[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11619-11622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Himes). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to sit here on 
the floor and listen to my colleagues deal with their talking points 
about climate change, carbon pollution, and what they would like to 
debate. Sadly, they are a little bit out of phase with what, in fact, 
we are facing as a Nation. Luckily, the American people understand that 
there is a serious problem facing us dealing with carbon pollution, and 
they favor action to do something about it.
  The American people know that ice disappearing in our polar regions, 
birds migrating further and further north because of the change in the 
temperatures, the weather that is being disruptive with drought and 
extreme weather events and the consensus of the scientific community 
all converge. We've got a problem, and it is threatening life as we 
know it.
  The American public is not likely to be somebody who is told by 98 
doctors that their child is seriously ill and needs a specific medicine 
or treatment. The American public would not be inclined to go search 
for a single doctor that disagrees, to take a chance. If you have 
engineering experts who tell you that you are living in a building that 
is likely to collapse, you think about that seriously. And if you get a 
second opinion and a third opinion and a fourth opinion and a fifth 
opinion and they all agree that the building is likely to fall down 
upon you and your family or your customers, you are not likely to keep 
searching for that one outlier who says don't worry about it.
  The public knows that we have a serious problem. There is a consensus 
in the scientific community that we need to do something about it. And, 
indeed, everything that we are talking about doing to control carbon 
pollution and to reduce our dependence, particularly on petroleum, but 
especially foreign oil, all of these are things that we should be doing 
anyway, even if we weren't threatened by global warming and serious 
disruption from the carbon pollution.
  Sadly, the last hour demonstrated again that too many on the other 
side of the aisle have simply lost their ability to have a serious 
conversation about what the scientific community and the majority of 
the American public feel is a serious problem; indeed, maybe the 
greatest single threat to our way of life.
  I am reminded of what happened 68 years ago in this Chamber. The 
world was being slowly engulfed in World War II. The Nazis had taken 
over most of Europe and Great Britain was at risk. The Japanese had 
moved throughout the South Pacific. The United States was looking at an 
international landscape that was increasingly more and more 
threatening. But 68 years ago, there were some in this Chamber--
actually, a majority on the other side of the aisle--that weren't that 
concerned. They felt that we were still shaking off the events of a 
Great Depression and we couldn't afford money on a military buildup, 
that we shouldn't have the human resources in our military.
  We were facing the expiration of the conscription, the military 
draft. There was a vote 68 years ago that by only one vote, 203-202, 
enabled us to have a military draft and have some semblance of the 
tools available when the inevitable happened. And on December 7, 1941, 
the day that President Roosevelt said before us in this Chamber would 
live in infamy, at least we had those tools available to be able to 
spring into action and fight to save our country from existential 
threats.
  I feel very strongly that we are facing something similar today, and 
we are going to have too many people in this Chamber who are not going 
to be able to answer a question that will be posed by history 68 years 
from now. They are not going to be able to look their children and 
grandchildren in the eye 10 or 15 years from now and explain why they 
weren't part of a process to provide a solution to the threat of global 
warming.
  Listen to the echoes that are still in this Chamber from our 
colleagues. One gentleman I like was talking about how there was a 
recent MIT study that showed that there was $3,100 in cost from a 
program of preventing carbon pollution, a cap-and-trade program. And 
then he acknowledged, well, there are some controversies surrounding 
it. Absolutely there is controversy surrounding it. But then he went on 
to say, well, it appears as though the number is even higher than 
$3,100. Absolutely false.
  The author of that report, in fact, has written to the Republican 
leadership that has been misusing the study to say that it is wrong in 
so many ways he doesn't know how to count. It would be a tiny fraction 
of that amount, and that assumes that we are not giving things back 
directly from those resources to make a difference for people. It is 
embarrassing that people are still purposely misstating research like 
that, but it is typical.
  Echoing in the Chamber now, there was somebody who was talking about 
how important it is to support Republican legislation to prevent the 
EPA from doing its job under the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon 
pollution. I find that embarrassing. For the last 8 years, the Bush 
administration has abrogated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act 
to take action. Indeed, even this Supreme Court slapped them down for 
dragging their feet dealing with the auto tailpipe standards. What an 
outrageous response. Instead of joining in an effort to work to make 
sure that we are meeting the challenge, instead we are going to 
introduce legislation to prevent the EPA from doing its job if Congress 
fails to act.
  We heard my friend from Illinois talk about how deeply concerned he 
was that, under the Speaker's leadership, we have changed the Capitol 
Hill Power Plant that for the 14 years that I have been in Congress has 
been belching cold smoke into the air--one of the most serious sources 
of air pollution here in Washington, D.C.--somehow the fact that the 
Speaker has acted with legislative leadership in the Senate to solve 
this problem by cutting the emissions in half and using natural gas 
instead of coal, that somehow that is bad. Well, as somebody who lives 
in Washington, D.C. over a third of the time, I am glad that we are not 
going to be polluting the air with carbon pollution. I think it is the 
least we should be doing for the millions of people who live in the 
metropolitan area, in terms of clean air, dealing with the awful 
substances that are part of the emissions from coal. And to think 
somehow that that is wrong gives you a sense of the mindset.
  The new Representative from Pennsylvania was troubled by ``a complete 
lack of an energy plan.'' Well, maybe he is so new to Congress that he 
hasn't noticed that George Bush and the Republicans have been running 
things here for the last 8 years and, in fact, have passed various 
pieces of legislation to the benefit of some of the polluting energy 
industries, but failed to come forward with a comprehensive energy 
proposal.
  The notion somehow that we can't move forward in a thoughtful, 
comprehensive fashion to be able to design a system to reduce carbon 
pollution, I

[[Page 11620]]

think, is, frankly, embarrassing. Luckily, the Democratic leadership is 
committed to moving forward. This is one of the top priorities of 
Speaker Pelosi.
  We have work that is undertaken in the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee moving forward with draft legislation which hopefully will be 
moving on to us in a matter of weeks, if not days. We are poised to 
work with the House Ways and Means Committee as part of this 
partnership, and the Obama administration has set down markers and is 
prepared to act, either administratively or in cooperation with us, 
with legislation.
  This country shook off the Great Depression by mobilizing the economy 
to fight World War II. We have an opportunity to mobilize against a 
threat at least as great--that dealing with global warming--and to 
harness new technologies, new industries, new products and services to 
be able to put people to work.
  Contrary to what has been suggested, alternative energy--wind, solar, 
biomass--across the globe are some of the fastest growing industries on 
Earth. Solar and wind power industries alone have sustained annual 
growth rates of 30 to 50 percent, creating tens of thousands of jobs 
while reducing reliance on foreign sources of oil and helping to shrink 
our carbon emissions.
  Now, it is true that these renewable sources today account for less 
than 3 percent of the world's power generation, but the opportunity 
here is enormous. We expect that there will be increased energy demands 
in the United States and around the world, but only about a third of 
the generation capacity that will be needed to meet expected demand by 
2030 has been built.
  We have an opportunity to shape and direct how we manage that, to be 
able to direct it in a way that is going to make the greatest impact on 
our economy.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair amount of hyperbole about what 
will be the costs of controlling carbon pollution and moving into a new 
economic era. The IPCC has been in the forefront of this with the 
research that's coming forward, and we have had a chance to look at the 
parameters that they have suggested. In survey after survey of 
greenhouse gas reduction scenarios undertaken by respected and peer-
reviewed modeling groups, there is a projected average GDP reduction of 
perhaps five-tenths of a percent to three-quarters of a percent to 2030 
and 2050, respectively. The estimate is that by 2030, the overall 
United States gross domestic product is projected to double to some $26 
trillion. Without a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, the United States 
reaches that doubling by January 2030. With a cap, it reaches that goal 
3 months later, April 2030. This is consistent with the research that 
we have done in Oregon at Portland State University. The State Carbon 
Allocation Task Force, looking only at the electrical sector, found 
that while carbon reductions to meet the State's 2020 goal of 10 
percent below the 1990 levels would increase energy rates. Under most 
conditions, average consumer costs would be the same or lower due to 
cost savings from energy efficiency.
  I want to be very clear about this because, contrary to the 
assumption of some critics sticking to their talking points, any money 
that is generated from fees on carbon pollution is not somehow buried, 
it's not shot into space, it's not locked in a vault someplace. This 
money is used to be able to strengthen our energy infrastructure, and 
higher prices are further going to encourage efficiency, and last but 
not least, we will be investing in new products and services in energy-
efficient standards. So that as a net result, 20 years from now, at 
least in our community, it's clear that we're not going to have, as a 
result of the change in electricity, some massive burden on individual 
consumers because we will be smart with our investments and people will 
be smart in terms of what they do, and we anticipate there will be no 
net increase.
  Now, one of the factors that is also important to point out is that 
we are going to be looking at new technologies and products that 
leapfrog ahead. Back when we were considering in the Northwest the 
plans that we were going to make in the 1980s, we didn't actually 
consider that compact fluorescent light bulbs were going to be a 
serious lighting efficiency choice, but by the year 2000, these CFLs 
were widely available. And now, even more efficient lighting 
technologies, the LEDs, were on the horizon and moving forward. There 
will be further technological innovation, exactly what we saw when 
there was a restriction to deal with another gas in the atmosphere, the 
CFCs, the chlorinated fluorocarbons, that were threatening the ozone. 
You will recall at that time companies like DuPont threatened that 
there would be massive disruption, a massive increase in costs, and 
people would be put out of work. Well, actually, that's not the case. 
The initiative was taken. Not only were there not massive dislocations, 
a large increase in unemployment, but companies like DuPont actually 
made money by producing alternative chemical refrigerants. And surely 
the same will occur now if we are diligent about our investments.
  But more to the point, what's going to happen if we take the 
alternative that is offered by some and continue with business as 
usual, to not control carbon emissions, to fall victim to concern about 
temporary problems with the economy? The report by Sir Nicholas Stern 
for the Government of the United Kingdom suggests that the mid-rate 
growth for global emissions are projected to cost 5 percent of the 
global GDP. A 5 percent loss of the world economic output. Now, 
actually the trend line is a little more disturbing than what Sir 
Nicholas Stern came up with because he was just dealing with the mid 
level of the projections. We have seen that emissions in the last 
several years have been at or above the high projections in the IPCC 
fourth report from 2008. And as a result, we have to look at that 
higher range that was suggested by the Stern report, which could be a 
20 percent reduction in global GDP.
  The status quo, ignoring the problem, trying to score debate points, 
roll back the Clean Air Act, and wait poses much more serious problems 
in terms of what we are likely to see as a consequence. And many of 
these potential problems are not market related. The effects of this 
extreme variation, I have had Members of Congress today joking about 
the unstable weather here in Washington, D.C., extreme rain, heat, 
cold. Well, we're seeing global weather instability increasing around 
the planet. And the droughts, the heavy rains, the windstorms, these 
carry with them a cost as well.
  There are socially potentially disastrous effects that relate to 
unease and upheaval from drought, fighting over water. There's a whole 
range of social costs that people need to be thinking about.
  There are, I think, very sober voices that should be heard above the 
talking points. One voice that I find most compelling is that of 
retired United States Army General Anthony Zinni, who has written: ``We 
will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today or we will pay the 
price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives.''
  We are already looking, in my State of Oregon, at the likely 
adaptation costs. We've got issues relating to flooding, landslides, 
forest fires, the potential need to relocate highways and other public 
works. We are facing real threats in our State like they are already 
being faced by coastal villages in Alaska and in the British 
countryside of being eaten away by the increase in sea level and storm 
surges. We are already facing the problems of competition for lower 
summer stream flows from hydroelectric power, irrigation, navigation, 
municipal water supplies, and system stream ecosystem needs. We're 
having a drama being played out now in the State of California with 
their prolonged drought. That's a taste of what we are looking at in 
the immediate future if we are unable to act.
  We have brought that down in Oregon, a State that has been a leader 
in efforts to curb greenhouse gasses, to plan for energy futures, an 
intensely

[[Page 11621]]

environmentally conscious State. We recently had a study published by 
the University of Oregon's Climate Leadership Initiative by Echo 
Northwest, a consulting firm located in Oregon, that estimates the cost 
to Oregonians by 2020 from the impacts on global warming of $3.3 
billion annually, almost $2,000 per Oregon household or 2 percent of 
our current gross domestic product. Put in perspective, that would be 
the equivalent of a household annual electric rate increase of 175 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, these are sobering facts that deal with the highly 
likely outcomes of our failure to get our arms around this problem and 
move forward to deal with the problems of greenhouse gas emissions. We 
need to be serious about opportunities dealing with the savings from 
energy efficiency. This is an area that we should be doing regardless 
of greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that is within our power 
right now.
  Part of what is being ignored by critics and their talking points is 
that all of the major approaches to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, 
with the cap-and-trade, would put much of this money back into a system 
to help people improve energy efficiency. Remember, I mentioned the one 
study that, in fact, estimates that people would actually be paying 
less by 2030 than they're paying today, even though electric rates 
would well go up, because of increased energy efficiency.
  We are currently wasting more energy than any other country in the 
world. The United States is less carbon efficient than 75 out of 107 
industrialized countries, and we use the most transportation fuel per 
passenger mile. There is absolutely no reason that we, as a society, as 
we are working to create new green collar jobs built on an energy-
efficient, carbon-constrained economy for the future, can't take 
advantage of this to be able to not only reduce power rates in the 
future, saving Americans money, but put people to work now. We have 
seen this work in the United States. California has some of the highest 
electric rates in the country, but over the course of the last 30 
years, electric energy efficiency has saved Californians $56 billion 
while producing 1\1/2\ million new jobs.

                              {time}  1915

  The University of California at Berkeley projected savings in jobs 
from meeting California's Assembly Bill 32 carbon cap-and-trade law. By 
2020, they project $76 billion in saved energy costs at current rates 
and 400,000 new jobs in California.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunities to move forward to capitalize on 
energy efficiency is something we want everybody to look at. We have 
had experience in this area in the Pacific Northwest.
  We have engaged in one of the most comprehensive efforts with our 
northwest power planning council, electric utilities in the Northwest, 
to try and deal with least-cost energy planning, looking at the big 
picture. I am proud to say that my hometown of Portland, Oregon, was 
the first American city with a comprehensive energy policy enacted in 
1979.
  There has been a lot going on in the Pacific Northwest dealing with 
energy efficiency. Between 1980 and 2000, the region invested almost 
$2.5 billion in energy efficiency. It costs money to be able to move 
forward on that energy efficiency curve. But during that period of 
time, the region earned that total investment back once every 18 
months.
  Let me repeat that: over the course of that 20-year period of time, 
we invested $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and the savings, as a 
result of that investment, were repaid every year and a half. That's a 
67 percent average annual rate of return on investment.
  This is what we are talking about in terms of being able to move this 
forward. Now, there are some that suggest, well, you can't do this 
because it's going to pull the plug on State and local economies; they 
can't survive this aggressive push towards energy efficiency.
  Well, looking at what has happened in the Pacific Northwest over the 
last 25 years. That's simply not the fact. Californians have actually 
had some reasonable economic growth in this period of time. We have had 
the same in Oregon. By not being intensely carbon based, investing in 
energy efficiency, we have been able to produce substantial economic 
benefit while we are growing in a sustainable fashion.
  It has resulted in Oregonians, in the metropolitan area of Portland, 
exporting fewer of their dollars to Houston, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia 
and, in fact, they have almost $2,500 a year more disposable income 
that they are not spending just on transportation alone. This makes a 
real difference in terms of the initiatives that were made.
  In Oregon, we have been working to reduce carbon emissions. Our 
carbon emissions were 30 percent lower than the national average in 
1990, and by working very hard, they are 36 percent lower than 2007. 
But it's been done without any reduction in our State gross domestic 
product.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, these are important points that need to be part of 
a serious discussion. The status quo, business as usual, head in the 
sand, we are not going to worry about it now, we are to going to make 
it a political football is, I think--there may be a time when politics 
could be played this way. I think the stakes are too high. The American 
public knows that.
  I hope, sooner, rather than later, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle will understand that this is a serious problem and it invites 
a serious response.
  I hope they will reject the advice of Republican Leader Boehner, who 
has been misusing, for instance, the MIT study repeatedly, despite 
having had a call to his office's attention how misleading that figure 
is. But his advice has been to Republicans to not be legislators, but 
to be communicators, to talk instead of act.
  I sincerely hope that that approach will be rejected, because we will 
be better off, not as a, just as a Congress, we will be better off as a 
country and as a people if we have broad bipartisan interaction. They 
may not agree with each and every point, but at least have an honest 
debate, stop misrepresenting facts and give people permission to be 
involved with serious efforts to solve this problem.
  Because, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this problem demands attention 
and it will get attention. One of the most important decisions of the 
Obama administration is that they were going to start following the law 
under the Clean Air Act and deal with carbon pollution. This is clear, 
we are heading down this path.
  If Congress doesn't act, we will be dealing with carbon regulation 
through a combination of administrative action and legal action. It's 
one way to solve the problem. I, personally, don't think it's the best, 
but it's one of the approaches that will be taken.
  We find now that there is growing support from leaders in the 
business community to act seriously to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
There is a growing consensus among business leaders that now is the 
time to act, and they are participating with us in serious discussions 
to craft a workable solution.
  It's somewhat ironic that we hear the United States Chamber of 
Commerce being cited by some to cite that there are problems in 
opposition to dealing with greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiatives. 
Actually, the best research I have seen is that there are only four 
companies on the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce that are 
in support of this ``just say no'' attitude.
  Of those companies that have taken a position on the board of 
directors, 80 percent support Federal regulations with goals to reduce 
total U.S. global warming pollution, not all in agreement on precisely 
the response, but Alcoa, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, Dow Chemical 
Company, Duke Energy, Eastman Kodak Company, Entergy, Fox Entertainment 
Group, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Nike, PepsiCo, PNM Resources, the 
Robertson Foundation, Rolls Royce North America, Siemens Corporation, 
Southern Company, Toyota Motor North America, Xerox. These are all 
companies that have realized, in many cases, because they are global in 
nature, that Europe is moving, Japan is moving. Even China is

[[Page 11622]]

moving on areas of energy efficiency, and there are opportunities for 
us to work with them, even as they move to be the leader in wind, solar 
and electric cars.
  So major businesses, 80 percent of those on the Chamber board of 
directors that have taken a position, favor Federal regulation. This is 
the wave of the future. This is what we as a society need to do.
  I am encouraged with the progress that we have made already here in 
the work under the leadership of the Speaker, of our various committee 
Chairs, and an active group of Members in the Democratic Caucus moving 
forward and advancing this debate.
  I look forward to having legislation on the floor this year that we 
can deal with and hopefully enact, working with the administration. I 
look forward to the United States when it comes to coming together with 
the global community to deal with climate change in Copenhagen in 
December.
  I look forward to our being there with the United States no longer 
being missing in action, but, instead, assume its rightful leadership 
role as the most powerful Nation in the world, as the strongest 
economy, and, frankly, as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in 
history that we accept our responsibility, our leadership and move this 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to 
share some thoughts. I look forward to our being able to continue the 
discussion on the floor of the House. I hope, I sincerely hope that we 
will be able to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate discussion of 
alternatives that will reduce greenhouse gases, the threat to the 
planet, strengthen our economy and make a more liveable world for our 
children and grandchildren.

                          ____________________