[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E46]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      TIME FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES

                                 ______


                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 22, 1996

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are busy talking about flat 
taxes and sales taxes and reducing the tax on interest and dividends. 
What we should all be talking about is lowering the tax on labor and 
job skills and increasing it on pollutants.
  Global warming is happening. Those who lived through the snow storms 
of early January may want to laugh. Do not. The following article from 
the January 10, 1996, New York Times by two environmental experts 
points out that the recent blizzards are what we should come to expect 
as the environment changes.
  I have introduced legislation to remove tax subsidies on the 
extraction of polluting fuels and minerals. I am preparing legislation 
to move to the next step and gradually increase taxes on pollutants 
that contribute to global warming and the degradation of the 
environment. The money raised from these taxes can be used to fund 
lower taxes on wages and incomes, so that the average citizen is not 
hurt by these environmental taxes and so that our whole economy can 
begin to work for the long-term health of the world environment.

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1996]

                         Bad Weather? Just Wait

                   (By John Harte and Daniel Lashof)

       As the Northeast bowed before an extraordinary blizzard, 
     southern Californians basked in record-breaking heat. Some 
     speculated that this freakish weather was further evidence of 
     long-term global climate change. But focusing on individual 
     events would be a mistake. Unusual weather conditions have 
     always been normal.
       This does not mean that global climate change is not 
     occurring. A United Nations scientific panel recently 
     concluded for the first time that global warming had begun 
     and would intensify because of rising levels of heat-trapping 
     gases emitted by burning coal, oil and natural gas. The 
     magnitude of the change is uncertain, but over the next 100 
     years, the panel estimated, the planet's average surface 
     temperature is expected to rise by 1.4 to 6.3 degrees 
     Fahrenheit.
       The important news about this projected rise is not going 
     to break the way it does for dramatic weather. Continued 
     warming is likely to result in a gradual parching of soil in 
     many regions of the world, possibly leading to declining crop 
     yields even as the global population rises. When does this 
     trend become ``news''?
       Sea levels will also rise, slowly inundating Asian 
     farmland, entire islands in the South Pacific and coastal 
     cities and harbors throughout the world. Coral reefs will die 
     in the warmer oceans, and grasslands will give way to desert 
     shrubs that can survive on less water, reducing food for 
     grazing animals.
       Producers of coal and oil, as well as some economists, say 
     that we should learn to live with these changes because doing 
     so will be far cheaper than reducing carbon dioxide emissions 
     enough to halt global warming.
       Leaving aside the fact that such conclusions ignore 
     potential social and ecological disruption that is difficult 
     to put in monetary terms, a growing body of research and 
     experience indicates that reducing emissions sufficiently is 
     not only possible but makes economic sense. Although the 
     challenge is greater in rapidly developing countries where 
     energy demands are rising most, industrialized nations can 
     lead the way in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
       The cost of solving environmental problems has routinely 
     been overestimated. Take the ozone-destroying 
     chlorofluorocarbons. Ten years ago, the chemical industry and 
     other ``experts'' said that finding an economic alternative 
     to these substances would be impossible. Yet once the 
     industry was forced to find substitutes for them, under 
     international agreements beginning in 1987, it managed to 
     phase them out completely in two-thirds the time allowed for 
     just a 50 percent cut, in many cases at a profit.
       Or consider the shift in fuel economy standards. Before 
     minimum standards were established in 1975, the automobile 
     industry claimed that doubling fuel efficiency, as required, 
     would force everyone to drive compact cars. Ten years later, 
     the standard had been achieved, while the average size of a 
     car had hardly changed.
       Why were these estimates so far off? In part, opponents of 
     the new regulations wanted to stimulate political opposition. 
     But independent economists often made similar projections, 
     apparently forgetting that political pressure spurs 
     technological innovation. For this reason, some economists 
     believe that the costs of stemming global warming will 
     continue to fall--but only if the pressure to change exists.
       So far, the United States, with all its wealth and 
     technology, has not made a serious commitment to reduce 
     emissions. Only if we unleash our ingenuity to find solutions 
     can we expect poorer countries to follow suit.

                          ____________________