[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3459-S3460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             EARTH DAY 1998

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take the 
opportunity to address our environment and energy resources this Earth 
Day 1998.
  My perspective is derived from my quarter-century in the United 
States Senate, wherein I have devoted much of my time to environmental 
and energy concerns. When I started my tenure here in 1973, the 
commemoration of Earth Day was three years young. During the ensuing 
years, I have witnessed great strides towards the improvement of our 
nation's environment. We are uniquely fortunate to be prosperous enough 
to consciously choose to promote environmental concerns and conserve 
resources. This Earth Day 1998 should focus on creating ways to not 
only continue these improvements in our own country, but also assist 
other nations in improving their ability to protect the world's 
environment. The earth is currently the only home we all share.
  I would like to think that I have contributed to the continuing 
United States environmental improvement during my years of public 
service. I actively participated in the multi-year debate on the 1977 
amendments to the Clean Air Act, and I am pleased to say, played a key 
role in shaping the 1990 amendments which has reaped substantial 
decreases in air pollutants since the first Earth Day in 1970.
  Through passage of the Clean Water Act and reauthorization of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, the United States of America has vastly 
improved the quality of its rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and has 
the safest drinking water in the world. Communities, while suffering 
some hardships, have been able to decrease emissions, provide clean, 
safe public areas for their citizens, and still remain a world economic 
leader. We have learned that costly regulation is not the solution, but 
cooperation with and incentives for the business community, as well as 
providing local control over local concerns, improves everyone's way of 
life.
  It is from the vantage point of my years of service in environmental 
and energy issues that I speak today about the divergence in regulation 
and policy from the best interests of our global climate. Several 
examples can be gleaned from the recent debates regarding emission 
standards and the global climate change document which emerged from 
Kyoto, Japan in December.
  Remember, since 1970, air pollution in this country has been steadily 
declining, despite the fact that the U.S. population has increased by 
almost 30% and vehicle travel has more than doubled. Now, I believe 
anyone will tell you they want clean air. However, one must also 
realize that any environmental improvement comes at some economic cost 
in our industrialized world. The United States may be responsible for 
20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, but it also 
responsible for producing 26 percent of the world's goods and services. 
And we still have some of the most stringent environmental standards 
around. We need to keep finding ways to improve air quality, while 
maintaining a standard of living that is envied the world over.
  American cities have just recently been able to achieve the stringent 
air quality standards, and air quality is improving. In my home state 
of New Mexico, Albuquerque was one of the first U.S. cities to be 
removed from the list of violators of national carbon monoxide 
standards. Let's let all communities continue to improve, rather than 
impose strict and costly new air quality standards before we know that 
they are based in sound science.
  I believe that many of my distinguished colleagues here in the Senate 
know I have long been a strong proponent of basing governmental 
decision making on sound science. Indeed, in both the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of last Congress, I 
fought hard to make sure ``sound science'' provisions were included in 
the legislation as a matter of policy. There has been some question 
about the scientific validity of the global warming theory. Theories do 
change. It was not all that long ago that my children were being taught 
in school that we were approaching another ice age.
  However, assuming that global climate change is occurring and 
emissions need to be reduced to improve the global climate, what is the 
logic of exempting developing countries from any global treaty aimed at 
reducing those emissions? Many developing countries, like China or 
India, are predicted to rapidly exceed developed countries' emission 
levels. Shouldn't every country be bound to reduce their carbon dioxide 
emissions? Why should this country bear the burden in this inequitable 
arrangement that will not reduce net emissions levels?
  Do not misunderstand me. We all have to live on this planet; we all 
should live well and live in a clean environment. I do not believe 
these goals are contradictory. Progress is not a curse. This nation is 
blessed to be leaders in Environmental protection and to also enjoy 
modern conveniences. I do applaud the fact that the climate change 
debate has focused some attention on looking to alternative and cleaner 
fuel sources.
  I do sometimes find it ironic that those environmental activists who 
speak the loudest about a dirty environment oppose development of the 
safest, cleanest energy source available in quantities to sustain our 
modern needs: nuclear energy.
  As we leave the 20th Century and head for a new millennium, we truly 
need to confront these strategic energy issues with careful logic and 
sound science.
  We live in the dominant economic, military, and cultural entity in 
the world. Our principles of government and economics are increasingly 
becoming the principles of the world. We can afford a clean world. As 
developing countries try to emulate our nation's success, we will find 
ourselves competing for resources that fuel modern economics.
  I have pledged to initiate a more forthright discussion of nuclear 
policy. We often define environmental debates in terms of ``us versus 
them.'' When it comes to global environment there is no them. We are 
all environmentalists. Nobody belittles the fundamental need for clean 
air and water. Some activists make their cause all-important, from 
whichever direction they come, and do not focus on what is right or 
fair. I believe that the emotional response is not always the logical 
alternative.
  As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I have faced criticism 
from both sides on some of my positions. Now, the President has 
outlined a program to reduce U.S. production of carbon dioxide and 
other greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by some time between 2008 and 
2012. Unfortunately, the President's goals are not achievable without 
seriously impacting our economy.
  Our national laboratories have studied the issue. Their report 
indicates that to get to the President's goals we would have to impose 
a $50/ton carbon tax. That would result in an increase of 12.5 cents/
gallon for gas and 1.5 cents/kilowatt-hour for electricity--almost a 
doubling a of the current cost of coal or natural gas-generated 
electricity. However, Nuclear energy can help meet the global goal.
  I was very disappointed that the talks in Kyoto did not include any 
serious discussion about nuclear energy. As I have pointed out before, 
in 1996 alone, nuclear power plants prevented the release of 147 metric 
tons of carbon, 2.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5 million tons 
of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is now only 
providing 20% of the United States' electricity, but those utilities' 
emissions of greenhouse gases were 25% lower than they would have been 
from fossil fuels.

[[Page S3460]]

  In the aspect of recognizing nuclear energy as a clean, economic fuel 
alternative, the United States has thus far failed to take the lead. 
Other countries, such as France, Japan, and Russia, have recognized the 
importance of nuclear energy sources. And there are many more 
beneficial uses of nuclear technologies, from the destruction of 
dangerous organisms in our food to enjoying healthier lives from 
medical procedures dependent on nuclear processes. The notation on our 
calendar should read that today, Earth Day, is the day we should begin 
to catch up with other countries that have prudently decided to use 
more nuclear power because it is good for the environment and makes 
good sense.
  I realize, however, that we cannot address the issue of nuclear 
energy without discussing the problem of nuclear waste. This should not 
deter us from a prudent course; we must, and we can, find ways to 
address nuclear waste safely. Currently there are exciting scientific 
ideas being developed to utilize the 60-75% of energy available in 
spent nuclear fuel rods while still reducing the half-life of residual 
material.
  I encourage debate this Earth Day on ways to improve the world's 
economy while maintaining a clean environment. Exploring nuclear energy 
issue is but one way. And indeed, the issue of energy use and 
environment is pertinent on more than one day a year. Let us just 
reflect on the possibilities for the new millennium as we proudly 
review our past successes.

                          ____________________