[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4465-S4466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I will proceed with my trusty, 
battered ``Time to Wake Up'' chart and my--I don't know--280-something 
speech.
  For once, I can start with some good news, which is that the 
Democrats, at last, passed a climate-focused reconciliation bill this 
year. This is a huge step and essential, given the cascade of harms 
climate change is already inflicting: wildfire in Yosemite National 
Park, billions of dollars in flood damage; Europe broils in heat wave; 
extreme heat led to ``brutal'' rise in sea temperatures; dangerous heat 
hits United States; emissions rising of methane, glacier tragedies; 
Houston slogs through brutal heat; climate change is forcing massive 
wildlife migration. Wherever you look, you see the news of what is 
happening--heat waves, droughts, wildfires, collapsing glaciers, rising 
seas, record carbon dioxide and methane concentrations in the 
atmosphere.
  It is a bombardment of hard evidence that the Earth is fast becoming 
less hospitable for human life. The costs of our political negligence 
are high and rising.
  My friends across the aisle like to fixate on the price of gasoline, 
which undeniably affects family budgets. But climate change imposes 
costs on American families much worse than gasoline prices. Climate 
change causes effects that raise insurance premiums, snarl supply 
chains, reduce crop yields, sicken people, and damage cars, homes, and 
businesses.
  A lot of thoughtful groups have quantified this damage. The 
International Monetary Fund estimates this ``climate tax'' on American 
families at over $5,000 per year based on their calculation that we 
subsidize fossil fuel by allowing them to get away with doing all this 
pollution and harm for free to the tune of $660 billion every year. 
That is the International Monetary Fund--5,000 bucks per family from 
climate change harms.
  They are not alone, of course. Resources for the Future, which is a 
well-regarded, well-trusted calculation shop, has just looked at what 
the social cost of carbon should be, and they pegged it at $185 per ton 
of carbon emissions. Right now, the nominal social cost of carbon left 
over from the Obama administration is $51 per ton. Resources for the 
Future has done a more rigorous calculation and puts it at $185 in harm 
per ton of carbon emitted.
  What does this all add up to? Well, you can go to corporate 
consulting firm Deloitte, which is a corporate consulting firm. We are 
not talking about, you know, Green New Deal folks here. This is a 
corporate consultancy. They say that inaction on climate change could 
cost the world's economy $178 trillion over the next 50 years.
  Now, the bad news is climate change harms could cost $178 trillion. 
The good news is if we got after this and behaved responsibly, you 
could gain $43 trillion in economic development in that same time 
period. So if you put the two together, that is a $220 trillion swing 
depending on decisions that we make today. So it kind of matters to 
getting this right, and we are not yet getting this right.
  The reconciliation bill, good as it is, won't decarbonize our economy 
in time without a lot more action. The bill likely takes expected 
emissions reduction from around 25 percent, which we are assuming right 
there--that is our baked-in number--and it raises it to about 40 
percent. So it is a 15-percent increase in emissions reduction, from 25 
percent to 40 percent. So that is good. That is good, but it still 
leaves much to do, because, remember, net zero is the target, and if 
you have reduced by 40 percent, that still leaves 60 percent that is 
work to be done.

  So soon we are going to need another bill, and the contours of such a 
bill, if it is going to be effective, are pretty clear.
  There is bipartisan interest in a carbon border adjustment, which 
would make American manufacturing more competitive and reduce carbon 
pollution worldwide. We export pressure against carbon pollution with a 
carbon border tariff.
  There is also bipartisan interest in commonsense permitting reform to 
safely and quickly build out the clean energy infrastructure of the 
future. My coastal State needs it for offshore wind. The Presiding 
Officer's Mountain State needs it for transmission lines to connect to 
the grid the capacity we have for solar and wind.
  And the fossil fuel industry at least pretends to be interested in a 
price on carbon emissions. Now, that is just pretense. They put their 
whole political operation into effect to make sure none of that 
happens, but it is a good sign. It is a step on the path when they have 
to pretend to support a price on emissions. That is a step on the way 
to actually supporting a price on carbon emissions.
  I will do everything in my power to do all of those things. But let's 
be clear. It would be much easier if corporate America were not a wall 
of opposition to serious climate bills.
  And it is not just the fossil fuel industry. Banking, insurance, 
retail, tech--pick your industrial sector. You name it--in this 
building, useless on climate. Or worse, there is a huge spread between 
what they tell their shareholders and their customers and the public 
and what they send their emissaries into Congress to tell us.
  And until that is solved, until corporate America aligns what it is 
telling the public with what it is doing in Congress, legislation is 
going to be tough to do.
  So that leaves the executive branch, and that is what brings me to 
the floor today, because there is a lot that the executive branch can 
do under existing executive authorities. And in this recent article, 
the White House said they were going to get started:

       Biden Prepares More Actions to Cut Emissions.
       Regulations from the E.P.A. and elsewhere will help the 
     president meet his aggressive climate goals.
       ``The president has not chosen to just look at Congress, 
     he's chosen to recognize that he has presidential authorities 
     and responsibilities under the law to keep moving this 
     forward.''

  Well, he sure does, and there is plenty of room to do different 
things and new things.
  So what can be done by executive action?
  Let's go through the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions 
since that is our target. The No. 1 source--by the way, these 11 
sources of carbon pollution amount to almost 70 percent of our carbon 
emissions. So if we can tackle these, we are making a big dent in that 
remaining 60 percent left undone.
  So cars and light trucks is the largest category. It generates almost 
a fifth of total U.S. carbon pollution.
  The EPA and DOT restored Obama-era greenhouse gas emission standards. 
So now go further, as California has. Start with model year 2027 and 
begin a ramp-up to 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
  There is authority for this under the Clean Air Act and the 2007 
Energy Independence and Security Act. And, by the way, when you double 
your car's energy efficiency, doubling your fuel economy is exactly the 
same thing as cutting oil prices and gasoline prices in half. So push 
in that direction.
  And, by the way, getting off of fossil fuel for cars and light trucks 
will help us get off the Big Oil treadmill of cartel prices that are 
set with the help of foreign despots in Russia, in Saudi Arabia, in 
Venezuela, outside the rule of American law. But Americans have to pay 
because our oil industry goes along with the international cartel 
instead of charging market-based prices. We just saw them do that and 
reap record profits. So there is a lot to be done on cars and light 
trucks.
  Coal-fired powerplants is the next biggest one. Coal-fired 
powerplants belch carbon pollution, but also a lot of other pollutants. 
So if you regulate for health against those other pollutants, you get a 
lot of cobenefits with carbon pollution.
  Among the worst is fine particulate matter, which is also known as 
soot or, more technically, PM 2.5. It is the leading cause of the 
estimated 100,000 to 200,000 air pollution-related premature deaths 
each year. So it is causing real harm.
  And then you add in coal ash, which is the toxic sludge left after 
you burn

[[Page S4466]]

coal, loaded with arsenic, mercury, lead, and uranium, and often stored 
in lagoons which sometimes burst, just as you see in this picture, not 
only swamping this farmhouse but also poisoning rivers and ground 
water.

  This should be a ``never event.'' This should be a ``never event,'' 
but it is not. It is all too frequent, and poor communities often take 
the hit. EPA regulations can eliminate these threats and produce carbon 
reduction cobenefits.
  Nothing in the recent West Virginia v. EPA decision prevents EPA from 
requiring that coal-fired powerplants install carbon capture 
technology. And carbon capture technology can eliminate up to 95 
percent of the carbon pollution. Add EPA's authority under the Clean 
Air Act and the Clean Water Act to regulate fine particulate matter and 
coal ash, and you can make real progress.
  That brings us, then, to gas-fired powerplants, the next category. 
They are big carbon polluters, and they are still being built. EPA 
regulations for new and existing gas-fired plants can limit their 
carbon pollution the same way. Carbon capture can be one option. Co-
firing with zero carbon hydrogen could be another option.
  Next on the list is heavy-duty vehicles, trucks, and buses. Now EPA 
has a proposed rule, and that proposed rule on trucks and buses does 
nothing to reduce carbon pollution. EPA and DOT have ample authority 
here, and they should use it. California has its own ``advanced clean 
trucks rule'' requiring increased zero emission heavy-duty vehicles. If 
EPA can't do any better, then follow California's lead.
  Next comes methane, spewing from oil and gas facilities as leaks, 
vents, or flares. EPA has a proposed rule--no actual rule yet--but even 
the proposed rule has flaws. First, it doesn't cover low-producing 
wells. A low-producing well can be a very high-leaking well.
  So whether it is high or low producing should matter less than 
whether it is a big leaker.
  Second, the rule does little for venting and flaring, which are major 
pollution sources. Now one development is that satellites can now very 
precisely locate methane leaks. So we can aggressively pursue and 
punish big methane polluters, and we should do that. Set up a task 
force. Have people go hunting for the big methane leaks. Find who is 
responsible and get after them.
  If you do all that, it would cover more than half of gross carbon 
emissions in the United States. So let's do it. No more complaining 
about not enough staff. EPA has more employees than all of Congress 
combined. If you don't have enough staff, then detail folks in from the 
regional offices, borrow from your State counterparts. Do what it takes 
to get after this like you mean it, because we need to.
  There is a list that I tweeted out of things that the administration 
could be doing within its existing executive authorities. Within the 
White House, OMB, or the Office of Management and Budget, 18 months in, 
needs to finalize its social cost of carbon, the costs and the harms 
from each ton of carbon pollution emitted. That is the number that I 
mentioned earlier that Resources for the Future just calculated at $185 
per ton.
  OMB needs to finalize the social cost of carbon, set the number, and 
require its use throughout government decision making. All the 
regulatory agencies should use it, even the quasi-independents.
  And you can add in procurement decisions. The Federal Government 
contracts for over $600 billion in goods and services every year. We 
buy buildings, vehicles, planes, cement, steel, appliances. You name 
it, the government buys it. Plug the social cost of carbon into 
procurement, as many private companies do, and you engage the power of 
government contracting against the climate threat.
  And when you do that, that then drives economies of scale that make 
those low-carbon projects and products cheaper for everyone else, not 
just the government buyer.
  The social cost of carbon should drive Department of Interior fossil 
fuel royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal produced on Federal lands and 
waters. Those rates right now are so low that we lose money on 
royalties compared to the costs that those fossil fuels impose on all 
of us. That is just dumb and also unfair. So let's fix that flagrant 
imbalance by putting the social cost of carbon into the fees and 
royalties.
  I would add that the Department of Justice has a role to play here. 
Years ago, under the Clinton administration, the Department of Justice 
sued Big Tobacco for decades of misrepresentations about the harms of 
its product. Well, DOJ won that lawsuit, and they won big, and they got 
a court order requiring Big Tobacco to quit lying.
  Well, like Big Tobacco, Big Oil has spent decades misrepresenting the 
dangers associated with its product. The Department of Justice is way 
overdue to take a serious look at fossil fuel lies.
  As they look around the country, they see States and municipalities 
and counties bringing lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry. It is 
happening out there. It is incumbent on the Department of Justice to 
advise the President on what the Department of Justice should be doing. 
To turn a blind eye to all that litigation, to ignore its own victory 
in the tobacco case, to refuse to recommend to the President any course 
of action or to take any course of action is just not an acceptable way 
of going forward. If the DOJ took an honest look, I bet they would find 
the case against Big Oil every bit as solid as the case they won 
against Big Tobacco.
  And while we are at it, there is the bully pulpit. The administration 
should use the bully pulpit to call out the dark money, the lies, the 
fake science, the phony front groups, the spin doctors, the co-opted 
lobby groups, the dirty political spending, the whole apparatus, the 
whole machinery that the fossil fuel industry has used to corrupt 
Congress and obstruct progress.
  Calling out crooks is the right thing to do, and the public deserves 
to know that there is a villain here who has blocked progress on 
purpose and what that villain is up to.
  There is a lot that the Biden administration can and should be doing. 
Yes, it is good to declare a climate emergency. It is better to act 
like it is a climate emergency and deploy your Executive authorities 
accordingly. That means the sort of regulatory surge I have just 
outlined--no waffling, no excuses.
  A winning strategy ultimately includes regulation, litigation, 
legislation, acquisition, and communication. Across those five fronts, 
the Biden administration should have a plan to move forward in each and 
every one. It needs the kind of leadership that Eisenhower gave to the 
Normandy landing and the invasion that followed.
  By the way, while you are organizing it that way, do it with gusto. 
This is a fight that is worth having. It is not just that the planet 
depends on it; it is not just that our international credibility 
depends on it; it is not just cleaning out this place from rotten 
fossil fuel industry depends on it; it is the right thing to do. The 
American public will stand behind a President who stands up against 
lies and dark money and the schemes to blockade climate safety.
  So I will close by saying that whether there was ever a time for 
half-hearted, half-baked, and halfway measures, it is done. We need to 
build on the success of the Inflation Reduction Act. We need to take 
that as a launchpad, a first chapter, not a last chapter. And on this 
fight, it is all in or lose because our adversaries are determined. 
They are just wrong, but they are determined. So it is all in or lose.
  By the way, if we lose this race, the laws of chemistry and physics 
are going to be unforgiving.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.