[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 187 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7242-S7243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I am here to talk about the U.N. Climate Change 
Conference that we just got back from in Germany, where the United 
States stood alone as the only Nation in the world--Syria and Nicaragua 
having left us--not a party to the historic Paris Agreement. Led by 
Senator Cardin, my colleagues Senators Markey, Schatz, Merkley, and I 
went to Bonn to tell the nations gathered there that the Trump 
administration does not represent American views on this issue, nor 
American determination to tackle the climate challenge. It was not just 
us who went there to say we are still in. American Governors, mayors, 
universities, and major corporations all brought the same message that 
notwithstanding the Trump administration's efforts to separate us from 
the Paris goal, we are still in.
  The urgency of the experts at our Nation's universities and Federal 
agencies is reflected in a major multi-agency climate report that was 
released last week and makes an astounding contrast to the position 
taken by the Trump administration. The ``Climate Science Special 
Report'' will serve as the scientific backbone for the ``Fourth 
National Climate Assessment'' due next year. The authors list is a 
who's who of top university scientists and Agency experts from NOAA, 
the EPA, NASA, our National Labs, the National Science Foundation, and 
the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce, Interior, 
and State--in all, 13 Federal Agencies and Departments. This report was 
also peer-reviewed by our American National Academy of Sciences. The 
New York Times properly described it as ``the United States' most 
definitive statement on climate change science.''
  The report wastes no time getting to the heart of what is causing 
climate change. It states:

       This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, 
     that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially 
     emissions from greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of 
     the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

  It goes on to say:

       The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades 
     will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases 
     (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally.

  Further it says:

       There is broad consensus that the further and faster the 
     Earth system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk 
     of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of which are 
     potentially large and irreversible.

  In a 2016 interview, President Trump said there is ``some 
connectivity'' between human activity and climate change, but, he said, 
``you can make lots of cases for different views.'' Well, the President 
ought to read his administration's own report. There is more than just 
``some connectivity.'' To quote the report, ``For the warming over the 
last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported 
by the extent of the observational evidence,'' but this 
administration's industry hacks are not paying attention, and instead 
of helping, they are out busily doing things like deleting the words 
``climate change'' from Agency websites. The Washington Post reported 
in September that EPA public affairs officer John Kronkus ``told staff 
that he is on the lookout for `the double C-word'--climate change--and 
repeatedly has instructed grant officers to eliminate references to the 
subject in solicitations.''
  Maybe they think if they crawl under the bed and scrub out the words 
``climate change,'' the scientific phenomenon will disappear, but in 
science it actually doesn't work that way.
  Over at the Department of Energy is Secretary Rick Perry, who called 
climate change a ``contrived, phony mess'' in his 2010 book. He 
backtracked his position in his January confirmation hearings but still 
said he ``believe[s] some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it 
is also man-made activity.'' Well, the Energy Secretary might want to 
read the report. Manmade activity is not some of it; it is the dominant 
cause.
  Then there is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who said about human 
activity causing climate change: ``There's tremendous disagreement 
about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a 
primary contributor to the global warming that we see.'' The EPA 
Administrator needs to read the report too. He is wrong and wrong. 
``Dominant'' is what the report says with ``no convincing 
alternative.''
  If Perry or Pruitt bothered to look at the report their staffs helped 
write, they would see this graph: ``Human Activities Are the Primary 
Driver of Recent Global Temperature Rise.'' This is the human activity 
column, this is solar effects, and this is volcanic effects.
  Every once in a while somebody says: Oh, it is the volcanoes that are 
doing it; it is not us. It turns out volcanoes are actually having a 
slight cooling effect.
  People say: No, it is solar radiation; it is not us. You can barely 
see the amount of solar radiation warming.
  All of this is human-caused climate change. It is more than dominant. 
You can barely see other factors up against it.
  As for Pruitt's claim that humans are not ``a primary contributor to 
the global warming that we see,'' well, you can turn to the report's 
page 31: ``Human activities are now the dominant cause of the observed 
trends in climate.'' Flip forward to page 36, and it states: ``Many 
lines of evidence demonstrate human activities, especially emissions of 
greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible.''
  So, Administrator Pruitt, humans are not a primary contributor. The 
actual science shows ``human activities, especially emissions of 
greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for the observed climate 
changes in the Industrial era, especially over the last six decades.''
  You could flip to the next page where it says: ``[T]here are no 
suggested factors, even speculative ones that can explain the timing or 
magnitude'' of what is happening in the climate or ``that would somehow 
cancel out the role of human factors.''
  Just last week, Kathleen Hartnett White rolled into the Environment 
and Public Works Committee out of the President's climate denial clown 
car. White is a prolific climate denier from the fossil fuel-funded 
Texas Public Policy Foundation. She wrote that carbon pollution in the 
atmosphere is ``unquestionably a huge social benefit.'' Unquestionably 
a huge social benefit? OK. She also compared climate science to a 
``cult,'' which kind of lines her up a little bit with that Heartland 
Institute that has compared climate scientists to the Unabomber, just 
to give you an idea of the intellectual rigor of the climate denial 
arguments. Now she is up for consideration as chair of the White House 
Council on Environmental Quality.
  In responding to our questions, Ms. White was, let's just say, a 
little at a loss. She responded, for instance, that she has ``a very 
superficial understanding'' of ocean issues. She said on ocean 
acidification that there ``are different perspectives'' and that 
acidity ``changes up and down are not inherently a problem.'' Well, 
Kathleen Hartnett White needs to read this report too.
  According to the Climate Science Special Report, ``The world's oceans 
are currently absorbing more than a quarter of the CO2 
emitted to the atmosphere annually from human activities, making them 
more acidic . . . with potential detrimental impacts to marine 
ecosystems.''
  How much more acidic are the oceans being made by the absorption of 
CO2? The report goes on to say that ``the rate of 
acidification is unparalleled in at least the 66 million years.''
  Sixty-six million years is way before humankind even existed. That is 
the kind of dice we are rolling with ocean acidification.
  I pressed Ms. White on how much of the heat greenhouse gas emissions 
add to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. She couldn't even tell 
me if it was more or less than half of it. Yet she insisted she knew 
there ``are differences of opinion on that, that there's not one right 
answer.'' So, in a nutshell, she doesn't know what the science is, but 
she sure knows that it is wrong.
  Well, there actually is one right answer, and wouldn't you know it, 
it is in the Climate Science Special Report, which says: ``Not only has 
ocean heat content increased dramatically, but more than 90 percent of 
the energy gained in the combined ocean-atmosphere system over recent 
decades has

[[Page S7243]]

gone into the ocean.'' In fact, to be more precise, it is 93 percent. 
By the way, that is heating the oceans at a rate greater than setting 
off a Hiroshima-style nuclear bomb in the oceans and having all of the 
heat of the nuclear explosion absorbed by the oceans, more than one 
explosion per second. So it is quite a heat transfer.
  I asked Ms. White about a basic scientific principle: Do you think if 
the ocean warms it expands? Does the law of thermal expansion apply to 
seawater?
  After a long pause, she replied, ``Again, I do not have any kind of 
expertise or even such layman's study of the ocean dynamics and the 
climate change issues.'' For somebody who wants to lead the White House 
Council on Environmental Quality and help guide the science in this 
area, it is a pretty rudimentary scientific principle that water 
expands as it warms. If you can't grasp that, good luck grasping the 
risks that sea level rise poses to coastal communities like ours in 
Rhode Island.
  The ``Climate Science Special Report'' states that ``it is virtually 
certain that sea level rise this century and beyond will pose a growing 
challenge to coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.'' 
Rhode Island has coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems so 
this challenge is very real for my home State.
  Climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification are 
challenges that require smart leadership and initiative. We need to 
take action to bolster our infrastructure, fortify our coasts, and help 
communities prepare for those challenges on the horizon. Instead, in 
this administration, we get the likes of Perry, Pruitt, and White.
  I wish ignorance were what is driving these administration officials. 
Ignorance can be rectified with education, with information. We could 
assign them to read the ``Climate Science Special Report,'' for 
instance. They might find it illuminating and realize that what they 
have been saying is factually false. Unfortunately, it is a much more 
nefarious condition than ignorance that afflicts this administration on 
climate change, and it is a condition that cannot be cured with facts.

  This is about fossil fuel money. The malady of fossil fuel money in 
politics is what prevents the stark warnings in the ``Climate Science 
Special Report'' from being a call to action in Congress.
  In Bonn at the COP23 gathering, we saw that the rest of the world is 
not turning a blind eye to climate change. The rest of the world is 
confronting it head-on, along with many American States, many American 
cities, major American corporations, and virtually every major American 
university. Those are all very hopeful signs.
  While our President and his administration have bound themselves to 
the fossil fuel polluters, the American people have not. Rhode 
Islanders and Americans everywhere care deeply about getting ahead of 
this problem--about achieving the goals of the U.N. framework. And the 
American people will carry forward American leadership in combating 
climate change, no matter how evil the continuing influence of the 
fossil fuel industry is in Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.