[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5150-S5152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the American public observes and listens 
to the debate on climate change and global warming, I think there are 
probably three fundamental questions everybody wants answered. The 
first question is an obvious one, and that is: Is climate change 
occurring? Is global warming a fact and a reality that we need to deal 
with? I think you have to assume the answer to that question is yes. 
There are changes going on in our climate, on our planet, some of which 
we can explain and some of which we cannot explain.
  Honestly, I will use South Dakota as a case in point. We have 
experienced--probably for the last decade--successive and continuous 
years of drought. Yet, this year, in May, we had the wettest year in 
western South Dakota--in Rapid City--ever since they started keeping 
historical records. So there are changes that occur that have to be 
viewed in the context of time--not just a decade period but a hundred- 
or thousand-year period--to determine what are the causes of the 
changes we are seeing in the climate. We had, in South Dakota, the 
coldest April this year we have had historically, going back 50 to 100 
years, and blizzards into the month of May. So there are a lot of 
changes that are going on, some of which I think can be explained and 
some of which cannot be explained. We need to look at them in the 
broader context of what has happened over a long period of time with 
respect to our climate.
  The second question the American people would ask is this: If, in 
fact, climate change is occurring--and we assume the answer to that is 
yes--is human activity contributing to that? If we, again, assume the 
answer to this question is yes, then we have to get to the next 
question. I think, frankly, I would answer, if we look at the question 
of whether human activity is contributing to that, we cannot put our 
heads in the sand. Obviously, changes are occurring. We assume that the 
presence of humanity on this planet and some of the things we are 
emitting into the atmosphere are creating changes. I think we need to 
acknowledge that.
  That leads to the next question that I think has become the focus of 
the debate in the Senate, and that is this question: If the answer to 
question No. 1 is yes, it is occurring, and 2, it is occurring at least 
on some level--and we don't know how to quantify that because of human 
activity--what are we going to do about it and at what cost? That is 
really the focal point of the debate in the Senate today.
  In my view, there are many problems associated with the bill 
currently under consideration on the floor of the Senate. First off, it 
provides a minimal environmental benefit since it is a unilateral 
solution. China has exceeded us in terms of CO2 emissions. 
It will not get them to stop their CO2 emissions because the 
United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade program. So you 
don't gain environmental benefit. In fact, it could likely have some 
profound and devastating impacts on our economy.
  With regard to the first point about the other polluting countries 
around the world, this was said recently by President Clinton with 
regard to the Kyoto protocol. He said that 170 countries signed the 
treaty, and only 6 out of 170 reduced their greenhouse gases to the 
1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline.
  These countries signed a binding agreement, and yet they are doing 
really nothing to get back to the goal or targets called for in that 
protocol.
  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the European Union, 
which began to operate its cap-and-trade system in 2005, has actually 
seen carbon dioxide emissions rise by 1 percent per year since that 
time. Interestingly enough, in the United States, since that same time 
when Europe implemented their cap-and-trade system, carbon dioxide 
emissions have actually declined by about 1 percent.
  I guess the bigger question here to this last question is, if this is 
occurring, what do we do about it and at what cost? We have to think 
long and hard about that in light of some of the things that are 
occurring in the country. We have $3.99 gasoline and $4.67 diesel. We 
have had devastating impacts on the economy in the United States as a 
result of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. We need to 
lessen that dependence and look for technologies that will clean up our 
environment. Imposing an onerous, burdensome system from the top in 
which we impose a big tax burden on literally every American, because 
with $3.99 gasoline and all the studies done by the Energy Information 
Agency--11 studies have been done, all of which have concluded that 
they will increase gas prices substantially and electricity prices 
substantially. We have to take a hard look at what the impact will be 
on our economy.
  I understand the time for morning business is going to expire. I 
would like to address some of those impacts as this debate on the 
climate change legislation gets underway. If I could wrap up morning 
business, I would like to continue with the debate on the climate 
change legislation, if that would be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota may continue.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to start with, regarding these 
economic impacts, looking generally at the economy.
  In the fourth quarter of last year, the economy grew at six-tenths of 
1 percent, and in the first quarter of this year it grew at nine-tenths 
of 1 percent. Some analysts and elected officials are looking at the 
record-high energy prices, the crisis in the financial services and 
housing markets, and the recent job losses as signs that we are already 
in a recession. In the last few weeks, we have seen oil traded at $130 
a barrel, which has caused the price of virtually all consumer goods in 
this country to increase. However, after months of debating high energy 
prices and a sluggish economy, we are now debating a bill that would 
actually raise energy prices and slow economic growth. I don't blame my 
constituents when they wonder how Washington works and complain that 
Congress seems to be out of touch with their everyday reality.
  Over the Memorial Day weekend, millions of families were faced with 
record-high gas prices. As they planned their vacations to travel to 
see loved ones, they were met with average gasoline prices that hovered 
around $4 per gallon.
  I point out that as the economy has slowed down, high energy prices 
have gone up, and the impact it has had on

[[Page S5151]]

every American family--again, the EIA analyzed this bill on the floor 
today, and it would project gasoline prices to increase at 21 percent, 
or higher, in 2020 and 41 percent in the year 2030 under this proposal 
before us today. The Environmental Protection Agency also looked at the 
bill and concluded that gas prices would increase over 20 percent by 
2030.
  As we have debated this bill this week, there has been one particular 
impact that I think may have been overlooked in the legislation that 
has been drafted, and that is the impact on our Nation's domestic 
aviation sector.
  Many of my colleagues and consumers in the country have witnessed 
firsthand in the first few months of this year that the domestic 
airlines are being crippled by the record price of aviation fuel, which 
will continue to rise in price under the cap-and-trade structure of 
this legislation. I will point out headlines of a few articles from 
yesterday and today: ``Continental Airlines to cut 3,000 jobs and 
capacity''; ``Summer airfares double, triple, quadruple''; ``United to 
cut back service, eliminate jobs.''
  The U.S. airline industry recently sent a letter to all Senators in 
anticipation of the debate on this climate change legislation we have 
in front of us today. Here is what it says:

       The proposed bill adds a significant additional increment 
     to the cost of transportation fuel. Assuming that emissions 
     allowances are modestly priced at $25 per metric ton of 
     carbon dioxide equivalents in 2012, when the bill would go 
     into effect, this legislation would add another $5 billion to 
     U.S. airline fuel costs, escalating each year thereafter. 
     Assuming a lower-end estimate in the prices in 2020, a $40 
     per metric ton CO2 price, the bill would impose a 
     $10 billion additional fuel tax on the U.S. airlines, 
     again escalating annually thereafter. Such costs will 
     result in further job losses, losses in air services to 
     small communities, and negative economic effects.

  I certainly agree we should all be doing more to promote cleaner 
forms of energy. But the legislation, as drafted, that we have before 
us today has significant ramifications that I think many individuals 
haven't fully considered.
  I have been a strong supporter of renewable fuels that can be 
produced in the United States and used in automobiles to reduce our 
dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. These alternative fuels are not 
applicable to our Nation's aviation sector. Now, it would be one thing 
to require sectors of the economy to transition to cleaner forms of 
energy, but this legislation, as drafted, would have a significant cost 
on our domestic airlines, which are already being significantly 
impacted by the record cost of oil, by adding additional costs that 
will be passed on to the consumer, which, in my opinion, could result 
in not only fewer people traveling but could bankrupt U.S. air 
carriers, while at the same time not requiring foreign air carriers to 
be subject to the same taxes that will be passed along under the cap-
and-trade system that is envisioned in this legislation.
  So one impact that I don't think has been entered in this debate as 
heavily as it should have been is the aviation sector of our economy, 
which is going through tumult and is experiencing economic hardship 
because of high fuel prices. This would complicate that further, and 
because they don't have access to using some of the cleaner fuels we 
are able to run through automobiles, it only worsens the situation they 
face. That is on top of what we are talking about today in terms of our 
headlines on job losses, capacity losses, airfares doubling, tripling, 
quadrupling, and cutbacks in service.
  What do we do, then, in response to the question, If this is 
occurring--climate change--and if human activity is contributing to it, 
what do we do about it and at what cost? I think there are a lot of 
things we could and should be doing.
  Honestly, irrespective of the answers to the first two questions, we 
should be making every effort we can to get emissions such as 
CO2 out of our atmosphere. We ought to work as hard as we 
can to do that. Rather than creating a cumbersome new bureaucracy that 
would increase the price of gasoline, Congress ought to look to 
lowering gas prices through increased domestic production and refining 
capacity and investment in alternatives, such as biofuels.
  With respect to electricity rates, again, according to the EIA, 
electricity prices are projected to increase up to 27 percent in 2020 
and a 64-percent increase in electricity prices by 2030. Under the bill 
before us, average annual household energy bills, excluding 
transportation costs, would be $325 higher in 2020 and $123 higher in 
the year 2030.
  I think there are some really good things that can be done and should 
be done. We need to start by investing in clean energy. I agree that we 
need to research and develop a new, reliable low-carbon energy source.
  In South Dakota, we have examples of how that works. We are going to 
be producing a billion gallons of ethanol by the end of this year. New 
corn-based ethanol plants are producing ethanol with a 20-percent 
reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular 
gasoline. In the coming years, we will be producing cellulosic ethanol 
that will reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 
percent. South Dakota also has an abundant source of wind, which is a 
zero-carbon-emitting source of energy.
  A recent DOE study noted that the United States has the ability to 
meet 20 percent of its generation needs with wind by 2030. We can 
promote low-carbon energy without destroying jobs. We can do this 
without raising taxes, and we can do this without raising gasoline 
prices.
  The climate change bill before the Senate puts the cart before the 
horse. The bill enacts mandates on at least 2,000 entities, and then 
the Federal Government collects the revenue through annual allowance 
auctions, and then the Government invests in new technologies. 
Meanwhile, jobs are lost, our economic growth slows, and family budgets 
get squeezed. If we are willing to make a bipartisan commitment to 
research and development of new technologies today, carbon reductions, 
in the very near future, will be considerably less expensive.
  In November of 2007, the Senate Commerce Committee held one of many 
hearings on clean coal technology, which will play a major role in the 
future of our Nation's energy portfolio. The nonprofit Electric Power 
Research Institute, which was represented at that hearing, identified 
the research and development pathways to demonstrate, by 2025, a full 
portfolio of economically attractive, commercial-scale, advanced coal 
power and integrated CCS technologies suitable for use with the broad 
range of coal types. If we make the commitment today to fund the 
research, finance the demonstration projects, and fund the loan 
guarantees first--if we do all those things first--reducing carbon 
emissions in the future will be far less costly to our economy.
  Mr. President, my message to my colleagues is very simply that we 
need to develop the technology before enacting onerous Government 
mandates on virtually every single part of our economy. Higher gas 
prices, higher electricity rates, a shrinking GDP, job losses, and 
minimal environmental benefit is what will come about as a result of 
this legislation if enacted.
  There is a better way. We ought to be doing everything we possibly 
can to get CO2 emissions and other pollutants out of our 
atmosphere to address the concerns we have about our environment, to be 
good stewards, to pass on a better world to the next generation, but 
there is a way we can go about this that is incentive based, that gets 
away from the heavy-handed, onerous regulations imposed by this bill 
and the enormous cost that will be imposed on literally every sector of 
our economy and, most importantly, on the hard-working American 
families who will be faced with higher prices for gasoline, higher 
prices for electricity at a time when we should be desperately looking 
for ways to reduce those prices and to lessen the economic hardship 
that every family in this country is experiencing.
  I hope my colleagues will vote no. I, too, have some amendments to 
offer to the bill if we get the opportunity to offer the amendments. My 
understanding is the amendment tree has been filled. That is 
unfortunate. This is a bill of enormous consequence to this country. 
Some have described it as the biggest reorganization of the Government 
since the 1930s. Given the complexities and the enormous impact this 
would have on Americans' everyday lives, we need to go about this in a 
way

[[Page S5152]]

that allows us to have open debate, offer amendments, and improve this 
bill.
  I regret the fact that the Democratic leadership has decided to 
abandon that open process in exchange for filling the amendment tree 
and preventing us from having an open debate and considering amendments 
that actually would protect consumers from higher gas and energy prices 
that would be the result of this legislation.
  If we get to an open process, I hope to have further debate and 
amendments we can consider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

                          ____________________