[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8223-S8226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as the Presiding Officer knows well,
every week that I am here and the Senate is in session, I come to the
floor to remind us of the damage carbon pollution continues to do to
our atmosphere and oceans. Today I rise for the 120th time to urge my
colleagues to
[[Page S8224]]
wake up to the threat of climate change. I am not alone, although it
sometimes seems a bit lonely here.
We have an advertisement today in the Wall Street Journal--we will
find it here in 1 second; well, I seem to have mislaid it--that has a
considerable number of American companies that have called upon the
public and called on the readers of the Wall Street Journal to support
a strong outcome in Paris. It matches another Wall Street Journal full-
page advertisement--this one went back to October 22--which was
``Republicans and Democrats Agree: U.S. Security Demands Global Climate
Action.'' That had 23 Republican former officials, including Senators
Cohen, Coleman, Danforth, Hagel, Lugar, Kassebaum, Smith, and Snowe,
Secretaries of Commerce, State, Treasury, members of the National
Intelligence Council, Homeland Security advisers, and Trade
Representatives. In total, 33 Republican and military officials were
calling on us to get serious about it. So a lot of people out there,
including Republicans, are interested in getting something done.
I wanted to build my remarks this week around something interesting
that Pope Francis said this past weekend about the upcoming climate
talks in Paris. He said: ``It would be sad, and dare I say even
catastrophic, were special interests to prevail over the common good
and lead to manipulating information in order to protect their own
plans and interests.''
``Sad,'' and ``even catastrophic''--let's look at that part. The fact
is, we have changed the composition of our atmosphere, pushing the
concentration of carbon dioxide beyond the range it has been in for at
least 800,000 years, longer than our species has been on the planet.
For 8,000 centuries, humans have inhabited an Earth with an atmosphere
between 170 and 300 parts per million of CO2. Concentrations
have now hit 400 parts per million, farther out of the range than the
midpoint of the range, and that trend continues to rise. By the way,
that is measurement. That is not somebody's theory. That is not a
computer-model run. We have measured that.
Last year was the hottest year since we began keeping records in
1880, a dubious distinction. According to the World Meteorological
Organization, the last 5 years are now the warmest 5-year period in
human history. This year is on track to be another recordbreaker,
expected to reach the both symbolic and significant milestone of 1 full
degree Celsius above the average temperature of the preindustrial era.
Many scientists agree that 2 degrees above the precarbon-era norm
will likely mean irreparable harm to our planet and to our current way
of life. So it would, indeed, be sad and perhaps ultimately
catastrophic if we were to do nothing.
Yet we in Congress continue to do nothing, which brings me to the
next of Pope Francis's words in that opening quotation: ``special
interests prevail[ing] over the common good.'' Well, doing nothing is
just fine by the big polluters because they make more money when we do
nothing. To keep their profitable racket running, the polluters spend
huge sums on lobbying and on politics, particularly right here in the
Congress. As one author has written, and I will quote him: ``[R]ivers
of money flowing from secret sources have turned our elections into
silent auctions.'' And the polluters get what they pay for. With the
Congress of the United States distracted and deceived by their
mischief, the effects of climate change just keep piling up.
This problem got worse in 2010 when the big polluters got a gift.
They got handed a big, new political weapon. Thanks to five Justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court, all of them Republican appointees, the big
polluters can now threaten lawmakers with the cudgel of unlimited,
undisclosed Citizens United money. So we do nothing, and the polluters
offload onto everyone else the costs in damage from their fossil fuel
product, the costs of heat waves, of sea level rise, of ocean
acidification, of dying forests, of worsening storms and more. The
polluters happily dump those costs onto everybody else. They suck up
hundreds of billions of dollars in effective public subsidy, according
to the International Monetary Fund, and of course they fight
desperately to protect their favored status.
Pope Francis had it right--special interests indeed prevail over the
common good. And that brings us to the Pope's words about them
``manipulating information in order to protect their own plans and
interests.''
I have spoken on this floor about the decades-long, purposeful
corporate campaign of misinformation on climate change. The fossil fuel
industry and its allies gin up doubt about the dangers of carbon
pollution through a smokescreen of misleading public statements,
sophisticated marketing, and polluter-funded front groups. The mission
of these well-organized and mightily funded deniers is to manufacture a
product--uncertainty, doubt. The polluters spend huge amounts on a big,
complex PR machine to churn out doubt about the real science. It is a
fraud. It is a deliberate pollution of the public mind.
We know that a network of front organizations with innocent-sounding
names has emerged to propagate that baloney science. This network has
been well documented by Dr. Robert Brulle at Drexel University and Dr.
Riley Dunlap at Oklahoma State University, among others. Professor
Brulle's follow-the-money analysis, for instance, diagrams the complex
flow of cash to these front groups, a flow that the fossil fuel
industry persistently tries to obscure.
A new study was released just last week, a study by Dr. Justin
Farrell at Yale University. His work examines how corporations have
used their money to amplify the voices of climate deniers and to
exaggerate scientific uncertainty. Dr. Farrell used computers to
perform a comprehensive quantitative analysis of more than 39 million
words written by 164 climate denial organizations--yes, there are 164
of them; this is a big beast--over a 20-year period. His study compared
corporate-funded groups to the rest.
Professor Farrell's stated purpose was to uncover empirically the
actual social arrangements within which large-scale scientific
misinformation is generated and the important role private funding
plays in shaping the actual ideological content of scientific
information that is written and amplified. He describes the climate
denial apparatus as a complex network of think tanks, foundations,
public relations firms, trade associations, and other groups that are
``overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific
consensus on climate change.'' Farrell describes the function of the
network as, one, ``the production of an alternative contrarian
discourse,'' and two, ``to create ideological polarization around
climate change.'' Why polarization? Because ``it is well understood
that polarization is an effective strategy for creating controversy and
delaying policy progress particularly around environmental issues.''
So the polarization we see in this building on this issue is a
product created by a network of corporate-funded climate denial front
groups. We are the living proof of the success of this scheme.
Corporate backing created a united network, said Farrell, within which
the contrarian messages could be strategically created. That is right,
climate denial is ``strategically created.''
Farrell's data show particularly that donations from ExxonMobil and
the Koch family foundations signal what he calls entry into a powerful
network of influence, and that corporate funding influences the actual
language and thematic content of polarizing discourse. And, of course,
one of the areas of distinct corporate-funded polarizing discourse
produced by this network was questions about the scientific veracity of
long-term climate change. Again, it is the product of a scheme.
Professor Farrell made another comparison. He has made the same
comparison that others have made with tobacco. I will quote him:
Well-funded and well-organized ``contrarian'' campaigns are
especially important for spreading skepticism or denial where
scientific consensus exists--such as in the present case of
global warming, or in historical contrarian efforts to create
doubt about the link between smoking and cancer.
To create doubt about the link between smoking and cancer. That echos
the telling sentence from the tobacco denial campaign: Doubt is our
product.
Just as Pope Francis said, the denial machinery is ``manipulating
information in order to protect their own plans
[[Page S8225]]
and interests.'' The actions of the climate denial machine have been so
effective, they have made it ``difficult for ordinary Americans to even
know who to trust,'' says Farrell. Doubt is still their product.
Every generation of Americans has faced its challenge, and each has
risen to its challenge. Some generations left bloody footprints in the
snows of Valley Forge to secure our independence. Some generations were
torn to pieces by cannon fire in the great battles of the Civil War.
Some generations endured mustard gas and trench warfare in World War I.
Some secured the world's freedom from the Axis powers in World War II.
Some rebuilt the American economy after the Great Depression. Some were
beaten, bombed, and burned as they struggled to secure the civil rights
we now enjoy. We are the generation whose duty it is to face down the
climate crisis that threatens our planet and face down the folks behind
this vast climate denial scheme. All we have to do to rise to our duty
is to resist all the dark money, all the fossil fuel-funded threats and
intimidation Citizens United made possible.
Let me read from an opinion that was in my clips today from David
Brooks, a conservative columnist. I see him at American Enterprise
Institute gatherings. He is a self-identified Republican conservative
who was writing about climate change and the upcoming Paris conference.
He says this as if he is communicating with Alexander Hamilton. He
obviously is not, but that is his rhetorical device. He said, ``So I
seanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see what he thought'' about
the Paris climate conference. Here is what he said:
First, [Alexander Hamilton] was struck by the fact that on
this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet
dictatorship--a vast majority of Republican politicians can't
publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change
because they're afraid the thought police will knock on their
door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation.
That is a conservative Republican economist talking about this.
We can get through this. We simply need conscientious Republicans and
Democrats to work together in good faith on a common platform of
established science, clear facts, and basic common sense. If we do
that, we can protect the American people, the American economy, and our
American reputation from the harm of the looming effects of climate
change. It is on us. It is on us. We simply need to shed the shackles
of corrupting influence and rise to our duty, as other generations
always have. We do not have to be the generation that failed. Yes, we
are headed down a road to infamy now, but it doesn't have to be that
way. We can leave a legacy that will echo down the corridors of
history, so the generations that follow us will be proud of our efforts
the way we are proud of those who did great things for our country
before us. But sitting here doing nothing, yielding to the special
interests, won't accomplish that.
This new analysis out of Yale is an important addition to the
increasing body of academic research and journalism that is shining
some much needed sunlight on the shadowy enterprise of phony science
and phony doubt that props up climate denial. It is time we all caught
on to this deceptive enterprise. Being suckers down a road to infamy is
not a good legacy. It is time to wake up.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the advertisement
``Business Backs Low-Carbon USA'' in the Wall Street Journal and the
article by David Brooks, ``The Green Tech Solution,'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Business Backs Low-Carbon USA
lowcarbonusa.org
WE ARE SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT WILL HELP CREATE THE FUTURE ECONOMY
OF THE UNITED STATES.
We want this economy to be energy efficient and low carbon.
We believe there are cost-effective and innovative solutions
that can help us achieve that objective. Failure to tackle
climate change could put America's economic prosperity at
risk. But the right action now would create jobs and boost
competitiveness.
We encourage our government to
1. seek a strong and fair global climate deal in Paris that
provides long-term direction and periodic strengthening to
keep global temperature rise below 2 deg.C
2. support action to reduce U.S. emissions that achieves or
exceeds national commitments and increases ambition in the
future
3. support investment in a low-carbon economy at home and
abroad, giving industry clarity and the confidence of
investors
We pledge to continue efforts to ensure a just transition
to a low-carbon, energy-efficient U.S. economy and look
forward to enabling strong ambition in the U.S. and at the
Paris climate change conference.
Autodesk, Inc.; The Coca-Cola Company; Unilever; Adidas
Group; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Clif Bar & Company; Intel;
Kingspan Insulated Panels; Microsoft; Qualcomm; Sprint;
Colgate-Palmolive Company; Smartwool; The Hartford; Volvo,
Volvo Group North America; Burton; Snowbird; eBay; Seventh
Generation; Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies; Vail
Resorts; Levi Strauss & Co.; EMC; New Belgium Brewing
Company; Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows; Annie's; Alta; General
Mills; Dignity Health; BNY Mellon; Jupiter Oxygen
Corporation; Hewlett Packard Enterprise; Outdoor Industry
Association; Procter & Gamble; Ben & Jerry's; Schneider
Electric; Xanterra; Nike; The North Face; Symantec; JLL;
Powdr Corporation; Gap Inc.; Owens Corning; EnerNOC; Hilton
Worldwide; VF Corporation; Guggenheim; Timberland; L'Oreal;
IKEA; Aspen Snowmass, Aspen Skiing Company; Vulcan; Eileen
Fisher; DuPont; CA Technologies; Nestle; Pacific Gas and
Electric Company; Catalyst; Sealed Air; National Grid;
Saunders Hotel Group; Hewlett Packard; Kellogg's; Teton
Gravity Research; Dell; Mars, Incorporated; NRG; Ingersoll
Rand
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)
Ameristar SolarStream, Big Kid Science. Bloom Energy,
Canadian Solar. Inc., Carbon Lighthouse. Clean Blue
Technologies, Inc. Clean Edge, Clean Energy Collective,
Decent Energy, Inc., Drew Maran Construction, Inc., Creep
Optimizers. USA, Ideal Energy, Intex Solutions. iSpring
Associates, Jacobs Farm--Del Cabo, Krull & Company, Lenox
Hotels, LIVINGPLUG. Make Good, Want MEI Hotels, Inc..
Microgrid Energy, National Car Charging LLC., Next Step
Living. NLine Energy, Inc.. Nth Power, one3LED, Recurrent
Energy, Sequoia Lab, Sierra Energy, Sustainable Farming
Corporation, Terviva, Toniic, Uswharrie Bank, Vigilent, Wall
@ Law
Coordinated by Business Council for Sustainable Energy,
CDP, Ceres, C2ES, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental
Entrepreneurs, The Climate Group, We Mean Business, and World
Wildlife Fund in collaboration with the above businesses.
____
[From the New York Times, Dec. 1, 2015]
The Green Tech Solution
(By David Brooks)
I've been confused about this Paris climate conference and
how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate
change, so I seanced up my hero Alexander Hamilton to see
what he thought. I was sad to be reminded that he doesn't
actually talk in hip-hop, but he still had some interesting
things to say.
First, he was struck by the fact that on this issue the
G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship--a vast
majority of Republican politicians can't publicly say what
they know about the truth of climate change because they're
afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag
them off to an AM radio interrogation.
This week's Paris conference, I observed, seems like a
giant Weight Watchers meeting. A bunch of national leaders
get together and make some resolutions to cut their carbon
emissions over the next few decades. You hope some sort of
peer pressure will kick in and they will actually follow
through.
I'm afraid Hamilton snorted.
The co-author of the Federalist papers is the opposite of
naive about human nature. He said the conference is nothing
like a Weight Watchers meeting. Unlike weight loss, the pain
in reducing carbon emissions is individual but the good is
only achieved collectively.
You're asking people to impose costs on themselves today
for some future benefit they will never see. You're asking
developing countries to forswear growth now to compensate for
a legacy of pollution from richer countries that they didn't
benefit from. You're asking richer countries that are facing
severe economic strain to pay hundreds of billions of dollars
in ``reparations'' to India and such places that can go on
and burn mountains of coal and take away American jobs. And
you're asking for all this top-down coercion to last a
century, without any enforcement mechanism. Are the Chinese
really going to police a local coal plant efficiently?
This is perfectly designed to ensure cheating. Already, the
Chinese government made a grandiose climate change
announcement but then was forced to admit that its country
was burning 17 percent more coal than it had previously
disclosed. The cheating will create a cycle of resentment
that will dissolve any sense of common purpose.
I countered by pointing out that policy makers have come up
with some clever ways to make carbon reductions more
efficient, like cap and trade, permit trading and carbon
taxing.
The former Treasury secretary pointed out that these ideas
are good in theory but haven't worked in reality. Cap and
trade has not worked out so well in Europe. Over all,
[[Page S8226]]
the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with
very little measurable impact on global temperatures. And as
for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it
would have virtually no effect on the global climate.
Hamilton steered me to an article by James Manzi and Peter
Wehner in his favorite magazine, National Affairs. The
authors point out that according to the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the expected
economic costs of unaddressed global warming over the next
century are likely to be about 3 percent of world gross
domestic product. This is a big, gradual problem, but not the
sort of cataclysmic immediate threat that's likely to lead
people to suspend their immediate self-interest.
Well, I ventured, if you're skeptical about our own
policies, Mr. Founding Father, what would you do?
Look at what you're already doing, he countered. The U.S.
has the fastest rate of reduction of CO2 emissions
of any major nation on earth, back to pre-1996 levels.
That's in part because of fracking. Natural gas is
replacing coal, and natural gas emits about half as much
carbon dioxide.
The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green
energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical
and economic sense.
Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to
stoke innovation. Manzi and Wehner suggest that one of our
great national science labs could work on geoengineering
problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Another could investigate cogeneration and small-scale energy
reduction systems. We could increase funding on battery and
smart-grid research. If we move to mainly solar power, we'll
need much more efficient national transmission methods. Maybe
there's a partial answer in increased vegetation.
Hamilton pointed out that when America was just a bunch of
scraggly colonies, he was already envisioning it as a great
world power. He used government to incite, arouse, energize
and stir up great enterprise. The global warming problem can
be addressed, ineffectively, by global communiques. Or, with
the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to
arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and
foment a new technological revolution.
Sometimes like your country you got to be young, scrappy
and hungry and not throw away your shot.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
____________________