lowest mean elevation in america. So others are swampier, but ours is flatter. Between natural subside dooance and Sea Level Rise, were seeing lot of habitat. Dance and Sea Level Rise, were seeing lot of habitat. Islands nations are even more at risk than we are. So if youd give a comment big picture, why does it matter that we make progress in paris . It matters enormously. I heard john holdren my friend and colleague at the white house yesterday talking about what we could face if we dont come the right thing and it could be many feet, many feet, of Sea Level Rise by the end of this century right thing and it could be many feet, many feet, of Sea Level Rise by the end of this century. Pash ris is important because there is action important at all different levels. You need action in Civil Society and mopping governmeamong gover. But its important for all of those areas in the private sector of course to get a signal that the leaders of the world get it, that the countries of the world are taking action together, countries have the confidence that they can act because they see that their competitors an partners are also doing it. As people say, for years weve said how are we supposed to act if china and others arent. Thats part of what an International Agreement is supposed to do, to give confidence to countries to act and send a signal to everybody below the International Level that what theyre doing is in the right direction and to spur the action that would otherwise be taken. Thank you, mr. Stern. Senator udall. Thank you chairman barrasso. One of the things that i think, mr. Stern, that im really impressed with that youve done is gone and tried to learn from kyoto. You have tried to take in account what republicans and democrats said as a result of kyoto and one of the big concerns for many republicans has been that there should not be an International Agreement that imposes Climate Action on the United States beyond what the u. S. Already plans. Beyond what we have in law. Do you expect the Paris Agreement will obligate the United States to meet an emissions target that goes beyond what the United States has already pledged . No i dont, senator. And another big ask is that enforcement should not be left up to the United Nations. Do you expect the Paris Agreement will include compliance penalties, sanctions or other external enforcement on the United States . And i think the key word there is other external enforcement on the United States. Thats not part of the discussion, no. Purchases have long decried any International Agreements on Climate Change that do not include meaningful action from developing countries. Do you envision the Paris Agreement will include meaningful commitments from developing countries . Absolutely. And since i think youre at about the estimate now is about 150 countries, so obviously many developing countries. In your opinion, is it a significant commitment that these developing countries are making in terms of trying to tackle this difficult, difficult issue . Yes, senator. So my opinion is that youve been very responsive in terms of trying to pull people together and looking at what happened the last time around and coming up with something that is very solid. And i thank you for that. Thousand, now, i mentioned earlier about business support and were seeing an outpouring of support among Business Leaders from all sector of the economy for a strong agreement and mr. Chairman, id like to put in the record here, this is in support of Paris Agreement letter from major companies. And just read one with your permission, mr. Chairman without objection, yes. And this they say a new climate agreement in paris can help strengthen the role of and minimize risk to the private secretary are tore in a number of ways. And this is just one little part here. Providing long term direction. I think thats absolutely crucial. And aim of progressively decarbonizing the Global Economy can provide a clear signal to markets to shift long Term Investments towards Energy Efficiency and other lower carbon alternatives. This letter signed by companies that we all know, these are major company, alcoa a, bhp billington, bp itself, intel, bp e, rio tinto, shell, siemens cooperation. These are major cooperations that have said this would be very helpful. General mills, kellogg, nestle and others called onhave said t helpful. General mills, kellogg, nestle and others called onthat have s very helpful. General mills, kellogg, nestle and others called on political leaders to take Decisive Action and clear achievable measurable science based targets for carbon emission reductions. Major companies are calling for action from some of our political leaders to continue the strong Climate Action, that its a threat to economic well. Have you been engaging directly with Business Leaders in this process . Why do these Companies Say that we need a robust agreement if paris and why do they think that they would continue to thrive as all the worlds countries take action . Yes, senator, i have been engaging with business and the white house is particularly active in this regard, as well. As has secretary kerry. But i think again, i think for those who Business Leaders live in a pafact based world. They can look at what is happening. You can look at both the theory and the evidence of what is happening with respect to Climate Change. And init is useful in the eyes of many to start to put together a regime that is predictable and understandable and points as you said the direction in a long term way to give guidance to the sorts of things that they need to do. I think business again, businesslikes facts and businesses like predifficult ability. And so obviously this is not universal, some businesses who dont agree, but more and more you see this kind of thing, that businesses support action, they can see that were in big trouble if we dont act and its better to act now. If my undering from numbers that ive seen recently, for every decade that we wait, the cost of taking action goes up by about 40 . So its better to get going. And those estimates youre talking about are in the billiobillion billions and trillions. Yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Mr. Stern, during a hearing july 8, experts testified that even under the best of circumstances, it was unclear how the president could make good on his pledge to reduce greene house gas emissions up to 26 to 28 by 2025. So where does this 26 to 28 come from and can the United States meet the administrations pledge under the current law . Thank you, mr. Chairman. The number came from analysis of the various authorities that we have, authorities that are based on the clean air act, Energy Policy act, Energy Independence and security act, existing authorities that had already been provided by the congress. There was an analysis of completed action such as the fuel economy standards for light and heavy duty, appliance standard, building codes and like. There was analysis of pending rule makings at the time like the Clean Power Plant, further heavy duty vehicle and appliance standards, new action being taken on methane and hfcs and so forth as well as the federal governments own executive order. There were then there are still additional elements of the package that include actions by the u. S. Information recent service and others to improve essentially what is called the carbon sink provided by forest and grasslands. A whole set of voluntary actions being led by the department of ingagriculture agriculture. And there are also state policies that are part of the equation. And market trends, things like the abundance of low cost natural gas which can substitute for coal in many cases. Decline of costs at a more rapid rate than people anticipated. The possibility and indeed the reality increasingly of innovations in areas like electric vehicles and advanced manufacturing. So looking at all of the totality of co2 reducing activities under way, we determined that 26 to 28 was a number that made sense and that we could meet on the basis of existing authority. And id point you to an analysis done by one of the most respected environmental think tanks at the World Resources institute that has included the same thing, and that target can be met. U. S. Chamber of commerce found about a 33 gap in getting to this reduction. I want to get into the contributions of china and i said in said i cant. Before expected chinas emissions to peak around 2030. Sd i said i cant. Before expected chinas emissions to peak around 2030. Iea data shows intensity fell by 60 between 1990 and 2005, therefore a pledge to reduce intensity to 2030 just a continuation of the existing trend. So not only does china get to continue business as usual and increase their emissions, the same is the situation in india. The economist said that the concessions made by the United States are more costly and more real than those of china and the indias Prime Minister has set a target of expanding by 8 a year. If it comes close to meeting that target, emissions will soar just as chinas has done. The article went on to say with Economic Growth, indias total emissions would triple triple by 2030 from 1. 7 billion tons in 2010 to 5. 3 billion tons. India is on its way to becoming the biggest contributor to increases in Green House Gases between 15 years. Indias intended nationally determined contribution did not set a peak date for emissions, they will continue to go up. So considering that china and indias intended nationally determined contributions, will their Green House Gas emissions be higher or lower than there are today . Thank you, mr. Chairman. So let me take china and india one at a time. Will slowing the growth of Global Temperatures going to be achieved at all if all of these major emitters are given a waiver allowing them to continue to have higher emissions 15 years from now in spite of what the United States may or may not do . Well, we dont actually agree with that characterization at all that there is any sort of waiver. What we see from china is the first ever agreement to peak its emissions, which is a crucial step on the way to getting them on go down. We see that 20 promise to get 0 20 of their energy from nonfossil sources to be an en enormous pledge. So that is a huge, huge undertaking and it will constrain what china is able do in terms of their emissions. They have also agreed to a 60 to 65 improvement in the Carbon Intensity of their economy by 2030. So i think that what you will see with respect to the china indc is that it is quite solid that the climate tracker that i referenced earlier assesses china to be a quite solid indc. India, i think the strongest part of the indian pledge is to get 40 of their energy from nonfossil sources, 40 of their electric power from nonfossil sources by 2030. The pledge to getpart of that is their pledge to get 170 to build 175 gig ga watts of Renewable Energy this which for an economy the size of india is a vast undertaking. Im not here to defend every element of every countrys indc. Some are stronger than others. I think that the 40 nonfossil pledge for india is stronger than i said i can indias Carbon Intensity pledge, but that is a significant undertaking india has proposed. You agree the total numbers are going up. The amount of emissions in spite of what percentage is coming from the renewables and the pledge, the numbers will still go up over the next 15 years in spite of the fact that the United States had been coming down over the last 12 years. If i may, the numbers are coming down as compared to what the numbers would otherwise be doing. But theyre still going up. In spite of the fact that the United States are going down. I understand that. And i respect that, mr. Chairman. But it is also true that if youre an economy which is growing at 8 or 9 a year because thats the stage of toemt youre idevelopment your its hard to slam on the brakes and go negative overnight. There are people in the United States who want our economy to come back and move up, as well. The hearing was originally supposed to be a joint hearing with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, supposed to be a hearing where all the experts who worked on the president s Clean Power Plan and the targets would all be in one place to abc onswer our questio. Im grateful that youre here today. The full Committee Minority blocked that from happening, so its interesting when we asked the epa to testify, they said they had no issues that could speak to these issues. Which is as uponishing. And i know youre from the state department and i appreciate you being here. They stated on october 13, epa sent a letter to the environment and Public Works Committee chairman who said and the let are says i respectfully continue to assert that the agency does not have a witness, does not have a witness who can speak to the issues that are topics of this hearing. Doesnt have a witness that can speak to the topics. This is despite the role the epa has played in developing the bulk of regulations, despite the fact that the administrator has played a role as part of the u. S. Delegation in International Climate change conferences in the past including lisa jackson attending and delivering remarks at the u. N. Copenhagen Climate Change conference in 2009, Gina Mccarthy and the epa have no idea about any of the topics of this hearing yet i anticipate that Gina Mccarthy, head of the epa, will be attending receptions in paris with International Bureaucrats touting her regulations to anyone who will listen. So im grateful that youre here today. I think its absurd that the head of the epa would say, oh, no, theres nothing that we can add to this. So do you know of any plans that the epa has in joining with you as part of the official u. S. Delegation to the paris Climate Change conference . Because apparently they dont know anything about it. Mr. Chairman, im not aware at the moment of who from epa is coming. There is always an Interagency Group that goes to these so you admit that the epa will be represented there in spite of their inability to comment on this or attend a hearing . You said you werent sure who. Mr. Chairman, i cant comment on todays hearing because im not i appreciate you yu not i appreciate you yyou being but there are obvious issues with their failure to be here. Its interesting and i did hear some of my colleagues on the other side refer to reducing pollution. And i have another quote, this from Gina Mccarthy, head will of the epa, she testified before the Senate Environment and public works commit theity in july of 2014 at a time when the democrats were in the majority in the senate. And she stated, quote, this is not about pollution control. But i heard my colleagues talking about this is about pollution. She said this is not about pollution control, its about increased efficiency at our plant. So lets be clear with regard to the president s carbon reduction pledge, this is not about reducing pollution according to the epa. Its something else. So thank you, mr. Stern. Senator udall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think the first thing and senator markey can speak to this because hes on the committee, but i think there has been the environment and but works committee, which has jurisdiction over the epa, this has been discussed with the chairman of the committee, chairman corker and our Ranking Member and it was agreed that this would be the format and i really believe we have the best witness here to deal with what will happen in paris because mr. Stern started right at the very beginning of the Obama Administration, hes been on top of everything. Hes been to all the negotiations. I mean, there cooperate be anybody that is more on top of what is happening on paris. And my understanding, epa environment and Public Works Committee has done extensive hearings on the Clean Power Plan and things like that. And as you said, mr. Chairman, youre happy to have him here today also because i think hes the one that has the real facts on what is going on here. Mr. Stern, your testimony references the fact that these nationally determined structures, these indcs, of the paris climate pledge has actually led to countries submitting stronger climate pledges. Can you tell us more about the benefits of this approach that youre engaging in . Well, look, senator, i think that a couple of things. I think the fact that we proposed and actually determined contributions as a structure allowed countries to get into a mode of trying to come forth, figure out what they could do, not simply be in a mode of opposition and fear about how they were going to be able to manage. So i think thats been important. I think when countriess s see others acting, the most important thing that happened to kick the process off was the joint announcement from president obama and president xi last november and their countries could see that here you had the two big classic antagoni antagonists, countries seen as the leaders of the would opposite opposing camps coming together and saying this is what were going to do and making significant pledges both of help. I think that had a big impact on countries. The United States has worked directly with some countries to provide Technical Assistance and advice on how to put forward stronger and stronger contributions. And im sure that has been going on with our colleagues in europe working with other countries, as well. So i think that its something that has fed on itself in a very kind of positive way. And i think again the site which was quite stunning to people to see the United States and china at the president ial level standing up and making these commitments last year really got this off on a good footing. Thank you for that answer. And mr. Stern, youve overseen this process since 2009. Could you contrast the current scale of the precop pledges to previous meetings, in particular how does the number and scale of preparis pledges, my understanding 150 so far, compare with the level of effort in past agreements . So looking past and present. Right. Well, if you look back at copenhagen, there really werent any pledges that were made before copenhagen because we hadnt set forth and secured agreement to this kind of structure then. You it ha you did have a quite small number of countries who had essentially put out press releases saying this is what were planning do. But i think you could have counted those on one hand. So its a different ball game now and it started with the durbin mandate which we were instrumental in developing at the end of 2011 where the whole theory of the agreement was that it was going to be applicable to all. In other words, it was going to be the not kyoto. It was not going to be just applicable to developed countries, it was going to be everybody. And that was the starting point and then as ive said we worked through these different structural features along the way. And i think that has been important and i think the impact of the china announcement was also quite significant. Thank you. 1997 bird hcagel says it should not, it should only impose on developed countries and would result in serious harm to the United States. How would you square the current dialogue with those requirements . I think weve met the bird ha sgch sdlt gel requirements. People reference how i learned lessons there kyoto. It helps when youre actually there. But i remember the famous add of a scissors and taking a map of the world and cutting out all of the developing countries because they werent going to have any obligations. And that was exactly what the bird hagel, that first element, was talking about. So we had just exactly the opposite now. We have 152 indcs, 110 plus developing countries. So its a completely different ball game. The fact that its nationally determined means were not in a posture where what were talking about would hurt will the u. S. Economy and then there has also been all sorts of detail voluminous analysis done with respect to the core elements of our target. Clean power plant being the most recent one and the analysis that epa did shows significant costs to be sure, but netted out against the benefits, i think epas estimate was somewhere in the 26 billion to 45 million to be expected. So this wont hurt our economy and it will include all other countries. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. So i think its important for us to make clear that weve begun to break this link between increase in Gross Domestic Product and a reduction in Greenhouse Gases. So in massachusetts, we have reduced our Greenhouse Gases by 40 since 1990. And our Gross Domestic Product has gone up by 70 . So it wasnt inconsistent. Our unemployment right now is 4. 5 in fact one of things that has happened in massachusetts is that having set ourselves out on this course, we now have 100,000 people in massachusetts employed in the clean energy sector. So this disconnect between increasing Gross Domestic Product and reduction this gases is accelerating in massachusetts and happening across the planet, as he wi as well. In 2014, world experienced global Economic Growth without a Carbon Pollution increase according to the International Energy agency. So business will be critical to extending and building on that achievement. So what is the signal that you want to send to businesses across the planet coming out of paris . Your point is exactly right. That is the iron link that had to be broken and it started to be broken. You have to have Economic Growth up and emissions down. Thats the name of the game. And i think the signal is again long term were moving long term in a direction to grapple with and successfully tackle Climate Change. And its a start, its not a punish. But if you have all countries of the world on board to do this, the leaders of the countries of the world committing do that then depend you send a signal that this is the long term trajectory and business shoes get on the right side of history and the right side of their balance sheet. So going back to 2009 when the Waxman Markey bill was passed, for a while people thought my first name was waxman, but it was going to reduce by 80 by 2050 and 70 by 2020. So those were the goals. And it was a radical group of people who signed on to it. General electric, general motor, chrysler, ford, the Edison Electric institute endorsed the bill. The Nuclear Energy institute endorsed the bill. Company after company all across the country endorsed the bill. When you have the big three endorsing a bill to reduce greene house gases by 80 by 2050, youre no longer in the radical extreme. Its those who oppose it who are in the radical extreme. And there is an ice covering that if we went into the ocean would raise sea levels by 5 feet, that there is an increase in destabilization on the green land ice cap and thats 300 miles wide and pretty much two empire state buildings high. That that would add another 7 feet to the sea levels of our planet. So the radicals are those that say dont worry. But you cant get a are more conservative group than intel and dupont and dow an General Electric and general motors, Edison Electric institute, pe i pepsico pepsicola. The number that has signed on has doubled since then you because the science is enmore clear. And they know that they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They think they can make money and reduce gases assign ulg tape yusly. Can you tell us about european businessmen, our chinese businessman, is that your experience that its been embraced across the Business Community as an epic that they believe they can achieve simultaneously . I think that that is right, senator. We have this group of 81 companies that have signed on to the pledge that we put forth. French are also putting forth a pledge for countries internationally to sign on. I dont know what the thnumbers are yet, if they have totals that they have calculated yet. But i think youre going to see broad business support all over the word for tld for the same k things. This is triggering a big technological revolution. In 1993 in the United States, if you had a cellphone, it was the size of a brick that cost 50 cents a minute. And gordon gekko had one in wall street. That was it. But in 1993, i was chairman of tell communications. I moved over 200 megahertz for the fourth, fifth and sixth cellphone license. By the year 1996, everyone had this flip phone in their pocket. And then a really smart guy came up with the smart phone because we had begun the innovation. A computer in our pocket. But first you had to begin this revolution. And thats where we are now in the energy sector. When you go from 70 megawatts of solar in 2005 to 7,000 mega the was being installed in the United States in 2014, 20,000 installed in 2015 and 16 combined, another 20,000 megawatts in 2014, 2015 and 2016, the revolution just accelerates. And by the way, when we develop the technologies, you wind up with 600 Million People in africa today with these devices in their pockets. They didnt have any of them ten years ago. We innovated, we led, we show that had we could put in place the business incentives to move this technology in a way that could solve a problem. And well wind up with villages in africa that have solar panels on their roofs so that they can lug in their wireless smart phones and that will have been a made in the usa as our promise to the rest of the world that we would be the leader and of all of us, you are the leader in this, mr. Stern. We thank you so much. I just want to point out that it was the Ranking Member of the full committee who blocked the effort to hold the joint hearing despite long standing precedent of joint hearings. I think would have been nice to have all the players joining the discussion as has been done in the past. And i did have one final question. And it has to do with references to a treaty. During Senate Deliberations on the u. N. Framework convention in Climate Change in 1992, George Herbert walker bush and his administration, officials testified that in the view of the administration, the degree of congressional involvement in u. S. Adoption of any future protocols to the u. N. Framework convention and Climate Change would depend on the nature of those agreements. And that the administration also declared that any future agreement containing specific Green House Gas emission targets likely would need to take the form of a treaty and be submitted to the senate for advice and consent to ratification. So looking at that, does the administration intend to respect the commitment made by the executive branch in 1992, i know a different administration, to submit any future protocols negotiated under this u. N. Framework that contains and ti senate for advice and consent . Weve looked at that very carefully. And the notion of targets and time tables as that term was used in 1992, that was understood by everybody on both sides of the aisle by everybody in the International Community as being legally binding targets and time tables. That was the nature of what that phrase meant and that was not includ included for precisely that reason. So if we were to go forward with legally binding targets and time table, i think the answer would be yes, we would agree with you. If what we do is nonlegally binding targets, i think that we read that differently because we do not believe based on a good deal of study and consultation with people who are part of those negotiations that that was what was meant was legally binding targets and time tables. Thank you. The hearing is concluded. I appreciate you, mr. Stern, being here, making the time to answer our questions. I will leave the record open until october 123. I appreciate you being here. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Dhar man. Our live coverage will tip this afternoon when a House Armed Services subcommittee look this is to the f35 joint Strike Fighter program. Any want to know about cost, schedule and performance concerns. Live coverage starts at 3 30 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. And former secretary of state Hillary Clinton will be on capitol hill tomorrow morning, shell be testifying before the House Benghazi Committee which is investigating the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack on the u. S. Consulate there. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed. You can see live coverage tomorrow morning starting at 10 00 eastern here on cspan3. This sunday night on q a, new York Time National political reporter shares her experiences from Hillary Clintons president ial campaign and compares what its like now to back in 2008. I was a lot younger, i was the traveling person, i wasnt in a plane and talk to us. But at the same time, i didnt have the same sort of sources he campaign and high level people that i have thousand. And whether thats a function of being of the times or just a function of being a more senior role. Sunday night at 8 00 on c n csp cspans q a. Steve warren answered questions about military operations in iraq and syria. He talked about the continued u. S. Military support of moderate Opposition Forces in syria including the syrian coalition. Well show you as much ofcan une to the hearing on the Strike Fighter program. Good morning, everybody. We are pleased to be joined by colonel warren coming to us live from baghdad. Hell have an opening statement, take questions. Please signal me, ill put you on the list. Steve, over to you. Thank you, jeff. And good morning Pentagon Press corps. Before we get going, per usual, i have a couple of announcements to make. Id like to highlight a few points before we move on to questions. As of today, what we are conducted, 7603 air strikes. 4933 in iraq. 2670 in syria. Id like to quick you you walk you through the battlefield to get you updated on what is going on. Iraqi forces have regained most of the oil refinery. There are still small pockets offof enemy resistance. Coalition forces have conducted four strike. Its notable that the Iraqi Air Force has been flying in direct support of Ground Forces and in fact they reported flying more than 40 missions over the last three days. If marks a key milestone that were helping the Iraqi Security forces develop. In ramadi, after advancing along multiple axsi septemb multiple, the isf forces on the northern, social and western axises have continued to move forward. Their progress has slowed from the beginning several days ago, but they are still moving. I would also like to point out that isil forces in ramadi have conducted several unsuccessful counter attacks. Yesterday the enemy attempted one along the western access. They used indirect fire and ground assault throughout the entire night. Aided by Coalition Air strikes, the isf fought off these attacks and in the process destroyed a command and control mode, struck a vbid and killed several enemy of course. In support of the fight, ramadi Coalition Forces have conducted 21 strikes since we last spoke, they have destroyed tactical units, fighting position, supply caches and two boats. Moving around the battlefield, i did want to touch on the two uavs that recently crashed just to clear things up. 17 october, a predator crew reported a lost link and subsequent crash while flying southeast of bag tahdadbaghdad. The drone was recovered by local iraqi police. Local police returned to coalition control. There were no injuries and an investigation into the cause is under way. On 19 october, a different predator crashed in southern turkey. The aircraft experienced mechanical failure. The air force in this case maintained positive control of the aircraft, brought it down safely in an unpopulated area. No injuries. U. S. Military have control of the aircraft. An investigation is under way. Moving on to syria, in northern syria, weve conducted 15 air strikes in the last eight days, mostly focused in raqqa and allepo. Yesterday as you know, still in syria, we signed a memorandum of understanding with russia regarding measures to minimize the risk of incidents. This is currently in effect. It does not establish the cooperation, does not establish intelligence sharing or any type of target information. This mou includes safety protocols and thats it. We continue to believe russias strategy is counter row productive. Its important to note that according to open source reports, the strikes have displaced about 7,000 households, 35,000 people. Majority are believed to be moving to areas where humanitarian support is already strained. As you know civilian leaders from around the globe including turkey, great britain, france, determine an germany have all called russia to cease attacks and seek a political solution. Additional reporting highlights the use of cluster bombs by russian sources in several populated areas. This only continues to cause unnecessary suffering. Final item. Last week, we spoke a little bit about the effect our hvi strikes have had on the enemy. This week id like to draw your attention to another aspect of our air operations. This is our air strikes against our enemies munitions factories. During the last 45 days, weve struck and destroyed 47 facilities that produce or store vbids or homemade explosives. In other words, ied and vbid. Were significantly disrupting the enemys ability to put the ie ci echi ied on to the battlefield. Enemy use of suicide vests is down 49 from a 12 week average. Ied incidents are down 32 . Additionally, in the same period, weve struck 30 Oil Infrastructure targets. The intent here with these ied and oil targets is really to pressure the funding and functioning of the isil war machine. So getting at theirvil industri base. Its something that hasnt been talked about very much. In addition to our hvi strike, in addition to our Tactical Operations in support of troops in contact, in addition to the dynamic strikes that we take when we see isil conducting some sort of an operation, weve also got these deliberate strikes targeting their infrastructure or in in this case its really their industrial base. How they make money and how they make bombs, their preferred weapon of choice. So thats all ive got for you for an opener. Ill take your questions. Colonel warren, this is bob burns. A couple of questions. I noticed what appear to be unusually extensive air strikes against targets in sinjar yesterday or the day before. I wonder if you can explain what that is about and secondly, can you any way what happened i guess it was also yesterday with general dunnfords aircraft trying to land in Northern Iraq and being delayed by some 30 minutes or something, could you explain what happened there . Sure. I can handle both of those easily. Number one sinjar theres not a particular operation ongoing there right now, what were seeing, this is a great point, im glad you brought it up. The way the battlefield is linked. We placed increase pressure on beji and almost completed that operation. Its not quite ready to be called yet but were close. And, of course, increased pressure, continued pressure, on ramadi. And then we have pressure over in syria from our Syrian Arab Coalition partners. So, you have these pressures on multiple points across the battlefield and whats thats causing is its causing the enemy to have to react, they have to move. While there are many enemy there in the vicinity of sinjar mountain, in fact theres kind of a major line of communication that runs just south of sinjar mountain and were seeing more movement because of the pressure were placing on ramadi, beji, in syria. All that pressure is causing our enemy to have to move and one of the places were seeing them move is sinjar and as always when we see our enemy, we will kill them, so thats the answer to that question. The second part of your quest n question, general dunfords flight that was completely an administrative problem, frankly. Very low level. Flight plan that got filed wasnt exactly the right flight plan. Normally a cargo plane that move, take a certain route, this one because Operational Security and other reasons took a different route. It wasnt cleared up right. So, the plane was never diverted. This all happened on the radio. For a little while the airpla airplane the generals aircraft circled for a little while while the administrative matters got sorted out. It was handled at a low level. I saw reporting that some senior people in the Iraqi Government had to be involved. They were not. So, it was really just an admin mixup. Really nobodys fault even. It was just, you know, the nature of the situation. Gordon . Thank you. Yeah, can you clarify the issue of what the iraqis have agreed to or not agreed to in terms of russian involvement in iraq. Because it seems theres confusion there as to what they may or may not have promised. But also could you speak about the canadian contribution there against isil and what it means now that theres new leadership in canada. Gordon, the canadians are great partners. Theyve been great partners through the entire duration of this fight and, of course, theyve been long historical partners to us. The canadians have had about half a dozen or, yeah, f18s participating in this fight. Theyve also got a presence in our Operations Center. And theyre great partners. But this is a big coalition. 60nation coalition. Everyone contributes. So, you know, we continue to look forward to working with them. Dont know exactly or whats coming next, but i do know that the canadians have been a great contributing partner over since this began. Ah, the iraqis. Well, you know, i guess the short answer, gordon, is, no, i cannot speak for the iraqis and what agreements theyve made with the russians. I mean, thats obviously a matter between the iraqis and the russians. But i what i do know is we have a very good, close, tight partnership with the iraqis. We operate in the same Operations Center right across the street from where im sitting. This is a very dynamic and a very productive operation. Every target we hit goes through the iraqis. The intelligence that the iraqis collect. We use that to work up the next set of targets. So, i dont know what the iraqis have set up with the russians, but i do know that what we have set up with the iraqis is is a very is a very good setup and its working to hurt isil. Speak to the challenge that might be posed to your fight if the russians enter now iraq, too . Well, you know, weve said this before. Anytime that there are uncoordinated players in the battle space, that poses challenges, right . I mean, it poses just, you know, the possibility of, you know, unplanned and uncoordinated midair situations. I think it would also cause us to have to, you know, really examine exactly, you know, what were doing, you know, the russians have been indiscriminate. Theyve been reckless in syria. They seem to have no difficulty dropping cluster munitions around where civilians may be. They do not appear to be based on their actions, they do not appear to be interested in defeating isil. They appeared to be interested in preserving the assad regime. So, that you know, thats problematic. In the back, back here. Just following on from gordons question, there were reports today that iraqs Ruling Coalition and some shia militias were asking a bbadi for russian air strikes. Are you concerned that he hasnt come out and said, you know, we dont want iraqis or russians in iraq . Well, i mean, you know, im not going to speak for Prime Minister abadi. Hes been very clear where he stands. Were continuing to fight well continue to fight isil. To followup on that. What is the u. S. Understanding about what understanding has been reached between the russians and the Iraqi Government . Jim, i think our understanding is that the Iraqi Government, you know, they can make whatever agreement they want to. Im not going to get into any type of diplomatic discussions that happen at the embassy. Im just not. Its inappropriate. Im not going to get into that. But what i know is as of right now, today, the iraqis are partnered with the United States and the 60nation coalition to fight isil. I dont know whats going to happen tomorrow. I dont know what what agreements that the iraqis and the russians have entered into. The russians are flying here. Weve made our position very clear. I think the Prime Minister has made his position very clear. Right now. So, lets get about the business of killing terrorists. Is there a separate mou with the russians to cover iraq . And is it whatever agreement has been reached, you dont want to discuss that. Is there a potential that russian aircraft will conduct air strikes in iraq . First the mou and then is there the potential. Right now [ inaudible ] right now weve seen no indication that the russians are preparing to conduct air strikes in iraq. The memorandum of agreement applies to syria. Actually, ill have to check on what it has to say about iraq. My understanding is that its only syria. But thats a question we should be able to get you an anxious for, jim, but weve not seen any indications right now that the russians plan to conduct any strikes here in iraq. And i think both the Prime Minister and the Iraqi Government has been clear on their position regarding rushen air strikes in iraq. Right over there. Yes. Brian everstein with air force magazine. I had a question about the a10s deploying to incirlik and for months and months the air force said it would not send aircraft into syria without doing three weeks of the air defenses within syria they just wouldnt survive. What has changed in the situation now that the milliontamillioitary feels safe enough to send the aircraft into that situation . Well, you know, were specifically i mean, a10s have struck in syria already. So, this isnt a new phenomena. I dont know what remark youre referring to. I am not familiar with it. I know a10s have flown in syria. A10s have flown in iraq and obviously theyll continue to do so. These a10s are replacing some f16s that were rotating out. Its just that simple. This is a normal rotation of forces. This is about you know, theres nothing special or magical about the actual platform, right . I mean, its its you know, the ability to conduct strikes when we need them and where we need them. A10 is just another platform in this case. Replace f16s and recently there was a new search and command outpost coming in. Is that ramping up more aircraft to make this deployment