[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11784-11786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CLIMATE SECURITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the vote this morning was a vote dealing 
with climate change. This vote, however, was not a yes or no on climate 
change legislation; the vote was on a cloture motion to invoke cloture. 
I voted against invoking cloture. I wish to make sure those who have 
worked so hard on the legislation we were considering do not feel that 
vote diminishes the work they have done.
  I believe there is something happening to the climate of this planet. 
I believe there is something dealing with global warming that threatens 
our future. I believe we have a responsibility to address it. I commend 
those who worked on the legislation and brought it to the floor of the 
Senate. It was a good start. It was not perfect and needed amendments 
in my judgment. A tangled web was created on the floor of the Senate 
through no fault of the majority leader who brought this to the floor. 
He indicated at the first moment that he wished this to be an open 
process with open debate and open opportunity for amendments. The 
tangled web that then ensued was a web that led us to a cloture motion 
and the filing of a cloture motion. Voting for cloture meant that we 
would be prevented from offering an amendment post cloture. I did not 
believe I wanted to put myself in that position because I have two 
amendments that have been filed. I had two amendments which I wished to 
offer and get them pending. Because of procedural hurdles, I was 
prevented from doing so because I was prevented from calling up 
amendments, even though they were filed. I wasn't very interested in 
supporting a cloture motion which would then prevent me from having the 
amendments considered by the Senate as we move forward to finish the 
piece of legislation. So that represents my view of why I would not 
support cloture.
  I filed an amendment dealing with additional funding for coal and 
carbon capture and storage programs. I think we need to do a couple of 
things if we are going to have a global climate

[[Page 11785]]

change bill work. First of all, at the front end, for the first 5, 10, 
12 and 14 years, we have to have a kind of Manhattan Project in which 
we decide for renewable, efficiency and clean coal energy resources 
that we are going to break out of the box and move forward very, very, 
very aggressively.
  If we are going to deal with this issue, we have to move solar and be 
serious about developing substantial capabilities in solar energy. That 
requires a massive amount of research and development. We have to be 
serious about wind energy and geothermal and biomass as well. We have 
to be serious about a whole range of renewable energy resources.
  We have not been serious in this country. In 1916 we said to oil and 
gas companies: If you want to go find oil and gas, good for you, God 
bless you. We want to provide big tax breaks for you for doing it. 
These permanent tax breaks have lasted forever regarding oil and gas.
  What did we do with those who were pursuing renewable energy? In 1992 
we said: We will give you some tax incentives. By the way, they will be 
temporary and kind of shallow, and we will extend them five times for a 
very short term, and we will let them expire three times. That is a 
pathetic, anemic response for a country that ought to, in my judgment, 
gallop full speed ahead toward the use of renewable energy. But you 
have to have conservation and renewable energy research and development 
commitments to achieve that goal.
  In addition to that, we are going to have to continue to use coal in 
our future. Forty-eight percent of our electricity comes from coal. We 
are not in a position where we can simply say we are not going to use 
coal. At the front end of this bill, we need to create a substantial 
amount of resources to engage in the research and development, 
demonstration and commercial deployment of projects that allow us to 
use coal to produce electricity without injuring our environment. That 
means capturing carbon and sequestering carbon. That is central to the 
future use of coal and other fossil fuels.
  Now, it is not as if it can't be done. We are doing it in some areas, 
but we need so much more work on the research and development end.
  This is a plant in North Dakota. It is the only one like it in North 
America. We produce synthetic natural gas from lignite coal. We take 
pieces of coal, and we produce synthetic gas from it. It works very 
well. In fact, it is one of the world's largest demonstrations for 
capturing and storing carbon. We capture 50 percent of the carbon from 
this plant; put it in a pipeline; move it to Saskatchewan, Canada; and 
invest it underground into Canadian oil wells to pump up and produce 
more oil.
  Most oil that is drilled from underground pools only provides about 
30 percent of its potential. The rest remains in the ground. If you can 
use CO2 from fossil fuels at electric power plants and other 
facilities, that CO2 would not be released into the 
atmosphere to impact the climate. At the same time, you can use that 
CO2 instead for beneficial purposes and invest into an oil 
well. Thus, you not only put the CO2 underground and 
sequester it, you also enhance domestic oil development and production.
  There are a lot of things going on. But the underlying bill didn't 
have nearly enough funding at the front end, in my judgment, for the 
research and development component. My filed amendment would shift $20 
billion in funding in the bill to say we are going to get serious. This 
is going to be a Manhattan-type project to find ways to continue to use 
our most abundant resource and do so without spoiling our environment.
  There is research going on but not nearly enough. I can give you a 
couple of examples.
  A Texas company came to see me. They are taking coal for electricity. 
They have a couple of small demonstration projects which burn coal to 
produce electricity. They are treating the effluent that comes from the 
plant chemically, and as it comes out of the plant, they are capturing 
the CO2 and producing byproducts, including hydrogen, 
chloride, and baking soda. The baking soda contains CO2. In 
fact, this company brought me some cookies and said these come from 
coal. They are making the point that, by capturing the CO2 
from a coal plant, you can end up with baking soda used for baking 
cookies. It is a clever way to describe that there are innovative ways 
to capture CO2 and protect our environment, even as we use 
our most abundant domestic resource.
  This photo is of single-cell pond scum, called algae. I was in 
Arizona recently and saw a demonstration plant that is producing algae 
by taking CO2 off of a plant and putting it in greenhouses 
that produce algae. Algae is produced in water which need sunlight and 
CO2 to grow. So it consumes CO2 by producing 
algae, single celled pond scum. It grows quickly, increasing its bulk 
in hours. They can harvest it for diesel fuel. So you actually capture 
the CO2 and produce a beneficial use which is a biodiesel 
fuel. There are ways for us to do this.
  My point is that if we are going to have a bill that works, you need 
to have dramatic funding commitment for research, development and 
demonstration up front. That was not the case with the pending bill. I 
know some will argue that it is. This is known as the kick-start fund 
for coal and is largely for demonstration and deployment. That is 
different from the massive need for additional research we need. We 
need a Manhattan Project to make these investments. That is a different 
kind of funding than the research and technology we need if we are 
going to decide that we are going to unlock the mystery and use our 
most abundant resource in the future. We continue to need investments 
in research and development as well as demonstration and deployment 
programs for coal to thrive in a carbon constrained world.
  I am also a fan of wind energy, energy from the wind, for producing 
electricity. It makes sense. That doesn't contribute environmental 
problems like emitting greenhouse gases. Also, there is geothermal and 
biomass, the production of ethanol, and hopefully cellulosic ethanol in 
the future.
  I was visited by Dr. Craig Venter the other day who is working to 
create microbes and bacteria that would essentially eat the coal or 
convert it into liquid fuels as it is being processed by these microbes 
while underground. That is pretty exciting. I also mentioned the other 
day that we are studying termites in the science area of our 
Government. These are the kinds of things people might ridicule. They 
say why are we spending all this money to study termites. Termites eat 
your house. When they eat wood, we understand now they produce methane 
gas, as a lot of living things do. We are trying to figure out what in 
the 200 microbes in the gut of a termite might allow them to eat your 
house. If we can figure out how to break down woody products, it is 
important in terms of producing future energy from cellulosic ethanol.
  There is a lot to do. If we are going to be serious about climate 
change and global warming--and we should be, in my judgment--two things 
are necessary: One, we need to have kind of a Manhattan Project that in 
a very short period of time is going to find ways to dramatically 
increase the use of renewables. Second, we are going to dramatically 
accelerate our effort to determine how we can use coal and other fossil 
fuels and still protect our environment by capturing and sequestering 
carbon or providing a beneficial use of carbon. That is expensive, but 
we can get that done. That was the amendment I had, which would shift 
$20 billion to the front end of this to say: Let's do this in a serious 
manner.
  I wanted to indicate that my vote on cloture earlier today should not 
diminish the work and effort and intent of others with respect to 
climate change. I think something is happening in our climate. Most of 
us believe we will be seeing climate change legislation passing through 
the Congress at some point in the near future--perhaps as early as next 
year. When it is done, it needs to be done in a manner that is 
reflective of all of strengths and resources of our country to move 
ahead in unison in doing the right thing in the right way.

[[Page 11786]]



                          ____________________