[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S843-S845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues
the fact that the President announced his plan related to global
warming. The plan appears to endorse some of the energy efficiency and
clean energy incentives that were reported out of the Senate Finance
Committee last evening. Obviously, I think all of us welcome White
House support for those initiatives.
I hope we can get the same level of support from the White House for
the other critical elements in the energy bill that relate to this
important issue of global warming.
Unfortunately, the rest of the plan that the administration unveiled
today appears to be little more than business as usual. The President's
statement earlier today referenced the voluntary reporting program for
greenhouse gas emissions which was established by Congress in 1992 as
part of the Energy Policy Act.
The intent of that program at that time was to encourage the energy
sector to begin to pay attention to greenhouse gas emissions. It was
not to drive serious reductions in emissions. It was a decade ago when
that legislation was passed, and we know much more now about global
warming and the threat that it could pose to us.
According to a year 2000 report by the Energy Information
Administration entitled ``Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United
States,'' U.S. energy intensity--that is the energy consumed per each
dollar of gross domestic product, and that is sort of the measure the
President referred to--fell by an average of 1.6 percent per year from
1990 to the year 2000.
At the same time that energy intensity was falling, the carbon
intensity of energy use has remained fairly constant. It is the use of
less energy per unit of economic output that has kept emissions from
growing at the same rate as the economy is growing, and the rate of
carbon emissions per unit of energy is not decreasing--or is decreasing
very little, certainly not enough.
Our economy has become increasingly oriented toward the service
sector, toward intellectual, high technology sectors. We are less
focused on heavy industry and manufacturing, and we are using less
energy per dollar of gross domestic product, which is to be expected as
our economy has evolved.
Yet as the population has grown and affluence has increased, we are
using more and more energy without reducing the emissions per unit of
energy consumed.
Clearly, climate change is an energy issue. We need to address it as
part of this energy policy debate that we are going to have when the
Congress returns after next week.
The United States committed under the framework convention on climate
change that was ratified in the Senate that we would take action to
reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Under the plan
announced today, the U.S. emissions will be 30 percent above 1990
levels by the year 2012. Continued reliance on these voluntary actions,
which is what the President is urging, without an overall policy
framework, without specific goals, will not lead to any serious
reductions in domestic emissions of greenhouse gases.
I have to ask why we would sell our technological and entrepreneurial
ingenuity so short. The American people believe climate change is a
critical issue. They also believe we can innovate our way to solutions
to these problems. With the administration approach to addressing
climate change, I fear we are communicating to the
[[Page S844]]
world we no longer have confidence in our technological ability to
solve these problems.
The energy bill we are going to debate when we return from the recess
includes concrete energy policy provisions that will reduce carbon
intensity in the energy sector. It includes increased vehicle fuel
economy and provides incentives to commercialized cutting-edge vehicle
technologies. It gives consumers greater information about emissions
from the energy they use so they can make deliberate decisions to
control their own contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. It
increases the mix of technologies for power generation, including a
much greater role for renewables and more efficient fossil generation
technology.
The renewable portfolio standard, for example--and that is a
provision in the bill we will be debating--is a market-driven approach
that will force renewable projects to compete against each other for a
share in the electricity market. To shift to a greater investment and
combine heat and power systems could more than double the efficiency of
coal-fired generation while dramatically cutting emissions.
There are many creative and thoughtful people in the private sector
eager to move forward with these types of projects. The right energy
policies can unleash the competitive creativity that will meet our
energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to agree on a
framework that removes impediments to efficiency and market
competition, that provides incentives for cleaner energy strategies
that will reduce emissions, and a framework that empowers consumers to
control their energy choices and manage their own environmental impact.
When I talk to students in my State--and I am planning to do that on
several occasions this next week--they express great interest in energy
and environmental issues. They want to know what they can do to affect
greenhouse gas emissions. They have a much greater stake in the future
than those of us here do, in fact. We need to be sure that 10 years
from now we have not left them with a problem that is out of control.
We need to be responsible and prudent now and not wait until 2012 to
make hard decisions on this very difficult issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in the last few days, I have spoken in
honor of two prominent Winter Olympians from Vermont, Kelly Clark and
Ross Powers. They are extraordinary snowboarders and athletes. They
have performed miracles in the air and snow in Salt Lake City.
I want Vermonters and all Americans to enjoy the Winter Olympics here
and elsewhere for the foreseeable future. They bring out the best and
noblest elements in human nature.
Today, the President is announcing his administration's policy to
deal with the global warming that threatens the reliability of winter
and therefore the enjoyment of winter sports. Unfortunately, from what
I understand, this policy will do nothing to significantly reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming.
Obviously, this is a very serious matter to Vermonters who love to
snowboard, ski and skate, and depend on predictable winters and snow.
It is also a serious matter to the mayor of Salt Lake City, whose city
is taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
energy efficiency. Further, I would note that the mayor and the city of
Burlington, like other progressive State and local leaders and
communities across the Nation, are taking similar actions to fill the
void of Federal leadership on this important issue.
I don't mean to be selfish, but I would like to be certain that
Vermonters can continue to win Gold Medals in the Winter Olympics for
generations to come. That means taking credible action on global
warming now so winter is around long enough every year for training,
competing, and busting huge air, as the snowboarders say at Suicide Six
Ski Area in Woodstock, VT.
Clean air is a major issue in Vermont. We want to stop acid rain, and
other public health and environmental damage. So, I am glad that the
President has finally put forward his multi-pollutant proposal. We have
been waiting for it since he took carbon dioxide off the table about a
year ago. Perhaps the administration will actually work with Congress
on this issue constructively.
I hope the administration sends the proposal up the Hill right away
in legislative form as was promised. That will speed our committee's
deliberations and Senate passage.
The details are not clear yet, but I hope that it will not entertain
reducing any existing Clean Air Act protections. That is a crucial
question that Vermonters will ask, from the skiers and snowboarders to
the hikers.
Unfortunately, real carbon reductions appear to have completely
fallen off the table in this climate policy. In fact, all we are
getting are some crumbs. Some of them even appear to be recycled crumbs
that Congress never passed and probably wouldn't have worked anyway.
A year ago, the President sent several Senators a unilateral ``Dear
John'' letter rejecting carbon dioxide reductions at power plants and
formally rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Today's new climate policy is
like delivering the final divorce papers to the public and the world.
And it is divorced from the reality of global warming. Maybe you could
call it a love letter to the status quo and the polluting past.
The Framework Convention, or the Rio Agreement, that the U.S. Senate
ratified under former President Bush commits us to adopting policies
that will achieve 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. That is our
commitment to the world.
This policy breaks that commitment. And it fails to acknowledge that
we are responsible for emitting 25 percent of the world's greenhouse
gases. Under this policy our share would continue to grow. There would
be no real reduction in our total emissions.
I have faith that American ingenuity can develop cleaner, greener and
more efficient technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But,
without a hard target to aim at, the arrow of progress is severely
blunted. Our technology edge, instead of our exports, will pass to
Europe, China, and other countries.
Finally, as I told Governor Whitman yesterday, the administration's
multi-pollutant bill has to improve air quality faster and better than
business as usual to be really credible. We will be asking for that
kind of proof in the coming days.
We will need details on how fast their bill reduces acid rain impacts
in the Northeast and how quickly it saves lives being lost or damaged
from particulate pollution. Every day of delay hurts the environment
and public health.
I hope their numbers can help move us forward and don't drag us
backward.
But, I must say, without real carbon dioxide reductions, this
proposal comes up short. You don't win a race with a three-legged
horse, you don't drive a car with three wheels and you don't get lucky
off a three-leaf clover.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Washington Post
editorial by Mayor Anderson from February 8, 2002.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 8, 2002]
Winterless Olympics
(By Ross C. ``Rocky'' Anderson and Bill McKibben)
Salt Lake City.--When the Winter Olympics opens tonight,
both of us will be standing on the sidelines and cheering--
one as mayor of the host city, the other as merely a rabid
fan of Nordic skiing. But for all the hoopla and speed and
elegance, we also are both aware that the future of the
Winter Games is in danger, because winter itself is in
danger.
The world's scientists have issued strong warnings about
climate change in the past few years, and their computer
models show clearly that, of all seasons, winter may change
the most. Across the West, snow levels are expected to climb
hundreds of feet up the mountains. In the East, according to
a recent assessment by scientific researchers, the cross-
country skiing and snowmobile industries ``may become
nonexistent by 2100.''
The majority of sub-Arctic glacial systems are now in rapid
retreat. Sea ice in the Arctic is thinning quickly, and
winter measured by dates of first and last freeze, is now
almost three weeks shorter across North American latitudes
than it was in 1970.
Such changes have practical implications. The weakening of
winter will, for instance, mean less water stored in mountain
[[Page S845]]
snowpacks for summer irrigation. The ski industry is already
fearful of the economic losses from shortened seasons.
As you watch the world's finest athletes glide across your
TV screen for the next two weeks, consider, too, how sad it
will be to lose much of that part of the year when you can
glide across ice or race down a slope.
This doesn't have to happen. We've already locked in some
global warming from our profligate use of fossil fuels in the
past, but it's not too late to take serious action to slow
climate change. Indeed, though Washington is still in the
grip of the fossil fuel lobbyists, state and local
governments are beginning to lead the way to clean energy
now.
Here in Salt Lake City people are committed to cutting
emissions of carbon dioxide 7 percent or more, meeting the
targets of the Kyoto Protocol, to which all industrialized
nations except the United States (under the Bush
administration) have voiced commitment.
How will it be done? By reducing energy consumption,
preserving large tracts of open space and creating new
guidelines for ``high performance buildings.'' Salt Lake City
is changing development patterns, expanding its mass
transportation system--in short, it's growing smart.
Salt Lake City is not alone. The Seattle City Council last
fall pledged that the city would meet or beat the targets of
the Kyoto treaty on global warming, and promised that its
municipal utility would soon be ``carbon-neutral,''
generating power without contributing to the greenhouse
effect. Voters in San Francisco last fall passed, by a wide
margin, an initiative that commits the city to buying large
amounts of solar power. And the governors of the New England
states, prodded by new computer models showing that Boston's
climate could resemble present-day Atlanta's by century's
end, have also committed to reductions in CO2
output.
Elsewhere, local governments are experimenting with
electric cars and windmills, with gas-guzzler taxes and prime
parking spaces for high-mileage cars, with new rapid transit
incentives and old utility phase-outs.
All of this would be easier and more effective with
committed leadership and backing from the federal government.
In the meantime, others have to take the lead.
Municipalities are good competitors. Every four years,
mayors around the world vie with each other to land the next
Olympics. If we spent the same effort and creativity on
redesigning our cities for energy efficiency, we might do
more than determine who wins the next Winter Games.
We might actually save winter.
____________________