[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2911-S2913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for giving me 
this time at the end of the day and congratulate her on the progress 
that has been made with my senior Senator, Jack Reed, on this bill.
  This is the 137th time that I have addressed this body, asking us to 
wake up to the threat of climate change. While we sleepwalk, our 
atmosphere and oceans continue to suffer the damage caused by carbon 
pollution. As we do nothing, more and more Americans demand action. 
Look at the new findings from Yale and George Mason Universities. 
Despite years of industry climate denial propaganda, 75 percent of all 
registered voters--88 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, 
and 61 percent of Republicans--support regulating carbon dioxide as a 
pollutant; 74 percent of registered voters--88 percent of Democrats, 74 
percent of Independents, and 56 percent of Republicans--say 
corporations and industry should do more to address global warming, and 
68 percent of all registered voters--86 percent of Democrats, 66 
percent of Independents, and 47 percent even of Republicans--believe 
fossil fuel companies should be required to pay a carbon tax and the 
money should be used to reduce other taxes, such as income taxes, by an 
equal amount.
  So why does this Chamber sit idly by and not even have that 
conversation? Take the fossil fuel industry. For years Big Oil and its 
allies funded outright denial of man-made climate change. Now they have 
shifted strategies, from denial to dissembling--saying one thing but 
doing another.
  Take ExxonMobil. In 2007, the oil giant committed to stop funding the 
front groups that promote science denial. Here is what they said: ``In 
2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy 
research groups whose positions on climate change could divert 
attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure 
the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally 
responsible manner.''
  This sounds like a step toward responsible corporate behavior. A 
casual reader might believe that ExxonMobil would in fact stop funding 
groups with anti-scientific climate positions. One might think that, 
but one would be wrong.
  According to publicly available company documents, in 2014, 
ExxonMobil funded several organizations that promote climate science 
disinformation, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, 
which peddled legislation to State legislatures that include a finding 
that human-induced global warming ``may lead to . . . possibly 
beneficial climactic changes''; the Hoover Institution, whose senior 
fellow is not a climate scientist, argued that climate data since 1880 
supports a conclusion that it would take as long as long as 500 years 
to reach 4 degrees centigrade of global warming; the Manhattan 
Institute of Policy Research, where a senior fellow writing about 
climate change said: ``The science is not settled, not by a long shot. 
. . . Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it's 
not clear exactly what we should do about it''; the so-called National 
Black Chamber of Commerce, whose President and CEO, Harry Alford, 
played the debunked denier card, that ``there has been no global 
warming detected for the last 18 years. That is over 216 months in a 
row that there has been no detected global warming.'' By the way, NASA 
just reported that April was the hottest April ever recorded, just like 
every one of the past 7 months was the hottest ever recorded for that 
month. Let's not forget our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation, 
whose senior attorney attacked EPA's authority to even regulate 
CO2, in part, because it is a ``ubiquitous natural substance 
essential to life on Earth.''
  Saying one thing and doing another--ExxonMobil is publicly saying it 
is separated from the climate denial outfits, but it is still 
subsidizing their work to undermine public understanding of climate 
change. This doesn't even count whatever they may be doing behind the 
dark money curtain that wretched Citizens United decision gave them.
  The hypocrisy turns even worse in fossil fuel industry lobbying. An 
ExxonMobil executive recently stated: ``When governments are 
considering policy options, ExxonMobil believes a revenue-neutral 
carbon tax is the most effective way to manage carbon emissions.''
  I have a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill, along with Senator Schatz, 
and I can assure this body that ExxonMobil is not lobbying in support 
of it. Every Member of Congress knows that all the massive political 
infrastructure of the fossil fuel industry is adamantly opposed to any 
meaningful action.
  Shell Oil issued a report just last week that states: ``Economy-wide 
carbon pricing--whether through carbon trading, carbon taxes or 
mandated carbon-emissions standards--provides an efficient and cost-
effective way of aligning incentives and motivating action across the 
economy to reduce carbon emissions.''
  Top executives of six large European oil and gas companies, including 
Shell, BP and Statoil, issued a joint letter calling on governments 
``to introduce carbon pricing systems where they do not yet exist at 
the national or regional levels. . . . [W]e and our senior staff will 
seek to engage and share our companies' perspectives on the role of 
carbon pricing in several important settings,'' which includes ``in our 
meetings with Ministers and government representatives.''

[[Page S2912]]

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The question is, Has any Member of the Senate ever seen Shell or BP 
or Statoil or any other oil and gas company or any of their lobbying 
entities even once lobby Members of Congress on carbon pricing--other 
than, of course, to say, hell, no.
  My bill with Senator Schatz, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act, 
provides a market-based, revenue-neutral carbon fee--just like these 
companies say they support. It is built on principles espoused by 
leading Republican economists and by Republican former officeholders.
  Despite the industry's claims, I have seen exactly zero evidence that 
any of these companies--or their sizable trade associations--are using 
any of their lobbying muscle to advance carbon pricing legislation. 
Instead, ExxonMobil and Shell and the trade associations that represent 
them continue to pump millions of dollars into political machinery 
designed to lobby against any action on climate change. They say one 
thing, but they do another.
  This chart from the nonprofit research organization InfluenceMap 
shows the streams of money flowing from ExxonMobil and from Shell, as 
well as from the American Petroleum Institute, the Western States 
Petroleum Association, and even the Australian Petroleum Production and 
Exploration Association. In 2015 alone, ExxonMobil spent $27 million, 
Shell spent $22 million, and the American Petroleum Institute spent $65 
million on obstructive climate lobbying. This money deluge includes 
advertising and public relations, direct lobbying in Congress and at 
statehouses, and political contributions and electioneering. They say 
one thing but do another--to the tune of $100 million a year.
  As late as 2014, ExxonMobil gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $1 
million for the chamber to propagate its climate message, delivered 
loud and clear not only here in Congress but in the courts, of absolute 
intransigence against any serious climate action. The U.S. Chamber is 
powerful, and in Congress we all see everywhere around us its 
implacable hostility against serious climate legislation.
  The gap between ExxonMobil's stated support for a revenue-neutral 
carbon tax and its lobbying activities in Congress against any such 
thing is why Representative Ted Lieu of California and I recently asked 
the American Geophysical Union, a topnotch scientific society, to 
reexamine its financial support from ExxonMobil. The American 
Geophysical Union is made up of honest scientists. In their world, they 
likely expect that when people say something, it is true. Sadly, in 
Congress we don't enjoy the same experience. The good-hearted folks at 
the American Geophysical Union appear to have been taken in by 
ExxonMobil's false claims of support for a carbon price. Since we 
actually see the fossil fuel industry's lobbying presence, we wanted to 
correct any false impression.

       What we see in Congress is that their lobbying efforts are 
     100 percent opposed to any action on Climate. . . . Whatever 
     position AGU chooses to take, you should not take it based on 
     self-serving representations by ExxonMobil.

  POLITICO reported that in November ExxonMobil sent executives to 
Capitol Hill to try and convince congressional critics that ExxonMobil 
is a conscientious corporation that supports ``sound climate policy.'' 
Who did they think they were kidding? Do they think we don't know how 
they lobby? We are the targets of their lobbying. We know how they 
lobby. Unsurprisingly, the ExxonMobil executives left DC ``empty-handed 
. . . after refusing to directly answer questions about whether 
[ExxonMobil] had suppressed internal research that underscored the 
threat of climate change while publicly sowing doubt about climate 
science.''
  Given the fossil fuel industry's massive conflict of interest on 
carbon pollution, there is every reason for them to play a double game: 
trying to buy a little credibility for themselves with their public 
comments, while at the same time using all their lobbying muscle to 
crush any threat of bipartisan action on the carbon pricing they claim 
to espouse.
  Sadly, in this double game they play, the fossil fuel industry has 
essentially no corporate opposition in Congress. Across the private 
sector, there are great corporate leaders on climate change, but from 
what I see, corporate climate lobbying from the good guys nets to zero. 
The good guys have given up the field and let the fossil fuel industry 
to have its way with Congress unopposed, and the result is predictable: 
Many good Members of Congress are frozen in place, often against their 
better judgment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article I 
recently wrote for Harvard Business Review explaining this reality.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Harvard Business Review, Feb. 25, 2016]

          The Climate Movement Needs More Corporate Lobbyists

                        (By Sheldon Whitehouse)

       Across corporate America, there is broad support for action 
     on climate change. Leading businesses and executives vocally 
     supported President Obama on the Paris Agreement. Many 
     companies have committed themselves to getting onto a 
     sustainable path, and many are pushing their commitment out 
     through their supply chains. This is good, and it's 
     important.
       But it makes us in Congress feel a little left out. The 
     corporate lobbying presence in Congress is immense. But in my 
     experience, exactly zero of it is dedicated to lobbying for a 
     good, bipartisan climate bill.
       Dante wrote that above the Inferno was a sign: ``Abandon 
     hope all ye who enter here.'' But there is hope in Congress. 
     Many of my Republican colleagues are eager for some political 
     support, to counter the fossil fuel industry's relentless 
     onslaught.
       Despite the statements emitted from oil companies' 
     executive suites about taking climate change seriously and 
     supporting a price on carbon, their lobbying presence in 
     Congress is 100% opposed to any action. In particular, the 
     American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade 
     association, is an implacable foe. Given the industry's 
     massive conflict of interest, there is every reason to 
     believe they are playing a double game: trying to buy a 
     little credibility with these public comments while using all 
     their quiet lobbying muscle to crush any threat of bipartisan 
     action on the carbon pricing they claim to espouse.
       I am a sponsor of a Senate carbon fee bill, so I know this 
     firsthand. I see their destructive handiwork all around me--
     and they have no corporate opposition.
       Let me use the example of two good guys: Coca-Cola and 
     PepsiCo. I believe they care about climate change. They have 
     no conflict of interest like fossil fuel companies do. Both 
     signed a public letter urging strong action on climate in 
     Paris. Pepsi signed two major business climate action 
     pledges, the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration in the United 
     States and the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group 
     Trillion Tonne Communique in the UK.
       Coca-Cola's website says it will reduce CO2 
     emissions by 25% by ``making comprehensive carbon footprint 
     reductions across its manufacturing processes, packaging 
     formats, delivery fleet, refrigeration equipment, and 
     ingredient sourcing.'' Coca-Cola says, ``We . . . encourag[e] 
     progress in response to climate change.'' Indra Nooyi, chair 
     and CEO of PepsiCo says: ``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.''
       And they are taking action. Their effort puts Coke and 
     Pepsi at the forefront of corporate climate responsibility. 
     But they lobby Congress through a trade association, the 
     American Beverage Association, and through the business 
     lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The American 
     Beverage Association sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce and contributes a lot of money to it.
       The American Beverage Association, as far as I can tell, 
     has never lobbied on climate change. When the Association 
     thought Congress might impose a soda tax to fund health care, 
     they lobbied like crazy--nearly $30 million dollars' worth. 
     They know how to lobby, when they want to. But on climate, 
     I've never seen it.
       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 is very powerful, and 
     its power in Congress is fully dedicated to stopping any 
     serious climate legislation. We see their hostility 
     everywhere.
       The result is that Coke and Pepsi take great positions on 
     climate change in their public materials and private actions, 
     but here in Congress their lobbying agencies don't support 
     their position.
       No corporate lobbying force is exerted for good on climate 
     change. Mars, maker of the iconic M&M, is going fully carbon 
     neutral. Its climate performance is spectacular. No lobbying. 
     WalMart, America's biggest retailer, is spending tens of 
     millions of dollars to become sustainable. No lobbying. Apple 
     and Google and Facebook are forward-looking, cutting-edge 
     companies of the future, and they lead in sustainability. No 
     lobbying.
       The reasoning I am given is always the same. People fear 
     retribution, so embedded is the fossil fuel industry in 
     Congress. The

[[Page S2913]]

     result is the good guys abandoning the field to the worst 
     climate actors in America: the fossil fuel industry and its 
     array of front groups. They don't just lobby. The roughest of 
     these, Americans for Prosperity, boasts loudly that it will 
     spend $750 million in this election (it's already through 
     $400 million and climbing) and that any effort to address 
     climate change will put candidates in ``political peril,'' 
     that they'll be ``at a severe disadvantage.'' Subtle like a 
     brick.
       My response is twofold.
       Climate change is not just any other issue. It's so big an 
     issue that the world's leaders just gathered in Paris to 
     address it. It's so big an issue that it has its own page on 
     most corporate websites. It's so big an issue that our former 
     Pacific commander, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, said it was 
     the biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific 
     Theater. To use his 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.'' So it's big 
     enough for corporations to treat it as more than just another 
     issue in Congress.
       Second, they can't hurt you if you organize. An antelope 
     alone may fall to the hyenas, but the herd will protect 
     itself. The fossil fuel industry can't punish Coke and Pepsi 
     and WalMart and Apple and Google and Mars and all the other 
     100-plus companies who rallied publicly around a strong Paris 
     agreement. You have to stand together.
       Around Congress, the bullying menace of the fossil fuel 
     industry is a constant. If the good guys cede the field to 
     them, the result is predictable: members of Congress frozen 
     in place, often against their better judgment. It doesn't 
     have to be this way. I'm in Congress, and I'm writing here to 
     say: we need you guys to show up.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is time not just for us to wake up 
but for the good guys to show up. Fossil fuel folks for years outright 
denied climate change and happily funded their array of denial front 
groups. That failed the tests of truth and decency, but at least it was 
consistent. This new hypocrisy, to say one thing and do another, is 
playing with fire. First, it poses a legal risk. It is never good to 
say things you can't truthfully say under oath, which may be one reason 
we see such histrionics from the climate denial front groups about 
investigations where fossil fuel executives may have to tell the truth 
under oath. Second, it is a real reputation risk, especially among 
younger consumers who aren't going to love an industry that lies. It is 
hard to say that you are not lying when what you are saying and what 
you are doing are opposite.
  It is time for the fossil fuel industry to end this new double game. 
Either put your money where your mouth is and start working with 
Congress to enact a price on carbon, as you say you wish, or go back to 
your climate denial and your creepy front groups and see how that works 
out for you, but saying one thing while you are doing the exact 
opposite is just not sustainable.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 29, 2015.
     Her Excellency, Ms. Christiana Figueres,
     Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC,
     Bonn, Germany.
     His Excellency, Mr. Laurent Fabius President of COP21,
     Paris, France.
       Dear Excellencies: Climate change is a critical challenge 
     for our world. As major companies from the oil & gas sector, 
     we recognize both the importance of the climate challenge and 
     the importance of energy to human life and well-being. We 
     acknowledge that the current trend of greenhouse gas 
     emissions is in excess of what the Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change (IPCC) says is needed to limit the temperature 
     rise to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. 
     The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less 
     CO2. We stand ready to play our part.
       Our companies are already taking a number of actions to 
     help limit emissions, such as growing the share of gas in our 
     production, making energy efficiency improvements in our 
     operations and products, providing renewable energy, 
     investing in carbon capture and storage, and exploring new 
     low-carbon technologies and business models. These actions 
     are a key part of our mission to provide the greatest number 
     of people with access to sustainable and secure energy.
       For us to do more, we need governments across the world to 
     provide us with clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy 
     frameworks. This would reduce uncertainty and help stimulate 
     investments in the right low carbon technologies and the 
     right resources at the right pace.
       We believe that a price on carbon should be a key element 
     of these frameworks. If governments act to price carbon, this 
     discourages high carbon options and encourages the most 
     efficient ways of reducing emissions widely, including 
     reduced demand for the most carbon intensive fossil fuels, 
     greater energy efficiency, the use of natural gas in place of 
     coal, increased investment in carbon capture and storage, 
     renewable energy, smart buildings and grids, off-grid access 
     to energy, cleaner cars and new mobility business models and 
     behaviors.
       Our companies are already exposed to a price on carbon 
     emissions by participating in existing carbon markets and 
     applying `shadow' carbon prices in our own businesses to test 
     whether investments will be viable in a world where carbon 
     has a higher price.
       Yet, whatever we do to implement carbon pricing ourselves 
     will not be sufficient or commercially sustainable unless 
     national governments introduce carbon pricing even-handedly 
     and eventually enable global linkage between national 
     systems. Some economies have not yet taken this step, and 
     this could create uncertainty about investment and 
     disparities in the impact of policy on businesses.
       Therefore, we call on governments, including at the UNFCCC 
     negotiations in Paris and beyond--to:
       Introduce carbon pricing systems where they do not yet 
     exist at the national or regional levels.
       Create an international framework that could eventually 
     connect national systems.
       To support progress towards these outcomes, our companies 
     would like to open direct dialogue with the UN and willing 
     governments. We have important areas of interest in and 
     contributions to make to creating and implementing a workable 
     approach to carbon pricing, including:
       1. Experience. For more than a century we have provided 
     energy to the world. We are global in reach, closely familiar 
     with managing major projects and risks of many kinds, and 
     well-versed in trading and logistics. As we are already users 
     of carbon pricing systems across the world, exchange of 
     information at international scale could help to identify the 
     best solutions.
       2. Motivation. We want to be a part of the solution and 
     deliver energy to society sustainably for many decades to 
     come. Like our counterparts in other industry sectors we will 
     play a key role in implementing the measures and deploying 
     the technologies that will lead to a lower carbon future. Low 
     carbon business models and solutions are fragile until they 
     reach critical size, but with linked carbon pricing systems 
     worldwide, uncertainty would be reduced and such solutions 
     will start to create value for business more rapidly.
       3. Pragmatism. We believe our presence at the table could 
     be helpful in designing an approach to carbon pricing that 
     would be both practical and deliverable, as well as 
     ambitious, efficient and effective.
       4. A forum for discussion. Our companies and others have 
     come together under the auspices of the World Economic Forum 
     to form the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative, or are members of 
     the International Emissions Trading Association, the World 
     Bank or the UN Global Compact Carbon Pricing initiatives. We 
     believe these forums may offer an appropriate ground for 
     public-private dialogue on how to price carbon into energy.
       Practically, we and our senior staff will seek to engage 
     and share our companies' perspectives on the role of carbon 
     pricing in several important settings:
       In our meetings with Ministers and Government 
     representatives.
       As we attend and address conferences.
       As we hold engagements with our investors.
       As we conduct meetings with other stakeholders including 
     partners, suppliers, academics and researchers.
       As we hold meetings for management and staff within our 
     businesses.
       Pricing carbon obviously adds a cost to our production and 
     our products--but carbon pricing policy frameworks will 
     contribute to provide our businesses and their many 
     stakeholders with a clear roadmap for future investment, a 
     level playing field for all energy sources across geographies 
     and a clear role in securing a more sustainable future.
       We acknowledge the long-term challenge and appreciate that 
     this will be transformative across the energy sector. Over 
     many decades, our industry has been innovative and has been 
     at the forefront of change. We are confident that we can 
     build on our trajectory of innovation to meet the challenges 
     of the future.
       Each of us will copy this letter personally to key contacts 
     among investors, governments, civil society and our staff.
       Yours sincerely,
     Helge Lund,
       BG Group.
     Bob Dudley,
       BP.
     Claudio Descalzi,
       Eni S.p.A.
     Ben van Beurden,
       Royal Dutch Shell.
     Eldar Saetre,
       Statoil ASA.
     Patrick Pouyanne,
       Total S.A.

                          ____________________