'I Don't Know If The White House Won't Let You...': Kennedy Directly Addresses Jennifer Granholm

5 months ago

At last week's Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) urged Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm to make a more transparent case for Biden Administration policy to voters.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Madam Secretary and Madam Secretary for being here.

00:09 I want to apologize in advance.

00:14 I've got a couple of other committees going, so I'm going to be in and out.

00:21 I'd like to hear you talk today about a couple of things.

00:28 First, Madam Secretary, I'm very disappointed in the administration's decision to place

00:36 a moratorium on LNG permits.

00:42 I don't see how that is going to further the goal of climate change.

00:47 I do see how that is going to hurt America's energy independence, but equally important,

00:54 it's going to hurt our friends in Europe.

00:57 It's going to help our enemies, like Qatar.

01:02 It looks political to me, and I'm hoping you'll be able to address that.

01:10 I'd also like to talk today about whether the administration would consider, so far

01:18 it hasn't, advancing petroleum pit production.

01:28 We've done better, but it's still not enough.

01:33 I'm disappointed that the administration hasn't emphasized nuclear energy funding.

01:42 I don't understand how we're going to achieve carbon neutrality without advanced small modular

01:52 nuclear reactors.

01:56 The administration doesn't seem to want to talk too much about the benefits.

02:02 Of course, there are costs as well, but the benefits of nuclear energy.

02:08 It seems to have worked out well in countries like France, which sees its energy future,

02:17 including a big role for nuclear energy.

02:24 Those are the kinds of things that I'm hoping we can talk about today.

02:31 I want to end my remarks, Secretary Granholm, with a more general thought.

02:40 I consider you to be one of the most intelligent and accomplished appointees by President Biden.

02:57 That doesn't mean I agree with all of the positions that you have taken.

03:02 I don't know to what extent you have taken those positions, because you believe them

03:06 or because you have been directed to take them by the White House.

03:14 But I also feel like in our debate over energy transition, we're missing a major piece of

03:22 the puzzle.

03:27 There's an explanation to the American people about what we're doing, why we're doing it,

03:37 the costs of doing it, and the benefits and the trade-offs.

03:45 I think you and your department should take on that responsibility.

03:54 Let me try to be more specific.

03:58 There's a gentleman by the name of Dr. Bjorn Lomberg.

04:02 I'm not saying that he has all the answers, but he is a visiting professor at Stanford.

04:09 He's head of a think tank in Europe called the Copenhagen Consensus.

04:18 He is basically a climate change economist.

04:24 In peer-reviewed studies, he predicts, for example, that in order for us to be carbon-neutral

04:31 in not just the United States, in the world by 2050, and to maintain it through 2,200,

04:43 it will cost about 1% of the world's, not America's, but the world's GDP.

04:52 That doesn't sound like much until you reduce it to raw dollars.

04:56 That's $27 trillion a year.

05:03 That's the cost.

05:05 He raises the question of whether we should spend that $27 trillion or take a portion

05:15 of it and instead use it to combat the effects of climate change, which he estimates we could

05:26 do successfully worldwide for $1 trillion a year.

05:33 You may not agree with his numbers or his analysis, but a cost-benefit analysis is worth

05:40 pursuing instead of just throwing a bunch of money at the problem.

05:45 For example, he raises the question, he believes that in order for China to become carbon-neutral

05:53 by 2050 and maintain its carbon neutrality through 2,100, it will cost China $1 trillion

06:02 a year.

06:05 China's not spending $1 trillion a year.

06:11 China in fact has increased its carbon emissions 300% by 1990.

06:17 He raises the question, it's a fair question, what happens if China doesn't cooperate?

06:24 What's the impact on world carbon neutrality?

06:28 If it doesn't cooperate, is America wasting all its money?

06:33 He raises the question about Russia.

06:36 He thinks that Russia needs to start spending today $400 to $500 billion a year and spend

06:46 that amount every year between now and 2100 to achieve carbon neutrality.

06:51 It's about three times what Russia spends on its military.

06:58 Does anyone in this room honestly believe that President Putin tomorrow is going to

07:03 stand up and say, "Well, I'm going to stop spending money on my military and start spending

07:09 it on CO2 emissions."

07:13 And Professor Lumberg raises the question of what happens if they don't?

07:20 What happens if India doesn't cooperate?

07:24 Developing countries, they want the same things as us.

07:30 They want to be able to eat and live indoors and their children to have better lives.

07:37 Are we going to have to pay developing countries for their energy transition, particularly

07:45 when it's cheaper for them to advance their societies using fossil fuels?

07:51 These are the kind of questions that need to be hit head on.

07:55 And we're not doing it.

07:56 This administration, with all due respect, has not done it.

08:00 All we're doing is throwing money at a problem.

08:05 And I asked, I think it was your deputy secretary, Madam Secretary, about a year or so ago, I

08:12 said, "If the United States government achieves carbon neutrality by 2050 and we spend the

08:20 money to do it, how much will that lower world temperatures?

08:26 Or how much will that decrease the increase in world temperatures?"

08:32 He said, "I can't guarantee you that it'll lower temperatures at all, because it depends

08:38 on other countries."

08:40 And I think that needs to be addressed head on.

08:42 And I think you're the person to do it.

08:44 I don't know if the White House will let you, but the world is yearning for this.

08:55 I'm going on too long.

08:56 I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

08:58 But people are starting to figure out that they're going to have to pay for this.

09:04 We see it in Germany right now.

09:07 I mean, Germany said, "Well, we're just going to require everybody to convert to heat pumps."

09:13 Now all of a sudden, people say, "Well, you mean I've got to go buy a $15,000 heat pump?"

09:19 And so they're pushing back.

09:21 And in order to have people buy into an energy transition, they've got to understand that

09:25 there's an overarching plan.

09:27 I'm sorry for going on so long, Madam Chair.

'I Don't Know If The White House Won't Let You...': Kennedy Directly Addresses Jennifer Granholm

Category

Transcript

Recommended