[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2703-S2705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, pick up the paper these days, and it 
is hard to miss the headlines about corporate America getting serious 
about reducing carbon emissions. Companies are purchasing renewable 
power. They are moving into carbon-neutral office buildings. They are 
purchasing electric vehicle fleets. They are developing new 
technologies and products for the transition to a carbon economy. Many 
are forcing some degree of sustainability out of their supply chains. 
All of this is important work and the companies that are leading in 
these areas deserve real applause.
  But--you knew there was going to be a ``but,'' and here it is--
corporations alone reducing their own carbon emissions or designing new 
low-carbon technologies will not win the fight against climate change. 
If you want to fail on climate change while looking good, that will 
work, but if you actually want to win--if you want to keep us between 
1.5 and 2 degrees in temperature increase--you will fail.
  A new report, ``The Blind Spot,'' from the Environmental Defense 
Fund, makes crystal clear that individual corporate efforts to reduce 
their own carbon emissions will not be enough. Here is what it says: 
``While voluntary actions by companies to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions are important, only public policy can deliver the pace and 
scale of reductions necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate 
change.''
  ``Public policy''--that is us. That is Congress.
  EDF is not alone. Report after report has shown that we will fail 
without government action. But as engaged as so much of corporate 
America is in greening its own operations, they are almost totally 
absent from the halls of Congress when it comes to climate change--
AWOL, no place.
  So government sits, stalled by the fossil fuel industry, and does 
nothing serious. As a Senator, I am an inhabitant of this political 
ecosystem. I observe how this works. Consider this the field report of 
the biologist who lives in the jungle.
  The sad reality of our political ecosystem is that post-Citizens 
United, the power of big industries seeking influence in Congress has 
exploded. Where previously, big special interests had muskets, Citizens 
United gave them artillery. On climate change, one industry, the fossil 
fuel industry, is deploying its artillery of big money and big threats 
here in Washington like nobody else.
  It is no surprise. They are defending a $700 billion per year fossil 
fuel subsidy just in the United States, according to the International 
Monetary Fund. They have a huge interest--a multihundred billion dollar 
interest--in preventing legislation that would reduce consumption of 
their fossil fuels.
  So they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and 
elections. They fund dozens of phony front groups and trade 
associations to engage in all sorts of climate denial and obstruction. 
They hide their influence in dark-money channels. They pollute the 
public sphere as badly as they pollute the atmosphere.
  In our political ecosystem, they are a big and dangerous predator. 
Ask

[[Page S2704]]

former Congressman Bob Inglis. Ask former Senate candidate Katie 
McGinty. The fossil fuel industry is a multitentacled, well-
camouflaged, and deadly political beast.
  And, then, there is the rest of the business community: retail, food 
and beverage, financial services, tech, consumer goods, and 
manufacturing. Most are taking steps to reduce their own emissions, but 
when it comes to doing something about climate change here in Congress, 
they just don't show up, and the result is entirely predictable.
  In an institution like Congress, whose currencies are money and 
influence, if one industry spends on lobbies like a beast and there is 
no counterweight, that industry likely carries the day. That is 
simple political hydraulics. It is true in sports, and it is true in 
battles: If one side doesn't show up, the other side owns the field. 
And so the fossil fuel industry owns the Republican Party.

  That is why it is imperative that the rest of corporate America start 
showing up on climate. Many of them are here. They do lobby. They just 
care about other things, and their silence about climate change is 
deafening. The good guys are just not on the field. They are scared of 
retaliation. They have other priorities. They don't want to be yelled 
at by the Chamber of Commerce. They are getting what they want and 
don't want to upset the applecart. There are lots of reasons, but it 
doesn't change the outcome. It is not just the EDF report.
  I got today the New America report ``Prospects for Climate Change 
Policy Reform.'' They point out that in the past, business and 
government usually worked together to solve environmental problems. I 
quote them here: ``A cross-partisan model of environmental-business 
engagement held sway for decades on other issues; however, companies 
have been less willing to provide leadership on climate policy.''
  No kidding. But the fossil fuel industry is here, and it exerts a 
relentless barrage of lobbying, electioneering, and propaganda pressure 
on Congress. And it owns the field. This statement from the EDF report 
is really its central message: ``The most powerful tool companies have 
to fight climate change is their political influence.''
  So when they don't show up, it makes a difference. This is the 
message that corporate America needs to take to heart. Republicans are 
not going to break this artificial, fossil-fuel-funded, climate logjam 
here in Congress until corporate America--the corporate America they 
listen to--starts to demand climate action, not on a website, not in 
their purchasing standards but here in Congress.
  In this political ecosystem, the inhabitants know when something is 
real, and they know when it is corporate greenwashing, or well-
intentioned peripheral stuff they can ignore. Members know who is 
serious.
  The fossil fuel industry is deadly serious. The EDF report says that 
any evaluation of corporate climate policy must include an analysis of 
its lobbying and political spending as it relates to climate. EDF is 
right. Corporate America needs to be accountable for the results that 
it pays for, and that includes whether or not companies fund anti-
climate trade associations.
  This is another dirty Washington secret. Many companies subcontract 
lobbying and electioneering activity to trade associations. Two of the 
biggest trade associations--the National Association of Manufacturers 
and the very biggest, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the proverbial 800-
pound gorilla--have spent decades denying that climate change was even 
occurring and obstructing any effort to reduce carbon pollution--
decades of denial and obstruction.
  Too many companies with good climate policies support them with the 
result that those companies' functional climate presence in Washington 
is opposite to what they say their policy is and opposite to what they 
say on their website.
  The group InfluenceMap looks at corporate lobbying and ranks 
corporations and trade associations by their influence on climate 
policy. Of the 50 most influential trade associations around the world, 
InfluenceMap shows the Chamber and the National Association of 
Manufacturers to be the two worst--the two most opposed when it comes 
to reducing carbon pollution. Here they are, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, right at the 
bottom--the very worst.
  Look at those companies that are greening their own operations but 
are supporting the Chamber and the National Association of 
Manufacturers. Look at the companies that don't show up in Congress to 
lobby for climate action and, instead, lobby through these two who 
lobby against the climate action those companies claim to support. 
Those companies' net lobbying presence in Congress is against climate 
action, whatever they may claim to support. Their net lobbying presence 
in Congress is against climate action--directly opposed to the policies 
they claim to support.
  There is an accountability moment that needs to come for those 
companies, unless they honestly believe that climate change is a hoax, 
that it is not real, we don't need to worry about it, and obstruction 
is OK. If that is their position, they are getting proper 
representation from the National Association of Manufacturers and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but if they are telling the world--and their 
shareholders and their customers--that they take climate change 
seriously, they have a little explaining to do about supporting these 
two enemies of climate progress, particularly, if they are not showing 
up in Congress to counter the denial and obstruction they are paying 
for.
  For years, companies that go out and brag to consumers and investors 
about how green they are simultaneously fund climate denial and 
obstruction via those two trade associations. That has to stop. In 
fact, more and more consumers and investors are beginning to call on 
companies to stop this corporate doublespeak. You can't have a good 
climate website and fund these two organizations and face your 
shareholders and say you are serious.
  Consumers who buy a Coke or a Pepsi don't want to be supporting the 
Chamber's decades-long campaign against climate action. Investors in 
Coca-Cola and Pepsico don't want these companies to put their 
reputations at risk by funding anti-climate groups. Investors don't 
want these companies to ignore climate change when climate change may 
upend their water-dependent businesses.

  Coca-Cola features a powerful statement about its commitment to 
climate action on its website. ``Climate change is a profound 
challenge,'' it says, ``and we are partnering with other businesses, 
civil society organizations, and governments to support cooperative 
action on this critical issue. . . . We also recognize climate change 
may have long-term direct and indirect implications for our business 
and supply chain.''
  In 2018, Coca-Cola disclosed that it gave the chamber at least 
$85,000--probably a good deal more.
  PepsiCo is even more explicit about the need for climate action. I 
quote them:

       Implementing solutions to address climate change is 
     important to the future of our company, customers, consumers 
     and our shared world. . . . We believe industry and 
     governments should commit to science-based action to keep 
     global temperature increases to 2 Celsius above pre-
     industrial levels.''

  In 2018, PepsiCo disclosed that it gave the chamber at least half a 
million dollars.
  Coke and Pepsi's own trade association, the American Beverage 
Association, also gives money to the chamber.
  So here are these two consumer-facing, climate-supporting companies, 
and both of them contribute directly to the Chamber of Commerce, and 
they run money through their own trade association, the American 
Beverage Association, into the Chamber of Commerce. And there it lies 
as the worst of the pair of lobbying organizations blocking climate 
action.
  What is the net effect of all of that? The net effect is that, for 
all their good work reducing their own carbon emissions and reducing 
their supply chain's carbon emissions, here in Congress, Coke and Pepsi 
are net opposed to climate action.
  Thankfully, some companies are beginning to realize that they can't 
just sit on the sidelines here in Washington and let the fossil fuel 
industry own Congress. Little Patagonia, the outdoor clothing 
manufacturer, has led the way. Bravo, Patagonia. Danone,

[[Page S2705]]

Mars, Nestle, and Unilever have announced a sustainable food policy 
alliance to pursue a price on carbon in Congress. Separately, Microsoft 
recently announced that it was going to lobby Congress for a price on 
carbon. But the fact that those companies are the exceptions I can name 
shows how bad the presence of corporate America is on this issue here 
in Congress.
  I will give Microsoft some extra credit. Microsoft also stood up in 
Washington State to support a ballot initiative to put a price on 
carbon emissions. Starbucks, Amazon, Costco, and Boeing--big, 
supposedly green corporations in Washington State--stood by and let 
themselves get rolled by Big Oil, led by BP--``Beyond Petroleum,'' ha--
when Big Oil spent $30 million to defeat the measure.
  By the way, it is the oil CEOs who have been saying: Oh, we know our 
product causes climate change. We are serious about doing something 
about it, and what we are going to do to be serious about it is to 
support a price on carbon.
  That is what they say. What do they do? Look at BP. Look at the oil 
spending in Washington. They go right in and spend their money to fight 
the very policy they say they support.
  I know of no path to success on climate that does not include pricing 
carbon. It is also the right thing to do because failing to price 
carbon is bad economics. It is a market failure. So if you are a true 
free market person, you ought to get behind a price on carbon. If you 
are just a fossil fuel person, then OK, but admit it. There really is 
no path to success on climate change that does not include pricing 
carbon. That may be an unpleasant fact for some, but it is a fact.
  Staying between 1.5 and 2 degrees Centigrade world temperature 
increase is another fact. We can't miss that target, but we will. We 
will miss that target if this corporate doublespeak doesn't change.
  Work like this new report from EDF, and InfluenceMap's analysis of 
how these trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Association of Manufacturers obstruct climate action, may help 
convince corporate America that it is time to step up, get on the 
field, and demand that Congress take real action to limit carbon 
pollution.
  Corporate America needs to go to its trade associations and say: 
Knock it off. No more U.S. chamber of carbon. No more national 
association of manufactured facts.
  Corporate America is paying for this nonsense, and corporate America 
can stop it. The two-faced game of having a good climate website but 
having your presence in Congress be against climate action has got to 
stop.
  Corporate America--the political force Republicans listen to--has the 
responsibility and the power to break the fossil fuel-funded logjam in 
this body. They could do it tomorrow if they wanted to. You take the 
leaders of corporate America in the sectors that I listed and you march 
them right down to the leader's office, and they say to him ``We are 
done with you, we are done with your candidates, and we are done with 
your party until you knock off the obstruction,'' and we would be out 
on the floor debating climate change within a week.
  When corporate America takes up its responsibility and uses its power 
to break the fossil fuel-funded logjam in this body, change on this 
issue will come swiftly, and we will see bipartisan support for climate 
action emerge.
  I was here in 2007, in 2008, and in 2009. In all of those years, 
there was constant bipartisan activity on climate. The pages would have 
been awfully young back then. It is nearly 10 years ago now. They would 
not recognize what is going on. I think there were five different 
bipartisan climate bills in the Senate--serious ones--that would have 
really done something significant to head off the climate crisis. All 
of that stopped dead in January of 2010. It was like a heart attack and 
a flat line on the EKG--stopped dead because the Supreme Court decided 
Citizens United. That opened the floodgates of political money into our 
politics. The fossil fuel money jumped on to that immediately. I think 
they saw and predicted that decision. I know they asked for it, and 
they were ready at the starting gun. From that moment when the fossil 
fuel industry dropped in on the Republican Party and said, ``Nobody is 
going to cross us on this any longer. You are all going to have to line 
up on climate denial. We will take out Republicans who cross us. We 
will do it to Bob Inglis, and we will do it to others. You are done 
with bipartisanship on this issue,'' that is when it stopped.
  If the fossil fuel industry would knock it off or if these front 
groups like the chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers 
would knock it off or if the rest of corporate America would simply get 
in here and push back, show up, outpressure them, we could go back and 
we could be bipartisan in a week. We are not there yet. Most of 
corporate America is still avoiding this issue in Congress, but they 
could really make a big difference. That makes it very much still time 
to wake up.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________