[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S511-S515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 280. 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 support 
the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to 
ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on October 4 of last year, the Hadley 
Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which houses Great 
Britain's leading climate scientists, projected that in the absence of 
prompt action to curb global warming, extreme drought will spread 
across one third of the Earth's land surface by the end of this 
century.
  On October 30, the head of the United Kingdom's Government Economic 
Service forecasted that unchecked global warming will cost the world 
between five and twenty percent of gross domestic product each year.
  On December 4, the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control's 
National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as ``the 
largest looming public health challenge we face.'' Insect-borne 
diseases such as malaria are expected to spike as tropical ecosystems 
expand; hotter air will exacerbate the air pollutants that send our 
children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from 
shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and 
coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and 
dislocation.
  On December 14, in fact, the journal Science published a peer-
reviewed study projecting that unchecked global warming could cause sea 
levels to rise between a half meter and one-and-a-half meters above 
1990 levels by the end of this century. A sealevel rise in the middle 
of that range would submerge every city on the East Coast of the United 
States, from Miami to Boston.
  And on December 27, the Interior Department proposed to list the 
polar bear as threatened with extinction due to Arctic ice melt from 
global warming.
  When even erstwhile skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar 
bears are now threatened, I say the global warming debate is over. The 
American people want action, and they want it now.
  As you know, Senator McCain and I have brought our legislation to 
solve global warming to a vote in this chamber twice already, first in 
2003 and then again in 2005. On the same day that the Senate failed for 
a second time to pass our bill, in June 2005, this body fortunately did 
pass Senator Bingaman's resolution that the Congress should enact ``a 
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based 
limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse 
the growth of such emissions.''

[[Page S512]]

  Today I am reintroducing an improved version of my and Senator 
McCain's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. As the last version of 
the Act did, the version I introduce today carries the co-sponsorship 
of Senators Obama and Snowe. I am proud to say that improvements to the 
bill have now attracted the additional co-sponsorship of Senators 
Lincoln and Collins. Very shortly, I understand, Representatives Olver 
and Gilchrest will reintroduce this bill's companion in the House.
  The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would 
have capped U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without 
mandating further reductions. The new bill will gradually lower the 
emissions cap, such that it reaches approximately one third of 2000 
levels by 2050. Those long-term reductions will forestall catastrophic, 
manmade climate change, provided the world's other major economies 
follow suit within the next decade. Like the 2005 version, the 
reintroduced bill will control compliance costs by allowing companies 
to trade, save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to 
generate ``offset'' credits by inducing noncovered businesses, farms, 
and others to reduce their emissions or capture and store greenhouse 
gases. The reintroduced bill, however, will increase the availability 
of borrowing and offsets in order to control costs further.
  This bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, where I will chair a subcommittee on climate change. 
Colleagues of mine on that committee, including our esteemed chairwoman 
and my good friend, Senator Boxer, will have their own strong proposals 
for curbing global warming. I look forward to working with them to get 
comprehensive legislation reported favorably to the floor in a 
bipartisan manner. Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, has invested a great deal of work and 
expertise in a comprehensive climate bill of his own. I believe Senator 
Bingaman will be highly influential in this process, and I look forward 
to working with him closely to solve this problem.
  With American know-how we can and will solve this problem. We will 
use the power of the free market to promote the rapid and widespread 
deployment of advanced technologies and practices for reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. And we will do so without weakening the 
economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship 
on its citizens.
  I would like to close by extending my heartfelt thanks to the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for placing legislation to 
curb global warming among his top ten priorities for this Congress, and 
for memorializing that commitment with the introduction, as S. 6, of 
the National Energy and Environmental Security Act, a bill that I was 
proud to co-sponsor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman 
today, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Snowe, Obama, Collins, and 
Lincoln, in introducing the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 
2007. This legislation is designed to significantly reduce the Nation's 
greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate 
change, enhance our national security and maintain the strength to our 
economy. It would be accomplished through a combination of trading 
markets and the deployment of advanced technologies.
  As I have stated on previous occasions, the design of this 
legislation is an evolving process. The legislation we are introducing 
today represents yet another step in that effort. Since our last vote 
on this legislation, Senator Lieberman and I have continued work on 
this proposal with the goal of producing the most innovative, 
meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced by 
the Senate. We believe the changes which we have made since we first 
introduced climate change legislation in the 108th Congress puts us on 
the path to achieving this goal, and we intend to make further 
improvements to this comprehensive legislation in the days ahead.
  We have continually worked with scientists, industry, 
environmentalists, as well as the faith-based community, to ensure that 
we are fully addressing the serious problem of global warming. We 
continue to learn more about the science and the impacts of climate 
change on a daily basis. We continue to work with economists and 
industry experts to ensure that our emissions goals do not hamstring 
our economic objectives. In particular, we continue to learn more about 
the power of the markets to control costs as emission credit trading 
continues in Europe and here in the U.S. I am confident that given the 
will, the Federal Government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that 
America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the 
global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental 
issue.
  I want to mention the efforts of States like California, which has 
already enacted legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse 
gas emissions, and the Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware, 
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, which are also 
seeking to limit emissions from power plants. Over 300 U.S. mayors have 
signed an agreement to reduce emissions in their cities.
  As these State plans and legislation are implemented, they will offer 
Congress and the Administration unique opportunities to review and 
incorporate lessons learned from these efforts into Federal 
legislation. Despite the improvements we have made in this version of 
our bill to be environmentally responsible and to minimize economic 
costs, we will continue to pursue new and innovative ideas that will 
further these objectives, and we will modify our bill accordingly.
  The legislation we submit today is designed to protect our 
environment from the impacts of the climate change resulting from the 
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, improve our national 
security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels that often carry with 
them geopolitical costs, and position our economy to become a world 
leader in the expanding markets for development and deployment of new 
energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. It proposes 
the utilization of the ``cap and trade'' approach and promotes 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. It will also serve to 
protect our country and the world from the security threat posed by 
populations whose health, livelihood, and variability are potentially 
threatened by global rising temperatures and altered environments.
  In fact, the cap and trade provisions and the technology title are 
complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to 
usher in a 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 
and Innovation Act. We simply need the political will to match the 
public's concern about climate change, desire for national security, 
the economic interests of business and consumers, and American 
technological ingenuity and expertise.
  As I mentioned, we continue to learn more about the science of 
climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this 
environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant 
action is needed. Our National Academies of Sciences, along with the 
national academies from the other G8 nations, China, India, and Brazil, 
has said in a joint statement that ``there is now strong evidence that 
significant global warming is occurring.'' and ``[t] he scientific 
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify 
nations taking prompt action.''
  We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are 
costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in 
net

[[Page S513]]

greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more climate 
change and a much harder job in the future. Our comprehensive 
legislation is one approach to a productive, secure, and clean energy 
future. But it is only one approach and we welcome other proposals--let 
a thousand flowers bloom.
  Significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond those 
required by this bill--are feasible over the next 15-20 years using 
technologies available today. Also, the most important technological 
deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades 
lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, 
including nuclear, solar, wind, and bio-fuels. 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.
  Let me take a moment to address a section of our legislation that has 
been the target of some concerns by environmentalists and others--
concerns that I believe are entirely unwarranted. The provisions in our 
bill to promote nuclear energy are an important part of the 
comprehensive technology package.
  I know that some of our friends here in the Senate and in the 
environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, 
even though today 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 are not exactly 
known for their environmental disregard. The fact is, nuclear energy is 
CLEAN. It produces 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 future 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 fifteen 
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, but the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket and 
intensify 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.

  No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal 
Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize 
new and beneficial energy technologies, and particularly nuclear 
designs. We understand the power of markets to spur innovation and our 
proposals is built on this fundamental lesson. But the fact remains 
that the market playing field has been highly uneven--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's 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 avoid internalizing these 
costs placed produces at a great advantage over clean competitors. 
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 so that these clean technologies can be utilized as soon as 
possible is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public 
necessity, particularly, as we work to promote America's energy 
independence.
  The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarines 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 built 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.
  As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of 
legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, it has 
become clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must 
contain five essential components:
  First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets 
and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and has both environmental 
and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary 
outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible 
and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in 
this bill.
  Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must 
limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission 
credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the 
central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change 
the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more 
dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.
  Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work 
effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade'' 
is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other 
assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone 
about the economic impacts associated with any climate change 
legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly 
sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we 
have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn 
more from these models about additional action items to further reduce 
costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier 
economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in 
an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new 
markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and 
innovative ways to further minimize costs.
  Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced 
technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part 
of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop 
and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good 
environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global 
market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from 
being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This 
legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long 
way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be 
funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission 
credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations 
that will never materialize.
  And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the 
problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an 
international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our 
leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as 
India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added 
provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships 
in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to 
achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the 
international market.

[[Page S514]]

  These five components represent a serious challenge that will require 
a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual 
power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the 
environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities. 
We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape 
our legislation to its most effective form.
  The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and 
institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical 
for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren. 
If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could 
face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far 
beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a 
way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in 
the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater 
energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S. 
leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt; 
failure to act is the far greater risk.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, with my colleagues 
Senators Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Lincoln, and Collins, S. 280, the 
bipartisan Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act that requires the 
United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas 
emissions for the protection of both our environment and our economy. 
This legislation takes concrete steps by using a fair, market-based 
system to once and for all demonstrate leadership on climate change and 
reduce emissions in the United States. Furthermore, it will do so 
without weakening the economic position of the United States or 
otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens.
  Ongoing peer-reviewed scientific and economic research demonstrates 
that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and 
economical issues of the 21st century, impacting the planet's weather 
patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods, 
heat waves, and droughts. Yet, I have grave concerns that the lack of 
domestic climate change policy is akin to Nero's approach, fiddling as 
the planet warms.
  With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is 
adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the 
Congress to step up and take action. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas 
emissions that enter the atmosphere today from all sectors of our 
society will last for generations to come threatening our oceans, our 
environment and the economic well-being of our country and the world. 
It is beyond dispute that we cannot afford the price of inaction.
  The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract 
concept. Sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting. Indeed, 
earlier this month the Bush administration listed the polar bear a 
threatened species. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne 
stated, ``Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors. They're 
able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments, 
but there's concern that their habitat may literally be melting away.'' 
The listing document says that the polar bear's ice habitat that is 
used as platforms for hunting, mating and resting could vanish within 
half a century.
  The majestic polar bear of the Arctic may well be the symbol of 
climate change just as the bald eagle was when Rachel Carson published 
her stunning book ``Silent Spring'' in 1962 that linked the DDT 
pesticide to the fate of our national symbol--and created an 
environmental conscious for the country.
  It is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing both 
domestic and international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get 
to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies 
taking domestic actions. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are 
global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only 
be met with all the countries of the world working together.
  That is why when asked by three major independent think tanks--the 
Center for American Progress in the U.S., the Institute for Public 
Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the 
co-chairmanship of the high-level International Climate Change 
Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a 
parallel track with the Kyoto Protocol process. The report from this 
Taskforce, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve 
the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and 
major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to 
achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global 
policy framework that is both inclusive and fair.
  The Taskforce, along with Co-chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers 
of the U.K., includes an international, cross-party, cross-sector 
collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business and 
civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out 
a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively 
finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious 
and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those 
not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope 
our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and, 
ultimately, set the score for lasting change.
  The Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of 
preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degree 
Fahrenheit, 2 degrees Centigrade, above the pre-industrial level by the 
end of the century.
  The Taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree 
Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive 
review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the 
ICCT Report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks 
to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for 
example, that average temperature increases larger than this will 
entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of 
people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health 
impacts.''
  Our Report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to 
specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse 
gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature 
rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a 
high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 
degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas 
concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences 
on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add 
up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a 
CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''.
  This goal of the ICCT comports well with the Climate Stewardship and 
Innovation Act we are introducing today because the legislation creates 
a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce manmade carbon 
dioxide emissions with specific targets to meet specific dates. The 
bill will also make the U.S. a partner in the vast community of 
developed countries who have adopted national mandatory cap-and-trade 
systems for carbon emissions. I believe it will also bring emerging 
economies to the international negotiating table, such as China, who is 
predicted to surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse 
gases by 2010--China who is putting on line one carbon-spewing coal-
fired power plant each week.
  Achieving success for climate change legislation that calls for 
realistic reductions of greenhouse gases by setting certain targets 
means disabusing skeptics and opponents alike of cherished mythologies 
that environmental protection and economic growth are mutually 
exclusive. The irony is both are actually increasingly interdependent 
and will only become more so as the 21st century progresses. Robust 
companies dedicated to reducing emissions are proof-positive ``going-
green'' represents a burgeoning sector of our economy, not the drain 
and hindrance we've been led to believe for so many years. This bill 
accommodates for the early actions these companies have taken to reduce 
emissions.
  And to their credit--the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced 
emissions even further than required in the Climate Stewardship and 
Innovation Act. In an act of economic acumen, they are hedging their 
bets by

[[Page S515]]

adopting internal targets. And, these companies are saving money by 
reducing their energy consumption and positioning themselves to compete 
in the growing global market for climate-friendly technologies. Any 
cost-conscious CFO--or forward-thinking CEO for that matter--should 
admit that to prevent pollution now will most certainly cost less than 
cleaning it up later.
  The economics of prevention and stewardship resonate more when you 
consider property that erodes because of rising sea levels, farm land 
that fails to yield crops and becomes barren and arid, and revenue 
opportunities squandered because of dwindling fishing stocks caused by 
hotter temperatures. These represent real costs to the bottom line--not 
to mention irreparable damage to our health and quality of life. We 
procrastinate on these policy imperatives at the peril of both our 
country and our planet. Congress is quite facile at deferring costs to 
the future, often with enormous consequences. No one was more aware of 
this tendency than Abraham Lincoln, who--in his Message to Congress in 
1862--offered this challenge to the legislative branch, ``The dogmas of 
the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is 
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our 
case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.''
  We have a choice between an ever more treacherous path of greater 
environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better 
future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries. 
I urge my colleagues to join with those of us who believe we should 
move forward by taking appropriate actions now for global warming 
reductions so that we may leave behind a better environment that was 
bestowed to us.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, more than 18 months ago I stood in this 
Chamber to express my support for a previous version of the Climate 
Stewardship and Innovation Act, and to urge the support of my 
colleagues. On that day, I said that there are moments when we have the 
chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better 
world. However, in the interim, Congress has chosen not to act. In the 
interim, our Nation, and others around the world, continued to release 
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increasing rates.
  With each passing year, as we choose not to act, the air we breathe 
contains ever more carbon dioxide, resulting from our use of fossil 
fuels. If we continue on our present course, human endeavors could 
cause a rise in temperature equivalent to the change between the last 
ice age and today. The decisions we make now on greenhouse gas 
emissions will have effects in the second half of this century, and 
into the next. The consequences of our inaction will be devastating for 
our children and grandchildren, and will be even worse for the poorest 
global populations.
  Climate change is not reflected just in the fact that last year was 
the warmest year on record in the United States, or in the recent 
proposal that polar bears be listed as an endangered species because 
Arctic ice is melting. Those are just symptoms. The bigger problem is 
that global climate change will, in this century and the next, have 
effects on human health, on access to water, and on production of food.
  Our inaction may reflect a misunderstanding of scientific evidence, 
even though such evidence accumulates, year by year, showing that 
climate change is a global threat resulting from human activity. 
Perhaps our inaction betrays an uncertainty about our ability to 
address this problem. Or perhaps our inaction is simply a result of 
inertia, a lack of political will in facing a difficult problem.
  Whatever the basis of our inaction, I am convinced that we must now 
act. Every delay makes a solution more distant, and more difficult. I 
am also convinced that the best solution takes the form of the Climate 
Stewardship Act, which addresses the real costs and consequences of our 
current patterns of energy use, establishing a framework for a market-
based solution which relies on American will, ingenuity, and 
technological expertise to mitigate climate change.
  This bill establishes limits for greenhouse gas emissions well into 
the 21st century. To remain below these limits, the bill encourages the 
market to determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
rewarding cost-effective approaches using a system of tradeable 
allowances.
  Revenues generated from this program will be used to help the 
industries and individuals most affected by the limits. These revenues 
will also fund research and development of efficient energy 
technologies, such as green buildings, high-power batteries for hybrid 
cars, safer nuclear plants to generate electricity, large scale 
biofuels facilities, renewable sources, and advanced coal power plants 
that capture the carbon dioxide they generate. This program will spur 
American innovation, creating business opportunities as new markets are 
created in low-carbon technologies and services.
  I am proud to join Senators Lieberman and McCain in introducing this 
legislation, and I urge others to join this effort. I also look forward 
to the support of the American people as we move together to confront 
the very real threat to future generations of global climate change.
                                 ______