*Note: This article was co-written by Lindsey Bowman and is cross-posted on the Sedimentary Geology, Time, Environment, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Energy (STEPPE) Policy Blog.
Congress spent the last two weeks of July discussing the impacts of climate change and the measures being proposed to combat it in the U.S. Four Senate and two House hearings covered topics ranging from the military threats linked to water shortages and fossil fuels to the effects of ocean acidification on oysters to the economic repercussions of not taking action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held “U.S. Security Implications of International Energy and Climate Policies and Issues,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing on “EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants,” the Senate Budget Committee held “The Economic and Budgetary Consequences of Climate Change”, and the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held “Examining the Threats Posed by Climate Change”; in the House, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on the “EPA’s Carbon Plan: Failure By Design”.
In general, discussions in all the hearings were divided along party lines, with both sides employing pointed and sometimes personal remarks. In one hearing, Senator Sessions (R-AL) described forward climate modeling as “computer prognostications produced by wizards” while in another Senator Markey (D-MA) vehemently accused a Republican witness of ignoring scientific analyses that didn’t benefit his agenda. Both parties expressed concern about the economic impacts of environmental regulation and debated the value of investment in renewables and curbing CO2 emissions. While most skeptical Members are no longer denying that CO2 is causing warming effects, they still question the impact of anthropogenic contributions in the face of natural variations.
The Clean Power Plan Rule, introduced in early June by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has continued to be a point of contention between the parties. Republicans have consistently been attacking the plan on the basis of economic concerns, but a focus on the legality of the Rule has been a more recent development. The main concern is that the EPA is operating outside of the rights given to them by Congress when the Clean Air Act was enacted. Those attacking the rule are framing it as an attempt to change the way the electrical system is run in the states, claiming that even with the rule’s flexible nature, this still represents an EPA takeover of autonomous state energy planning. Republicans also continue to insist that Social Cost of Carbon calculations used by the EPA in their new power plant emissions rule are inaccurate and don’t reveal the job-killing effects of new regulations. However, Democrats insist that with climate legislation, technology will rise to meet the carbon reduction goals and will provide an economic boost that would offset reductions in the carbon energy industry. Some members and their witnesses have cited historical U.S. economic growth in spite of EPA regulation (Clean Air Act) as evidence that the Republican concerns about negative economic impacts aren’t valid, pointing out that if the U.S. doesn’t embrace a renewable economy, it could cede potential economic boosts to China and other countries.
National security has been emphasized by both sides as a way to push their perspective on carbon emission reductions. General Accounting Office (GAO) Director of Natural Resources and Environment Alfredo Gomez testified that in February the agency placed climate change on its “High Risk List” of problems needing to be addressed by the administration and Congress. While Republicans emphasized national electrical grid security in hearings, Democrats were joined by the Department of Defense (DOD) in their concern about climate change as a threat to military infrastructure, particularly along U.S. coastlines and on military missions abroad. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Daniel Chiu emphasized that the DOD is already budgeting for and taking measures to deal with climate change threats to bases (particularly those already dealing with sea level rise, like Norfolk) and has just released an Arctic Roadmap to recommend strategic goals for a changing arctic environment. Chiu and retired Admiral David Titley (now of the CNA Military Advisory Board) both cast climate change as a “threat multiplier,” compounding instability by affecting availability of food, water and other natural resources, which could create conditions to foster terrorism. They also pointed out that from a security standpoint, a lack of diversified energy sources around the world creates opportunities for our adversaries.
When framed in terms of economic impacts, debate in the hearings boiled down to prevention and reversal of climate change’s effects vs. adaptation and response to the effects as they happen. Witnesses such as Bjørn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Business School and W. David Montgomery of NERA Economic Consulting contended that there is no way to affordably reverse climate change without destroying jobs and economic growth, and concentrated their discussion on reaction or inaction rather than mitigation. The effects of past regulatory measures in Europe and Australia were frequently mentioned, with Australia’s recent repeal of their strict carbon tax taking center stage. Witnesses and Members disagreed on whether US emissions reductions will have an appreciable effect on global temperatures and sea level rise, given the contributions of other countries to the problem. Democrats advocated for preventative action, arguing that damages resulting from increases in storm activity and other effects of climate change could cost vastly more than preventative actions. Small business interests were also part of the discussion, with Democrats presenting appeals directly from small business owners and Republicans inviting economists to testify on the effects of regulation on small businesses with limited staff and resources. The administration has also weighed in on this topic with the “Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change” report released on July 29th. The White House estimates that net mitigation costs would increase by 40% for each decade of delay, and increases of 3-4C could incur damages from 1-2% of world GDP.
The trend with recent legislation, particularly in the House, has been for cuts to funding for climate change research efforts of various agencies; this year the House passed appropriations bills cutting Department of Energy and DOD budgets for climate change research programs and requiring NOAA to focus its efforts on short-term forecasts rather than climate prediction. On the regulatory front, the EPA’s proposed rule on existing power plants is in its comment period until mid-October, although judicial challenges to the rule are already in progress.
- Jessica Ball and Lindsey Bowman