[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 72 (Thursday, May 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6046-S6051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 1151. A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction 
of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a 
market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce dependence 
upon foreign oil, to support the deployment of new climate change-
related technologies, and ensure benefits to consumers; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate 
Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February.
  The legislation we submit today incorporates the provisions of S. 
342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a 
new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of 
climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined 
with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced 
bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can 
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of 
climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it 
will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the 
jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found.
  In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology 
title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will 
allow us to usher in an new energy era, an era of responsible and 
innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous 
environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The ``cap and trade'' 
portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies 
capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use 
of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple 
benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new 
bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the 
Climate Stewardship Act. We simply need the political will to match the 
public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of 
business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and 
expertise.
  Our comprehensive bill sets forth a sound course toward a productive, 
secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the 
important efforts undertaken by academia, Government, and business over 
the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards This 
energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. 
First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond the 
modest goals of our bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 20 years 
using technologies available today. Second, the most important 
technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the 
next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable 
energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in 
the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. 
emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the 
efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs 
for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and 
significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving 
technologies currently available to residential and commercial 
consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is 
what spurs our action today.
  Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is 
important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this 
issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human-
induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just since 
February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic 
Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the 
Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, 
Dr. Robert Corell, chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented 
recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring 
more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic 
temperatures have increased at

[[Page S6047]]

twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, 
with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average.
  The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean 
temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.8 degrees Celsius, 
above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature 
increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the 
Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years 
ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland 
is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming 
projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 3 to 6 
degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. 
These are remarkable new scientific findings.
  It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, indigenous leaders 
from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight 
global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying 
their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the 
arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And 
in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of 
ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because 
they cannot reach the grass underneath.

       We are not asking for sympathy, said Larisa Abrutina of the 
     Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. We 
     are asking each country in the world to examine if it is 
     truly doing its part to slow climate change.

  The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have 
gained even greater prominence. For example, British Prime Minister 
Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his 
Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate 
change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to 
hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon 
resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World 
Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

     . . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of 
     the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too.

  The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with 
are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note 
that a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection 
between the two issues. The article highlights that a 50-year-long 
drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to 
substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James 
Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

     . . . the Indian Oceans shows very clear and dramatic warming 
     into the future, which means more and more drought for 
     southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect 
     from an increase in greenhouse gases.

  It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one 
enormous challenge.
  In its September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages 
laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's 
problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief 
Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular 
series of articles is:

       Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough 
     to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover 
     subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to 
     Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering 
     habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. . 
     . This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're not 
     going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. But 
     we are going to take you all over the world to show you the 
     hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some 
     canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at 
     myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story 
     in geography today.

  The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of 
Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the 
world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 
15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is 
that it is now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over 
vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer 
may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came 
from.
  Highlighted quotes from the articles include: Things that normally 
happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human 
lifetime. The future breakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains 
a disturbing possibility. More than a hundred million people worldwide 
live within 3 feet of mean sea level. At some point, as temperatures 
continue to rise, species will have no room to run. The natural cycles 
of interdependent creatures may fall out of sync. We will have a better 
idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is going to be a very 
different world.
  Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an 
obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the 
challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate 
stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation 
enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is 
upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be 
about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing 
not only our nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation 
offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each members 
careful consideration and support.

  I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the 
various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to 
describe some of the key provisions designed to enhance innovation and 
commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse 
gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, 
solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and 
biofuels:
  The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former 
Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation 
Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster 
technological innovation to address global warming. These new 
directives include: developing and implementing strategic plans to 
promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to 
the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; 
prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; 
(establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation 
goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational 
initiatives that support innovation objectives.
  It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/
private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change 
technologies by working with industry to advance the design and 
demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the 
transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the 
Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the 
cost, 50/50, of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear 
energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a 
plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by 
this bill, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to 
reimburse the original amount provided by the Government.
  After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be 
able to provide loans or loan guarantees, Up to 80 percent, for the 
construction of these new designs including three nuclear plant designs 
certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; 
three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage 
that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon 
emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin 
to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source; 
and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and 
plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol.

  The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology 
Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, 
a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would 
be created in the bill, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each 
plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back 
these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction 
loan.

[[Page S6048]]

  I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but 
necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the 
costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, 
will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the 
Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program, so 
that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the 
taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any 
Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when 
the plant becomes operational.
  Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay 
reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low 
emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding 
provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover 
the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future 
appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it 
is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of 
inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified 
cost-benefit outcome.
  In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill 
also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and 
efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a 
``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective 
and proven mechanism for Federal procurement and incentives. Providers' 
``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to 
reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.
  The ``reverse auction'' program would be funded initially by the 
taxpayers but eventually would be funded by the proceeds from the 
annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change 
Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program.
  I want to clarify that this bill doesn't propose to dictate to 
industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. 
Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of 
their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading 
system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under 
the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs--less than 10 
percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was 
enacted. That successful model can and must be used to address this 
urgent and growing global warming crisis.
  The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method 
endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after 
it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same 
model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good 
policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry 
leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the 
largest companies in the U.S.
  Moreover, using the proven market principles that underlie cap and 
trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to 
spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental 
technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies 
that Congress can devise.
  Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to 
promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they 
are not transformational. In the 1970s, Americans were waiting in line 
for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department 
of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we 
remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East 
and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the 
ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is 
continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation 
and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very 
good deal.
  Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon 
dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the 
Nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the 
development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do 
the job. It is indispensable to the task before us.
  The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the 
exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and 
trade system. This should be determined administratively through a 
process developed with great care to achieve the principles and 
purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting 
utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission 
reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated 
justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right 
will not be easy, but it can and must be done.
  The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not 
go into effect for another 5 years. In the interim there is much that 
the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and 
economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary 
barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, 
products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and 
development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the marketplace. 
Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new 
technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission 
cap and trade system to meet our objectives.
  As I mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote 
the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation 
technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable 
energies, and biofuels.
  I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. 
Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology 
package, I am sure they will be the focus of much attention.
  I know that some of our friends in the environmental community 
maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies 
nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much 
higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and 
Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their 
environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is clean, producing 
zero emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate 
electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases 
accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air 
pollution affecting our communities
  The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is 
an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude 
of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest 
environmental threat to the planet.
  The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy 
consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next 15 
years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal-
fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as 
necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, 
intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.
  As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. 
electricity produced by this zero emission technology will actually 
decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain 
nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not 
replaced with higher emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can 
and should play an even greater role, not because I have some 
inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple 
reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives 
such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of 
global warming.
  I would like to submit for the record a piece written by Nicholas 
Kristof of the New York Times. Mr. Kristof made the following 
observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental 
threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a 
corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James 
Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds 
the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as 
follows:


[[Page S6049]]


       I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to 
     drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every 
     year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our 
     descendents. Only one immediately available source does not 
     cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

  I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and 
renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the 
technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But 
today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent our energy 
mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of 
this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies.
  I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the 
responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the 
citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And 
the winnowing effect of the free market, as it should, will still 
determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But 
the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or 
no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and 
counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should 
it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be 
virtually impossible to meet.
  The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his 
tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental 
champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in 
the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear 
reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The 
Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that 
legislation. Now it is time for the logical next steps. The new title 
of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing Federal 
partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest 
reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once 
the demonstration has been made, free-market competition will take it 
from there. And the bill provides similar partnership mechanisms for 
the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one 
technology over another.
  No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal 
Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize 
new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body 
fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against 
porkbarrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so.
  The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many 
decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous 
economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas 
emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the 
price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is a cost 
that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished 
quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.
  It is also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these 
costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that 
fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk 
posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission 
technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they 
can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and 
a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on 
carbon emissions.
  The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 
years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval 
Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done 
safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach 
used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and build upon previous 
designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have 
not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has 
not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse 
in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's 
aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in 
itself represents a great risk to public safety.

  I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two 
thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly 
pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated:

       The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to 
     embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts.

  This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it 
inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global 
warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear 
energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration.
  Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of 
the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences 
which reported in 2001 that:

       Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere 
     as a result of human activities, causing surface air 
     temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. 
     Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over 
     the last several decades are likely mostly due to human 
     activities. . . .

  Also consider the warning on NASA's website which states:

       With the possible exception of another world war, a giant 
     asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the 
     single largest threat to our planet.

  Consider the words of the EPA that

       Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, 
     and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. 
     Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and 
     water supplies. . . .

  And, let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, 
Dr. John Marburger who says that,

       Global warming exists, an we have to do something about it, 
     and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide.

  Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United 
States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it 
is to reduce carbon dioxide.
  The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. 
However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the 
innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology 
have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and 
can be equally important in this latest global challenge.

  Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or 
next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the 
problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change 
are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, 
live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not 
one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted 
themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future 
generations, not just their own.
  When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 
could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires 
dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile 
the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is 
the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to 
lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we 
must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as 
Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2005]

           Nuclear Power Has Become a Green Source of Energy

                         (By Nicholas Kristof)

       If only one thing used to be crystal clear to any 
     environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the 
     deadliest threat this planet faced. That's why Dick Gregory 
     pledged at a huge antinuke demonstration in 1979 that he 
     would eat no solid food until all U.S. nuclear plants were 
     shut down.
       Gregory may be getting hungry.
       But it's time for the rest of us to drop that hostility to 
     nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that the biggest 
     environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and 
     that leads to a corollary: Nuclear energy is green.
       Nuclear power, in contrast to other sources, produces no 
     greenhouse gases. President Bush's overall environmental 
     policy gives me the shivers, but he's right to push ahead for 
     nuclear energy. There haven't been any successful orders for 
     new nuclear plants since 1973, but several proposals for new 
     plants are now moving ahead--and that's good for the world we 
     live in.

[[Page S6050]]

       Global energy demand will rise 60 percent during the next 
     25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and 
     nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap.
       Solar power is a disappointment, still accounting for only 
     about one-fifth of 1 percent of the nation's electricity and 
     costing about five times as much as other sources. Wind is 
     promising because its costs have fallen 80 percent, but it 
     suffers from one big problem: Wind doesn't blow all the time. 
     It's difficult to rely on a source that comes and goes.
       In contrast, nuclear energy already makes up 20 percent of 
     America's power, not to mention 75 percent of France's. A 
     sensible energy plan must encourage conservation--far more 
     than Bush's plans do--and promote things like hybrid vehicles 
     and hydrogen fuel cells. But for now, nuclear power is the 
     only source that doesn't contribute to global warming and 
     that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid.
       Is it safe? No, not entirely. Three Mile Island and 
     Chernobyl demonstrated that, and there are also risks from 
     terrorists.
       Then again, the world now has a half-century of experience 
     with nuclear power plants, 440 of them around the world, and 
     they have proved safer so far than the alternatives. 
     America's biggest power source is now coal, which kills about 
     25,000 people a year through soot in the air.
       To put it another way, nuclear energy seems much safer than 
     our dependency on coal, which kills more than 60 people every 
     day.
       Moreover, nuclear technology has become far safer through 
     the years. The future may belong to pebble-bed reactors, a 
     new design that promises to be both highly efficient and 
     incapable of a meltdown.
       Radioactive wastes are a challenge. But burdening future 
     generations with nuclear wastes in deep shafts is probably 
     more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in 
     which Manhattan is under water.
       Right now, the only significant U.S. source of electricity 
     that does not involve carbon emissions is hydropower. But 
     salmon runs have declined so much that we should be ripping 
     out dams, not adding more.
       What killed nuclear power in the past was cold economics. 
     Major studies at MIT and elsewhere show that nuclear power is 
     still a bit more expensive than new coal or natural gas 
     plants, but in the same ballpark if fossil fuel prices rise. 
     And if a $200-per-ton tax were imposed on carbon emissions, 
     nuclear energy would become cheaper than coal from new 
     plants.
       So it's time to welcome nuclear energy as green (though not 
     to subsidize it with direct handouts, as the nuclear industry 
     would like). Indeed, some environmentalists are already 
     climbing onboard. For example, the National Commission on 
     Energy Policy, a privately financed effort involving 
     environmentalists, academics and industry representatives, 
     issued a report in December that favors new nuclear plants.
       One of the most eloquent advocates of nuclear energy is 
     James Lovelock, the British scientist who created the Gaia 
     hypothesis, which holds that Earth is, in effect, a self-
     regulating organism.
       ``I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to 
     drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy,'' 
     Lovelock writes, adding: ``Every year that we continue 
     burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. Only one 
     immediately available source does not cause global warming, 
     and that is nuclear energy.''

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague Senator John McCain to introduce a second version of our 
Climate Stewardship Act with improvements--the Climate Stewardship AND 
Innovation Act (CSIA).
  In the computer age, we might call this Climate Stewardship 2.0. In 
this new version we take the time-tested strengths of the Climate 
Stewardship Act--like the emissions cap and trade program--and add new 
features to spur innovation and lead us into a 21st Century energy 
economy that prizes zero- or low-carbon emission technologies.
  And we do all this with market-driven programs that will promote a 
competition for efficient technologies and that don't drain the federal 
budget.
  Let me start with the basics.
  Climate change is real and its costs to the economy will be 
devastating if we don't act.
  Consider this very real example: 184 Alaskan coastal villages already 
need to be relocated because their land and infrastructure are being 
destroyed by advancing seas and warmer temperatures that are melting 
the permafrost.
  It will cost more than $100 million to relocate just one of these 
towns.
  What would be the price if we needed to do the same for New Orleans, 
Miami, or Santa Cruz, California?
  SwissRe, North America's leading reinsurer, projects that climate 
driven disasters could cost global financial centers more than $150 
billion per year within the next ten years.
  The original Climate Stewardship Act asked the American people and 
businesses to reduce their carbon emissions to 2000 levels--which were 
quite close to today's levels by the end of the decade.
  All we are saying is ``Don't make the problem worse! Do no further 
harm.''
  Our proposal--then and now--will reduce carbon emissions by putting a 
price on them with a cap and trade policy similar to the one used so 
successfully in the Clean Air Act of 1990 which reduced acid rain.
  Simply put, a business that doesn't reach its emissions target can 
buy emissions credits from those under the target.
  And, by the way, at the time we debated the acid rain program, 
industry estimated it would cost $1,000 a ton to comply and would ruin 
the economy. Today those emissions credits sell for between $100 and 
$200 a ton.
  America's innovators found a way to make it work for the economy and 
the environment--twin challenges that can and must move together in 
concert, not conflict.
  Because ``cap-and-trade'' creates a price for greenhouse emissions, 
it exposes the true cost of burning fossil fuels and will drive 
investment toward lower-emitting technologies.
  If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, while making 
sure that our economy remains strong, we need a program that gives 
business and industry both a push and pull.
  The push will come from requiring business and industry to cut their 
greenhouse gas pollution; the pull from giving them incentives to 
innovate, along with financial support for bringing the best 
innovations forward.
  There are many actions we can take today to meet the targets set in 
our original bill, ranging from increasing the efficiency of our 
operations, to boosting the use of renewable energy, for which so many 
states are now admirably pushing. But to advance beyond this goal and 
maintain emissions reductions in the future with a growing economy, we 
will need to push both innovation and the deployment of climate 
friendly technologies that already exist.
  While we're on the subject of technology and investment, I want to be 
sure that everybody sees that our emissions trading market itself will 
unleash a multi-billion dollar flow of capital into technology and 
innovation. Our opponents insist that everybody see the emissions 
reduction requirements of this bill as costs. The truth is that these 
so-called costs are vital investment flows necessary to bring about 
innovation, invention and technological change in an era where our 
climate, our economy and even our national security depend on our 
ability to wean ourselves from our dependence on oil, so much of which 
is imported from unstable regions in the world.
  Because technological change and innovation are so important for both 
climate change and energy independence, our bill creates a dedicated 
public sector mechanism for ensuring that some of that investment flow 
is directed at the technologies we need--including, for example, 
biofuels and clean ways of burning coal, to name just two examples from 
a potentially open-ended menu of climate-friendly technology choices.
  The new bill we are introducing today helps assure that the most 
important and efficient technological alternatives are supported. We do 
not pick winners or losers. That's for the market to do. Our bill is 
technology neutral, but does make sure that if there are barriers to 
developing or using new technologies, the resources are available to 
knock those barriers down.
  This bill provides support for first-of-its-kind innovation or early-
adoption of new energy technologies with minimal cost to the federal 
budget.
  Instead of turning to the taxpayer, our bill uses a self-funding 
mechanism by empowering the Secretary of Energy to use some of the 
money generated through the purchase of emissions credits, funneled 
through a new public corporation our bill creates, to help bring 
innovations to market. And this is not small change. It is a 
substantial multibillion dollar contribution every year.
  Mr. President, this kind of public sector support has many 
encouraging precedents.
  From the telegraph to the Internet, it was the timely intervention of 
the

[[Page S6051]]

federal government that helped bring new technologies to market.
  And, if we don't help bring these new low-carbon or zero-carbon 
technologies to market, we will be buying them from the nations that 
do.
  We only need look at the popular hybrid cars--low-emitting vehicles 
that consumers have shown they want by the long waiting lists that 
exist to buy them. And then remember that American manufacturers must 
license this technology from Japan.
  Our bill also ensures that assistance is provided to help with the 
transition to new technology and energy production with programs to 
reduce consumer costs, to help dislocated workers and communities, and 
to substantially support the deployment of climate friendly technology 
and energy production.
  We also know that some regions--like my State of Connecticut--and 
businesses like DuPont, BP, and Kodak have already acted pro actively 
and are working to reduce emissions on their own. We commend these 
actions. Even more important, our bill ensures that credit will be 
given to them for their good work.
  Just a few months ago, the head of the international panel on climate 
change, Dr. R. Pachauri, said that ``we are already at a dangerous 
point when it comes to global warming. . . . Immediate and very deep 
cuts in greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.''
  Let me repeat those last words, ``If humanity is to survive.''
  When I quoted Dr. Pachauri on this floor in February, I reminded the 
Senate that the Bush Administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's 
appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more 
cautious and pragmatic scientist.
  I quote him today because his warning words are so clear and strong.
  Global warming is truly one of the great challenges of our age--a 
challenge where the Heavens and the Earth meet.
  It is a challenge of Biblical proportions--to meet God's call in 
Corinthians to be ``stewards'' of His mysteries--and in Genesis to go 
forth and ``replenish the earth'' to both work and guard the garden.
  If we don't take these simple steps now--steps that are well within 
both our technological and financial grasp--the generations to come 
will rightfully look back at us with scorn and ask why we acted so 
selfishly . . . why we cared only for our own short-term profits and 
comforts . . . and why we left them a world environment in danger. We 
must act on our vision of a better future, a future that is most 
definitely within our reach.
  That is what Senator McCain and I are convinced our CSIA will do.
  We put forth this innovation and technology proposal to start a 
conversation here in the Senate with colleagues whose support we need 
to get to a majority, and to provide some ideas for how to accelerate 
and build a climate friendly future. We hope that our colleagues will 
join us in this conversation so we can put forth--and pass--the best 
proposal possible.
                                 ______