[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7534-S7536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there has been some activity on the 
Senate floor today regarding the President's Clean Power Plan, with 
fossil fuel State representatives coming to decry that plan. I would 
simply note that on October 22, in the Wall Street Journal, many of the 
leaders of America's national security took out an advertisement to 
say: ``Republicans & Democrats Agree: U.S. Security Demands Global 
Climate Action.''

[[Page S7535]]

  We have had generals and admirals, former National Security Advisers 
and Directors of National Intelligence, Secretaries of the Treasury, 
Secretaries of Defense, Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Governors, Senators, 
Under Secretaries of State, many Republicans all saying this is 
important; that it is time for America to lead. And what do we get? We 
get complaints about America leading.
  If my friends have a better idea than the Clean Power Plan, I would 
be glad to listen. I am sure we would all be glad to listen. What is 
it? What is the other plan? Because if you have nothing, then you 
really don't have a seat at the table and you certainly don't have 
occasion to criticize what the President is trying to do. Show us 
something--anything. What have you got? Where is the Republican bill 
that even talks about climate change--let alone does anything serious 
about it.
  It is truly time for this body to wake up and not just wake up to 
climate change but also to the decades-long purposeful corporate 
smokescreens of misleading statements from the fossil fuel industry and 
its allies on the dangers of carbon pollution. So I am here for the 
116th time seeking an open, honest, and factual debate in Congress 
about global climate change.
  The energy industry's top dog, ExxonMobil--No. 2 for both revenue and 
profits among the Fortune 500 of companies--has been getting some bad 
press lately. Two independent investigative reports from InsideClimate 
News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon's own scientists 
understood as far back as the late 1970s the effects of carbon 
pollution on the climate and warned company executives of the potential 
outcomes for the planet and humankind, but Exxon's own internal report 
also recognized heading off global warming ``would require major 
reductions in fossil fuel combustion.''
  So what did this fossil fuel company do? Rather than behave 
responsibly, rather than face up to that truth, rather than lead an 
effort to stave off catastrophic emerging changes to the climate and 
the oceans, what Exxon chose to do was to fund and participate in a 
massive misinformation campaign to protect their business model and 
their bottom line.
  This started right at the top. Exxon's former chairman and CEO Lee 
Raymond repeatedly and publicly questioned the science behind climate 
change, notwithstanding what his own scientists had said. 
``Currently,'' Raymond claimed in a 1996 speech before the Economic 
Club of Detroit--20 years after this work by his own scientists--``the 
scientific evidence is inclusive as to whether human activities are 
having a significant effect on the global climate.''
  There was already an emerging international consensus that unchecked 
carbon emissions were warming the planet. There was already Exxon's own 
internal research that showed carbon emissions were warming the planet, 
and it has gone forward to now with the latest report from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating that ``warming of the 
climate system is unequivocal.'' Unequivocal.
  The current ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, still emphasizes 
uncertainty and goes out of his way to overestimate the costs of taking 
action. In 2013, he asked: ``What good is it to save the planet if 
humanity suffers?'' All right, someone needs to explain to me how if we 
fail to save the planet, humanity does not suffer. I guess it is 
Exxon's position that we only suffer if we try to save the planet.
  At this year's annual shareholders meeting, Mr. Tillerson argued that 
the world needs to wait--that is always their argument, the world needs 
to wait--for the science to improve--unequivocal is evidently not 
enough--and to look for solutions to the effects of climate change as 
they become more clear--more clear.
  Our oceans are clearly warming and acidifying, and this has been 
clearly measured. Atmospheric carbon is clearly higher than ever in our 
species' history on this planet, and this has been clearly measured. In 
Rhode Island, we have measured nearly 10 inches of sea level rise since 
the 1930s, right on our shores. What is not clear?
  While Exxon was peddling climate denial here in Washington, the L.A. 
Times reports, they were using climate models to plan operations in the 
warming Arctic. Between 1986 and 1992, Exxon's senior ice researcher, 
Ken Croasdale, and others studied the effects global warming would have 
on Arctic oil operations and reported back to Exxon brass. They knew 
melting ice would lower exploration and development costs. They also 
knew higher seas and thawing permafrost would threaten the company's 
ships, drilling platforms, processing plants, and pipelines.
  So Exxon was challenging the climate models publicly while it was 
using them privately to guide its own investment decisions. Exxon 
understood the dangers, but instead of sounding the alarm or trying to 
help, they chose to sow doubt.
  Then there are the Exxon front groups. A study out just last month in 
the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change says that ExxonMobil paid 
over $16 million between 1988 and 2005 to a network of phony-baloney 
think tanks and psuedoscience groups that spread misleading claims 
about climate science. The company's network includes organizations 
that name themselves after John Locke, James Madison, Benjamin 
Franklin, and even George C. Marshall. It also includes the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which pedals anti-climate 
legislation in State legislatures. ALEC denies the human contribution 
to climate change by calling it a ``historical phenomenon,'' asserting 
``the debate will continue on the significance of natural and 
anthropogenic contributions.'' The climate denial coming out of ALEC is 
so egregious even Shell Oil left the group this summer.
  Don't forget the paid-for scientists. The Exxon network includes 
Willie Soon, whose work consistently downplayed the role of carbon 
pollution in climate change. Well, investigative reporting revealed Dr. 
Soon received more than $1.2 million from oil and coal interests, 
including ExxonMobil, over the last decade.
  So the cat is out of the bag now, and all the bad press has got Exxon 
a little jumpy. Exxon's VP of Public Affairs, Ken Cohen, took to 
Exxon's blog to proclaim that his company has a legitimate history when 
it comes to climate. ``Our scientists have been involved in climate 
research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding 
more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications,'' he said. He goes 
on to say that Exxon has been involved with the U.N. IPCC, the National 
Academy of Science's National Climate Assessment, and that Exxon funds 
legitimate scientists at major universities as they research energy and 
climate.
  Right. The problem is that is only half the story. That is the half 
of the story that shows Exxon knew better. What is the rest of the 
story? Decades of funding to a network of front groups that led a PR 
campaign designed to undercut climate science and prevent legitimate 
action on climate change. For decades, Exxon invested in legitimate 
climate research, you say? That is the proof of actual knowledge. That 
makes the route they chose of denial and delay all the more culpable, 
and that denial and delay, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the 
story.
  What are Tillerson and ExxonMobil waiting for? Why this campaign of 
deceit, denial, and delay? Sadly, it is our American system of big 
business and paid-for politics--just follow the money.
  Exxon foists the costs of its carbon pollution on the rest of us--on 
our children, on our grandchildren--and all the while they make 
staggering amounts of money. And Congress, funded by their lobbyists, 
sleeps placidly at the switch.
  Exxon even fights to protect their status quo with their own 
shareholders. The Institute for Policy Studies reports that 
shareholders of ExxonMobil have introduced 62 climate-related 
resolutions over the past 25 years, and all of them have been opposed 
by management. Rex Tillerson, who made $21.4 million in stock-based pay 
in 2014, has openly mocked a shareholder who asked about investing in 
renewables. This is rich. Tillerson responded that renewable energy 
``only survives on the backs of enormous government mandates that are 
not sustainable. We on purpose choose not to lose money.''
  Well, ExxonMobil spends huge amounts of money on the complex PR 
machine to churn out doubt about the real science in order to protect 
the

[[Page S7536]]

market subsidy that ignores the costs of Exxon's carbon pollution and 
makes clean energy face an uphill battle. So it is really kind of nervy 
to say that clean energy survives on the backs of enormous government 
subsidies when oil gets the biggest subsidies ever.
  Things could have been different. Exxon could have heeded the 
warnings of its own scientists and helped us make a transition to clean 
energy. It is happening now without them. The International Energy 
Agency found that the cost of generating electricity from renewable 
sources dropped from $500 a megawatt hour in 2010 to $200 in 2015. 
Imagine if we had rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work way back 
when Exxon first learned of the dangers of carbon pollution. Imagine 
the leadership that company could have shown. Imagine how much of the 
coming climate and ocean changes we could have avoided. But they 
didn't, and the time of reckoning may now be upon the likes of Exxon 
and others in the fossil fuel industry. That PR machine may end up 
costing the company a lot. Look at what happened to big tobacco.
  Two weeks ago, Congressmen Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sent a letter 
to Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding these newly reported 
allegations that ExxonMobil intentionally hid the truth about the role 
of fossil fuels in influencing climate change. ``The apparent tactics 
employed by Exxon are reminiscent of the actions employed by big 
tobacco companies to deceive the American people about the known risks 
of tobacco.''
  Last week, my friend, the junior Senator from Vermont, joined in the 
call for the Attorney General to bring a civil RICO investigation into 
big fossil fuel. ``These reports, if true,'' reads Senator Sanders' 
letter to Attorney General Lynch, ``raise serious allegations of a 
misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the 
tobacco industry's actions--conduct that led to federal racketeering 
convictions''--actually, a judgment. It was civil. But it is otherwise 
accurate.
  Also last week, Sharon Eubanks, the former U.S. Department of Justice 
attorney who actually brought the civil action and won the civil RICO 
case against the tobacco industry, said that, considering recent 
revelations regarding ExxonMobil, the Department of Justice should 
consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies--
that it ``is plausible and should be considered.'' That was her quote.
  Let me show why it is plausible and should be considered. Let me read 
from U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's description of the culpable 
conduct in her decision in the government's racketeering case against 
Big Tobacco:

       Each and every one of these Defendants repeatedly, 
     consistently, vigorously--and falsely--denied the existence 
     of any adverse health effects from smoking. Moreover, they 
     mounted a coordinated, well-financed, sophisticated public 
     relations campaign to attack and distort the scientific 
     evidence demonstrating the relationship between smoking and 
     disease, claiming that the link between the two was still an 
     ``open question.''
       Defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific 
     community that smoking caused lung cancer and other diseases. 
     Despite that fact, they publicly insisted that there was a 
     scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings 
     linking smoking and disease knowing their assertions were 
     false.

  Now, let's read that exact same language back but apply it to 
climate.

       Each and every one of these Defendants repeatedly, 
     consistently, vigorously--and falsely--denied the existence 
     of any adverse [climate] effects from [carbon pollution]. 
     Moreover, they mounted a coordinated, well-financed, 
     sophisticated public relations campaign to attack and distort 
     the scientific evidence demonstrating the relationship 
     between [carbon pollution] and [climate], claiming that the 
     link between the two was still an ``open question.''
       Defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific 
     community that [carbon pollution] caused [climate change] and 
     other [harms]. Despite that fact, they publicly insisted that 
     there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific 
     findings linking [carbon pollution] and [climate] knowing 
     their assertions were false.

  Just change the words, and there is her judgment against the tobacco 
industry, and it plainly applies to climate denial.
  The investigative journalism from InsideClimate News and the Los 
Angeles Times is damning. The calls for greater scrutiny of ExxonMobil 
and the fossil fuel industry are mounting, and the phony-baloney denial 
network is up in arms, trying to shovel this campaign under the 
protection of the First Amendment. Sorry, guys, the First Amendment 
doesn't protect fraud.
  Describing Caesar at the Battle of Monda, Napoleon said: ``There is a 
moment in combat when the slightest maneuver is decisive and gives 
superiority; it is the drop of water that starts the overflow.''
  Is the tide turning? Is this the decisive moment? Despite documented 
warnings from their own scientists dating from the 1970s, ExxonMobil 
and others pursued a campaign of deceit, denial, and delay. They may 
soon have to face the consequences. In any event, history will not look 
kindly on their choice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________