| October 28, 2009 |  |
Leading Scientist to Tell Senate Panel: Urgent Action Needed, Adaptation Funding Essential
Science Group Supports Senate Energy and Climate Bill, Urges 2020 Target to Stay Strong
(WASHINGTON) October 28, 2009 – Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today that the Senate climate and energy bill must include funding to help the United States and developing countries adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.
"I'm pleased to see the bill would provide funding to help us adapt to the unavoidable impacts of global warming," said Frumhoff. "For example, we will need to strengthen or relocate levies, sea walls and bridges along our coasts to contend with rising sea levels. We'll need to ensure that our public health systems are prepared to cope with more frequent and severe summer heat waves. And several Western states will have to figure out ways to cope with water shortages due to shrinking snow packs. Unless we dramatically cut emissions, climate change impacts will exceed our capacity to adapt."
The Senate bill includes more funding than the House-passed version to help developing countries adapt. Frumhoff said substantial funding for international adaptation is essential.
"We live in an interdependent world," said Frumhoff. "U.S. funding to help developing countries cope with impacts—impacts that are largely a result of our emissions—will promote both national and international stability."
Adaptation funding is a key part of the package the United States must offer when representatives from more than 190 countries meet to negotiate a climate treaty in Copenhagen in December, Frumhoff said. In addition, the United States must provide funding to help developing countries adopt clean technology and preserve tropical forests.
UCS SUPPORTS OVERALL BILL
Frumhoff will tell the committee that UCS supports the legislation, primarily because it calls for reducing emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050.
"These pollution reduction targets must not be weakened as the bill moves forward," said Liz Perera, a UCS climate policy analyst.
The Senate bill would provide more funding for renewable energy projects than the House version, but it still would not be enough, said Marchant Wentworth, a UCS energy policy analyst.
"A strong reduction target for carbon emissions would help move the nation toward clean energy, but direct funding for renewables is critical to accelerate that transformation," said Wentworth. "Not only would direct funding reduce global warming emissions, study after study has concluded that turning on renewables would create jobs and cut the cost of a climate bill."
Unlike the House measure, the Senate bill would retain the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to require emission reductions from the oldest and dirtiest power plants. The legislation requires new plants to meet performance standards that limit carbon. But since that requirement does not extend to existing plants, they could continue to operate without reducing their emissions. Therefore it is paramount that the EPA is able to require reductions under existing Clean Air Act authority, according UCS.
Finally, the bill was crafted to buffer any potential increases in energy prices.
"The EPA's economic analysis confirms that this bill would have a minor impact on household energy costs," said Perera. "As we saw with the House bill, we can address climate change without hurting our economy."
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
