[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 179 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8903-S8905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Thanking Todd Bianco
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, this is my 53rd time for consecutive
weeks we are in session that I have come to the floor to speak about
climate change and to urge my colleagues that it is time to wake up.
These speeches are not easy. A great deal of effort goes into assisting
me with research and crafting of them. I am particularly grateful for
the hard work of Dr. Todd Bianco in helping me to prepare them. He is
the fellow sitting on the other side of the sign, looking embarrassed
that I have just called him out.
Todd joined my office in September of 2012 as a Geological Society of
America-U.S. Geological Survey congressional science fellow. He has
contributed considerable scientific understanding and analytical rigor
to our work. His ability to interpret the latest climate research has
helped me to convey complex scientific concepts both accurately and in
a way that is accessible and meaningful to policymakers and the public.
You may be used to seeing him with me here on the floor for each week's
speech, but he has also been effective in researching legislation and
preparing for hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I say this because this week marks the end of Todd's fellowship and
he will soon return home to Rhode Island with his wife Allison. Allison
Bianco, by the way, is a very talented artist whose work reflects our
deep human connection to the natural world. In addition to lending us
Todd, Allison has also lent us some of her artwork which is hung on
display in my front office. So in addition to thanking Todd for his
efforts, I also want to thank Allison. Todd, like me, is an over-
married human being.
I wish them both the best of luck back home, and I thank Todd for his
work in the U.S. Senate to advance responsible public policy, grounded
firmly in the best science.
It is time at last for Congress at least to heed that best science
and act responsibly. It is time to wake up. Denying and delaying is
irresponsible. In the judgment of history, it will ultimately, I
believe, be shameful. Carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels
is altering the climate. The consensus around this fact within the
scientific community is overwhelming, and public awareness of this
crisis is growing stronger.
Interestingly, it is growing stronger across party lines. Republicans
might want to listen to this. A survey conducted for the League of
Conservation Voters found that more than half of young Republican
voters, 53 percent of Republicans under the age of 35--53 percent would
describe a politician who denies climate change is happening as
``ignorant,'' ``out-of-touch,'' or ``crazy.'' Madam President, 53
percent of Republicans under 35 view that kind of climate denying as
``ignorant,'' ``out-of-touch,'' or ``crazy.''
Even though a majority of young Republicans understands that denying
climate change is out of touch with reality, Republicans in Congress
refuse to get serious. Why? Another national survey, this one by the
Pew Research Center, found that 61 percent of non-tea-party Republicans
actually agree there is solid evidence the Earth is warming, with a
plurality saying it is mostly because of humans. But the tea partiers
are different. Seventy percent of tea partiers, contrarily, say there
is
[[Page S8904]]
``no solid evidence'' the Earth is warming and 41 percent of tea
partiers assert that warming is ``just not happening.'' Not that we
don't have enough information yet, but it is ``just not happening.''
Regardless of what you think is the cause, there are legion
independent measurements that the Earth is warming. This is not a
theory. We measure that the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans is
rising. We measure that snow, ice caps, and glaciers are melting. We
measure that seas are rising. We measure that the very seasons are
shifting.
It is one thing to be the party that is against science. The tea
partiers would make it the party against measurement. Just as the tea
partiers led the Republicans off the government shutdown cliff, just as
the tea partiers tried to defeat the budget deal most Republicans
supported, so the tea party wants to lead the Republican Party off the
climate cliff.
Outside these walls it is different. Responsible Republican voices
more and more acknowledge the threat of climate change and call for
responsible solutions. Many want to correct the market failure that
aids and abets the polluters' irresponsible practices.
My colleagues, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Earl
Blumenauer, Senator Brian Schatz, and I have put forward just such a
market-based proposal, a revenue-neutral fee on carbon emissions, the
revenues of which would be returned back to the American people. Here,
within Congress, where the polluters' money flows so abundantly, no
Republican colleague has come forward to join us. But outside of
Congress here are some of the responsible voices in the Republican
Party: Former South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis has long urged
his party to get serious on climate change. In an article in the Duke
Environmental Law & Policy Forum this year, Mr. Inglis invoked the
tenets of conservative economics. He wrote:
If you're a conservative, it is time to step forward and
engage in the climate and energy debate because we have the
answer--free enterprise. . . . Conservatives understand that
we must set the correct incentives and this should include
internalizing pollution and other environmental costs in our
market system. We tax income but we don't tax emissions. It
makes sense to conservatives to take the tax off something
you want more of, income, and shift the tax to something you
want less of, emissions.
That was Bob Inglis and that is exactly how you use his words
``internalize pollution and other environmental costs in our market
system.'' You do it with a carbon fee.
Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest, former Republican
Representatives from New York and Virginia, in a joint February 2012 op
ed with Representative Waxman and Senator Markey, made the fiscal case
for a carbon fee. Here is what they said:
The debate over how to reduce our nation's debt has been
presented as a dilemma between cutting spending on programs
Americans cherish or raising taxes on American job creators.
But there is a better way: We could slash our debt by making
power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions
that endanger our health and environment. This policy would
strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil,
keep our skies clean--and raise a lot of revenue. The best
approach [they continue] would be to use a market mechanism
such as the sale of carbon allowances or a fee on carbon
pollution to lower emissions and increase revenue.
For one former Republican Member of this body, the threat of climate
change has serious professional implications. As Secretary of Defense,
it is Chuck Hagel's job to account for all hazards to our national
security and our interests in the world. He gave this clear-eyed
assessment at the Halifax International Security Forum just last month:
Climate change does not directly cause conflict, but it can
significantly add to the challenges of global instability,
hunger, poverty, and conflict. Food and water shortages,
pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, more
severe natural disasters--all place additional burdens on
economies, societies, and institutions around the world. . .
. The effects of climate change and new energy resources are
far-reaching and unpredictable . . . demanding our attention
and strategic thinking.
Top advisers to former Republican Presidents have joined this chorus
of Republicans speaking out on climate and urging a carbon fee.
Republican Presidents listened to these men and women. Who knows, maybe
Republican Members of Congress will listen to them also.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and
Christine Todd Whitman, all headed the Environmental Protection Agency
during Republican administrations. They spoke with one voice in an
August New York Times op-ed. They wrote:
As administrators of the EPA under Presidents Richard M.
Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held
fast to common-sense conservative principles--protecting the
health of the American people, working with the best
technology available, and trusting in the innovation of
American business and in the market to find the best
solutions for the least cost.
These former Republican officials recognize both the wisdom of
properly pricing carbon and, as well, the obstinate opposition that
stands in the way of progress in Congress. They continued in their
article:
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the
best path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that is
unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington.
But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering
pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty
about our warming world is how bad the changes will get and
how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to
waste.
They could even have said that it is time to wake up.
George Schultz, another prominent Republican, served as Secretary of
both Labor and Treasury under President Nixon and Secretary of State
under President Reagan. He, too, is calling for an end to the
polluters' free ride.
In an April op-ed with Nobel economist Gary Becker that appeared in
RealClearPolitics, George Schultz appealed to our American sense of
fairness writing:
Americans like to compete on a level playing field. All the
players should have an equal opportunity to win based on
their competitive merits, not on some artificial imbalance
that gives someone or some group a special advantage. We
think this idea should be applied to energy producers. They
all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they
provide.
Let me repeat that:
They all should bear the full costs of the use of the
energy they provide . . . Clearly, a revenue-neutral carbon
tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for
costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field
for energy producers.
Veterans of a much more recent Republican administration are likewise
acknowledging the appeal of a carbon fee proposal.
David Frum, speechwriter to George W. Bush, wrote in a December 2012
cnn.com op-ed that a carbon fee could help address a number of pressing
national issues. Here is what he wrote:
Take three worrying long-term challenges: climate change,
the weak economic recovery, and America's chronic budget
deficits. Combine them into one. And suddenly three tough
problems become one attractive solution. Tax carbon. . . .
The revenues from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the
deficit while also extending new forms of payroll tax relief
to middle-class families, thus supporting middle-class family
incomes.
Gregory Mankiw, economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney,
specifically highlighted our carbon fee proposal in an August op-ed in
the New York Times. Our bill, he wrote, ``is more effective and less
invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has
traditionally pursued.''
Speaking of us, he said:
If the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new
revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a
bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine. Among
economists, the issue is largely a no-brainier.
I say to Mr. Mankiw, as one of the Democratic sponsors, we
are very interested in a bipartisan compromise. We just need
a Republican to come to the negotiating table and we can
begin. That is what the American people want, what voters
want, and it is what responsible State and local leaders want
as well.
Take, for example, Jim Brainard, a five-term Republican mayor from
Carmel, IN. In an Indianapolis Star op-ed this month, Mayor Brainard
implored Democrats and Republicans alike to face up to the reality of
climate change. Here is what Mayor Brainard said:
[T]his issue isn't just about saving polar bears. It's
about saving our cities. . . . No matter your politics, there
is overwhelming evidence of climate change and we as a nation
have a moral obligation to address these issues.
[[Page S8905]]
For himself, he says he plans ``to urge the federal government to
take a stronger leadership role in helping our cities prepare for what
is certainly coming our way.''
There are a lot of Republicans out there who are awake to the threat
of climate change and to the win-win-benefits of pricing carbon and
using the revenues to invest in tax reductions and adaptation and other
ways to protect ourselves and advance our economy.
Unfortunately, in Congress, the dark, heavy hand of the polluters is
helping the tea party drive the Republican party off the cliff. One day
the Republican Party will pay a heavy price for this, and that day may
be soon. They need to make the change.
It is the responsibility of Congress to heed the warnings of
environmental calamity, to stamp out market distortions that favor
polluters, and to steer this country on a prudent, reasonable path
toward a proud future that is both sustainable and equitable. It is
time for Congress to wake up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from Ohio.
____________________