Citing evidence suggesting that the Earth is already experiencing the
impacts of climate change, members of the House Science Subcommittee
on Energy challenged the White House's emphasis on climate change mitigation
technologies with a long time horizon. At a November 6 subcommittee
hearing, an Administration official testified that the federal government
was supporting a diverse array of technologies for both the near- and
long-term that would allow policymakers to decide what to implement
"as the scientific certainty advances."
Subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle demonstrated deep interest
and concern about what the Administration was doing to address the threat
of climate change and how it was prioritizing its investments and selecting
projects for funding. Chairwoman Judy Biggert (R-IL) noted that, approaching
the last year of the presidential term, the Administration's multi-agency
Climate Change Technology Program is "still at the starting line."
Announced by Bush in June 2001, the technology initiative, led by the
Energy Department, has missed several deadlines for completing an inventory
of existing federal R&D efforts and has not yet released a comprehensive
strategic plan to guide future investments. In addition, Biggert commented
that the Administration initiatives receiving the most attention - the
Hydrogen Initiative to address challenges of moving the country toward
a hydrogen energy economy; the ITER demonstration fusion reactor; and
the FutureGen program to use coal to produce hydrogen and electricity
with geologic sequestration of carbon emissions - all have time horizons
on the order of 10 to 50 years. "How can we wait so long?"
she asked.
"We are, in fact, pursuing a diverse portfolio with both near-
and long-term impacts," responded Climate Change Technology Program
Director David Conover. As an example, he cited voluntary programs with
industry and trade associations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
the short term. Conover reported that an inventory of current technology
development activities and a draft strategic plan would be released
in the first quarter of 2004. He assured the subcommittee that the guiding
principles of the plan would include diversification of R&D efforts
and early demonstration of key technologies. That, he said, explains
the Administration's focus on carbon sequestration: if its feasibility
could be successfully demonstrated early on, climate change mitigation
efforts could be built on the existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure.
If carbon sequestration proved unsuccessful, the technology portfolio
would need to be shifted more toward other ways of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, such as energy efficiency, nuclear power, and renewable
sources.
Asked why electric utilities would voluntarily adopt actions to reduce
emissions, the DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and Power Systems,
George Rudins, stated that uncertainty over future regulations would
prompt such actions. If emissions could be reduced or eliminated in
a cost-competitive manner, he said, utilities could "have their
cake and eat it as well." Marilyn Brown, Director of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, testified that
many cost-effective energy-efficiency technologies currently exist and,
if implemented, could have an immediate impact. But she said that because
of the underpricing of energy and other imperfections in the market,
public policy intervention is needed to facilitate deployment of these
technologies.
Several subcommittee members tried to pin Conover down on the Administration's
professed goal of long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations. "We never hear anything about when and at what
levels," remarked Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The Administration
does not have "specific targets," Conover said. The "real
issue," he added, is "achieving the goal of long-term stabilization
at levels below which dangerous interference with the climate will not
occur." He said the federal government must pursue technologies
now "so as the scientific uncertainty decreases and we get better
information," the government is positioned for decisions on implementation.
"I have to say, the future is here," Woolsey said, "and
that doesn't make me feel very confident. I think we're behind the gun
on all of this."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl