Hill Heat

On Thursday, February 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will convene a hearing to review the research, development, and deployment activities of the Department of Transportation. The hearing will focus on issues related to the funding, planning, and execution of current research initiatives and how these efforts fulfill the strategic goals of both Federal and State Departments of Transportation, metropolitan transportation organizations, and industry. With the expiration of SAFETEA-LU in FY2009, this hearing will also examine possible ways to improve the current Federal transportation effort.

Witnesses

• Paul Brubaker, former Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
• Dr. Elizabeth Deakin, Director of the University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley
• Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board.
• David Wise, Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office
• Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation

Overview

Signed in 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) authorized a total of $2.227 billion through FY2009 for research and related programs under Title V of the bill. This Title authorizes surface transportation research by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), training and education programs, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the University Transportation Centers (UTCs), and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research. The Science and Technology Committee’s jurisdiction over surface transportation research and development is based on House rules which grant the Committee jurisdiction over, “Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefore” and legislative precedent. Jurisdiction over these programs is shared with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Science and Technology Committee has a long referral history regarding surface transportation research and development (R&D) bills, including H.R. 860 in the 105th Congress and H.R. 242, and H.R. 243 in the 109th Congress. Elements of each of these bills were incorporated in the highway reauthorization bills for the respective Congresses.

Issues and Concerns

Planning, Coordination, and Evaluation of Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T)

Despite the creation of a specific RD&T coordinating agency within Department of Transportation (DOT) by the Mineta Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-426), and requirements in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178) and SAFETEA-LU that DOT evaluate and coordinate its research programs, efforts in this regard continue to fall short. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the coordination and review efforts by the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)1. RSPA had been created by the Secretary of Transportation to coordinate and review RD&T activity across the modal agencies. It was dissolved when the Mineta Act created the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) to fulfill largely the same functions. In the 2003 report, GAO found that efforts to locate duplicative programs and opportunities for cross-collaboration between the modal agencies were hampered by a lack of information on the RD&T activities being pursued across the modal agencies. GAO also found that DOT did not have a systematic method for measuring the results of federal transportation research activities, or a method to show how their research impacted the performance of surface transportation in the U.S. RSPA cited a lack of resources to perform these types of evaluations, and they also stated that each modal agency undertook its own evaluation of its research programs. GAO recommended that RSPA define metrics to evaluate the outcomes of its DOT-wide RD&T coordination efforts. In 2006, GAO did a follow-up evaluation of RD&T coordination and evaluation. They again offered similar recommendations, noting the continuing lack of common performance measures for DOT RD&T activities. However, at the time of that evaluation, RITA had just recently been established. GAO commended the initiative in RITA’s FY2007 budget request to devote $2.5 million to RD&T coordinating activities (an increase of nearly $2 million over the $536,000 spent by RSPA in FY06 on coordination).

In November of 2006, RITA submitted the Transportation Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan for 2006-2010 to Congress. The Transportation Research Board (TRB), of the National Research Council, evaluated this plan and noted, “The strategic RD&T plan for 2006-2010 is a reasonable first effort. It offers useful descriptions of the many RD&T programs within the Department. At the same time, it is more a compendium of individual RD&T activities than a strategic plan that articulates department wide priorities and justifications for RD&T programs and budgets.” According to TRB, the plan lacked stakeholder input and also failed to identify how stakeholder input would be sought for strategic planning in research topic areas. It further failed to articulate the role and value of DOT’s RD&T activities; describe the process used for selecting research topics to ensure their relevance, quality, or performance; describe the expected outcomes from RD&T; and describe the process for monitoring performance. In TRB’s view, the plan, at a minimum should have explained the extent to which quantifiable goals, timetables, and performance measures would be part of RD&T programs.

The major surface transportation RD&T program of the FHWA has received similar criticisms regarding coordination and evaluation as DOT’s overall RD&T program. The program is highly decentralized, with research activities taking place in five out of the thirteen offices within the agency. In 2002, GAO reviewed FHWA’s R&D approach and urged that the agency “develop a systematic process for evaluating significant ongoing and completed research that incorporates peer-review or other best practices in use at Federal agencies that conduct research.” FHWA subsequently developed its Corporate Master Plan for Research and Deployment of Technology and Innovation, released in 2003. This document contains many overarching principles, such as measuring the performance of RD&T activities, but does not provide specific mechanisms through which FHWA will implement all of them. It is also unclear from FHWA’s RD&T Performance Plan for 2006/2007 if the many research projects listed have been evaluated for their use by the transportation community. Without such analysis, the information portrayed in these documents establishes outputs, but does not offer any outcomes.

Tech-Transfer

There is general agreement that the transfer of technology and new ideas from the R&D stage to deployment and adoption is slow. In testimony before this Committee in September of 2007, FHWA identified some of the contributing factors that slow the state and local adoption of new transportation technology, including insufficient information on the benefits versus the costs of new technologies; lack of confidence in new technologies or a lack of performance data; and a lack of incentive mechanisms to encourage the deployment of new technology. TRB Special Report 295, The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses, notes the important role FHWA plays in educating state DOTs about new technologies and encouraging their adoption, noting such efforts as FHWA’s activities to identify, market, and track the deployment of market-ready technologies and incorporate a strategic plan for the deployment of pavement research activities. However, the funding for technology transfer activities at FHWA has suffered in recent years, falling from $100 million to $40 million after the passage of TEA-21. The report further notes, “The missing element among all of FHWA’s deployment activities appears to be the resources within the agency with explicit expertise in technology transfer and deployment that could provide guidance to the various efforts agency wide [sic].”

The Intelligent Transportation Systems program is a well studied example of transfer and deployment of R&D efforts. In 2005, GAO identified broad issues with DOT’s deployment goals for traffic management ITS, finding that the goals did not take into account the level of ITS needed to accomplish local objectives and priorities; did not reflect whether localities were operating the ITS as intended; and did not adequately capture the cost-effectiveness of ITS 7. Additional studies of ITS deployment have found that local officials are aware of ITS technologies but feel that the benefits are not adequately described.

Recommendations from TRB

With support from FHWA, TRB’s Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) has periodically assessed the state of highway research and made recommendations to policy makers. In its recent report, TRB Special Report 295, The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses, the RTCC evaluated the investments in highway R&D made under SAFETEA-LU. According to the report, transportation R&D is significantly under funded when compared with the R&D investments made in other industrial sectors. Also, the report recommended that the matching requirement for UTCs be adjusted from 50-percent to 20-percent. According to the RTCC, if UTCs relied less on state DOTs and others for matching funds, they would be free to pursue longer-term advanced research topics and move away from applied research that could be handled elsewhere. The RTCC recommended that FHWA’s Exploratory Advanced Research Program continue as well, and that a larger percentage of the agency’s research budget go toward advanced research. Additionally, the report states that all research grants, including those to UTCs, should be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis. The RTCC recommended that FHWA be given more resources to engage stakeholders and carry out technology transfer activities. FHWA should be given the resources to take the lead in establishing an ongoing process whereby the highway community can set these priorities. Finally, the RTCC noted that the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) was funded significantly less than stakeholders had requested, and recommended that it continue to receive funding for another two years. TRB states many recommendations but does not provide specific mechanisms to accomplish them.

Witnesses

Panel 1

• Ted Danson, Oceana
• Philippe Cousteau, Ocean Conservancy

Panel 2

• Carolyn McCormick, Managing Director, Outer Banks (NC) Visitors Bureau
• D.T. Minich, President, St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention & Visitors Bureau
• Zeke Grader, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations
• Bruce Allen, Co-Founder, Stop Oil Seeps California
• Jefferson Angers, President, Center for Coastal Conservation

• Oversight hearing entitled: “Offshore Drilling: State Perspectives” scheduled on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
• Oversight hearing entitled: “Offshore Drilling: Industrial Perspectives” scheduled on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

On February 11, 2009, the Science and Technology Committee will receive testimony on draft legislation entitled “The Electronic Waste Research and Development Act of 2009.” Witnesses will provide their comments on, and suggestions to, the bill. They will also discuss ways in which research and development (R&D) can help address the challenge of managing the disposal of electronics products in the United States. Five witnesses, representing perspectives from academia, a non-profit, electronics producers, and electronics recyclers, will offer testimony.

Witnesses

• Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson Interface Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Thomas will discuss her research on innovative methods to manage electronic waste and the challenges facing the recycling and re-use of electronic products.
• Dr. Paul Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University. Dr. Anastas will discuss the applicability of research in green chemistry and engineering to the electronics sector.
• Philip Bond, President, Technology Association of America. Mr. Bond will discuss ways in which innovation through R&D could help electronics manufacturers address the challenge of electronic waste. He will also give his views on promoting collaboration between industry and non-industry researchers to encourage the transfer of successful research into products.
• Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green Electronic Council and Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). Mr. Omelchuck will discuss the development and utility of EPEAT, challenges to making existing electronics products more environmentally friendly, and ways in which R&D could address these challenges.
• Willie Cade, Chief Executive Officer, PC Rebuilders and Recyclers. Mr. Cade will describe the challenges faced by electronics refurbishers and recyclers, and discuss ways to promote collaboration between academic researchers and the recycling and refurbishing businesses.

Issues and Concerns

• Electronic waste, or e-waste, the term used to describe used televisions, computers, cell phones, monitors, etc. that are ready for discard, is a growing problem in the U.S. and worldwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that between 1980 and 2004, 2 billion electronic products were sold in the U.S. Of these they estimated just over half were still in use, while 42 percent had been disposed of and 9 percent were in storage. Of the amount disposed of, only 11 percent reached recyclers. The rest went to landfills. Electronics are bulky and contain hazardous materials that pose concerns for disposal in landfills. Due to the involvement of state and local governments, environmental groups, and electronics producers, more of these products are being recycled. However, as described below, there are still many hurdles to cost-effective, nationwide electronics recycling. Additionally, the biggest environmental footprint for electronics arises out of their production. Enabling consumers to use (or re-use) these products longer could reduce the impact of this production on the environment. The draft legislation discussed at this hearing will address some of the challenges to increase recycling and re-use through R&D and education.
• While e-waste recycling is increasing in the U.S., the industry faces a number of challenges. These challenges include convincing consumers to recycle, the logistics of collecting e-waste, efficiently disassembling products, safely removing hazardous substances, efficiently processing materials, and recovering value from many of the e-waste constituent materials. For instance, the more commingled a stream of plastics becomes as casings and components from products are mixed together in processing, the less value it has for re-use. Improving the technologies that sort these plastics, or developing new processes and materials that can use non-homogenous plastics will make e-waste recycling less costly and will reduce waste material. From research on influencing consumer behavior to automated methods of sending information to recyclers about the products moving through their plants, R&D could help make recycling more efficient and cheaper.
• The design of electronic products could also aid in making recycling more cost efficient. Many products are difficult to disassemble and the location of hazardous materials varies (i.e., mercury lamps in some flat panel displays). Product design for recycling would look at the needs of end of life management. Greater use of materials recycled from old electronics is another upfront design choice that would help make recycling more profitable. Researchers could examine the feasibility of different design schemes and recycled materials usage to help electronic product development become more of a closed loop process.
• Scores of different chemicals and materials comprise computers, televisions, cell phones and other electronics. Some of the substances used in electronics (e.g. lead and hexavalent chromium) have raised enough concern that the European Union adopted a measure to ban their use in electronics products sold in Europe. Manufacturers have been able to comply with these requirements for most consumer electronics, but the process to ban substances sensitive to the environment and human health is on-going. For example, the risk to human health posed by certain types of brominated flame retardants used in electronics and other products has created a controversy over their continued use. Comprehensive data on the properties of substitutes for harmful materials would enable electronics designers to change their products more quickly in response to concerns raised by different materials. The availability of this type of comprehensive data, provided by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, enabled manufacturers to quickly meet the challenge of eliminating ozone-layer depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from their products in the 1980’s.
• Increasing the amount of electronics headed to responsible recyclers is essential to reducing the impacts of e-waste. Also essential though is research to increase and encourage the re-use of electronic products. Estimates of the total amount of energy required over a computer’s lifecycle show that roughly 80 percent goes into the computer’s production phase, and only 20 percent into the use phase. Extending the amount of time a product is in use could not only reduce the volume of e-waste, but also lessen the impact of the production of these complex and sophisticated products on the environment. Often consumers buy new cell phones, laptops, or other devices because they want the functionality or “look” of a new model, not because their current device is broken. Consumers are often wary of purchasing used electronics because they are unsure of a used product’s value or they are afraid it will not meet their needs. Developing re-use markets that aid consumers in evaluating used devices could help keep these devices in the hands of consumers for a longer period of time. Prolonging a device’s use could also be accomplished by developing ways for consumers to easily upgrade their current products.
• Improving the training of students equips the future workforce to design products with a minimal environmental impact. Continuing education of the existing workforce in the electronics and recycling industries informs these individuals of best-practices in their fields. Similarly, collaboration between academic researchers and those in industry can help transfer solutions to the problems identified above as fast as possible.

Background

Regulations

No federal law or national framework exists to handle the growing volume of e-waste generated by U.S. consumers. At least since 2000, with the convening of the National Electronics Stewardship Initiative, electronics producers and other stakeholders have been aware of the e-waste problem. However, because of competing interests over financing mechanisms, electronics producers, environmental groups, and consumer representatives have not been able to reach a consensus on how a national e-waste program should be implemented. In the absence of federal regulations, some states and localities have instituted mandatory e-waste recycling. California implemented a program in 2005. Maine, Washington, and Minnesota implemented e-waste programs in 2007. Other states, like Oregon, are slated to begin their programs this year. Each state program is slightly different, creating a challenge for electronics companies that now must finance the take-back and recycling of products in all states with programs (except California, where consumers pay a fee for recycling at the time of purchase). In addition, many of these companies have extended this take-back service to consumers in states without specific e-waste programs, though the service is not always free of charge.

The European Union has been ahead of the U.S. in dealing with e-waste, passing the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) in 2000, which banned disposal of e-waste in landfills and required producers to take-back their used products. The actual implementation of this directive has varied country by country. In Europe, just as in the U.S., the cost of recycling is also a challenge.

Export

Another significant problem is the export of e-waste from the developed world to China and other developing nations, where low-paid workers pull apart the products to extract any valuable materials. Using crude methods, these workers are exposed to toxic substances, carrying a heavy burden on human health and the surrounding environment. While some exported electronics can be legitimately refurbished and re-used, an overwhelming quantity has no re-use value and is improperly and unsafely recycled or discarded. According to the Basel Action Network (BAN), approximately 80 percent of the e-waste directed to recycling in the U.S. is not recycled, but is instead exported. Much of this export is not illegal, though the EPA requires that any exporter of the leaded-glass cathode ray tubes (CRT) from old television certify that all CRT exports are going to legitimate processors overseas. This rule is frequently ignored and only minimally enforced. Both BAN and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries are working on separate standards that would promote accountability within the electronics recycling community. These standards will be available sometime this year.

Federal Activity

When safely handled, e-waste can be a valuable source of commodities like gold and silver. These items are more enriched in these precious metals than a comparable weight of naturally occurring ore. To encourage recycling, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers facts on e-waste and information to consumers about where they can find recyclers in their area on their website. EPA also has the “Plug Into eCycling Program” which is a partnership between EPA, manufacturers, and retailers to offer consumers more opportunities to recycle or donate their old electronics. An example of an initiative under the program is the campaign “Recycle your cell phone. It’s an easy call.” This is a national campaign supported by major manufacturers, carriers, and retailers to educate consumers about cell phone recycling. The EPA has also supported a Design for the Environment Program and Electronics Products Assessment Tool (EPEAT).

EPEAT

EPEAT receives EPA funding, and is a product of the not-for-profit Green Electronics Council. EPEAT is an assessment tool that compares the environmental attributes of different brands and models of desktop and laptop computers. Many large institutional buyers, including sectors of the Federal Government, will only buy equipment that is ranked highly by EPEAT. EPEAT convenes manufactures, environmental representatives, and other stakeholders to establish performance criteria the products must meet to attain rankings of bronze, silver, or gold. Products are rated in such categories as to the amount of environmentally sensitive material they contain, ease of disassembly for recycling, and energy conservation.

Opportunities for R&D and Education

As identified above, by supporting R&D and education, the proposed legislation can help reduce the impact of electronics products on the environment through recycling and re-use.

Discussion Draft – Electronic Waste Research and Development Act

Section by Section

Section 1. Short Title

Provides the short title of the legislation, the Electronic Waste Research and Development Act

Section 2. Findings

Outlines the current background information, concerns, and impacts of electronic waste on the environment.

Section 3. Definitions

Defines the terms Administrator as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; a consortium; the term e-waste; an institution of higher learning; and the Director as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Section 4. Electronic Waste Engineering Research, Development and Demonstration Projects

Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive, merit-based process to be done jointly with institutes of higher education, non-profit research institutions, government laboratories, and for-profit entities (i.e. manufacturers, designers, refurbishers, or recyclers) to find ways to manage electronic waste through reduction, reuse, and recycling, and make the findings of the research available to the public. The section requires a report to Congress within 2 years after enactment and every two years thereafter of the grants awarded and a list of the projects and their findings.

Section 5. National Academy of Sciences Report on Electronic Waste

Directs the Administrator to arrange a study by the National Academy of Sciences to look at the current research programs and the barriers and opportunities available to reduce electronic waste, reduce the use of hazardous materials in electronic products, and better product design for efficient re-use and recycling.

Section 6. Engineering Curriculum Development Grants

Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive, merit-based process to institutes of higher education and community colleges to reduce electronic waste through better teaching and training of students and current workforce by developing a green engineering curricula and creating internships.

Section 7. “Green” Alternative Materials Physical Property Database

Directs the Director to establish a physical property database for green alternative materials for use in electronic products.

Witnesses

• Dr. Ralph Izzo , Public Service Enterprise Group
• Don Furman, Senior Vice President for Business Development, Transmission and Policy, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.
• David Wright, Commissioner, Representing SEARUC
• Scott Jones, Executive Vice President, Forest Landowners Association
• Dr. Lester Lave, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University

Greenpeace will release the results of a carbon footprint analysis of the economic recovery package via teleconference this Thursday at 10:30 am ET (details below). The analysis was conducted by ICF International, a leading climate and energy consulting firm for governments, Fortune 500 companies, and non-profits (http://www.icfi.com/).

• ICF International: William Grayson and Dr. Joel Bluestein

• Greenpeace: Kert Davies, Research Director and Steven Biel, Global Warming Campaign Director

According to several recent studies, global warming will create a major drag on the U.S. and world economies – $271 billion in the United States alone by 2025 according to NRDC, and 5 – 20 percent of global GDP by 2100, according to the U.K. government’s Stern Review. An effective economic stimulus must also reduce global warming through spending on energy efficiency, conservation, clean energy, and clean transportation options.

Teleconference participants will discuss how the different provisions of the stimulus package will affect the climate in the short and long run and will discuss the climate and related economic impact of different stimulus proposals and amendments under consideration.

Dial-in number: 1-319-279-1000
Toll free dial-in number: 1-866-399-5852
Participant pin: 1001217#

RSVP to michael.crocker@greenpeace.org; confirmed teleconference attendees will get an advanced look at the report.

Transforming the economy through environmental solutions — creating good jobs and exploring green technologies that reduce global warming and increase energy independence — is key to our future.

Solving global warming can now be centered on reinvigorating disadvantaged communities. The economy can be focused on buildups rather than bailouts. And the focus of energy independence will shift to clean energy and new technologies.

Connect with 2,000 government leaders and decision-makers, as well as business, labor and environmental organizations at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference for three days of exceptional educational programs, renowned speakers and extensive networking opportunities.

The 2009 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference will alternate between plenary sessions and workshops. The plenary sessions will provide a stage for prominent national experts while the workshops will allow participants to explore new ideas and exchange best practices. The conference will focus on how solutions to environmental challenges can be used to drive economic development and create successful and profitable businesses.

Green Jobs Expo

• 8:00 a.m. Breakfast
• 8:30 a.m. Morning Keynote
• 9:30 a.m. Plenary Panel
• 10:45 a.m. Breakouts
• 12:00 p.m. (noon) Lunch
• 1:30 p.m. Keynote or Panel
• 2:30 p.m. Break
• 2:45 p.m. Breakouts
• 4:30 p.m. Keynote
• 6:00 p.m. Networking Reception

Location: Marriott Wardman Park

On Wednesday, February 4 the youth-led Energy Action Coalition is hosting a national teleconference for student reporters about the crucial role of young people in the fight for bold federal energy and climate legislation.

From February 27 to March 2, 2009, 10,000 young leaders from across the country will convene for Power Shift ‘09 in Washington, D.C. to demand that the President and Congress pass bold climate and energy policy that prioritizes renewable energy, green job creation, and an aggressive reduction of carbon emissions.

Call-in number: (866) 501-6174, participant code, 231000#

Participants

• Jessy Tolkan, Executive Director, Energy Action Coalition
• Dominique Hazzard, Power Shift ‘09 organizer and freshman at Wellesley College, Executive Committee Sierra Student Coalition
• Jason Walsh, Policy Director, Green for All
• Dave Hamilton, Director, Global Warming and Energy Program, Sierra Club

The speakers on the call will be able to answer questions about Power Shift ‘09 and the role of young people in shaping federal energy and climate policy.

From February 27 to March 2, 10,000 young leaders from around the world will kick off a historic year for climate action by convening in Washington, D.C. for Power Shift ‘09. Young people will demand that the President and Congress rebuild the economy and reclaim the future by passing bold climate and energy policy. Participants will share ideas and success stories, learn new skills, build connections, hear from leading experts and change-makers and come together to deliver a unified message to the nation’s leaders. On March 2, Power Shift ‘09 will culminate with a massive lobby and rally day on Capitol Hill.

Witness List

Panel I

• Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Panel II

• Gary Bass, Ph.D., Executive Director, OMB Watch
• Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Waterkeeper Alliance
• Lynn Rhinehart, Associate General Counsel, AFL-CIO
• Veronique de Rugy, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University
• Michael Abramowicz, George Washington University Law School
• Curtis Copeland, Ph.D., Specialist in American National Government – Government and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service

Ahead of the next round of ambitious United Nations climate talks, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will convene a hearing to explore the challenges facing both the United States and the international community in creating an effective international response to climate change.

The conference next month in Bonn, Germany takes up where the conferees left off last December in Poznan, Poland during the latest round of U.N. Climate Change talks. The deadline for updating the world’s approach to battling climate change is December 2009, when nearly 200 countries will meet at a pivotal climate conference in Copenhagan, Denmark. At the same time, Rep. Markey’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is developing ambitious climate legislation to tackle global warming and energy independence.

A panel of diplomatic and climate expert witnesses will inform the Select Committee on what must be accomplished prior to the Copenhagen meeting, what to expect with regard to the ongoing negotiation processes, and the challenges for success post-Copenhagen. Appearing before the Committee will be John Bruton, the European Commission’s ambassador to the United States, and two veteran observers to the international climate talks: Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Rob Bradley from the World Resources Institute.

Witnesses

• John Bruton, Delegation of the European Commission and Ambassador to the U.S.
• Elliot Diringer, Vice President of International Strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
• Rob Bradley, Director of the International Climate Policy Initiative at the World Resources Institute
• Karen Alderman Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy