[Senate Hearing 110-1093]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1093
,
Vice President Al Gore's Perspective
on Global Warming
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-923 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 21, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 2
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland.. 3
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 54
WITNESSES
Gore, Hon. Al, Former Vice President of the United States and
Former Senator from the State of Tennessee..................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 16
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Offsetting Your Carbon Footprint Takes Decades, The Sunday
Times...................................................... 21
29 Million American Families Can't Afford to Pay Their
Heating Bills, AARP........................................ 56
An Interview With Accidental Movie Star Al Gore, Main Dish... 57
A Call to Cool the Hype, The New York Times.................. 58
Charts:
An Inconvenient Truth, Long on Problems Short on Solutions... 61
Daily Min Temperature........................................ 62
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE'S PERSPECTIVE
ON GLOBAL WARMING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Alexander, Baucus, Bond, Cardin,
Carper, Clinton, Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, Klobuchar, Lautenberg,
Lieberman, Mikulski, Sanders, Thomas, Warner, Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order. Welcome to
this very special hearing today.
I just wanted to lay out we are going to proceed. We are
going to have two introductions of the Vice President from two
people I think are very important to him. The first one will be
a member of our Committee, Senator Alexander, who is going to
welcome the Vice President, and then the second person is going
to be one of the Senator's closest friends from the days that
he was in the Senate, Senator Mikulski. We are very pleased
that she has joined us here today.
Senator Inhofe wants to talk about the rules. I think that
we are going to do that now. Let me lay out how we are going to
proceed. The way we are going to proceed is following these
introductions, I am going to have an opening statement for 4
minutes. Senator Inhofe is going to have an opening statement
for 4 minutes. And then we are going to hear from the Vice
President for up to 30 minutes.
When he has concluded, there are going to be 12 minutes for
Senator Inhofe and 12 minutes for myself to ask questions. At
that point, we will call on Senators. In the case of the
Democrats, we are going to recognize you in the order of
arrival. In the case of the Republicans, they have asked that
it be by seniority. So those are the rules. Does anyone have
any objection to those rules or wish to change those rules?
Senator Inhofe. Let me add to them, if I may, Madam
Chairman.
First of all, I want you to know, Mr. Vice President, you
have a great friend up here running this show. She has made all
kinds of exceptions for you and we have not objected to them.
One was not getting the statement in 48 hours before the
Committee hearing, but that is fine. I don't have a problem
with that. The other is the witness time and so forth, but I
think everyone is in agreement that is not a problem.
I do have three requests, Madam Chairman. First of all,
when I make a unanimous consent request for something to be in
the record, I would like to have it be in the record
immediately following my questions. Secondly, in the event the
answer to a question that I have takes too long, Senator Gore,
what I will do is reclaim my time, and that is within the
authority of the members up here. And the third is, you have a
tendency sometimes to ad lib and get more comments in, I want
the same ad lib time that you have, and I don't think you would
have any objection to that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Absolutely not.
Senator Inhofe. Good.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I am going to put in the record at
this time, the one, two, three, four, five occasions when your
witnesses did not have statements before us, and we said fine,
as long as they do their best.
Senator Inhofe. And I said fine. That is fine.
Senator Boxer. So I just want to make sure it goes in the
record because this happens all the time, and we have never had
it mentioned as a problem before. I think the Vice President
has a reason as to why, and I think he will address that issue.
Senator Inhofe. Let me respond to that.
Senator Boxer. I have the time at this point.
Senator Inhofe. That isn't quite accurate. We have always
had it in by the day before, the night before. Sometimes not 48
hours.
Senator Boxer. I would like to start the hearing, and I am
not going to tolerate interruptions. I am going to be very
respectful to all of our Committee, but we need to get through
this, and we have a lot of work to do.
So I am going to turn this over for a 2-minute introduction
to Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alaxander. Welcome back to the Senate, Al.
It is my privilege to introduce and welcome back to the
Senate one of Tennessee's foremost citizens, our former Vice
President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper. Tipper, we are glad you
are here as well.
Al is not only a former member of the Senate, he is a
former President of the Senate, and of interest to me, he is a
former occupant of the Senate seat in which I now serve. Al, I
did a little research about those who served in this seat. They
included Andrew Jackson, Cordell Hull, Estes Kefauver, Howard
Baker, and more recently, Fred Thompson and Al Gore, both of
whom we have been reading more about lately. There seems to be
something about sitting in this Senate seat that stirs up
presidential ambitions.
In Tennessee, we sometimes say about an especially
determined horse that he gets the bit in his teeth and you
can't turn him. Al Gore has had the bit in his teeth about
climate change since he was a college student. Thirty years
ago, he helped organize the first hearings in Congress about
climate change.
I believe that climate change is a real problem. I believe
that human activity is a significant contributor to climate
change. I believe that it is time for us to work in a
bipartisan way to take steps to fix the problem.
I believe these hearings and your testimony will help us do
that. We are glad you are here. Welcome back to the Senate.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Mikulski, will you please come up to the podium.
Your chair is being brought to you. We give you 3 minutes to
add your welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MIKULSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Milkulski. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and my
colleagues. It is wonderful to be sitting next to Al Gore once
again in the United States Senate.
Thank you for the honor of letting me come here because I
came into the Congress of the United States with Al Gore in
1976. It was a star-spangled banner year and a star-spangled
banner class, and Al was there leading the flag and waving the
flag for environmental change even back there.
Sitting next to him for 8 years on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, I watched Al Gore lead the charge on some of the
most important environmental legislation of our time: the
amendments on the Clean Air Act; really, the Superfund site
that cleaned up the mess; and safe drinking water.
Al then went on to come to the U.S. Senate where he chaired
the Subcommittee on Science and Tech and Space on the Commerce
Committee. He was the first Senator to sponsor the World
Environmental Policy Act. Why was that important? Well, guess
what? It authorized policies to mitigate global warming and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It also picked up on a new
idea promoted by Sally Ride, called: We ought to study our own
planet as if it were a distant star.
Of Al Gore's work, then Senator Gore, came the whole idea
at NASA for Mission to Planet Earth. He was the authorizer, I
was the appropriator, and we worked together to do that.
But as Vice President then, he went on to continue to be an
advocate for the issues related to climate crisis, but always
based on science. What Al Gore is known for is let's pursue
sound science, ungagged and unfettered, with intellectual
rigor. And Al Gore helped create a global awareness of the
consequences of global warming.
So for him, it has been a life-long advocacy and a life-
long passion. We need to listen to him as ever before. What he
has to tell us might be inconvenient, but it will always be the
truth.
Al Gore.
[Applause.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Mikulski. I am
glad that you had a chance to visit with Senator Gore. I don't
know whether to say Vice President Gore, Senator Gore, Al,
Tipper. We are just happy that you could join us today.
I do want to recognize Mrs. Gore here. We are thrilled that
you could be here as well, Tipper.
I am pleased to officially welcome Vice President Gore to
the Environment and Public Works Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Vice President, we are honored and we
are privileged to have you with us today to discuss one of the
most important challenges facing humankind, global warming. You
know, there are some moments in human history when individuals
have the ability to make a difference. Sometimes it is a series
of actions by one person or a group of people. Sometimes it is
a single act of defiance. I think about Rosa Parks. Sometimes
it is the simple, simple telling of a great truth, however
inconvenient. And that act can spark enormous change with long-
lasting effects.
Professor Roger Ravelle, who began making the first
measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, was your
spark, Mr. Vice President. We learned that from your movie.
From that, you became a spark that has ignited the global
warming debate in America. I don't think there is any question
about that.
Personally, I believe your work has made all the difference
for the future of our planet and for our children and our
grandchildren, because when the history of this issue is
written, your name will be at the forefront. I only hope the
story has a good ending. That, my friends, is up to us.
The recent report by the IPCC, written by hundreds of
scientists from around the world and peer-reviewed by many
more, including NOAA scientist Susan Solomon, confirms
conclusively that the Earth is warming due to human activity.
Some will say this report was not written by scientists. Yes,
it was. Their names are listed on the front of the report.
These scientists briefed our very Committee.
The IPCC report tells us that warming is unequivocal; that
CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the past
650,000 years; and there is a 90 percent certainty that most of
the warming is due to human activity.
It also tells us that since 1961, the average temperature
of the ocean has increased. That is 1961, that the ocean is
absorbing 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system
and the ocean is becoming increasingly acidic from absorbing
carbon dioxide.
But some persist in disbelief and disregard of the facts.
They say, for instance, that the sun is causing global warming,
but the President of the National Academy of Sciences testified
before us and said changes in the sun can't explain the warming
we have seen over the past 25 years.
Some say there is no linkage between hurricanes and global
warming, but the IPCC report makes it clear there is. Some say
Greenland and Antarctica are not melting, but the IPCC says,
``Losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have
very likely contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and
2003.''
Some say that limits on greenhouse gases are unworkable and
the U.S. has reduced emissions more than the European Union.
The truth is that since 1990, U.S. emissions have risen by 15.8
percent and EU emissions have declined by 0.8 percent. These
are the inconvenient truths that many would like to avoid.
Vice President Gore, you have not waited. You have acted
for us. You have acted more than anyone else. You have shown us
the true dangers that global warming poses for the future of
our planet. But you have done much more than that, because you
looked at solutions and you give us hope and you give us reason
to be optimistic.
The time for action is now. The next decade will likely
tell the tale of whether we as a species have been able to act
decisively to protect our planet. We have a choice, and we can
move in the right directions. We can become energy efficient
and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. We can
develop new technologies that can create jobs and we can export
those technologies to China and India.
I think most of all, we can work together, as Senator
Alexander said, Republicans and Democrats. And in this
Committee, we have done so much in the past.
I am going to take an additional 40 seconds, which I will
give to my colleague.
This Committee, after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in
Ohio in 1969, this Committee responded with the Clean Air Act
in 1972. This Committee acted when the air was so dirty you
could see it. We responded in 1970 with the Clean Air Act. And
when contaminated tap water was causing widespread waterborne
disease, this Committee passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in
1974.
So colleagues, I think we are up to the challenge. With the
people that we have on this Committee on both sides of the
aisle, we can do this.
Mr. Vice President, after we hear from the Ranking Member,
I really look forward to hearing from you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Five minutes for you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. In spite of what you might think to the
contrary, I am really glad to have you here, Senator Gore. We
are very close up here. People don't believe that, but we are.
Let me just say this, though. One thing about this hearing
is we know your perspective. You know my perspective, and so I
am going to go ahead and make a couple of comments, stay within
my timeline, and look forward to your testimony. Then I do have
some questions, then I look forward to that dialogue.
My perspective has been that some of the statements that
you have made have inaccuracies and have been misleading. A lot
of the peer-reviewed scientists who have written in Nature
magazine, Geophysical Research letters, and Science are
radically at odds with your claims.
Now, there is not time in 5 minutes to go into all of them.
I will just mention two at the outset that might stimulate some
response.
First, you claim a strong new emerging consensus linking
global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and
duration, as the Chairman mentioned. Last year, the World
Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this
assertion and other scientists agree.
Secondly, you said that, and this is a good one here--this
scares everybody--you said that the East Antarctica might melt
and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we are all going
to die. However, according to many scientists, the Antarctica
is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In 2005, a study published
in Science by a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found
that the overall ice mass in the Antarctica was actually
increasing.
The public is catching on. Even the New York Times, and I
am sure you read this, last week had an article, Mr. Vice
President, that said that you have been so extreme in some of
your expressions that you are losing some of your own people.
Now, given that, it is no wonder that you have turned down
some of the opportunities people have asked for for debates.
Now, there is a reason for this. This happened only last week.
There was a debate, and when it is balanced--and let me make
sure we understand. When I talk about skeptics, I am talking
about scientists who believe that the science is not settled.
When I talk about alarmists, I am saying they are the ones who
think that it is settled. Okay?
When the debate is balanced, the skeptics win; the
alarmists lose. In New York last week, a major debate took
place to examine whether, and this is the goal, global warming
is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the
alarmists, your guys in the audience outnumbered those who
didn't think it was a crisis by two to one. After the debate,
it completely reversed.
Now, that shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the
scientific community. Claude Allegra is a French geophysicist
on both the French and the United States Academy of Sciences.
He and Nir Shaviv from Israel, he is an astrophysicist,
meteorologist Reid Bryson----these are all people who were on
your side, who were marching down 10 years ago right there hand
in hand with you. They have all reversed their position now.
These were the national leaders reversing their positions.
Now, lastly the cost. The cost of global warming is huge.
We had a hearing, Mr. Vice President, in this Committee where
we had many of the companies who came in and were embracing the
idea that manmade gases are causing climate change, only to
find out that without exception, each one of the five companies
that was here testifying, they stood to gain not millions, but
in a couple of cases billions of dollars if we should put a cap
and trade policy or reductions on CO2.
And of course, the amount of money it would cost is just
really astronomical. I can remember in 1993, Mr. Vice
President, when I was on the Senate floor when we had this huge
tax increase called the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993, a
$32 billion tax increase. I was opposed to it, but you guys won
and I lost.
The estimates now on whether it is Kyoto or any of the
other schemes to reduce CO2 is estimated to be in
excess of $300 billion. Now, your estimate from your
Administration, it was actually $338 billion. That is 10 times
the tax increase of 1993.
Now, here is the problem with it. Not only is that a tax
increase, but it is disproportionately on the poor, the people
on fixed incomes, the elderly, the individuals who as a
percentage of their monthly budget spend five times more on
energy than the average household.
So I consider this the largest tax increase in history, 10
times greater than the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. The
poor have to pay for it. The science isn't there. It is
something that we just can't do to America, Mr. Vice President,
and we are not going to do it.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman, and to
you also, Mr. Vice President, for agreeing to come before our
Committee to testify about your perspectives. Your views are
already known to many Americans, but today will allow us to
engage in a dialogue which should be interesting.
It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist
pronouncements are now and have always been filled with
inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-
reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature,
Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds
with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw
with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.
First, you have claimed that there is a ``strong, new
emerging consensus'' linking global warming to an increase in
hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World
Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this
assertion, and other scientists agree.
Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this
could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we're all going to die.
However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining
ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a
team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain
in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten-year period.
And the public is catching on. Even the New York Times last
week published an article about scientists, many of them your
supporters, who say you have overstated your case on global
warming--in fact, they warn that you may be hurting the so-
called cause with your ``alarmism.''
Given that, it is no wonder you have turned down the chance
to debate the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.
And now I understand a debate challenge has been issued by Lord
Monckton of Benchley.
Now there is a reason for this.
When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose.
In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place
to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the
debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience
outnumbered those who didn't think it was a crisis 2 to 1.
After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered--a major
turnaround in beliefs in a single night.
That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the
scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist--
Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist--and meteorologist Reid
Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate
variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of
converted scientists are skyrocketing.
Lastly, the cost: Global warming is now big business.
Thousands of individuals and even some Fortune 100 companies
stand to make tens of billions of dollars.
I was on the floor opposing the '93 Clinton-Gore tax
increase of $32 billion, but the cost of Kyoto and other
CO2 reduction schemes are estimated to be over $300
billion, ten times the cost of your '93 tax increase. And who's
paying for it? Those on fixed incomes and the poor, who as a
percent of their monthly budget spend five times more on energy
than the average household.
Largest tax increase in history--10 times Clinton-Gore of
'93 and the poor pay for it and the science isn't there. We
just can't do that to America, Mr. Vice President and we're not
gonna.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Mr. Vice President, you have 30 minutes to use in whichever
way you would like.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND FORMER SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Gore. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you so
much for your generous invitation to come and be here today.
Senator Inhofe, thank you for your words of welcome. I look
forward to questions and an exchange of views here.
To my fellow Tennessean, Lamar Alexander, Senator
Alexander, Lamar, thank you so much for your kind words and
your warm welcome. I want to note for the Committee what I am
sure most of you know. Senator Alexander as Governor of our
State was associated with keen attention to environmental
protection in a way that was quite sensitive to economic
development, and is part of a tradition that includes Senator
Baker and others from the time when the issue of protecting the
environment was genuinely a bipartisan issue. Some of us
believe that it is not now and should be. I understand there
are differences in the way that would be phrased here today,
but I want to acknowledge the record of one of my Senators,
Lamar Alexander.
Senator Mikulski and I served together in the House of
Representatives, as she noted, and in this chamber. And there
were multiple pieces of legislation that our two names on them.
It was always a pleasure and an energizing experience to work
with Senator Mikulski. I am honored that you would come and do
this here today. Thank you so much.
To the other members of the Committee, I have so many close
friends on this Committee. Forgive me for not going down the
aisle, but I want to acknowledge my respect for all the members
of the Committee.
My father served here in this chamber. I was reflecting
this morning on the differences that have occurred since he
first came to Washington in 1938. There are all kinds of jokes
about the hot air on Capitol Hill. I am not going to make those
jokes, but I am going to refer to the air on Capitol Hill,
because when he came here in 1938 there were around about 300
parts per million of CO2 in the air that he and his
colleagues in this Senate breathed. Today, it is 383 parts per
million.
It didn't really go above 300 parts per million for at
least a million years back, maybe longer, but in the Antarctic
ice record, that is about as far back as they can go. Even
though the Earth has gone through all these big swings in
natural cycles, the CO2 content never went above 300
parts per million in all that time.
And just in the short span of time from my father's first
service in the Capitol here and today, it has gone up a
dramatic amount. More CO2 means warmer temperatures.
There really should be no doubt about that. That has been known
for 180 years. And for at least 100 years, they have known
roughly how much the temperature would go up with what
concentrations of extra CO2.
For most of human history, we lived on the harvested energy
that came from the sun, and it was a net energy balance. Then
with the beginning of the use of coal and then oil and other
fossil fuel supplies, we began to use the accumulated
reservoirs of hundreds of millions of years worth of
accumulated solar energy. Of course, that meant returning
carbon to the atmosphere in very large quantities. From the
early days of that period, there were a few scientists who
said, wait a minute, that is going to have some consequences.
And it did.
It has now reached a point where we have literally changed
the radiated balance between the Earth and the sun. The
scientists who study global warming gained a lot of their
expertise by looking at the other planets in the solar system.
Mars has just 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, and the
temperature is not 15 degrees centigrade or 59 Fahrenheit, it
is 55 below zero on average, because the CO2 doesn't
trap the heat.
Venus, by contrast, has much more CO2 and the
temperature is above the boiling point of lead and it rains
sulphuric acid, not the kind of weather forecast you want to
see in the morning. And it is not because Venus is closer to
the sun, because it is much hotter than Mercury, even though
Mercury is right next to the sun. It is the CO2.
This is extremely well established, well understood, and well
known.
Senator Boxer, I want to start off by saying that there is
really hardly any way to overestimate or overstate the degree
of hope that people out in our country have because of what you
are doing, because of what this new Senate and Congress
everybody hopes will do. This is not a normal time. We are
facing a planetary emergency and I am fully aware that that
phrase sounds shrill to many people's ears, but it is accurate.
The relationship between humankind and planet Earth has
been radically altered in a very short period of time. What
would make us believe that we could go through these changes
and not have an impact on the planet? We have quadrupled human
population in less than 100 years, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to
6.56 billion today. And that is stabilizing of its own accord,
as girls are educated and women are empowered, and girls and
women gain literacy, and as family planning that is culturally
acceptable is made more widely available in every nation, and
most importantly as infant mortality goes down and maternal and
infant health standards go up.
The death rates come down first, and then after a few years
the birth rates come down and the population of the Earth is
stabilizing. But with a four times increase in less than a
century, our impact on the planet has been dramatically
changed.
Secondly, and more importantly, the technologies we have at
our disposal today are thousands of times more powerful than
any that our grandparents had available to them. That makes all
of our activities more effective and productive, but it also
makes us sometimes like the proverbial bull in a china shop,
and we are capable of doing damage that we are not always fully
aware that we are doing. Of course, the common assumption is
the Earth is so big we couldn't possibly have a lasting harmful
impact on it.
But the most vulnerable part of the Earth's ecological
system, the scientists tell us, is the atmosphere. It is so
thin. The number of molecules is known. They say it is 10 to
the 44, which is above my pay grade. It sounds like a big
number, but compared to what we are able to put into it every
hour of every day now, it is not that big. It is just a few
miles from here to the top of the sky before we can't breathe
anymore. So we are changing its composition.
We are putting 70 million tons every day of this global
warming pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. As you noted,
Madam Chair, 25 million tons go into the oceans every day. And
that is literally making the oceans more acidic. But where the
atmosphere is concerned, that extra CO2 is retaining
in the atmosphere much more of the outgoing infrared that
normally escapes back into space and keeps a normal healthy
balance within which humankind has developed, and within which
all of our civilization has evolved, and all the cities have
been located, and all the ports and the places where the rain
can be predicted to fall reliably enough for agriculture. And
we are putting all those patterns at risk.
The 10 hottest years ever measured in the record have been
since 1990. Twenty of the 21 hottest years have been in the
last 25 years. The hottest year of all was 2005. The hottest
year of all in the United States was 2006. The hottest winter
ever measured worldwide was this winter, December, and then
January and February of this year, last month. This is going on
right now and it is continuing to increase.
The scientific leaders of the world have given us the
fourth unanimous report in less than 15 years. They gathered
this time in Paris 6 weeks ago. They said the evidence
supporting this consensus is, and I quote them, ``unequivocal,
unequivocal.'' Scientific American had a special issue in
September that began with an article that said the debate on
global warming is over. The editor in chief of Science magazine
said it is extremely rare to have a consensus as strong as the
one supporting the consensus view on manmade global warming.
It is real. We are causing it mainly, the vast majority of
it. The consequences are bad and will be catastrophic unless we
act. We can act. We can solve it. There is still time. And we
have everything we need to get started. Those points are in
agreement.
One of the leading scientific experts said the consensus
supporting this view on global warming is as strong as anything
in science, with the possible exception of gravity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gore This is a challenge to our moral imagination
because the natural tendency for me, for all of us, is to think
that something this big and this challenging is not real; we
don't want it to be real; it is hard to think about.
Contemplating changes to deal with it automatically creates a
feeling of discomfort. We just wish it would go away. It is not
going away. We have to deal with it.
As I started to say, Madam Chair, the people out there in
our country are so hopeful that this Senate will act, and that
this Congress will act. And they know how hard it is. I want
you to know that there is a big change in public opinion that
is building out there.
I am going to deliver to your offices, I didn't bring all
the boxes with me from the House side, where I spoke this
morning, but they are being delivered electronically to your
offices. I have a site called algore.com and just a few days
ago we started asking people to join in presenting this
statement. And 516,000 Americans signed it just in the last
several days. We have been getting new names at the rate of 100
per second.
This should not be seen as a partisan issue. Sometimes you
will hear people say that, and you think, oh, it is just
boilerplate, it is a throwaway. He is trying to get some
Republicans to vote for it. This really shouldn't be seen as a
partisan issue or even a political issue.
It is a moral issue. There are some times in history when a
small number of people in one place have to make difficult
decisions that will affect the future for everybody. One of the
most popular movies out there now is 300. I haven't seen it,
but the young people love it. It is about the battle of
Thermopylae in 480 B.C. when, Senator Warner, you are a great
military historian, and I would love to hear you talk about
this sometime. As you know, 300 saved the future of Western
Civilization against 10,000, one of the great stories of
courage when a few made a decision for the many.
The Greatest Generation, the label we give to the
generation that won World War II and defeated fascism in the
Atlantic and the Pacific simultaneously, rose to the challenge
of fascism and in the process saved our country. Significantly,
when they came back here, no longer 19, 20, or 21 year olds,
they found that they had gained moral authority. Senator
Warner, you were one of the youngest members of that
generation. Weren't you part of World War II? God bless you and
thank you. Thank you.
And when your generation came back, the GI's General Omar
Bradley said, ``Now is the time when we have to steer by the
stars, and not by the lights of every passing ship.'' Another
General, George Marshall, said, ``Let's go and lift our
adversaries from the battlefield from their knees and walk with
them toward self-determination and prosperity.'' And your
generation said ``yes.''
And you adopted a 50 year horizon, and established the
institutions that help this world move in a positive and
favorable direction. And you know what? They don't export world
wars from Europe anymore, because a United Nations was
established in your home town, Senator Boxer, and then a lot of
other steps were taken. Our mutual predecessor, Cordell Hull,
helped establish the world trading system, reciprocal free
trade, as he would always remind us to say.
Now, this generation and this Senate faces such a
challenge, the few. The stakes are high. The time is now. The
people are hopeful. It can be done.
I just came last week from the United Kingdom. I met with
not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and leaders of the
Labor Party in power there, but also the Tories. I met with
their entire front bench, 80 of them. And both of their major
parties are unified in their determination to solve this
climate crisis. It is not partisan. They are competing with one
another. They have an election coming up probably later this
year. Who knows. Their system is different, you know, but they
are competing vigorously with one another.
But they are competing on the basis of which party can
offer the most creative and meaningful solutions to this
crisis. They are not arguing about the science. They are
arguing about how to design solutions that will go farther
faster. And they joined with all of their European neighbors
just last week when I was over there, to adopt a much tougher
reduction, mandatory reduction in CO2, 20 percent,
and 30 percent if we join in the global effort to address this
crisis.
We are the leaders of the world. The United States of
America is the leader of the world, and the members of the
Senate and the House in this legislative branch of Government
are the ones. The history of freedom is the history of
legislative bodies.
In that time after World War II, what made it possible for
that Greatest Generation to claim that title and change the
world after saving the world, was Republicans, led by Senator
Arthur Vandenberg and others, stood and said we are Americans
first, and we see the challenge, and we are going to do the
uncommonly difficult; we are going to do our duty as we see it.
Now is such a time. We have too much partisanship. Every
one of us, myself at the front of the line, has contributed too
much to it. But a time will come, I promise you, a time will
come when a future generation will look back on 2007 at this
hopeful time, and they will ask one of two questions. Either
they will ask: What in God's name were they doing? Didn't they
see the evidence? Didn't they hear the warnings? Didn't they
see the mountain glaciers melting in every part of this Earth?
Didn't they see the north polar ice cap melting? Didn't they
hear the scientists say it may be gone in as little as 34
years? Didn't they hear the seismographers telling them that
the Earth is shaking because of the glacial earthquakes on
Greenland? Thirty-two of them this year, up to 5.1 on the
Richter scale.
Didn't they see the evidence of nature being on the run?
Senator Alexander, we had, and maybe you saw this, I get
clippings and what not that other people don't necessarily get.
Manatees live in South Florida. One of them showed up off
Memphis this summer. Yes, the first time ever. Have you ever
seen a manatee in Memphis? No.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gore It got too hot in Southern Florida. I am not
making this up. Another one showed up off of Cape Cod, the
first time ever. Nature is on the run.
Senator Inhofe, there were some big fires in Oklahoma last
year. All over the west, there have been these big fires. A
brand new study in the scientific peer-reviewed literature now
definitely links it to global warming. When there is an earlier
spring melt and the precipitation doesn't keep the soil moist
enough, the soil dries out from the higher temperatures, and
the vegetation dries out, and they call that kindling. And all
over the west, the fires have been raging out of control. They
have megafires in Australia now, and what some of them call a
thousand year drought, and fires across Russia also.
I want to talk to you a little bit about some ideas that I
believe could hopefully help in your deliberations. First of
all, I think that we ought to have an immediate freeze on
CO2 emissions and start the reductions from there.
All the talk about prospective cuts, all the time we have been
talking about prospective cuts, the emissions have continued to
increase. I think we ought to have an immediate freeze.
I remember back in the days of the nuclear freeze, I was
opposed to that, but it sure mobilized public opinion. And it
helped, Senator Warner, when you and I and some others were
working with Sam Nunn and Norm Dicks and President Reagan, and
we built a bipartisan coalition to move in the right direction,
and we got it done. And a freeze helped on that. Neither one of
us was for it, but I am for a freeze on carbon emissions. And
then I think we ought to have reductions from there.
Secondly, I think that we ought to use the tax code, not to
increase taxes, Senator Inhofe. I am not for that. And what I
am about to propose to you, I am fully aware is considered way
outside the range of what is considered politically feasible,
so I would advise you not to spend too much of your ammunition
on it because people don't yet think it is going to be on the
agenda.
But here is what I think we should do. I think we ought to
cut taxes on employment and take that burden off employees and
employers and make up the difference with pollution taxes,
principally CO2 taxes. Some other countries are
talking about it seriously, because in the developed world, we
are now in a new competitive global environment.
Our big disadvantage is these developing countries with big
populations, still growing significantly, with low wage rates,
all of a sudden have access in an IT-empowered world to the
best technology in container shipping, and we are competing
with them. And we don't want to lower our wages, but we don't
have to pile on top of the wages the full cost of our health
and welfare and Social Security and social programs. We ought
to be encouraging employment and small business, and
discouraging pollution instead of the other way around. We
ought to use some of that revenue to help the poor with the
adjustments that are coming forward.
Third, the third suggestion, I am in favor of cap and trade
as part of the freeze. I am very strongly in favor of it. I
have supported Kyoto, but I understand the realities of the
situation. I think the new President, who takes office in
January of 2009, should take office at a time when our country
has a bipartisan commitment to de facto compliance with Kyoto,
and then I think we should move the starting date of the next
treaty period, now due to begin in 2012, forward two years to
2010. And we ought to start a sprint to negotiate and ratify a
new, tougher treaty that starts in 2010. We need to find a
creative way to get China and India involved sooner, rather
than later.
That is a tough challenge and an important one for many
reasons, not least because China's emissions will be larger
than those of the United States in another couple of years. And
it has to be a negotiation, and there are factors like land
cover and methane that might be used to get them involved
sooner, rather than later. But we need to focus on ratifying a
cap and trade system so the market will work for us instead of
against us.
I remember, incidentally, Senator Warner, when I was
working on arms control under former President Carter and the
SALT II Treaty was withdrawn from the Senate. And then
President Reagan, after a few years, had even deeper reductions
and call it START and everybody was for that. I think it will
be good to have a new treaty. Let's comply with Kyoto, but
let's ratify a new treaty earlier, rather than later.
Third, I believe that we ought to have a moratorium on any
new coal plants that are not fixed with carbon capture and
sequestration technology. It is simply irresponsible to go
forward without carbon capture and sequestration.
Fifth, I believe that this Congress, this Senate should fix
a date in the future beyond which incandescent light bulbs are
banned and there may be some other technologies that fall in
that category. Give the industry time to make sure all the
sockets are worked out and all the dimmers and all the things
that people want, but then tell them by a date certain you are
going to have to sell this other kind. And they will do it.
They will make money at it.
It is like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has not taken on the climate
crisis simply out of the goodness of their hearts. They care
about it, but they are making money at it. And if we set the
standards, our economy will work for us.
Sixth, the creative power of the information revolution was
unlocked by the Internet. When the scientific and engineering
pioneers came up with Arpanet and this Senate empowered them
with a legislative framework and research and development
funds, all of a sudden people just developed it amazingly. We
ought to have an Electranet, and we ought to encourage widely
distributed power generation by homeowners, by small business
owners.
And here is the key: We ought to take off the cap. Let them
sell as much as they want to into the grid. And remember that
the flip side of a monopoly is a monopsony, the tyranny of a
single buyer. Don't let the utility in each area decide how
much they are going to pay homeowners or business people for
selling the electricity. Set the rate the way a public utility
commission does now.
Have a tariff that reflects the market price. You may never
have to build another central generation power plant. You
watch. You give them the ability, individuals out there,
families, small businesses, they are going to go to town with
this, an Electranet.
Then I think we ought to raise the CAFE standards for auto
efficiency. I do think it ought to be part of a comprehensive
solution. Don't single out autos as the main culprit. It is
part of it and it is a significant part of it. And so we ought
to raise CAFE standards as part of a larger package.
Next, I would propose that you pass a carbon neutral
mortgage association or Connie Mae. And here is why. The buyers
of new homes and homebuilders and sellers of new homes, all
focus on the purchase price. The market clears it. It is a very
sensitive number. But the expenditures that go into more
insulation and window treatments and the expenditures that
don't pay back immediately, but they pay back over two or three
years in lower energy bills, they are not used because they
raise the purchase price. Put those in a separate instrument,
and have a Connnie Mae that bundles those and sells them in the
marketplace. Then when you go to a closing, you sign your
mortgage, and the banker and the seller say, now here is your
Connnie Mae here; this is going to lower your electricity
bills; you are going to save and reduce CO2 at the
same time.
You ought to also, and I will respectfully recommend, and
this is my last recommendation, require corporate disclosure of
carbon emissions. Investors have a right to know about material
risks that could affect the future value of the stocks that
they purchase. They are not now routinely reported. You may
know that just two days ago, pension funds managing a total of
$4 trillion called upon the Congress and the SEC to require
these disclosures.
Finally, Madam Chair and Senators, as many of you know, the
Chinese and Japanese way of expressing the concept ``crisis''
in the kanji characters uses two symbols. The first means
``danger'' and the second means ``opportunity.'' With all the
focus on the danger of this crisis, which I think is the
gravest we have ever faced, I want to close by reemphasizing my
belief that it is also the greatest opportunity we have ever
confronted.
We can become more efficient and more productive. We can
create more jobs and lift our standards of living. And in the
process, we can save the habitability of this planet and tell
that future generation that we were up to the challenge and we
did what some thought was impossible. We did it on a bipartisan
basis. And in the process, we gained the vision and moral
authority in our generation to take on these other challenges
that also need our attention.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gore follows:]
Statement of Hon. Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States
and Former Senator from the State of Tennessee
Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for your gracious invitation to
be here today, giving me the opportunity to return to the
Senate to talk about the climate crisis.
I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary
emergency--a crisis that threatens the survival of our
civilization and the habitability of the Earth. Just six weeks
ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to
date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is
``unequivocal.'' Global warming is real and human activity is
the main cause. The consequences are mainly negative and headed
toward catastrophic, unless we act. However, the good news is
that we can meet this challenge. It is not too late, and we
have everything we need to get started.
As many know, the Chinese expression for ``crisis''
consists of two characters side by side. The first symbol means
``danger.'' The second symbol means ``opportunity.'' I would
like to discuss both the danger and the opportunity here today.
First of all, there is no longer any serious debate over
the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming.
The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1990.
Globally, 2005 was the hottest of all. In the United States,
2006 was the warmest year ever. The winter months of December
2006 through February 2007 make up the warmest winter on
record. These rising temperatures have been accompanied by many
changes. Hurricanes are getting stronger. Sea levels are
rising. Droughts are becoming longer and more intense. Mountain
glaciers are receding around the world.
New evidence shows that it may be even worse than we
thought. For example, a recent study published by the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks indicates that methane is
leaking from the Siberian permafrost at five times the
predicted levels. Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse
gas as carbon dioxide and there are billions of tons underneath
the permafrost.
However, there is a great deal of new momentum for action
to solve the climate crisis. Today, I am here to deliver more
than a half million messages to Congress asking for real action
on global warming. More than 420 Mayors have now adopted Kyoto-
style commitments in their cities and have urged strong federal
action. The evangelical and faith communities have begun to
take the lead, calling for measures to protect God's creation.
The State of California, under a Republican Governor and a
Democratic legislature, passed strong, economy wide legislation
mandating cuts in carbon dioxide. Twenty-two states and the
District of Columbia have passed renewable energy standards for
the electricity sector. Much more needs to be done, but change
is in the air.
I do not believe that the climate crisis should be a
partisan political issue. I just returned from the United
Kingdom, where last week the two major parties put forward
their climate change platforms. The Tory and Labour parties are
in vigorous competition with one another--competing to put
forward the best solution to the climate crisis. I look forward
to the day when we return to this way of thinking here in the
U.S.
The climate crisis is, by its nature, a global problem--and
ultimately the solution must be global as well. The best way -
and the only way - to get China and India on board is for the
U.S. to demonstrate real leadership. As the world's largest
economy and greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to
tackle a problem of this magnitude.
After all, we have taken on problems of this scope before.
When England and then America and our allies rose to meet the
threat of global Fascism, together we won two wars
simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific.
This is a moral moment of similar magnitude. This is not
ultimately about any scientific discussion or political
dialogue. It is about who we are as human beings and our
capacity to transcend our limitations and rise to meet this
challenge.
The solutions to this problem are accessible, but
politically - at least in the near term - seem quite difficult.
In practice, however, they will turn out to be much easier than
they appear to us now.
For example, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer first negotiated in the 1980's was
opposed by industry for fear it would hurt the economy because
its provisions were too stringent. However, governments and
industry rose to meet the challenge and the treaty was
strengthened twice in quick succession to quickly ramp down the
chemicals that were causing the hole in the ozone layer.
There are some who will say that acting to solve this
crisis will be costly. I don't agree. If we solve it in the
right way, we will save money and boost productivity. Moreover,
the consequences of inaction would be devastating to both the
environment and the economy. Recent reports make that clear.
When I think about the climate crisis today I can imagine a
time in the future when our children and grandchildren ask us
one of two questions. Either they will ask: What were you
thinking, didn't you care about our future? Or they will ask:
How did you find the moral courage to cross party lines and
solve this crisis? We must hear their questions now. We must
answer them with our actions, not merely with our promises. We
must choose a future for which our children and grandchildren
will thank us.
------
Responses by Al Gore to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In your testimony before the House of
Representatives on March 21st, you made the point that you have
not asserted hurricane frequency will be increased by global
warming. Yet there are repeated mentions by you of this
asserted link in your book An Inconvenient Truth. Now that you
have had time to reflect, do you wish to modify your statement
on March 21st, or, given the statements in your book, do you
now admit that you were mistaken when you repeatedly claimed
global warming would cause an increase in the number of
hurricanes?
Response. No.
Question 2. Based on your pro rata share of the offsets
sold by the company(ies) from which carbon offsets have been
purchased on your behalf, how many tons of carbon-equivalent
emissions have been reduced to date from completed projects
(i.e. how much carbon has actually been sequestered to date)?
Since you have stated that we only have 10 years to act on
global warming, do not count projects that are being
``planned'' or tree sequestrations that will not occur for
years of decades. In short, how many tons of carbon have been
actually reduced from the atmosphere so far by the companies
that sold you offsets and what is your ``share'' of those
reductions?
Response. I am unable to obtain the aggregate data that you
have requested from the offsetting firms with which I work. My
pro rata share of emissions offsets is difficult to provide to
you. However, the methodology that is used gives me a very high
degree of confidence that my emissions are more than fully
offset.
Question 3. What is the estimated amount of carbon emitted
into the air from your private jet travel each year, and how
does this compare to the carbon emissions from driving a Hummer
15,000 miles?
Response. This is impossible to calculate based on the
information in the question.
Question 4. At the hearing, I asked you to take the
following pledge:
As a believer:
that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and
spiritual issue affecting our survival;
that home energy use is a key component of overall energy
use;
that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will
lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence
than the average American household by March 21, 2008.
Given that hundreds of Americans--a great many of whom
could not afford offsets--would follow your example by
significantly reducing their home energy consumption, will you
now agree to take the pledge?
Response. No.
Question 5. An Inconvenient Truth bombards us with scene
after scene of devastation from hurricanes, floods, droughts,
and the like, creating the impression that global warming has
made the world a more dangerous place. In reality, both death
rates and overall numbers of deaths related to extreme weather
have decreased by about 95 percent globally since the 1920s,
according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of Interior.
What is there no mention of this in An Inconvenient Truth?
Is you film designed to inform people, or just frighten them?
Response. An Inconvenient Truth is designed to inform
people.
Question 6. An Inconvenient Truth presents a chart showing
a sharp increase in recent decades in economic losses and
insurance payments related to extreme weather. But the film
does not mention that the data have not been adjusted for
increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.
This makes a huge difference. For example, in coastal areas in
Florida, population has increased by about 75 percent since
1980. So of course there is going to be more weather-related
damage. There are more people, more homes, and more things in
harm's way. Research by Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of
Colorado and others finds that, once weather-related losses are
adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and the consumer
price index, there is no upward trend in recent decades.
Why did you feature a chart of weather-related losses and
insurance payments that had not been adjusted for changes in
socio-economic factors? Is your film designed to inform people,
or just frighten them?
Response. The data in the film came from Munich Re and
Swiss Re, two well-respected insurance firms. And, as noted
before, the film is designed to inform people.
Question 7. An Inconvenient Truth blames global warming for
Hurricane Catarina (2004), the first hurricane on record to hit
Brazil. You say textbooks had to be rewritten because
scientists had thought it was impossible to have hurricanes in
the South Atlantic. You imply that global warming caused
Catarina by warming up the South Atlantic. In fact, according
to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR),
the seas were cooler than normal when Catarina formed. However,
the air was the coldest it had been in 25 years. The air was so
much colder than the water that it triggered the same kind of
heat flux from the ocean to the air that can spawn hurricanes
in warm water.
In light of this information, is it still your opinion that
global warming caused Hurricane Catarina?
Response. It is my opinion that human-induced climate
change is causing and will continue to cause more intense
hurricanes.
Question 8. An Inconvenient Truth claims that 2004 set an
all time record for tornadoes in the United States. In fact,
the frequency of tornadoes has not increased; rather our
capacity to detect smaller tornadoes has increased. National
Climate Data Center data shows that if we consider just the big
tornadoes that have been detectable since 1950--Category F-3 or
larger--there has been a slight downward trend since the 1950s.
In light of this information, isn't your discussion of
tornadoes in An Inconvenient Truth misleading? Doesn't it
present a falsely scary picture of what's actually going on?
Response. An Inconvenient Truth is designed to present
well-documented information so that people can draw their own
conclusions.
Question 9. An Inconvenient Truth blames global warming for
the record-breaking, one-day downpour in Mumbai, India, in July
2005. But scientifically, it is not possible to attribute a
particular weather event to a gradual increase in average
global temperatures over several decades. Long-term weather
records from Mumbai's two weather stations show no increase in
rainfall in the month of July over the past 45 years.
In light of this information, isn't your discussion of the
Mumbai rainfall event misleading? Doesn't it present a falsely
scary picture of what's actually going on?
Response. An Inconvenient Truth is designed to present
well-documented information so that people can draw their own
conclusions.
Question 10. An Inconvenient Truth claims there is a new,
strong emerging consensus that global warming is making
hurricanes stronger. But recently, 120 hurricane experts at a
meeting of the World Meteorological Organization stated that
``no consensus has been reached'' on this issue. There is in
fact a debate among scientists as to whether global warming
will increase hurricane strength. For example, Phil Klotzbach
of the University of Colorado found an increase in hurricane
strength in the North Atlantic, a decrease in the North
Pacific, and not much change in the other four hurricane
basins. A modeling study by Bengtsson, et al. (2006) projects
no change in the extremes of tropical storms even if sea
surface temperatures increased by 2 to 3 degrees centigrade,
and projects a decrease in strong storms in the Atlantic.
In light of this information, isn't it misleading to say
that there is a new strong emerging consensus that global
warming is making hurricanes stronger?
Question 11. In your documentary An Inconvenient Truth, you
said, ``And then came Katrina. The consequences were
horrendous. There is no way to describe them.'' Although you
never quite say, you rather heavily imply that the devastation
of Katrina was due to global warming. However, Kerry Emanuel of
MIT, a leading proponent of the view that global warming is
making hurricanes stronger, cautioned against linking Katrina
or other recent Atlantic storms to global warming, saying it
was more likely due to a natural cycle. And when Katrina made
landfall, it dropped from a category 5 to a category 3 storm.
Katrina was the worst natural disaster in U.S. history not
because of the extra strength it allegedly got from global
warming, but because the federal government for decades failed
to build adequate flood defenses for New Orleans.
In light of this information, isn't it misleading--even
demagogic--to use the suffering of people in New Orleans as a
rationale for suppressing fossil energy use?
Response. No.
Question 12. An Inconvenient Truth says that scientists
have observed ``significant and alarming structural changes''
in the underside of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
What specifically are those structural changes? What makes
them significant and alarming? What makes them different from
ongoing changes that date back to the early Holocene--changes,
for example, that have reduced the size of the Ross Ice Shelf
by 2/3rds over the past 8,000 years? Which scientists should we
contact for further information?
Response. For more information, I would refer you Dr. Jim
Hansen at NASA-GISS as well as Dr. Chris Rapley at the British
Antarctic Survey.
Question 13. An Inconvenient Truth warns that moulins--
vertical water tunnels formed from melt water at the surface of
the Greenland Ice Sheet--could cause the ice sheet to break
apart and slide into the sea. You show a photograph and a
diagram of moulins that comes from a study by Swally et al.
(2002), in Science magazine. However, the Science study found
that moulins accelerate annual glacial flow by few percentage
points. For example, the moulins might add an extra five meters
to normal glacial flow of 105 meters of the course of a year.
How do you go from that--an extra five meters of glacial
flow--to a scenario in which a structure hundreds of kilometers
across breaks apart and slides into the sea? Also, are you
aware of the research by Chylek et al. (2006), which found that
Greenland in the 1920s to the 1940s was warmer than it was
during 1995 to 2005? Doesn't this research suggest that there
were probably more moulins and more glacial acceleration back
then than we observe today?
Response. No.
Question 14. The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the
edges and thickening in the interior. If the gains are
subtracted from the losses, the net volume of ice lost during
2003 to 2005 was--101 gigatons a year, according to Luthcke et
al. (2006). That translates to 0.28 mm of sea level rise per
year, or a little over 1 inch per century.
Why in An Inconvenient Truth didn't you discuss the actual
amount of sea level rise attributable to ice mass loss in
Greenland?
Response. There is only so much information that can be
provided in a 90-minute documentary. The point is that rapid
destabilization of the ice on Greenland and West Antarctica--or
both--can lead to very large increases in sea level.
Question 15. In An Inconvenient Truth you warn that half
the Greenland ice sheet could break off and slide into the sea
but also that half the Greenland ice sheet could melt. A
modeling study reviewed by the IPCC (TAR, p/ 678) estimated
that it would take an additional 5.5C of warming sustained
``over a thousand years'' to melt half the ice sheet.
What time span did you have in mind when you warned of
global warming melting half the Greenland ice sheet?
Response. Scientists vary with regards to what time span
one might expect the de-stabilization or break up of the
Greenland ice sheet.
Question 16. An Inconvenient Truth shows several before and
after scenes of coastal areas inundated by 20 feet of sea level
rise. You count up all the millions of people living in
Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta, and Bangladesh who would be
``displaced,'' ``forced to move,'' or ``have to be evacuated''
(An Inconvenient Truth, pp. 204-206). This language implies an
imminent threat, a catastrophe that could strike in our
lifetimes or those of our children, if not today then maybe the
day after tomorrow.
Is that what you meant to imply--that 20 feet of sea level
rise is a real possibility not as a cumulative change over
millennia but as a catastrophe in which people in the present
generation or maybe the next generation could be ``displaced,''
``forced to move,'' or ``have to be evacuated''?
Response. Because scientists vary with regards to the time
span one might expect with regards to the de-stabilization or
break up of some of the larger ice sheets, it is difficult to
project at what point some the peoples of Bangladesh, for
example, might be displaced. It could be in our lifetimes,
those of our children, or the next generation. Worldwide even a
1 meter increase in sea level would displace an estimated 100
million climate refugees 17 million of them in Bangladesh.
Question 17. You conclude An Inconvenient Truth by saying,
``I believe this is a moral issue.'' I agree it is a moral
issue, but for different reasons. Much of the world lives in
energy poverty. About 1.6 billion people have never flipped a
light switch. About 2.4 billion people still rely on primitive
biomass--wood, crop waste, and dung--to heat their homes and
cook their meals. These people breathe indoor air pollution
that is many times dirtier than the dirtiest air of the world's
most polluted cities. Millions of women and children in these
countries die every year from indoor air pollution--induced
respiratory disease. Backbreaking labor is not a metaphor for
people in this condition but a daily reality. What these folks
desperately need is access to affordable energy. The most
affordable energy on this planet, now and for the policy
relevant future is carbon-based energy. But your goal is to
decarbonize the world's energy systems.
An Inconvenient Truth features--and I believe exaggerates--
the risks of global warming. Why does it say nothing about the
risks of global warming policy? Is it moral to put an energy-
starved world on an energy diet?
Response. I discuss the topics of poverty and inequity in
the longer version of my slideshow. Most studies show that the
poor of the world would be the hardest hit victims of global
warming.
Question 18. For the 15 years between 1990 and 2005, we
didn't license a single new coal-fired power plant. China is
building one every 3 days, and will become the world's largest
emitter of CO2 within the year. Do you believe that
China and other developing countries should be left free to
dramatically increase their rate of greenhouse gas emissions
while we spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars per
year to reduce greenhouse gases, or do you favor mandatory
emission restrictions on China?
If you do not favor mandatory restrictions on China, please
answer the following question:
CNN quoted a statement by you about the Kyoto Protocol on
December 11th, 1997 saying that:
``As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit
this agreement for ratification until developing nations
participate in this effort ``This is a global problem that will
require a global solution.''
You can't have it both ways. Were you wrong in refusing to
allow the Senate to vote on the Kyoto Protocol or do you stand
by the idea that the U.S. shouldn't commit to damaging carbon
caps as China's emissions explode?
Response. I favor the inclusion of China in a successor
agreement to Kyoto.
Question 19. NCAR/UCAR scientist, Dr. Thomas Wigley,
calculated during your administration how little the Kyoto
Protocol would accomplish. Only 0.07 degrees Celsius over 50
years, which is negligible. Is this why you were unwilling to
send the treaty to the Senate for ratification?
Response. I support the negotiation of a successor
agreement to Kyoto, by 2010, and the submission of such an
agreement to the Senate for ratification.
Question 20. You believe that global warming is a moral
issue. According to the HUD website, the poor spend five times
as much of their budget on energy costs than the average
consumer. How do you morally justify putting in place a program
to raise energy costs that would hurt the poor, elderly, and
small businesses in this country the most while providing
almost no environmental benefits?
Response. As I testified before your committee, I believe
that any domestic legislation should include set-asides so that
those most vulnerable to higher energy costs will be protected
from economic harm. Also, see answer 17.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator. Speaking for
myself, I found your testimony very moving and very important.
I want to say for the benefit of all members, we have every
single Democrat on this Committee as present today. Mr. Vice
President----
Senator. Inhofe. Obama is not here.
Senator. Boxer. Obama is no longer on this Committee.
Senator. Inhofe. Okay.
Senator. Boxer. No. But every single Democrat is here who
is on this Committee today. I just want to make a note of that
because, let me put it this way, it is rare that we have that
because of everybody's schedules.
So as a result of that, I am going to give up my question
time and save it for last. I am very worried we will run out of
time, and I have such a great committee on both sides. So I am
going to do that. I am going to just not question.
Here is what we are going to do. I am going to lead it off
with Senator Inhofe, who has 12 minutes. It is going to go back
and forth, seniority on your side. On our side, I just want to
tell people when they are going to be called on: Klobuchar,
Sanders, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Baucus, Clinton, Whitehouse,
Carper, Cardin and Boxer. All right?
Senator Inhofe.
Senator. Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Gore, I enjoyed it very much, a great opening
statement.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Senator. Inhofe. I don't agree with it, but I agree with
your history. It was very good.
What I am going to do is, since she has allowed me to go
three minutes over, I am going to try to make all of this in a
very short period of time. I have structured my questions so
they are yes or no questions, and they don't require a lot of
elaboration. So let me start off with four, and these should be
pretty easy. I know the answer because I have heard some quotes
from you that lead me to believe what the answer is.
First of all, yes or no, do you believe that human-caused
global warming is a moral, ethical and spiritual issue
affecting our survival?
Mr. Gore. Yes, I do.
Senator. Inhofe. Yes or no, do you believe that reducing
fossil fuel-based energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse
gas emissions?
Mr. Gore. It depends on what the substitutes are, but
basically yes. I think that we can capture and sequester the
carbon and continue using carbon-based fuels.
Senator. Inhofe. Very good. And yes or no, do you believe
that home energy use is a key component, not the only
component, but a key component to overall energy use?
Mr. Gore. I believe that buildings as well as cars and
trucks and factories are definitely a part of the problem, yes.
Senator. Isakson. All right. I would like to put up the
little pledge thing here. I am going to ask you if you would
like to commit here today. Do you know how many hundreds of
thousands of fans you have out there that would like to follow
your lead? And this pledge merely says, as you can read up
there, that you are agreeing to consume no more energy in your
residence than the average American household by one year from
today. Not right now. You have a whole year to try to do this.
Now, the one thing I would like to have you not use in
response to this question, which is a yes or no question, is
the various gimmicks. I have something I want to submit for the
record, Madam Chairman, that talks about the effects. The
offsets and the credits are gimmicks used by the wealthy so
they don't have to change their lifestyles. I have an article
that is last Sunday's United Kingdom Times I would like to
submit for the record at this time.
Senator. Boxer. You may.
[The referenced document follows:]
From The Sunday Times
March 11, 2007
Offsetting your carbon footprint takes decades
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCHEMES used by environmentally conscious consumers to cut
their ``carbon footprint'' could take up to a century to
deliver the promised benefits, a study has suggested.
Researchers found it takes that length of time for ``carbon
offsetting'' which often involves the planting of trees in the
developing world to absorb the greenhouse gases emitted by a
single flight.
Dozens of fortunes have been made in recent years by
entrepreneurs offering people and businesses the chance to
neutralise their carbon emissions for a fee.
The new research, carried out by scientists at the Tyndall
Centre, based at the University of East Anglia, and Sweden's
Lund University, suggests that such schemes may, in fact, do
little more than salve the consciences of those paying for
them.
``What we are seeing here is the emergence of a new and
completely unregulated financial market,'' said Lund's
Professor Stefan Gossling, who led the study.
``These schemes may eventually recapture the carbon people
emit now but will only finish the job after most of them have
died. That is too long.''
The schemes studied by Gossling included one offered by
British Airways to its passengers through Climate Care, a
British carbon offsetting company.
It found that an offset bought through the scheme would
take about 100 years to recapture the carbon emitted by a
flight.
This is because Climate Care includes forestry in its
offsetting portfolio, meaning that carbon emitted can be
recaptured only as fast as a tree can grow.
The research coincides with a sharp rise in the political
temperature over climate change. Last week EU leaders agreed to
cut European carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by
2020.
The voluntary carbon offsetting market has sprung from the
same global concern over carbon emissions.
There are now dozens of companies charging fees to help
people and organisations deal with their carbon emissions. One
of the richest is Climate Change Capital, a merchant bank
specialising in low-carbon investments, which controls funds of
more than 500m and has made millionaires of its
founders, James Cameron and Lionel Fretz.
The firm specialises in big industrial projects. Most
offsetting companies prefer, however, to support smaller
energy-efficiency projects and renewable energy schemes.
A favourite is to buy low-energy lightbulbs for
distribution in developing countries. Such schemes can take
years to recover the carbon emitted by, say, a flight, but when
forestry is the chosen offset mechanism this can stretch into
decades.
``When companies offer to offset a single flight over a
period of 100 years then the schemes lose credibility,'' said
Gossling. ``How can anyone predict the fate of a forest? A
hundred years from now it could burn down and all that carbon
would be released.''
Some forestry projects have ended in spectacular failures.
Coldplay, the rock group, sponsored 10,000 mango trees in
southern India to offset the environmental impact of its 2002
album, A Rush of Blood to the Head.
By last year, however, the trees, supplied by Future
Forests, now The CarbonNeutral Company, had withered and died.
Jonathan Shopley, chief executive of The CarbonNeutral
Company, said the firm had since moved out of forestry and in
to schemes such as wind farms and low-energy lighting. ``Any
offsets taken out with us in future will recover the relevant
carbon emissions within 4 years,'' he said.
The turnover of the CarbonNeutral Company has risen sharply
to 4m a year and it has just signed up Silverjet, a
new air-line dedicated to business class passengers. It charges
an average 999 for a return flight between New York
and London of which 11 goes toward offsetting each
passenger's carbon emissions.
David Wellington, managing director of Climate Care, said:
``Many of the criticisms raised over offsetting were valid.
This is a young industry and it is still settling down, but the
standards are improving very fast. For example, we have already
moved out of forestry into renewable energy projects that
reduce the time over which offsets take effect.''
But others believe that carbon offsetting is deeply flawed.
Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University,
said it was little more than a mechanism to allow rich
westerners to ease their consciences.
``What we are really doing is paying poor people to reduce
their carbon emissions so that we can maintain our luxury
lifestyles. If we really want to live sustainably we are going
to have to accept the knocks and give up things like flying. In
the end they are unsustainable,'' he said.
Senator. Inhofe. All right. What is your answer?
Mr. Gore. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you so much
for your question.
Senator. Inhofe. Sure.
[Laughter.]
Senator. Inhofe. I notice Tipper didn't say thank you for
the question.
Mr. Gore. Oh, I am sure she would.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gore. You know, one of the other recommendations that
I would have is that you also set standards for green energy
produced by utilities. One reason I say that in response to
what you are saying here is that that is what we purchase. We
pay more for it because it is still relatively uncommon.
Senator. Inhofe. Senator Gore.
Mr. Gore. If I could just----
Senator. Inhofe. Well, you can't.
Senator. Boxer. You have asked the Senator an important
question. He is answering it. Give him a minute or so to
answer.
Senator. Inhofe. All right. If you could just stop the
clock during this time?
Senator. Boxer. No. I am not going to stop the clock. He
has a minute to answer. How can you ask the question and not
give the man a minute to answer? Please.
Mr. Gore. We purchase wind energy and other green energy
that does not produce carbon dioxide. That does cost a little
more now, and that is one of the reasons why it costs a little
more. We are also in the process of renovating an old home. We
live not far from where Lamar and Honey Alexander live, and --
--
Senator. Inhofe. Senator Gore, you have had so much more
time that I am going to have to----
Mr. Gore. Can I make one other point? Because a lot of
communities actually have laws preventing the installation of
solar photovoltaic----
Senator. Inhofe. So I assume the answer is no. Let's go to
the next question.
Mr. Gore And if I could continue, I don't believe that
there should be a Federal provision that overrides any local
restrictions on the use----
Senator. Inhofe. All right. Senator Gore, I am very sorry.
I don't want to be rude, but from now on I am going to ask you
to respond for the record in writing, since you are not going
to respond----
Mr. Gore Well, if I choose to respond to you verbally
here, I hope that will be okay, too.
Senator. Inhofe. If it is a very brief response.
All right. I am sure you read the article that quoted the
scientists that I mentioned in my opening statement, about
their criticizing you for being too alarmist and hurting your
own cause. Now, I will ask you to respond in writing for that
one, because that would be a very long response, I am afraid.
It seems that everybody in the media has joined the chorus
----
Mr. Gore May I respond?
Senator Boxer. Excuse me. Senator Inhofe, we will freeze
the time for a minute.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, take your time. We are freezing the
time.
Senator Boxer. We are freezing the time. Just for a minute,
I want to talk to you a minute please.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Would you agree to let the Vice President
answer your questions, and then if you want an extra few
minutes at the end, I am happy to give it to you. But we are
not going to get anywhere. You are asking questions.
Senator Inhofe. Why don't we do this? At the end, you can
have as much time as you want to answer all the questions.
Senator Boxer. No, that isn't the rule. You are not making
the rules. You used to when you did this. You don't do this
anymore.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Elections have consequences.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
Senator Boxer. Elections have consequences, so I make the
rules. But here is the thing, I want you to get your questions
answered. I promised to give you an additional three minutes of
time, but if you will allow the Chair, if I believe the Vice
President is wandering into another area, I will just say that
quietly and he will I know move on. He knows the rules here.
Senator Inhofe. You know the rules here. Let me read to you
what you said to Mr. Johnson when he was before this Committee.
You said, ``The fact is, I don't need to talk now. I don't want
to talk anymore.''
Now, I am not going to be rude. I am not going to do that,
but that is what you did. I only want to be able to get through
my time. I can't do it if you filibuster. All right?
Senator Boxer. Go ahead.
Senator Inhofe. Now, it seems that everything is blamed on
global warming. You talked about the fires in Oklahoma. Last
summer, we had a heat wave and everyone said, oh, that is proof
that it is global warming. Then we had a mild December, oh,
that is proof that global warming is taking place.
Now, I wonder, how come you guys never seem to notice it
when it gets cold? If you put up chart number two there. This
is for your benefit, Senator Clinton. This is of Buffalo, New
York. I have in my hand here the document from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They set records all
over America in January, with 183 cold records; 183 of them.
This is a new record, all over America. That was all in one
month.
I would just have to say that, for our sake in Oklahoma, we
had three days that were the coldest days in history. Where is
global warming when you really need it?
Now, what I would like to do is also be aware that the
debate that took place last week in New York, and I would like
to have a brief thought about this. This is when the prominent
group of five scientists and one doctor on each side of the
issue had a chance to talk, to survey their crowd. It was a
very large crowd, and 57.3 percent of the audience agreed with
you that global warming is a crisis. About 29 percent said it
wasn't. After the debate, it completely turned around, and it
was 46 percent to 42 percent. Now, I think that is all the more
reason why there should be a lot more discussion on this. It
was a huge shift.
Now, on science. You talked about science. It is very
interesting that when people don't want to talk about science
in a debate format in terms of how many scientists are on this
side; how many on this side. What happens is you just say it is
settled.
I mentioned in my opening statement Claude Allegre. He is
from France, and Nir Shariv from Israel, Reid Bryson. These are
all people who were solidly on your side of the issue up until
recently, and now they are not alarmists anymore. All three of
them have come over to the other side.
Now, if you put up chart number three, there are literally
hundreds of scientists on this chart. All of these scientists
disagree with you. In addition to that, I am sure you have
heard this many times before because people are quite upset
that the 60 scientists were advising the Prime Minister of
Canada 10 years ago said that we want you to join Kyoto, and so
they did. Those same 60 scientists now are petitioning Prime
Minister Harper of Canada to get out of the Kyoto Treaty. They
are saying, and this is a direct quote, ``If back in the mid-
1990s we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would
almost certainly not exist because we would have concluded that
it wasn't necessary.''
And the last chart that I will put up is one that everyone
knows. I think some of my colleagues may not be familiar with
this person. His name is Richard Lindzen. He is the Sloan
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. He wrote an op-ed
piece for The Wall Street Journal. I will read it as you read
it. It is not very flattering to you, Senator Gore, but this is
what he said: ``A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach
is to assiduously ignore the fact that the Earth and its
climate are dynamic. They are always changing, even without
external forces. To treat all change as something to fear is
bad enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much
worse.''
So we have thousands of meteorologists, geologists,
physicists, astrophysicists, climatologists, scientists who
disagree with you. Are they all wrong and you are right?
Mr. Gore Senator, thank you.
I am sitting here trying to think what I could do or say
that might make it possible to reach out to you. I am serious
about this. We have a mutual friend named Doug Coe. I would
love to have breakfast with you sometime with Doug, just the
three of us, and talk with you without the cameras and without
the lights, and tell you why I feel so strongly about this.
Senator. Inhofe. Well, I think you have told us in your
opening statement, and it is very eloquent.
Mr. Gore But anyway, you know, if there was a way that I
could talk with you that would make a difference to you, I
would like to do it.
But let me respond to your question. The National Academy
of Sciences here in this country and in the 16 largest or most
developed countries in the world, the ones that have respected
large national academies of science, all of them unanimously
have expressed agreement with the consensus that I stated to
you.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has had
its fourth unanimous report in 15 years agrees with the
consensus that I stated to you.
Senator. Inhofe. Okay. Senator Gore? My time has almost
expired completely. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Gore If I could complete my answer.
Senator. Inhofe. Well, if you do, then my time has
expired. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Gore Well, I can't help that, because you went on for
a long time. But I would like to----
Senator. Inhofe. No, I have 15 minutes. You had 30
minutes. I had 15 minutes. You have to let me have my 15
minutes, Senator Gore.
Mr. Gore. If I could just complete my response.
Senator. Inhofe. You have already done it. The National
Academy of Sciences----
Mr. Gore. I actually haven't.
Senator. Boxer. Senator, I will stop the clock and allow
Senator Gore to complete, please, and then we will go back to
you.
Senator. Inhofe. Good. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Gore. I will just give you one other example. The
University of California did a very well respected, well
picked-over peer-reviewed study. The team was led by Professor
Naomi Oreskes. They reviewed every single peer-reviewed
scientific journal article for the previous 10 years on this
topic. They took a very large sample of almost 10 percent of
them, 928. About 25 percent of the articles did not deal with
the central point of the consensus, some arcane matter. But of
those that dealt with the main consensus, the number that
disagreed with the consensus was zero. This is a very well
established and very strong scientific consensus. It is not me
saying it. It is what the scientific community is saying.
Senator. Inhofe. Okay. My response to that is that, first
of all, every scientist that I named up here is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences. They disagree with you. They
disagreed with that statement. But the National Academy of
Sciences back in 1975, they had a very interesting observation.
They said, however, asserting a finite possibility that a
serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the
next 100 years, exactly what they are saying now, except at
that time it was cooling.
Mr. Gore. Could I comment on that?
Senator. Inhofe. With all respect, Senator Gore, we can't
do that. You know that.
I wanted to keep going and discuss China, but it is
virtually impossible to do now because we have used up too much
time. I will ask you to do this----
Senator. Sanders. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous
consent to give Mr. Inhofe another two minutes so that Mr. Gore
could respond.
Senator. Inhofe. Oh, why don't you give it to Mr. Gore to
respond?
Senator. Sanders. You get two, and Mr. Gore gets two. I
would ask unanimous consent.
Senator. Inhofe. Oh, that is great.
Senator. Boxer. I am going to object, because here is the
thing. What I am going to do is, and Senator, you will get your
chance. Please. If you would just trust me for five minutes,
you will be fine. He is going to lay down the rest of his
questions in moments, and then I am going to give the Vice
President the time he needs to respond, within reason. Okay?
And then I am going to go Senator Klobuchar, and then we are
going to try to get control of this hearing.
Senator Inhofe, was that your last question?
Senator. Inhofe. Oh, no.
Senator. Boxer. You have one minute, then, to go ahead and
ask your questions. Why don't you lay them all down, and then
he will answer them. Go ahead. You have one minute now.
Senator. Inhofe. One minute for my last question? Well, I
already had three minutes.
Senator. Boxer. Well, I am giving you another minute.
Senator. Inhofe. Okay.
Senator. Boxer. Go ahead.
Senator. Inhofe. I will skip all the questions. I had 15
minutes of questions, and Senator Gore, I agree. Let's get
together with Doug Coe and talk about it privately. But this is
a public forum. People have to know. I have listed all the
scientists who disagree with you, and you did not respond to
that question.
So I would just say that I hope people understand what the
issue is, because a lot of people don't know the issue. A lot
of people think the issue is global warming taking place. The
issue is, is it manmade gases, anthropogenic gases,
CO2. That is the issue. Unfortunately, I think it is
more of a money response than anything else. We have a lot of
people who are pouring money into these things, George Soros,
Michael Moore, Richard Branson and all of that.
But what I am going to do in the last times since my time
has expired, I am going to ask you on your film, the last frame
on your film, and it is kind of interesting because yesterday I
ran into a parent of a student at a school in Maryland, that
said that her students in an elementary school were watching
your movie under instructions once every month. The last frame
in that movie was, and would you put that frame up? You are
asking, and you have asked people all over America: Are you
ready to change your way of life? Are you ready to change the
way you live?
I would have to ask you that same question, because we
started my term on would you take a pledge to do that. I think
the answer to that is no. But in terms of changing the way you
live, I think it is very difficult for you to ask other people
to do it unless you are willing to do it. Are you willing to do
it?
Mr. Gore. We live a carbon-neutral life, Senator, and both
of my businesses are carbon-neutral. We buy green energy. We do
not contribute to the problem that I am joining with others to
try to help solve. We pay more for clean energy and I think
that utilities ought to provide more green energy that doesn't
produce CO2.
We are in the midst of installing solar panels. Again, I
think that we ought to have a law that says communities and
localities ought not be able to prevent that. I have never made
that public, by the way. The community where I live, it is a
city within a city. I asked them to change it and they said we
will. It just takes time.
So these kinds of things are what people are going through
all over this country. They are buying the new light bulbs.
They are putting in more insulation. People are changing.
People are changing. The American people are ready to help
solve this problem, but we have to have legislation that takes
away the right to pollute without any accountability or without
paying a price for it, because when we have cap and trade, when
we have laws that allow us to use the market in our favor, then
those of us who are part of the solution rather than part of
the problem will be able to leverage what we are doing.
I will respond to the other questions for the record, out
of courtesy to the remaining Senators.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator. Klobuchar. Vice President Gore, welcome to our
Committee.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Senator. Klobuchar. It is not every day that our Committee
has an Academy Award winner testifying. More often, our
witnesses have awards from important, but not so glamorous
organizations like the American Chemical Society or the
American Society of Civil Engineers. So we are very pleased
that you brought all your friends here so that there can be
more focus on this important issue.
I can tell you that in Minnesota, contrary to what Senator
Inhofe has been talking about, we believe in science. We
brought the world the Post-it note and the pacemaker, but it is
more than science now. I can tell you that there are hunters in
Hibbing, Minnesota that wear orange caps that care about this
issue because they have seen the change to our wetland.
There is a couple out on Leech Lake who care about this
issue because they have seen how long it takes for them to get
their fishhouse out to go ice fishing. There is a City Council
in Lanesboro, Minnesota who decided to change their light bulbs
because they can see the effects of global warming. And there
is a little eight year old in Roseville, Minnesota who came up
to me at an event with tears in her eyes because she had read
about the penguins dying, because they were drowning trying to
get food.
So this isn't just science. It is real people in the real
world that care about this issue.
In our State, we actually passed one of the most aggressive
renewable electricity standards, 25 by 25, just a month ago. By
the year 2025, the State's energy companies are required to
generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources
such as wind and solar and other forms of biomass. Energy is
held to a higher standard, with 30 percent by 2020.
The reason I bring this up is that this was adopted, as
Senator Alexander was talking about, with bipartisan support.
It is a Democrat State House and State Senate, but the vote was
123 to 10 in the State House, 61 to 4 in the State Senate, and
it was signed into law by a Republican Governor. So that is
what you are talking about when you talk about bipartisan
solutions.
I wanted to focus on the last question a little bit about
those solutions. You were, when you were here, you were widely
regarded as a pragmatist. Today, you were talking about the
importance of using the Omar Bradley quote of guiding ourselves
not just by the lights of each passing ship, but by the stars.
As you have seen today, there is some opposition to change
in this area by certain quarters in the United States Senate.
So my questions are about what thought you have given to what
needs to be done to get this legislation passed quickly.
Specifically, have you thought about what first steps need
to be taken so we can immediately do something and immediately
respond to your call for action?
Mr. Gore. First of all, Senator Klobuchar, thank you so
much for your comments. I was in Minnesota during your
campaign. I was so impressed with the prominence of this issue
in the campaign dialogue, and so impressed with the people and
leaders of your State for truly making it a bipartisan issue. I
think it is the wave of the future for our whole country.
This used to be a bipartisan issue. When Senator Baker was
the Ranking Minority Member for Ed Muskie on this Committee,
they passed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, one of them
unanimously, as I recall. I think it can be that way again.
I truly believe that the first step ought to be a freeze. I
think that the support is growing out there so rapidly. A cap
and trade system that starts with a freeze can let us use the
economy in our favor. I support the Sanders-Boxer bill. I think
that is an excellent piece of legislation. I don't consider
myself expert on all the details of the different provisions of
all the legislation that has been introduced, but I have taken
note of that legislation. I think it is an excellent beginning
fo this.
Each of the recommendations that I made to you are ones
that I think are practical as well as aiming high. I think the
cost of not solving this crisis would be devastating for our
economy as well as to the environment. The so-called Stern
Report in the United Kingdom made that point very forcefully.
Although there are arguments about the so-called discount rate
that he uses, I think it is an excellent report.
So I really think that it is pragmatic, as well as
idealistic, to take this bull by the horns and really solve
this crisis.
Mr. Klobuchar. You brought up the issue of the economy.
How about technology? There is an argument that if you don't do
anything about it, if we don't develop the technology, other
countries will, and we will fall behind economically.
Mr. Gore. I think that is definitely the case. Just look
at the crisis that our auto industry is in right now. It may
not be fair, but the apocryphal saying was years ago when the
Clean Air Act was passed, every Japanese company hired 100 new
engineers and every American company hired 100 new lawyers. As
I say, that may not be fair, but if you look at the effective
way that a company like Toyota has made more environmentally
efficient cars. There are a lot of reasons for this. Health
care needs to be solved also. That is a problem for our auto
companies.
But one of the principal reasons why our auto companies are
in trouble is that they got the tradeoff, the so-called
tradeoff between the economy and the environment wrong, and
they have all these gas guzzlers that they can't sell because
people don't want to buy them. It is not as if it was
impossible to predict that oil prices might go up at some point
in the future. We get it from the most unstable parts of the
world.
So what we really have is a carbon crisis. We borrow all
this money from China to buy all this oil from unstable
countries, and burn it in ways that destroy the habitability of
the planet. We need to change every bit of that pattern. In
changing it, we will become more competitive and allow our
companies to get out there on the cutting edge and develop the
new technologies that you are focused on that will create more
good jobs.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Warner.
Senator. Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Vice President, I welcome you and Mrs. Gore. I was
privileged to serve with you in this institution. We served
together on the Armed Services Committee, and you, in a
dignified way, you earned the respect of this institution, and
I am privileged to try today to return that respect and dignity
to both of you, sir, here in the Senate.
I also thank you for reference to my modest little
contribution to World War II. I would acknowledge that my good
friend down here, Senator Lautenberg, also served in that
conflict with great distinction in Europe.
Mr. Gore. Pardon me for the omission.
Senator. Warner. You talked about the Battle of
Thermopylae. I remember reading about it quite well. I have not
seen the film, but intend to do so. You may recall that
overwhelming force sent a message to the brave 300: Surrender,
or we will darken the skies with arrows. And the reply came
back: We will not surrender. We will fight in the shade.
Now, I mention that because you have thrown down a very
tough challenge today to the Congress. I am prepared to take
some risks and fight with you and our Chairman, but we are not
going to fight in the shade, because we need a lot of daylight
brought on this issue. I would be the first to say that I have
a lot to learn. I am proceeding to do that with a great deal of
pleasure, to forge ahead in a new area.
But I want to talk about the first issue that concerns me.
As long as we are talking about political slogans, you remember
the slogan that we worked on in arms control: trust, but
verify. Well, I want to trust as much as I can, your position,
and those that advocate this, but we need some verification.
And that first verification comes as we study this problem, on
whether or not there is in existence today the technology to
make the corrections that you advocate.
Mr. Gore. Well, that is an excellent and thoughtful
question. Thank you for your kind words in preface to the
question.
We have the technologies we need to begin addressing the
crisis. Two economists at Princeton, Professors Socolow and
Pacala published an immensely influential study that is based
on what they call the wedges analysis. The reason I use that
jargon is that it directly addresses the question you are
asking.
We can start with what we now have available, and begin
making reductions, even as we continue the research and
development into new waves of technology that will make the
solutions steadily more accessible and easier.
For example, just to use one example, everybody here has
talked about ethanol and biofuels. The present generation of
ethanol has some controversy associated with it. We all know
that. If the energy use of the agriculture used to produce it
is carefully handled, it can be a net positive addition. I am
for it. But within less than five years, we will have a second
generation of ethanol products available to us known as, I
believe it is enzymatic hydrolysis. Some people call it
cellulosic ethanol, lignocellulosic, which is a biodiesel form.
Again, this is above my pay grade also, but my point is this:
We can start now with what we know to do; begin putting the
infrastructure and the laws in place; wean ourselves off as
much of the foreign oil as we are using; and reduce the
CO2 associated with it. And then plan ahead so that
within less than five years, we can roll into this second
generation, which is infinitely better. There are comparable
second generation technologies all along the road, including
photovoltaics, where a new generation there will soon become
available.
Senator. Warner. Let me bring in another point here, and
that is we are in a one world market today.
Mr. Gore. Right.
Senator. Warner. And when we are sleeping, the rest of the
world is up trying to figure out how to compete with us, and
frankly take away our jobs. Too many jobs are leaving our
shores. I am just concerned about China and India. They are
major polluters today and projections are they will even be
bigger in the years to come.
How do we persuade them to assume the burdens that we will
have to take to meet your challenge, and that we go together as
partners? We simply can't be followers to China's growing
economic capabilities, and military, I might add.
Mr. Gore. Yes, Senator, it is a global problem and it has
to be solved with a global strategy. The military historians
tell us that battles and conflicts fall naturally into three
categories: local battles, regional wars, and the rare, but all
important global or strategic war, like World War II.
Environmental issues are much the same. Much of what we
discuss are local problems, air pollution, water pollution.
Acid rain is an example of a regional problem, the dead zone in
the Gulf of Mexico coming out of the mouth of the Mississippi
River draining the Midwest. But this is the rare, but all
important global or strategic problem. Its aspect is in the
global dimension, and every nation has to be a part of the
solution.
Now, that is a challenge, and every global treaty since the
end of World War II has had the same binary architecture. The
wealthier per capita countries are in one category, and the
other countries, even if they are strong, their per capita
incomes are only a fraction of ours, and they band together.
And every treaty has recognized that distinction. We might not
want that, but as a practical matter that is the world we have
to deal with.
How do we get China and India, falling in that second
category, even though China might arguably bridge those
categories now, they are the Saudi Arabia of manufacturing,
after all. Their emissions will soon exceed ours. But how do we
get them involved?
Two steps. Number one, when we lead, we greatly improve the
odds that they will be a part of it. Number two, there is
excellent evidence that they themselves have their own reasons
for joining in solving this crisis. President Hu Jintao and
Premier Wu, both have made speeches within the last 10 days on
this issue. Words alone don't count for much, but they have
made this goal coequal with GDP in their new five year plan.
They now face a situation where some months of the year,
the Yellow River no longer reaches the sea. The Yangtze River,
much larger, is still a problem for them. They have a water
crisis. The Tibetan Plateau is melting. The sandstorms off the
Gobi are getting stronger. They are worried that their coming-
out party at the Olympics is going to be spoiled by the
environment. They are facing demonstrations with the start to
construction of new coal-fired powerplants now. Not that that
is a problem over there, but it actually is beginning to be a
problem.
So since they have their own reasons for trying to address
this, the odds increase that if we provide the leadership and
find creative ways to bridge out across that category, I think
that they will join.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator. Warner. My time is up.
Senator. Boxer. I am sorry. That is so fascinating, but we
need to move on.
Senator Sanders.
Senator. Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for being here. And
thank you not only for focusing our country and much of the
world's attention on this planetary crisis, but you have done
something else. I think it is no secret that a lot of young
people are disenchanted with the political process, are
alienated from it. I think you have given that generation the
hope that maybe they also can become a great generation, and
break our dependency on fossil fuel and move us toward energy
efficiency and sustainable energy.
I think the hearts of a lot of young people are beating a
little bit faster today because of your work, and I want to
thank you very much for that. On behalf of Senator Boxer and
myself, we want to thank you for your support of our
legislation, which we think is the most comprehensive that has
been introduced in the Congress.
Mr. Vice President, I want to pick up on a point that
Senator Klobuchar raised a moment ago. We have heard from some
people who disagree with us philosophically that if we move
forward aggressively in reversing global warming, that it will
be a terrible, terrible thing for the economy. That is what
some people say.
Some of us believe, in fact, that if we are aggressive in
terms of energy efficiency, if we reverse the absurdity of no
longer having the United States being the leader in solar
energy. We are way behind where other countries are; no longer
being a leader in terms of wind technology, or many of the
other sustainable energies that are out there; that in fact if
we focus on these issues, if we bring labor and business
together, that in fact we could create millions of good paying
jobs as we not only reverse global warming, but we clean up the
environment, which is causing so much illness and other
problems.
Could you speak briefly on what you see as the economic
plus, the advantages of moving toward a green revolution and
energy efficiency and sustainable energy?
Mr. Gore. Thank you, Senator Sanders.
I agree with you first of all that the young generation is
getting very deeply involved with this. I remember when I was a
teenager and the Civil Rights revolution became a moral issue.
And when my generation asked our elders to explain why the
segregation wasn't immoral, and when they couldn't answer, that
is when the laws changed. I think that this young generation is
getting deeply involved in this as a moral issue.
Your fellow Vermonter, Bill McKibben, has been among those
who have really tapped into that. My hat is off to him.
On the economic benefits of attacking this problem, Amory
Lovins has testified before this Committee. He is one of these
guys that is so smart you think you are drinking from two fire
hoses at the same time when he talks. He has been right about a
lot of things for 30 years, but he has so many great ideas. He
told me one time, he said, you know, Al, the problem with the
debate over the economic impact of the solutions is that you
have the sign wrong. I thought, this guy is so smart he is
talking about trigonometry, which I can't talk about. I thought
he was talking about cosines or something. No, he was talking
about plus sign and minus sign. That was a relief to me.
What he meant was, there are all kinds of solutions to the
climate crisis that people think have a minus sign, when
actually they have a plus sign. Take the insulation and
building improvements I was talking about earlier and proposing
this Connie Mae. If we made those expenditures, we would
sharply reduce CO2. There is more CO2
that comes from buildings than comes from cars and trucks.
Would that hurt our economy? No. It would greatly
strengthen our economy. It would create jobs, number one. And
it would sharply reduce our annual expenditure for energy that
goes purely to waste. So that is a plus sign, not a minus sign.
If we develop the new technologies that Senator Klobuchar is
focused on, and we give our auto industry, just to take that
one example, the ability to recapture some of the markets they
have lost to the hybrids from Japan, is that minus sign? No. It
creates jobs. It adds to our economic strength. And there are
literally thousands of similar examples.
Now, there are also some minus signs out there, and we have
to pick and choose carefully and keep our wits about us, but if
we go about it in the right way, we can strengthen our economy
while we reduce the CO2.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bond.
Senator. Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Vice President. It is good to have you back.
Your Inconvenient Truth spends a lot of time discussing the
problem, but little time detailing solutions my constituents
can live with. Indeed, the chart on this book shows that of the
305 of the 328 pages, or 92 percent, there are pictures of
glaciers, lakes, graphs, charts. If you actually want to find
out how society or how Government or how the world can deal
with this problem in ways that won't turn off the lights or
heat or cost poor and middle-income families billions, this
book truly is inconvenient.
Only 5 percent of the pages provide personal solutions like
composting and buying local. Economists get two pages. Wind get
another, the same amount; renewable energy the same amount.
That is a handful of pages on proposals that will cost families
and workers hundreds of billions of dollars in the
transportation, power and energy sectors, and unfortunately,
cost many of them their jobs.
We are being asked to threaten blue collar manufacturing
workers supporting middle class families and threaten the poor
on fixed incomes with heating bill increases. But we get almost
no discussion of their plight, how they would suffer or how
they would cope under certain carbon cap plans.
Your own words confirm this approach of focusing on the
problem, and not the pain of the solutions. Last year when
speaking to Grist magazine, I understand you said, ``I believe
it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation in factual
presentations on how dangerous global warming is to open up the
audience.''
Well, that is pretty stark language, if you believe you can
overstate the facts to get a message out. You justify this by
calling global warming a moral issue. You say we should think
of the children when we consider the issue. I agree with you.
But I happen to agree that the moral issue here when we think
about children may be represented by what I consider a moral
commitment to the child pictured here, and many like her. The
little girl appeared in Capitol Hill newspapers. I don't know
her name, but I fear her plight because it is shared by many
Missourians.
This girl is cold because her family cannot afford to pay
their heating bills. This is an ad by AARP for more LIHEAP
funding. It notes that 29 million American families cannot
afford to pay their heating bills. LIHEAP is a program I
support, but it can only help one in six suffering families.
Even if we doubled funding, we couldn't help all that is
needed. This leaves the little girl to wear a coat inside when
it gets too cold, and that is exactly what the caption beside
her reads: ``I have two coats, one for inside and one for
outside.''
But with higher heating bills from carbon cap legislation,
would this little girl have to wear two coats inside? How many
millions would suffer her fate of freezing through the winter?
Should we tell this freezing little girl we can only listen to
one side of the story? That we should ignore the latest
research, including that showing perhaps a correlation between
temperature change and changed particles from sunspots? That we
need to better understand the Earth's feedback mechanisms and
our climate systems.
Now, I strongly support taking action that will have
significant environmental benefits. I support biofuels like
biodiesel that can cut CO2 emissions by 30 percent.
I support IGCC coal gasification that allows for carbon
captures. You mentioned Asia. I strongly support President
Bush's Asia Pacific Partnership. I support the auto industry
doing more with flex-fuel vehicles, hybrids, plug-ins. I am a
big fan of nuclear energy. I personally planted 10,000 trees,
not just for carbon, but for the wood.
But your proposal today to freeze immediately
CO2 emissions would stop economic growth and, I
fear, jobs. I will fight against unwise carbon plans like caps
that unfairly punish certain parts of the country like the
coal-dependent Midwest and the South, jacking up heating bills,
making air conditioning unaffordable, and taking jobs away from
blue collar manufacturing and other workers.
Experts estimate that heating, cooling and electricity
bills from traditional coal-fired plants would go up 80 percent
if carbon sequestration is required. Do you believe families
and workers should pay this price?
Senator. Boxer. Let me just say that the Senator has five
seconds left, so I will give you a minute, and then we will
move on to the next Senator.
Mr. Gore. Was one of those questions about sunspots? I
didn't understand the reference to the sun spots.
Senator. Bond. There are some scientists who say that
sunspot activity is directly related to global warming. That is
one theory, like the theory that humans are the main source of
global warming; that our emissions are.
Mr. Gore. Okay. Well, you know, again the international
scientific community and the American scientific community, our
National Academy of Sciences and the international group that
has four unanimous reports now in 15 years, says that the
conclusion that humans are the principal causes is unequivocal.
The idea that sunspots are causing this problem, I respectfully
disagree.
One of the signatures of the issue is a really interesting
phenomena. As the atmosphere heats up, the stratosphere cools
down. There is a reason for that. If it were being caused by
sunspots, then both the troposphere, the lower atmosphere, and
the stratosphere would both be heating up. If it were caused by
CO2, which it is, according to the scientists, they
predicted in advance, okay, that means it will warm up in the
part we live in, but it will cool down above this area where
the greenhouse gases are accumulating. And sure enough, it
happens exactly that way.
Moreover, in the last 30 years, there has been no
appreciable increase, the scientists say, in the solar
radiation output, and yet the 10 hottest years ever measured
have been since 1990; 20 of the 21 hottest have been in the
last 25 years. I mentioned earlier, the hottest was 2005.
So the so-called sunspot theory, according to the
scientists, has been pretty definitively discarded. That is not
coming from me. That is coming from the scientific community.
Now, on the question of the affordability.
Senator. Boxer. Senator Gore, I will give you 60 seconds
to address the issue.
Mr. Gore. I will respond further for the record, Madam
Chair.
Senator. Boxer. No, I would like you to just, the question
of affordability, I think the picture of the little girl and
wearing two coats, I think is----
Mr. Gore. I also support the so-called LIHEAP program, the
Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program. I said in my
earlier testimony that I think that that ought to be a robust
program and we should make sure that there are no families in
this country that go without heat if they need it. I think
Government ought to assist them. Absolutely.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator. Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Vice President Gore, for your wonderfully
elaborate presentation of the facts to the American public and
the world at large. The attention it has gotten has established
credibility that can't, no matter how much we challenge it from
this Committee's perspective or other places, it is not going
to stop the public interest in getting this problem solved.
Now, I know that there was some contention here, but the
fact of the matter is that our distinguished friend and
colleague is the one who suggested that the greatest hoax
perpetrated on the American people is global warming.
Now, I haven't heard anybody else support that notion. It
just shows you where the perspective is on what we have to do
in this Committee and this Congress. We talk about the cost of
jobs. Well, that is an arguable thing, and you have said, and I
think produced evidence that it will not damage the economy. In
the final analysis, it will improve it.
But the one thing that is irrefutable is the fact that if
we don't do something about this, it is going to cost lives. I
want to read something here from the Union of Concerned
Scientists. This is a credible organization, I would say. I
hope our friends would agree. ``The reality of global warming,
including the role of heat-trapping gases from human activities
in driving climate change, has been repeatedly affirmed by
scientific experts.'' They go on to say, ``Every day that we
choose to ignore climate science is a day we failed to protect
future generations from the consequences of global warming.''
Mr. Vice President, and people within the sound of my
voice, my biggest concern, and why I do what I do here, is my
10 grandchildren. If I care enough about my 10 grandchildren to
want to do something to protect their health and their
longevity, then I think that we all ought to be looking at what
we do about our grandchildren.
When I listen to these challenges that were presented to
you, Mr. Vice President, I am thinking of the Luddites who were
opposed to technology and took 100 years or so to establish
that maybe the technology was good for us. I think that is
still the case.
I know you have spoken to scientists across the country
about global warming and its impact. What do you think the
persistent efforts of the Bush Administration to censor,
suppress Government scientists has had on the morale of these
people? Did you get a chance to hear from any of them that you
talked to?
Mr. Gore. Yes, I have. Some of them are put under a lot of
pressure. Absolutely. Jim Hansen testified yesterday. He is one
of the most distinguished of them. He is a very gutsy guy, and
has stood up to the efforts to censor his scientific reports.
There are some others who aren't as visible and don't have the
same chance to get out there and fight for themselves.
Inevitably, there are some of them who feel the pressures.
Sure.
Senator. Lautenberg. Yes, the one thing that we have seen
here repeatedly is testimony, material submitted by qualified
scientists for review who work for the Government, and when we
see their reports redacted, things eliminated, meanings changed
constantly, it is a discouraging thing. The attempt to
influence the public against taking appropriate measures to
reduce the threat that global warming and climate change poses
to us is really hard to fathom. But Mr. Vice President, you
have shown a persistence and tenacity that is to be admired.
You can't quit because the entire world is looking at ways to
relieve ourselves of this impending threat.
Mr. Gore. They are looking to this Senate, Senator
Lautenberg. I know that many of you are going to be trying to
redeem the promise that our democracy makes to them.
If I could say just one other thing in response. I admire
your work on this issue of long standing, Senator Lautenberg.
Thank you for your service. I do believe that it is morally
wrong to have individuals who have a political brief and no
scientific training put in positions where they censor
scientific reports simply because the conclusions of the
scientists are inconvenient for the commercial interests that
in many cases these individuals have come out of, and then go
back to after their time in the executive branch.
I remember a time when that would have caused bipartisan
outrage. I know that there have been plenty of Republicans who
have expressed concern about that. I don't mean to imply that
there are not now. But standing up for the scientific method,
for truth, for open science, that shouldn't be a partisan
issue. It really should not be a partisan issue.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson.
Senator. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Welcome.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Senator. Isakson. I know she won't remember, but 10 years
ago when I chaired the Board of Education in Georgia, I had the
privilege of escorting Mrs. Gore to the Teacher of Excellence
awards celebration sponsored by Cox Newspapers in Atlanta. I
just want to thank her for her advocacy on behalf of kids, and
particularly the content that they are exposed to. I appreciate
that very much.
Mr. Vice President, I am a big believer in finding positive
solutions, so I would like to look at two things for a second.
It appears to me that to solve, let me put it another way.
Utilities, the generation of electricity, the manufacturing of
goods and services are significant contributors and are
oftentimes demonized.
Yet in fact, I think they are a route to the solution of
many of the problems we face. For example, if you can't burn
coal because of carbon, and if natural gas increases five, six,
seven times what it was a few years ago, which it has, and yet
you do want to provide the energy to manufacture, to heat
homes, et cetera, it seems like to me that nuclear energy is
certainly a major part of the solution.
One of the things that frustrates me is every time I listen
to people talk about the things that we need to do to solve
environmental problems, one of those things that is never
mentioned by those advocates is the great efficiency, lower
cost, and non-polluting effects of nuclear energy.
Do you think nuclear energy and its generation of power is
a part of the solution?
Mr. Gore. I think it is likely to be a small part of it. I
don't think it will be a big part of the solution, Senator. I
used to represent Oak Ridge, where we are immune to the effects
of radiation. So I used to be more enthusiastic about it. I am
more skeptical today for a lot of reasons. The main one is
cost. I am assuming that we will somehow find an answer to the
problem of long-term storage of waste. I think Yucca Mountain
is deficient.
I am assuming that we will find an answer to the problem of
errors by the operators of these reactors. I have been to Three
Mile Island. I went to Chernobyl. The whole industry is
affected when there is one of those. But I am assuming those
can be solved.
Now, for the eight years I was in the White House, every
nuclear weapons proliferation issue was connected to a reactor
program. That is a problem if the world wanted to make nuclear
power the option A for the whole world. It would make that
problem worse. But the main problem I think is economics. The
problem is these things are expensive. They take a long time to
build, and at present they only come in one size, extra large.
In a time when the efforts to project energy demand is
plagued by uncertainty over what oil prices will be, and
electricity shouldn't follow the price of oil, but it does
because there is enough fungibility at the margin between oil
and coal that it just chases the oil price. Again, it is $60 a
barrel, and what will it be next year? The answer is not
important, but the uncertainty is. The answer is important,
too, but where this problem is concerned, it is the uncertainty
about the answer that makes the utility managers reluctant to
bet all their construction budget on very large increments that
take a long time and have certain other fragilities associated
with them.
In the Tennessee Valley Authority, I forget the precise
numbers, but when I came to the Congress in the 1970s, we had
something like 21 reactors under construction. About 19 of them
had to be cancelled after the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979. You
may get the same questions I used to get, Senator Alexander,
about whether or not those partially completed cooling towers
could be used for grain silos. People are still unhappy about
having to pay for the ones that were not completed.
So I think that it will play a small role in some areas,
but I don't think it is going to be a big part of the solution.
Senator. Isakson. On that answer, let me just make a
couple of comments to think about. The 1974, 1975, 1976 period
that you refer to in terms of Oak Ridge and the WHOOPS bonds in
Washington, Pacific Coast, it was double digit tax-deductible
interest rates on the power bonds that were generated to build
those plants that shut everything down.
In fact, and I am trying to help here.
Mr. Gore. No, go ahead.
Senator. Isakson. The nuclear generation proliferated
because, interestingly enough, of the cost of coal. Coal went
so high and spiked so much in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
nuclear was the next route to go to.
I know I am running over. I apologize. Let me just finish
this thought.
Chernobyl was terrible, and it was in part an engineering
and a lack of standards disaster. Three Mile Island, in fact, I
think was a credit to the American nuclear regulatory
authorities that what could have happened and did at Chernobyl,
didn't happen in America.
Mr. Gore. I agree.
Senator. Isakson. But I can't imagine how we would work
our way to a positive solution if nuclear energy is not a key
component because of its capacity to build and its capacity to
generate, and its capacity to provide economical non-polluting
energy. So hopefully, it will be a part of this debate, because
in the end it is a critical part of the solution.
Mr. Gore. Could I comment briefly, Madam Chair?
Senator. Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Gore. I think you make great points, Senator. And I
have learned from you, and I appreciate it. Indeed, the
interest rates on the power bonds was a big part of it. I
didn't mention that. In spite of those rates, they were
projecting a 7 percent annual compounded increase in
electricity demand in the early 1970s, and when the price of
oil chased oil and electricity rates went up, that 7 percent
figure became a 1 percent figure.
So yes, it was both factors. I do agree with you, though,
that it needs to be a part of the debate. I just happen to
think it is going to be a smaller part. Take China, for
example. We talked about it earlier. In their five year plan
right now, they are projecting 55 new 1,000 megawatt coal-fired
generating plants every year, and only 3 nuclear plants. Now,
they don't have to worry about public opposition. In a way they
do, but they do for coal also. So see, they are looking at the
same economics of the long lead construction and the cost, and
some of the uncertainties.
Now, there is a new generation of reactors coming along
that has a smaller increment. They may be more reliable and
more standardized. We may get a solution to the waste issue. So
I am not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I just happen to
think it is only going to play a small role. But I appreciate
the dialogue. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senators.
And now for another reunion, Senator Lieberman.
Senator. Lieberman. Mr. Vice President, thank you very
much for being here. It is great to see you and Tipper. And
thank you for your extraordinary leadership in this cause. You
have served your Nation in many very important and substantial
ways. It may turn out in the sweep of your life that this
leadership you are giving to wake up America and the world to
the oncoming peril of global warming and the need to do
something about it quickly may be your greatest service, not
just to this country, but to the world, because this is, as you
said, a planetary crisis.
I appreciate very much the way in which you have gone at
this with an intellectual rigor. You have studied the science.
You have a tremendous capacity to convey the facts. And you
have added to that the moral dimension, which is to say that we
have a choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing. We have
a choice as to whether to exercise our responsibility to coming
generations.
So I guess what I am saying is that your leadership here
has been so fact-based and faith-based. And that is a pretty
powerful combination. I thank you for it.
It has seemed to me, as we have gone on, that eventually
the United States Government is going to do something about
global warming. The question is whether the Government will do
it soon enough, whether our country will do it soon enough. To
state it starkly, whether we would reach a climatological
tipping point before we reached the political tipping point, I
think we have reached the political tipping point now. I think
the kind of coming together of people from the business
community, the faith-based community, hunters, fishermen, just
people worried about this is very impressive. We have a real
chance to do something about this, frankly, sooner than I
though we would.
It is interesting to me that the questions being asked here
today by most, though not all, of the members of this
Committee, are no longer whether global warming is a problem
and whether we should do something about it, but how we can
best do something about it. I think Senator Isakson's questions
were very much in that spirit, and he will play a very
important role in whether we do something here.
Senator McCain and I, as you know, have a cap and trade
bill. We are very proud that it is bipartisan. Senator Collins,
Senator Snowe and on this Committee, I am very grateful that
Senator Clinton has cosponsored it.
I want to ask you a practical question that members are
asking. It is about the role of coal, both in a natural home
State sense that a lot of Senators represent coal States; and
in a larger sense, coal, as you well know, is the natural
energy resource that we in America have in the greatest
abundance. There are some fears among people in business that
if we don't do something to produce clean coal, that there will
be a mass movement toward natural gas, which will raise the
price of natural gas and hurt industries that depend on it.
So I would like you to talk to your former colleagues here
about what the practical prospects are for using coal as part
of a cap and trade system to deal with global warming.
Mr. Gore. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. And thank you for
your longtime leadership on this issue. When we served together
in the Senate and indeed when you were Attorney General of your
State before coming to the Senate, you were already offering
leadership on this issue.
I so vividly remember in Nashville, TN when your mother,
bless her soul, bless her memory, came down the hallway, and I
opened the door and she looked at me and said, you made a good
pick.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gore. One of the reasons I always thought she was
right was your leadership on this issue. I appreciate it.
Senator. Lieberman. Mom was a straight talker.
Mr. Gore. Oh, was she ever. God bless her.
I don't agree that we are at the political tipping point. I
think we are near to it. I think we are very close to it, but I
don't think we are over it yet.
I also agree that this is an issue that many faith-based
individuals are coming to. I say this to Senator Inhofe. You
know, I don't proselytize my own beliefs, but all religious
traditions hold to the same teachings. I do believe that the
Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. I believe that
the purpose of life is to glorify God, and you cannot do it
while heaping contempt on God's creation.
I think that the joining of this debate by the evangelical
and faith communities has been a very powerful factor changing
the dynamics here.
Now, on coal, if you look at what happened with the TXU
decision, first of all, to back away from eight of the eleven
coal-fired plants they had planned, and then to engage in a
private equity buyout that has very unusual and unexpected
green characteristics to it. I think what that reflected more
than anything else is the great need in the energy marketplace
for a price on carbon. The future of coal depends on quickly
establishing a price in the marketplace for carbon.
Morgan Stanley just executed the first post-2012 trade on
carbon emissions outside any governmental framework. I think
that as soon as there is a price on carbon emissions that the
marketplace can clear, then you will have the unleashing of
investments in carbon capture and sequestration in a realistic
and reliable way, and that will open up a future for coal that
does not destroy the environment of the Earth for us human
beings. I think that is the key to it.
Now, the best carbon capture and sequestration in the world
is probably in Norway. I asked them the secret of it. I was
over there last week, 10 days ago. They said, well, the secret
is we have a CO2 tax. And there are a lot of
exemptions for it, but the offshore drilling is not one of
them, and we told them they would have to pay this tax unless
they could capture and sequester, and they said okay. And they
found out how to do it, and they do it extremely well,
scientifically reliable.
Iceland is doing the same thing. I am not saying it is
easy. I am not an expert on exactly which techniques are best
and in which geological areas. That is above my pay grade, like
a lot of things. But I do know that the predictability of the
price, where you internalize the externality, that is really
the key to it. And then that will drive toward environmentally
safe measures.
One way to describe the essence of this problem is the
market is partially blind to these environmental externalities,
they call them. And we are all familiar with that phrase. What
is, you know, air, water----well, I internalize water and air,
and we all do. But the economy should also. And not to be glib
about it, but in order to open up a future for these businesses
that is sustainable and viable, I think that we have to
internalize those externalities.
Senator. Lieberman. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you.
We are moving toward a time when we are going to have some
votes, so we are going to move ahead. Let me give you the
order. We are going to go Senators Craig, Baucus, Alexander,
Clinton. Those are the next four.
So Senator Craig.
Senator. Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Vice President, welcome back to a turf you knew well.
We are pleased to see you here.
I am not sure that I have a question of you. You were
recently in my State and you were well received. I think
Idahoans were proud to have you there. One of the reasons we
were proud to have you there is that we are probably one of the
cleanest States in the Nation. We are proud of that. Our energy
sources are clean by definition. In fact, my State just
rejected a coal-fired plant to be built as a merchant generator
in Southeastern Idaho, because of the technology involved.
Having said that, we have produced 50 nuclear reactors in
the history of our State, and we are proud of that, and all
were produced safely, and no one lost their life.
And so I have always been a little frustrated by your
position on nuclear because I grew up near a laboratory, as did
you. It is a safe laboratory. It was well run, as was yours.
And I don't agree with you that nuclear is not part of the
solution.
When you killed the nuclear industry or attempted to during
your Administration, by zeroing out the nuclear budget, an
inquisitive look simply does not refute the fact that you did.
And in doing so, you probably set back the advance of nuclear
technology substantially, in fact, the very technology that
just a moment ago you endorsed, NGNP, which is the new advanced
modular type reactors, high temperature, that can do a lot of
things and by definition is safer, although the nuclear
industry itself is phenomenally a safer industry than many.
It is not the most expensive source of energy today. It is
a least-cost producer, existing reactors are, that have been
relicensed and retrofitted. At 21 percent of our energy base
and 70 percent of France's, and 50 percent of Japan's, already,
already the nuclear industry is a factor in contributing to a
baseload that is a clean source.
The reason I say this is because when we passed the Energy
Policy Act in 2005, I was one of those Senators who suggested
we ought to call it the Climate Change Act of that year. Why?
Because it was all about clean energy. It was all about
advancing technology. This country no longer wants to produce
gas-emitting sources of energy. The investment that is pouring
in out there now, the investment in fact this country is
putting into climate change is by a factor of five greater than
the rest of the world combined as it relates to research and
development. That is something we ought to be very, very proud
of.
I am. I think we are advancing the cause dramatically at
this moment. What this Congress has chosen not to do is to
freeze or cap or trade. That is the one part of your equation
we have chosen not to do. The rest of the equation we are
doing, and probably in the most aggressive way that it has ever
been done before. Before the passage of EPAct, we had one
reactor on the drawing board. I think as of last week, 33.
Probably 10 of those will pour concrete in the next 10 to 12
years.
Yes, we still have problems about waste management. That is
why the creation of the very thing that you hint about, GNEP,
bringing together a consortium to reflect the importance of a
nonproliferating nuclear source that is manageable and
controllable. I will not forget sitting on the stage with the
Environmental Minister from China at the last climate change
conference that meant anything, in Buenos Aires, and he said,
you give us the technology and we will build them.
But right now, we are going to do exactly what you just
mentioned. We are going to build a lot of coal-fired, because
we are more interested in our economy and the well being and
growth of our people for the time being.
I am phenomenally proud of what we are doing as a country.
I believe we do lead the world. It isn't by accident that we
are a large emitter of gas, because we are the largest economy
of the world based on today's technologies. We are going to
invest heavily. We are going to incentivize. In fact, I would
like to have you look at a bill that Byron Dorgan and I just
introduced. I have made a step in the direction of deciding
maybe we ought to heighten our CAFE standard. You call them gas
guzzlers. I say let's look at a technology that works, and in
no way diminishes the safety of the transporting public.
So we are pleased you are here. I disagree with your point
of view. I do not believe that this country needs to stand in
shame of what it is doing or what it plans to do. We have
become the world leader in clean energy and we will work to
stay there and transport it to the rest of the world.
Sorry, Madam Chairman. Don't break your gavel.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Senator. Boxer. I am not breaking it. I am being gentle.
[Laughter.]
Senator. Craig. As only you can be.
Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Senator. Boxer. It took a lot of patience. I learned it
right here.
Mr. Vice President, I give you 60 seconds to respond to
that speech about nuclear energy.
Mr. Gore. I didn't say that I didn't think it was part of
the solution. I said that I think it is part of the solution. I
just don't think it is going to be a big part of the solution.
I will respond for the record on the business about killing
nuclear energy. I really don't know what you are referring to,
but I will find out and I will respond.
Senator. Craig. DOE's budget during your time and the
nuclear portion of that budget. Go back and check your records.
Mr. Gore. I will and I will respond to the record.
Senator. Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Gore. I really enjoyed being in Boise. Madam Chair, at
Boise State there were 10,000 people who came out and I
couldn't believe the size of the crowd. It was wonderful. It
was bipartisan. It was a great time. I showed my slide show
there. I ended with Boise State winning the Fiesta Bowl. It was
a great evening.
Senator. Craig. He played to our blue turf.
Mr. Gore. I loved the editorial the next day, or two days
later, calling for carbon reductions. I was heartened that 53
Senators did vote for Senator Lieberman's bill, a version of
that just last----
Senator. Boxer. With Senator Bingaman at that time.
Mr. Gore. That is right, and various versions. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus welcome.
Senator. Baucus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Vice President. You provide such leadership
on this issue, and I speak for myself and many others how much
we commend you for it.
You mentioned Jim Hansen. I remember a good number of years
ago, I was sitting on the Energy Committee. I am not on that
committee. And Jim Hansen testified, a good number of years
ago. I remember thinking then that this guy has probably got it
right. He is on to something. And you followed up. I think you
were part of that hearing, too, if I vaguely recall it.
It reminds me, too, of how we addressed some other
atmospheric challenges and solved them. One is
chlorofluorocarbons. The scientists were right there, and we
solved it. Another is under the Clean Air Act, with the cap and
trade system that we enacted. There were a lot of naysayers,
but it turned out to be better than people thought. People made
some money off of it and for the right reasons.
I also thank you for hiking up to Grinnell Glacier several
years ago to demonstrate how much that glacier in Glacier
National Park is shrinking as a consequence of climate change.
I do believe that the science is clear. There is no doubt
about that. I do believe that we have to rally not only this
country, but worldwide, and find ways to encourage China and
India and other developing countries to be in on the solution,
helping them realize that they could be stakeholders, they can
be world citizens by contributing to a solution here, because
we are all in this together. I urge you to help us find ways to
accomplish that.
I believe that a solid reasonable cap and trade system
makes good sense. We should begin quickly. But I also believe
that any system we put in place has to be economy-wide. It
shouldn't exempt certain sections of the economy. Some suggest
only with respect to stationary sources and exempt the mobile
sources. I don't think that is right. I think we are all in
this together.
The dynamic is much more powerful if we all agree that we
are all in this together, rather than some significant section
is exempted. It just won't work.
My question to you is just, you talked a little bit on
this, is the use of coal, and especially carbon sequestration.
We in the Finance Committee are moving aggressively to develop
greater energy independence for the United States. That clearly
dovetails with climate change, and trying to find the energy
technologies that are most efficient on a calorie in- calorie
out sort of basis, but dealing with climate change with the
same intensity.
I think the practical reality is we have coal here. Coal is
going to be part of the future. I think you said that. But the
question is how to make coal the right part of the future. We
have reports, like I say, a MIT professor just reported to this
Committee a couple of days ago worried that it might take 10
years to get carbon sequestration in a meaningful ways up and
going, that is to deploy it, get the legal framework,
demonstration plants and so forth. I don't know that we really
have 10 years.
So any thoughts you might have about carbon sequestration,
how we get it working a little more quickly and more
efficiently, more aggressively. You mentioned Norway, with a
carbon tax. That is interesting, but maybe there are some other
ways. Whatever you think would work here, it would help us not
only on this Committee, but also in the Finance Committee where
we are going to be enacting tax incentives to help us become
more energy independent and also deal with climate change in a
very realistic way.
Mr. Gore. Yes, I know that a CO2 tax is
considered just wildly unrealistic now, but you know, our
pattern of financing our social programs and health and welfare
programs on the backs of employment has outlived its
rationality and usefulness. I know the degree of difficulty in
changing that. I understand it. But you know, we are worsening
our single biggest disadvantage in global competition now. And
if we could shift that and give employees and employers a
break, and shift over to a pollution-based tax----
Senator. Baucus. You mean, abolishing the payroll tax?
Mr. Gore. Yes, sharply reduce or eliminate it. Absolutely.
And replace it with a pollution-based tax system, principally
CO2. I fully understand how inaccessible that sounds
in this context. I really believe that that would help our
economy, help our competitiveness, and I think it would put
incentives in place to do the right.
Now, let's assume for the moment that you are not attracted
to that. I do urge you to think about it in all seriousness,
Senator. I really believe it very strongly. I think it would be
a macroeconomic stroke for our economy's future. I really do.
But now, where coal plants are concerned, there are some
kinds of coal plants, you take pulverized coal plants,
according to the old design, there is no way they could ever be
retrofitted with carbon capture and sequestration.
Senator. Baucus. Too expensive.
Mr. Gore. Well, just the physics of it. They produce so
much nitrogen mixed in with the CO2 that there is no
way to ever capture and sequester it. It just can't be done.
Now, a brand new design of pulverized, oxygen enrichment,
they say there are ways to do that. I don't know. But Ernie
Moniz's report from MIT raised some questions about the IGCC,
whether that is ready for prime time. Again, there are experts
who know about these things far more than I do. I would say the
principle is, we should not build any more coal-fired
powerplants that are not readily adaptable for full carbon
capture and sequestration, full stop.
Now, the banning of the one in Idaho, the demonstrations by
Republican as well as Democratic Mayors in Texas leading to the
banning of those, I think you are going to see that all over
this country. There is going to be a de facto moratorium in a
lot of places, and I think we need to open up a pathway for
carbon capture and sequestration. Put a price on the carbon. A
tax is the best way. Cap and trade can also do it.
Senator. Baucus. Thank you very much.
Senator. Boxer. Senator Baucus, thank you.
Senator Alexander, followed by Senator Clinton.
Senator. Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Vice President, thank you again for being here. As I
said when I introduced you, I believe there is a problem. I
believe human activity caused it and I think we ought to work
together to fix it.
I want to make a comment about nuclear power, if I may, and
then ask you some questions about cap and trade as it might
apply to carbon and electric utilities. That is where I am
going.
I hope you will continue thinking about nuclear power
because as I have gotten more into this over the last three or
four years, it looks to me like, and this is my judgment, that
if you really want to solve or get hold of the climate change
issue, the carbon problem in a generation, that nuclear power
is a big part of it, because as I think of our big economy,
producing about 25 percent of the energy in the world or
consuming it, and I think of ways to produce a lot of
electricity. Let's just start with electricity.
It seems to me there are only three ways to produce big
amounts right now, in the near term. One is conservation and
efficiency. That ought to be the easiest and the first thing to
do. You have talked about that. Two is nuclear and three is
coal.
Nuclear today produces I believe 70 percent of our carbon-
free electricity, although it is only 20 percent of our power.
That is a startling fact to me. If we are worried about the
next 10 or 15 years, and nuclear is 70 percent of our carbon-
free, then I would think we might want to do more of it. And
the cost, you are right. It does cost more to build the big
plants, but plants are becoming cheaper, it looks like.
TVA is about to complete a new one on cost and under
budget. But once they are up, it is the cheapest power to
operate. It is two cents, while coal is next at three cents. If
we add new carbon recapture technology, coal is going to go up.
And then gas is higher than that. There is a big question about
whether we really want to encourage everybody to switch to gas.
So without getting too far into it, the conclusion I have
come to is that in the near term, despite the proliferation and
waste issues, which are real issues, that if we want big
amounts of carbon-free energy in the United States, that we
ought to take nuclear very seriously.
Here is my question.
Mr. Gore. Could I respond briefly to that before?
Senator. Alexander. Sure. Of course.
Mr. Gore. I think there is a fourth. Along with
conservation and efficiency, coal and nuclear, I think the
biggest source is widely distributed small scale generation in
a smart grid or electranet, where individuals can use the new
sources. There is so much VC money going into developing these
technologies. The new generation photovoltaics, new generation
windmills, and you couple that with the conservation and
efficiency, new generation of enzymatic hydrolysis producing on
a small scale.
I think that the old thinking, and I am not using that as a
pejorative phrase, but I really and sincerely believe that the
old way of thinking is big centralized, whether it is
Government or corporate management or whatever, big centralized
units where everything goes out from the center. I think that
just as computers with the massively parallel processing, I
think that the widely----
Senator. Alexander. I want to make sure I get to ask you
my question.
Mr. Gore. Yes, okay. Go ahead.
Senator. Alexander. I grant your point. I will think about
it.
Here is my question. You talked about coal freezes. Is it
not true that in 1990 or 1991, that we basically adopted a
sulpher freeze in this country with a cap and trade system
during a Republican administration.
Mr. Gore. Yes, yes.
Senator. Alexander. We said we are worried about acid
rain. As far as electric utility plants go, we are going to
say, no more, no more. We are going to put a cap on sulpher.
Mr. Gore. Right.
Senator. Alexander. Now, that didn't mean that you had to
shut down all the coal plants. It just meant you had to start
reducing it and the end result, and basically we said we have a
cap on sulpher; we are going to freeze it; we are going to go
down to 50 percent; and we will give our allowances based on
historical emissions of coal. And then over 15 years, that has
been very successful. We even have new EPA rules that say,
well, cut it again in half, and again in half after that.
So here are a couple of questions I have for you. One is,
was the cost of that prohibitive? Do you have any figures about
that? I would think not, since the United States GDP grew
compared to the rest of the world during that 15 year period of
time.
And the second is, why couldn't we start an effort on
climate change by putting such a cap system on electric
utilities since we already know how to do it. We have had 15
years of experience. It is 40 percent of the carbon and it is
the fastest growing produced part of the carbon that we produce
in this country.
Mr. Gore. A great question. You know, people didn't say it
at the time, but this was a Republican idea. It was former
President George H.W. Bush's proposal. Some Democrats were
opposed to it. Some environmental groups were opposed to it. I
was for it. I had no idea that it would be as good as it was.
And by making it possible to use the market forces to help us
accomplish what we wanted, what happened was the price for
reducing sulphur dioxide ended up being just a small percentage
of what had been projected when that was put in place. It was
wildly successful. In fact, Kyoto was really based on the
success story of that cap and trade system.
Now, there is a new proposal that is a modification of it.
Instead of giving away the emissions, the start units, auction
them off. We talk about protecting the low-income Americans and
helping with the expenses of this transition, auctioning them
off is an idea that I think is a good one also. I wouldn't
reach for that if it meant killing the whole thing, but I think
it is basically a good idea. I think you are on to something.
Final point. I do think that the best approach is an
economy-wide approach. I think a utility-only approach suffers
from the same problem that those who want to take a CAFE-only
approach do. I think that we have to put together a
comprehensive bill. I think if we do it with the kind of
philosophy you are talking about, Senator Alexander, let the
market work for us. I think that the cost of accomplishing this
is going to be far less than anybody imagines now.
Senator. Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Clinton.
Senator. Clinton. Thank you very much.
Senator. Boxer. You are very patient. Thank you.
Senator. Clinton. This has been absolutely wonderful. I
want to thank Vice President Gore for taking his time to come
back here to the Senate, and perhaps, Madam Chairman, we could
indulge upon him in the future to meet with those of us on both
sides of the aisle who are interested in this issue, to perhaps
go into some even greater detail on some of your proposals.
Of course, I want to welcome Mrs. Gore as well.
I wanted to just ask for some further clarification on a
couple of your proposals, which I find extremely intriguing.
The first, to follow up on Senator Alexander, if there were a
carbon-based tax, would there be a need for an economy-wide cap
and trade system?
Mr. Gore. They are not either/or. We can do both. I am in
favor of both. Many people discuss cap and trade and a revenue
neutral CO2 tax, swapping from employment taxes, as
if you have to pick one. As a practical political matter, there
would be some people who would say only one of the above.
I think the most effective approach is to do both.
Senator. Clinton. I would really appreciate then perhaps
some clarification and additional information on your view as
to how that worked, because of course there is a seeming
either/or choice that people are presenting, either a cap and
trade system, and some of the advocates of which seem to think
that it will be voluntary, which I find to be totally
unacceptable. If it is mandatory, economy-wide or sector-wide,
I agree completely with you, it needs to be economy-wide. But
without the implementation and enforcement provisions being
very well thought out, I am afraid we will continue to just
sort of move along at a slow pace.
Secondly, the Connie Mae proposal is one that I also find
very exciting, actually. I have worked with the City of
Rochester and the surrounding County of Monroe County in New
York to come up with a GreenPrint, using the advice and the
expertise of the Green Building Council, and in effect to try
to encourage and incentivize contractors and engineers and
architects and others to begin to think more green and to use
the technology and the efficiency standards.
How would the Connie Mae process work? Are you suggesting
we actually create a federally chartered entity? And then what
would its mission be, precisely?
Mr. Gore. A carbon neutral mortgage association that would
in the manner of Fannie Mae take on these instruments that
embody the expenditures not for the whole home, not for the
whole building, but just for those expenditures that are
directly related to the increasing energy efficiency.
Typically, homebuilders will look at what amount of insulation
is going to make the home attractive in the marketplace, and
they will meet a standard that clears the market, but they
won't go to the point where it really is the most energy
efficient home because it raises the purchase price.
Okay. This National Mortgage Association could identify an
increment that takes where the market has settled the price
now, add the amount that reaches all the way to the maximum
energy efficiency. The extra amount is put into an instrument
that is amortized by the savings in the energy bills over the
succeeding years, and they can bundle those with all of the
other mortgage instruments that are in the market that year,
and they are tradable commodities.
Senator. Clinton. I think that is a terrific idea, Mr.
Vice President. Would that also include the price of more
energy efficient appliances, so that builders would be
incentivized to use those in new home building?
Mr. Gore. Not as it is currently designed. I think that
structural features of the home are generally looked at in a
different way from the appliances that come with the home. Some
builders include them, and some don't. I am not an expert on
that. I see no reason why you could not also include extra-
efficient appliance standards in that. I would have to think
about it, but I don't see why you couldn't.
Senator. Clinton. Well, in response to Senator Bond's
questions, which you didn't really get a chance to respond to,
about the little girl with the two coats, isn't is also the
case that if we went on a more targeted approach toward
weatherization, efficiency, perhaps that little girl wouldn't
need two coats even with current prices, because the savings
could be realized and the affordability of the energy costs
could be decreased.
Mr. Gore. I think that is an excellent point, and I will
include that in the response for the record.
Senator. Clinton. Again, I really want to thank the Vice
President.
And I want to thank the Chairman for inviting Vice
President Gore. Again, if we could perhaps indulge him with
some additional time in the future, I think it could be very
helpful.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Senator. Clinton. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Let me tell you where we are. We are going
to have a vote in two minutes. We have three people left.
Mr. Gore. I will be quick.
Senator. Boxer. Yes, well, you know, you don't have to
worry about this.
Mr. Gore. I will stay. Whatever you want.
Senator. Boxer. That is the nice thing. We are going to
finish up, because you have to leave, and we have three votes
back to back.
So I think what I am going to do is say each person three
minutes. If you stick with it, at three minutes, I have to
stop, and then I will say the final thank you.
So Senator, I am so sorry that time ran out.
Senator. Thomas. That is quite all right. I will talk very
fast.
Senator. Boxer. Okay.
Senator. Thomas. Thank you.
I guess we all are very interested in alternatives over
time. However, that is going to be over time. Now, in the
meantime we have to have energy for this country. What do you
think the role of the Federal Government should be in
advocating clean coal technology so that we can use our
greatest source in this next 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Gore. I think we ought to speed up the development of
carbon capture and sequestration. I think we ought to have a
moratorium on any coal plants that are not efficient and can't
be used with carbon capture and sequestration.
Senator. Thomas. Well, as you know, we are waiting to do
some of that. I think there is some merit in having mine
development because most of the coal is in certain places, and
then delivering it on the line, rather than on the train. That
is part of the problem.
You seem to be able to talk in 15, 20, 30, 100 years ahead.
We can't hardly get a weather report for a year from now. How
can you depend on what people are saying about the weather 100
years from now?
Mr. Gore. Well, the computer modelers have gotten more and
more accurate with their predictions. They test them against
start conditions going back and run them against the models.
You are asking me about an area of expertise where I rely on
the real experts, not myself. I will just tell you that you
can't predict what the temperature next January 3 is going to
be, as well as you can predict the fact that January is going
to be cold next year.
Senator. Thomas. That is true, but many of your plans are
predicated on looking ahead at the future and so on. In terms
of the best scientific available information, which came first:
an increase in the Earth's temperature or an increase in global
warming gas emissions?
Mr. Gore. CO2 and temperature are a coupled
system. They move up and down together. During the ice ages and
the interglacial periods, the Earth's orbit around the sun gets
narrower and wider on a 100,000 year cycle. The tilt oscillates
a degree and a half on a 41,000 year cycle, and there is a
wobble called precession on a 22,000 year cycle. And in many
cases, that has affected the amount of incoming solar, but it
has also at times affected the growth of vegetation depending
on what part of the Earth was getting more sun.
So sometimes, CO2 has preceded temperature;
sometimes temperature has preceded CO2. But at
present, CO2 is preceding the temperature and it is
well established that that does affect temperature.
Senator. Thomas. They are both factors over the years.
Mr. Gore. Correct.
Senator. Thomas. You choose to become carbon neutral
because you pay for the carbon you use. We have a utility in
Wyoming that has 3,800 customers. They offered to have wind
energy at $3, and 30 people signed up.
Mr. Gore. I would be one of them. I am one of them in
Nashville.
Senator. Thomas. I know, but I guess I am saying how are
we going to pay for all these things that you are talking
about.
Mr. Gore. I think as the wind becomes mainstream, and it
is becoming mainstream, that cost is going to become ever more
competitive. I really believe that.
Senator. Thomas. But it is going to be the user that has
to pay.
Mr. Gore. I think the cost is going to come down for these
alternative sources and for the new approaches that I have
recommended.
Senator. Thomas. Thank you.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you.
And now, next on my list is, who is next on my list?
Senator Whitehouse, you are next on my list.
Senator. Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Vice President, thank you for being here. I want to
offer first a particular thank you, and then ask a question. I
am married to a scientist, a marine biologist, an environmental
scientist. People who know us both say that I am preposterously
over-married, which is probably a condition you can sympathize
with.
Mr. Gore. They say that about me, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator. Whitehouse. And she has spent a lot of time
thinking about these issues. When we saw your movie, I came out
feeling educated and informed. She came out feeling relieved.
She said, you know, we have known this stuff in the scientific
community for more than a decade. Please, let's hope that this
movie gives us the voice that we need.
Your voice has given the scientific community that voice
that it needed and on behalf of my wife and other scientists,
thank you for that achievement.
Mr. Gore. Thank you.
Senator. Whitehouse. In terms of the question, could you
say a few words about the national security consequences of
where we are in two dimensions: one, our strategic problem with
dependence on foreign oil; and two, the risk we face as a
country of the consequences of dislocation of communities
around the world from climate change, from a national security
perspective.
Mr. Gore. Well, the Pentagon has done a study of this. One
of their most distinguished security analysts did a long-term
study and said this is a major national security threat. Now,
they were focused mainly on the environmental refugees and the
dislocations and the potential political disruptions around the
world that could come from some of the consequences that,
again, the Pentagon study highlighted.
Of course, our dangerous over-dependence on sources of oil
from countries that are among the most unstable on Earth is
well known. But I want to raise one other brief point, and I
know we are pressed for time. I mentioned the internet earlier.
That was a national security proposal. Its purpose was to make
communications survivable in the event of nuclear war. That is
how it started, really.
Well, this electranet that I have talked about would also
have security benefits. We wouldn't be so dependent on these
few central generation plants.
Senator. Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
Madam Chair, I yield back the rest of my time.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin.
Senator. Cardin. Mr. Vice President, thank you very much.
You have really pointed out the urgency of this issue. I very
much appreciate that. In my own State of Maryland, we had
habitable islands that no longer had habitation. The sea level
change has been dramatic in the State of Maryland. I was at
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge over last weekend, and saw so much
of the wetlands that used to be that are no longer there.
So it is a real problem for the people of Maryland. I thank
you for bringing it to our attention.
We need a comprehensive approach that deals with the
production and use of energy. I want to just add one additional
part to the agenda, and that is public transit. I know in our
region here, there are so many reasons that we need to move
forward with public transit, but part of it is climate change.
That is something we can control in the use of public transit,
and it certainly takes a lot of carbons out of the air. I just
would urge you to perhaps include a slide on that.
Mr. Gore. Thank you. I agree with you. Light rail is one
of the things that is looked at in the movie, and I couldn't
agree with you more. I think light rail and affordable,
efficient, comfortable mass transportation is a big part of the
solution here, and redesign of communities also.
Senator. Cardin. You don't need anybody to respond to
Senator Inhofe on your behalf, but I can tell you that if
everyone in this country did what you have done in regard to
this issue, we would be very much further ahead, and we would
be the leaders of the world. I am just proud of the work that
you have done to elevate this issue in the United States.
I agree with you. We need to comply, as an international
leader, and then negotiate an aggressive international
agreement that hopefully China and India and other countries
participate, because that is the only way we are going to
really get ahead of this issue. I just am very proud of your
leadership in this area.
Thank you for being before our Committee.
Mr. Gore. Thanks so much, Senator. I appreciate it.
Senator. Boxer. Well, Mr. Vice President, you have given
and given of yourself and your time, your family's time.
I see Senator Carper is here. Senator Carper, we have one
minute for you if you want to say something, unless you want to
close the hearing. Did you vote already?
Senator. Carper. I have not.
Senator. Boxer. You better just do it in a minute, then,
and I will go back to closing here.
Senator. Carper. Mr. Vice President, it is great to see
you, and my old friend Roy there over your right shoulder.
Thank you for joining us today and for your extraordinary
leadership on this point.
Mr. Gore. Thank you, Senator.
Senator. Carper. One of the issues that if I could just
ask you maybe to consider responding if you would on the record
on this. I worked for about five years on legislation with some
of my colleagues to try to figure out if we can at least get
started on reducing not just CO2 emissions, but
sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and mercury emissions from
utility plants, to get started with a cap and trade system,
using market forces.
The hangup has been for a number of people the way we
allocate the trading system that we set up. Would it be on
CO2? Would it be input-based historical? Or would it
be output based? The idea we favored in our legislation was an
output-based approach because ultimately we want to create the
most electricity that we can with the least amount of
pollution.
I would just welcome you to think about this a little bit,
and maybe getting back to us on the record with your thoughts
on input versus output. Because ultimately, we are going to
have to make that decision. I think most of our colleagues
haven't focused on it, haven't thought about it. I think your
input would be much appreciated and valued.
Mr. Gore. Well, I appreciate it, Senator. I do believe
that a so-called four pollutant approach is obviously the most
efficient, where you get all four of them at the same time. I
actually favor an auction system. I said earlier to Senator
Alexander that if that meant it was impossible to pass the
whole thing, then we ought to get it one way or another, but I
think that would be the best way to do it.
The sulpher dioxide cap and trade system was enormously
efficient, a fantastic success. Take that approach, cap, trade,
freeze, go down, take the limits on down, auction the permits.
That is what I would do.
Senator. Carper. All right. Thank you very much.
Senator. Boxer. Senator Carper, I just wanted to say to
Vice President Gore what an important member of this Committee
you are.
He has so many obligations today, but he does head the
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Mr. Vice President, and has just
really been a leader on this.
Mr. Gore. For a long time, and I am aware.
Senator. Boxer. We just so appreciate it.
Okay, so we have five minutes to vote. So I am going to
speak for about a minute to tell you how much this meant to all
of us, I think even to the other side of the aisle. Senator
Inhofe was waiting for this chance to chat with you. I am a
believer in that kind of debate going on. I think it is
absolutely key.
Mr. Gore. You have to do it.
Senator. Boxer. And so when I decided to ask you to come,
I knew that yes, you would face some tough and hostile, if I
might say, questions. Let me just say, as just a one woman
reviewer, you did good, Mr. Vice President. I agree with what
Senator Cardin said, that you really are in so many ways a role
model for us all, not just as elected leaders, but really as
citizens of this country.
Mr. Gore. You don't give out any kind of statue or
anything, do you?
[Laughter.]
Senator. Boxer. I am going to give you something. I am
giving you something that is a little bit less than that in a
minute. It is a lot less than that. But before I do, I just
want to say something that really meant a lot to me, and I know
to other members of the Committee, hopefully on both sides. I
think on both sides.
When I took the gavel and I said before elections have
consequences, so right now I have the gavel, by a hair, okay,
by a hair. And as long as I have it, I really said I had two
goals at the start of this term, and that was to make the
environmental issue a bipartisan issue again, because you and I
are of the same time in politics.
When I started off as a County Supervisor, it was a
nonpartisan race that I had. The fight with the Republican and
I was who was the best environmentalist. And the people
benefitted from it, and have benefitted every since over in
Marin County where we are really in the lead on so much of
this.
And then the second thing I wanted to do was focus on
global warming, because we had so much time we had to make up
for. And this is our fifth hearing. We have many more. We have
the fundamentalist community coming before us. We are going to
have small business leaders. We really have a tremendous range
of folks that are going to come before us on this, and we will
get a bill out of here.
I think there are two approaches: the long-term approach
that we hope will happen tomorrow as soon as we get the votes
we will have that economy-wide bill. You know, the minute we
have it, we will do it. And then taking action now, as we look
toward that moment in time, which could be a week from now or a
month or two months, or six. We can do things on buildings, on
utilities, on lots of other places.
So let me just tell you, I am going to give you a little
gift. It is not a statue. It is not beautiful. But to me, it is
important, and none of my friends have seen it, but the very
first hearing we had on the Committee was an open microphone. I
think you were listening to this. We had all Senators from the
entire Senate come up and we had an open mic. And they
presented their points of view.
We had one-third of the Senate come to us, one-third. You
know how hard that is? We actually did it. And most of them
were very much in favor of taking action and some of them were
not. Well, we have recorded that and we have put them in this
little book. So because of your leadership and because you have
certainly inspired me as the Chairman of this Committee to move
on this, I wanted to present you with the first bound copy. I
have signed it over to you. I hope you will come here. I hope
my colleagues will join me here.
It says, ``Dear Al, with deep respect and admiration.
Barbara Boxer, '07.'' And that is for you. And we thank you
very much.
Mr. Gore. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Senator. Boxer. Thank you, Mrs. Gore, and thank you to the
whole Gore staff that came here today.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the
State of Montana
Psalm 19 exclaims ``The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of His hands.''
Anyone who has visited Montana would agree. The beauty of
the untamed Yellowstone River. The Abundance of wildlife on the
prairie. The majesty of Glacier National Park. In the wide open
spaces and the majestic Big Sky, we Montanans see the work of
God's hands.
With this great gift comes an important responsibility. We
are called to be stewards of creation. And never has creation
faced so great a challenge as that posed by climate change.
I would like to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing
and inviting Vice President Gore to testify. Vice President
Gore joined me on a hike at Grinnell Glacier a few years back.
Grinnell--located in Glacier National Park--is ironically one
of the many glaciers that climate change is threatening. We had
a good time. Although Grinnell is a better hike without the
crowd the Vice President attracts!
No one has done more to call attention to this issue than
our former colleague from Tennessee. I agree with Vice
President Gore that climate change is real, it is man made, and
the need for action is urgent.
Montana is an agricultural state, a tourist state, and a
coal state. While action is not without cost, the costs of
inaction are far greater. What is the cost of a trout stream
whose waters are too warm to fish? What is the price of more
devastating forest fires, longer droughts, and no glaciers in
Glacier National Park? How do you apply a cost benefit analysis
to this moral responsibility?
In February, the International Panel on Climate Change
report stated that there is 90 percent certainty that most of
the temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century
is due to the increase in man-made greenhouse gases. While some
will continue to debate the fringes of the issue, this finding
cannot be ignored. The earth is warming, and there will be real
consequences.
Montanans know this too well. 2005 and 2006 were two of the
hottest years on record. And hotter weather means bigger fires.
We are coming off another horrible fire season. Over one
million acres burned in wildland fires this past summer. In
Montana, wildfires over 1,000 acres have increased six fold
over the last 40 years.
The potential costs to our wildlife and tourism sector are
also great. Montanans are outdoors people. We hunt, we fish. We
take our kids hiking and camping. It's part of our great
outdoor heritage. But that heritage is at risk.
Already warmer temperatures have lead to stream closures to
protect stressed trout in the heat of summer. Some studies
indicate that warming water temperatures could reduce trout
habitat in Montana by 5 to 30 percent by 2090. Fishing defines
us as Montanans, but it's also big business. The sport
generates $235 million dollars in economic activity every year.
Montana is also an agricultural state. Our farmers are
suffering through the seventh year of drought. With less water
for irrigation and lower yields, some of our farmers are barely
hanging on.
The good news is that our farmers are part of the solution.
Through practices like no-till farming the good stewards of our
land can also sequester carbon. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to make sure climate legislation rewards farmers
for their good practices.
Finally, Montana is a coal State. Montana has 120 billion
tons of coal, more than any other state in the union. This
resource will have to be part of the solution to meeting our
energy needs. However, we must develop it the right way.
An economy wide cap and trade program is needed. Economy
wide initiatives send the proper price signals to industry that
the days of emitting carbon into our atmosphere are over.
To accomplish our carbon emission goals we must make sure
the allocation formulas and tax incentives are in place to
accelerate carbon capture and sequestration.
Our most important resources are our resolve and ingenuity.
In Montana we have increased our wind generating capacity over
70 fold in the last two years. The potential for this clean
energy is huge. We can replicate this success with solar,
biofuels, and other clean forms of energy. We must begin the
process of developing the next generation of energy
technologies here at home.
During World War II we rose to the challenge of Hitler and
defeated fascism. Under President Kennedy we rose to the
challenge of Sputnik and put a man on the moon. Now it is our
turn to rise to the challenge of climate change.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55923.011