There has been considerable activity in Washington during the last
month regarding climate change. In addition to the speech that House
Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) gave at the recent
Climate Institute's Washington Summit on Climate Stabilization (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/121.html),
there have been two House hearings, the release of a report by the Bush
Administration and another by the Congressional Budget Office, and charges
made that NOAA delayed the release of material on its website regarding
the relationship between hurricane intensity and climate change.
In September, the Administration released its much delayed "Strategic
Plan" for the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program. This
program is described as a planning and coordinating entity for twelve
federal agencies "aimed at accelerating the development of new
and advanced technologies to address climate change." The Department
of Energy is the lead agency for this program.
This 274-page document "articulates a vision for new and advanced
technology in addressing climate change concerns, defines a supporting
planning and coordination mission, and provides strategic direction
to the Federal agencies in formulating a comprehensive portfolio of
related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment
(R&D)." The report has a one-hundred year horizon and examines
technologies that could dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
such as hydrogen, biorefining, nuclear fission and fusion, clean coal,
and carbon sequestration. The section on carbon sequestration is 22-pages
long, while that for fusion energy (covering the potential role of technology,
technology strategy, current portfolio, and future research directions)
is four pages. The report is described as a "broad [technology
research, development, demonstration, and deployment] roadmap to the
future," the authors explaining that it does not provide detailed
roadmaps for specific technologies or a comprehensive mitigation strategy,
and is neither a policy or budget document. "Further, the Plan
makes no judgements as to what constitutes a dangerous level of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere." The program is described, and the report
can be read, at http://www.climatetechnology.gov
"Was it worth the wait?," asked Judy Biggert (R-IL), chair
of the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy, at the September
20 hearing when the report was released. Biggert, whose subcommittee
has oversight responsibility for 90% of the programs in the Climate
Change Technology Program, strongly supports the Administration's policy
of using technology development to address climate change. "Technology
investments are like an insurance policy against climate change,"
she said. Testifying before the subcommittee were Stephen Eule, who
is the director of the program, and witnesses from the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, New York University, and BP. In general, subcommittee
members and the witnesses felt that the plan did not go far enough,
wanting more specific recommendations on how to deploy technologies
and how to stabilize or reduce emissions. Ranking Minority Member Mike
Honda (D-CA) faulted the plan, saying "it does not provide the
roadmap necessary to help the Administration set priorities and make
choices among competing technologies." In her closing remarks,
Biggert said, "Let me also put everyone on notice that ths issue
is not closed," citing the need for better tools and processes
for DOE and Congress to utilize the technologies that were described
in the report. Documents for this hearing can be viewed at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/energy06/Sept%2020/index.htm
Two days after this hearing, the House Committee on Government Reform
held an oversight hearing entitled "Climate Change Technology Research:
Do We Need a ‘Manhattan Project' for the Environment?" Chairman
Tom Davis (R-VA) began the hearing stating "As we sit here today,
the debate over climate change science continues, but this Committee
- as well as the Administration and many others in government - already
have recognized the important facts: that global mean temperature has
increased over the past century, and that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has contributed to this warming." Davis noted that the Climate
Change Technology Program has no budgetary authority and does not employ
administrative or analytical staff (sharing staff with other offices
on an as-needed basis.) In his remarks, Ranking Minority Member Henry
Waxman (D-CA) said, "the plan has no timeline for actions and
no goals for what we need to achieve. Thinking about technology research
and development is very important. But by itself, it will do nothing
to solve the problem." As expected, there were a variety of
opinions from the witnesses about how the federal government can work
most effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Concluding this
hearing, Davis said he felt most Members of Congress agree that there
is a climate change problem (a position opposite of that which Boehlert
has; see the link to his speech above), and that he will work on bipartisan
legislative language that can be accepted. He ended by declaring that
investing only in R&D will not suffice. Testimony and other material
can be viewed at http://reform.house.gov/
under "Hearings."
The Congressional Budget Office released a 19-page paper entitled "Evaluating
the Role of Prices and R&D in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions"
in September. Approaching emissions from an economic perspective, the
report's authors concluded "Pricing [such as fossil fuel
taxes or cap-and-trade programs] and R&D policies are neither
mutually exclusive nor entirely independent – both could be implemented
simultaneously, and each would tend to enhance the other." "Neither
policy alone is likely to be as effective as a strategy involving both
policies." This report can be read at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7567/09-18-CarbonEmissions.pdf
Two letters from prominent Members of Congress have recently been sent
regarding a report in Nature magazine about the suppression of a NOAA
statement on the relationship of global warming to hurricane intensity.
In late September, 14 senators (including Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid (D-NV)) wrote to the Inspector Generals for the Department of Commerce
and NASA. In this letter they stated, "We write to you today
to request a formal investigation into continuing reports of political
interference with the work of scientists at the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). We are deeply disturbed by what appears to be
repeated instances of scientists at these agencies having publication
of their research and access to the media blocked, solely based upon
their views and conclusions regarding the reality and impacts of global
warming." House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member Bart
Gordon (D-TN) sent a letter earlier this month to Under Secretary of
Commerce Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher. Gordon's hard-hitting
letter states: "This is unacceptable and I intend to get to
the bottom of the situation at NOAA. I ask for your full cooperation
every step of the way. I have seen a copy of an October 3, 2006, e-mail
you sent to your staff reiterating your support for scientific debate
and transparency. I am glad you share my belief in the importance of
transparency as I have some questions and requests of you to better
understand the background to this situation." A copy of the
Senate letter can be viewed at http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264104&
Rep. Gordon's letter, which contains several useful weblinks, can read
at http://sciencedems.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1206
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl