a year that we are raising studying the impact on insects today and other silliness and put it in research to find new forms of mber try energy, it might not be 30 years but 15. look how much we have cleaned the atmosphere already with our reformulated gasoline, with our totally redone injection systems d catalytic converters relatively cleanly, we have come so far. support the scientists and we will all love planet earth together. thank you for letting me speak here today. thank you very much. [applause]

thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a group of former e.p.a. administrators testified before the senate about the dangers posed by climate change and the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and said global warming is indisputeable. this begins with sheldon white house introducing the witnesses.

and as the former attorney germ of rhode island, i welcome dr. endowed professor of banking. so i welcome our panel.

contribution rather than simply sitting back and accepting. if anything, new reports have made that needed to act even more urgent. it is hard to believe there's ny question of that.

the ipcc report validates to the strongest terms of the science of climate change and projected impacts. the national climate assessment documents impacts occurring in this country right now. and a report from the cna corporation made up of retired igh military officers note the readiness concern due to climate change. we have as epa administrators served 4 presidents and we have uccessfully rustled with a number of public health and environmental problems all contingent including severe automobile and industrial dilution of a widespread water pollution and the unacceptable effects of pesticides like ddt. we made progress. we cut automobile emissions by 95% and improved air quality while the number of cars have doubled.

the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain are under control. inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interest in controls. the same is true of climate change. in all cases, cited, the solution did not result in the predicted social calamity for the scientific uncertainty are the inevitable resistance does not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction. we believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change but no legitimate debate of the effect of the earth's warming or man' country vision. he models of the leading scientist predict wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. those are the projections of these models. we are seeing impacts already

put up since the of -- since the ocean -- we are seeing the impacts already. -- this is the ocean absorbs, we thought the ocean was our friend and it is. our friend is paying a penalty. the burning of fossil fuels is causing the ocean to rise and is already threatening to shellfish and coral reef and other species. the culprit is the same -- a carbon debt originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. as cochairman of the committee and my home state of washington appointed by the governor to look at the impacts of ocean on puget sound, it is directly threatening shellfish industry in puget sound that contributes $275 million to the state's economy. taking steps to adapt and try to

reduce the amount of carbon in puget sound has begun to have some beneficial effects. we also know that if america does not get sirius about our responsibility to deal with this problem, nothing will happen in the rest of the world. no action is a choice. the choice of means leave to chance, the kind of future we want to often out of the solution to a problem that we are a big problem. would like to expand -- we like to speak of american exceptionalism, we should begin leading the world away from our appetite of fossil fuels before t is too late. it is an extremely complex problem whose solutions are not straightforward. e believe it is no excuse. >> thank you very much. governor whitman.

could you turn your microphone on? i see you need to hit the button. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for holding this hearing and allowing us the opportunity. i have to begin by expressing my frustration on the discussion of whether the epa has to be legal authority to regulate emons. the issue has been settled. epa does have the authority. the law says so and the supreme court has said so and that should be put to rest. given that fact, the agency has decided properly in my view it should act now to reduce carbon emissions to improve the quality of our air and as part of an international effort to address change. climate change is not environmental issue or economic issue. climate change has very real implications or our national ecurity.

those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. we all know the earth's climate is changing and human activity although not solely responsible and we should freely acknowledge that is what contributing to the change and increasing the risk will push the environment beyond the point of which we can repair it. and we should know that once one is contributing, one has an obligation to be part of the solution. that is what the epa is trying to do. there is honest disagreement about aspects of the agency's powerplant proposal. whether it is stretching its uthority to far. i am sure ebay will be made aware during the comment piano. my hope is that the primary focus will be on the substance. -- i am sure the epa will be made aware during the comment eriod.

it is clear that the clean air ct is an imperfect tool. since congress has declined to act, the epa must and that is the law. it will not come without cost. since the nixon, it has sought -- prosperity is not a mutually expect exclusive goal. from 1980-2012, the total emissions, it dropped 67%. our population grew by 38%. our consumption grew and our gdp ore than doubled in constant dollars. more people consuming more

energy emitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance of the epa has been able to strike in the past. further reductions are achievable and affordable. mr. chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge climate change is real and the potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action. we have specific and scientific consensus on this issue and what we need is political consensus. the two parties were able to rally around a common purpose and the early days and it is urgent that they do so again. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, governor whitman.

we now turn to mr. william riley. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for convening this session. one of the critical challenges our country faces. after i was nominated in 1988, my first briefing was on climate. it was followed by briefings on epa reports on climate effects and options commissioned. incidentally, 11 national academies of science have formally reflected upon study science and concluded that humans are affecting the climate and greenhouse gases are changing it. at that time, climate science was a matter of computer modeling.

notably the greenhouse effect. which is planes while the atmosphere is hospitable to life. the concern prompted jim baker to signal a policy of no regrets. we will consider those measures, he said, also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. n 1987 montréal protocol which thomas helped negotiate and that was 20 five years ago. the models are far more reliable and buttressed by thousands of credible scientific studies documented changes underway. i listened to senator boozman, the pace of change, tipping point, methane emissions and more. it is a complex system and we do not have a complete picture. we welcome serious critiques to examine gaps and anomalies and uncertainties.

that is how science advances our understanding of complex issues. change is underway. we can expect to see many more disruptions or intense storms and more wildfires and iseases. it will arrive in america. storm surges. he to waste another impacts on our health and water resources. food production. the longer we delay, the more adverse to the impacts will be in the bar expensive it will be to address them. producing greenhouse gas emissions can help send off more impacts later this century. increasingly i believe we have a sector on an agenda and our federal agencies to begin to adapt likely changes and build

up resiliency. dealing with flooding and meeting future projections will be costly. i chaired a task force for governor schwarzenegger and we oncluded the 1100 levees and the sacramento basin will not survive anticipated sealevel rise. climate change and the disruptions as pointed out our a lobal problem. absent a action by china, brazil, india, and other economies, what we do alone will not suffice. action by the united states is not sufficient. nonetheless, necessary if we are cregget to negotiate with other constraintsd carbon will thwart their needs for economic growth. the debate between developed and developing countries has tended to focus on how much aid that

countries will provide rather than how much will reduce greenhouse gases. i participated for a number of years in the china sustainable energy forum. at first throughout the 1990's, any mention of climate change triggered a lecture about those who caused the problem should fix it. it now is a matter of self-interest and respond in the international negotiations even they continue to assert the national interest.

opportunity to offer perspective on climate change based upon my experience at epa dealing with many complex environmental issues during the reagan years. this is the approach we used during my time at epa as we addressed a range of nvironmental problems. whether it was assessing the

impact of stratospheric ozone depletion or the impact of lead n gasoline on children's health, scientific data and analysis were the first step in evaluating the risk posed by the problem. in my six years at epa i dealt with many contentious ssues. i can't member any other matter that i have dealt with during that six-year. of time a that were not controversial. some more than others. the issue of climate change is one that the epa and the global scientific community have studied and analyzed for decades. whether it is the panel on climate change or the latest scientific evaluation on climate assessment, it is clear.

we know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40%. we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know they have contributed to more than a rise in global temperatures since the 880's. we know global sea levels have risen eight inches by thermal expansion caused by melting of laciers. we know that ocean acidification s occurring. this is harming our coral reefs and marine ecosystem. we know the communities in our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. in a florida, we see increasing salt water intrusion in our

drinking water supply along the coast due to sea level rise. we see coastal communities dealing with sea level rise on heir drainage systems. the economic impact is undeniable. the local governments struggle to address today's impacts of climate change while trying to participate the risk in the future israel. on a broader scale, widespread impact is across the country. it will range from the shellfish harvest in the pacific northwest due to ocean acidification or ildfires in the southwest. given this assessment of the impacts and risks posed by global warming, epa has the esponsibility given to it by

congress and affirmed by the courts to address the risk management challenge. we know there are many approaches that can be taken. we know that all of them are controversial. we know the gases we have committed will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. a solution will require a ong-term commitment. we also know what many of the solutions are. some of which have been mentioned. improving energy efficiency. increasing low emission energy production. widespread adoption of trategies like these can supplement and is -- an international agreement. a coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries

adapting measures dealing with impacts of climate change already taking place today. more action is needed to address he impacts today while addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding dangerous levels of future warming. the recent steps taken by the epa to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are significant mitigation measures. the u.s. will demonstrate international leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. i would suggest that if the nited states is not taking the leadership position, an international agreement will never come to fruition. thank you for adding me give my views on what i consider a ritically important issue. >> thank you very much, mr. thomas. let me just thank each of you for your service to our country in a challenging office.

we turn now to dr. that can. >> i come here today as a scientist. i have published research on the possibility of global warming and the potential ecological effects. some examples, i developed a computer model about forests and endangered species. one of my graduate students at it world vegetation to a major climate model. i was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity and publish the paper comparing arctic sea ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. i have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its species and a taint and intellectually must pproach.

i have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. i have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing about reconceived emotionally-based positions. i was an expert reviewer of the white house climate assessment. we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. it is my view that this is not unusual and contrary to the characterization of the two reports, these are not apocalyptic or a reversible. i hope my testifying will lead to a more rational approach. the two reports do not promote

the kind of rational discussion we should be having. i would like to tell you why. my concern is the 2014 assessment report is speculative and incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives more than they deserve. they are not based on facts. the two reports assume that the climate forecast is happening and will continue happen and row worse. these predictions are way off the reality. the extreme over emphasis has aken our attention away from many environmental issues that have been ignored. there are 10 issues which have been mentioned. a singer focus on climate change of skiers the best solution.

in terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues that we should focus. there is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in a steady state. this is the opposite of the reality. environment has always changed and living things have had to adapt. the report says living things are fragile and unable to deal with change. the report repeats the assertion that large fraction of species might go extinct. the model is incorrect.

few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years. some of the report conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles. the white house climate change assessment results from climate hange. i reviewed the study and found not a single one of the series is supportable by direct observation. these authors state the contrary. they stated that the polar bear population has never had an estimate in a scientific sense. this is a qualified guess.

some conclusions are ignorant of the best statistically valid bservations. the report says that terrestrial has sequestered the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. i have done the first valid estimates. the estimates uptake are not statistically valid. the report uses the term climate change with two meanings. i have heard that today. these are not distinguished in the text area that is confusing. of course the comment is changing. if a statement is about natural change, then it is a truism.

if the meaning is taken to be human caused, i do not support the statement. >> next we'll hear from the attorney general area --. >> i am very pleased to be ere. as the attorney general of the state of alabama it is my duty to uphold the rule of law. that duty includes enforcing environmental laws that help reject our natural resources and the help of our citizens. one of the most important matters i am involved with as attorney general is being the gulf states bp oil spill litigation. our coastline was covered in oil. our economy would shut down for months as a result of this bill.

i understand firsthand man-made environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective environmental regulations. my comments have a concern with the administration's approach to egulation. the states have flexibility. providing the states with costly policy choices, does not provide any actual flexibility and produces the same outcome. congress did not intend for the clean air act to have such a far-reaching consequence.

to prevent impacts such as those will flow from the epa proposal, congress limited the authority. iven the enormous burdens that would be given, they have disregarded the limits of the law. they are expressed in the clean air act. the clean air act for bids regulation. existing utilities is regulated. the clean air act also forbids regulations that are based on admission reductions the academy achieved at individual acilities. epa is for posing uidelines.

epa is improperly limiting the express statutory delegation to the states. in doing so, this jettisons decades of resident establishing state jurisdiction over electricity markets. the state of alabama opposes the epa's mandate. it would have disastrous consequences for electric reliability and the economy. those consequences would be in oppose and of the clean air act. it would do so at the expense of state authority that is identified and preserved in the clean air act. it would do all of these things for no benefit. there's no rationale that consists for such egulation.

>> and now dr., please proceed. >> good morning. thank you for inviting me. this is a crucially important topic. my research specialty is market failures. i studied cap and trade in 005. i did so because the natural push upon captains trade olutions despite consensus among economists that cap and trade does not suit carbon emissions. i don't disagree with the diagnosis. you are presupposing that the treatment is known. it is not. in recent history, has riced

carbonate levels prohibit of two emissions. prices hover at five dollars and $11 in california. prices in excess of $30 or necessary to cut emissions. the proposal is an attempt to specify quantity goals instead f price goals. there are two problems. to control quantity, one has to be in control of the thing one targets. the federal reserve learned this years ago. carbon markets determine policy of carbon from -- this is unworkable. in a serious of famous cases, they have sovereignty over the number of permits they issue. nvalid permits infiltrated and

the exchange had to close for three days. swat backs had to be rranged. it doesn't matter which side of the price quantity you look at, the effects of the same. quantity will go down only a price goes up. when real prices go up, output declines in unemployment increases. corporations forgo -- they feel the effects. t is important number that these are not just oil and gas companies. these are companies like walt isney and walmart. i regret the state epa goals on a number of pertinent valuables. states with lagging economies coming out of the great recession have tougher goals to meet than others. there are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate hat.

if we just think about those for a moment. no government has yet accepted the lower economic growth to curb carbon emissions. prices should go up that they can't their the political heat. in march, the u.k. chancellor announced the government would freeze a tax on carbon emissions to cut consumer energy bills. consumer energy costs became a campaign plank which vowed to freeze energy prices if they win. a similar issue is growing in germany. by far the worst effects of carbon markets has been the fraud and theft.

if we are not ready to deal with the corporate fraud, this is troubled the established markets in recent years, we should not be discussing the implementation on the largest economy in the world. the 90 failure of existing carbon policy risks raising energy prices. climate talks on carbon broke down this week over this simple act. members of congress and rem are that the national monetary commission studied central-bank functions around the world for seven years before concluding on the design of the federal reserve system. let's research existing mechanisms before emulating failed schemes around the world. while continuing carbon to grow as a natural and global problem. thank you.

>> let me begin with a question that is prompted by testimony. you described a number of environmental improvements the took place on your watch. you mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting ontrols. you said that in all the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the redicted economic and social calamity. each of you has had experience with having to make decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about dire

consequences of your decisions. each of you have made that decision and seen the consequences that played out in the aftermath. y question to each of you is how did the reach -- worst fears of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turnout in reality as the rules were applied in your own xperience? >> mr. chairman, let me mention one example. the congress in 1970 passed the clean air act. in the law itself by 1975 the ars would be 95% improved.

the claim of the i will bill companies was this was impossible to do by 1975. they were probably right about that. it was overly ambitious. i was authorized to give them a one year extension from meeting those 1975 goals if it was warranted. we decided not to grant the extension and in the second we did granite. >> by 1976, with the use of the catalyst, most of the automobile companies were on the way toward achieving the standards as required by the statute. the claims during those hearings and during the passage of the laws were all that the industry was going to collapse, that ford motor company was they were going to have to shut down their company.

there was enough flexibility in the law to achieve the standards hey needed and once the rule wasn't serious and we were going to pursue as vigorously we could of the achievements of the law under the rule, they began to focus on reducing the cost. the motivation on trying to resist the law that was passed by the congress changed from one of claiming the end was near to one of let's see if we can't do this and do it in a cost-effective way and did do it in a cost-effective way and achieved the standards and later than they expected. there was some leeway granted by the congress after the original law. and we got almost three times as many cars on the road and the emissions from the automobiles are 95% reduced.

>> in my remaining minute, let me ask you to fill in and i am running out of time. >> the best example i can give, when we were increasing the efficiency of air conditioners, we were being sued by everybody, including the d.o.e. saying it was going to kill the industry. we found one company who said they could do it. they did it and started producing highly efficient air conditioners and everyone has exceeded those rules. and now 23% ratings. the ingenuity in the american system kicked in. the minute they knew it was real and was going to happen, not only did we not see a loss of jobs or loss in dollars, but saw this whole industry achieve

levels that we didn't think was possible. >> thank you. >> well, we certainly have made great progress and the air and water has been cleaner than it has been and seen the situations in china and we know that we are proud of what we have accomplished. however i would say that co-2 is a different cattle of fish. it's plant food. and it's not a pollute ant in any normal definition of it, although governor witness man, i will acknowledge that the supreme court ruled otherwise. the hairman, i would offer letter from the attorney general regarding e.p.a.'s asserted authority under the clean air act to emit co-2 emissions from

existing coal-fired power plant and white pip paper from 17 attorneys germ regarding the authority of states under section 11-d of the clean air act to determine standards as applied to individual sources. >> without objection, those records will be made a part of our record. >> thank you. the president on november 14, 2012 said, the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. on may 29, last year, he said, quote, we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago, closed quote. i want to ask each of our former strayedors if any of you agree

that that's an accurate statement. if you do, raise your hand. thank you, the record will reflect that no one raised their hands. torney general, one of the things that the doctor mentioned, this is difficult when we have assertions repeated that aren't established by the facts and the same is true about hurricanes. you count up the number of category three, four, five hurricanes each year, this is not a matter of dispute, we don't have more. yet, we have the president, top officials repeating that. the justification to hammer the coal industry and other -- driving up costs in our country. , i had here eneral

a question i wanted to ask of you and i appreciate your appearance and fine leadership. the four administrators today say we need to act now. would you also say it's important that we act according to the law and do you believe the e.p.a.'s proposed existing power plant guidelines are consistent with the law? >> thank you, senator. appreciate the opportunity again. and that is why i'm here, not to debate the science or the policy. that's a matter for the scientists of this committee and members of the united states senate. whatever decision e.p.a. makes and whatever policy it decides to implement, they follow the law. they failed to do it in this case. i appreciate you introducing into the record a letter from my colleague, which goes into the

legal infirments as well as the letter from the other a.g.'s from around the country who feel the same way. our role is to make sure that whatever the e.p.a. comes up, follows the law and respects the .tates' law so that's the oath i took and that is the reason i'm here today. >> our staff has done a study on the federalism aspects of the e.p.a., clean air act establishes itself, a cooperative federalism between states and e.p.a. do you think the proposed guidelines adhere to the clean air act process? >> i do not think so. i think what the e.p.a. is attempting to do is to regulate at the federal level, removing all the discretion that would normally reside in the states in this case.

and i guess in my experience and maybe it was your spreps as attorney germ when you preceded me, regulators like to regulate and it's an important role that we play to ensure that when they decide to regulate that they stay within the bounds of their authority. if you are a regulator and see a problem, you want to regulate and naturally, in my experience, try to exert as much authority as you think is there. and that is what is occurring and that's why it's important to me not only in alabama but others across the country. >> chairman boxer. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go rapid fire. dr. mason, when when you talk, you remind me of the alarmist we heard in the 1970's and 1990's and coming from a state that is undergoing a boom, i'm here to

say i'm going to send you some of the stats that the honorable christie todd whitman and i want to know if they are incorrect. om 1980 to 2012, total emissions, pollutants dropped, population grew by 38% and energy consumption increased by 0% and g.d.p. doubled and jobs increased 88%. so i'm going to send that to you for your comment tear. we have heard this every time there is an initiative and turns out to be wrong. the alarmists are wrong. i also want to ask our four honorable e.p.a. folks just tell me if they agree with this and that is senator sessions and i -- he is my friend and we

respect each other. he says this is not a pollute ant that hurts you, but there is an endangerment finding and started under george w. bush and completed under barack obama and national climate assessment that s required by law every your years and republicans voted for that and in this particular assessment it calls out the dangers of carbon pollution and says it's going to increase ozone and asthma and increase hospital admissions. climate change is projected to harm human health by increasing ground-level ozone. they cite more carbon pollution is increasing global temperatures and worsened parallel pollution. is there any one of you that has

a problem with that analysis? ok. let the record show that they agree with that analysis. now, i want to talk to my friend from alabama and ask you this question >> isn't it true that alabama lost all recent major clean air act cases. alabama lost its challenge to e.p.a. to state air pollution rule in supreme court and alabama lost its challenge in mercury and toxic air rule in the d.c. circuit in the white stallion case and alabama lost its case in the endangerment finding and tailpipe standards in the case of coalition for standard coalition? isn't that a fact? >> i don't recall. >> you i don't recall losing

those cases. i think you are right. >> i think that's important. let me just ask a question to mr. thomas. i know you have talked about the impacts in your home state of florida, that you are already seeing and i had the privilege of going in a helicopter over the miami region and it's just -- when you see how much water is there, it takes your breath away. i wonder if you could talk about how local communities in the state of florida are joining together to address the growing impacts of climate change and do many of these local actions have bipartisan support? let me just ask mr. thomas this. i only have 58 seconds left. >> senator, the -- particularly in the south florida area, miami area, six counties have basically come specifically to work on adapttation measures

dealing with the problems they are facing. saltwalter intrusion, drainage systems, how they deal with today's problem. average sea level rise of about eight inches has a significant impact. talk about areas that both because of their level above sea level and also because of the terrain and the subsurface, basically the limestone, causes a significant issue in that part of the state. we see local governments spending significant amounts of money. and my sense is that is going to be an expanding issue and expanding problem, particularly in the south florida area in the near term. i met with a group in the miami area, including scientists who participated in the process and

their concern is what's happening today and how it they are talking about 10 years. >> let me close by letting everybody know this. when it comes to environment we differences. when it comes to preparing we and in theogether last bill i wanted to mention that he would have taken steps the coastal states and the sacramento issue, mr. riley, mentioned. >> chairman. >> senator vetter. >> may i make a comment. in order.ot this it the time to ask questions. recognized.you are >> thank you, mr. hall of fame. chairman.i'm frustrated again e at some of the cartoonish nature of the strawmens going after instead of having a detailed

serious discussion. senator bozeman's meant and explanation of the 97% goes to that. -- really goes to that. 97% believe in the consensus about climate change. it is defined so broadly that virtually all of the republican members of this committee would be among the 97%. hope we can get beyond going after straw men having these sort of cartoonish conversations. and with that theme of science, science, real discipline in mound, let me start there -- in there.et me start of all of your panelists who has graduate advanced degrees in the natural sciences? okay. great. so let me ask you, in my opinion withf these areas cartoonish claims and outlandish severe weather

multiplying every day. the historicalis record about the severity and frequency overall of hurricanes, floods?s, droughts and >> do i are to push this to talk? >> you are on now. >> okay. had in past jr.imony from roger pielka the analysis shows that these have not in reeseed in terms of -- increased in terms of major storms. if that is the specific question been an increase in tornadoes and major storms i his analysis. >> i just point that out because common one of the most rallying cries about this severeish debate, weather. also let's talk about real science. we have here obviously a huge issue which is whatever we do, what is the rest of the world doing? these posters just illustrate what china is doing.

countriesare other that are a major factor, india, a.zil,est is set dr. batkin with this in mind with the e.p.a. rule as constructed have a significant effect on global average temperatures or sea rise? so sigh the analyses -- the auntilcease hoes if the u.s. acs alone it would have a minor effect. >> can i make a comment about rise?vel >> very briefly. time is limited. >> okay. go ahead. >> most of the comments were about sea level rise. geologists,nown to

oceanographers that the sea been rising since the last of the ice age at ago and the average estimated rate and measured rate is a foot a century. is natural background. the mention specifically by one hashe senators was this it risen 10 inches in one place since 1930. well, actually, this is pretty -- this is within that natural back iground. cut you offean to but this is on my limited time. he would can try to come back. isi wanted to say that completely natural. >> let's go on to the other big impact that we can measure, economic impact. three restree her

cal discussion. bloomberg news. cole returns to german utilities, replacing low cost nuclear. the guardian "soaring energy and housing costs forced homes to turn to food banks. "new york times." spain is energy in taking a beating. what should we observe and learn european experience? >> well, i think you to acknowledge that in terms of the in this medical policy has beenolby ha the equivalent of medieval blood letting. it is not working. notice.gs you to first of all, there is already a market developed not only to argue against taking action with respect to carbon, there is setting uplopment in these financial trading desks

wants toe carbon that lobby to undertake this option. is a very strong and very large industry right now and so there are interest groups pushing for this as a solution that in fact will not work. markey?or >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go to the e.p.a. administrators. thank you all so much for your service over the years. here of chart u.s. g.d.p. since the great in 1929.n president johnson signed the inst clean air act into law 1963. it was amended in 1970 and 1977 and 1990 as indicated on the chart. so i would just like a quick each of you, has g.d.p. gone up or down since lawsof these clean air act have --

>> certainly not going to argue senator. chart, it has gone up. >> thank you, governor. >> i can't disagree with that. that is a fact. >> thank you. >> well, the clean air act amendments that we were in 1990 wereor followed by 10 record-setting years in g.d.p. growth. >> interesting. not a bloodletting then, that what you are saying? say so. wouldn't >> you wouldn't say that? >> no. your chart.ith it has gone up. >> do you think that finding new with climateng change can actually create jobs unleashingomy by unlohsing innovation to accomplish that goal? question it will create jobs. it will also have impact on employment. >> i look at it not only will it thete new jobs in some of renewable fields but we have one already producing a lot of jobs and can produce a lot

more and that is the nuclear power which is a base which releases none was greenhouse gases or other regulate pollutants while it is producing power. >> the 1990 amendsments crowiated an enormous number of gas and natural clean cole. coal. be created on i think it will impact jobs and we have the responsibility to focus on how do we provide assistance to those whose jobs are being impacted. >> let me move to another example which is the regional initiative across the northeast in terms of the impact that that has had in reducing greenhouse gases and at the same time overlapping with economy across the northeast which has continued to grow over those years. reg-e was put inla place there has been a 40%

in greenhouse gsa on average in those states where it was put in place. addition, it has helped to save consumers money, created generated over $750 million in economic value massachusettsf alone from 2009 to 2013. and mr. chairman, i would like to submit all of that economic data for the record. >> without objection. >> maybe governor, maybe you could talk about that issue job creation aspect of this and especially since it core argument here using medieval blood it is to describe what the impact is since the states reg-e have seen economic growth. >> i think it is absolutely fair to say there will be jobs this impacted with whatever actions we take. that has always been true and we

have an obligation to ensure that we do the best that we can those that will be impacted and find other ways of earning a that this recognize is real and people get hurt. and one of the things you learn a a governor or anybody in position where you have to make decisions is you cannot make a an equalthis has impact on everyone. some people will not see the they may see and is your and it obligation to do when is in the best interest of the greatest number. we have been able to do that in this country and been able to increase jobs. mr. thomas,, argued for climate variables. mentioned sea level rhode rise andrainfall. they have been measured for decades. theoretical or

models. impacts of those changes on your own home state, mr. thomas? couldcowboy me, senator, you -- >> ima' sorry. could you please allow thomas to answer the question he has been asked? tosenator, as i indicated senator boxer, clearly south florida, particularly is dealing sea level rise as it saltwaterth intrusion. thenage systems critical to well being in south florida. is,y's sea level rise indeed, an issue in our state just as it is in a number of other states. >> thank you. of a milkman so i know that technological change occur. refrigerators made obsolete the milk.ry of the fact that there weren't more

milkmen that were created weren't jobsthere created to revolutionize the way in which that industry operated. since the beginning of time and we to embrace that creation is obvious. >> i enjoyed that. pretty good. thee keep talking about clean air county amendments of 1990. amendments not only did i vote for them but i was the original cosponsor of those. and he worked. that was dealing with real pollutants, sox, nox. meant to deal with co 2. understand this.derand i you could use that as an going intoainst regulating something that most of us don't believe is a pollutant. would won't make that argument. senator bowsman diffused is 97% and we will hear that over and over again but he pretty well answered that. throw of youor the but i will skip you now, general

strange because jeff already asked the question. scott pruitt holds you in the highest regard among all of the general in the united states, i have to say this. dr. batkin you are the only scientist on the panel. >> yes. >> and i would like to ask you i happened to be in copenhagen loosehe whole thing broke and everything was predicated on the assumption that ipcc was and theybe accurate were the ones that started this whole thing. when was there climate-gate broke. the is when they uncovered ipcc manipulated reports and thered up errors to make global warming case stronger than it was. the way that was kind of covered over here, wea have an alarmist boy ras in the bias in the media here. throughout the world it wasn't. think thatlegraph, i is the largest printed

publication in the u.k. says the scan tal of our generation. the financial times said the intellectual corruption is alarming. you as a scientist, highway to you think that -- why areou think that there people who still believe that this science that was generated thishe reason i'm asking question because if you go back and look at my website in 2002 listed not athat i few but hundreds of scientists ipcc.sagreed with comments on that? i have askedtor, myself this question many times theuse what i do is look at facts and check all of the facts the ipccnd that reports are not consistent and biased. now, are you asking me why do so believe that or?

>> that is good. about that ad great deal. what i can say is that one of my favorite books is by charles published in 1841 called "popular -- are running out of time. >> okay. >> but as a scientist -- think there is a scientific answer as to why so many poem have come to believe this. become a popular issue. i tried to look at the facts. on -- to try hard to determine the effects this of over my career. >> um-h'm. >> and i feel this data has less ofand that it is an effect and danger than we thought before and i'm surprised how much -- >> very good. dr. mason, you being the only let mest on the panel ask you a question. years ago when this first us really weref believing it was true because

that was what was supposed to be believed. at that time that i chaired this committee and when i found out that they were talking about what the cost be and if you remember the economy -- econometric survey out and charles rivers came out and all came to the same conclusion as to the cost of aboutnd we were talking the cost of cap and trade would be between $300 billion and are.billion a we first of all, i ask if you agree with that? surprised at be all by that. >> that is the one thing that is consistent. peoplen'thood a lot of disagreeing with that. my question would be this. those bills that they were wasing about, the first one lieberman billn live and then warner lieberman and markey.ator all of them were talking about

regulating the emissions of emitted that 25,000-tons or more. air act regulates 250-tons or more. economistk you as an if it is true that it would be between $300 billion and a year for the 25,000 tons or more. do you any idea what it would cost the american people if they successfully regulate this under the lie clen air act? magnitude more. >> well, i think that is -- that is a good answer. you very much. >> senator bozeman? you, mr. chairman. professor mason, in your addressed across states. arkansas is one of the most difficult targets in the country. you said there will be state level impacts that affect jobs and growth. thed you explain how impacts could impact opportunities in states like

meansas and what that will for consumers? simply, to the extent that consumers in these derive energy from plants in those states, again, those consumers will pay more for their electricity. things get wonky because you will have effects.te will arkansas be able to, for instance, buy emissions from theirstates to satisfy emissions? how are we going to control that? buy can they -- can any permits or offsets hungaryionally from which defauxed investors leading to this market shutdown that i cited? or other third world countries this have been known not to even validity ofeck the the permits that they are selling on markets leading to this fraud and international problems? we node to deal with these -- we

need to deal with these details. actually goinge to sit down and look at these and look at the job losses that thisery well, the fed does every meeting when they talk about raising rates. they look at job losses. economic output. i think that we need to look at this with each and every costs andnd energy just waving your hands and saying it will be fine is another story because we are to a level of policy implementation that is orders of anything greater than he would have done before. and to me, from moi perspective on -- my perspective on financial crises thyrosis in problems in the market but scale and magnitude relative to the economic system. of minilots securitization crises since 1990. affected the economy until we had it happen with mortgages a big enough product to throw us into row section. ecan do this and put the economy at risk but i think we need to think about this hard before in. diving this is different. >> and that is why we have the

congress and congressional through allto go that theroetically and mix sure we do it not in haste but to get consequences out on the table. you mentioned that in order so inic it is like gravity that something not be used you have to raise the price or that is a method of doing it. the $30mentioned figure. what would that do to the cost of utilities? rggi right now is at about $5. at $11.ia is haveesting those might not pushed back economic growth but they are not pricing carbon either. add together cost of energy with no upside benefit in terms of consider bon. if to raise prices earlier. cited the northeast was today. i would expect prices would go

up by orders of magnitude that.r than there has been talked to about leadership in terms of carbon policy. leadership is not just grabbing this failed system out of the effective system out of california and propping it down nationwide. is thinking more deeply about the implementation upcarbon policy and coming with something better tant rest of the world has put together and implementing it and then rest of the world follow. that is why i cited the national monetary commission with respect federal reserve. we did this. we have the best central bank in the world, like or hate the it.ils of we still lead in that throughout think we owe it to our citizens to put together a very thoughtful approach tortion put together a meaningful approach to carbon that can actually help the world while an economic externality that is very real. >> thank you very much. dr. batkin, you would be one is talked about

and certainly you feel like man contributing and this and that but certainly you are not feels like the models are acceptable. cohorts you have many in the same camp? >> the key thing is that science rule by majority method. that is the important thing. woulddiscovery and i i like to quote the inventor of the polio vaccine. get into a dialogue with nature and put the question to nature, not my colleagues because that is from whence the answer must come. and that is what i do. i always look at the data and richard thineman one of the great 20th century quantum theicists said science is belief in the ignorance of experts. to keep say tags majority,

that is not -- saying it is a scientific not a statement and it is not correct. i spent 50 years working on in a veryange constructive way and what i can aboutou is that since 1990, the data has started to move in the other direction away from an important effect by human beings. and that is just what the facts show. >> thank you very much. my concern is, you know, certainly we need to examine the increased risk of this, but i tremendousu there is increased risk for the men and women that are sitting back hard-workinge people of arkansas if we are talking about a 45% or much greater probably in our case increase in utility prices as far as jobs. a lot about income disparity in this country. what does that do to working single moms? what does that do to people on fixed incomes? you, mr. chair.

>> thank you very much, senator bozeman. conclude the questioning. let me just say some final thank yous to our witnesses who are here. particularly the efforts of the former administrators. i would ask if mr. roily and mr. thomas would -- mr. riley and mr. thomas would answer my question for the record. be kept open for an additional two weeks for anybody who wishes to add record. to the toill ask unanimous consent thein a review of investigations that were by what is called climate-gate but i contend is

accurately called climate-gate gate. in moi view the scandal is the phone any sandal that was scientific work that was then reviewed by i think six different authorities including american investigators, independent investigators, university investigators, and british investigators and every one of which gave a full clean bill of health to the science. to be i think that needs part of the record if members calledng to bring up so climate-gate. somehen there has been reference to the projections by as toamber of commerce what this proposed e.p.a. cost.tion might some of our colleagues have report but id that think it is important for the

hearing this we also include the analysis ofost their claims which earned four depending on how far you get from the truth you get back toocchios relating the story of the pinocchio the wooden doll whose nose would grow when he wasn't being truthful. will include the washington post four pinocchio finding about that. also an organization named politi-fact which analyzes claims made in the political debate and tries to do a very neutral analysis of their accuracy. politi-fact ruled that a false for that report. i think it is in the interest of fairness that those be admitted unanimous consent that those two documents be admitted. said --t >> mr. chairman --

>> senator sessions? >> to wrap up, i thank the panel for your testimony. this is an important issue. believe dr. bat ikin is correct saying that actual empeer data is not confirming the projections we have seen so far in a host of other areas and will be spinning maybe some documents to that effect. forink it is important congress and to ask questions. say it isuld just unacceptable that scientists dr. botkin and others are being adversely trotted result resultr -- treated as a of their statements and scientific research that the powersontradicts that be. so thank you. >> you are very welcome. pleasure to work withork member.ng

however much we might disagree he is courtesy colleague and we always work well together. this was not a hearing on the science, it was a hearing with the experience of administrators. if we were to do a hearing on i think we, then would be adding the scientists scientistsnd the from nasa and the science entities to back the united states defense establishment and establishment of every scientific organization in the country. dr. botkin is right and they are all wronger but i'm not sure that would be the prudent for our country. thank you very much. we are adjourned. night c-spany american history tour travels country to explore historic places. tomorrow note w