[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5175-5177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      EARTH DAY AND GLOBAL WARMING

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is the 32nd anniversary of Earth 
Day. I think it is fitting, then, to say a few words about the world's 
No. 1 environmental problem; and that is clearly global warming. It is 
also fitting because last week the east coast of our country 
experienced its first April heat wave in more than a quarter of a 
century. Even more disturbing, in February, an iceberg, the size of 
Rhode Island, collapsed from the Antarctic ice shelf.
  The Earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 
years. Computer models predict an increase of 2 to 6 degrees over the 
next century.
  The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1986. What 
does that mean? Today the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide--
that is our No. 1 greenhouse gas--is 30 percent higher than 
preindustrial levels. This may seem to be a small change, but just a 
few upticks in temperature can produce catastrophic conditions in 
weather. So the window of time to do something to curb global warming 
is closing fast.
  One of my disappointments with the energy bill is the fact that there 
is no substantive action taken to reduce our Nation's profligate carbon 
dioxide pollution.
  California is in a unique and precarious position. With a population 
of 34 million people today and an expected population of 50 million by 
2020, the State is particularly vulnerable to global climate change. 
Global warming could make California's water even more scarce, create 
further flooding, destroy certain agricultural crops, and lead to more 
frequent and intense Sierra forest fires. Because global warming will 
likely increase sea levels and since most of the population lives just 
a stone's throw from the coast, the result could be flooding for 
millions of Californians.
  Actually, there has already been a significant rise in sea level 
along the

[[Page 5176]]

U.S. coast of about a tenth of an inch per year, which translates into 
about 11 inches per century.
  The global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 
100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years. The melting of polar 
ice and land-based glaciers is expected to contribute a projected one-
half to 3-foot sea level rise for the 21st century. That is enormous. 
Just a 20-inch rise in sea level from climate change could inundate 
3,200 to 7,300 square miles of dry land.
  The Presiding Officer, coming from the State of Hawaii, knows how 
that could impact his State.
  This could eliminate as much as 50 percent of North America's coastal 
wetlands. In northern California, increased winter flows into San 
Francisco Bay could increase the flooding risk and shift saltwater 
upstream from the bay. This is already happening. Saltwater levels are 
rising in the delta areas. This increased saltwater penetration into 
the delta, which is the source of two-thirds of the drinking water for 
the State, could affect water quality for millions of Californians.
  The underlying cause of flooding is also very concerning. Mountain 
glaciers throughout the world seem to be receding. Glacier National 
Park may be glacier free by 2070, and the Sierra Nevada mountains may 
be glacier free soon after. The Greenland ice sheet has already lost 
roughly 40 percent of its thickness over the past four decades. And 
shrinking ice caps may very well alter ocean circulation and storm 
tracks.
  Rising sea level is not our only concern. Precipitation, rain, has 
increased by 5 to 10 percent during the last century. Much of this was 
attributed to heavy and very heavy rainfall events which reaffirm the 
importance of developing ways of storing this water during wet periods 
and having it available during times of drought, because global warming 
means more turbulent weather patterns; it means more hurricanes, more 
tornadoes. When it rains, the drops of rain are bigger, the rainfall is 
more intense; ergo, the destruction is greater.
  The report also pointed out that rising temperatures are likely to 
result in less snow and more rain, quicker melting of the existing 
snowpack, particularly at lower elevations, and a shift in runoff to 
earlier in the year.
  While total runoff amounts haven't changed, the timing of that runoff 
is shifting to winter. In fact, the amount of runoff in the spring 
snowmelt period--that is, April through July--in northern California 
has actually dropped over the past century from 45 percent to 35 
percent.
  In normal winters, California's water gets stored in snowpacks until 
spring, and that is when the spring runoff fuels our reservoirs and is 
there for drinking as well as farming.
  Drought conditions may worsen, thereby destroying water-dependent 
crops such as rice, cotton, and alfalfa. For many parts of the western 
United States, the shifting weather patterns brought on by global 
warming could mean a greater risk of damage, life-threatening floods. 
And, of course, southwestern States worry that a 10-percent drop in 
flows in the Colorado River could lead to a 30-percent drop in water 
storage behind the reservoirs along the Colorado, not to mention a 30-
percent drop in hydroelectric generation on the Colorado itself. The 
stakes are very high.
  Unfortunately, our country lags behind when it comes to providing the 
leadership necessary to stem this growing problem. Amazingly, some of 
us in Congress even question whether we have a problem in this regard. 
I believe if we don't act soon, our State, our Nation, and our planet 
will pay a heavy price.
  What should we do? The first thing, and the largest way of reducing 
the No. 1 greenhouse gas, the No. 1 contributor to global warming, is 
to do something about carbon dioxide emissions in automobiles. That is 
fuel efficiency for automobiles.
  We had this debate in the Senate earlier, and a bill presented by the 
Senator from Massachusetts to increase mileage standards to 35 miles 
per gallon went down to crashing defeat. There still is another item 
that I am giving serious consideration to presenting as an amendment, 
and that is closure of the SUV/light truck loopholes. If SUVs were 
simply required to meet the same fuel economy standards as automobiles, 
we would prevent the emission of more than 200 million tons of carbon 
dioxide each year. This is 3 percent of the country's entire 
CO2 emissions. This in itself would be the largest single 
step we could take at this time to reduce global warming.
  The big three auto manufacturers continue to fight for the status 
quo. They oppose all increases in fuel efficiency. Last year, Senator 
Snowe and I and about 13 of our colleagues introduced the SUV/light 
truck loophole closing legislation. What we said we wanted to do was, 
over the next 10-year period, bring SUVs and light trucks to the same 
level as other passenger vehicles. A study has been done by the 
National Academy of Sciences. Senators Slade Gorton, Dick Bryan, and I 
began this effort some 3 years ago. I believe the technology is 
available to make those changes. Instead, our automobile companies have 
chosen to make SUVs more like tanks than fuel-efficient vehicles.
  Consequently, we continue to pump out large amounts of carbon 
dioxide. I believe increased fuel economy standards represent the 
logical first step in reducing mobile sources of carbon dioxide.
  We also have to work to expand California's zero emission vehicle 
program and examine ways to promote cleaner and more efficient battery, 
electric, fuel cell, or hybrid vehicles. We should also look toward 
reducing urban sprawl and our dependence on gas-guzzling vehicles.
  The second action we should take is to increase the use of renewable 
energy. Energy use by buildings and appliances accounts for a quarter 
of California's carbon dioxide emissions. We can solve this problem by 
providing necessary tax credits and other incentives for energy-
efficient buildings and appliances.
  By operating more efficiently, we not only reduce waste and pollution 
that contribute to global warming, we also save consumers and 
businesses money in the process.
  Finally, I deeply believe that the President of the United States 
should submit the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to the Senate and 
that the Senate should take up the treaty and ratify it. This historic 
United Nations framework--established in 1997--aims to reduce 
greenhouse gases by setting emissions targets and timetables for 
industrialized nations.
  To enter into force, the Kyoto Protocol must be ratified by at least 
55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of the total 1990 
carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries.
  Even though we are only 4 percent of the world's population, we 
account for 20 percent of the world's energy use. No other country is 
nearly as profligate.
  Opponents of the treaty say there is no reason for the United States 
to do anything to combat global warming unless developing countries, 
such as China and India, also participate. In my view, this is simply 
shortsighted. As the most economically advanced nation, what we do sets 
the standard for the rest of the world--like it or not. So if we want 
to reduce global warming, if we take this position, I believe other 
nations will follow.
  President Clinton signed the treaty in 1998, but it was never 
submitted to the Senate, in part because the 67 votes needed to pass it 
were simply not there. If the United States will not ratify this 
treaty, at an absolute minimum, we need to come up with a way to 
substantially reduce our emissions on our own.
  The bottom line is that this energy bill does not, in any way, shape, 
or form, actually reduce any of these emissions.
  As the No. 1 contributor of greenhouse gases worldwide, I believe it 
is our responsibility to show leadership; and every day we wait, we 
lose an opportunity to reduce the threat of global warming. It is not 
too much to ask the world's economic and political superpower to 
provide the necessary leadership to address global warming and,

[[Page 5177]]

one day, to celebrate an Earth Day in which the United States has truly 
taken the lead.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I 
may proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
247 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________