United States. Congress. House. Committee on Scien.

Road from Kyoto : hearing before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session (Volume pt. 2) online

. (page 7 of 137)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on ScienRoad from Kyoto : hearing before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session (Volume pt. 2) → online text (page 7 of 137)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

difficult to predict with any accuracy, the evolving understanding of the important



nonlinearities and feedback loops in the science of global systems will help guide climate
change strategies, and basic research breakthroughs, from materials science to bioscience,
should yield novel technologies for mitigating environmental consequences of energy

The basic science of the greenhouse effect is well established. Indeed, the 60 degree
Fahrenheit average warming produced by the "natural" greenhouse effect is essential to
life on earth. Further, even the temperature rise associated with increased CO2
concentration in the atmosphere was predicted quite well more than a century ago. In the
last years, more extensive data collection and the power of large scale simulation have
refined the predictions considerably and have yielded insights into the consequences of
global warming — from global consequences such as sea level rise to more regional
phenomena affecting the weather, agriculture and human health. Understanding the latter
quantitatively clearly requires more research. The potentially catastrophic consequences
in the next century of continued greenhouse gas emissions clearly should not be ignored
either in our research portfolio or in the policy signals sent by government.

The Department of Energy is the third largest contributor to the overall U.S. Global
Change Research Program. In support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
DOE'S Energy Research program includes research in climate modeling, atmospheric
chemistry and transport, atmospheric properties and processes affecting the Earth's
radiant energy balance, carbon sources and sinks, consequences of atmospheric and
climatic change for vegetation and ecosystems, critical data needs for global change
research and for early detection of climatic change, and funding for education and
training of scientists and researchers in these areas. The ongoing research to understand
the global carbon cycle is critical to selecting optimal strategies and technologies to arrest
climate change and to implementing and monitoring international climate change
agreements in the future.

Under the Administration's Climate Change Technology Initiative, the basic research
program will also address science for efficient technology and low-carbon energy supply,
in addition to the sequestration science that I referred to earlier. Some promising areas
with an energy impact include: biosciences, with the potential to grow fuel crops and
tailored industrial feedstocks; photoconversion technologies for the production of very
cheap electric power or fuels directly from sunlight; and understanding of the global
carbon cycle in order to select optimal strategies and technologies to arrest global

EHDE's proposed energy research program builds on ongoing, complementary research in
related fields. Some of the broad research tools under development by the Department,
for a variety of mission areas, will have a significant impact. For example, fundamental
materials science will be used to develop low-frictron, lightweight, and nano-scale
materials that improve energy efficiency; biomimetic (biological-mimicking) chemistry,



biochemistry, and molecular genetic sequencing of microbial organisms that produce
methane and hydrogen will promote low-and non-carbon emitting energy sources; and,
catalysis research will be used to advance energy efficient chemical processes. The
powerful Spallation Neutron Source proposed for construction in the FY 1999 budget
will greatly enhance American materials science capabilities. The new scale of
computational and simulation power under development for stockpile stewardshjp will
also permit much higher resolution studies of the global atmosphere-oceans-ecosystem
coupled system. These studies will be especially important for assessing local and
regional ecological impacts of increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.


Competitive markets are the cornerstone of successful energy policy. Government can
and should address the inherent limits of private markets to ensure that energy secunty,
environmental quality and energy research — those societal benefits most often
undervalued by the private sector — are adequately addressed.

A recent Business Week column on PNGV illustrated the government's role in R&D this
way: "Government financing of pre-competitive research was necessary because auto
makers, as rivals looking to near-term results, simply could not commit enough funds for
a sufficiently long time horizon." The column went on to describe the result of this
collaboration: ". . . at the mid-point of the 10 year effort, the alhance is paying real
dividends. The progress, Detroit recently claimed, would not have occurred without a
government policy commitment to clean air. Washington deftly used the CAFE
standards as a stick and the PNGV as a carrot."

While the need for investment is clear, the current funding profile for both public and
private investment in energy R&D is cause for concern. The PCAST report states that the
DOE R&D budgets have decUned five fold in real terms between 1978 and 1997. Trends
in private sector R&D investment mirror this decline in public sector investment.
PCAST also found that "... industry's spending for R&D fell 40 percent in real terms
between 1985 and 1994 ... the R&D spending of the 1 12 largest U.S. operating electric
utilities fell 38 percent between 1993 and 1996 alone and the R&D for the four U.S. oil
firms with the largest research efforts approximately halved between 1990 and 1996."

DOE is cognizant that our dollars must be spent carefully. Our overall technology
strategy involves extensive work with private sector partners to assure that our programs
are relevant, the govenunent rote is appropriate, and that a payoff is in sight. By focusing
our investments in areas where private resources are lacking, such as our computational
and simulation tools, and where there is a potential to realize substantial public benefits,
we can better ensure that we are targeting our efforts appropriately and leveraging
resources to the extent possible. In testimony delivered before Congress earlier this year,



Lewis Edelheit, Senior Vice-President for Corporate R&D at General Electric,
underscored the value of a targeted government role in energy R&D, noting that
"Industrial R&D tends to operate within a fairly narrow risk/reward window.
Goverrunent programs can expand that opening." He also illustrated what he termed the
"galvanizing effect" that the Federal government has on energy R&D, citing DOE's
collaboration with industry on the Advanced Turbine System program as an example of
"... helping industry make advances that would have been much slower in coming, or
may not have happened at all, without this government-industry collaboration."

The Federal role logically diminishes as technologies approach commercial viability. For
example, DOE played a major role in the 1970's and 1980's in developing atmospheric
fluidized bed combustion, one of the most significant advances in clean coal burning
technology. As technical issues were resolved and the technology gained market
acceptance, DOE's role ended. The federal role should also change when our private
sector partners signal that programs are not woricing or that we should re-focus. For
example, in our "Industries of the Future" program, we are concluding efforts with the
petroleum refining industry due to lack of progress in developing a technology roadmap
to guide future work. Finally, it is the nature of R&D that some seemingly good ideas
never achieve their original promise. When this occurs, we must be willing to shift
resources, as we did when our research on gas turbines failed to progress sufficiently
toward meeting design goals.

The numerous R&D successes, along with the key role energy plays in the economy,
environment and national security, prompted the PCAST in its recent report to
recommend significant increases in public fimding of energy research and development in
energy efficiency and renewables, as well as fission, fiision, carbon sequestration and fuel
cells. Our FY 1999 budget request is broadly consistent with the PCAST
recommendations, both in overall resources and R&D priorities.


We must carry out our responsibilities with sound strategic management of a broad
portfolio of energy investments. We are now advancing our strategic management of
R&D by:

• Increasing the profile, expanding the responsibilities and improving the

accountability of the DOE R&D Council. The Coimcil, which 1 now chair, has a
new charter, to more fiiUy integrate and manage the Department's R&D both
within and across program areas. The Energy Resources working group of the
R&D Council simultaneously serves as a working group of the Energy Resources
Board; this will provide a way to fiilly integrate energy R&D into the
development of overall energy policy.



• Accelerating contract reform and increasing competition. The Department
recently competed the Brookhaven National Laboratory contract for the first time
in fifty years and are in the process of competing the M&O contract for the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. We must increase
competition where appropriate and, at the same time, make certain we provide our
laboratories with the levels of stability and management certainty needed to foster
creativity and progress.

• Updating the way we select R&D performers. We will be intensifying our
evaluation of how we award grants and contracts, including technology transfer
and partnership agreements, to ensure they are made on the basis of sound
scientific review and economic judgment. We need to constantly evaluate the
appropnateness of these agreements on a case-by-case basis and make policy and
process adjustments when necessary.

Science and Technology "Roadmaps"

Science and technology "roadmaps" address specific problems and needs by defining
goals, engaging in a consensus building process with stakeholders, and developing R&D
plans most likely to achieve success. R&D road maps have been successfiilly employed
by the private sector — the semiconductor industry roadmap is a good example - and we
are currently seeking to expand use of this discipline in the Department of Energy.
Technology roadmaps will define oiu- travel along the technology pathways described

Technology road maps will serve as a primary tool with which to "strategically manage"
the cross-cutting R&D needs and capabilities of the Department Let me give you some
examples. By partnering with the DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies in a road
mapping exercise, the aluminum industry has taken significant steps in plaiming for its
technology needs for the next twenty years. Over the next year, the development of a
more detailed aliuninum industry research agenda will help to realign, if necessary,
research to be conducted by companies, universities and the national laboratories. The
aluminum industry is now working to make certain it understands the needs of its end use
customers. It is anticipated that this roadmap will be periodically revised and updated to
reflect changing markets and technical issues and to ensure that research priorities
continue to reflect customer needs.

More broadly, industry, partnering with DOE, has developed long-term visions for six
energy intensive U.S. industries — steel, aluminum, chemicals, pulp and paper, glass and
meul casting - of energy efficient, low-polluting, highly competitive "Industries of the
Future," as well as technology roadmaps to identify an R&D and deployment pathway to
achieve this vision. A prototype Clean Power roadmap is also being jointly developed
by our Offices of Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.



The R&D Council has directed that each DOE business Hne developed present for review
roadmaps in key areas. We recognize that "one size will not fit all." But by encouraging
the development of roadmaps that connect program objectives with a "bottom-up"
scientific and technical definition of problems, we can better define, review, improve and
adapt plans to accomplish our often highly complex missions. The process is moving
forward with full cooperation fi-om the national laboratory directors.


Mr. Chairman, DOE's FY 1999 budget will put us on an energy R&D track that will
address our shared goals of economic, national, environmental and energy security. It
also represents a prudent response to the challenge of global warming that will result
from a worldwide "business as usual" approach to energy production and use.

The climate change issue clearly demands the attention of government — not in spite of
remaining uncertainty with regard to regional ecological and human health impacts, but
because of it. A strengthened energy science and technology program, together with
synergistic tax incentives for accelerated technology introduction, is an important first
step with multiple benefits for America. A recent Washington Post editorial on the
Administration's FY 1999 budget proposal put it this way:

". . . this [global wanning] proposal would make sense whether Kyoto ever comes
into force or not. Most of the initiatives would spur industry toward pollution-
reducing measures that will benefit the country and make industry more
competitive in the long run. Indeed, those who oppose binding commitments,
trading permits, increased fuel taxes and more regulation should, more than
anyone else, embrace measures that might produce progress without coercion."

In a similar vein, the PCAST panel unanimously advocated a substantial and sustained
increase in the energy R&D portfolio despite a lack of consensus on the consequences of
global warming.. A central reason that PCAST noted in this respect is that:

". . . many of the eiicrgy-technology improvements that would be attractive for
[greenhouse gas reduction] also could contribute importantly to addressing some
of the other energy-related challenges that lie ahead, including reducing
dependence on imported oil; diversifying the U.S. domestic fuel and electricity
supply systems; expanding U.S. exports of energy-supply and energy-end-use
technologies and know-how; reducing air and water pollution from fossil fuel
technologies; reducing the cost and safety and security risks of nuclear energy
systems around the world; fostering sustainable and stabilizing economic
development; and strengthening U.S. leadership in science and technology."



The Department of Energy's missions are linked by the common thread of science. Our
public investment in energy research and development is a key catalyst for insights and
advances on many fronts - increasing our energy security, private sector innovation, and
expanding markets. In addition, these same resources contribute to expanding our future
options by reducing environmenUl impacts of energy use - locally, regionally, and

This Administration and the Department of Energy, with the support of the Congress, can
provide a large measure of the scientific and technological leadership our nation needs to
maintain its preeminence in the global marketplace and our commitments to a cleaner,
safer world.

I look forward to working with the Committee to advance our nation's key energy R&D
programs. Thank you for your attention and I would be pleased to address any questions.



U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Public Affairs
Wasfiington, D.C. 20585



Dr. Ernest J. Moniz was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Department of
Energy's new Under Secretary on October 28, 1997. As the Under Secretary, Dr. Moniz advises
the Secretary regarding science and technology research and development, including energy
efficiency, environmental technologies, national security, and fundamental research. Dr. Moniz's
research and development expertise serves the Department well in its vital missions of stockpile
stewardship, environmental preservation, energy security and scientific innovation.

Dr. Moniz is committed to excellence in science education and comes from an academic
background himself. Most recently, he was a Professor of Physics and Head of the Department
of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was responsible for the
research and educational programs of the department. 'Prior to that, he served as the Associate
Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the Executive Office of
the President. He was nominated to this position by President Clinton in June 1995 and was
responsible for overseeing matters relating to science education and university-government
partnerships. In addition. Dr. Moniz advised the President regarding physical, life, social and
behavioral sciences. Dr. Moniz also consulted on the Clinton Administration's 1994 science
policy statement. Science in the National Interest.

Dr. Moniz's principal research interests are in theoretical nuclear physics. He joined the MIT
faculty in 1973 and served as the Director of the Bates Linear Accelerator Center from 1983 to
1991 . The Center is a nuclear physics research facility operated by MIT for the Department of
Energy. Dr. Moniz is widely recognized for his work in describing the interaction of pions with

Dr. Moniz has served numerous universities, national laboratories, professional societies, and
government agencies in advisory roles. For example, he served on the American Physical
Society Study Panel for Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management. He has provided scientific
program advice for several particle accelerator laboratories in both the United States and Europe
and served as Chairman of the Director's External Review Committee for the Los Alamos
National Laboratory Physics Division. From 1992 to 1995, Dr. Moniz served the Department of
Energy and the National Science Foundation as the Chairman of the Nuclear Science Advisory
Committee, leading long-range planning for American nuclear physics.



Printed wilh soy tnk <xi recycled paper

57-716 99 - 3


Dr. Moniz received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from Boston College in 1966 and a
doctorate in theoretical physics from Stanford University in 1971. With a postdoctoral
fellowship from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Moniz performed research at the Centre
d'Etudes Nucleaires de Saclay in Gif-sur-Yvette, France and at the University of Pennsylvania
during 1971 to 1973.

Dr. Moniz is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
Humboldt Foundation, and the American Physical Society.

November 1997


Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much. The next wit-
ness is the Honorable David M. Gardiner, Assistant Administrator
for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation of the EPA. Mr. Gardiner, I
would appreciate it if you could confine your remarks to 5 minutes
so that we will have time for questions by members of the Com-


Mr. Gardiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the op-
portunity to be here this morning.

I think you have heard already from Dr. Gibbons about the com-
pelling view that we have of the science on this issue and the po-
tential impacts of climate change. And because those effects are po-
tentially so serious and so costly to us and to others around the
world, and to help the country meet the challenge of global warm-
ing, the President, as you all know, proposed in October that we
launch an initiative to invest in research and development. And,
specifically in the budget, he has now proposed a Climate Change
Technology Initiative that will invest $6.3 billion in R&D and tar-
geted tax cuts over the next 5 years and lead to multiple environ-
mental and economic benefits. The Administration's — I would also
note that the Administration's — current climate change program is
already reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the President's ini-
tiative will do even more.

I wanted to make two fairly straightforward points this morning,
the first of which is that the investments proposed by the President
will bring economic benefits beyond those associated with the con-
trol of global warming. They will provide incentives for American
businesses and communities to cut greenhouse gases now, in ways
that make economic sense now. They will speed the adoption of to-
day's cost-effective, energy-efficient, low-carbon technologies
throughout the economy and hasten the development of even more
advanced technologies in the future. Using energy more efficiently
in our businesses, homes, and vehicles will save money and make
our overall economy far more productive, while at the same time
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

We've already seen how effective these kinds of incentives can be.
Under our current climate change programs, the Administration
has negotiated voluntary partnerships — and I would emphasize vol-
untary partnerships — with thousands of U.S. businesses and others
that will cut greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time
slashing annual U.S. energy costs. Dozens of companies like Gen-
eral Motors, IBM, Motorola, and Lockhead Martin are cutting en-
ergy use, saving money, and reducing their emissions of green-
house gases.

Just to pick one example, the Dupont Company alone has taken
steps to cut energy use that has saved the company $31 million in
1995 alone while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 18
million tons by the Year 2000.

These voluntary programs will be continued and expanded under
the President's proposed climate change initiative. And at the Envi-


ronmental Protection Agency, we'll have a particular focus on the'
building sector, the industrial sector, transportation, and a number
of cross-cutting issues.

All of these investments will help enhance the productivity of the
American economy. All of these investments will help American
businesses compete more effectively in the global economy. All of
these investments will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and
move us closer to the goals of reducing the threat of global warm-

And while as good as that sounds, it's not as good as it gets. And
this is the second point I wanted to make, and that is that every
dollar we invest to improve energy efficiency and to reduce the
emissions that cause greenhouse gases — or the greenhouse prob-
lem — will control other pollutants beyond greenhouse gases.

The combustion of fossil fuels is also a major source of conven-
tional air pollutants like particulates, nitrogen oxides, volatile or-
ganic compounds, and carbon monoxide. These pollutants, as you
know, have been linked conclusively to heightened risks of mor-
tality, chronic bronchitis, congestive heart fgdlure, heart disease,
and other serious illnesses. Children and the elderly are most vul-
nerable to these pollution-related illnesses. Thus, many of the ac-
tions that we take to combat climate change in the short term and
in the long term will bring immediate public health benefits in the
form of cleaner air and cleaner water. One peer-reviewed study es-
timates that in the Year 2010, greenhouse gas controls could save
20,000 lives in the United States, and more than 200,000 lives
worldwide, because of related reductions in particulate emissions
alone. Controls on greenhouse gases could lead to improved viabil-
ity, more and better recreational opportunity, and reduced nitrogen
deposition in vulnerable water bodies like the Chesapeake Bay.

In 1999, alone, EPA's global warming programs are expected to
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90,000 tons per year, thus im-
proving both air and water quality. And we would expect under the
Climate Change Technology Initiative even greater emission reduc-
tions in the future.

So what we're talking about here is a cost-effective, common-
sense approach to a serious problem. The tax credits and other pro-
grams in the President's proposed Global Warming Initiative will
reduce the health and ecological problems caused by the green-

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on ScienRoad from Kyoto : hearing before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session (Volume pt. 2) → online text (page 7 of 137)