Q. How’d the oil get to Alaska, hitchhike? A. Yes

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: “Dr. Chu, you’re our scientist.  How did the oil and gas get under Alaska?”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, D-Calif.: “This is a complicated story, but essentially oil and gas got there as the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology, and in that time also the plates have moved around.  And so it’s the combination of where the sources of the oil and gas are and…

Rep. Barton:  “Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we created in Texas and shipped it up there and put it underground so we could now pump it out, was it?

Sec. Chu: “There are, there’s continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.”

Rep. Barton: “So it just drifted up there?”

Sec. Chu: “Ah, that’s certainly what happened.”

'A glorious mess'

Chairman-emeritus John Dingell, D-Mich.: “…It was our assessment at that time (of the Clean Air Act passage) that CO2 was not a pollutant. In any event, you are now in this wonderful situation where you’re going to have to regulate under the Clean Air Act unless this committee does something.  …Just how many regulations and regulators will there be if we regulate under the Clean Air Act? My off-the-cuff figuring tells me it’ll be something on the order of 106. Am I incorrect in that judgment? 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, D-New Jersey:  “I, I, I don’t know how you came up with the number 106, sir, but...”

Rep. Dingell: “Would you give us an answer on that particular point? Please? …You’d regulate everything in sight for CO2 production. And I’m asking you how many or I’m asking you to deny that we would have a situation in which we’d have as many as 106 regulations, perhaps more, on CO2 emissions. You’d have to do it under the state implementation plans. You’d have to do it under all kinds of regulatory powers of the states and the federal government and you’d have, as I have defined, a glorious mess.”

Four simple questions; Answers, not so many

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.: “I would like to submit the following four questions to each of our witnesses and please ask them to address these during their opening remarks:

1)    “Will this legislation increase energy costs? If so, is there anything in the underlying bill that prevents these costs from being passed on to consumers?

Answers to question. No. 1 in opening remarks
Energy Sec. Chu’s answer: 
EPA Administrator Jackson’s answer:
Answer from Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood, R-Ill.:

2)    “Since this legislation applies only to the United States – but not other nations like China, India, and Mexico – is there a chance it will result in American jobs being shipped overseas?  How many jobs will be lost?

Answers to question No. 2 in opening remarks:
Sec. Chu: 
Administrator Jackson:
Sec. LaHood:

3)    “What would be the cumulative cost per household of this legislation?

Answers to question No. 3 in opening remarks:
Sec. Chu: 
Administrator Jackson:
Sec. LaHood:

4)    “Absent other nations adopting the same reduction policy, how much will this legislation reduce global temperatures, if at all?”

Answers to question No. 4 in opening remarks:
Sec. Chu:
Administrator Jackson:
Sec. LaHood:

What’s in the bill you’re testifying about?

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.: Have you read the bill?
Sec. LaHood: “I haven’t had time to read all 600 pages.”
Walden: “Six-hundred and forty-eight…”
Sec. LaHood: “I’ve not had time to read all 648.”
Sec., Chu: “Neither have I.”
Administrator Jackson: “Nor have I. My staff has certainly read through it.”