[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.
____________________