[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 182 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8661-S8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of the brightest bright spots at
the Paris climate talks last week was the robust corporate presence.
Leading businesses and executives from around the world were there in
Paris to voice their support for a strong international climate
agreement. That brings me here today for the now 122nd time to say that
it is time for America's leading corporations and their lobbyists to
bring that same message here to Washington to help Congress wake up.
Let me use an example of two of the good guys. The two biggest drinks
companies in America are Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Coke and Pepsi both
signed this public letter urging strong climate action in Paris:
Dear U.S. and global leaders:
Now is the time to meaningfully address the reality of
climate change. We are asking you to embrace the opportunity
presented to you in Paris. . . . We are ready to meet the
climate challenges that face our businesses. Please join us
in meeting the climate challenges that face the world.
And it is not just that public letter; Coca-Cola's Web site says it
will reduce CO2 emissions by 25 percent and that to do so,
``Coca-Cola will work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions across its
value chain, making comprehensive carbon footprint reductions across
its manufacturing processes, packaging formats, delivery fleet,
refrigeration equipment and ingredient sourcing.''
Coca-Cola also says: ``We continue to partner with peer companies,
bottling partners, NGOs, governments and others in addressing our
greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging progress in response to
climate change.''
Pepsi's Web site heralds what it calls ``its commitment to action on
climate change'' and announces that it has signed both the Ceres BICEP
Climate Declaration in the United States and the Prince of Wales's
Corporate Leaders Group Trillion Tonne Communique in the UK. These
commitments, they say, ``are part of PepsiCo's overall strategy to
address climate change by working across its business and with global
leaders.''
Here is Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo:
Combating climate change is absolutely critical to the
future of our company, customers, consumers--and our world. I
believe all of us need to take action now.
I have corresponded with these companies about climate change, and
here is what they have said in their letters to me.
In March 2013, Coke said:
We recognize that climate change is a critical challenge
facing our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity,
water resources, public health, and agriculture. Beyond the
effects on the communities we serve, we view climate change
as a potential business risk, understanding that it could
likely have direct and indirect effects on our business.
As a responsible global company, with operations in more
than 200 countries, we have a role to play in climate
protection. . . .
Then in May 2014:
The Coca-Cola Company has strongly stated that climate
change is happening and the implications of climate change
for our planet are profound and wide-ranging. It is our
belief that climate change may have long-term direct and
indirect implications for our business and supply chain and
we recognize that sustainability is core to our long-term
value. . . . Climate protection is a key component of our
business strategy.
In August of this year:
Coca-Cola joined twelve other corporations at the White
House pledging our support for the American Business Act on
Climate [Pledge]. Climate protection has been a key focus of
Coca-Cola for decades.
In a letter of February 2013, Pepsi said:
PepsiCo applauds your efforts to address climate change by
focusing Congressional attention on the issue. . . . At
PepsiCo, we recognize the adverse impacts that greenhouse gas
emissions have on global temperatures, weather patterns, and
the frequency and severity of extreme weather and natural
disasters. These impacts may have significant implications
for our company. . . . Accordingly, responding to climate
change is integrated into PepsiCo's business strategy.
In September of this year, Pepsi wrote:
We look forward to providing further support on the ``Road
to Paris''--demonstrating that actions by business in climate
are not only good for the environment, but good for business.
That is all great stuff. Here is where it gets a little strange. Coke
and Pepsi have a trade association, the American Beverage Association,
that lobbies for the soft drink industry, and they also support the
business lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, the
American Beverage Association sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and contributes to it a lot of money.
[[Page S8662]]
Here is the official position of the American Beverage Association on
climate change from its Web site:
Each of America's beverage companies has set goals to lower
our emissions over time while continually improving
efficiency. And our companies have pledged to work with
government leaders, environmental organizations, and other
businesses to ensure these emission reductions are happening
throughout the United States.
They even have the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. But do
they lobby us about this in Congress? I have never seen any sign of it.
When the American Beverage Association thought Congress might impose a
soda tax to fund health care, then they lobbied like crazy--nearly $30
million worth of lobbying expenditure. They know how to lobby when they
want to. But on climate, I have never seen it.
As for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, everyone in Congress knows that
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is dead set against Congress doing
anything serious about climate change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is
a very powerful lobby group, and its power in Congress is fully
dedicated to stopping any serious climate legislation. They are
implacable adversaries of climate action, and we see their hostility
everywhere.
At one point, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote to me to say I
mischaracterized its position on climate change. ``Even a cursory
review of our stated views on climate change,'' wrote Chamber of
Commerce President and CEO Tom Donahue, ``shows that the Chamber is not
debating the existence of climate change or that human activity plays a
role.''
Well and good, but here is what I wrote back.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
my full letter at the end of my remarks.
I wrote back:
I am in politics in Washington, and I see the behavior of
your organization firsthand. There is no way to reconcile
what I see in real life around me with the assurances in your
letter that you treat the climate problem in any way
seriously.
I then offered a list of the many ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
actively opposes climate legislation and concluded:
In every practical way in which your organization brings
pressure to bear on the American political process, I see you
bringing it to bear in line with the big carbon polluters and
the climate denial industry. And given the powerful and
relentless way in which you bring that pressure to bear on
our system in the service of your own First Amendment rights,
I hope you will accept that I have the right to express my
own views under that same First Amendment.
In sum, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a terrible record on climate
change. It is Coke and Pepsi's adversary on getting anything done. So
why is Coke and Pepsi's American Beverage Association on the board of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
The result is that Coke and Pepsi take one position on climate change
in their public materials and in Paris and throughout their internal
corporate effort, but here in Congress, where the rubber meets the road
on legislating and where the lobbying meets our legislative efforts,
their lobbying agencies don't support their position. I actually wonder
how well they know in the executive suites of Coke and Pepsi that their
position is not supported by the lobbying effort they support.
Let me be clear. I am not here to ask that companies such as Coke and
Pepsi take a different position on climate change than what they
believe. I am here to ask companies to line up their advocacy in
Congress with what they believe. My ask is simple: Match your advocacy
in Congress with your policy. Don't outsource your advocacy to entities
that take the opposite position from you--not on an issue of this
magnitude. This is too important an issue for great American companies
to say one thing when they are talking to the public and have their
lobbying agencies say something completely different when they come to
Congress.
I have asked Coke and Pepsi about this discrepancy between their
policy and these organizations' advocacy, and here is what they say.
From Pepsi:
The Chamber is an important partner for PepsiCo on critical
tax and trade matters. However, our positions on climate
change have diverged.
From Coke:
The Coca-Cola Company belongs to a wide range of
organizations through which we gain different perspectives on
global and national issues; however these groups do not speak
on our behalf.
Well, if their positions have diverged and these organizations don't
speak for them on this issue, why keep supporting one of the leading
political opponents of meaningful climate action? If you insist on
supporting the entities that lobby against you on climate change, then
the question becomes this: What are you doing in Congress to lobby
back? What are your countermeasures to dispel the voice of these
agencies that you are supporting?
Climate change is not just any other issue. It is so big an issue
that the world's leaders just gathered in Paris to address it in the
largest gathering of world leaders in history. It is so big an issue
that it has its own page on Coke's and Pepsi's Web sites and, indeed,
on the Web sites of most major American corporations. It is so big an
issue that our former Pacific commander, Admiral Locklear, said it was
the biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific theater. To
use Admiral Locklear's exact words, climate change ``is probably the
most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the
security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we
all often talk about.''
Around here in Congress, the bullying menace of the fossil fuel
industry is everywhere. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is their vocal
advocate. If companies such as Coke and Pepsi don't push back against
this group that they fund, that choice has real consequences here. That
choice says to Congress: ``This issue isn't really serious to us.''
That choice says to the individual Members over here: ``If you cross
the fossil fuel boys, don't count on us to have your back.''
I recently received a letter from ExxonMobil. It says:
ExxonMobil has for a number of years held the view that a
``revenue-neutral carbon tax'' is the best option. . . . [A]
carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce
greenhouse emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and
new technologies.
This is ExxonMobil.
The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy
framework for countries around the world--and the policy most
likely to preserve the ability of every sector of society to
seek out new efficiencies and new technologies.
ExxonMobil may say that in their letter, but let me say as the author
of the Senate's revenue-neutral carbon-fee bill, I can assure you that
bill is getting zero support from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is playing a
double game, with statements such as they made in the letter to me on
the one hand, but on the other hand all of its massive lobbying clout
directed against doing anything serious on climate.
I suggest that it is the same with the other companies. They may have
enough happy talk about climate change being serious to get them
through a cocktail party at Davos, but the full weight of their
industry lobbying leverage, through the Chamber and the American
Petroleum Institute and a slew of other front groups, is leaned in hard
against climate legislation, including revenue-neutral carbon fees. We
should perhaps expect better of them. But we should certainly expect
better of other companies that don't have ExxonMobil's massive conflict
of interest.
To be fair to Coke and Pepsi, they are not alone. Congress is heavily
influenced by corporations. That is no news flash. What my colleagues
here all know is that virtually zero of that corporate influence is
brought to bear in support of climate action. Even companies with good
internal climate policies, even companies that are leaders in what they
are doing within their companies and within their supply chains on
climate change shy away from this issue in Congress.
The result is that, on one side, the fossil fuel industry maintains a
desperate grip on Congress to stop any climate action. They lean on
Congress hard to get their way. On the other side, the rest of
corporate America has virtually nothing to say in Congress on climate
change. Maybe they do on their Web sites, maybe in their public
relations, certainly through their sustainability departments, and in
some cases from their CEOs. But from their lobbyists and from the trade
associations and the lobbying organizations that represent them here in
Congress, the silence is deafening.
[[Page S8663]]
The corporate effort in Congress to get something done on climate
change rounds to zero. I am in Congress, and I am here to say we need
you guys to show up. I get that it is never convenient to stand up to
bullies. It is always easier if they just go away, but the fossil fuel
bullies are not going away. So it is either stand up to them or keep
letting them roll Congress.
If what Coke and Pepsi and other corporations say publicly are the
things they really believe, then it should be important to them that
Congress not get rolled by the guys who are working against what they
believe. This should not be too big an ask for the corporations that
stood up in Paris: Do the same thing in Congress. Do the same thing in
Congress. Do the simplest and truest of things: Stand up for what you
believe.
It is time to wake up, but it is also time to stand up, and what a
difference you will make.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ExxonMobil Corporation,
Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
Hon. Edward J. Markey,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Elizabeth Warren,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: As to your question about Donors Trust and
Donors Capital, we had never heard of these organizations
until you brought them to our attention. We do not provide
funding to them.
At ExxonMobil we too have been following the deliberately
misleading stories regarding our company published by the
climate activist organization InsideClimate News and by
various media outlets. If you are interested in our response,
please visit our corporate blog: http://
www.exxonmobilperspectives
.com.
From the very beginning of concern about climate change,
ExxonMobil scientists and engineers have been involved in
discussions and analysis of climate change. These efforts
started internally as early as the 1970s. They led to work
with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
collaboration with academic institutions and to reaching out
to policymakers and others, who sought to advance scientific
understanding and policy dialogue.
We believe the risks of climate change are serious and
warrant thoughtful action. We also believe that by taking
sound and wise actions now we can better mitigate and manage
those risks. But as policymakers work to reduce emissions, it
is critical to recognize the importance of reliable and
affordable energy in supporting human progress across society
and the economy.
Sound tax, legal, and regulatory frameworks are essential.
With sound policies enacted, investment, innovation, and
cooperation can flourish. In our view, policy works best when
it maintains a level playing field; opens the doors for
competition; and refrains from picking winners and losers.
When considering policy options to address the risks of
climate change, we urge you to draw from the best insights
from economics, science, and engineering. The U.S. has
achieved remarkable reductions in not just greenhouse gas
intensity measures, but in absolute levels of carbon dioxide
emissions as a result of large-scale fuel switching from coal
to natural gas for electricity generation. Thoughtful
regulatory initiatives directed to both energy and building
efficiency standards, as well as continued improvements in
emissions levels related to industrial processes, have also
contributed to the reduction in the nation's greenhouse gas
emissions.
As you consider additional policy options, such as putting
a more direct cost on carbon to incentivize different
choices, we suggest that these policies ensure a uniform and
predictable carbon cost across the economy and allow
competitive market forces to drive solutions. We believe this
approach will maximize transparency, reduce complexity, and
promote global participation.
You are probably aware that ExxonMobil has for a number of
years held the view that a ``revenue-neutral carbon tax'' is
the best option to fulfill these key principles. Instead of
subsidies and mandates that distort markets, stifle
innovation, and raise energy costs, such a carbon tax could
help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in a way that spurs new efficiencies and new technologies.
The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy
framework for countries around the world--and the policy most
likely to preserve the ability of every sector of society to
seek out new efficiencies and new technologies.
Sincerely,
Theresa M. Fariello,
Vice President, Washington Office.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________