Today's hearing is on the science of global climate change and the options and obstacles related to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. It was suggested by Senator Lieberman earlier this year and I thought it was a good idea to bring the best and the brightest in to discuss the issue..
I would like to thank our Chairman Bob Smith for allowing me to chair this important Full Committee Hearing. It has been almost four years since the last Committee Hearing on Climate Change Science. Since then not only has the issue evolved but the Membership of this Committee has changed as well; there are eight new members of this Committee including myself. Therefore I thought it would be important to hold this hearing so that all of the members of the Committee can have an update on this important issue.
The state of the science has evolved and I think it is important for us to hear from the leading scientists as to what we currently understand and what we don't understand regarding climate change.
Most of the information the public hears is media summaries, taken from political summaries, which summarize the UN's IPCC Reports. The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in turn attempts to summarize scientific studies. With all of these summaries, no wonder it is difficult for anyone to understand what is going on.
But today we will see if we can shed a little light on the state of the Science. We will also take a look at some of the options and obstacles related to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the topics I hope we cover include carbon sequestration and energy efficiency. In dealing with reduction issues it is important to understand what can reasonably be accomplished and at what cost. If actions are warranted we need to make sure we understand the effects of those actions, and perhaps inactions.
But first and foremost we need to understand the science and what it means, where the questions are, and what further research needs to be completed. I'm sure most of us remember back in the seventies when the media reported on the coming ice age and how the planet would be covered in a sheet of ice, which dramatically changed to predictions of global warming in the late eighties and nineties. We need to make sure we do not get our understanding of the science from Time Magazine or summaries by politicians, but instead turn to the scientists conducting the actual research.
Article in Science News , November 1969; "Earth's Cooling Climate" "'How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,' says Dr. Mitchell of the Environmental Science Services Administration"
Article in Science Digest, February 1973; "Brace Yourself for an Ice Age" "The idea of another Ice Age is not a new one but recently scientists have been confronted with the possibility that it may be much sooner than anyone thought"
Article in Time Magazine, June 1974; "Another Ice Age?" warned of the expanding arctic saying "ice and snow covering in the Northern Hemisphere had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since"
On Kyoto
I would like to say a few words about the Kyoto Treaty. I know the international press, some countries, and even some here in the United States have criticized President Bush for killing the Kyoto Treaty. THE KYOTO TREATY WAS DEAD LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE.
The Treaty was dead when Bill Clinton signed it December 11, 1998. In fact, the Treaty was probably dead before the negotiations at Kyoto even began. The Treaty that came out of the Kyoto negotiations could not have survived the Byrd-Hagel test as found in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed in the 105th Congress on July 25, 1997.
It passed in the Senate 95-0, although I was not a member of the Senate at the time, its interesting to note that many members of this Committee voted for it including Senator's Smith, Warner, Inhofe, Bond, Spector, Campbell, Baucus, Graham, Lieberman, Boxer, and Wyden. I believe Senator Reid is the only member of the Committee at that time who didn't cast a vote on the Resolution. . One could argue that there was never a meeting of the minds between the U.S. negotiators and their European counterparts at Kyoto. When the U.S. negotiators returned from Kyoto in 1997, they announced that the U.S. would get meaningful credits for international trading and carbon sinks. However, last fall at the Hague negotiations broke down when the EU rejected the U.S. trading program and the carbon sink proposal, despite significant concessions by the U.S. Apparently the two sides did not understand each other's position in 1997.
Cynics would say that many of the countries that are publicly berating the U.S. are privately relieved that the Treaty has been pronounced dead since compliance would have been difficult if not impossible for many of them. As the Economist Magazine pointed out last month the only European countries that are likely to meet their Kyoto targets are Britain and Germany. Japan and the rest of Europe are no further along than the U.S.
At this point I think it is important not to play partisan games with the issue. We all want to make sure that we do the right thing that protects our environment without causing unnecessary harm to the economy. I would like to have the following questions answered:
1) What is the current state of the science?
2) Where do people agree and disagree?
3) Where do we need more scientific research?
4) If we do, what areas of technology do we need more research and what is the appropriate Federal role?
I'm sure these questions are just the tip of the iceberg and I don't expect we will be able to answer them all today, but we should begin to answer them.
We have tried to put together a balanced hearing, representing all sides of the issue, and I think we have succeeded. Our first panel will discuss the state of the science, both witnesses have been involved in the research and the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Our second panel includes a mix of technology, science, and business experts. I look forward to their testimony.