[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 20 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1376-S1377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address some troubling information
about natural gas, energy, and the prices of energy as well as its
availability. This information came from a hearing held in the Air
subcommittee of the EPW Committee last week, and I think it is of
sufficient importance to all Members and all States in the Nation that
I rise to speak to my colleagues about it.
We all know that American families and workers are suffering from
high energy costs. They will suffer even more if we do not balance our
environmental concerns with their energy needs. That is why the hearing
held last week in the Air subcommittee is all the more important. If we
fail to heed the warning our families and workers are sending us about
high energy costs and their lost jobs, their lost incomes, their lost
standards of living, then we risk doing even more harm.
The people I am talking about include manufacturing workers who used
to make chemicals, plastic products, automobile parts or fertilizer.
Many of them are now out of work because their employer moved to a
foreign country with cheaper natural gas prices.
The pain, obviously, doesn't stop with workers. Families suffer from
lost wages. Most of those who are lucky enough to get a new job will be
working for lower wages. Does that mean that those wages have to move
even lower? Do they have to live with a broken-down car even longer?
In addition, seniors on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable to
high natural gas prices. Across the Midwest, indeed across the country,
many depend on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter and cool
their homes in the summer. What do we tell them: Wear a coat inside
during the winter and turn on a fan during the summer? We all know of
the tragedies that hit our seniors in summer heat waves. What do we
tell their families?
Some have said we should tell our workers and their families that we
are going to hurt them even more in order to fight climate change. We
will pass proposals to cap carbon emissions which, by the way, will
raise energy prices even more. For some, I guess today's energy prices
are not high enough. Some are willing to drive power and heating bills
even higher in their fight against global warming. Some do not care
that there are no technologies currently available to capture and store
carbon dioxide. But they are working on finding those. We are not there
yet.
Some are willing to stop using cheap and abundant fuels, such as
coal, and force ourselves to use only the expensive and very limited
supply of natural gas. Every year, recently, we have had an opportunity
to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Every year we hear about how
it will deliver a $100 billion hit or more to the economy. Thankfully,
every year the Senate kills this job killer.
Last year, as part of the Energy bill debate, we passed a sense of
the Senate stating support for climate change strategies that did not
hurt the economy. I think we can all agree with that. It sounds simple,
but as we consider the ``McCain-Lieberman lite'' proposals, we have to
look at whether a second generation of proposals will actually spare
our families and workers from more pain.
Since we still do not have the technologies to capture and store
carbon, they will present other dubious arguments. Some will pin their
hopes on projections that future natural gas prices will fall from
triple historic levels, where they are now, to only double historic
levels, where they were a few years ago. This will somehow make carbon
caps affordable.
Not only do I doubt that natural gas prices will return to historic
lows, States represented by Members advocating these proposals are
actively trying to block actions necessary to increase natural gas
supply and get prices down. Government natural gas projections, which
we found very dubious, include a prediction that natural
[[Page S1377]]
gas prices will fall in the coming decades. However, that prediction
depends upon liquefied natural gas imports rising by 600 percent by
2030, a sixfold increase in LNG imports. I find such hopes mind-
boggling. How could we increase LNG imports by 600 percent at the same
time we have coastal States from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and Delaware opposing or blocking LNG terminals?
By the way, these Northeastern States blocking natural gas imports
through their States are the very ones proposing we punish Midwestern
States using coal by forcing them to switch to natural gas to make
electricity--the natural gas that they will not allow us to get through
LNG.
Others who claim carbon caps will be affordable, pin their hopes on
rosy economic analyses that say we can buy our way out of the problem.
They propose, instead of cutting carbon emissions, powerplants will be
able to purchase, hopefully, cheap credits from others who, hopefully,
cut their own carbon emissions elsewhere.
They are running models from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard that say the
price of buying carbon cuts in other countries will be cheaper than
forcing U.S. powerplants to reduce their own carbon emissions. I can't
dispute these are smart people, but I wonder if they are reading the
newspaper. Their models show a ton of carbon cuts costing just over $1
a ton. At that price, they say it would be affordable. Unfortunately,
last week the price to purchase a ton of carbon reductions was $31. You
do not have to be from Harvard to do that math. That is 31 times more
expensive. Do we believe that the cost of carbon credits will drop by
97 percent after we impose our own cap, when you see the increasing
demand for energy from India and China? That I do not believe is
likely.
Europe's system to cap carbon is certainly in a shambles. European
countries are failing miserably to meet their Kyoto carbon-cut
requirements. Thirteen of the fifteen original EU signatories are on
track to miss their 2010 emissions targets--by as much as 33 percent in
Spain and 25 percent in Denmark. Talks to discuss further cuts beyond
that, when Kyoto expires, have only produced agreement to talk further.
It sounds similar to the Senate these days. We can talk well, but doing
things is difficult.
If Europe is, for all practical purposes, ignoring their Kyoto carbon
commitments and there is no agreement to continue with carbon caps
after Kyoto, how can we expect the creation of enough credits? In the
alternative, if Europeans suddenly decide to rush and meet their
commitments by buying up massive amounts of credits to meet their
shortfalls, how will there be enough credits for a U.S. demand bigger
than all of Europe combined?
While these questions are complicated, their consequences are simple.
A mistake on our part could add significantly to the misery of our
manufacturing workers. A mistake on our part will add to the hardships
families face paying their heating and power bills. And one more
thought: Iran and Saudi Arabia are furiously busy expanding their
petrochemical industry, based upon their vast supplies of natural gas.
I ask unanimous consent an article on that subject be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOND. This means that not only more cheap foreign chemicals, but
it means potentially more closed U.S. plants. We must also ask whether
we want to add to our oil addiction a new chemical dependency on Iraq,
Iran, and the Middle East.
Before we make any hasty decisions, I believe we must have answers to
these questions, and we must answer these questions as we begin to
debate further carbon cap proposals.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Exhibit 1
[From MEHRNEWS.com, Jan. 2, 2006]
Iran Striving to Rank First in Ethylene Production
Iran plans to be number one in producing ethylene in the
world--reaching 12 million tons output within the next 10
years--by allocating 17.5 billion dollars in investment for
development of petrochemical projects in the Fourth Five-Year
Development Plan (2005-2010).
The figure stood around 12.5 billion dollars for the first
to third development plans (1990-2005) in total.
Out of the 25 projects under implementation, the National
Petrochemical Company (NPC) have completed 17 and would
finish the rest soon, said Hassan Sadat, manager of plans in
the NPC.
NPC plans to have an output of 25.6 million tons capacity
by March 2010 jumping up from 7.3 million tons in 1999, he
added.
The investment in the sector is forecast to increase by 40
percent in the fourth plan.
Sadat said that the output of polymers would reach 10
million tons within the next 10 years. The production of
chemical fertilizers, methanol, and aromatic materials would
increase to 8 million tons each. NPC has estimated that the
country earns some 20 billion dollars from export of
petrochemicals only by the date.
At present, nearly 52,000 employees work in petrochemical
sector that enjoys modern technologies such as ABS, PET--PAT,
engineering polymers, isocyanides, DME, and acetic acid.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the remaining time in morning
business on our side.
____________________