We take you to capitol hill for a House Oversight hearing on the Economic Impact of Climate Change under way. There are several reasons the on as a consequence it undermines the american people. Let me list. One, in 2018, the Trump Administration instituted a smaller social cost of carbon of 1 to 7 compared to 50. Its based on two faulty assumptions. First, it uses inappropriately high discount rates that are not supported by economic theory or Financial Markets. Second, it fails to account for damages that occur outside the United States. This failure discourages other countries who in total produce about 90 of total co2 emissions from undertaking emissions cuts that would benefit u. S. Citizens. The United States special role in global democracy can produce demonstrable benefits for u. S. Citizens, and we are failing here. The absence of meaningful progress at the recent madrid climate talks is evidence of what happens when we retreat. Number two, the social cost of carbon is no longer based on the frontier of scientific and economic understanding, as node by a 2017 report issued by the National Academy of sciences. As a salute to fill this hole, i started and coleading the Climate Impact lab which is implementing the Natural Community of sciences recommendations to update the social cost of carbon. A primary Climate Impact lab finding is it changes in mortality rates due to temperature changes alone will lead to a social cost of about 24 per metric ton of co2. Let me put that in context. That 24, mortality partial so much cost of carbon we compute is ten times larger than what the obama number had as the mortality cost. In fact, its almost half of the entire mortality, obama estimate. And it is 3 to 20 times larger than the Trump Administrations entire social cost of carbon. Number three, while estimating climate damages is subject to uncertainty associated with climate models and econo might have metrics, this uncertainty strengthens the case for reducing emissions. Economics and casual observation reveal people show a propensity toward risk aversion. My fellow witnesses entire industry of insurance depends on the idea that people dislike risk. And in fact, theyre willing to pay a premium to avoid uncertain outcomes. For this reason, the u. S. Governments estimates the social cost of carbon under all the administrations which failed to account for this subversion is likely too low. So what to do given the scale of the climate challenge and the urgent need for resources to address other pressing social societal challenges, its critical that policy delivers the cheapest reductions in co2 emissions both today and in the future. The surest way to achieve inexpensive reductions today is to price co2 emissions with a carbon tax or by implementing a capandtrade program. If set at the right level, for example pegged to social cost of carbon, these pricing approaches solve the main problem which is that people and firms currently dont take account of the damages they caused by engaging in activities that release co2. This approachs great appeal is it unleashes Market Forces to uncover the least expensive way to reduce emissions by incentivizing cheap Emissions Reductions, families and businesses can reduce emissions and have money for other priorities. In contrast, current fell and state policy is a hodgepodge that targets emissions in different sectors, in different ways, with different degrees of intensity. A recent paper by some colleagues at yale and harvard concluded the range of costs of u. S. Co2 mitigation policies is extremely wide, from less than 10 per ton to over 1,000 per ton. And most of these costs are most of these Emissions Reductions are relatively expensive in that they vastly exceed the u. S. Governments 2017 social cost of carbon. The point is were getting unnecessarily small reductions in co2 given the amount of money were spending. In contrast, pricing carbon would prioritize activities with the highest bang for the buck. Let me finish quickly. Turning to future reductions, the private sector on its own will not invest enough in research, development, and demonstration to uncover new approaches to reducing co2 because many of the returns to those investments would flow to their competitors. The fact that private firms lack incentives to engage in energy, rd d is a market failure, and the government can address this by providing subsidies or Funding Research directly. In conclusion, the United States needs to balance the costs to the economy of mitigating Climate Changes today with the climate damages that are coming. Carbon pricing that is pegged or formed social cost of carbon using the best Available Evidence along with robust rd d funding will deliver the inexpensive reductions in co2 emissions that are necessary today and in the future. Thank you. Thank you, dr. Greenstone. Mayor benjamin, you are recognize fsays for five minute of comments. Mr. Chairman, thank you and ranking comer and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. Obviously we have condolences on the loss of our chairman, representative cummings. His son of South Carolina with South Carolina roots. We all miss him a great deal. My name is steve benjamin. I have the pleasure of serving for the last ten years as mayor of columbia, South Carolina. A thriving and diverse city in the center of our great state. In addition to serving as our state government, we also host nearly 50,000 students attending the university of South Carolina, columbia college, and Allen University and benedict college. Also the proud home to ft. Jackson, the armys largest training senior which trains approximately 45,000 soldiers per year. Climate change is perhaps the biggest challenge we face. And im pleased that the subcommittee is holding this hearing on the economic effects of Climate Change. Im especially pleased that the subcommittee wants to hear about its impact on local government budgets and local economies. Mayors in cities throughout the country are grappling with the impacts the Climate Change. Local governments are also leading the efforts to mitigate those impacts and make our communities more resilient. Hardening and modernizing infrastructure. However, we cant tackle this alone. We need a strong federal partner. Its, therefore, our hope that this will be the first step in the a Robust National Climate Action program that recognizes the efforts of mayors in cities that were taken to address the existential challenge. In columbia, we unfortunately witnessed firsthand how Climate Change is impacting cities and impacting infrastructure. Over three days in october, 2015, the remnants of Hurricane Joaquin stalled over central South Carolina, inundating the carolinas with nearly 11 trillion gallons of lane, 30 inches of rain in our great city. The impact was dire, taking the lives of 19 precious south carolinians. The storm nearly wiped out our Columbia Canal that serves as the main Drinking Water treatment plant. Ruptured dozens of water and sewer mains, closed over 100 streets, the fire station, our primary Fire Training facility. Bridged multiple breached multiple dams and breached homes and businesses. Since then weve had several other major rain events. Though joaquin was a 500year event. Heavy rain events are becoming the new normal. In the aftermath of joaquin it became clear that recovery, resilience, and mitigation against future storms would be costly and require local detail local knowledge conditions on the ground and city infrastructure. Not only increased rainfall and more intense storms more frequent, but of course the New York Times report in 2018 showed that in 1969 columbia would experience about 46 days per year of above 90 degrees fahrenheit. By the time that that was the year i was born. By the time i turn 80, we expect that to more than double. We see similar trends in lake else nor and not far from your home and certainly not far from member comers hometown of tompkinsville, doubling always of the numbered days above 90 degrees. The excessive heat, of course, has adverse impacts on everyone. But certainly the elderly, manual laborers, the impacts on food production, diminishesed air quality. Last year through june of this year, i had the honor of resting my fellow mayors throughout the country as president of the United States conference of mayor, a Nonpartisan Organization of mayors of cities of 30,000 or more. Also served as chairman of Municipal Bonds for america, a coalition dedicated to preserving the Tax Exemption of Municipal Bonds. As cochair of the mayors for 100 clean energy and past president of the africanamerican mayors association, ive been fortunate to do the at a time in which mayors are taking renewed prominence on the public stage and be the forefront of public innovation. Our 2015 floods were a call to action for columbia. My rain testimony outlines those in detail. Theyve been submitted for the record. But weve used Energy Efficiency and conservation block grant to help save our citizens millions of dollars while updating our infrastructure. One of my first initiatives when i took office was to upgrade the regional transportation system. We are moving forward significant leap. Two years ago we took the is next step of setting a target of powering our community with 100 Clean Renewable Energy by 2035. In addition to our Climate Change prevention efforts, weve also been actively addressing mitigation. Last year we made history by ensuring issuing the firstever green bonds to improve the storm water system. The first traunch in the 95 billion plan over the next years to address the flooding and storm water drainage issues. Local governments only collect about 15 of our nations tax revenue. With that 15 , were expected to deliver a significant array of core Governmental Services that we all understand make up the heart of a Civilized Society of the western world. We know we cannot tackle that task of slowing Climate Change on our own. We need a strong federal local partnership. The conference of mayors has issued a mayors call for classmate action. Ive included as an attachment to my written testimony, so i wont go into it in detail. But it lays out a significant number of proposals that we believe could be implemented and produce quick results underscoring the existential threat that Climate Change is Climate Change means to the world, and certainly the Economic Impact it has on our cities. We appreciate the opportunity to testify and thank you for your work on this major generational challenge. Thank you, mayor. And thanks to all of you for participating today in this briefing. Let me emphasize part of the reason youre here is that the subcommittee on the environment for oversight committee, were very focused on the impact of Climate Change. In fact, this is the numberone issue that we are trying to tackle this year and next year in the 116th congress. In that process, we are looking at three phases of hearings. Each phase having multiple hearings and briefings. That is past, present, and future. As simple as that. Past, what did we know and when did we know it about Climate Change . We have already had hearings where testimony and evidence was provided showing that shell and exxon knew in the lay 70s and early 80s about the impact of extensive burning the fossil fuels would have and co2 emissions and the impact on the environment, as well as Climate Change in more Severe Weather events. Present, in the present phase of these hearings and briefings which we are in right now, our goal is to help the public, as well as lawmakers understand both the economic and the human impact of Climate Change. Unfortunately, mayor benjamin, as you pointed out, its often quite easy to figure out the human impact of Climate Change. It is literally counting the number of people who have died by that, from that event. Weve also had testimony from others, though, in talking about the human impact from a health care cost. And that certainly is more difficult to ascertain. But also quite important that we get to that information. The other aspect is the Economic Impact of Climate Change. And thats what were really here today to help the public better understand, that Climate Change, more Severe Weather events, causes much greater damage and greater Economic Impact than we would experience without having Climate Change at our doorstep. And then we will move into the third phase of hearings, and that will be on the future. Quite literally we will paint two different pictures. One nirvana and one apocalyptic knowing that if we do nothing, what type of world we will be leaving for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations. On the other hand, if we do take action now, how we can dramatically impact what our world will look like for future generations. Knowing also that even if we take dramatic action now, theres going to be impact from Climate Change that we cant stop immediately, that we are going to experience negative consequences for our past inaction. So you being here today is extremely helpful in allowing us to help educate the public and educate lawmakers, especially those on capitol hill, because its certainly clear that the states and the mayors around our country have a better understanding of the impact of Climate Change and ways to address it. So lets dig into a few questions. And im going to bounce around here a little bit. And when we talk about the Economic Impact, dr. Greenstone, let me start with you. You were talking a little bit about the social cost of carbon. And id like to try and pin you down a little bit because i think from your from your comments that theres a wide range of estimates as to what the social impact is from carbon. And im curious, do you have a hard number as to in currents dollars as to what the cost per ton should be . So i think the best estimate that we have currently is the one from the left over from the Obama Administration which is about 51 per ton. So in plain english as best i can for this, what that means is every time we emit a ton of co2 in the atmosphere, were giving the world as an unfortunate gift about 51 worth of damages. Its true that theres a some variability around that number. But whats important to remember is that when things are uncertain, what people want to do is actually buy insurance against that. And so that would actually tend to increase how much we would want to spend to protect ourselves. In the 51 just to be clear here, some of the things that would go into the calculation of that 51 per ton is shortened life spans and Health Care Costs due to air pollution as an example. Is that correct . Yeah. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Theres several kind of bigticket categories. Human health is at the top of the list. And this new research that i was talking about which i think will eventually cause us to want to revise social cost of carbon says that weve been underestimating that. But yes, there will be large increases in mortality rates. People will have shorter and sicker lives as a consequence of change of climate. There will be wide parts of the United States, wide parts of the United States that are going to be subject to flooding and to storm surge where i think well have to have populations basically move. It will involve very complicated and thorny political decisions about which parts of the United States were going to protect and which ones we arent. And it will show up in crop yields. Right. Yeah. And if i recall my bill number iss house bill 763 on the carbon tax which im a cosponsor of, which im sure youre familiar with that proposed legislation of tax and dividend. And in your mind from an economic standpoint, does that fee if implemented needs to be brought in progressively, or do we go straight to somewhere around a 50 fee . I think theres the best estimate we have is 50. So i think theres a good case for starting around there. I think the most important thing is getting it above zero, which it is right now. So fighting about the exact number is, i think, not critical. But one would want to end the number thats close to social cost of carbon. My projection is that as we learn more, the 50 is going to look a little small, and we might want to have some room for allowing the increase to reflect that. In the sense here is that the true cost of burns fossil fuels is under priced by at least 50 and the social impact cost that occurs from it, therefore those who create and burn and use fossil fuels should pay the appropriate Price Associated therewith which would also suggest a faster move by those same operators and manufacturers and companies that develop and implement this, that they would move faster toward green, Clean Industries and fuels, correct . Mr. Chairman, theres very little innovation in response to no market. Right. So until theres a price signal, i think its just, were just hoping for the best, that in terms of innovation. Once theres a clear price signal, the American Economy and american innovators are responding to it, and i have little doubt there with innew ideas that flow in and give us much less expensive reductions. Basically this is how capitalism is supposed to work, good. You mention cap and trade. Just want to be clear here, youre not suggesting that theyre mutually exclusive, that they could work in tandem, correct . You could. I think probably the best case would be to choose one and go down that path. Okay. And i think a lot of that probably depends on what one wants to do with the revenues. And i think it can often be easier to to direct the revenues in particular directions for the carbon tax. Mr. Jones, with your many years as insurance commissioner for the state of california, lets take a few minutes and just talk about the Economic Impact on average citizens and homeowners as we experience again more Severe Weather events, and the underlying insurance for homes. Whether its floods insurance, property insurance, so on. Would you speak as to what we can anticipate if we do not provide a greater check to Climate Change for homeowners across america. Certainly. And i think it varies geographically as mr. Gomez pointed out. But theres no question that the price of Home Insurance in certain geographies for certain risks is going to go up. To the extent that those risks are driven by Climate Change. You see this most acutely in california where as recently as 2017 the most recent period for which we have data, there was a 50 on average difference in the price of Home Insurance, the highrisk fire areas versus those outside. That average masks, though, in some cases homes paying 200, 300, 350 more if theyre facing a high fire risk. The department of insurance has about 100 rate filings this year, seeking increases in rates. In all likelihood, those will be approved because of the justification the insurers, visavis their extraordinary losses in 2018 and 2017. Were also seeing an available problem, as well. At some point, and this applies broad three all insurance. If the risk is so extreme, there isnt a price that the insurer can accept in order to cover that risk. And weve seen that historically with Flood Insurance in this country where some 50 years ago or so home insurers decided that Flood Insurance, flood risk was too high. They stopped writing flood risk. So standard home policies dont have that. And youre seeing that now in california with regard to Home Insurance and wildfire risk. Were seeing a significant uptick in nonrenewals, were not writing new Home Insurance. Anecdotally were hearing that thats beginning to have an effect in Real Estate Markets. Theres an implication there. As the price goes up, it becomes increasingly difficult for those on fixed incomes and those on lower incomes to afford insurance. That has consequences for their ability to have insurance. That means that they may go without insurance. So if a catastrophic event occurs, they have nothing to fall back on in order to help recover. So all of those are consequences of climatedriven risk that play out through the insurance sector. Along those lines, mr. Gomez, i was not long ago in miami and saw firsthand in a neighborhood i was in where ground did the wat groundwater was coming up and causing flooding on an average sunny day. The implications from Flood Insurance, from title insurance, from the market ability of these properties, you start to get a very good sense of what could occur in many municipal areas around the country. Can you speak a little bit to what the Economic Impact would be if we see a deterioration of the Real Estate Market and homeownership markets in many parts of our country. At least from the studies weve looked at, there are some regions of the country, as you noted, the coastal regions are going to have high Economic Impacts. Primarily due to flooding, sea level rise, so we are we are seeing that from the studies that are telling us that. And really, i think as mayor benjamin noted, its really the cities, the local folks seeing the impacts because thats where its taking place. From the federal perspective, you know, its up to us to figure out how we can assist that. How we can provide assistance, whether its through information, helping them interpret and translate the information that they can use to make better decisions, right, whether its to build a sea wall higher, improve the building codes and standards. So theres many opportunities where the federal government and weve recommended many things that the federal government can do to help state and locals. Lets take this a step further. What happens if due to some of these events, much like weve seen in california with these wildfires where you have apocalyptic events, and many people lose their homes weve seen insurance carriers go out of business because of their inability to pay the claims. Often the federal government acts as a backstop for those situations. Is there a concern that we may come to a day where there are so many cataclysmic events that the federal government wont be in a position or unwilling to be in a position to backstop those situations . I mean, thats a good question. And again, gao has many areas that we place on the highrisk list. Those are areas where we want to bring attention. One of the areas as weve been talking about is the national Flood Insurance program. Its been has its own highrisk designation and is essentially because that program and the Crop Insurance program were never really designed to generate enough revenues to pay for the expenses. As i noted, the national Flood Insurance program owes the treasury 21 billion currently. I believe that Congress Actually wrote off a similar amount recently. So yes, these are growing federal fiscal exposures that the federal government faces. And theyre unsustainable. Mayor benjamin, want to circle back to a couple comments from your narrative. One was, you know, you talked about how you prepare for and plan for greater Climate Changerelated events. Help me understand that. What is what do you and your city council assuming its a city council, how do you budget and plan to address future Climate Changerelated events for your city . Sure. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With increased focus on resiliency and mitigation, we obviously, we run a tight ship fiscally. We have finished the last seven of the last nine years with a balanced budget. We have clean books. Weve recognized that a smart investment in infrastructure, in the infrastructure that now becomes more expensive because we have to also invest in resiliency and mitigation. And obviously thinking about the longterm cost of defeeing that debt. No one pays cash even in this wonderful Interest Rate environment. All those costs have to be borne by common taxpayers and ratepayers. We decided as my Council Voted unanimously. We dont vote unanimously on a lot of things on this nearly 100 Million Investment in addressing the top 20 flooding areas in our city. The investment over the last six years, about 750 million in water and sewer and storm water infrastructure, protecting the environment, protecting our three rivers. But its gotten that much more expensive as we built in the costs of resiliency and mitigation. We have had the opportunity because of previous decisions made by the federal government to to mitigate some of those costs. I mentioned the Energy Conservation block grant. We think that thats obviously a significant opportunity, that we should be renewed, we believe strongly in the cdpg program and focus on target investments and climateresilient infrastructure as a smart move. Certainly one of the major challenges we face, i mentioned the role that the taxes on Municipal Bonds allows us to make investments in infrastructure, particularly water, sewer, storm water. Most of that investment, nearly i think almost 98 of it, is borne by local governments, not the state or federal government. We local in the tax cut and jobs act the ability to advance refund our taxes debt. Getting that back someday is also the case. Now every single decision we made post 2015 certainly includes an additional cost. An additional cost that eventually will have to be borrowed and defeesed over a period of time, already affecting cashstrapped local governments. I will say that are also driving the American Economic experiment. 92 of americans gdp is creating in cities and metropolitan economies. So it would be wonderful if we could find creative ways, all of them laid out in our statement in the plan from the countries of mayors, to repatriate dollars back home to make Smart Investments in american infrastructure. So suffice it to say it would be helpful to have leadership from washington, d. C. , recognizing not just the impact and seriousness of Climate Change, but also working to pass infrastructure bills that can help local municipalities and states better address these issues . Absolutely. The question was asked earlier since 2005, the federal government spent 430 billion in Disaster Relief funding. If we had that type of investment on the front end, it would be amazing what we could do to mitigate some of the damages to our homes and businesses and our families. Dr. Greenstone, any others can weigh on this, as well. If youve got information my understanding is that wall street is looking more and more at pricing in the impact of Climate Change into the pricing of bonds. And im curious if you have come across that type of information, as well. Because ultimately as mayor benjamin talked a minute ago about the green bonds that has city has issued, if theres additional 25 bases points that have to be priced into bonds at the municipal level or whatever the price he might dictate based on the geographical location, thats a cost thats ultimately passed on to the citizens of those areas. So dr. Greenstone, if you want to weigh in on that. Mr. Gomez, i wouldnt be surprised if you might have an opinion or two on that, as well. Sure. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying Climate Change is here. Were not debating whether or not we should have Climate Change anymore. We now have it. And the impacts of unmitigated Climate Change are beginning to show up. The mayor was talking about the ways it impacts the function of the city, and you pointed to how its starting to show up in Financial Markets. I think importantly its showing up in insurance rates which mr. Jones highlighted. And thats causing people to make different decisions. And now there has been a growing recognition on wall street, and its beginning to show up in bond prices and will show up in a variety of other asset classes, as well. But what i just want to theres a big difference between the impact showing up versus policy that sends a clear signal which would also affect markets. And that would affect markets in different ways. It would reduce the emissions that are occurring, whereas the prices that youre pointing to are all more sending signals for how people should adapt to clank and just treating it as if it cant be changed. But sending a price signal to cap and trade or carbon tax would also affect Financial Markets and would be very, very powerful at reducing the amount of Climate Change we have. Mr. Gomez . Sure. So i would agree with that. We are seeing that in the insurance sector, for example, lots of activity in that area. One of the things that i wanted to mention is a few years ago our comptroller general convened a forum of primarily private Sector Companies to come to gao and talk about more on the adaptation side. But what were they doing to deal with the impacts of Climate Change . Because its real. This was the variety of private Sector Companies. We had oil and gas companies, we had food and beverage, we had Insurance Companies. All talking about the kind of things that they were doing because they were already seeing the impacts, whether it was oil and Gas Infrastructure along the coast, whether it was Beverages Companies figuring out where they were sourcing their materials from, and it was getting hotter so they werent able to harvest some of the ingredients. So it was really to show how the private sector has been reacting to these impacts. And so thats what we showed in that report. Mr. Jones . The g20 Financial Stability board in roughly 2016 concluded that Climate Change poses a Systemic Risk to the Global Financial system. It created the task force on climaterelated financial disclosures, the tcfd, led by the private sector which issued a report in 2017 that set forth a series of recommendations with regard to what the real economy and the Financial Sector ought to do. Principally among those is disclosure. Both real economy firms as well as the Financial Sector firms ought to be disclosing risks. Thats not happening sufficiently. Second, the tcfd recommended that Financial Sector undertake stress testing and analysis of its portfolios to test the robustness against physical and transition risks associated with Climate Change. That is not happening with sufficient uptake. Another challenge we have in the United States is that although a number of other International Financial regulators including central Bank Regulators like the bank of england and others are taking up these recommendations, the u. S. Financial regulators are lagging behind. Blackrock issued a report in march or april this year. They undertook to look at three sectors, muni bonds, utilities, and commercial mortgagebacked securities. They drilled down to the asset level. They were able to ascertain the differences in physical risks of the assets underlying the securities in each of those sectors, and there were some wide vietnam war yants, utility down the coast versus inland. Utility down the coast is facing risk of flooding. Utility inhandle, not so much. And yet the physical risk that those underlying physical assets faced were not borne out in any discernible price differentiation in each of those three sectors securities. So thats a big problem. Certainly, the Nature Conservancy supports a carbon price, a carbon tax, cap and trade is a mechanism to adopt that. But sadly, Climate Change is already baked into our system given the degree of Greenhouse Gas emissions that have already accrued. Physical impacts are already occurring. And those impacts, the physical risks of those impacts are not being borne out in price distinctions and Financial Markets, and that has to do with a lack of disclosure, a lack of uptake of analysis by the Financial Sector. The rating agencies to their credit are beginning to take on capacity to look at these physical impacts. But they have yet to mainstream their esg ratings into Core Financial ratings. Currently the sec has cast a large cloud of doubt over whether mainstream Financial Filings should include reflection of these risks. I think thats a huge mistake. And then theres another set of risks that we havent had a chance to talk about yet which are transition risks which are the risks associated with markets, technologies, and governments moving away there a fossil fuelbased economy to one that is not, which is where we need to go dramatically. But that poses risks for assets in those sectors of the economy that are largely Greenhouse Gas emitting. That poses risks for investors that are investing in those sectors. That is another kind of risk that invest need to be looking at, and the Insurance Companies are principal investors in this regard, but bank lending into the sectors need to be looking at. So we need to be doing a lot more with regard to these Financial System risks than were currently doing in this country. Thats a big area of exposure, as well. And while you have the microphone, allow me to ask you this question, as well. Theres been a few ongoing battles between the Trump Administration and the state of california. One of those has been over cafe standards, the tailpipe emissions where california has had the ability to provide, demand Higher Standards from auto manufacturers which 13 other states and the country of canada follow, as well. And the administration is trying to overturn californias right as well as those other states and canada, certainly can make their own decision. But has looked to california for its leadership in this area. What is the impact for for not just the people of those states but literally across the country and the world with the increased pollution that we would be looking at if that is enacted . So, i think the impacts are negative, and theyre multiple. You know, one impact is just more emissions generally occurring with the related health effects. But a sizable portion of what californias trying to accomplish through those standards is a significant reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions in the transport sector, one of the largest emitters. So undercutting californias ability to administer a separate standard will have significant negative consequences on the battle against Greenhouse Gas emissions. Its worth noting for for the public, 40 of the imports in the United States that come in by ship come in through los angeles and long beach ports. 25 of our exports go out. So california certainly would like to continue to be able to monitor and set appropriate levels for emissions in our states since those goods reach all 435 districts of the United States. Dr. Greenstone, you wanted to add a comment, as well . Ee. Its only partially related, and i apologize if its too far afield. I think cafe is actually a terrific example of what i think of as kind of the hodgepodge approach to regulating co2. The textbook solution to this which your bill reflects would be to have an economywide price on carbon. And instead, we have these kind of sectorbysector things that dont directly target carbon. They direct fuel efficiency, not the same thing as carbon. And in the case of cafe, were getting reductions of co2 probably at the cost of 100 to 200 per ton. If instead we were able to rely on clear price signals, i think theres reductions of co2 that are available for lets call it 10 or 15 a ton. Until effectively were paying through things like cafe about ten times what we would be able to pay for using a more direct mechanism. Votes are about to be called. I will take this opportunity to ask all four of you, is there anything else you would like to add . Often in these hearings and briefings, you hear somebody else Say Something or a question gets asked that you were not able to respond to, and this is this is your chance to jump in and fill in any holes that you might have seen. Thank you for your leadership. We look forward to continuing this conversation and helping push it along, mr. Chairman. I would just add one thing. Im very well aware, ive been pushing Carbon Pricing which your bill does, the politics of that are complicated. And one key hiccup in that is an important concern about distributional issues and what will happen to lowincome and middleclass families. And i just want to highlight which i know you know very well from the nature of your bill, that the carbon tax creates revenue that can be directly refunded to consumers and can actually improve the standing of low income and middleclass families, and so i think that while often brought up is not a true impediment. Thats the dividend portion of that legislation. Thank you. Mr. Jones . Wed like to thank you for your leadership, mr. Chairman. And thank the committee for holding this important series of hearings. We would urge you as you have historically to consider natural climate solutions, as well as naturebased solutions to mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis. Id urge you to consider delving into the potential risk to the Financial System, that we had a chance to talk about earlier. There is one bright spot amongst u. S. Financial regulators, and that is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with the leadership of mr. Ross benham has established a subcommittee on climate risk thats going to be making a recommendation with regard to all u. S. Financial regulators as to what steps they should be taking to try to address this risk. I think this would be a very interesting subject for your committee to take up. And finally, with regard to insurance, insurance is a very important mechanism to help manage risk and to help communities and families, individuals, businesses recover from catastrophic events. But if we dont dramatically and quickly reduce the underlying driver of that risk, insurance is not going to solve this problem. Insurance is going to be increasingly unavailable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gomez . Yes, mr. Chairman. So gaos always happy to assist congress in its oversight responsibilities. And i want to thank you for bringing attention to our work and our reports. Thank you. Thank you. And again, while we were not able to have an official hearing, i cant thank you each. You enough for attending this briefing and providing your comments. At the end of this process, the additional hearings we will be having addressing Climate Change and laying out as i mentioned earlier one of two roads that we are faced with, our hope is to provide concrete recommendations as to how we can achieve a road that reduces the impact of Climate Change. What are the tools in the toolbox that we can pull out and effective make a difference . Recognizing that there is no single tool thats going to be the panacea for addressing this issue but is going to take multiple tools to be able to accomplish the outcomes we desire. So your comments here today will be a part of that final report that we take forward. In addition, dont be surprised if we may call on you again to attend another hearing down the road. And wed certainly hope that you would consider participating and doing so. Finally along those lines, as well, as we continue to understand the true economic and human impact of Climate Change, we also need to further understand what are those tools, what are the emerging technologies that can help us in our quest. And if you are aware of emerging technologies or economic tools, incentives that should be considered under the tax code in an effort to move us in the right direction, move our country in the right direction, please bring that to our committees attention. With that, i again appreciate all of you taking the time to come to washington, d. C. , to provide us with your knowledge in this important briefing. And with that, this briefing is adjourned. Thank you. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern, American History tv on cspan3 looks back at the Senate Impeachment trial of president bill clinton which took place over five weeks in january and february of 1999. Were here today because the president suffered a terrible, moral lapse. Of marital infidelity. Not a breach of the public tr t trust, not a crime against society. Two things hamilton talked about in federalist paper number 65. I recommend it to you before you vote. But it was a breach of his marriage vows. It was a breach of his family trust. It is a sex scandal. Explore our nations past. Watch the clinton impeachment trial sunday night at 8 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan3. This sunday, booktv features three new nonfiction books. At 2 00 p. M. Eastern, Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz offers his thoughts on how Sexual Misconduct amizations should be handled. In his book, guilt by accusation. I dont want it to go away. I want to disprove is categorically. I wrote the book and have all the documents in the back, the fbi interviews, i have the anywheretive s narrative she wrote. I have the emails she tried to suppre suppress. I have the tape recordings of her lawyers. Theres nobody reading this book to come away with any doubt whatsoever that this woman made up this story completely out of whole cloth, that i never met her. Out of her own mouth, i never met her. Then a the 7 15 p. M. Eastern in her latest book the truth will set you free but first it will piss you off, gloria steinham. I think its helpful to see, you know, what came before because now the me too movement, thanks to all of this and thanks to technology and the web, is now all over the world. But its process and now its a majority consciousness. And at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on afterwards university of maryland Baltimore County president freeman rabowski on his book the empowered university. Hes interviewed by robinhood ceowes moore. Were looking at ways to help students to learn to ask the hard questions to read critically but to appreciate the value of evidence in a society that is bombarding us with information and different points of view with things being confused about what is truth and what is not. Educated people should have the skills to ask the questions that will lead to the evidence that will, therefore, determine what is truth. Watch booktv this weekend and every weekend on cspan2. Washington post columnist David Ignatius hosted a conversation with two experts on iran. They discussed irans political future and impact on the greater middle east. This is an hour and a half. Ladies and gentlemen, while my fellow panelists are getting wired up, let me begin our discussion of iran upheaval and repression. Im David Ignatius. Im a columnist for the washington post. Have visited iran several times as a journalist and
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.