Reduce the co2 levels of the globe by 0. 2 by reading all coalfired generating power in the United States. The Administration Needs to remind people as you heard from the chairman in the opening remarks that man made problems represent 4 of all the emissions of the globe. Natural issues represent 96 . As a result of this administration by virtue of these stream of job killing regulations is putting our nation at risk on the idea of clinging to the notion that cutting 0. 2 will save the worlds environment. Let me remind you the rest of the world is not listening. The president s and nancy pelosi is not being followed. China, india, russia and europe are expanding their use of coal. The administration is embarking on a new Global Initiative exporting uncertainty. The president is not going to allow lower Interest Fund loans to be made to developing nations around world. Struggling nations come out of poverty will continue to suffer, lives will be lost, and the support of this policy, of the biggest moral responsibilities the United States should be to help imaginations must have access to energy for refrigeration. To give you an example in the subsaharan of africa, the total energy they can generate is a 60 watt light bulb per person for three hours a day. A 60 watt light bulb for three hours a day. Why should they be denied access to Affordable Energy to come out of poverty . Take this message to the president. This president must not prevent people around the globe from obtaining affordable, dependable energy. And threatening american jobs over 0. 2 of the co2 emissions is not an acceptable Energy Policy. Crushing americas economy to reduce co2 levels by 0. 2 is an abuse of his president ial authority. I am just curious, both of you, the issue is 400 parts per million. Can you tell me what level you want it to be . Is it what many people are promoting, 300 parts per million . You can respond but his time is expired. Lets respond, a lot of issues you raised. If i may focus down for the sake of response, first of all as i have said before on this committee the issues in terms of the risks of Climate Change our not just based upon models. It is Pretty Simple arithmetic. Number it 2 i dont believe anyone has ever said all Climate Change is manmade. The statement is the anthropogenic forcings from co2 are clearly of the scale that have long been expected to produce the kinds of changes the we are seeing and will see. Third, we should address there are many things but let me focus on the hiatus socalled in the increase of warming temperatures. Lets not forget this decade is the warmest decade in modern, in recorded history. It is not exactly like it has been cooling off. Secondly the issues of the cable scale changes in the rate increase our full expected. El nino, part of this, those models at that time did not include other issues such as deep water warming etc. I will give you another example, theres an article right now in nature where by looking at the observed surface water temperatures in the pacific, putting them in east central pacific, putting them in becomes completely with this hiatus and is only a hiatus, in the constant global warming. I believe we have to say this is the miss reading of the record. The statement stands that anthropogenic co2 emissions and other Greenhouse Gas emissions are underwriter at the level of multiple degrees centigrade in this century. We are up 0. 9 so far and that is consequential. I remind you we wouldnt be here if it werent for the greenhouse effect of water vapor which has provided 60 degrees fahrenheit of surface warming with just tuning that by a few degrees centigrade at great peril. With a gun 2 minute and 35 seconds over. Mr. Chairman i would like unanimous consent we put in the record a study by dr. Benjamin zander, atmospheric scientist at Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory where he says neither volcanoes nor the sun or internal variability in or any combination of those natural factors can plausibly explain the atmosphere temperature changes we have actually observe from space since 1979. Without objection and i would like to put in the record your photo of how ice has expanded by almost a million square miles in the last year in the arctic circle. Reserving the right to object i would like to be recognized on my reservation. Absolutely. I think this illustrates why we need a committee where we bring in the scientists. The statements the gentleman from West Virginia read was were incredibly inaccurate and contrary to Everything Else everybody in the Scientific Community has to say including mr. Moniz was an mit professor for 40 years, department of physics and Linear Accelerator center, undersecretary of the o e, ph. D. In theoretical physics from stanford university. We need scientists to come in here and talk about science. I you objecting to this . I want to make that point but i will not object i wont objective yours either. I would like to represent, recognize dr. Christensen from the Virgin Islands for five minutes. I am glad we are having this hearing. I support president obamas sensible plan to address Climate Change by reducing Carbon Pollution and helping communities prepare for the impact of Climate Change and in reading your testimony and hearing your testimony i applaud the open approach to setting the standards that have been engaging and will engage the stakeholders and their concern in the process. Despite this we hear a lot of criticism of the president s plan from our republican colleagues and like Ranking Member blacksman i ask what is their plan to give the president said he is willing to work with anyone who wants to propose an alternative and im Glad Congress wont act, he will. I am also glad that both of you included in your testimony that the economy also benefits from the prior responses to Climate Change. My district in the Virgin Islands and are already experiencing the impact of that change. In the Virgin Islands, we have endured a serious coral reef beach event that significantly impacted our fisheries and by extension our tourism products and economic stability. If we were to continue to do nothing we could expect increased notion acidification, Sea Level Rise which will impact our coastal infrastructure and more intense storms as much of the country is experiencing. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that Climate Change is real and we have to act and it is important also, we discussed with congressman matsui that will be on this vital issue. As we respond we have to make sure we transition to Clean Energy Sources in a way that is workable especially for the communities with the greatest economic challenges. In the Virgin Islands and other territories electricity is the highest in our country. We have strong incentive to scale of affordable, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency but it is going to take some time. Administrator mccarthy, you have entered my first question, you made it clear that the rule you proposed on friday will apply only to new power plants. That is correct. Next you start to work on a rule to reduce Carbon Pollution from existing power plants. It is going to be particularly important for my constituents that we find costeffective solutions that work for our specific circumstances and the same is true for all of the territories, the state of hawaii given the high prices we are already paying and the challenges related to being an island where were located. Also have read in your testimony that you plan to work with states and territories to ensure that you understand our specific circumstances as we do these things so under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, states and territories have the flexibility to achieve Carbon Pollution in ways that will work for them, do you anticipate that flexibility will be there . That is correct. Secretary moniz, as we look to the future of our Energy Supply system, do you see Promising Technology based solutions that will allow places like a Virgin Islands and the other territories to meet our electricity needs with clean as well as a portable power . What do you see as the most promising area . Yes i do and i also recognize islands often have the biggest challenge in that combination of risk and high energy prices, that is where first of all renewable, not being dependent on oil imports is very important and that is where renewables can be very important and also there is an advantage, at least one advantage in an island setting and that is transportation based upon electricity and or natural gas can be more attractive because the driving range issues are not as important. There is the real future for Green Islands and we will be delighted to work with you on that. Where are you with ocean conversion . It seems like that would be a good source. We continued to do research. That is a case where if we saw that curve we have shown earlier with cost propping and deployment we are in the early stage of that curve. Barista waste going cost reduction. The research is going on and there are private projects in various parts of the world. My time is up. The gentleladys time is expired. Recognize the gentleman from kansas for five minute. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Miss mccarty, a want to ask a couple questions of you. One of the objectives is identifying Greenhouse Gas regulations that already exist and those in future that have an impact on Climate Change so you would agree we want to make sure we have a successful Climate Policy as a result of those sets of rules and regulations you promulgate and is that a bass line statement . In the context of a larger International Effort yes. On your web site you have 26 indicators used for tracking Climate Change. They identify various impact of Climate Change so you would believe the purpose of these rules is to impactditors so you put a gag rule in place you get a good outcome26 indicators. I think the better way to think about it if i might is it is part of an overall strategy that is positioning the u. S. Leadership in an International Discussion because Climate Change requires a global effort. This is one piece and it is one step but it is a significant one. Would it be reasonable to think regulations you promulgate and link them to 26 indicators you have on your web site . It is unlikely any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those impacts. What i am suggesting is that Climate Change has to be a broad array of actions that the u. S. And other folks in the International Community take that makes significant effort towards reducing Greenhouse Gases and mitigating the impact these are your indicators. There indicators of Climate Change, not directly applicable to performance impacts of any one action. How about the cumulative fact . Certainly you are acting in a way that these that the indicators of Climate Change cant be the case that your testimony today is a cumulative impact of your current set of regulations and those you are proposing isnt going to have any impact at all on any of those indicators . The president was very clear. What we are attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate plan across the administration that position the u. S. For leadership on this issue and prompt leverage International Discussions and action. You are putting regulations in place for the purpose of leadership but not to impact the indicators that you, the epa said the indicators of Climate Change . Were working within the Authority Congress gave us to do what we can but all i am pointing out is much more needs to be done and it needs to be looked at in the larger context. In your Opening Statement you said we got bunch of Greenhouse Gases, six billion metric tons. How many for example one of your indicators is heat related deaths. How many heat related deaths have been eliminated as a result of the 2010 rules . You cant make those direct connections, congressman, neither can i. No connection to the activities you are undertaking. I did not say that. And make the connections. Tell me what i am misunderstanding. Can you draw connections between the rules you are providing, regulations your promulgating and your indicators . What you are asking is can epa in and of itself solve the problems of Climate Change, no we cannot. But the authority you gave us was to use the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution, Carbon Pollution is one of those regulated pollutants and we will move forward with what we can do that is reasonable and appropriate. Im not asking the question you you have the capacity to solve Greenhouse Gases. What i asked was if anything you are doing doing any good as measured by the indicators that you provided for is your testimony that you have no capacity to identify whether the actions epa has undertaken has any impact . This is about science, cause and effect. Is there any causal relationship between the regulations you promulgated and the 26 indicators of Climate Change you have on your web site . The indicators on the web site on broad global indicators. Impacts associated with Climate Change. They are not performance requirements for impact related to any particular the indicators are quantifiable. Heat related debt, change in ocean, Sea Level Rise, snow cover, those are great quantifiable, when youre telling me they indicate Public Health impact. You cant win your actions that epa to any benefits associated with those quantifiable indicators the epa itself has proposed as indicative of Climate Change. What we are able to do is to show and i hope we will show this in a package we put out for comment, what kind of reductions are going to be associated with our rules, what we believe they will have in terms of economic and Public Health benefit but it again is part of a very large strategy. The gentlemans time is expired. I recognize the gentlelady did you have a comment . Quick comment. The reason academic literature does associate extremely hot days with mortality, a will provide that paper. I will recognize the gentlelady from florida, ms. Castor for five minutes. Thank you for calling this hearing on the obama administrations Climate Action plan and administrator mccarthy, thanks for your leadership and willingness to assume the challenges as epa administrator. And secretary moniz, same goes for you. Thank you for being here. My republican colleaguess arguments today relating to Carbon Pollution and changing climate are reminiscent of their arguments and the arguments of special interests in the past when it comes to updating our standards relating to pollution and Health Standards and Clean Environment and they predict and they always do we will have a rise in unemployment, the Unemployment Rate is going to skyrocket, they predict the economy will go into a tailspin, if america tackles pollution and climate problems, it is an argument they raise every time america asks to set better standards for air, water, childrens health. All you have to do is think back to the 1970s, i am old enough to remember what mornings were like before the Clean Air Act and how smoggy it was a you would come out of your house and you could smell it and taste it and the country had the wherewithal to adopt the Clean Air Act and over decades our air has improved. Same can be said in the 1990s when it comes to acid rain, how america tackled the problem of chlorofluorocarbons that were depleting the ozone layer. The same can be said when it comes to cancer causing chemicals and plastic. Plastic industry did not collapse. Theres more plastic today than ever before. I would say to my republican colleagues, have confidence in americas ability to innovate in the