OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JIM MCCRERY
HEARING ON POLICY OPTIONS TO PREVENT CLIMATE CHANGE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
(REMARKS AS PREPARED)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.      

 Last February, this Committee held its first hearing on climate change issues. 

At the time, I suggested any legislation designed to address global climate change had to be examined in the context of America’s need for energy security.

On the day of that hearing, the average price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $2.42.  While below its mid-summer peak, it is now about $3.75 a gallon.   And even though global crude oil prices are falling, the devastation caused by Hurricane Ike, particularly on our strained refining capacity, threatens to push those prices higher.

As we listen to today’s witnesses, I hope we will keep those prices in mind and ask them, and ourselves, how much higher carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems would push energy prices.  We also need to examine how those higher prices translate into job losses, both from the contraction of our economy as well as from the movement of manufacturing jobs to countries that don’t take similar steps to reduce carbon emissions.

Perhaps just as importantly, we should ask whether those higher prices would result in any measurable reductions in any global greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures.

When considering the answer to those questions, we ought to keep in mind how likely it is that other countries won’t match our actions.  China is recognized now as emitting more carbon than the U.S., and while our emissions growth is fairly flat, China’s is skyrocketing, as are the emissions of other fast-expanding countries, like India.

Those countries have made clear they have no intention of slowing their economies with restrictions on carbon emissions.

So if we raise energy taxes on our manufacturers, they may respond by moving their production to countries that do not impose such costs.  I suppose off-shoring manufacturing jobs is one way for the U.S. to meet its new emission targets.

But if those jobs move to countries who are less carbon-efficient, then not only have we shipped jobs abroad, we have also increased – not decreased – total greenhouse gas emissions.

I expect we will hear from witnesses today that climate change is a global problem, meaning that a ton of carbon emitted in New Dehli has the same effect as one emitted in New York.

So cutting carbon emissions at home while increasing them abroad will not reduce the dangers that Al Gore and his followers preach about; it could exacerbate them.

Mr. Chairman, as this hearing proceeds, we will ask three questions.                

First, how much will a carbon-reduction plan raise energy prices?

Second, what damage will it do to our economy?
 
And third, how will those changes impact the global climate?

Together, I think those questions will show the deep flaws of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade.

My friends on the other side might suggest that doing nothing is not an alternative.  But I disagree.  If doing something that makes us feel better about ourselves comes at the cost hurting our economy and raising greenhouse gas emissions, I think we are better off rejecting cap-and-trade or carbon taxes.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act.  Republicans have supported a variety of tax changes to encourage alternative energy, and conservation.  We can expand those efforts and can encourage the R&D to bring about further breakthroughs that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels without crippling our economy.  We can also encourage trade in equipment and technology that speeds the spread of those advances around the world.

Mr. Chairman, let me close by noting, that there is one feature of this issue about which there should be bipartisan agreement.  This hearing should serve notice to the next Congress that so many of the issues surrounding a cap-and-trade system, including the allocation of auction revenue and measures designed to mitigate the leakage of jobs, are squarely within the expertise of this Committee and its members. 

I will not be here next year, but I urge all Members to keep in mind the importance of this panel’s active participation in the molding of any climate change legislation that might move in the 111th Congress.  About that, I believe there is no disagreement. 
 
I yield back the balance of my time.

###