WASHINGTON DC – Senator John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing “International Climate Change Negotiations: Bali and the Path Toward a Post-2012 Climate Treaty.” Kerry lead the Senate delegation to Bali and was the only member of Congress to attend the talks.

Below is Kerry’s Opening Statement as Prepared for Delivery:

Thank you, Senator Menendez, for your leadership on this issue – both in your years in the House, and today in the Senate through your Chairmanship of this Committee. 

I very much appreciate this opportunity to report back to you all on my visit to the international climate change negotiations in Bali in December, where 187 nations gathered to hammer out a new global mandate – and a roadmap to make it meaningful.  And I believe that, as we’ve all seen and read, although there were powerful forces trying to scuttle an agreement, in the end grassroots energy triumphed, within the obvious limits—and we made real progress.

Because of votes here in the Senate, as you know, our Senate CODEL was reduced to – well, me. But I did have the pleasure of spending about 40 hours in the air for a day and a half of meetings in Bali, and I thought it was important for the Senate’s view to be represented, however briefly. I thought we had to deliver a simple message, in person:  there is real movement on this issue in America, and no matter what the world thinks of the last eight years of stalemate, America is ready to lead again. 

So where are we after Bali? I think that despite the seemingly reluctant participation of the Administration, the “Bali roadmap” does mark real progress toward a post-Kyoto vision.  It lays out a process for future negotiations, recognizes the importance of the four building blocks to fighting climate change—mitigation, adaptation, financing, and technology—and most importantly shows us a path to reach a final agreement in Copenhagen in 2009.  It’s up to us to make that path lead to a higher ground, and, as the Chairman knows, there is no time to waste. 

Far and away, the most important question that will determine the future of climate change is how the developed and developing worlds give life to the words “shared but differentiated responsibility.”   The dynamics of Kyoto have changed.  In Kyoto people stiff-armed that discussion.  Now it can no longer be shunted aside.  In fact, one of the most important talks I had was with the Chinese delegation, whom I also met with in Kyoto and in Brazil.  Each time before, they refused to engage.  This time was different and, I believe, a cause for optimism.

What we achieved in Bali was a roadmap that doesn’t foreclose our options—it directs the global community to start its work, and preserves the space for the United States to engage with a new Administration.  That was far from inevitable, and frankly may be the best roadmap we could hope for.

The world is running out of patience.  At one point, as the US was insisting on provisions that would’ve killed the deal, a delegate from Papua New Guinea stood up and told the United States of America that if we weren’t willing to lead, we should at least get out of the way.  This was a widely prevalent view–really damaging to our international standing.  An entire roomful of high-level ministers—otherwise very polite people—actually booed the top US official for almost a full minute.

As the Chinese made clear to me during our meeting, when America is ready to take action, China will join us.  There’s a destructive notion out there today that China won’t give an inch.  Difficult negotiations surely lie ahead, but China grasps the urgency.  83% of the Chinese people support action on climate change, and they’re already taking major steps forward: including a 20% cut in energy intensity by 2010.  If you wonder whether we’re being too hard on Detroit by raising our fuel efficiency standards, remember that China’s fleet-wide efficiency will hit 36.7 miles per gallon next year. Our bill hits 35 mpg in 2020.

Where does the roadmap lead America post-Bali?  The next President will have to sign a treaty, which remains essential to our long-term efforts, and we need to get there by 2009, as we committed to do in Bali.  In the meantime, there are many steps that we can be undertaking today. 

We need to finally get moving on a truly global effort to ensure that clean, green energy is accessible and affordable everywhere.  Bottom line, when the rubber hits the road, regardless of their promises, 3 billion people in developing countries and the politicians who represent them won’t sacrifice what they see as their long-awaited shot at economic development for the sake of a treaty.  It would be naive to ask them to, when close to half the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day.  That’s why we need a massive new Manhattan project for alternative energy, because that’s what will really drive a worldwide change in economic behavior. 

No area of research is more compelling than clean coal technology.  Coal is cheap, dirty, and abundant not only here at home, but also in countries like China.  Coal accounts for 80% of China’s emissions today and they’re building the equivalent of one new dirty coal-fired power plant per week.   We should be putting billions of dollars into developing real “clean coal” on an industrial scale.  Scientists today are working capture and sequestration technology that can collect all the carbon emissions from a coal plant and gasify and bury them safely underground.  Ted Stevens has joined me in sponsoring a bill for 3-5 commercial demonstration projects in sequestration and 3-5 more in capture.  We should run, not walk, to do this—and we should ensure that as we develop clean coal technology, we also put it affordably into the hands of the people we hope will use it. 

Also, there is a great deal we can do right now to put a green thumb on the scale of the economic decision-making of billions of people.  We should be reducing tariffs on green producers, as we’re working to do today with the EU.  We should be rewarding countries that meet emissions goals and helping US companies sell green products overseas. 

As we gather momentum, we can expect increasingly loud and desperate objections from the naysayers.  With the IPCC report, they lost the war over the science, now they’re arguing that it’s simply too expensive to fix. 

But the economic data argues for action, not against it.  The IPCC says that stringent efforts would cost 0.12% of average annual economic growth until 2050.  Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, says that an investment of 1% of GDP can stave off a 5-20% loss of GDP, as much as $9 trillion per year.  Now others, like Bill Nordhaus at Yale or Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post, might take issue with his methods—but the larger point is there. Warren Buffet famously says that when he sees a good investment, he doesn’t need to reach for his calculator—and I believe that’s the case with green economics today. 

Historically we’ve overestimated the costs of reducing emissions of air pollutants—as we did when we regulated sulfur dioxide.   But it comes down to a wager.  If we’re wrong, we still have global development, clean air, a stronger economy here at home, healthier citizens, and no more addiction to the foreign oil that funds despots and terrorists.  If they’re wrong, we face catastrophe.  

We also need to drive home the reality that we risk losing our competitive advantage if we ignore the opportunities offered by clean energy technologies.  Other countries are building infrastructure today that could become an enduring competitive advantage for decades to come.  China is on track to invest $10 billion in renewable energy this year, second only to Germany.

We don’t have all the answers yet, but we do have momentum, we have science, and we have an emerging consensus worldwide.  We can’t wait for new technology, and we can’t wait for a treaty, we have to start now.  Bali was a start. It’s going to be up to the United States to determine where it leads. I look forward to working with my colleagues to engage with this Administration, the next Administration, and the world community on this issue, so that America leads rather than resists the global effort to address the urgent issue of climate change.

###