[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 76 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5291-S5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to alert my
colleagues of the growing concern that we all have relative to climate
change and the developing technology associated with that change.
This week the U.S. Global Change Research Program issued a revealing
and rather startling new report on the consequences of climate change.
This report affects a number of things. But the most significant
portion of the report is the estimated effects of climate change on
various regions of the country and various sectors of our economy. It
is very important--agriculture, water resources, and so forth.
At the heart of this report are some ``potential scenarios'' of
climate change over the next 100 years predicted by two climate models:
Computers models that were state of the art 3 years ago when the report
began. These ``scenarios'' of climate change were then used to drive
other models for vegetation, river flow, and agriculture. Each of these
models had its own set of assumptions and limitations. The end result
was a 600-page report that paints a rather grim picture of 21st century
climate predictions.
[[Page S5292]]
Some in the environmental community in favor of the Kyoto Protocol
are now using this report and shouting from the rooftops. They think
this study means we should go forward with drastic measures to limit
greenhouse gases.
But I want to caution my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and
to look to the science that underlies this assessment. What they are
going to find is rather startling. The realization factually is that we
are only just now beginning to conduct the kind of scientific research
that will allow us to determine impacts of climate change.
My point is obvious. These models were based on technology 3 years
ago. Technologies change. Interpretations change. But the basis for the
evaluation and generalization is based on old information.
For example, a reasonable test of a climate model is whether or not
it actually and accurately stimulates today's climate. The fact is that
it doesn't. We found from the National Assessment's own science web
site a comparison of rainfall predicted by two climate models that
measure actual rainfall. The area reflects twice what the model
predicts. More than twice as much rainfall is actually observed as
opposed to what the model suggests.
The emotional concern is coming from the model. Where you actually
get 10 inches of rain, the model predicts that you actually get 20
inches, or more. Similarly, in the areas where the model predicts less
than half as much rainfall as is actually observed, you actually get 10
inches of rain. The model predicts that you would get 5, or less.
So the model is absolutely under question and under scrutiny and
doesn't represent reality.
The amount of rain or snow falling within a river basin determines
the river flow. We all know that determines the amount of water for
irrigation of crops, the health of fish species, the generation of
hydroelectric power, and the water available for human use.
Depending on what the climate models say, you can imagine some very
different impacts because the models are off by 50 or 100 percent in
either direction. You can see it is going to change. The estimate of
impacts from climate change on these sensitive areas could also change.
Even with all of this, the assessment has been a very useful exercise
because it shows the difficulty of estimating regional impacts of
climate change. It highlights the need for additional scientific
research; namely, improved climate models; and it reminds us of the
potential risk of climate change.
For just a moment I want to shift the talk about how our energy
policy will determine future emissions of greenhouse gases. As you
might imagine, further emissions will be extremely sensitive in the
energy choices we make. We now have an excellent opportunity to address
our environmental concerns at the same time that we address our growing
dependence on foreign oil.
Yesterday, we conducted a hearing on the Republican energy strategy
in S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. It includes a
balanced portfolio of energy options that, amazingly enough, would
produce fewer greenhouse gases than the current administration plan.
Let me repeat that. This legislation contains a methodology to generate
fewer greenhouse gases than the administration's current energy plan.
That is not surprising because the administration's plan would increase
our dependence on foreign oil to nearly 66 percent by the year 2020.
We would advocate increased use of natural gas for a wide range of
energy needs. We also provide tax incentives for renewables, such as
wind and biomass, and make the relicensing process for nuclear and
hydro power plants much easier. But to achieve these goals, we will
need some changes in the existing energy policies.
We need incentives to increase domestic production of oil and gas,
particularly on Federal lands where this administration has simply
refused to allow oil and gas exploration. About 64 percent of the
overthrust belt has been determined to be over limits.
In my State of Alaska, where you are very likely to have a large
discovery in a small sliver of the Arctic, about 1.5 million acres out
of 19 million acres has been put off limits.
We need incentives and R&D funds to develop and promote clean fossil
fuel technology.
We need to use more natural gas for end-use appliances and
distributed generation of electricity through fuel cells and
microturbines in homes and businesses.
We need to eliminate barriers to our best sources of nonemitting
power generation; namely, nuclear and hydro.
And we need to encourage and support renewable energy technologies.
Based on some simple calculations by my Energy and Natural Resource
Committee staff, we estimate that such a balanced energy plan could
reduce our emissions by 11 percent, compared to the administration's
plan, by the year 2020. We could do this without economic cost and
without sacrificing our quality of life or our competitive situation
with little economic pain.
Our staff is working to refine these calculations further. But the
details really do not matter much. Simply put, if we use more nuclear,
more hydro, and more natural gas, we emit fewer greenhouse gases and we
reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the year 2020 from 68 percent,
as projected under the administration's plan, to less than 50 percent
under the Republican plan. Clearly, that is a step in the right
direction.
With further R&D funding for climate-friendly energy technology, such
as that proposed in our climate change bill, S. 882, we can do better.
A balanced energy portfolio simply makes good sense for our economy,
for our environment, and for our national security. We have proposed
legislation that will take us there.
Let me close by noting that it seems ironic this administration has
wasted no opportunity to talk about the dire predictions of climate
change. Yet the Republican energy plan offers a cleaner, more secure
energy future.
The risk of human-induced climate change is a risk we should
responsibly address. We should address it based on sound science, and
not emotion, as is often the case around here. A balanced, technology-
driven energy strategy offers the means to do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on June 12, the administration's National
Assessment Coordinating Office, established under the authority of the
Office of the President, released the first National Assessment on
Climate Change. This report entitled ``Climate Change Impacts on the
United States,'' is a political document. It is not a mainstream
science document. It has not been peer-reviewed.
The National Assessment attempts to predict in detail climate changes
region-by-region within the United States over 100 years. Yes, region
by region for 100 years. The charade of this effort is criticized by
the Environmental Protection Agency's web page. This morning I checked
the EPA's web page for its comments on computer climate model. It
states:
Virtually all published estimates of how climate could
change in the United States are the result of computer
models. . . . These complicated models . . . are still not
accurate enough to provide reliable forecasts on how the
climate may change; and the several models often yield
contradictory results . . . Scientists are unable to say
whether particular regions will receive more or less
rainfall; and for many regions they are unable to even state
whether a wetter or drier climate is more likely.
This is from this morning's web page.
The National Assessment does not highlight the large amount of
uncertainty in long-term climate forecasting. It was released in draft
form even though two of the five sectoral studies are incomplete and
still out in draft form for comment. The regional studies--which the
EPA itself has warned are impossible to honestly conclude--are also
incomplete. One might suspect that the priority was placed on releasing
the report for a political time-table rather than for a scientific
time-table.
It uses two foreign computer models: The Canadian Centre model and
Britain's ``Hadley Centre'' model. These are considered among the most
extreme of all climate models available.
As mentioned in an opinion piece Wednesday, June 14 in the New York
Times entitled ``Warming Earth, Heated Rhetoric'' by Gregg Easterbrook,
senior editor of The New Republic:
[[Page S5293]]
One [model] predicts a catastrophic drought that kills off
all trees in the American Southeast; the other forecasts
increased rainfall and forest expansion in the Southeast.
One of the country's most respected climate scientists, Dr. John
Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville has also been
critical. Dr. Christy is the country's premier specialist on satellite
measurements of atmospheric temperatures.
In a June 9 Associated Press story, Dr. Christy commented on a pre-
release version of the National Assessment he had obtained. He stated,
I read the Executive Summary and the following sections
through page 9--``Looking at America's Climate.'' I stopped
at that point thinking, ``This must be some kind of joke.''
It seemed to me that this document was written by a committee
of Greenpeace, Ted Turner, Al Gore and Stephen King.
I saw no attempt at scientific objectivity. This document
is an evangelistic statement about a coming apocalypse, not a
scientific statement about the evolution of a complicated
system with significant uncertainties. As it is, the document
will be easily dismissed by anyone with access to information
about the uncertainties of the issue.
The National Assessment declares that there is a direct connection
between increased global temperatures and increases in man-made
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. While there are many
disagreements in the scientific community, there is a consensus that it
is impossible to make that connection.
Has the world been warming? Yes, the world has been warming for
11,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. In the last 100
years, global temperatures have increased by about one degree.
Is this warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Let me
quote from Dr. Marsh, a researcher at the Argonne National Laboratory,
New York Times, Sept. 8, 1999:
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that contributes
only about 3% of the greenhouse effect, and man-made sources
represent some 3% to 4% of carbon dioxide emissions, the rest
being from natural sources.
The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. . . . if all the
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to vanish magically, it
would lead to a one degree centigrade decrease in global
temperatures.
These are the comments of a researcher at a U.S. Government national
laboratory.
Even the possible current moderate warming is not well understood.
Ground temperatures have risen slightly in the past two decades. But
more accurate--and truly global--satellite temperature measurements
have shown no warming in the 20 years those measurements have been
available. In fact, they have shown a slight cooling.
Is there fluctuation in the climate? Of course. Ice cores sampling
has shown wide fluctuations in the global climate long before the
emergency of man, much less the industrial age. Are current
fluctuations man made? The simple answer is that we do not know.
What do we know and what do we need to do to do more? We need more
scientific research, honest scientific research. We need more
technological development. We need to involve both the private and
public sectors in working on this issue.
Senator Murkowski, Senator Craig, Senator Byrd, and I have all
introduced legislation that would do exactly that. But most of all, we
need to restore a bipartisan, commonsense, science-based, market-driven
approach to this important issue. We do not need more precooked
political nonsense, political tracts, masquerading as unbiased science.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this week the Administration
released, with much media fanfare, a draft document known as the
climate change ``National Assessment'' that purports to assess ``the
potential consequences of climate variability and change'' in the
United States. I have received several media requests for comments on
this document.
The document is of considerable length, Mr. President--approximately
600 pages. Frankly, because of its length and the short time I've had
to review it, I have been able to give it only a quick review.
My preliminary conclusion is that the National Assessment could
provide a useful contribution to the climate change debate if it
stimulates more serious national interest in advancing climate science.
What is clear to me, even after only a quick read, is that the
National Assessment was produced in a style and method that is somewhat
akin to writing good science fiction. The authors begin with a few
baseline assumption, then apply a vivid imagination to extrapolate
outcomes based on those assumptions.
The literary application of science concepts makes the story
intriguing to read, especially for readers with a scientific bent.
But the National Assessment is not the only current document that
talks about climate change science. The ``Pathways Report'' published
last Fall by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, is also a stimulating read. But it takes an entirely
different approach.
One way you can tell that the National Assessment and Pathways Report
are different in style is from the selection of punctuation. The
National Assessment uses lots of exclamation points. Perhaps, that is
one of the reasons why this document has gotten pretty good media
attention already. The Pathways Report uses mostly question marks.
The National Assessment takes a single, linear approach to the
climate change question. It simply extrapolates continued worldwide
growth in carbon dioxide emissions throughout the 21st century, and
assumes that growth will correlate to steadily rising temperatures
around the world. The implications of those increases in temperature
and carbon dioxide concentrations supply the creative images that the
National Assessment's authors offer up.
The Pathways Report is dry by comparison. It is short on creative
literature and long on technical issue framing--not particularly
suitable for catchy media headlines, which may explain why many
newspapers showed little interest in its existence or import.
But its critical and thorough scientific analysis of the current
states of our climate change knowledge is what makes the Pathways
Report so important to policy makers.
Now, if you are like me and you find out that America's National
Research Council has just published the most comprehensive report in
history on the state of climate science--you don't want to read all 550
pages! You want to cut to the chase and read the report's bottom line
conclusion! And the last thing you want is a report that provides more
questions than answers.
But the Pathways Report authors are brutally honest. To best explain
the current state of climate science they had no choice but to lay out
a whole series of potentially show-stopping questions. Now, none of
these questions asks ``Is global warming for real?'' No, in fact, once
you begin to ponder the Pathway questions you realize that the climate
change issue cannot be resolved with any simple thumbs up or thumbs
down.
Here are some of the scientific questions that the Pathways Report
focuses on:
How much do we know about the earth's capacity to assimilate natural
and man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Do we need to learn more? What,
in particular, do we know about the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon
dioxide? How much of this absorption occurs naturally? What can be done
to increase ocean assimilation of carbon dioxide?
And these are just the opening round of questions.
What is the effect of the oceans on our climate? What is the state of
our understanding of ocean cycles and of other changes in ocean
temperature and salinity, and of how those changes, in turn, affect
climate? How do we evaluate the natural variability of the climate,
including such phenomena as El Nino and the North Atlantic oscillation?
Can we improve our understanding here?
Mr. President, let me stop for a moment and reflect on a recent trip
I made to Woods Hole, Massachusetts with the Senator from New
Hampshire, Bob Smith, and our colleague from Rhode Island, Lincoln
Chafee. We spent a day at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
exploring these questions with over 30 scientists. It was a real eye-
opening experience.
Dr. Berrrien Moore, who coordinated the publication of the Pathways
Report, helped lead a discussion on where
[[Page S5294]]
science and public policy intersect. Dr. Bob Weller and Dr. Ray Schmitt
along with several other prominent ocean scientists of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, gave us progress reports and fascinating
explanations of their work and its relevance to climate science.
For example, Mr. President, did you realize that for each one degree
change in the temperature of just the top three meters of ocean water,
there is a corresponding one degree change in the temperature of the
atmosphere above the surface of that water all the way to outer space?
Did you know, Mr. President, that 80 percent or more of our climate
variation is influenced by the oceans?
Two themes came through clearly in those discussions, Mr. President:
There are significant gaps in scientific understanding of the way
oceans and the atmosphere interact to affect climate; and
Scientists need more data, especially from the oceans to better
understand and predict possible changes.
Mr. President, it was humbling to get a glimpse of how much we don't
know.
Now let me continue with the rest of the questions the Pathways
Report urges us to consider.
How accurately can we predict climate trends whose recurrences are
measured in years? In decades? In centuries? In millennia? Are we
capable of plotting the effects, and counter effects, of these
complexly interwoven trends on each other? Do we even have the
capability to observe these trends and counter-trends accurately? Do we
have the computational ability to integrate all these trends and
counter trends into one big equation?
How much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emanates from the oceans?
Does this amount vary from place to place and time to time? Does such
variation matter?
Those are just some of the questions that we policymakers cannot
answer ourselves. But we need answers--and to get them, we will have to
support the scientists on a more serious level than we have to date.
But there are more questions, Mr. President. These next ones we
should be thinking about ourselves and discussing with scientists and
with all of our concerned constituents.
Should U.S. policymaking on climate change rely primarily upon
climate modeling performed by others outside the U.S.? Or should the
U.S. have the capability to marshal data and scientific conclusions
independent of foreign countries who may or may not share our domestic
policy concerns?
Again, Mr. President, let me pause for a moment and refer to the
recent National Research Council's Climate Research Committee's report
entitled ``Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change
Assessment Activities.''
First, let me thank Dr. Maurice Blackmon from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, for his patience with me and my staff. He has
helped us have a balanced appreciation for these issues. That report
provides valuable guidance on this subject. On page 5 of that report,
the NRC's Climate Research Committee states:
Although collaboration and free and open information and
data exchange with foreign modeling centers are critical, it
is inappropriate for the United States to rely heavily upon
foreign centers to provide high-end modeling capabilities.
There are a number of reasons for this including the
following:
* * * * *
2. Decisions that might substantially affect the U.S.
economy might be made based upon . . . simulations . . .
produced by countries with different priorities than those of
the United States.
Mr. President, the National Assessment depended on the use of foreign
computer models only. The authors of that document are completely up-
front about that fact, and I commend them for their honesty. However,
for the reasons contained in the NRC's modeling report, I am
uncomfortable relying on the conclusions in the National Assessment.
The pace of science is dynamic and unpredictable. For example, just
last month Science magazine reported on some intriguing experiments
undertaken in the Indian Ocean. Those experiments raised the prospect
that certain assumptions about aerosols incorporated in the Canadian
and British climate models that underlie the National Assessment were
fundamentally flawed. This means that the warming predictions from even
these models are probably way too high.
Dr. Neal Lane, a White House spokesman, acknowledged this at Senator
McCain's hearing on May 17 and feels it may be several years before
this can be resolved. Unfortunately, the National Assessment's vivid
scenarios were sent to the printer before this new discovery became
public.
This seems to give us as policymakers only two choices: Either
disregard the National Assessment and all the hard work that went into
it, or re-do it with the assumptions corrected, this time using U.S.
models.
Mr. President, when we make tough, historic policy decisions around
here on everything from multilateral defense strategies, to global
trade, to international farm output, we use our own intelligence and
analysis, we don't simply rely on the technical work of other countries
which may not see the world through the American prism.
With continued regard to America's climate modeling capability, Mr.
President, I must ask--What are our national objectives? Do we have a
national strategy in place to achieve those objectives? Is the strategy
integrated and coordinated across all relevant agenices? Are NASA and
DOE and NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, all
building the same model using a common blueprint?
Do we have adequate computational resources to fully exploit our
evolving modeling capability? Do we have enough human talent dedicated
to these tasks?
What is our confidence level in the integrity of all observational
data used to validate climate models? Are our measurements ``close
enough for government work''?
How can we be sure that the scientists are even measuring the right
climate variables? Are there any important climate variables that are
inadequately measured, or not measured at all?
Do we build climate observing requirements into existing, ongoing
operational programs? At sea? In the atmosphere? In space? Should we do
more? How many ships at sea are measuring water temperature and
salinity? How many weather balloons and satellites are measuring and
transmitting data?
Oceanographers I've visited tell me that they don't know the
temperature or salinity of the ocean in most spots around the world
today, much less ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago.
Do we need a discretely funded activity for the development and
implementation of climate-specific observational programs? Where are we
on the technology to monitor relevant national and global data? Is it
developed? Is it fully deployed? Will other countries fully support
this?
Have we assessed the capability and potential of U.S. and North
American carbon sequestration, includng carbon sequestration through
crops, forests, soils, oceans, and wetlands?
How do we ensure that the science that informs U.S. policy making is
objective and complete? Do scientists have unfettered access to each
other's completed work, especially when that work is funded by the
government? Is the process of peer review adequate to assure all
viewpoints are examined?
Regardless of politics, we in Congress share one tough job with our
friends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Science must drive
policy and not vice versa. I don't know how else to make sure that
happens other than to guarantee that the science gets put out on the
table and is subject to public discussion and public scrutiny.
The American people have never been afraid of the truth. We'll deal
with that. What we can't hack is being kept in the dark or being lied
to by our own government.
The National Research Council's Pathways and Climate Modeling Reports
raise some profoundly important questions. Our best policy decisions
could turn on the answers to any of them. We owe to our constituents
and to future generations to seek answers and not hide from whatever
turns up.
The United States with its abundant resources, technological
superiority, and economic power is in a unique position to provide
leadership in scientific research that can lead to a more complete
understanding of the natural and human influences currently at work in
our oceans and atmosphere.
[[Page S5295]]
What is needed, Mr. President, is a national commitment embodied in a
government framework that provides a ``blue print'' for responsible
action based on consensus. Chairman Murkowski and I have been working
on that legislative ``blue print.''
Taken together, our bills provide that ``blue print'' for consensus.
While S. 882, Chairman Murkowski's bill, appropriately focuses on our
nation's enormous technological abilities, S. 1776, the bill I
introduced last October constructs a complementary framework that
ensures:
A critical analysis, evaluation, and integration of all scientific,
technological, and economic facts;
A ``blue print'' for coordinated action that is both practical and
conscientious so that the government will not neglect an issue or back
us into less than optimum policy choices;
The advancement of climate science by integrating and focusing it on
core questions;
Immediate actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways we
will appreciate;
The encouragement of technology development;
No unnecessary burdens on citizens that can be caused by the
government prematurely picking winners and losers; and
Process for consensus for future government actions.
Without consensus, Mr. President, our nation will languish in
political stalemate, causing us to fall behind other nations in key
technological areas.
Some insist that we sharply reduce our reliance on carbon as an
energy source. Again, cost impact estimates vary widely--from little
economic impact to belief that such action will mortally wound our
economy. Yet, there has been no serious effort to systematically and
critically analyze this issue by our government.
The National Assessment does not provide it. S. 1776 does.
Another area of concern expressed in National Research Council
Reports, and mentioned prominently in recent NAS testimony before the
Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is the lack of
governmental structure with the primary mission of coordinating climate
programs.
S. 1776 directly addresses this concern by providing a structure for
coordination of all government action on climate change.
This is merely one approach to this very complicated problem. We in
Congress need feedback from experienced leaders in science, economics,
and government to help us design the optimum structure for coordinating
climate change policy.
It has been ten years, Mr. President, since Congress enacted the
Global Change Research Act of 1990. We have learned much since then.
Much of the sensation generated by the National Assessment, stems from
the vivid worst case scenarios described in that document.
Let's not be provoked into rash action by these scenarios. Even the
co-chairman of the National Assessment, cautions that:
We're not making a specific prediction about what the
future will be like. It would be farcical to try to do that.
Indeed, the National Research Council recently testified before the
Senate that the ``jury is still out'' on whether Human influence is
even a significant factor in climate change.
Instead, let's roll up our sleeves and pursue the more methodical
approach:
Answer the core science questions;
Pursue the economic analyses;
Take immediate, risk-free actions that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
The NRC, based on its study of the successes and failures of the U.S.
Global Climate Research Program established by the 1990 act, has
provided Congress with excellent recommendations and pathways for
future action. It would be irresponsible to ignore them.
Moreover, it has also been almost 8 years since the Senate ratified
the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. We cannot, nor
should we, roll back our ratification of the Framework Convention.
Instead, we should ensure that the United States is thoroughly and
conscientiously responding to the Framework Convention commitments. Our
``blue print'' does precisely that.
For example, the Framework Convention says take flexible action now.
So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says explore and integrate
the science. So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says climate
change measures must be cost-effective. Every measure in S. 1776 stands
on its own two feet.
The Framework Convention says steps to mitigate climate change are
effective if based on relevant science, technology, and economics, and
continually evaluated. S. 1776 spells out how U.S. policy will--by
law--be based on a combination of science, technology, and economics .
. . and the President must reevaluate each of these factors each year.
Mr. President, our legislation provides a framework for national
consensus. Stalemate on the climate change issue should no longer be
tolerated. We have the vehicle to move forward. We should do so
expeditiously, and with the constructive support of the administration.
I anxiously await the response to my April 3rd letter to the Chairman
of the White House Climate Change Task Force, where I described how we
could get there. I ask unanimous consent that the April 3rd letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
Roger S. Ballentine,
Chairman, White House Climate Change Task Force, The White
House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ballentine: Thank you for your recent letter
commenting on the two separate pieces of legislation that my
friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski and I have introduced
on the subject of climate change. Senator Murkowski and I
have been working together on this legislation for a year
now. We are both sponsors of both bills. I welcome the
opening you give us to work with the Administration as well.
Your letter was particularly helpful for two reasons.
First, it helped me appreciate how much the Administration
agrees with us. Secondly, it gives me a chance to clarify how
portions of S. 1776 work to complement, not contradict (as
your letter implies), so much of what the Administration is
already doing.
First, we agree (and see that we agree) on, in your words,
``emphasis on promoting the research, development and
diffusion of technologies to reduce or sequester the
greenhouse gases. . . .'' Secondly, we both want to ``improve
voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.''
Now let's turn to the many additional points on which we
agree, even though your letter reflects a few gaps in
appreciating that agreement. Along those lines, you urge that
it be made clear that our legislation is not ``intended as a
substitute for more comprehensive action.'' Thank you for the
opportunity to reassure the Administration that it is not.
Here is that reassurance in detail.
To begin, you listed nine bulleted Administration
initiatives, repeating in each instance that our legislation
``is no substitute for'' those Administrative initiatives. I
agree. Neither S. 1776 nor S. 1777 (my companion tax
incentive bill), is, nor is intended to be, a substitute for
any of the nine initiatives. If I had intended to substitute
my legislation for any of the nine, you would see provisions
in my legislation repealing or preempting those initiatives
that I meant to substitute with mine. You do not, because I
did not set out to do so. Let's take a closer look at each of
those nine bullets to help you appreciate how close we are:
1. Ongoing federal efforts to accelerate the research,
development, and deployment of efficient technologies and
renewable energy--
My bills only enhance those ongoing efforts. With regard to
federally funded R&D, we provide for some extra quality
assurance by calling for periodic independent critical
evaluations of ongoing projects so Congress and the Executive
Branch can be confident that deployment of finite R&D and
demonstration resources is current, optimum, and fully
accountable to the taxpayers.
2. The President's proposed package of tax incentives--
Nothing in my tax incentive bill, S. 1777, contradicts
anything in the President's package. My proposal to
permanently extend the R&D tax credit for projects addressing
climate change, and my provision providing a graduated scale
of tax credits for achieving increasingly challenging energy
efficiency benchmarks over a series of time periods would
complement the President's ideas in the short-term and long-
term.
Further, I call on Treasury and Energy to collaborate on a
set of meaningful tax incentives to directly spur voluntary
actions by ordinary citizens, and indirectly by entities that
are tax exempt such as municipal power agencies,
universities, and others.
[[Page S5296]]
3. The President's proposal to spur development of bioenergy
and bioproducts that can benefit farmers and rural areas,
reduce reliance on foreign oil, cut air pollution, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions--
This program first surfaced, of course, in an article by
Senator Dick Lugar in Foreign Affairs magazine over a year
ago. It is embodied in his bill which recently passed the
Senate without dissent. Actually, in the early drafting
stages I contemplated adding the text of the Lugar
legislation to my bill, but did not do so out of deference to
Senator Lugar whose strategy was to move his bill separately.
Instead, in public speeches leading up to its approval by the
full Senate I helped promote his legislation as a stand-alone
proposition. Let's both hope that the House takes it up
quickly and sends it to the President for enactment!
4. An initiative to encourage open competitive markets and
promote the export of American clean energy technologies
into the multi-billion dollar market of developing
transition countries around the world--
Again, we are in harmony. My bill takes the
Administration's proposal a few steps further with an entire
title on technology transfer. Projects that replace older
machinery in other countries with more advanced energy-
efficient technologies will qualify for a suite of export
incentives. These will undoubtedly be deployed in developing
countries because the bill is crafted in a way to target
these projects where local hosts do not have the economic
clout to finance them on their own.
5. The ongoing Vision 21 Power Plant program to develop coal-
fired power plants that would be about twice as efficient
as current plants--
My approach to achieve this objective is by way of tax
incentive. S. 1777 spurs continuing efficiency breakthroughs
by offering incentives to reach increasingly challenging
efficiency benchmarks--achievable in the short-term,
improving in the long-term.
6. Nuclear energy plant optimization--advanced technologies
that can help ensure the longer term reliability and
efficiency of existing nuclear power plants--
While my bills do not specify nuclear power projects for
short- or long-term promotion, I am confident that nuclear
power will benefit from my legislation. First, the current
and future Presidents are called upon to recommend to
Congress legislation to respond to climate change. Any
comprehensive execution of this provision would have to
address the role of nuclear power. However, if a President
should overlook nuclear in the mandated report and
recommendation to Congress, I offer a back-up. My bill also
includes a statutory requirement for the General Accounting
Office to identify statutory or administrative barriers to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If any exist with regard
to nuclear power, I would expect GAO to find them and
highlight them, along with all others.
I considered folding into S. 1776 the most important step
toward securing long-term reliability of nuclear power's
contribution, namely, nuclear waste legislation. I did not do
so because of the President's repeated vetoes. My goal from
the beginning remains unchanged: to find consensus, not
division, on climate change.
On a separate complementary track, as a member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee I have strongly supported
DOE's Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program and Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative.
7. Law to give businesses protection against being penalized
down the road when they take real, tangible actions today
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions--
Unlike some other proposals, my legislation actually
accomplishes this in hard currency immediately when such
actions are taken. My tax incentives, all of which are
available for the year in which the qualifying investments
are made, are all predicated on reporting the reductions
achieved by those investments under Section 1605(b) of EPAct,
as amended by S. 1776.
8. Help states and local communities undertake efforts to
encourage innovation and reduce greenhouse gases--
With the same stated purpose, but in contrast to the Clean
Air Partnership Fund's top-down approach, S. 1776 explicitly
preserves state-initiated climate change responses by
protecting them from future federal preemption. It works
as follows. If a state has a program that has as one of
its effects the reduction (or sequestration) of greenhouse
gas emissions, it remains in effect despite future federal
enactments to the contrary. The only exception: when a
future Congress recites in future legislation the specific
section number in my bill as either (1) being repealed
outright, or (2) as not applying to the specific state
program. I have been assured that this provision passes
Constitutional muster. I am confident that future
Congresses will look long and hard before deliberately and
conspicuously tampering with states' rights and climate
change programs.
9. Diplomatic effort to complete the unfinished business of
the Kyoto Protocol--
While our perspectives on this bullet in your letter to me
do not match, my legislation is silent on the subject. Again,
this is because my primary objective was to explore policies
on which consensus with the President and others is possible.
Let's not let our differing perspectives get in the way of
policies we can and do agree on.
However, as an aside, I do believe that both an
international and domestic consensus on Kyoto is achievable
and, in fact, emerging. As months and years pass since Vice
President Gore personally negotiated its terms and the
President signed it, several governments have distanced
themselves from--or, in Norway's case--impaled itself on
Kyoto. A sure way to resolve the issue once and for all here
in the United States is for the President to submit the
Treaty for Senate ratification. Sweeping in scope as my
legislation is, however, treaty ratification would not be
germane to my bill.
Finally, in the same spirit of sharpening our mutual
understanding, let's focus on an area where you seem to see
even more agreement between us than I do. Interpreting our
legislation as reflecting ``a shift in the terms of the
debate from whether there is a problem to what actions we can
take to address it,'' you take it one step further by quoting
Texaco: ``protracted debate about the adequacy of the science
is something [we need] to move beyond.''
On the question of the adequacy of the science, I side with
the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences. In the March 30, 2000 hearing before the Senate
Energy Committee, Dr. Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, speaking for
the National Academy, stated plainly: ``the jury is still
out.'' What portion of the warming signal is attributable to
anthropogenic effects and what to natural variability he
declined to speculate on, except to explicitly refuse to say
that Mankind's contribution is primary. Nor did he, speaking
on behalf of the science community, indicate that any
proposed suite of climate change response policies would
appreciably alter global temperature trends. Instead, he
focused the Committee's attention on the milestone Pathways
Report published just last Fall by the National Academy of
Sciences.
The fundamental gaps in climate science underscored in that
report are the foci of the science title of S. 1776. Having
worked closely with leading U.S. climate scientists on these
issues, I am now convinced that the United States (and,
therefore the world) has the potential capability to solve
these riddles. However, resources and hard work will be
required to do so. The science community has consensus:
climate science has a long way to go. Instead of pretending
that we have learned everything we need to learn as many
advocates on both sides of the climate change issue do for
quite different reasons, I advocate aggressive exploration
and resolution of these uncertainties.
In the meantime, my bill does stand for the proposition
that we needn't wait for that resolution to take immediate,
no regrets, steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally (and perhaps, even more importantly), I set out
the elements to put into place an inter-branch process by
which all relevant information--science, economics, and
technology--can be marshaled to guide conscientious,
contemporary public policy in a fast-changing world.
Should it turn out that sacrifice by American citizens--
even the stark sacrifices such as those portended by Kyoto--
are warranted, we must have confidence that all the
information is in, integrated, and understood, not only by
elected officials, but also by the people we are privileged
to serve.
I look forward to getting together soon to explore ways for
real progress--consensus action--this year.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Craig,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 15 minutes, and that when Senator Kennedy speaks,
that he also be given 15 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator has been very patient. I appreciate that.
____________________