>> statements, documents or motions not submitted to the

electronic repository, ccc, at health.gov. finally, members of witnesses experiencing technical problems should inform committee staff immediately. >> good morning everyone. thank you for joining this hybrid hearing on the international climate challenges and opportunities. today we will hear about the challenges and opportunities for international climate action as we prepare for the cop 26 about to commence in glasgow. i now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. first, thank you everyone for joining us today. we are at an exciting inflection point for our country and for the planet. we now know that we are on the cost of the most historic investment in clean energy and climate action that has ever been part of u.s. politics.

our economy is going to move forward with creating jobs, providing opportunities, addressing the costly impact of the climate crisis. it appears now that we are poised to vote on a build back better plan that will help us combat climate change for all american families and just as a summary, president biden just left a meeting of the democratic caucus where he outlined a lot of what is in that framework, what we know now is that that framework will cut greenhouse gas pollution by over one gigaton by 2030, reduce consumer energy costs, give our kids cleaner air and water, create hundreds of thousands of high quality jobs and advance environmental justice by investing in a 21st-century clean energy economy, from

building to transportation to industry to electricity and agriculture smart practices all across this country. it will help restore america's leadership role in the world. but, we have a lot to do heading into glasgow. climate change is a global crisis, according to a recent study, the climate crisis impacts 85% of the population and although every country is impacted differently, it is clear that we have to work together to solve it. we have to choose a path forward. one path is paved with inadequate action which will lead to kiss didn't continued disruption, as they kick the can down the road. we are not going to do that. there is a brighter path paved with generational investments in renewable energy, electric vehicles, environmental justice and climate resilience leading to a net zero emissions world, one in which future generations

will thrive. we have a moral obligation to our kids and future generations to do this now. the united states has a special responsibility to lead the world down this path through our example. this chart tells a story. the united states has emitted more co2 than any other country in history. and, we are also going to lead the world in the solutions, the answers. the upcoming cop26 will serve as a vital task. when global leaders meet next week in glasgow almost every , nation around the world , including china will be , challenged to increase their climate ambition. president biden is on his way there. he just told us, to help lead the world on those solutions. this year the president has already pledged to slash greenhouse emissions in half and as it starts next week it is up

to us in congress to help achieve the goal. in this committee, we have focused on the solutions. we have talked about the opportunity to create millions of good paying jobs, take protect the health of our children and safeguard our economy and our imperative to ensure environmental justice for communities of color and tribes, and today we will focus on international benefits that come with solving the climate crisis because not only will reducing pollution make life better for families in america, it will also strengthen our partnerships abroad as we work with other nations to do the same. there are major challenges to international cooperation. the overarching one is straightforward, how do we keep global temperatures from continuing to rise. we can start by making generational investments with clean energy and expanding our use of zero emissions technology.

we know we cannot do this alone. another challenge is the need to invest in adaptation, because while cutting carbon pollution is critical, we must also focus on helping communities adapt to climate impacts already here. without expanded adaptation or resilience, we will see suffering not only in america but across the globe especially , in low and moderate income communities. that is why we must invest in measures that will help families prepare today while also reducing the risk of broader instability. climate action gives us an opportunity to transform our world for the better. the upcoming climate conference reminds us all that we are all fighting the same fight. by the power of america's example we will rise to this challenge. we simply do not have another choice. at this time i will recognize ranking member graves for an

opening statement. rep. graves: i appreciate the hearing, and i want to thank our witnesses for joining us. i share the chair's objective of moving in a direction of even lower emissions and clean energy transition. unfortunately, as i sit here and listen to the opening statement, i have to tell you that i feel that that might be about where our common views and. madam chair, i feel that we have got to be a bit more candid about reality. we have got to be a bit more candid about what is going on in the world today, what has gone on in the world in recent years in regards to strategies that have worked.

and strategies that haven't. we are seeing record energy prices escalation. it is costing people more to fuel their cars and more to heat and cool their homes and let us be really clear. this is absolutely positively the result of actions of this administration. i cannot even begin to explain to people at home nor should i try to how can it be that our white house, the leaders of this country are out there facilitating projects like the nor to pipeline russian, dirty , energy into the european union and at the same time shutting down the same types of projects in the united states. where is this administration leading this american country? the leaders of our 330 plus

million citizens are out there saying you cannot produce energy fumes, yes going in the same way to russia, saudi arabia, nigeria, and i saying that we would like for you to increase the production of the very resources we are preventing from being produced in the united states. madam chair, i want to see our president treat americans the same way he is treating citizens of other countries. it does not make sense and american citizens are paying the price. at every hearing as we sit here listening to folks demonize the united states, this is the 26th cop, the 26th, and you know what ? global emissions are going up and if have 26 times they would've had a pink slip.

it is not ok press to be on this global stage talking about these commitments that disproportionately punish the united states. there is extraordinary deviation from the very strategies that have resulted in the united states being the global leader. and sitting there in testimony today, propping up countries like china and it is fascinating to see letters written by environmental communities driving united states approach to china, antagonistic posture that risks undermining lima cooperation. -- climate cooperation. let me ask how you are supposed to act when you have a country that lies about what is going on with a global pandemic then in the same breath they are telling the world health organization that nothing is going on. and they are buying billions of pieces of mask and gloves that were manufactured in china and previously sold to other

countries and buying them back so their citizens have protection and that they can price gouge the rest of the world on the same ppe, how are we supposed to treat a country that had stolen through cyber attacks, intellectual property innovation of americans, how are , we supposed to treat a country that has gone out there and illegal trade practices, dumping products on the u.s. economy, killing jobs and affecting millions of jobs, are we supposed to be nice to these folks? the country that is increasing emissions four times for every one ton we are reducing in the united states. madam chair, as the mad states lead the world in reducing emissions, the global community has increased tenfold for every time we have reduced. let me say that again. the strategy in europe is a great example and california is a great example. we can either follow strategies

that work or continue to do what you all are trying to do, and manipulating technology, taking options away from innovators. at the end of the day resulting in higher emissions and higher prices. it is a flawed approach and it is irresponsible to continue in this direction. i yield back. >> without objection members who wish to enter opening statements of five business days to do so. we will hear from experts on the challenges and opportunities for international climate action as world leaders prepare together in glasgow for cop26. first, taryn franson is a senior fellow at the world resources institute global climate program where she focuses on climate , strategies and nationally determined contributions with a view of leveraging these and other policy instruments into rapid decarbonization.

in 2018, she served as a senior policy advisor on the global climate action summit for the office of the governor of california and prior to that she led the open climate network, a coalition focusing on commitments under the paris agreement. the chair now recognizes representative bonamici to introduce them. rep. bonamici: it is my pleasure to introduce her. chief executive officer of mercy corps. ms. mckenna leads a global team of more than 5400 humanitarians that provide immediate relief to save lives and livelihood and more than 40 countries reaching 37 million people. previously, she served as chief operating officer care where she , oversaw programming and global operations. i want to thank her for spending time with the committee and for

providing her organization's important perspective. i look forward to hearing more about their important work and efforts to increase climate and disaster resilience in vulnerable communities around the world. i yield back. >> next, the vice president of policy and advocacy at citizens for responsible energy forms where he leads policy work and executes strategies to advance clean energy solutions and innovative approaches to reducing carbon emissions. charles has decades of experience working in economic development, energy resource management and on the ground and dozens of countries. next, alden meyer is a senior associate working on the united states and international climate policy and politics. he is a principal at performance partners which provides a range of consulting services to clients in government, business, and the nonprofit sector. he has more than four decades on

experience on environmental and energy issues and is an expert on the united nations framework convention on climate change. the paris agreement and other aspects of international climate policy. without objection, their written statements will be made part of the record. you are now recognized to give a five-minute presentation of your testimony. welcome. ms. fransen: chair caster, ranking member graves and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. i am a senior fellow in the climate program in that research institute. a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental institute. my work focuses on greenhouse gas pathways and targets. you asked me to testify on how to get on track to limit climate change to less dangerous levels. i want you to know where i am coming from. on sunday, i sat in the dark to write this testimony as an atmospheric river knocked out power to my house. two months ago, on the day my

nephew was supposed to start kindergarten, he was in a car heading north to flee a fire. we watch the fire to see if he would have a home to return to. these are climate impacts hurting americans today and pale in comparison to what less fortunate communities face. we are out of time for excuses. there are three points that we hope you will take, first policies being implement it by -- implemented by countries around the world today put us on track for warming on 2.8 degrees celsius. that is too high. it is dangerous. second, to change that, we need to cut emissions in half by 2030, which means rapidly transforming the systems like power generation industry, transport, and agriculture. we know what changes we need to make and we stand behind them. third, congress is facing a once in a generation opportunity to

change the course of history by passing strong climate investments as part of the build back better act and the bipartisan investment in infrastructure and jobs act. global greenhouse gas emissions grew 1.3% a year over the last decade to reach a record high in 2019. while the recent downturn shave d a few percentage points off of 2020 emissions they are bouncing back and they are expected to match pre-pandemic levels. to get on the pathway to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius we need to cut emissions in half over the next nine years. by current policies we are on track to experience warming of around 2.8 degrees celsius. if we factor in the additional targets that countries are setting under the paris agreement, which are not yet backed up by policies we will do , a little better. if countries like the u.s. and china that have set nets are a -- net zero emissions targets managed to meet them we will be on track for two degrees

celsius. even that is too much. temperatures have risen less than half that amount and scientists say eight that was responsible for the devastating heatwave that killed hundreds in the pacific northwest the summer and increased storms like hurricane ida. we know what we need to do, a report launched today by partners identified 40 key benchmarks that we need to meet over the next decade in order to avoid the worst climate impacts. to name a few, by 2030 we need to increase the effort for elect -- share of electric vehicles, phaseout public financing proposal feels and increase crop yields by 18%. we are not starting from a standstill. we are moving in the right direction, but too slowly and we need to accelerate. as a world's largest economy we have the ability to do just that, and because we have emitted more carbon we have the obligation to do so. we took a strong step by

committing to cutting emissions. this target is ambitious and achievable but it will not implement itself. congress should do three things, first, pass ambitious legislation to cut emissions. second, position the u.s. to help guide emissions. one avenue is to ramp up bipartisan support for international funding for clean energy, force protection and resilience. finally, further innovation to broaden options for driving the emissions down. therefore, congress should ramp up r&d funding. we can't pick and choose among these steps we need to do them , all. and, fortunately they will benefit americans. reducing emissions means advancing clean energy and ecosystem restoration which create more u.s. jobs and the -- then the fossil fuels sector. supporting at emission reduction

abroad helps u.s. business benefit from the $23 billion of private investment opportunities. we have a long way to go to address this crisis, a wide range of policies can help us get there, but we need ambitious legislation and we do not have time to waste. ultimately, congress will be judged not on the specific measures it employs but the , extent to which it acts quickly to place the country on a just and equitable path to meet its climate targets. thank you. rep. castor: ms.mckenna, you are recognized. ms. mckenna: good morning, and thank you the committee chair and ranking member graves and members of the house select committee. i am the chief executive officer of mercy corps, and international communitarian and -- umana terrien and development organization. as was mentioned earlier, our global team of humanitarians 5400 operates in 40 countries where our work supports more than 37 million people.

including to adapt to a changing climate. one of our flagship programs is providing services and products on mobile phone to 3 million farmers across seven countries to help them improve claimant informed agriculture practices from planting drought resistant , seeds to accessing innovative financial services. while climate change affects every country on every continent, its effects are not shared equally. people already burdened by poverty violence, and hunger , suffer the harshest consequences while having the least ability to cope. climate change is one of the main drivers of the global hunger crisis. global hunger has been dramatically rising over the past five years. today, roughly 155 million people are experiencing acute food insecurity. extreme weather events are

reducing harvests, raising food prices, driving migration and generating new conflicts contributing to the reversal of , years of gains in income growth and food security. we have effective tools for solving hunger, but we now need to build climate change adaptations into that equation. for example, in guatemala where , rising temperatures have contributed to long periods of drought, crop loss and low food production, mercy corps has partnered with colorado state university to leverage its predictive weather modeling expertise to help farmers make more informed decisions about planting, harvesting, and storing. in nepal, where changing weather has led to severe crop losses we have helped farmers increase their yield by 56% through new climate smart agriculture practices. climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking violence

and conflict. our team sees firsthand how interconnected they are. for instance, in the eastern democratic republic of the congo, while climate change affects every country on every continent, its effects are not shared equally. in the democratic republic of congo, our foreign program provided community members with negotiations and dispute resolution training, empowering them to establish a new land access and leasing program for thousands of small scale farmers. unfortunately, the communities that need the most help are being left behind in the most fragile countries are passed over for safer options. only 25% of bilateral climate financing and less than 50% of major funding targets countries most vulnerable to climate change.

in 2019, less than 1% of climate adaptation funding went to the 10 most fragile states. it is possible to reverse the trend. mercy corps helped millions of people worldwide adapt to a changing climate selling drought , resistant crops in ethiopia using state-of-the-art , technology to cope with flooding in nepal and distributing drought resistant seeds to boost harvests in haiti. we need the help of donors including the u.s. government. first, it is vital to recognize that communities urgently need help to adapt to the changing climate. it is too late to focus solely on reducing emissions. the u.s. government can demonstrate leadership by increasing resources dedicated to climate adaptation. particularly on the u.s. agency for development. i was pleased to see the increase for climate adaptation funding in the pending fiscal

year 2022 state and foreign appropriation bills, and i hope the house of representatives will match the senates more generous proposal. i also urge the united states to galvanize the private sector investment in sustainable climate finance. the u.s. government must ensure that it is going to the most climate affected places. particularly to those their conflict affected. adaptation efforts should be locally led and include a strong investment in digital infrastructure and have a special focus on smallholder farmers especially women and young people. lastly, u.s. climate adaptation assistance should build on and reinforce other assistance to prevent conflict hunger poverty. i think this select committee for its commitment in helping vulnerable communities and i look forward to questions later. rep. castor: thank you very much. you are recognized for five minutes. mr. hernick: thank you.

chair, ranking member members of , the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify. i am a vice president of policy and advocacy with an organization called citizens for responsible energy solutions. my testimony is not shaped only by my experience in the united states but on the ground in over a dozen countries in africa or latin america. i hope you remember three points for my testimony, the first is that there is no substitute for u.s. leadership and innovation. the second is that training and -- trade and aid must drive economic growth and opportunity. finally, in the spirit of halloween, to remember that greenhouse gases are the bogeyman. not fossil fuels. with respect to innovation, low-cost, low emission technologies will be successful. anything short than widespread

adoption should address the -- would fail to address the global issue. american innovations will be a key driver. people around the world are looking for the next 3m or general mills, the next ford, tesla, ibm or apple to develop and deploy quality consumer products around the world. in our climate conscience era, quality means low carbon, zero carbon or net negative emissions technologies. that is why the most important role for the united states government is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making strategic investments in innovation, research, development, and such as those included in the energy act of 2020, which serves as a strong foundation for an all of the above approach focusing on renewables, fossil fuel, fuel and energy efficiency, hydrogen, electrification and carbon capture utilization and storage. all of these must be on the table. with respect to trade and aid, the united states needs the

-- leads the world in development assistance. we should be proud and continue our global commitment. more important than the dollars of direct aid is america's role in cultivating the right outcome. economic growth and a low carbon future and strong ties with our democratic allies. that means also assuring that u.s. solutions are brought to the world through international trade policy at a cost that developing nations are able and willing to pay. the u.s. government must harness the power of free markets and be champions of free markets as we re-examine the galatians, trade and international property protections. that means avoiding mandates. even in the midst of a pandemic, companies large and small committed to carbon neutrality by mid century. government should empower companies to achieve their goals, not pursue heavy-handed

debt, top-down mandates that drive up costs and reduce options, not just here but around the world. with respect to greenhouse gases, the data matter -- coal, oil and natural gas are indispensable to the global economy. in 1971, coal, oil and natural gas fueled 86% of the global energy supply. in 2019, it decreased to 81%. i'm proud of the fact renewables have rowing in the united states at over 11% last year in the depths of a pandemic. when you look at the globe, the energy mix is stable. hermetic reengineering of the global energy system has not happened and while it is possible, it is not likely in the next decade. we need to acknowledge that u.s. oil and gas is far cleaner than equivalent fuels from anywhere else. russian-produced natural gas

shipped by pipeline to europe has 41% higher lifecycle emissions than u.s. provide natural gas shipped the same destination. russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline to china has a 40% higher lifecycle emissions that u.s. lng. when a resource is taken off the table, innovation in that area will halt. that is why congress should support carbon capture utilization and storage. government does not need to mandate these technologies, companies are doing on their own. cutting up also fuels in the short-term is not realistic and we need to keep all options on the table. there is a significant security concerned with targeting u.s. fuels in our current local market place. america calling on opaque to increase production undercuts our national security objectives. policies that restrict u.s.

fossil fuel production and exports in the name of climate change actually have the opposite effect -- they contribute more to global emissions, not less, at a significant cost to america's reputation, security, and economic outlook. thank you. >> i have been asked what needs to be accomplished at the summit in glasgow that starts sunday, and the prospects for success. we know we will leave glascow with a huge gap between the collective level of ambition and commitments countries put forward under the paris agreement on what is required to keep 1.5 degrees alive and avoid the worst impacts of climate

change. countries must acknowledge the need to increase ambition and set out a deadline to make that happen. on climate finance, it is good developed countries have shown how they plan to meet the commitment to mobilize 100 billion dollars annually and finance for mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries to 2025. but more work is needed to scale up finance for adaptation and improve access to finance for smaller countries. countries must also agree on the process and timeline for negotiating the goal for mobilizing more climate finance after 2025. we know that sums much greater than $100 billion a year are required to help developing countries such as india, indonesia and south africa make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy resources. if the u.s. and g-7 countries are able to show how the build

back better initiative will deliver clean infrastructure investments at the scale needed, it would help persuade some of the major developing countries to support the ambition accelerator language we need in the final copy decision. many countries and communities are suffering from a range of devastating climate-related impacts which will continue to mount over the next several decades, even if we succeed in meeting paris agreement temperature goals. countries are calling for much faster progress to help address economic losses and severe damage to lives and livelihoods that their citizens are experiencing as a result of climate impacts. how far we can get towards agreement and glascow that starts to meet these needs remains to be seen. agreement on rules for market mechanisms under the paris agreement is an important objective for cop 26, as is ensuring transparency on how

well countries are doing meeting their commitments on emissions in developing finance. bringing china and other major developing countries closer to parity with developing nations on a robust reporting regime has been an objective of both democratic and republican u.s. administrations. climate change and health issues are the driving themes for the g20 leaders summit that will take place in rome this saturday and sunday. italy's prime minister mario draghi will be pressing other leaders on the need to agree to agree tomorrow vicious actions and for commitments to phase down coal consumption and eliminate subsidies for fossil production and use. if he can forge consensus on these issues, it will provide important impetus for progress. let me discuss three possible scenarios for outcomes at cobb 26. a good outcome would see

agreement on closing gaps for admissions, increasing finance for mitigation and adaptation and finance to address loss and damage. environmental integrity would be prioritized in article six rules and a strong transparency framework would be agreed upon. the slew of announcements in glascow by governments, companies and investors on sector initiatives to cut missions would send strong signals on the irreversibility of the shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy. a disappointing outcome would see no agreement on ways to close these ambition gaps. rules on article six and transparency would be agreed, but with major compromises that weaken their effectiveness and raise concerns about environmental integrity. an ugly outcome would see no agreement on remaining elements of the paris rulebook and no real engagement at all on ways to close the ambition gap, with sharp divisions between countries over who needs to do more to address the climate crisis.

thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts. i look forward to questions. chair: thank you, to our witnesses for your insightful testimony. i recognize myself for five minutes. it was refreshing to hear a united message from this panel that the world needs american leadership when it comes to climate. for congress, the best way to demonstrate that leadership is to pass the build back better infrastructure and clean energy package. and we are on the cusp of doing that. that is good news. it is also good news, in a selfish way, for american consumers. because we know investing in clean energy over time is going to lower costs for them. but there is a bigger picture here, as we march to glascow. we are marching together with american businesses, states and local communities, scientists, innovators, farmers, churches and the faith community.

the message is partly to keep the pressure on china and india and other large emitters to help them raise their level of ambition. that has to be part of the equation. ms. fransen, what threats do you see for america if we do not assume that leadership role? and talk about opportunities for america that renewed leadership would bring. ms. fransen: thank you. i'll start with opportunities, because there are many. assuming a leadership role on the climate crisis is not only saving money for american households and businesses, which currently spend $1 trillion a year on fossil fuels, but it reduces costs and health care. in one scenario for admissions, it found these actions are

providing health benefits and avoiding health costs to the tune of between $26 billion and $50 billion by 2030, not to mention lives saved. we can also benefit from increased competitiveness. as demand for clean technologies rises, focusing on low carbon or zero carbon manufacturing rather than doubling down on yesterday's industries is what is when to give the u.s. the advantage. for sample the global lithium-ion battery market is projected to be $105 billion by 2025. and by 2030, there will be a $23 trillion climate related emerging-market. if we don't pursue these clean technologies domestically and maintain and aid our competitive edge, we are going to be losing those opportunities. i want to mention the job potential. in the u.s., investing in

renewals -- renewables and energy efficiency rates two and a half times more jobs per fossil fuel per dollar invested. investing in ecosystem restoration creates three times as many jobs at per dollar invested. that is another opportunity we are losing if we don't take action. this provides an important opportunity for rural america as well in terms of economic diversification. when companies are already paying farmers and other rural landowners something on the order of $220 million a year to host wind turbines, this generates tax revenue and other income down the value chain. we can build on that by creating opportunities and forest restoration and regenerative agriculture. those are opportunities and if we don't take advantage of those, we lose out on all of that to countries that are asking -- that are acting faster. china is investing more than

twice as much as we are in renewable energy. i don't know why we wouldn't want to take advantage of that for ourselves. thank you. chair: thank you. mr. meyer, science tells us we don't have time to waste. the latest report was a code red and said you better get going this decade. talk about how important that is going into glasgow. mr. meyer: the report issued yesterday by the u.n. environment program says we are on track for a 2.7 degree world, twice where we need to be ending for. and emissions are going to increase 16% by 2030 if we stay on the path we are on and countries don't take more action. by contrast, we need to cut emissions almost in half over that period, cap 66 chance of keeping under 1.5 degrees. it is code red. we have to dramatically scale up

the transition to an energy future and that is the challenge for glasgow. that is the biggest question that will be before leaders and ministers next week in scotland. chair: hopefully, congress will pass a good clean energy and infrastructure package to demonstrate america is taking a leadership role and we are serious about acting this decade, right away. i will yield to mr. gaines for his questions. excuse me, miss miller, you are recognized for five minutes. representative: thank you. and thank you all, for being here today. out-of-control gas prices have risen over three dollars in every state at this point. natural gas prices are surging as europe fails to meet its energy demands and russia, shockingly, holds the lever of power over our allies after the president gifted putin a pipeline instead of promoting

cleaner, safer, american-made energy. president obama was after cole during his presidency but now, president biden is here to finish the job. it is not just coal they are after, they are declaring war on american prosperity, a war on american energy independence and a war on the american working class who will bear the brunt of this burden, losing their jobs, paying more for the lifestyle americans today have become accustomed to, like having electricity in their homes instead of candles are taking a hot shower instead of dumping a bucket of cold water on their head. and this isn't just in america. i would like to submit for the record an op-ed from the president of uganda published in "the wall street journal" this past week titled "solar and wind force poverty on africa." president museveni writes that focusing on renewable energy projects in africa earns praise

in the u.s. and europe, it leaves many africans with unreliable and expensive electricity while our global elite are trying to rewrite the rules for the entire world. they are subjecting developing kind -- developing countries to destitute death in his -- destitute destinies. allowing nations access to resources is not only good policy, but is the morally right thing to do. forcing africa to live in poverty and darkness so that john kerry can feel accomplished on his private jet is not only arrogant, it is inexcusable. i am not opposed to renewable energy, but we must do it the right way. and all of the above -- an all of the above energy policy which complements our energy

communities instead of destroying them. it will fail a stronger energy grid, stronger communities and stronger country. carbon capture technologies will mitigate the impacts of traditional energy sources without giving up american energy independence. this committee and this president must use science and technology and commit to common sense energy policies, not radical, progressive idealism. in your testimony, you explain how u.s. natural gas is much cleaner than natural gas from foreign countries. can you explain why? and how exporting u.s. technology will actually lower global emissions? >> thank you for the question. you bring up some of the real moral issue that is associated with tackling the climate problem. i agree completely.

part of what we need to rely on is better data. a major challenge when you look at the u.s. oil and gas sector, what is produced? these are commodities. historically, we have not done a good job of distinguishing the difference between u.s. oil and natural gas and petroleum products from other countries. it is time we do that. the reason is, as the united states has grown in economic development, we have implemented the highest environmental safeguards anywhere in the world. when i was working for the u.s. agency for international development, folks looked in the u.s. for best practices, how to protect waterways, and keep the air clean. we have been doing that. we have been doing that as we extract natural resources, as we mind, as we develop oil and natural gas and that means we have based color environmental foot rent. we should be proud of that. it is part of what we need to do to tell the story to the rest of

the world that there is a comparative advantage the u.s. has in cleaner oil and natural gas. there is more that can be done. and part of the technologies you talked about related to carbon capture utilization and stowed storage, these are technologies being implemented right now. in the washington dc area, there is a plant in maryland that captures carbon dioxide, a co-fired power plant and it ends up as the fizzy bubbles in a lot of drinks. companies are investing in how to develop everything from concrete to yoga pants using carbon capture from the atmosphere and integrated into consumer products. that is a great direction to be headed in. representative: thank you. chair: representative bonamici, you are recognized. representative: ranking member

grace said we need to be candidate talk about reality. he was candid and here is reality. last summer, as ms. fransen mentioned, a heat dome in the pacific northwest killed hundreds. drought is threatening crops and farms and glaciers are melting in the sea level is rising. climate change is an existential threat. we can't rely on the free market alone to provide an efficient response to its worst effects. i reject the notion fossil fuel is fine if it is cleaner than another fossil fuel. a whole of government approach is necessary to meet the challenge domestically, and robust collaboration with the international community is necessary to meet that challenge. i want to ask ms. fransen, can you please discuss why relying on free markets and government-supported research and development is not enough to meet the scale of the climate crisis? ms. fransen: absolutely.

to get context, from 2005-2018, u.s. energy-related co2 emissions fell 12%. but we need to reduce emissions more than four times faster than that over the next decade than we did from 2005-20 18. we need to be stacking on the accelerator -- stepping on the accelerator in a dramatic way. can't rely on what we have been doing in the past. it is important to note the kind emissions you experience to date are not only a result of the free market. we have invested significantly in tax credits for renewable energy that are responsible for tremendous growth we have seen in solar and wind. even some of those gains we have had so far, which are too little and not talked about, are not the result of the free market. i don't think there is evidence that suggests if we sit back and do nothing, we will get to where we need to go.

it is just not happening. we know successful policies can make a difference, like those in the build back at her act, and are critical parts of what are going to get us to our omissions goals, which are not simply to reduce emissions marginally, but virtually eliminate emissions. that is where we are going. that is what we need to keep our eyes on. chair: thank you. i want to note the importance of build back better and policies we are on the cusp of passing. these policies will create hundreds if not millions of jobs in this country. i wanted to note that. it is so important to make sure we send a message that people will be able to get great jobs and renewable energy. thank you for being here to discuss the work of mercycore. your testimony highlighted the impacts of climate change on

agriculture, including crop losses and food insecurity. can you highlight the importance of u.s. leadership and explain how the u.s. step up efforts to address global humanitarian issues exacerbated by the climate crisis? >> thank you for the question. there are a few reasons why the u.s. should step up, but the main one is that it only makes economic sense, particularly on the adaptation front. inequality we are experiencing that is being worsened due to covid will only widen without immediate attention on adaptation, and money from the u.s. government. much of that money is needed for the needs of developed guys developing countries and failure to act will result in a huge economic and human toll. it will cause increases in poverty, increases in conflict and severely undermine our long-term global process --

global prospects. the second lace the u.s. should play a role with companies and universities is in innovation. a lot of the access to energy we have seen in the world is because of new technology and renewables. the old, fossil fuel ways of bringing big power to africa simply have not been able to come to fruition. there are a lot of opportunities to keep using those technologies, opportunities for american businesses, to help people get more sources of renewable and decentralized power. in addition, we need to be looking at the causes of conflict, and addressing those as we look at climate change. climate change only exacerbates conflicts and there are a lot of ways we can work with local actors to do that. looking at the root cause of

climate is one. in northern uganda, on the border, there are pastoral communities that use rivers and other things for their livelihoods. we have been able to fund work that looks at how those communities can determine land usage over that water, to decrease that tension between communities and prevent more costs on conflict in those areas. we have a lot to bring to the table, u.s. innovation, u.s. leadership is critical for us. chair: thank you, miss mckenna, for your testimony and the important work of mercy corps. chair: ranking member graves, you are recognized. is he not on the screen? we will go to mr. carter, you are recognized. representative: thank you. i want to announce that at 11:09 a.m. at piedmont hospital, mary,

carter, the first child of my youngest son, was born. my sixth grandchild. [laughter] chair: congratulations. that is wonderful. representative: thank you. miss mckenna, i read your testimony and found it fascinating and i agree with a lock of it. it hints at some concerns i have got. and your testimony, you say it is vital to recognize communities urgently need help to adapt to the changing climate. it is to late to focus solely on reducing admissions -- reducing emissions. that is a great point. i have the honor of representing the coast of georgia, 100 miles of steen coastline. it is where i have lived all my life and where i intend to live the rest of my life and it means a lot to me. we have to do three things. we have to practice mitigation, adaptation and innovation. i have to give credit, my good

friend from alabama beside me was the first one to say that and i have been saying it ever since. eight is something i believe in. you said -- it is something i believe in. you said u.s. climate adaptation assistance should build on and reinforce other development assistance to prevent conflict, hunger and poverty. that is a great point. if the developing world is forced to use renewable solar and wind energy, would it increase prosperity or raise costs? ms. mckenna: thank you. i moved to the area and i agree with you on the pristine coastline. i missed it. we have seen a decrease in energy poverty and it has been due largely to renewable energies.

the declining costs of those has also enabled that for lower-income communities, renewables may be the only real chance to end energy poverty. we are continuously leapfrogging due to technology. we have increased financing, ongoing innovation, and improved policies will allow communities to make their own choices and do the most cost-effective things. representative: what about higher energy costs? are they going to prevent conflict and hunger and poverty? ms. mckenna: higher energy costs are not at -- miss mckenna: higher energy costs are not helpful. representative: thank you. since president biden has taken office, he canceled the keystone

xl pipeline, rejoined the paris agreement, ended energy agreements on federal land, removed sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline, encouraged opec to pump more oil, we are pumping less and encouraging them to pump more. it baffles me to propose taxing natural gas, and others. if all these actions stay in place, all of them he has taken action on, and the proposed was assigned into law, will we still meet climate goals set by the paris agreement? >> to achieve the goals set in the paris agreement, we need to bring the whole world along with us. that is part of the challenge, we cannot sacrifice the u.s. economy to achieve these goals alone, we need to take it with a global view on how we can reduce emissions the most, bring people

out of operative, meet their energy security needs, and do it while growing jobs and economic opportunities through the united dates. those proposals you mentioned will deploy more renewables here in the united states, but this morning i met with the minnesota chamber of commerce and some folks from minnesota who came in, and they are going to be unable to produce and open a mine in northern minnesota, adjacent to a beautiful area we want to preserve, but if we are not able to mine and develop critical minerals and resources in the u.s., we are going to fail to meet what is an economic growth opportunity here. that is where and all of the above approach is necessary. representative: how effective has the paris agreement been on reducing emissions in other countries and globally as a whole? >> not at all effective. that is important to recognize.

even president obama's clean power plan that never came into being set a goal, and the united states achieved that goal without mandates and years ahead of schedule. and that is because of federal policy as it relates to tax incentives, as it relates to innovation, state action and the action of corporate america. that is something i want to talk about. there are many, many countries, electric power utilities, that are driving emissions down, headed to net zero. one statistic i will leave you with is that right now, 75% of american households are served by an energy utility that is on the path the net zero by mid century. we don't need mandates if utilities are interested in heading into this direction already. representative: great point. thank you. chair: ms. brownlee, you are recognized. representative: thank you, madam chair.

mr. meyer, i apologize if i am repeating a question i didn't hear previously you geopolitical tensions especially between the united states and china and there is a dynamic play, do you believe there are meaningful areas where the u.s. could engage with china related to international climate policy, where we could find some significant agreement? if so, which areas would you recommend the administration focus on in negotiation? charles: thank you, representative. it is a tense relationship. we are not going to agree on everything. china absolutely has to do more if we are going to have any chance of staying at 1.5 degrees or less than two degrees celsius. we have been collaborating on

some areas in clean air technology in the major economies form process over the years, the u.s. and china have chaired the sustainable finance group in the g20 which recently put forward a sustainable finance roadmap which was adopted by finance ministers including secretary yellen earlier this month. there are areas where we can collaborate. we also have to recognize we are competitive rivals for the growing markets for clean energy technologies. as others have stated, china is winning the race right now. in terms of renewable energy, storage, electric vehicles, and other technologies. we will compete there and we know that, but we can play in a world that is dominated by rules and norms and standards that drive innovation and drive technology deployment of clean technologies, and if we can reach agreement with china on that rather than competing, a sets of rules and norms, we will be ahead of the game. rep. brownley: thank you for that. i wanted to follow up on the line of questioning that has

already taken place here but it , is ironic that we are here talking about this and behind closed doors we are trying to figure out how to get to close to $1 trillion of investment in climate on the u.s.'s part. this is a question for all of you. if we can reach the agreement, and i believe we will ultimately, but we are not there yet, how does that play? it has got to help, i know that, but does it help a little, does it help a lot? i'm curious where people stand on that. relative to cop26 and our leadership and getting the planet to a place where we need to get it. charles: let me start because i spoke to that in my testimony and i'm sure others will come in. it is essential the u.s. does what it says, that we walk the talk and we show we are going to

do everything we can to reach the 50% to 52% reduction target that president biden announced in april at the leader summit he hosted. that is the most effective strategy, frankly, to put pressure on china and other countries who are questioning our political will and whether we stand behind what we put forward in the global community. i certainly hope we will be able to show in bosque out that we are making progress in that direction. obviously what congress does is essential, but the administration has a number of other tools in its box in terms of financial standards, regulations, loan guarantees of the department of energy, working with a growing numbers of states and governors and mayors and business leaders and investors who have demonstrated they want to take the lead in the world economy on clean energy deployment. they have set goals at net zero, 100% renewables. we can do more to collaborate with them and encourage more to join them in this drive climate survival.

rep. brownley: i can assure you that that is exactly what the president told us this morning, so you and he are on the same page. any other comments from the panelists? taryn: i would love to comment. rep. brownley: yes, please. taryn: was that for me? rep. brownley: yes. >> thank you. i would echo everything that mr. meyer just said. the international community is well aware of the importance of this legislation and the u.s. delivering on its commitment. i've heard members of this committee talking about whether we can trust china on this issue. i should underscore that china is on track to deliver its existing pledges, which is not something the united states can yet say, and moreover, the united states has a history of reneging, unfortunately. having pulled out of the kyoto

protocol and subsequently the pairs agreements. we need to do a lot to restore our trust and this legislation is a big part of that. rep. brownley: thank you. with that, madam chair, i yield back. rep. castor: mr. gonzales, you are recognized for five minutes. >> i want to mention that china has no binding commitment to maintain targets, so it is easy to meet something when you have no commitment to achieve. there is a suggestion today that it is a lack of wealth or lack of ambition that prevents climate action. my view is it is a lack of realism in many respects with respect to the trade-offs different countries will have to make. certainly a lack of global coordination and a lack of appropriate technology. the developed nations, notably germany, that have moved full on into solar and wind at the highest rates in the developed

world, certainly in europe, and have not achieved their client targets. that has to do with the fact that they keep shutting down where plants, which makes no sense to me. another fact or projection, roughly 75% of all births globally over the next 50 years will occur in africa. those are fossil-based economies today. mr. hendrick, i want to start with you, because i think you have the key line in your testimony which is "low-cost, low emissions technologies and goods will be critical to successful climate policy. anything short of widespread adoption will fail to address this global issue." as you look at a world where 75% of births will take place in a continent that is largely driven by fossil, how do we get our targets if not through low-cost technologies? charles: thank you for the question, congressman, and in my

time in africa, when i read the editorial, the article from the president of uganda, congresswoman miller presented it, it is very powerful and i think we have to remember, and i say this as an environmentalist, that there is no greater threat to the environment than poverty. if folks are in a position where they need to choose for their family, to keep their home, and use a fossil fuel, solar power, or go down a tree and he forest -- deep forest, they will cut down the tree and the forest. i thing that is a major -- i think that is a major challenge you see across the continent. widespread deforestation which makes it more difficult to adapt to a changing environment. we need all of the above, resources available to countries, and that will include opportunities to retrofit their coal fire power plants, not to

use carbon capture utilization and storage but other technologies that allow fuel switching from coal to -- i met with a company called easy energy systems based out of iowa. they provided technology where you can supplement the fuel that goes into a coal-fired power plant and reduce emissions dramatically. that is a cool technology. we are not developing that here, it will not be available in africa. rep. gonzalez: in your testimony, you advocate in clean technology and the reduction of deforestation by 70%. i mentioned last week i have significant concerns about biodiversity and that associated with solar and wind. a study conducted in california published in the national academy of science found the deployment of solar panels can exacerbate habitat deforestation, having ecological consequences. another study found forced -- forest removal in new england and new york for the

construction of solar farms has driven up carbon emissions, driven up carbon emissions, releasing close of 5 million metric tons of carbon each year. these things are commonsense. when you destroy forests and natural habitats, you disrupt natural ecosystems. how do we strike the right balance between ecological concerns and climate concerns when it comes to massive amounts of land needed for solar and wind? taryn: thank you for the question. before i address it, i want to note that china and the u.s. have exactly the same amount of legal binding this in their target funded under the paris agreement. that is a feature the u.s. negotiated very hard for. moving on to your question, i think fortunately it is not necessary to destroy forests and biodiversity to deploy solar and wind energy. i spoke earlier about how farmers are benefiting from payments to put wind turbines on their land and that is helping them economically without

destroying any forests. we have many options to deploy solar, for example on rooftops, in urban areas, and an ecologically sensitive areas. of course we need to do it intelligently and needs to be safeguards in place for biodiversity but those two things can easily go hand-in-hand. rep. gonzalez: if you project how much solar is required in some of these targets and you just look at how -- where you will have to deploy it, i think reasonableness would suggest that is not true, but i will yield back. rep. castor: next up is congressman kasten. you are recognized. >> thank you madam chair, think you to our witnesses. my friend from ohio made the point china has no binding commitments and that is true. none of us do. the way paris was structured was to have voluntary nonbinding commitments to create a framework for all of us to build to something more permanent. we are uniquely the only country that looked to voluntary

nonbinding commitments and decided that was too hard , so trump pulled out. i share that because when we were in madrid after being pulled out, many of us on this committee, one of the europeans pulled me aside and said "i just want to let you know that bad things happen when the united states does not lead." that is the moment that we are in by conscious choice of a former president and frankly by conscious choice of 40 years a policy where our story to the world was let me tell you about the complexities of the u.s. senate. that is on all us. for us to lead, we need to have the economic muscle to do that. check, we got it. we need to be the leading advocate in the world for equity and equality and democracy check, we've got that box. , then we need to show we have actions to match our words and we have failed at that for 40 years.

i share that background because we have had those two of the three. there are other countries that have at least one of those and are trying to come up with two but they cannot match our commitment to democracy. mr. meyer, you have been at this as long as anybody, certainly on the panel, baby in this room. -- maybe in this room. as i look back over history, the last time the united states led and had all three of those was when the montreal protocol was structured. i would point out under the reagan and first bush white house. i wonder if you could share your wisdom of what we did right when we put that together and what we are missing in the current political zeitgeist in america to do what we did before -- we did fix a problem, right? what can you share with us? alden: let me first try to clarify this issue of binding

ness. the paris agreement is binding on all countries to put forward what are called nationally determined contributions, so it is bottom up, each country decides what they can do and commit to do it. it is binding in every country to report on how well they are doing in meeting those commitments. it is not binding on all countries to meet those commitments because the united states senate. if the agreement had required each country to meet those commitments, it would require submitting it to the senate for ratification and president knew there were not 67 votes in the senate to ratify. the reason it is not binding to meet the commitments is because of the united states. the montreal protocol is a success story. it has worked well and was driven by science, including by maggie thatcher, the conservative prime minister of england at the time of the united kingdom, and she persuaded president reagan to support negotiation of the montreal protocol. that being said, it is a much easier problem to solve because it deals with a much smaller set of economic actors and those economic actors realized two things, one, they could make a lot of money by producing the

alternatives to the substances that were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer. two, if their products to destroy the stratospheric ozone layer, they could be on the hook for a lot of lawsuits and a lot of liability in compensation. we were able to work with business, with other countries to get that in place. it is a good model but not entirely in elegance because of -- analogous because of the differences. we have to mobilize action across every sector of the economy, every major country needs to participate. as we have heard, it is a much tougher problem. rep. casten: i'm close to time and i guess i would offer -- and i agree with all of those points -- a lot of that framework was not adopted into the 1990 amendments to the act we did for acid rain. we have shown with u.s. leadership we can create a cap and trade model to monetize the reduction. with the time i have left, converting to clean energy is to

-- converting to cheap energy. so much of what we're trying to do is to make sure we deploy the capital so people can benefit from cheap energy. whether that is building charging stations or tax credits, we have thought about how to do that in the united states. if you have a solar panel on your roof, you don't pay for electricity anymore. pretty awesome. if you have an electric vehicle, you don't have to pay for gasoline. everyone that tells you we cannot do that would fail a freshman capital budget class. i digress. what should we be thinking about internationally to make sure that folks in other countries also have access to those capital deployment so they can benefit from cheap, clean energy? taryn: thank you. i think first of all, as has already been underscored, the role of the u.s. in leading on innovation in these technologies to get them in the first place and second on deployment, to have economies of scale and bring costs down, is fundamentally critical. i would start there.

beyond that, i think the kind of support for countries, especially poor countries -- a number of folks have experience in africa and less-developed contexts, support for those countries in campaign -- climate finance is also critical. thank you. rep. casten: thank you, madam chair, allowing me to do a little over. rep. castor: next up is representative palmer recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chairman and the witnesses for being here. i want to thank my colleague from california for acknowledging publicly what we have known all along, that this legislation is being developed behind closed doors with zero input from republicans, which is hardly the way to address major issues. i also want to commend mr. meyer for the work his organization has done in regard to any issue

-- an issue that is kind of the ugly truth behind the climate the push for renewables, and , that is your organization acknowledges there is 9700 excess deaths in the u.k. because of energy poverty. the prices for household energy has gone up so much in the u.k. that people cannot afford to keep their homes adequately cooled and they are dying from cold-related illnesses. same thing in scotland. it is interesting a lot of my colleagues will be in scotland. maybe they should take some warm wind it's with them because they will go through the same thing. if this bill passes, we are already, without this bill passing, because of the biden administration's energy policies already, we are anticipating somewhere in the range of a 40% increase in household utility costs. this will be problematic for people in some of the states

like new york and pennsylvania and new jersey and michigan and particularly problematic for elderly people. many of these people are on fixed incomes and they will have to make decisions on how much they can spend on their utilities to keep their homes adequately warm versus what they spend on their food where food prices are going through the roof. what they can spend on the medicines they need and we have already seen democrat policies in those states in regard to the elderly and covid and thousands of people who died because of their policies, nursing homes, i think the american people need to wake up and see what is happening here. i also have real issues with this discussion about china. china said their target is to stop increasing emissions by 2030. the stop increasing moment -- emissions. they will continue to increase in missions until 2030, and frankly the entire chinese culture is built on deception,

so i don't believe for a minute they will stop it because their objective is not to save the planet, it is to rule the planet. all of you sitting at that table are living in a strange world. i'm just taken aback by the science, you keep talking about the science. and try to say that the science is settled. the only science that is settled as the political science, on your side. you talked about 2.7 degree celsius increase in climate. even the people who talk about greenhouse gases increasing the climate admitted 2.7 degrees will have a negligible impact on the planet. it may actually increase economic development. it will increase food production.

for those talking about food, the world bank put out a report when the big push was for biofuels. mr. hernick may recall this. that report was suppressed because they found increasing food prices globally by 75% and it forced 100 million people into poverty and probably the 40 million range into food poverty, hunger. you've got, i want to say five times the number of people living in developing countries as living in developing -- developed countries and you want to deny them access to natural resources like natural gas that can pull those people out of poverty. the world bank has said that there are more people dying from indoor pollution then anything related to the climate. so you are condemning people to poverty, condemning people

potentially to shorter lifespans because of these policies. i think you need to think about this. you talk about jobs. we had a meeting with the vice president of the european union who admitted to us that people , who lost their jobs in fossil fuel industry did not get new jobs. they are having to live on their social security, and there is a spanish study that shows for every renewable job created, they lost 2.2 jobs. those are some things i think need to be on the table. for that, madame chairman, i yield back. rep. castor: next up, representative crenshaw. you are recognized for five minutes. rep. crenshaw: thank you madam chair and all of the witnesses for being here. you pointed to china as a leader in renewable energy investment. they also asked we help fund the transition to green energy. my question is, should we do

that? taryn: thank you. china has been supportive of the u.s. providing international climate finance in accordance with our commitment under the paris agreement. that funding is particularly necessary for vulnerable and poor countries, for a combination of mitigation and increasingly -- rep. crenshaw: i understand that it may be necessary for a combination of poor countries, but would it be necessary for china? it is not a trick question. taryn: we need to continue providing finance and increase the finance in accordance with our obligation under the paris agreement. rep. crenshaw: i hope china is never a recipient of that. you have mentioned them multiple times as a leader in renewable energy and that they have invested double the amount united states has. if you were impressed by that, you will be impressed what

they've invested in coal in , 2020, china built three times call capacity than the entire -- three times more coal capacity than the entire world combined, equivalent of one large new coal plant per week on top of the 73 gigawatts of new coal capacity that is planned but not completed yet. so they're not going to cop 26 and should not be held as a leader in climate policy. changing the subject, you mentioned in your testimony the united states needs to drastically reduce deforestation. no disagreement there. i'm not sure we have a high rate of deforestation. you did not cite where you got that number but that is not important. i think we all want more trees. we might not agree on is who we should hail as leaders throughout the world. many of the countries you mentioned as leaders in the climate space burned trees for electricity in order to meet their climate goals. the eu uses biofuels for 45% of its "renewable mix." do you think the united states should follow suit? do you think we should be speaking out against these countries that use wood-burning

as a way to make their renewable energy mix sound better? taryn: thank you for raising that. there are certainly problematic uses of biofuels throughout the world. not all biofuels are sustainable and not all forms of biofuels can be a robust part of our climate change solution. that is why we need to be investing in other forms of clean, renewable energy like wind and solar. we also need to bear in mind that biofuel production can come into competition with conserving forests for carbon capture and that is the form of biofuel we need to avoid. rep. crenshaw: i'm glad to hear that. i would also note co2 emissions for wood burning are 2.5 times higher than natural gas. we should not be clapping our hands for european partners at -- that like to burn biofuels instead of just going to clean, natural gas that is produced in

the u.s. i would also note natural gas produced by the united states is 41% less omissions on a lifecycle basis then gas produced in russia. yet our administration floods -- applied c.o.p. ends -- applies -- applauds the europeans doing everything they can to rely on russian natural gas instead. another frustration i might have is -- i have many. we have countries like uganda begging for more natural gas, telling the western world they will not be trapped in this generational poverty with only solar and wind solutions. there's a company in my district that's trying to build an lng import terminal in vietnam. this would allow them to wean off of chinese coal which is three times the emissions profile of u.s. natural gas. vietnam population density is 800 people per square mile. so this affects quite a few people. it is not feasible for them so they're asking for cleaner energy that works for them. wind does not work because offshore is closer to chinese waters.

yet the biden administration is refusing to permit this, refusing to allow this because our policy is to not help find -- find any kind of projects fossil fuel projects abroad. , of course this is just going to lead to higher emissions, much like many of these policies will end up next leading to higher emissions. it is worth noting that if all oecd countries right now stopped burning fossil fuels, stopped emitting any carbon dioxide whatsoever, all of them for the next hundred years, we would only reduce the temperature by 2100, by .8 degrees fahrenheit. it is a huge cost for almost no benefit whatsoever. i only point that out to get us back to some kind of rational thinking when it comes to a cost benefit analysis and how we might look for better solutions that reduce emissions, so i think we all have the same goal there but do so in a pragmatic , way. i yield back. rep. castor: i want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. your testimony comes at a vital

moment for americans and the human race, frankly. congress is poised to act on the historic build back better infrastructure and clean energy package. that is good news for american families because it will lower costs, provide cleaner air, good paying jobs across the economy. we know that americans are awake it like never before to the rising costs and impact of the climate crisis. just take a look at what we are shelling out for catastrophic weather events now that are escalating. we have got to get a handle on this. americans want action, and with american leadership will come global action that we need desperately and we have to act before because temperatures are continuing to rise and it is going to get worse unless we all act. we will march together to glascow and do everything we can

to help president biden achieve our goals, impress the rest of the world to do so as well. i would like to enter the record an october 2021 report called the state of climate. the executive summary of a report from the united nations environment program titled "the heat is on, a world of climate promises not yet delivered, which provides an overview of the difference between where greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to be in 2030 and where they should be to avert the worst impacts of climate change." three, a september 20 way one report from the organization for economic cooperation and development titled climate finance provided and mobilized by developed countries which examine the gap between adaptation financing that has been provided and what is needed. finally, a september 17, 2021

letter from the industrial energy consumers of america, because of course exporting oil and methane has repercussions for the u.s. economy. this letter to the department of energy secretary asked the dot -- d.o.b. to take action to prevent the methane crush that would harm consumers. the letter notes low storage levels are the result of year-over-year. without objection those will be entered into the record. thank you for attending our hearing and the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]