[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.

                          ____________________