tv Hearing on Climate Change the Economy CSPAN December 27, 2019 10:03am-11:03am EST
into a computer program and more into an algorithm. >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards," and author -- an author -- experience was more socially and economically-diverse and i had ever known. i decided to read all of these other writers seriously. friendsto wonder why my and i had such a narrow perception of this really rich cultural tradition and why i thought my father was outside of this cultural tradition, when in many ways, he was exemplifying it. >> watch book tv this week and every week and on c-span two. up, the house oversight committee hearing on climate change and the economy.
health secretary ben carson joining the conversation at the white house's mental health summit. iftrying to figure out everyone is together. let me double check. we are going to get started. the subcommittee hearing will come to order, without objection, the chair has authorized the committee sometime. this briefing extension of several herrings we have had, discussing climate change. we are focusing on the economic impacts of global warming. i will defer the opening statement to myself. when we spoke earlier in the
holding area, i mentioned the fact that we would be trying to do a hearing. this is a briefing. we do have time for your opening statements. what i would like to do is afford each of you the opportunity to do so. let me introduce the four of you and then we will move to you, mr. gomez. , governmented gomez accountability office. dave jones, senior director for environmental risk. dr. michael green zone, distinguished professor of economics at the university of chicago, and the honorable stephen benjamin mayor, the city of columbia, south carolina. with that, director gomez, you are now recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony for five minutes. mr. gomez: thank you, mr.
chairman. i am pleased to be here to discuss our work to limit physical exposure -- exposure limiting climate change risk. sinceas been on our list february 2013. statement today discusses potential economic effects of climate change in the u.s., several areas with the federal government faces exposure from climate change risk and the extent to which the federal government has invested in resilience. the potential economic effects of climate change could see and distributed across regions of the u.s.. for example, the southeast, midwest, and great plains regions will like experience greater combined economic effects largely because coastal property damage in the southeast
and changes in the other two regions. -- changes in crop yields in the other two regions. this can help decision-makers better manage climate risk. early this year, we reported the federal government faces physical exposure from climate change risks in several areas. including disaster, federal insurance programs, federal property land. the rising number of natural disasters and related federal assistance are a key source of federal fiscal exposure. funding forfederal disaster assistance is at least 450 billion dollars. according to the u.s. global change resource program, disaster costs are projected to increase as certain extreme weather it become intense due to climate change. nationalon, the
insurance program and the federal crop insurance program are sources of federal fiscal toosure, doom -- do in part crops in climate change. totaled3 to 2017, costs $53 billion. as of april of this year, the national flood interest program was $21 billion in debt to the treasury. with regard to federal property, the government owns and operates hundreds of thousands of facilities, such as defense installations and manages millions of acres of land that could be affected by climate change. for example, in september 2010, hurricane florence damaged a marine corps facility in north carolina. resulting in a preliminary repair estimate of $3.6 billion. one month later, hurricane michael devastated and air force base in florida, resulting in a
repair estimate of $3 billion. one way to reduce federal fiscal exposure is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards, for example, in september of 2018, we reported the elevating homes and strengthen building codes preventing greater damages in texas hand florida -- and florida during the 2017 hurricane season. congress also passed a reform act that enabled additional improvements at the state and local level. with regards to resilience, the federal government has made limited investments, however, it does not have a strategic approach for investing in climate resilience projects. no one is in charge when it comes to identifying and prioritizing climate resilience projects across the federal government. no federal entities are looking holistically at how to strategically prioritize projects to ensure they address
the nation's most significant climate risks. in summary, the federal government could reduce its fiscal his photo climate change by focusing and coordinating federal efforts. we made a total of 62 recommendations and as a december of last year, 25 of these recommendations remain open. some of these identify key governmentwide efforts needed to help plan for and manage climate risk and direct federal effort to a common goal, such as improving resilience him and this completes my opening statement. much -- thank. >> i'm dave jones and i served as the senior director for conservancy. i had the privilege of serving california's insurance commissioner. scientist concluded global temperature rises contributing to catastrophic weather events, sea level rise, hurricanes,
coastal river flooding, wildfires are made more severe and more frequent but global temperature rise. these events are resulting in loss-of-life and destruction. these events produce economic and insurance losses. these losses arising over time. from 19 -- damages associating with extreme weather events causing $1 billion or more in damages across u.s. economy. in 2017, global economic losses from catastrophes were $33 billion. insured losses were $138 billion. the highest in history. in the u.s., insurance companies responding by raising prices and excluding or the mandating coverage, when the risk of losses to high-priced let insurance provides an example of how insurance companies may respond. decades ago, home insurance
have excluded coverage for flood risk. today, i would like to focus my testimony on extreme wildfires. the fourth national climate assessment stretches fires are increasing in intensity and frequency. by midcentury, the western u.s. will have six times more wildfires. california2018, suffered the most destructive wildfires in history where 158 homes -- lives were lost, homes were destroyed, and assure suffered in thousands of dollars of losses to be -- in millions of dollars of losses. responded to have the losses by raising prices for insurance and declining to renew their policies, or declining new
policies. california is marching steadily toward an uninsurable future regarding coverage for homes at risk for wildfire. what can we do? -- efficiencies need to be reduced dramatically. one important and overlooked away of doing so is natural climate solutions, which can provide 37% carbon reduction to meet the goals of the paris agreement. we need more investment in these approaches to meet the targets. and to further reduce audit fires, we need to address this in an integrated fashion. innovation and funding are the means to resilient landscaping communities. fuel treatments have proven to be a safe and cost-effective way , and removing overgrown brush and trees. funding for these and other programs to reduce wildfire risk
is a challenge. the 2018 fire fixed help to stabilize the budgets, however, that effort must be coupled with the reinvestment and restoration risk reduction programs. insurers can play an important ine by offering products their pricing and underwriting and offer products and areas of risk of wildfires, which take into account this reduction benefits. home insurance pricing and availability in the face of increasing wildfire risk is an example of how insurers can respond to risks associate with climate change. hurricane risk, coastal and flood risk, droughts, all of these are examples of climate-driven risk that have consequences for insurance. this sector can play a role to manage these risks more fundamentally. it is the underlying drivers of these risks then need to be addressed. climateg using natural
solutions and using nature-based solutions to build resilience. otherwise, we will find ourselves in an increasingly uninsurable world. >> thank you. i am of oppressor of economics -- i am a professor of economics. the sec iscarbon for the cost of society approved to seeing ceeo to the atmosphere. it enables regulators to account for potential benefits to lower .arbon emissions let me give you some history. in 2009 while working in the obama administration, i can a group to determine a government social cost of carbon. as of 2016, government assessed
the cost of carbon. since its inception, they have been using the foundational tool setting regulations to cover areas such as energy efficiency and fuel energy. ridden total more than $1 trillion, however, there are several reasons the current administration's cost of carbon is too low, and as a consequence, undermines a lobi and the american people. 2018, the trump administration instituted a smaller social cost of carbon based on faulty assumptions. it uses high discount rates that are not supported by economic. or financial markets. second, it fails to account for damages that occur outside of the u.s.
this failure discourages other 90% ofes, who produce co2 emissions, by undercutting that would take away -- the absence of meaningful progress of the madrid talks as evidence of what happens when we retreat. number two, the social cost of carbon is not based on the frontier of scientific and economic understanding as noted by the 2017 report. to fill this hole, i am co-leading a impact lab -- an impact lab to update the social cost of carbon. it primary finding is that change the mortality rate due to temperature changes along will lead to a social cost of $24 for
metric ton -- per metric ton private $24 for the social cost of carbon is 10 times larger than what the obama number had as a mortality cost. it is almost half of the entire mortality estimate. timesthree times to 20 larger than the cost of carbon. number three, while estimating tomate damages is subject uncertainty with climate models and estimation, this uncertainty strengthens the case for reducing emissions. economics and casual observation revealed that people show a propensity for risk aversion. my fellow witnesses entire industry and insurance depends on the idea that people dislike risk. they are willing to pay prima to avoid uncertain outcomes. for this reason, the u.s. governments cost of carbon
failed to account for this risk aversion is like too low. what to do? given the scale of the climate challenge is the urgent need for resources to address other pressing societal challenges. it is critical that policy delivers the cheapest reductions in co2 emissions today and in the future. thisurest way to achieve is to price admissions with a carbon tax or implement a program. it's set at the right level, -- it's set at the right level, the prize approaches solve the main problem, which is people and firms don't take account of the damages they caused by engaging in active these that really co2. unleashes market forces to uncover the least expensive way to reduce emissions by incentive since witches to cheap cost to admissions. in contrast, current, federal
and state policy is a hotspot that targets emissions in different sectors in different ways with different degrees of intensity. a recent paper by colleagues at el and harbor concluded the range of cost of co2 mitigation policies is extremely wide, from less than $10 per ton to over $1000 per ton and most of these costs, most of these emission reductions are extensive in the sense exceed the u.s. government's 2017 social cost of carbon, so we are getting small reduction in co2 given the amount of money we're spending. in contrast, pricing carbon would prioritize activities with the highest bank for the buck. reductions,uture the private sector on its own will not invest enough in resource development and demonstration to uncover new approaches to reducing co2 because many of the returns of those investments would flow to their competitors.
the fact that private firms lack incentives to engage in energy are indeed is a market failure and a government can address this by providing subsidies or funding research direct. in conclusion, the united states needs to balance the cost of mitigating climate change today with the climate damages coming. deliver the inexpensive reductions in co2 emissions necessary today and in the future. thank you. >> mayor benjamin, you are recognized for five minutes of comments. >> chairman, i want to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. obviously, you have our condolences for the loss of congress member cummings. pleasure of serving
for the last 10 years as mayor of columbia, south carolina. in addition to serving in government, we also host only 50,000 students attending the university of south carolina -columbia. climate change is perhaps the biggest challenge we face and i am pleased that the committee is hosting this committee -- is hosting this hearing. mayors are grappling with the impacts of climate change and local governments want to mitigate that to make communities more resilient. we cannot tackle this alone. we need a strong federal partner. i hope this'll be the first step in developing a robust program
that bolsters the efforts of mayors in cities that will address this existential challenge. in columbia, we witnessed firsthand how climate change is already impacting infrastructure. over three days in october of 2015, the remnants of hurricane joaquin stalled over central south carolina, inundating the area with 30 inches of rain in our great city. the impact took the lives of 19 precious south carolina ends in the storm really wiped out our canal which services are main water treatment plant. in --ed over 100 streets it closed over 100 streets and damage 400 homes and six businesses. other major rain events.
it would not only increase rainfall and more storms, but a columbia 2018 shows will expend 60 days per year of above 90 degrees fahrenheit. that isime i turn 80, expected to double. we have seen those trends not far from your home and from thompkins will, the doubling of the number of days above 90 degrees. this excessive heat has adverse impacts on everyone, but certainly the elderly, manual laborers ending impacts on food and air quality. represented my colleagues, serving as a
chairman for coalition dedicated to preserving of municipal bonds. i have been fortunate to do this takingme when mayors are renewed prominence on the national stage to report public policy and innovation. our floods were called action. my written testimony outlined those in detail and have been submitted for the record. to help savegrants our citizens millions of dollars by a dating our infrastructure. my first initiatives when i took office was to upgrade our transportation system. we are moving significantly. we have moved to the next step of setting a target of powering our community with 100% clean renewable energy by 2035 in addition to our efforts, we have been addressing mitigation.
byt year, we made history issuing green bonds and stormwater system. it will address our city's flooding and storm water drainage issues. local governments collect about 15% of our nation's tax revenue. with that 15%, we will levy core governmental services we all understand makeup the heart of the civilized society of the western world. we cannot tackle that task of slowing climate change on our own. we need a strong federal low partnership. there is a mayors call for climate action i have included an attachment, so i won't go into detail. but it lays out a significant number of proposals that we believe could be implemented and produced quickly, underscoring the existential threat that 's economicnge
impact. we appreciate the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, mayor. thank you to all of you for participating in this briefing. when we emphasize, apart of the reason you are here is the subcommittee on the environment for oversight committee, we are very focused on the impact of climate change. in fact, this is the number one issue we are trying to tackle this year and next year and the 116th congress. in that process, we are looking ,t three phases of hearings each phase having multiple hearings and briefings. that is past, present, and future. past, what did we know when we do we know about climate change? we have had hearings were testimony and evidence was provided, showing that shell and
exxon new in the late 1970's and early 1980's about the impact of extensive burning of fossil fuels would have in co2 emissions any impact on the environment, as well as climate change in more severe weather events. present, the present phase of these hearings and briefings, which we are in right now. publicl is to help the as well because lawmakers andrstand both the economic the human impact of climate change. asortunately, mayor benjamin you pointed out, it is often quite easy to figure out the human impact of climate change. it is literally counting the number of people who have died from that event. we have also had testimony from others in talking about the human impact from a health care cost. and that is certainly more alsocult to ascertain, but
quite important that we get to that information. the other aspect of the economic impact of climate change. and that is what we are 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 the hearing, and that will be on the future and quite early, we will paint two different pictures. one, nirvana and one apocalyptic, knowing if we do nothing, what type of world we would be leaving to our children and future generations. if we do take action now, on the other hand, how we can dramatically impact what our world look like for future generations, knowing also that even if we take dramatic action
now, there is going to be impacts from climate change that we cannot 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 educate the public and educate lawmakers, especially those on capitol hill, because it is clear that the state and the mayors around our country have a better understanding of the impact of climate change and ways to address it. let's dig into a few questions. i am going to bounce around a little bit. when we talk about economic greenspan, you were talking earlier about the social cost of carbon and i would like to try and pin you down a little bit because from your comments,
there is a wide range of estimates as to what the social impact is from carbon. i am curious, do you have a hard number as what the cause. per time should be? $51 per ton. in plain english, what that means is every time he met a ton of co2 in the atmosphere, we are giving the world the unfortunate gift of $51 for the damages. it is true that there is a variability around that number, but what is important to remember, people want to buy insurance against that. that would increase how much we would want to spend to protect ourselves. >> the $51, just to be clear here, some other things that
were going to the calculation of is to shortenon lifespans in health care costs due to air pollution as an example. is that correct? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are several big-ticket categories. human health is at the top of the list. and this new research i was talking about, which will prompt us to -- there will be large increases in mortality rates. there will be wide parts of the united states that are going to be subject to flooding. surge, where we will have to populations move and will involve very thorny situations and what parts of the u.s. we will protect in which ones we will not.
recall my bill number correctly, it is 173 on the carbon tax, which i am a cosponsor. in your mind from an economic standpoint, does that fee, if implemented, need to be brought in progressively, or do we go straight to somewhere around a $50 fee? greenstone: the best estimate we have is $50. the most important thing is getting it above zero, which it is right now. finding the exact number is not my objection is as we learn more, the $50 will look a little small and we might want to have room for allowing it to
increase to reflect that. >> the senses that the true cost of burning fossil fuels is $50,priced by at least therefore those who create and burn and use fossil fuels should pay the appropriate price associated there with, which also suggests a faster move by those same operators and manufacturers, and companies and develop and implement this, if they would move faster towards green clean industries and fuel, correct. dr. greenstone: there is very little innovation in response to that market. until there is a price signal, i think we're just hoping for the best in terms of innovation. once there is a clear pricing, there will be new ideas that
start flowing in. >> this is how capitalism is supposed to work? dr. greenstone: yes. >> you are not suggesting that it could work in tandem, correct? dr. greenstone: it could. the best case would be to choose one and go down that path. >> ok. dr. greenstone: i think a lot of that probably depends on what one wants to do with the revenues, and it can often be to direct the revenues. many. jones, with your years with the state of california, let's take a few minutes and talk about the average impact on citizens and homeowners as we experience more severe weather events and the underlying
insurance for homes, whether it is flood insurance, property insurance and so on. can you speak a little bit to what we can anticipate if we do not provide a greater check to climate change for homeowners across america? mr. jones: certainly. geographically, mr. gomez pointed out, there was no question that the price of home insurance in certain geographies, for certain risks, will go up. like he said, those risks are driven by climate change. you see that in california, as weasley is 2017. as 2017.ently homes -- some homes are paying more for insurance.
the department of insurance as they have had 100 rate filings this year. those will be approved in all likelihood because of the justification due to extraordinary losses in 2017. we are seeing an availability problem as well. at some point, this applies broadly to all insurance. the risk is so extreme that there isn't a price that the insurer can't accept in order to cover that risk, and we have seen that with let insurance in this country were 50 years ago or so, home insurance -- home insurers started -- home insurers stopped writing for those risks. we're seeing a significant uptick in renewals. we are hearing that is beginning to have an impact in real estate markets in those areas. we don't have data on that yet,
but the implication is there. as the price goes up, it becomes difficult for those on fixed incomes and some lower incomes to afford insurance. that has consequences for their ability to have insurance. that means they may go without insurance, so if a catastrophic event occurs, they have nothing to fall back on to help recover. consequences of climate-driven risk that play out through the insurance sector. gomez,g those lines, mr. not long ago, i was in miami and saw a neighborhood that was in the groundwater was coming up and causing flooding on an average sunny day. from floodtions insurance, from the marketability of these properties, you start to get a occurense of what could 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 in many parts of our country? mr. jones: from the study we looked at, there are some regions of the country like the coastal regions, they will have high economic impacts, primarily due to flooding and sea level rise. we're seeing that from the study . and really, i think as mere benjamin noted, it is the local folks that are seeing the impacts because that is what is taking place. from the federal perspective, it is up to us to figure out how we can assist that and provide assistance, whether it is through information, helping them interpret and translate the information that they can use to make better decisions, whether it is to build a sea wall higher, or building codes and
standards. there are many opportunities for the federal government and we recommended many of the federal government can do to help state and locals. rep. rouda: let's take this step further. what happens if due to some of seen events, like we have in california with the wildfires where you have an apocalyptic event and many people lose their homes. often the federal government asked as a backstop for those situations. is there a concern we may come to a day where there's so many cataclysmic events that the federal government won't be in a position, or unwilling to be in a position to backstop those situations? mr. jones: that is a good question. again, there are many areas we place on the high risk list, areas we want to bring attention, and one of the areas that we have been talking about is the national flood insurance program. it has its own high risk
designation because that program and the crop insurance program were not designed to generate enough revenues to pay for the expenses. i noted the national flood insurance program. they owe the treasury one $1 billion already. congress wrote off a recent amount -- wrote off an amount recently. are exposures the federal government faces and they are unsustainable. rep. rouda: mayor benjamin, i want to circle back to a couple of comments from your narrative. prepare about how you climate for change-related events. help me understand that. what do you and your city budget andw do you plan to address future climate
change-related events in your city? mayor benjamin: sure. thank you, mr. chairman. with increased focus on resiliency and mitigation, we run a tight ship fiscally. we finished the last nine years with a balanced budget. we have clean books. we recognize that a smart investment in infrastructure, that now becomes more expensive because we also have to invest in resiliency and mitigation, and thinking long-term, the cost of seizing that debt. costs have to be borne by our, taxpayers and rate payers. votedided and we unanimously. addressing the top flooding areas in our city, but the constant investment over the
last six years, we have invested $750 million in water and sewer in protecting our three rivers, but it is, not much more expensive as we build in the cost of resiliency and mitigation. we have had the opportunity because of previous decisions made by the federal government to mitigate some of those costs. i mentioned a grant. it is a significant opportunity. we believe strongly in the program and target investments in climate infrastructure, being a smart move. certainly, one of the major challenges we face is the role that municipal bonds allow us to make investment in infrastructure in water, sewer, storm water. is bornehat investment by local governments. not by the federal government.
ability of getting them back. every single decision we make since 2015, certainly includes an additional cost that will have to be borrowed and seized over up. over time, affecting local governments. economicriving the experiment. wonderful to find creative ways and laid out in our statement. we would like to repatriate some of those dollars back home to make smart investments. be helpful it would to have leadership from washington, d.c. recognizing, not just the impact and
seriousness of climate change, but working to pass infrastructure bills that can help local municipalities and states better address these issues? mayor benjamin: absolutely. since 2005, the federal government spent $35 million in relief funding. if we had that investment on the front end, it would be amazing we could do to mitigate damages. rep. rouda: dr. greenstone, and others can weigh on this -- weigh in on this as well, my understanding is wall street is looking more and more at pricing in the impact of climate change, and to -- and the pricing of bonds. comeurious if you have across a type of information as well because ultimately, as mere benjamin talked a minute about the green bonds that his city has issue, if there is
additional 25 basis points that have to be priced into bonds at the municipal level, the pricing might dictate based on the geographical location, that is a the that is passed onto citizens of those areas, so dr. greenspan, would you like to wait in on that, and mr. gomez, as well? dr. greenstone: thank you, mr. chairman. climate change is here. we are not debating whether or not we should have climate change anymore. we now have it. and the impacts on mitigated climate change are beginning to show up. the mayor was talking about the ways it impacts a functional city and you pointed out how it showing up in financial markets. rateswing up in insurance , as mr. jones highlighted, and that is causing people to make different decisions, and now, there has been a growing recognition of wall street, and
it is showing up in bond prices and will show up in other asset classes as well. differencebig between the impact showing up versus policy sending a clear signal, which would also affect markets. that would affect markets in different ways. it would reduce the admissions that are occurring, whereas the prices you are pointing to are all more sending signals for how people should adapt to climate change and treat it as if it cannot be changed, but sending a price signal through a farm tax would also affect financial markets, and will be very, very powerful at reducing the amounts of climate change we have. rep. rouda: mr. gomez? mr. gomez: i would agree with that. in the insurance sector, for example, we're seeing lots of activity in that area. one thing i wanted to mention is years ago, our comptroller general convened a forum of
private-sector companies to talk about the adaptation side, what were they doing to do with the impacts of climate change because it is real. this is a variety of private-sector companies. we had oil and gas, food and beverage, insurance companies, all talking about the kinds of things they were doing because they were already seeing the impacts, whether it was while in glass -- whether it was oil and beverageood and figuring out where the materials were coming from. it was really to show how the private sector has been reacting to these impacts. so, that is what we showed in that report. rep. rouda: mr. jones? boardnes: the stability in 2016 concluded that climate change poses a risk to the global/financial system between
exposures, ledof by a board in 2017 said with doard to what they should , thatt comes to exposure is not happening sufficiently. that themmended financial sector undertakes stress testing and analysis of its portfolios to test the robustness of physical transition risks associated with climate change. that has -- that is not happening with sufficient updates. another challenge we have in the united states, although a number international financial regulators, including central bank regulators like the bank of england and others, or taking of these recommendations, these
regulators are lagging behind. blackrock issued a report in march or april of this year, they undertook to look at the -- they undertook to look at three regulators and were able to ascertain the differences in physical risks of the assets underlying in each of those sectors and there was wide variance. the utility on the coasts is facing extreme risks of flooding, inland, not so much, but get, the fiscal risk -- but yet, the fiscal risks were not borne out in any discernible price differentiation in each of those three sectors. that is a big problem. certainly, the nature conservancy supports a carbon price, a carbon tax, mechanism to adopt that, but climate change is already baked into our
system. physical impacts are already occurring. impactse risks of those are not being born out with financial markets and that has to do with the lack of disclosure, a lack of analysis. the rating agencies are beginning to take on capacity to look at these fiscal impacts, but they failed to mainstream their ratings into core, financial ratings. fcc cast a large whether thebt over filing should include these risks, and that is a huge mistake. there is another set of risks we have not talked about yet, what are transition risks, which are associated with markets, technologies, and governments moving away from a fossil fuel-based economy. asset ins a risk for the economy that are largely
greenhouse gas-emitting. that is another kind of risk than investors need to be looking at an insurance companies or principal investment verse -- or principal investors in this regard. we need to do a lot more with regard to the financial risks. this is a big area of exposure. rep. rouda: while you have the microphone, allow me to ask you this question as well. been a few ongoing battles between the trump administration and the state of california, one has been over the tailpipe emissions, where california has had the ability to provide higher standards from auto manufacturers, which 13 other states and the country of canada follow as well. and the administration is trying to overturn california's right as well as those other states, to make their own decisions.
impact for not just the people in those states, but across the country in the world with the increased pollution we would be looking at, if that is enacted? mr. jones: the impacts are negative and multiple. emissions is more generally with the related health effects. trying toornia is accomplish through those standards is a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sectors. undercutting california's ability to administer a separate standard will have significant negative consequences on the battle against greenhouse gas emissions. rep. rouda: it is worth noting for the public, 40% of the imports of the united states that come in by ship come in by
los angeles and long beach ports. 25% of our exports go out. california would like to continue to be able to monitor and set appropriate levels for reachions, if those goods all of the districts in the u.s. to line dr. greenstone, would you like to comment? dr. greenstone: i apologize if this is too far afield, but this is a terrific example of what i think is a hodgepodge approach regulating co2. this,xtbook solution to which the bill reflects, which would have an economy wide price on carbon. instead, we had these kind of sector by sector things that don't directly target carbon. in the case of cafe, we are getting reductions of co2 at the ton.of $100 to $200 per
instead, we were able to rely on clear price signals. i think there are reductions of cot available that cost $10 or $15 per ton. times what we10 would be able to pay for using a more direct mechanism. rep. rouda: votes are about to be called and 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 question was asked that you were not able to respond to, so this is your chance to jump in and fill in any holies you might have seen. -- any holes you might've seen. >> thank you for this conversation. pushingwell aware of carbon prices, which are billed us. the politics of that are
complicated, and one key pickup in that is an important concern about distributional issues and what will happen until lower middle-class families. i want to highlight one thing. the carbon tax creates revenue that can be directly refunded onto consumers and can actually improve the standing of low, and income -- of low and middle income class families. that is not a true impediment. rep. rouda: the dividend portion of that legislation, thank you. mr. jones? mr. jones: we would like to thank you for your leadership, mr. chairman, and thank the committee for holding this important series of hearings. we urge you, as you have historically, to consider natural climate and natural-based solutions to mitigate the climate crisis. i urge you to consider delving the the potential risk to
management system that we talked earlier. there is one bright spot among u.s. financial regulators, and that is the interest training commission. they have established a subcommittee climate risk and will be making a recommendation with regard to all u.s. financial regulators as to what steps they should be taking to mitigate the risk. regard toith insurance. insurance is a very important mechanism to help manage risk and to help communities and families and individuals and businesses recover from catastrophic events. but if we don't dramatically and underlineduce the driver of that risk, insurance will not solve these problems. insurance will be increasing. rep. rouda: thank you. mr. gomez? , i wantz: mr. chairman
to thank you for bringing attention to our work. rep. rouda: thank you. again, while we were not able to have an official hearing, i cannot thank each of you enough for attending this great -- attending this committee and providing your comets. at the end of this process with the additional hearings addressing climate change, and weighing out one of two roads we to faced with, our hope is 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 make a difference? recognizing that there is no togle tool that is going address this issue, but it will take multiple tools to accomplish the outcomes we desire. so, your comment here today will be apart of that final report that we take for.
in addition, don't be surprised if we may call on you again to attend another hearing down the road, and we certainly hope you will consider participating in doing so. finally, along the lines as well, as we continue to understand the true economic impact of climate change, we need to further understand what are those tools, what are the emerging technologies that can help us in our us in our quest. of emergingware technologies or economic tools, incentives that should be considered in an effort to move us in the right direction, move our country in the right direction, please bring that to our committee's attention. with that, i appreciate all of you taking the time to come to washington, d.c. with your knowledge on this important
sunday at 2:00 p.m., the former vice president joe biden in new hampshire. monday at 2:00 p.m., andrew yang in new hampshire. on tuesday at 11:00 a.m., senator elizabeth warren in boston. watch the candidates on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free radio app. ♪ the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court into public policy events from washington and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.