I would like to thank Chairmen Dingell and Boucher for holding this hearing on their second climate change white paper: “Competitiveness Concerns/Engaging Developing Countries.” This white paper hits a critical aspect of the climate change debate and will have a substantial impact on how we proceed with legislation. I welcome all the witnesses and look forward to their testimony today.
Before we begin, I’d like to submit for the record a letter from Ranking Member Barton and – then – Ranking Member Hastert to Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic -- along with his reply -- regarding global warming. I’d like to quote President’s Klaus’ response to the question of the moral obligation of the developed countries to the developing countries:
“The moral obligation of the developed countries to the developing countries is to create such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, services, and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less developed countries. Artificial administrative barriers, limits and regulations imposed by developed countries discriminating against the developing world, affect its economic growth, and prolong poverty and underdevelopment.”
Climate change is a serious issue and one that this Congress must address. But climate policy must mirror sound, responsible energy policy, because it is technology rather than government mandates that foster an environmental benefit. I said that I’m not a fan of the “cap and trade” schemes currently being circulated because they could indeed harm the economy and send jobs overseas. I would like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the Chamber of Commerce’s six core climate change principals outlined in testimony today:
(1) Preservation of American jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. industry;
(2) Promotion of the accelerated development and deployment of greenhouse gas reduction technology;
(3) Reduction of barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources;
(4) Maximum flexibility;
(5) International, economy-wide solution with minimal impact on industry and regional economies, which includes developing nations; and
(6) Promotion of energy conservation and efficiency.
Unlike other environmental issues we’ve tackled over the years, climate change is global and requires a totally new playbook. Even if the United States devised the strictest regime to reduce greenhouse gases, these reductions could be dwarfed and negated by emissions increases coming from the developing world. We cannot place enough emphasis on the fact that this is a GLOBAL issue – requiring a global solution.
Energy demand is going to increase rapidly in the next two decades. In fact, 74 percent of the increase in global energy use will come from developing countries. According to a 2007 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), developing countries will account for MORE than three-quarters of the INCREASE in global CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030. I am pleased that this white paper recognizes that we cannot act without China and India’s full support and participation.
China and India have hundreds of millions of citizens living in abject poverty; getting by day-to-day without electricity. We’ve heard testimony before this Committee that China and India’s first priority will be to raise the standard of living for their people. When you’re talking about populations living on one dollar per day, burning cow dung for heat, reducing CO2 emissions isn’t the top priority. How can you force action on a developing country that is still generations away from reaching the standards of living we’ve enjoyed for years?
The proposals outlined in this white paper, will have real consequences on American jobs and industry. Trade sanctions are not the best tool to compel greenhouse gas reductions. Even if these proposals prove to be WTO compliant, they could prove detrimental to our already battered manufacturing sector. WTO compliance is important, but retaliation will occur even BEFORE the WTO has a chance to rule on climate related trade sanctions. No matter how well we write the regulations or how clever we are working within the WTO framework -- unwilling partners will always find ways around these requirements.
According to the World Bank, by removing tariffs and other barriers to green technologies, trade could increase by an additional 7 – 14% annually. Increasing our green technology exports will also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world.
Complicating matters, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle view climate change and energy policy as two separate issues – they are not. I believe we must address climate change through a global framework that focuses on innovations in technology and efficiency rather than government mandates. We should pay more attention to exporting American ingenuity and green technologies to the developing world, rather than set up a regulatory framework that will increase trade barriers.
I yield back.
