[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 91 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5344-H5350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend a few moments this
afternoon reflecting on the recent order that is being promulgated by
President Obama and the EPA dealing with the goals for carbon emission.
Now, even before the President's announcement of the carbon goals
last week, the spin machine was in full battle mode. There was a full-
throated expression of outrage for the apologists for pollution. Those
who are profiting from what we are doing now and who are investing the
least amount of change are making dire predictions that sound eerily
familiar.
The reason they sound familiar is that we have, in fact, heard them
before. There was similar gloom and doom that greeted the Federal
Government during the first Bush administration that was, if you will
forgive the phrase--hold onto your hats--a cap-and-trade program to
deal with acid rain. There were claims that it was unworkable, that it
would be expensive, that it would create far more problems than it
would solve; frankly, we just couldn't afford to move ahead, that we
should instead continue the same approach we had for years, the same
approach that resulted in minimal progress and contributed to acid rain
damage to our waterways, to our forests, and to the health of our
people. But the Bush administration argued against the naysayers in
that by setting a framework requiring limits to be met and giving
flexibility to the States' utilities on how it would be achieved, we
would make progress for relatively minor costs, and it would be worth
it.
Almost 25 years later, the verdict is in. It has been a remarkable
success. The program didn't require massive bureaucracy or a huge,
unmanageable cost. We have, in fact, dramatically reduced acid rain. We
have promoted investment in new technology. Our lakes and forests are
healthier, and so are our people. The cleanup was achieved in the
regular course of business, changing the incentives and the signals
that were sent.
This success, with bipartisan support, may be one of the reasons
that, as we moved into the new century, the
[[Page H5345]]
2000s, there was initially broad, bipartisan interest in reducing
carbon pollution. In fact, the situation we faced in the United States
then was much like the situation I encountered in meeting with British
members of Parliament 6 years ago on their approach to climate change.
Now, they acknowledged that there were differences between the three
parties in Parliament about the details of what they were planning,
about the best approach going forward. Some favored a more command and
control, and others were dealing with incentives or taxation or a
combination, but they were engaged in a debate about the details of how
to achieve the objective of reducing carbon emissions, not the wisdom
of doing it, not challenging the climate science.
Maybe this was because Great Britain is an island nation that really
couldn't afford to be indifferent to shifting weather patterns, rising
sea levels, the impacts of storm, disaster, and crop patterns.
{time} 1230
Maybe it was that the British parliamentary system made it harder for
the leaders of government and the parties in opposition to insulate
themselves from day-to-day debate, debate that is largely unknown here
in this Chamber on an ongoing basis.
Maybe it was because the British Government itself had been involved
in such sweeping research and planning. Remember, Sir Nicholas Stern
had a seminal report on climate that was widely acknowledged and
respected, that served as a prod for action.
During the 2000 election, President Bush, then-Governor Bush, said he
would move to limit carbon pollution. During a period shortly
thereafter, then-Governor Romney of Massachusetts was one of the
leaders in the regional greenhouse gas initiative of the Northeast
States that started the limited cap-and-trade program, that put a price
on carbon, and used those monies to improve energy efficiency and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It has been relatively successful, despite the massive recession and
the Tea Party heat that caused Presidential candidate Romney to
repudiate what he helped put in place, and New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie pulled back.
In 2008, the Presidential nominee for the Republicans was Senator
John McCain, who had been involved, on a bipartisan basis, with
legislation to restrict greenhouse gases. And at this point, Senator
McCain was not a climate-denier; he was a believer that our government
and our economy were not helpless in the face of threats from human
impact on climate change and weather instability, let alone spreading
doubt about the scientific consensus.
We are coming to the floor this afternoon debating, discussing
impacts on climate, the need for modest steps proposed by the
administration, restating some facts, and broadening the conversation.
I would like to turn, if I could, to my colleague from Maryland,
Congressman Sarbanes, to add his voice. The Congressman has been deeply
concerned with the environment, with climate, with energy, playing a
key role on the Commerce Committee. I welcome him to this conversation.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pulling
us together this afternoon to talk about this important development
that the EPA has taken to address climate change, to reduce pollution
across the country.
I want to start by thanking the EPA. I mean, a lot of people are
piling on right now, critics of this action, and saying this is going
to cost jobs and it is too disruptive and so forth. I have a completely
different perspective, and I wanted to mention a couple of things along
those lines.
First of all, this is an important step to take, just from a health
perspective. In other words, there are many ways you can come at it.
You can look at it in terms of climate change, which is kind of a slow-
moving crisis, and I will speak to that in a minute, but it is
accelerating.
But if you just look at it in terms of protecting the health of the
American people, frankly, and beyond, but let's talk about America's
interests here. If you cut down on these carbon emissions, particularly
from coal plants, you are going to be promoting clean air. You are
going to be promoting clean water.
The Chesapeake Bay, which I hold very dear, representing the Third
District in Maryland, and having parts of the Third District which
touch the Bay, and many tributaries and rivers and waterways that lead
into the Bay from across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Chesapeake
Bay, the pollution that comes into the water often is from air deposits
that come into the water because of this carbon pollution that we have.
So whether you are talking about breathing clean air, which we all
want for ourselves and for our children and for our grandchildren, or
drinking clean water and having clean water and high water quality,
this is a very, very important step to take, this notion of now setting
a goal to cut by 30 percent the carbon emissions from power plants
across the country.
But let's look at it through the lens of climate change, which my
colleague has already raised. We are seeing the effects of climate
change, as I mentioned, accelerating every single day.
So, obviously, there is a warming going on of the planet, generally
speaking, and the scientific support for that being connected to the
activities of humankind is pretty incontrovertible. We have the
opportunity in the Energy and Commerce Committee to get a lot of
testimony on that front.
We are seeing violent weather events across the country which are
having a tremendous impact on communities, damaging those communities,
harming, actually producing harm to individuals, but also having a
terrific impact on economic productivity across the country.
So the average American out there, I mean, everyday citizens, when
they look at this issue, the great majority of them are saying, we need
to do something about this. We can't just sit on our hands. In fact,
there is recent polling that indicates that 70 percent of Americans
favor stronger limits on the amount of carbon that is emitted by power
plants.
Well, okay. That is exactly what the EPA is doing here. It is taking
action to reduce the carbon emissions from power plants. The EPA is
listening to the American people. The Obama administration is listening
to what the American people are saying, day in and day out, about the
action that we need to take.
Unfortunately, this Congress, the leadership in this House, in
particular, has not, apparently, heard the cry of the American people
when it comes to doing something about climate change.
So I congratulate the EPA for taking these measures because this is
what the American people want to see, and it is going to have a
tremendous positive impact.
On climate change per se, 80 percent of Americans think the U.S.
should take action to address climate disruption, 80 percent of
Americans. So those are like commonsense people getting up in the
morning, going outside, getting their newspaper, opening the newspaper
and seeing that there have been violent storms here, or that there is a
drought happening here, or that the water supply is in danger there,
all connected back to what is happening with the climate and affecting
their communities.
So they are saying, okay, the commonsense thing for us to do is to
take some considered and reasonable and rational steps to try to
address one clear cause of climate change and pollution, and that is
the carbon emissions from power plants.
Thank you to the EPA for taking this initiative and responding to
what the American people are saying.
Before I hand it back, I do want to touch, though, on what I think is
part of the problem here, why it is that the EPA is the one that is
having to step up here and take the initiative, and why we are not
taking more initiative right here in Congress.
I think it is because the machinery here has sort of gotten gummed up
by the influence that some of these polluters have. There was a report
recently issued that indicated or estimated, I guess, that the fossil
fuel industry is getting a 5,900 percent return on the investment it is
making here in Washington through campaign contributions and lobbying
expenditures.
That estimate comes from looking at some of the taxpayer subsidies
that continue to flow to that industry, even
[[Page H5346]]
though this is an industry that makes over $100 billion in profits
every year. But the influence is also found, not just in sort of that
corporate welfare that that industry is taking out of this Congress,
but it is seen in the way in which our efforts to try to address
climate change, to try to address the issues of promoting clean air and
clean water, keep getting stopped by certain industries. So we need to
look at reforms on that front.
What do we do to lift up the voices of everyday Americans in a world
where money is speech? How do everyday people and people of modest
means have speech in that environment and push back on those influences
so that we can actually process their will here in Congress?
Then let me just close with this observation, because it goes to the
argument that is made that somehow this is going to harm us
economically as a country, to put those goals in place and begin to cut
these emissions.
My colleague pointed to the sky is falling narrative at the time when
we were going to do something about acid rain. And people said,
industries aren't going to be able to handle this. It is going to cause
parts of the industry to shut down. Americans are going to lose their
jobs.
What happened?
The country, America, stepped up to the challenge and found its way
to new opportunities. And I hear a lot of times from industry who say,
well, you know, putting these measures in place, particularly when
maybe peer nations aren't doing as much on that front as they could, it
is going to put us at a competitive disadvantage. We need to have a
level playing field and so forth.
I get that, but sometimes it makes sense to push us to go find a new
playing field. And I think that is what the EPA is helping us do. It is
expressing what the American people want to see. Go innovate, go figure
out a way to do these things differently. Find, create a new energy
portfolio that makes sense from a health and safety standpoint, makes
sense in terms of combating climate change, but also will create
tremendous new economic opportunities and generate millions of new jobs
across the country.
So these things are not mutually exclusive. Economic productivity and
innovation are not mutually exclusive with doing the right thing with
the environment. In fact, if you look back with a clear eye,
historically, you will see that when we push ourselves to do the right
thing for the environmental reasons, for the health and safety reasons,
we often get ourselves to a place of increased economic productivity
and innovation.
In closing, and I thank my colleague for giving me a few minutes here
today to talk on the topic, I want to thank the EPA for carrying out--
listening to what the American people are saying about the steps we
need to take to address climate change, to address our health and the
environment out there, and taking this very, very important step that I
think is going to be productive and positive for the American people.
Thank you.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman joining us and
his observations, in particular, the thought that the sky is falling
rhetoric is not necessarily born out.
I am reminded that 3 years ago one of the operators of perhaps the
dirtiest coal-powered plant in the country, in Homer City,
Pennsylvania, warned that there would be immediate and devastating
consequences from the Obama administration's push to clean up pollution
from coal.
It was facing the requirement to cut sulfur dioxide pollution by 80
percent in less than a year, and it sought to block the rule. They were
unsuccessful. In fact, it was the recent regulation that the EPA's--
excuse me--the Supreme Court upholding the EPA's rule in this case was
initiated by the Homer City generating station that precipitated all of
this.
But today, the Homer City power plant is now a model. It hasn't been
shut down. There haven't been devastating consequences for that
community. It has been able to adopt new regulations, set them in
place. It has dramatically reduced its emissions, and it is operating
successfully.
The EPA estimates that about 30 percent of the coal-powered units in
the United States are operating without scrubbers. Remember, our friend
from Maryland talked about the immediate health benefits, not just
environmental. The pollution control equipment is not only for sulfur
dioxide but mercury.
{time} 1245
It is inexcusable that there are plants still operating without these
minimal protections.
Mr. Speaker, we are joined by one of my colleagues who is also from
Maryland, Congressman John Delaney. One of the things I appreciate
about the perspective that Mr. Delaney brings to Congress--being a
relatively new Member, but having pursued a successful business
career--is that he is often taking an approach from an economic
perspective that deals with some of these elements.
One of the reasons I am pleased that the EPA is moving forward is
that this is an economic solution that can have a huge difference, not
just improving the environment, but new technologies and doing so in a
cost-effective way.
So we are pleased to have Mr. Delaney here, and I yield to him for
any comments that he may have about the situation.
Mr. DELANEY. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue,
for organizing our discussion here today, and for his leadership on so
many other important issues here in the Congress, and I like the way he
introduced this next segment of our discussions around economic policy
because I will spend a little bit of time on that.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to start by talking about probabilities and
severities--because I think it is important to think about that when we
are thinking about climate change--and then move into some market-based
solutions that I think work very well with some of the EPA's recent
guidance, which I am very supportive of.
Let's start with the view of what experts think of this issue. It is
estimated that 97 percent of the serious climate scientists in the
world believe that climate change is occurring and that human behavior
is contributing to this.
A friend of mine had a very good analogy for this when he said: If
you took your child to 100 physicians and 97 of those physicians said
that your child had a condition that needed to be treated, would you
wait to get the last three? Or would you act on the advice of 97
percent of the physicians?
That is effectively what we have with respect to the advice that
serious climate scientists have with respect to the two questions as to
whether is climate change happening and is human behavior contributing
to it.
Secondly, there is a body of work around what are the consequences if
climate change were to continue, and it is similarly overwhelming in
terms of the view that, if it were to occur, the costs, both moral--
right, in terms of the stewardship of our planet, but we will put that
aside for a second--and financial, are very significant.
If you look at the United States, if you look at costs associated
with weather--extreme weather along our coasts, extreme weather in the
Midwest, droughts in the west, fires that are being caused from that,
disruption in people's lives, costs to the Federal Government, these
are very, very significant costs.
That is not even counting the geopolitical costs associated with
continued climate change. A very large percentage of the poor people in
the world live at or below sea level. The effect that rising tides will
have in disrupting their lives, we should understand will have a very
significant geopolitical implication.
So let's think about the probabilities and severities. There is some
chance--I view it very small, but some chance--that 97 percent of
climate scientists are wrong, that, in fact, nothing is happening. I
view that as a 10 percent probability.
So whatever we do, the changes in our behavior have to be measured
against the 10 percent of the probability. There is an overwhelming
likelihood that the scientists are right. That is why 97 percent of
them agree.
The fact that they are in accord on this issue would make me think,
from a probability-weighted basis, that there is an 80 percent
probability that they are right.
Then there is probably a 10 percent probability that they are wrong
the
[[Page H5347]]
other way, that they are seriously underestimating the effects of
climate change, and it could accelerate, and the consequences are
actually much greater than we had believed.
So if you add up all of those probabilities and multiply them by the
severities, you come to a view that this could be one of the central
generational challenges of this era, in terms of addressing this issue
from a both moral and economic perspective.
I think my colleague from Maryland framed it well when he talked
about the economic opportunities because I think we have been presented
with a false choice. The choice has been act on this issue, act against
the advice of 97 percent of the climate scientists, or, you know, ruin
our economy if we do that; and that is the choice we have been
presented with.
That is fundamentally not the right choice because, if you have a
view that the evidence will continue to mount, you have to assume that,
ultimately, humans--both in the United States and around the world--
will react to this issue. That is the logical assumption.
If that logical assumption turns out to be true, then we should
assume that, in 25 to 50 years, the way this world--and this country in
particular--but the way this world produces energy, distributes energy,
utilizes energy, and conserves energy will be very, very different than
it is today.
As a businessperson, I look at that, and I say big, big opportunity.
It is a big opportunity to be the leader in energy production, energy
distribution, energy conservation, and energy utilization.
So there is a concept in business known as the first mover advantage.
The person who reacts first gets the best technology, gets the best
experts, gets the best insights, and that is what I believe, as a
matter of economics, this Nation should be doing.
As someone who believes the power of markets is very significant to
change behavior--in fact, I believe there are only two things that
really change human behavior: one is their faith, and the other is
financial incentives.
We have an opportunity, I believe, as it relates to climate change to
not only get the faith community behind this issue--which I believe
they will, the faith community cares deeply about the stewardship of
the planet, God's greatest gift to us. I believe in the future, we will
see the faith community--and it is already there, to a very significant
extent--getting behind this more.
I also think there are things that we can do in terms of creating the
right financial incentives to change the behavior. I believe things
like a carbon tax, where you create a market-based solution and you tax
something that we fundamentally shouldn't like--carbon--in exchange for
taxing things we should like--like human beings and profits--is a
better scenario for our country going forward, which is why, in
combination with the new EPA regulations, we are introducing something
called the State's Choice Act.
What the State's Choice Act does is require the Federal Government to
give every State in this country another option. It is not a
requirement. It is an option, and if the State decides to put in place
a carbon tax, where they tax something we shouldn't like today--and I
am sure we definitely will not like in the future, which is carbon
emissions--and they can take the revenues from that carbon tax and
deploy them against any priority they have, including lowering other
taxes in their State, if a State puts in place a carbon tax, then they
are deemed in compliance with the EPA regulations.
So it is providing States with an option--not a requirement, an
option--to put in place a mechanism--a market-based mechanism in lieu
of a regulatory framework.
Environmentalists believe a carbon tax is the best solution because
they understand that financial incentives change behavior most
significantly. Business broadly believes this is the right solution
because it is a market-based approach.
In fact, the largest energy company in the world, ExxonMobil
Corporation, disclosed something last year that I viewed as very
consequential, that they will begin, in their financial assumptions--so
in other words, when ExxonMobil projects the future and their business
against those projections, they are assuming that, at some point, there
will be a social cost of carbon imposed through some form of taxing
system.
What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that ExxonMobil is, today, making
business decisions based on the fact that that will happen. Most major
corporations, most of the Fortune 500 is doing the same thing. They see
where this is going.
I believe that, when government and the private sector work well
together, we get the best outcomes. So when you see policymakers and
people who care about climate change saying their carbon tax approach
is the right answer and when you see the overwhelming majority of the
Fortune 500 believing a carbon tax is the right answer, I think we
should be embracing market-based solutions, which is what we are trying
to do with this State's Choice Act.
We applaud the actions of the EPA. This is a serious problem for the
reasons I discussed earlier, and I think their actions, particularly in
the absence of other actions coming out of Congress, are the right
answer.
We believe this is a great opportunity to also start the conversation
around market-based solutions, which is why we would like to give every
State in this country the option to pursue a market-based solution in
exchange for a regulatory solution.
This is an incredibly important topic. Again, I want to thank my
colleague for organizing us here today and giving me the opportunity to
comment on my views on this.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Congressman.
I must say, I appreciated your observations. I personally am
intrigued with your State's Choice Act. I look forward to exploring
that further with you. I am absolutely convinced that, in the course of
the next decade, this country will be moving to a broader carbon tax.
It is a key to ultimately controlling emissions. It is a way to
reform our tax system. It is a way to simplify the equation, and what
you proposed, I think, is an intriguing way to accelerate that
conversation. I look forward to continuing it with you.
Mr. Speaker, there have been certain concerns that have been raised
in terms of some of the horror stories. People feel it is just too much
hard work, too much risk with being able to move forward with reducing
carbon emissions.
I must reflect on my own personal experience on this, and then I will
turn to my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Moran. From his
perspective, he has a great deal to offer on this, and I appreciate his
environmental leadership.
Over 20 years ago, I was a member of the Portland City Council, and
we were involved then with work to deal with carbon pollution. In fact,
Portland became the first city in the United States to make a
commitment to reduce its carbon emissions. Our plan was to reduce these
emissions. We had committed to making a reduction of 40 percent by 2030
and 80 percent by 2050.
It was fascinating to watch as we moved forward with aggressive work,
with energy efficiency, with transportation, bicycles, light rail,
streetcar, building design and planning, having a comprehensive effort
to tie these pieces together, to change how we did business to meet the
carbon objective.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that it is working. As of 2012, our
greenhouse gas emissions are 11 percent below the 1990 levels, even
though our population has grown 30 percent over that time. It means, on
a per-person basis, it has been reduced by a third. Emissions from
homes are down 13 percent and are down 16 percent in commercial,
industrial, and multifamily sectors.
Now, Portland--anybody who has visited it in the last 20 years--is
not impoverished. It is not a place that people are fleeing. Indeed, we
are finding that the cohort of well-educated, young professionals--the
20-to 34-year-olds are actually increasing in the city of Portland,
while the quality of life has been maintained.
During that same period of time, jobs are up 18 percent, and some of
the best-paying jobs are in those areas that deal with innovation, with
energy efficiency, with design, with transportation.
So this, from my experience in my hometown, having been involved with
[[Page H5348]]
it now for a quarter of a century, it is not only within our capacity,
but doing it can actually improve the economy and the quality of life.
There is another critical area that we need to address, and that is
why I am so pleased that Congressman Moran is here. He is a senior
Member, the dean of the Virginia delegation--who, sadly, has decided
that he may move on and retire after this Congress, after a long and
distinguished career.
One of the areas in which Congressman Moran is a powerful and
respected voice is in the area of national security, and I am pleased
that he is with us here this afternoon and perhaps can have some
observations about what this means to the future security of our
country, not just in terms of the environment.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for giving me the
opportunity to join my distinguished colleagues, but particularly you,
my very good friend, Mr. Blumenauer. I just cannot thank you enough on
behalf of this country for your leadership on this issue.
This is an important opportunity to discuss the President's proposed
standard to limit carbon pollution because, just last week,
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy announced
proposed regulations that would reduce carbon pollution by 30 percent,
below 2005 levels, basically below what they were a decade ago.
So that is going to help many States who have already made
substantial progress, such as Oregon, toward that objective. That is a
baseline that most scientists believe is absolutely necessary to
prevent irreversible climate change.
{time} 1300
The new standard relies heavily on the existing State and Federal
Clean Air Act partnership that already exists which enables States to
develop their own paths to reduce carbon emissions.
States are going to have the flexibility to cut emissions based on
what makes the most sense for their unique situation, including options
like reducing demand to encourage production of cleaner sources of
electricity, cap-and-trade programs, and a menu of other energy
efficiency ideas. States can work collectively with other States to
develop multi-State carbon reduction plans. But without this major
course correction, our present trajectory on climate change threatens
the future of this planet.
As each day passes without action, the more we are destined to harm
our environment, our country, and our loved ones. So while this plan
may not be perfect, the current public comment period does provide an
opportunity to improve on it. And given the inability of Congress to
enact meaningful legislation on this or almost any of the other
pressing issues our country confronts, I fully support the President's
decision directing the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a
standard for carbon emissions because it has become clear that this
Congress will not do so.
It is no secret that the majority who control this Chamber are in
climate change denial. Just 2 weeks ago, the House passed an amendment
offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia to the National Defense
Authorization bill that prevents the Pentagon from using funds to
implement climate change assessments. This is a head-in-the-sand
amendment, essentially a way to ensure that the realities of climate
change are ignored by our national security policymakers.
It is an absurd notion that our military leaders should not react to
the unequivocal fact that the planet is warming and that human
activities are responsible. The McKinley amendment, and those who voted
for it, remind me of the 16th century Catholic Church, Mr. Blumenauer,
that condemned the work of a scientist by the name of Galileo who dared
to claim that the Earth was not the center of the universe but that it,
along with the planets, revolved around the Sun.
Now, those who voted for the amendment--and I hate to say the number,
it was embarrassingly large--but those who voted for the amendment were
telling our military to irresponsibly disregard the findings of the
scientific community that our planet is warming. But our military
leaders, fortunately, do get it. They do understand that the climate is
changing, and they are doing their best with limited resources to be
prepared to respond to that changing environment.
Climate change is a national security concern for a number of
reasons. First and foremost, it is a catalyst for instability and
conflict around the world. The U.S. Department of Defense's own
Quadrennial Defense Review--this is the document that defines the
Department's strategic objectives and potential military threats--
declared the threat of climate change is a serious national security
vulnerability that could enable terrorist activity. The Quadrennial
Defense Review specifically states:
The pressures caused by climate change will influence
resource competition while placing additional burdens on
economies, societies, and governance institutions around the
world.
The results will be a higher demand for American troops abroad, even
as we struggle to deal with the devastating impacts caused by flooding
and extreme weather events here at home.
Climate change is also a new form of stress on our military
readiness. The Navy, for example, estimates that 128 of its
installations just at the Norfolk, Virginia, Naval Shipyard alone would
be affected by a 1-meter rise in sea level which we have to anticipate.
It recently had to spend $240 million to double-deck four of its piers
down at the Norfolk Naval Base so that they could harden utility lines
and make the structures more resilient to sea level rise and more
extreme and more frequent weather events.
Now, as an appropriator, I and my colleagues on the committee are
dealing with the reality of climate change in Federal agency budgets.
The effects of climate change are ratcheting up Federal expenditures.
The 10-year average for wildland fire costs, the basis on which we
attempt to budget for fighting wildland fires, is going up every year.
We spent more than $800 million on wildfires just last year.
So, our military gets it, the vast majority of the American public
gets it, and the executive branch gets it. It seems that almost
everyone--almost everyone--gets the fact that climate change is
happening; that is, everyone but a majority here in the House and a
filibuster-sufficient minority in the Senate. Perhaps they are in
denial because their political base either chooses to be ignorant or is
profiting from inaction.
Perhaps it is a generational issue. I have seen a poll that a
majority of all self-defined Republicans under the age of 34 think
politicians who deny that climate change are either--and I am just
quoting now, of course, these are not my words.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Of course.
Mr. MORAN. These are the words of the majority of Republicans under
the age of 34 that they are either ``ignorant, out of touch, or
crazy.'' Ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. Now, we wouldn't use those
words, but the majority of Republicans under the age of 34 do use those
words towards those who deny that we should do something about climate
change.
We, along with the rest of the world, have a duty to protect our
children and future generation from the effects of climate change. So I
stand here with my colleagues to ensure that the Obama administration's
effort to limit carbon pollution is not diminished or blocked by the
Congress. For the sake of our national security, and the sake of a
better future, the Obama administration's proposal to limit carbon
emissions must be allowed to go forward.
I thank you very much, my friend, and I thank you for your
leadership. Let's hope things get better.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I appreciate very much your being here,
Congressman Moran, and your voice makes me think that maybe you have
been giving diction lessons to Gina McCarthy, but it is not so much how
she talks but what she says.
Mr. MORAN. You are making fun of our New England accent, Mr.
Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am talking about the distinctive way in which you
communicate as well as the power of the words, both of the
administrator and of you. I deeply appreciate your putting numbers
around some of these threats. The notion that we have the largest naval
base in the world, and
[[Page H5349]]
you are saying we had to invest almost one-quarter of a billion dollars
because it has had the greatest increase in sea level on the entire
eastern seaboard.
Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. We just were shown a map by naval executives,
and I hesitate to say this because it is so scary, but the reality is
that the entire Naval Shipyard and the Norfolk shipbuilding base which
builds our nuclear carriers within a relatively short period of time, a
few decades, is liable to be underwater. So we can't afford to continue
to deny climate change, literally.
So I appreciate your leadership, again, on this, Mr. Blumenauer, and
we have got to continue the fight.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It was interesting. There was a recent article in The
Washington Post about a church on the waterfront in Norfolk. And they
are having to vacate because this rising sea level is making it--the
pastor of the church was quoted as saying that people shouldn't have to
consult a tide table to figure out whether or not they can go to
service.
I deeply appreciate your focusing on this, the reference you make to
the Defense Department needing to have the best information possible
and the outrage that an amendment was approved to the defense
authorization that would have, in effect, locked climate denial into
that authorization.
Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. And the executives, the folks who have been
involved with the Navy who showed me this map of our naval shipyards,
within my son's lifetime are going to be under water. They did say,
well, if it is any consolation, Florida is in worse shape. Of course,
it is no consolation that Florida is in worse shape than Virginia, but
the reality is it is obviously not confined to Virginia; it is all
along the low-lying coast. Unfortunately, by the time that some people
wake up and accept it, it may very well be too late.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just had my first two grandchildren, and I would
like some day for these two little boys to be able to see Miami and not
have to be snorkeling.
Now, your reference to the defense amendment that was passed makes me
think of what happened in North Carolina, where the legislature tried
to mandate that the State agencies could not use the best science to
make choices, the best information to protect the coastline.
Well, I deeply appreciate your joining us this afternoon. I
appreciate your leadership and look forward to continuing with you this
conversation.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there are some who claim, well, we
really don't need to move forward with this because maybe or maybe not
the administration's plan will work as they say. Maybe it is
affordable, maybe it will create those jobs, it will improve air
quality, and reduce carbon emissions. But they say that it really
doesn't matter what the United States does. It is ironic, because some
of the same people who are denying climate science are then turning
around and saying, but it won't matter what we do because the Indians
and the Chinese are building a coal emissions plant every week or two,
and so anything that the United States does will really be drowned out,
will lose its effect because of other events.
Well, this argument is wrong on all counts. It is not as much as we
need to do. I am absolutely convinced, as I stand here on the floor of
the House today, I am absolutely convinced that over the course of the
next 20 years we will not only implement the requirements of this
carbon emission rule, but we will go beyond it. We will go beyond it,
and we will find it is not only manageable, but it is the right thing
to do.
Even though this modest step will have some short-term pain and some
difficulty in changing current patterns of business and politics, it is
something we can and should do. Being able to make this pivot to start
changing how we do business is in and of itself significant because it
is these first steps that are going to make it possible for us to take
other, more important, longer-term steps that will be even more
significant.
But it is also critical to demonstrate American leadership. Our
failure to lead on reducing carbon emissions will encourage other
countries that are poorer and are heavier carbon emitters on a per
capita basis to just sit back and wait. Some of them will say, hey, you
in the United States are the people who have created most of this
problem. The United States has now been passed by China in terms of
annual current carbon emissions. But in terms of total carbon in the
atmosphere, the United States is the all-time leader and will be for
some time.
On a per capita basis, we are still far and away number one.
Americans can emit three times as much carbon per person as the Chinese
and six times more carbon per person than the Indians. So the United
States is the greatest historic carbon emitter, and we are still
emitting far more carbon per person. If we don't step up, being rich,
powerful, and more technologically advanced, how is it that we are
going to expect poorer countries where people are struggling with
existential challenges for food and sanitation, how do we expect them
to ever follow suit if we are afraid to lead?
Well, I think this rule that is being promulgated is an expression
that we are not afraid to lead. As I say, it is an important interim
step, it sends an important signal, and it starts a broader
conversation internationally.
I was in Copenhagen 4 years ago and watched as the United States
shuttled back and forth, the President trying to get people aligned,
and dealing with the European Union. But, frankly, we are never going
to be able to have one, large multinational organization that is going
to put all of these pieces together. It is going to require leadership.
It is going to require leadership from the United States, showing the
way that we are willing to do this, and then working with not just the
Chinese and the Indians, but the Brazilians and the Indonesians. In
this political and economic climate, it is wildly unrealistic to expect
that the United States is going to assume the entire burden itself, but
it is important for us to send the signal that we are moving in the
right direction.
{time} 1315
The United States, over the course of the next 50 years, is going to
be challenged to deal with all that we need to do; plus, as my friend
from Virginia mentioned, we are facing serious problems in terms of
climate change that is already underway.
If we, in some way, could be able to drop global carbon emissions
below the 400 parts per million that we are at now back to 350 parts
per million, we are still going to watch the climate effects unfold. We
are still going to watch Florida sink, with oceans rising and problems
for its water supply.
We are going to watch large chunks of the Arctic ice sheet collapse.
We are going to watch parts of Greenland disappear. Ocean levels are
going to continue to rise. This means that the United States is in a
race to be able to deal with things to help people adapt with climate
change and, for heaven's sake, not to give up because it is going to be
a problem. We don't want it to accelerate. We don't want to make it
worse.
If we are going to be able to deal with the challenges 50 years from
now, it is what we do in the next 5 years in communities all across
America that is going to make a difference.
Acting with cleaner technology, cleaner energy, and greater
efficiency will save American families money over the next 20 years,
compared to the current wasteful patterns. It is an opportunity for us
to realign our economy for the economy of the future. It is an
opportunity for us to be able to minimize the consequences of climate
change.
Frankly, every single use of energy has some negative consequences--
every one, but being able to use that energy for efficiently, more
effectively, and do it sooner minimizes those negative consequences
while we harness the economic power to change the economy.
I want to conclude with just one observation about the way that the
administration has proceeded. They have signaled the approach that they
are taking going forward. They have taken goals and adjusted those
carbon goals based on where States are now, what their energy mix is,
and what they can do in a reasonable way in the years ahead.
They have taken those goals and given great flexibility to the
individual States. This is not a one-size-fits-all
[[Page H5350]]
solution. To the contrary, giving them realistic goals and giving them
flexibility on how they are going to achieve it is a terrific way to
harness market-based solutions and the ingenuity of the individual
States.
The administration, I have heard from a number of people in the
industry, has reached out, talking to people with electric utilities,
gas, and working in terms of large industrial users. Having those
conversations with States, red State and blue, regardless of their
energy mix, they have made it clear that they are encouraging people to
take advantage of the flexibility that has been given to them.
I think this is an ideal model for going forward, not denying the
problem, not trying to solve it all overnight, not trying to have one
size fits all, but to deal with a minimal standard going forward that
sets the base, giving people a range of options to meet it, and
inviting their ingenuity and their activity.
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more important that this
Congress should be addressing. Sadly, you know we have not done much to
deal with it on the floor of the House, but the administration is at
least stepping forward to not deny climate change, but to be able to
give people choices to meet our objectives.
I commend the administration for the steps they have taken, and I
hope that all Members will take the time to familiarize themselves with
it and what their States can and should do to be able to meet that
objective for America to exercise leadership at home and abroad--meet
these minimal objectives and to exceed them in the years ahead.
As we did with acid rain, we can do with carbon emission. I urge my
colleagues to focus on how we can do this, so we can make it a great
success story to preserve the future of our children and grandchildren.
I appreciate the opportunity to share this discussion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________