[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11189-S11190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I noted that the White House recently 
released a strategy for climate change talks. The President said the 
United States would not assume binding obligations until developing 
countries agree to participate meaningfully in the climate-change 
issue. White House officials said they expect requirements for 
developing countries would be fleshed out in negotiations.
  This is what concerns me, Mr. President, ``fleshed out in 
negotiations.'' The senior Senator from West Virginia and the occupant 
of the chair, Senator Hagel, authored a resolution that has been 
supported in this body by an overwhelming vote of 95 to 0. The Byrd-
Hagel resolution said developing nations must have targets and 
timetables in the same timeframe as the United States.
  Mr. President, it is my contention that the President is glossing 
over the issue of developing-country participation.
  The Berlin Mandate says ``no new commitments for developing 
nations.'' Has the President repudiated the Berlin Mandate? Otherwise, 
how in the world can President Clinton simply state that this is 
something that can be taken care of in negotiations when the Berlin 
Mandate clearly says no new commitments for developing nations? Our 
President only says ``meaningful commitments for developing nations.'' 
I wonder what meaningful really means.
  At this time, we are somewhat at the mercy of our negotiators on this 
matter. We have seen comments in the Record from various members of the 
Senate praising the President's plan, stating that they are encouraged 
by the policy announcements and pleased with the White House plan. 
Another member said that the President's position should satisfy 
demands of the Byrd-Hagel resolution as expressed in this body.
  Those demands are not met, Mr. President, because Byrd-Hagel says 
developing nations must have targets and timetables in the same 
timeframe as the United States. That is the test.
  Another Senator indicates this is a green light that speaks to our 
Nation's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. I am a bottom line 
person, a nuts and bolts kind of guy. How are we going to get there 
from here? How will we reach the goal the President expressed, which is 
to go back to emissions levels of 1990 by the years 2008 to 2012?
  Let's do the math.
  Fifty-five percent of our U.S. energy production is coal. What is 
happening to coal? If a new climate treaty is signed, there will be 
reductions in coal use. EPA's new air quality standards on ozone and 
particulate matter are likely to decrease coal use. EPA's tightened air 
quality standards on oxides of sulfur and nitrogen will put more 
emphasis on coal reduction. EPA's proposed regional haze rule will put 
more pressure on coal as will any new EPA mercury emission rules.
  So there is going to be more pressure to reduce use of the resource 
supplying 55 percent of our electricity.
  What about nuclear?
  Well, the President threatens to veto our nuclear waste bill. There 
have been no new orders for new plants in the United States since 1975. 
There is the potential inability to recover stranded

[[Page S11190]]

costs of nuclear plants in electric restructuring, so nuclear use is 
likely to fall.
  Nuclear is the largest carbon-free generator of power. The President 
didn't even mention it in his plan.
  Let us go to our next contributor--10 percent of our energy comes 
from hydroelectric. Yet, there are considerations in the administration 
to tear down dams. An example that has been discussed is the Glen 
Canyon Dam. If we tear down Glen Canyon, we would drain Lake Powell--
252 square miles. That is a lake that provides the water for Los 
Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. It would eliminate sources of carbon-
free electricity for 4 million consumers in the Southwest. We would 
scuttle a $500 million tourist industry.
  What about gas that supplies 10 percent of our power? Gas also emits 
carbons, but not as much. Demand would increase, prices would increase, 
and shortages might result.
  Some people say we will pick up the slack with wind and solar. I like 
wind and solar, but you can't always count on it. It is kind of 
interesting to see the Sierra's Club announcement the other day 
opposing wind farms. They refer to them as ``Cuisinarts for birds.'' So 
they are opposed to that.
  So the point is, Mr. President, how do you get there from here if the 
administration does not consider nuclear or hydroelectric? In his 
speech, the President specifically excludes hydro from renewable 
energy.
  What about the rest of the world? Let me tell you what one of our 
witnesses said at a hearing yesterday. Mr. Bill Martin, former Deputy 
Secretary of Energy, said the world is likely to increase its 
dependence on coal primarily due to energy demand in China. This 
dependence is likely to result in the doubling of sulfur dioxides in 
Asia and at least a 30-percent increase in global CO2, in 
1990 levels, by the year 2000. To reach a sustainable energy with 
respect to carbon, the world will have to triple natural gas 
production, increase coal efficiencies through clean coal technology, 
triple renewables, triple nuclear power to a worldwide total of 1,000 
gigawatts and increase energy efficiency by at least 25 percent.
  Mr. President, these are the real terms and conditions in the world 
that we are living in. Nuclear energy, renewables and energy efficiency 
emerge as the only viable source to date that are emissions-free and 
offer some energy independence to nations which adopt them.
  The point I want to make here, Mr. President, is that nuclear and 
hydro, a big part of the solution, are not addressed in the 
administration's proposal on how to reduce emissions to the 1990 level 
by the year 2008 to 2012.
  The witnesses at the hearings we held yesterday said you cannot get 
there from here. You cannot physically do it unless you triple nuclear 
and the renewables, including hydro.
  Let me conclude with one other thing. The President says we can do 
this without a carbon tax. The Department of Energy says you need a 
carbon permit price of $50/ton. There is no difference. There are no 
free rides. Somebody has to pay it. If it is a carbon tax, it is $50 a 
ton, and it goes to the consumer. If we set up some kind of a market in 
emissions, somebody like the Board of Trade starts trading permits, 
they are estimated to equate to $50 a ton. Somebody is going to have to 
pay for that, and that is the U.S. consumer.

  Let me conclude with just one observation as we address China, as we 
address the question of whether we should sell nuclear reactors and 
technology to China.
  China has the availability of nuclear power reactors from France. 
They have it from other nations. Canada is selling; Russia is selling. 
And certainly they are a nuclear power.
  Do we want China to burn more coal? We already have a prohibition 
against assisting China in the development of the world's largest 
hydroelectric project. It is called the Three Gorges Dam. The Eximbank 
will not assist.
  Let me tell you how big Three Gorges is. That plant would produce 
18,000 megawatts, equal to 36 500-megawatt coal plants. So that is how 
China will address some of its energy demands from carbon-free 
hydropower. But we are prohibited from participating. And we are 
prohibited from participating in their nuclear power program.
  So I think, Mr. President, we have to be realistic. As the 
administration comes down with its plan, again, I suggest to you that 
the President has glossed over the issue of the developing countries' 
participation.
  I suggest and remind my colleagues of the Byrd-Hagel vote that was 95 
to 0. It said developing nations must have targets and timetables in 
the same timeframe as the United States. And the Berlin Mandate says, 
no new commitments for developing nations.
  So I conclude by saying the President only says ``meaningful 
commitments for developing nations.'' And I say ``meaningful'' means 
what?
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________