[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20133-20138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an alarming trend 
that I see in our national discourse. As legislators, our decisions 
need to be rooted in facts. Science driven by data and rigorous 
analysis needs to inform our policymaking.
  Scientists are the ones who made the United States the world's 
innovator in the last century. Scientists are the people who gave us 
antibiotics, for example. Do you like being able to use antibiotics? 
Well, then, thank scientists.
  Scientists put a man on the Moon--several men, actually--and got him 
back safely. These are rocket scientists.
  Scientists made it possible for Americans to watch this speech on C-
SPAN--that is C-SPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network--also 
rocket scientists.
  Scientists also came up with such useful things as the Internet.
  A scientist from the University of Minnesota, a Noble Price-winning 
agronomist named Norman Borlaug, is credited with saving over 1 billion 
lives worldwide. He did this by using science to develop a high-yield, 
disease-resistant wheat that was planted in Pakistan, India, and 
elsewhere around the world.
  By engineering our next-generation weapons systems, scientists ensure 
that our military will continue to be the most powerful in the world.
  We rely on science and scientists, and if we are to progress as a 
country, if we and future generations of Americans are to be healthy 
and prosperous and safe, we better put science right at the center of 
our decisionmaking. Yet, right now, foundations and think tanks funded 
by the fossil fuel industry are spreading misinformation about the 
integrity of climate science, much as think tanks paid by the tobacco 
industry used misinformation to cast doubt about the health hazards of 
smoking.
  Ignoring or flatout contradicting what climate scientists are telling 
us about the warming climate and the warming planet can lead to really 
bad decisions on natural energy and environmental policies here in 
Congress. So today Senator Whitehouse and I want to take some time to 
talk about climate science and about the fact that a scientific 
consensus on climate change has been reached. Climate change is 
happening and is being driven by human activities.
  From the National Academy of Sciences, to the American Meteorological 
Society, to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, all of 
the preeminent scientific institutions agree that manmade greenhouse 
gas emissions are warming the planet and are a threat to our economy, 
to our security, and to our health, and so do the overwhelming majority 
of actively publishing climatologists.
  This graph, taken from a study published by the National Academy of 
Sciences, shows responses to the survey question: Do you think human 
activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global 
temperatures?
  What you see here is that as climate expertise goes up, so does the 
affirmation that climate change is real and is caused by human beings. 
Among the most expert pool of respondents, climatologists who are 
actively publishing on climate change, represented by this bar right 
here, the rightmost bar, 97 percent of that category of scientists 
answered yes. Of course, there are a few articles published by climate 
skeptics in peer-reviewed journals, but the vast majority--97 percent--
of the peer-reviewed literature supports the notion that people are 
causing the Earth's climate to change.
  What are peer-reviewed articles? Well, they are articles scientists 
write after conducting experiments. The experimentation is designed to 
test a hypothesis. If the hypothesis holds up, the scientist writes a 
paper describing the experiment and sends to it a professional journal. 
The journal then sends to it other experts in the field--peer 
reviewers--who see if they can tear any holes in the theory. They 
question the methodology. They check the math. Very often, they send 
the paper back with questions. And the researchers will make changes to 
satisfy the reviewers' inquires. If in the end the peer reviewers think 
the work is sound, they recommend the paper for publication. Then, 
after publication, other scientists in the field are free to read the 
paper and plug away and disprove it if they can. That is a peer-
reviewed paper.

[[Page 20134]]

  I repeat, the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature supports the 
notion that people are causing the Earth's climate to change, and 97 
percent of published climatologists say yes when asked: Do you think 
human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean 
global temperatures?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as Senator Franken has pointed out, 
despite the efforts to mislead and create doubt, the jury is not out on 
whether climate change is happening and being caused by manmade carbon 
pollution; the verdict is, in fact, in, and the verdict is clear, as 
shown by this group of scientific organizations that signed a letter 
supporting our efforts to do something about carbon pollution in the 
Senate back in October of 2009: the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the Geophysical 
Union, the Meteorological Society, the Natural Science Collections 
Alliance, the Botanical Society of America.
  Virtually every significant scientific organization accepts that 
these are the facts and that the verdict is in, and, indeed, there is 
some recent added support. The scientific community continues to 
examine this question.
  A recent report by James Hansen and Makiko Sato says:

       Climate change is likely to be the predominant scientific, 
     economic, political and moral issue of the 21st century. The 
     fate of humanity and nature may depend upon early recognition 
     and understanding of human-made effects on Earth's climate.

  They continue:

       Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar 
     feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. Thus, goals 
     of limiting human-made warming to 2 degrees Celsius are not 
     sufficient--they are prescriptions for disaster.

  Another recent report, ``Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem 
Research,'' reads as follows:

       There is no doubt that rapid global warming and ocean 
     acidification are real, and very high confidence that both 
     are forced by human activities and emissions of carbon 
     dioxide. Climate change effects are especially evident in the 
     oceans.

  I will get into that later on in our colloquy a little bit further.

       Levels of atmospheric CO2 are accelerating.

  A third report, ``The World Energy Outlook for 2011,'' says:

       Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached 30.4 
     Gt in 2010, 5.3% above 2009, representing almost 
     unprecedented annual growth. In the New Policies Scenario, 
     our central scenario, CO2 emissions continue to 
     increase, reaching 36.4 Gt in 2035, and leading to an 
     emissions trajectory consistent with a long-term global 
     temperature increase of 3.5 degrees Centigrade.

  What does that mean?

       The expected warming of more than 3.5 degrees Centigrade in 
     the New Policies Scenario would have severe consequences: a 
     sea level rise of up to 2 metres, causing dislocation of 
     human settlements and changes to rainfall patterns, drought, 
     flood, and heat-wave incidence that would severely affect 
     food production, human disease and mortality.

  There are also iconic American companies that have made the 
considered business judgment that climate change is real and we need to 
prepare. But we can get more on that later in the colloquy.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Yet, in spite of all of this--and these are all new 
reports on top of this 97 percent number that was established. Yet the 
conservative media and some of my colleagues in Congress seem to think 
it is just fine to ignore what these scientists are saying.
  Let me illustrate this with an analogy. Say you went to a doctor and 
the doctor told you: You better start eating more sensibly and start 
exercising, because you are tremendously overweight. I see that you 
have a family history of heart disease, and your father died of a heart 
attack at an early age. You have to go on a diet and start working out 
a little bit.
  You say: You know what. I want a second opinion. So you go to a 
second doctor and he says: OK, you have a family history of heart 
disease. Your father died of a heart attack at a young age, and you 
weigh over 300 pounds. You smoke three packs a day. Your cholesterol is 
out of control, your blood pressure is through the roof. It would be 
irresponsible of me as a doctor not to immediately send you to this 
place at the Mayo Clinic that I know. I think you have to go there.
  You say: Thanks, doctor, but I want a third opinion. So you go to the 
third doctor and the third doctor reads the chart and looks at you and 
goes: Wow, I am amazed that you are still alive.
  You say: You know what. I want a fourth opinion. And then you go to 
the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh doctors. They are all saying the 
same thing. But you keep asking for more opinions.
  Finally, you go to the 25th doctor. The 25th doctor says: It is a 
good thing you came to me, because all this diet and exercise would 
have been a complete waste. You are doing fine. Those other doctors are 
in the pockets of the fresh fruit and vegetable people. He says: Enjoy 
life, eat whatever you want, keep smoking, and watch a lot of TV. That 
is my advice.
  Then you learn the doctor was paid a salary by the makers of 
Twinkies, which, don't get me wrong, are a delicious snack food and 
should be eaten in moderation. Am I making sense here?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It is actually quite a good example, because we have 
some of the phony science that has attacked the science of climate 
change, which is actually a pretty good comparison to what the Senator 
described.
  Take, for instance, the bogus Marshall Institute, which was founded 
in 1984 by a physicist who had been the chief scientist behind the 
tobacco industry's campaign to convince Americans that tobacco is 
actually OK for you, and that there was doubt about whether it would 
actually do you any harm. A few years later, he organized something 
called the Oregon Petition, which denied that climate change was 
happening. They phonied up the Oregon Petition to look like official 
papers of the National Academy of Sciences. So the National Academy of 
Sciences had to take the unusual step of responding that the petition 
``does not reflect the conclusion of expert reports of the academy,'' 
and further, that it was ``a deliberate attempt to mislead.'' So he is 
an ``expert'' saying that tobacco is OK for you. Suddenly, he turns up 
as a climate denier, and he phonies up his report to look like----
  Mr. FRANKEN. Was he part of a foundation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. This is founded by the Marshall Institute. There are 
others of these out there. The other example is the Heartland 
Institute, another so-called think tank with backers from tobacco and 
the fossil fuel industries, founded also in 1984. It has written 
reports to try to manufacture doubt about climate science and about the 
risks of secondhand smoke. Heartland received nearly $700,000 from 
ExxonMobil through 2006. Their bogus policy documents include false 
claims that climate change is poorly understood, and simply wrong 
assertions, that there is no consensus about the causes, effects, or 
future rate of global warming.
  Picking these two--but there are others in the constellation of bogus 
science--they are commonly funded by the Bradley Foundation, the folks 
who brought you the John Birch Society; by the Scaife foundations, 
which are constantly behind rightwing causes; the Olan Foundation, 
which is against public health causes; ExxonMobil; and by the Koch 
brothers. Although it may look like different voices, it is actually 
the same money speaking through different fronts.
  Mr. FRANKEN. This is actually an interesting area. There is a well-
established link between the scientists who have worked for think tanks 
such as George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, and other 
foundations, which were funded at first by tobacco money and, since 
then, by the fossil fuel industry. These scientists have been paid to 
spread misinformation in order to cast doubt. That is all they have to 
do--on a whole host of scientific issues--first, tobacco and acid rain, 
the hole in the ozone layer, and now climate change.
  Take tobacco, for example. Scientists were paid to testify in court 
that there was no proof that smoking caused cancer or was addictive, 
even after the industry scientists knew darn well that

[[Page 20135]]

cigarettes were addictive and did cause cancer and heart disease. In 
fact, the tobacco industry was found guilty in 2004 of plotting to 
conceal the health risks and addictiveness of cigarettes from the 
public. The judge found that the tobacco industry had ``devised and 
executed a scheme to defraud consumers and potential consumers about 
the hazards of cigarettes--hazards that their own internal company 
documents proved they had known since the 1950s.''
  The whole purpose of this scheme was to provide misinformation, to 
confuse the public, to manufacture doubt, and that is what is happening 
right now with climate change. Public data from the Security and 
Exchange Commission and from charitable organization reports to the IRS 
report showed that between 2005 and 2008, ExxonMobil gave about $9 
million to groups linked to climate change denial, while foundations 
associated with the private oil company Koch Industries gave nearly $25 
million. The third major funder was the American Petroleum Institute. 
All in all, the energy industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars, 
even billions of dollars, on lobbying against climate change 
legislation between 1999 and 2010, including a large spike in spending 
from 2008 to 2010.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And it is not enough that they have a stable of paid-
for scientists to create doubt, to create phony science that raises the 
level of doubt; they also go out of their way to attack legitimate 
scientists. You would not think this would carry much weight in a 
proper debate, but amplified by the corporate money behind it, and 
designed, as the Senator said, with the purpose not to win the argument 
but to create doubt so that the public moves on, it is actually worse.
  One example of this attack on lifetime scientists has been the phony 
so-called Climategate scandal, which was an effort to derail 
international climate science and climate negotiations.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Climategate. Sometimes the Senator and I refer to it as 
``Climategate-gate.''
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Yes, Climategate-gate. In fact, the real scandal here 
wasn't what the scientists did; the real scandal was the phony attack 
on the scientists.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank my colleague for bringing this up. Let's talk 
about that. This is the leak of thousands of e-mails from scientists at 
the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit back in 2009. It 
was done right before the Copenhagen conference, right?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. FRANKEN. OK. The conservative media--remember, this doubt is 
amplified in the conservative echo chamber, talk radio, et cetera. You 
know what it is, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News, et 
cetera. Conservative media pounced, taking quotes out of context to 
sensational lies like this ``scandal.'' Most of the attacks were 
directed at an e-mail by Phil Jones, a climate scientist working with 
the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, in which in this e-mail he 
referred to using ``Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to 
each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.'' That sounds 
very bad, ``trick'' and ``hide the decline.'' That went viral in the 
conservative media--evidence that the scientific consensus on climate 
change was a giant hoax. We had a Member of this body who said the 
science behind this consensus ``is the same science that, through 
climategate, has been totally rebuffed and no longer legitimate, either 
in reality or in the eyes of the American people and the people around 
the world.''
  But it turns out that the trick being referred to in the e-mail is 
actually a technique to use the most accurate data available. Pre-1960, 
temperature data would include measurements from thermometers, tree 
rings, and other so-called temperature proxies. Post-1960--this is the 
trick--they excluded tree ring data from some specific kinds of trees 
that were widely recognized by the scientific community to be 
unreliable after 1960. So the decline refers--they refer to it as--it 
isn't a decline in global temperatures, as the deniers claim.
  Since 1960, we have had pretty good measurement of temperatures 
around the world with things such as thermometers. They knew this tree 
ring gave an apparent decline in temperature, as measured by these 
specific kinds of trees that were known to be inaccurate compared to 
all the sensors we have for measuring--and there are thousands and 
thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of measurements of 
the temperature around the Earth every minute, every day.
  So this was the ``trick''--a technique to use the most accurate data 
available of global temperatures from things, again, called 
thermometers, and one that excluded data widely known to the scientific 
community to be inaccurate. That is what the ``trick'' was. That is 
all. That is what Phil Jones referred to in his e-mail. Ironically, he 
was trying to be precise.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And it provoked considerable review afterward because 
of the alarmist claims that were made in this phony attack on the 
climate science. A number of pretty respectable organizations took a 
look at this. One was the university itself, and the university itself 
reached the conclusion on the specific allegations made against the 
behavior of CRU scientists, ``We find that their rigor and honesty as 
scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their 
behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice given the policymakers. 
In particular, we did not find any evidence of behavior that might 
undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessment.'' That was the 
university review.
  Not enough? The National Science Foundation also----
  Mr. FRANKEN. The university could be biased.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That is why we go on to the National Science 
Foundation, which found no direct evidence of research misconduct and 
therefore said, ``We are closing this investigation with no further 
action.''
  Parliament looked into it as well, because the university was in 
Great Britain. And the House of Commons did an investigation. The 
Commons' investigation concluded that the challenged actions by 
Professor Jones and others ``were in line with common practice in the 
climate science community.'' They went on to say:

       Insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of 
     dishonesty, we consider that there is no case to answer.

  No case to answer. Finally, they said:

       We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to 
     challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor 
     Bennington that ``global warming is happening and that it is 
     induced by human activity.''

  So the studies that looked at whether the climate science was phony 
or whether the climategate scandal was phony have all come down 
supporting the science and pointing out that climategate should 
properly be known as climategate-gate because it was the scandal that 
was phony.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Now, let's make a distinction between people who are 
climate skeptics and people who are climate deniers. This is kind of an 
important distinction. There is nothing wrong with skepticism. In fact, 
we love skeptics. Scientists are, by nature, skeptical. If someone has 
a new idea, they need to prove conclusively they are right before 97 
percent of scientists will believe them. This has already happened for 
an overwhelming majority of climate scientists who have concluded, 
again, that global warming is happening and that it is caused by 
mankind. But there are a small number of them who still have questions.
  On the other hand, a climate denier is someone who would not be 
convinced no matter how overwhelming the evidence. And, as I pointed 
out, a lot of these deniers are being paid by polluters to say what 
they want.
  Now, shortly after climategate, or climategate-gate, a physicist at 
the University of California Berkeley, Richard Muller, who was 
skeptical of the prevailing views on climate science, decided to test 
the temperature records. Muller, a skeptic, started the Berkeley Earth 
Surface Temperature Study to reevaluate the record and weed out 
scientific biases. This was gold to climate deniers. In fact, among

[[Page 20136]]

the funders for the Muller study was the Charles Koch Foundation. But 
things didn't work out the way the deniers had hoped.
  In late March, Dr. Muller testified before the House Science and 
Technology Committee with his initial findings on temperature increases 
since the late 1950s. This is what he said:

       Our result is very similar to that reported by the prior 
     groups--a rise of about .7 degrees Celsius since 1957. This 
     agreement with the prior analysis surprised us.

  Because, as I say, they were skeptics. Muller basically recreated the 
blade of the so-called hockey stick graph, or the temperature graph, 
that had come under attack in climategate.
  This graph shows Muller's estimates against the previous estimates. 
Muller's Berkeley is black. You will see it is just identical, pretty 
much. This past October Dr. Muller's group released its findings, and 
to the dismay of skeptics and deniers these findings further confirmed 
the prevailing science behind climate change and the work of the 
scientists attacked during climategate-gate.
  We can see the results on the chart. This gray band indicates a 95-
percent statistical spacial uncertainty. But it is exactly--and his 
line is the black line--exactly what the other scientists measured.
  The summary of the findings begins by saying, bluntly, ``global 
warming is real,'' and goes on to say:

       Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so 
     closely with the warming values published previously by other 
     teams in the U.S. and U.K.

  Including East Anglia.

       This confirms these studies were done carefully and that 
     potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did 
     not seriously affect their conclusion.

  So even though these claims that the consensus on global warming is a 
hoax have been refuted so convincingly--by a skeptic no less; funded by 
Charles Koch, no less--some of the deniers keep repeating it. The 
science is settled and climategate, or climategate-gate, was just a big 
distraction. So now let's move on and figure out how we are going to 
attack the challenge of climate change.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The challenge of climate change being extremely real, 
one of the things that is so frustrating about this campaign of phony, 
manufactured doubt is that in real life we are seeing the predictions 
of climate science come true around us.
  Climate scientists predicted the atmosphere would warm, and the 
atmosphere is warming. Climate scientists predicted the ocean would 
absorb heat, and sure enough, the ocean has absorbed heat and ocean 
waters are warming. Climate scientists predicted the ocean would absorb 
CO2 and that would then lower the pH level of our ocean 
waters. The ocean is now more acidic than it has been in 2 million 
years, threatening coral reefs, shellfish, and the tiny creatures, such 
as plankton, that make up the base of the entire oceanic food chain.
  Climate scientists predicted glaciers and Arctic sea ice would melt 
and, sure enough, we are seeing record melting. We just saw that 
notorious leftwing publication, USA Today, report:

       Federal Report Arctic Much Worse Since 2006. Federal 
     officials say the Arctic region has changed dramatically in 
     the past 5 years for the worse. It is melting at a near 
     record pace and it is darkening and absorbing too much of the 
     sun's heat.

  Climate scientists predicted ecosystem shifts, and we are seeing 
ecosystem shifts, such as the million-plus-acre forests in the American 
West--dead to the bark beetle, gone from being green and healthy 
forests to just mile after mile of brown and dead trees.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Explain why the bark beetle is doing this. What is 
happening and how does that relates to climate change?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The bark beetle relates to climate change because 
what was keeping those trees free from the bark beetle was cold winters 
that killed off the bark beetle larvae. As temperatures have warmed, 
the larvae lived through the winters, and they attacked the trees. So 
trees that were protected by cold winters are no longer protected, and 
there are literally millions of acres of forest lost in the West.
  On a smaller scale, but more important to me in my home State of 
Rhode Island, the preeminent fish that was taken out of Narragansett 
Bay was called the winter flounder. My wife wrote her Ph.D. thesis 
about the winter flounder. It was a very significant cash crop for our 
fishermen and is now virtually gone because the mean water temperature 
of Narragansett Bay is up nearly 4 degrees.
  Scientists also predicted we would be loading the dice for extreme 
weather with climate change, and we are seeing an unusual amount of 
extreme weather. The number of billion-dollar disasters has hit a 
record. A recent press clip noted:

       With an almost biblical onslaught of twisters, floods, 
     snow, drought, heat, and wildfire, the U.S., in 2011, has 
     seen more weather catastrophes that caused at least $1 
     billion in damage than it did in all of the 1980s, even after 
     the dollar figures from back then are adjusted for inflation.

  Serious, grown-up corporate entities, like the biggest insurance 
companies in the world, are noticing this and are concerned. Munich 
Reinsurance has written the following:

       The high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and 
     record temperatures, both globally and in different regions 
     of the world, provide further indications of advancing 
     climate change.

  Throughout the corporate world we are seeing this. Here is a list of 
companies that have gone public with the need for us to do something 
about climate change: American Electric, Bank of America, Chrysler, 
Cysco, DuPont, Duke Energy, eBay, Toyota, Timberland, Starbucks, 
Google, GM, General Electric, Ford, Siemens, PepsiCo, Nike, Nishiland, 
and John Deere. I am picking these at random, but these are not fringe 
organizations. These are the core of the American business community, 
and they recognize what is going on.
  I want to single out one company, which is Coca-Cola. I was going to 
bring to the floor the new can of Coca-Cola as an exhibit to 
demonstrate this major international corporation--this huge American 
success story based in Atlanta--has taken probably the most iconic 
product in America--the Coke can--and has redesigned it to reflect what 
the climate change is doing in the Arctic and to polar bears. 
Unfortunately, my Coke can was confiscated by the cloakroom staff 
because I am not allowed to bring exhibits to the floor unless they are 
this. I should have snuck it out here, but that is why I don't have it.
  Coca-Cola is a serious American business, and here is what they say:

       The consensus on climate science is increasingly 
     unequivocal--global climate change is happening and man-made 
     greenhouse gas emissions are a crucial factor. The 
     implications of climate change for our planet are profound 
     and wide-ranging, with expected impacts on biodiversity, 
     water resources, public health, and agriculture.

  So we put against that the core business community--iconic companies 
such as Coca-Cola, putting their very label behind the need to address 
climate change--and the phony-baloney-paid-for scientists who are 
creating this doubt, and it is time to close this episode.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I am glad the Senator brings up the phony-baloney doubt, 
especially with this extreme weather we have been experiencing. Some of 
my colleagues on the other side have pointed to the extreme 
snowstorms--at least one of my colleagues has--in the Northeast over 
the last several winters as evidence that global warming is a hoax. 
Again, this is completely misleading. Intensifying blizzards aren't due 
to the Earth getting cooler, they are due to increased moisture content 
in the air. Warmer air holds more moisture.
  Now, basically, it doesn't have to be that cold for it to snow. It 
just has to be 32 degrees or below. What is snow? It is frozen water. 
So it is about water. The atmosphere is now holding more water because 
it is warmer. Warmer air holds more water than colder air. The main 
point is that these increased natural disasters have real costs.
  A few months ago we had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee on the Forest Service's management of the intense forest 
fires

[[Page 20137]]

we had out West this year. In that hearing, Forest Service Chief Tom 
Tidwell told me he is seeing longer forest fire seasons out West--more 
than 30 days longer than what we used to have even a decade ago. Forest 
Service climate experts--and these are scientists--have said that a 
major contributing factor to these longer fire seasons and more intense 
fires is climate change.
  The cost of these fires, passed on to all levels of government and to 
society as a whole, is huge. It is something that Members on both sides 
of the aisle recognize and are concerned about. Several of my 
Republican colleagues in that hearing expressed their concerns about 
the cost.
  They referred to a report from the Western Forestry Leadership 
Coalition, which estimates that the combined direct and indirect costs 
of forest fires can be as much as 30 times the cost of fire suppression 
alone. We need to factor in the cost of forest rehabilitation, the loss 
of tax revenues for local governments, loss of businesses that depend 
on forest resources from property losses, not to mention the 
immeasurable cost of lives which are lost due to the fires.
  I wish to underscore for Members of this body that when we have 
discussions about important issues such as cost of wildfire response, 
we are talking about the cost of responding to climate change. If 
forestry specialists at the U.S. Forest Service tell us these fires are 
getting worse due to climate change, we should be listening to them.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator doesn't mind, if I change elements 
from fire to water since I represent an ocean State, another place 
where climate change is creating dangerous consequences is in our 
oceans. Let me cite a few reports that have come out recently.
  Climate Change & European Marine Ecosystem Research says:

       Close to one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by humans 
     from burning fossil fuels and other sources has been absorbed 
     by the oceans since the beginning of industrialization, and 
     that has buffered the cause and effects of climate change.
       A resulting lowered pH--

  When carbon goes into the ocean, it acidifies it. It lowers the pH.

       A resulting lowered pH and saturation states of the 
     carbonate minerals that form the shells and body structures 
     of many marine organisms makes these groups especially 
     vulnerable. The growth of individual coral skeletons and the 
     ability of reefs to remain structurally viable are likely to 
     be severely affected. Continuing acidification may also 
     affect the ability of the oceans to take up CO2.

  So they will not be absorbing the one-third that they have absorbed 
any longer. It will stay in the atmosphere and atmospheric 
concentrations will increase even faster.
  The Annual Review of Marine Science reports that:

       Growing human pressures, including climate change, are 
     having profound and diverse consequences for marine 
     ecosystems. These effects are globally pervasive and 
     irreversible on ecological time scales. Direct consequences 
     include increasing ocean temperature and acidity, rising sea 
     level, increased ocean stratification, decreased sea ice, and 
     altered patterns of ocean circulation, precipitation, and 
     fresh water.

  The context for this is a pretty astounding one; that is, when we 
look back through history, we don't look at changes in terms of decades 
or even generations. We look at changes in terms of millions of years.
  There is a special issue of Oceanography with a feature on ocean 
acidification, and it is called ``Ocean Acidification in Deep Time.''

       We have now an atmosphere that already contains more carbon 
     dioxide than at any time in the last 800,000 years of earth 
     history and probably more than has occurred in several tens 
     of millions of years.

  We have had agriculture as humans for about 10,000 years, to give you 
an idea of what 800,000 years or several tens of millions of years 
means. The report goes on:

       There are no precedents in recent earth history for what 
     will be the immediate and direct consequences of the release 
     of CO2 into the atmosphere and its concurrent 
     dissolution in the ocean's waters.

  But we are playing with very dangerous effects when we ignore climate 
change at the behest of a tiny minority of scientists and their 
polluter industry funders behind them.
  Mr. FRANKEN. There are folks who get the cost of inaction, and that 
includes the Department of Defense.
  In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review--or QDR--the DOD identified 
climate and energy as among the major national security challenges that 
America faces now and in the future.
  To give you a perspective on the significance of this, ``Crafting a 
Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy'' was alongside other 
priorities laid out in the QDR with titles like, ``Succeed in 
Counterinsurgency, Stability and Counterterrorism Operations,'' and 
``Prevent Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.''
  This is serious stuff. It matters for DOD because climate change is 
predicted to increase food and water scarcity, increase the spread of 
disease, and spur mass migration and environmental refugees due to more 
intense storms, floods, and droughts.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We had similar testimony in the Senate Intelligence 
Committee. The witness who testified before us released his testimony 
before the House Intelligence Committee and very much the same 
conclusion:

       We judge that global climate change will have wide-ranging 
     implications for U.S. national security interests over the 
     next 20 years.

  The factors that would affect U.S. national security interests as a 
result of climate change would include food and water shortages, 
increased health problems, including the spread of disease, increased 
potential for conflict, ground subsidence--the Earth lowering--
flooding, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, increases in the 
severity of storms in the Gulf of Mexico, disruptions in U.S. and 
Arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource-
scarce regions of the world.
  There are probably climate deniers who say: That is all part of the 
conspiracy. The Defense Department is in on it. All those companies are 
in on it. The intelligence community is in on it.
  But if there is a hoax, what is more mainstream than National 
Geographic? Is National Geographic in on it too? They would have to be 
because they did a special report a few years ago on climate change and 
they showed a polar bear stranded on the melting ice. Here is what they 
said:

       It's here. Melting glaciers, heat waves, rising seas, trees 
     flowering earlier, lakes freezing later, migratory birds 
     delaying their flight south. The unmistakable signs of 
     climate change are everywhere.

  How do we know this? We know this because of the science. What do 
they say about the science?

       How do we know our climate is changing? Historical records, 
     decades of careful observations and precise measurements--

  As the Senator said, with things such as thermometers--

     around the globe along with basic scientific principles.

  If you think National Geographic is in on it and you can't have faith 
in the Defense establishment and you can't have faith in the corporate 
establishment and you can't have faith even in National Geographic, 
perhaps you can have faith in the Pope, who said recently:

       I hope that all members of the international community can 
     agree on a responsible, credible, and supportive response to 
     this worrisome and complex phenomenon, keeping in mind the 
     needs of the poorest populations and of future generations.

  The press release from Catholic News Service then quotes one of his 
bishops, Cardinal Rodriguez, who says:

       Our climate is changing. Urgent action is necessary.

  He called on our political leaders around the world ``to curb the 
threat of climate change and set the world on a path to a more just and 
sustainable future.''
  Mr. FRANKEN. OK. Well, the Pope--I mean, didn't the Catholic Church 
go after Galileo?
  Look, between the science supporting climate change and the reality 
of the dangers that climate change brings, we have to ramp up our 
efforts to master this challenge, and that means wise investments in 
clean energy R&D and deployment. They are just a good place to start. 
Plus, these investments encourage the growth of domestic clean

[[Page 20138]]

energy--a domestic clean energy economy which would create jobs--and 
has created jobs--grow our manufacturing base, and keep us competitive 
in global energy markets. That is so important because Germany, China, 
Denmark, and countries all over the world are winning this race.
  One of the great parts about this job is spending half the time here 
and half the time home in Minnesota. Minnesota is a national leader in 
clean energy.
  In 2007, Minnesota passed the highest renewable energy standard in 
the country at the time, and all our utilities are on track to meet the 
goal of 25 percent renewable by 2025.
  Our largest utility, Xcel Energy, is on its way to 30 percent by 
2020. We have universities such as the University of Minnesota Morris 
which is pushing the frontiers of innovation in greening its campus 
through a biomass gasification system which provides heating and 
cooling and electricity, wind turbines that produce power, and LEED-
certified buildings. Our farmers have led the country in biofuels, and 
our universities are leading R&D efforts for the transitions to 
cellulosic and other advanced biofuels.
  By the way, the first commercial cellulosic plant that is scaled up 
to commercial levels is being built right now. St. Paul has the largest 
district energy system in North America. It is heating and cooling all 
of downtown St. Paul with woody biomass. SAGE Electrochromics is a 
manufacturing plant in Minnesota that has cutting-edge window glass 
technology that uses a little photovoltaic cell to control and turn 
these--these windows turn completely opaque and block out all UV during 
the summer. During the winter, they are these beautiful, huge windows 
that let in all the light. It isn't like a Polaroid. It is an 
incredible technology.
  The University of Minnesota has just received two grants from the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Department of Energy, ARPA-E, 
that was patterned after DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency that created the Internet. Across the State, businesses and 
cities are working together to make our buildings more energy 
efficient, using Minnesota-made technologies such as Marvin and 
Anderson windows. Minnesota, by the way, is the Silicon Valley of 
windows. We have 3M window films or McQuay heating and air-conditioning 
systems.
  Just last month, I partnered with our cities and counties to launch 
the Back to Work Minnesota Initiative, aiming to break down barriers in 
financing retrofits, retrofitting public and commercial buildings 
across Minnesota. What is great about that, this pays for itself. You 
finance this and you retrofit a building; it puts people in the 
building trades to work who are in a depression, and it puts 
manufacturers that build energy-efficient materials and equipment, 
geothermal furnace systems and furnaces, heat exchange furnaces, pumps, 
and you save energy. The energy efficiency pays for the retrofit in 4 
or 5 years and you can capitalize this and we are finding innovative 
ways to do that. It pays for itself and you lower our carbon footprint. 
You use less energy, create jobs, save money. It is win-win-win-win. 
This is something we have to do. It is insane not to.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We are proud of what is going on in Rhode Island as 
well. We plan to meet 16 percent of our energy needs through renewable 
energy sources by 2020, and that is on top of a goal to cut energy use 
by 10 percent. So we will cut energy use by 10 percent and, of the 
remaining 90, get 16 percent of that out of renewable energy sources. 
Everybody is getting involved--utilities, towns, the State, the private 
sector. One of our cities, East Providence, is right now converting a 
brownfield which has been vacant for 40 years, nearly, into New 
England's largest solar institution. As my colleague says, there will 
be a payback and they will earn money on that for their taxpayers.
  Our State of Rhode Island has been the national leader at how you map 
and prepare for offshore wind development. In the State and Federal 
waters off the coast of Rhode Island we are positioned to lead the 
country in offshore wind siting, with all the jobs that building those 
giant wind turbines and assembling them and erecting them offshore 
creates.
  We have exciting companies such as BioProcess Algae, of Portsmouth, 
RI, which opened a spectacular facility in Iowa, which takes the 
exhaust from ethanol plants and runs it through algae farms and creates 
biofuels. They are at the cutting edge of that technology.
  When you see these great technologies and these great opportunities--
in this colloquy, we are ending on what I hope is a very strong, 
positive note for the economy. If we can pull away from the lies and 
the phony science and the polluter-paid nonsense that has so far 
distracted us from doing our duty as a nation, we can get into the race 
that is going on in this world for the energy future. The economy of 
this century is going to be driven by the $6 trillion clean energy 
industry. We do not want to fall out the back of that race and leave it 
to the Chinese and the Europeans. We want to be winning that race and 
the jobs and the economic success that can bring that not only can 
power our homes and our factories, it can power our economy back to 
security for all Americans.
  I thank Senator Franken for inviting me to join him in this colloquy. 
I think our time is coming close to expiring, so I yield the remainder 
of our time to you, and I ask unanimous consent Senator Franken be 
allowed as much time as he needs to conclude. This has been a wonderful 
opportunity for me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his 
leadership. Algal--by the way, algal is the pronunciation of this. 
Algal energy is amazing. We are fueling jet fighters with jet fuel made 
from algae.
  Both the President and Energy Secretary Chu have said we are in 
America's Sputnik moment. They are absolutely right. Fifty years ago we 
were in a global space race. Today we are in a global clean energy 
race. Whichever country takes the most action today to develop and make 
clean energy technologies will dominate the global economy in this 
century.
  That means supporting financing for clean energy and energy 
efficiency projects. It means tax credits for clean energy 
manufacturing, providing incentives for retrofitting residential and 
public and commercial buildings. It means supporting basic research and 
keeping alive initiatives that support clean energy technology 
innovation. These need to be our priorities as we make energy policy 
and budget decisions.
  We can pay for these investments by cutting expensive, outdated 
subsidies for oil companies that are making record profits. There is a 
lot more to be done if we are going to win this global clean energy 
race, but it is not going to be easy. It means unifying as a country 
and starting to do things differently than we have been doing them.
  Albert Einstein said:

       We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking 
     we used when we created them.

  I am convinced we can win this race. No other country is better 
positioned. But first people need to understand the stakes. Climate 
change is real, and failure to address it is bad for our standing in 
the global economy, bad for the Federal budget, and bad for our 
national security. We can do better than that for our children and our 
grandchildren and posterity.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. FRANKEN. I take that back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________