Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing on climate change and the economics of carbon dioxide controls. I appreciate the consistent attention that this committee has given to the issue of climate science and adaptation to global climate change. Since I joined the committee over 10 years ago, we have held a hearing nearly every year on the general topic.

There is no denying that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached higher levels than at any time in the history of the earth. We are implicated - as human beings and as a nation - for our role in contributing to the buildup. The burning of fossil fuels has accelerated the situation for the last hundred years and the U.S. contributes more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any other nation.

I am particularly concerned for islands in the Pacific. There are changes in our islands in Hawaii that can only be explained by global phenomena such as the buildup of carbon dioxide. Globally, sea level has increased 6 to 14 inches in the last century and it is likely to rise another 17 to 25 inches by 2100. This would be a one- to two-foot rise. You can imagine what this might mean to port operators, shoreline property owners, tourists and residents who use Hawaii's beautiful beaches, and to island nations and territories in the Pacific whose highest elevation is between 3 and 100 meters above sea level. A typhoon or hurricane would be devastating to communities on these islands, not to mention the low-lying coastal wetlands of the continental United States.

There is an important, but usually overlooked, issue of environmental in-justice to climate change and sea level rise. In particular, small island states in the Caribbean, such as Nevis, the Cayman Islands, and Bonaire; in the Pacific, islands of Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands; or in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, will bear the brunt of climate change in the future, even though they account for less than one percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate changes.

I have talked about my concerns regarding climate change on the floor and in this committee. I have urged the U.S. to be a leader in addressing climate change and carbon emissions. We seem to be mired in inaction -- even though the Senate adopted a resolution affirming the reality of climate change in the Senate's energy bill, H.R. 6. I have said in the past that we must not get stuck in estimating the costs of implementing carbon controls. Inaction may not mean much if you are high and dry in the nation's Capitol, 90 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. But if you are surrounded by water, the risk of inaction is very real, and very frightening.

We need a different plan of action instead of focusing on the relative costs of carbon containment strategies. I propose that we embrace the just-passed Senate resolution -- meaning that we embrace the reality of carbon dioxide accumulation -- and also embrace the opportunity to use mandatory controls as a way to grow our economy.

There is no doubt that the engineering communities, think tanks, universities, Wall Street and the commodity traders, and industry can pull together to made this an opportunity rather than a bleak picture of increased regulation and job loss. This can be a national enterprise, a mobilization to contain carbon growth. I would like to see a national Commission that would focus on the job growth and technology investment needed to limit or reduce greenhouse gases, and the steps needed for a strategy to get there. If we embrace this issue as a nation, I am convinced that our human resources, technological and scientific expertise, and "national will" can beat it and the U.S. can act as a leader for the rest of the world in reducing carbon emissions.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the distinguished witnesses today, and I have some questions for them.