[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18549-18551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. What I am here to talk about is not the topic of the 
day because the fiscal cliff is the topic of the day. What I am here to 
address is never the topic of the day. It is the unmentionable issue; 
that is, climate change. It is so apparent now that changes in our 
climate and in our environment are occurring from pole to pole and from 
the height of our atmosphere to the depths of our oceans. The 
overwhelming majority of scientific research, indeed statistically the 
now virtually unanimous scientific view, indicates that all these 
observed changes in the Earth's atmosphere are the direct result of 
human activity--specifically the emission of carbon dioxide from our 
burning of fossil fuels.
  If we continue with these destructive levels of carbon pollution, 
carbon change will not just alter our environment, it will alter our 
economy. Very often discussions in Washington steer away from things 
that have to do with environment and the health and enjoyment of human 
beings of the natural world and instead it comes down to money, as it 
so often does in this town.
  Let's talk about climate change in the context of money. Markets and 
businesses across this country have developed to fit the prevailing 
environmental conditions in their different regions of the United 
States. These markets and these businesses are going to face real 
challenges when our climate changes those prevailing conditions. 
Whether it is higher sea levels, stronger storms, warmer winters or 
dryer summers, no State and no economy will be unaffected by climate 
change.
  We are already seeing real-life examples of economic consequences of 
a rapidly changing environment. The Economic Research Service of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 80 percent of American 
agricultural land is experiencing drought, making this the most 
expensive drought since the 1950s--more than half a century ago. Last 
month, Deutsche Bank Securities estimated that the drought will reduce 
2012 economic growth in the United States by one-half to 1 percent.
  Shipping on the Mississippi River has been reduced and may stop in 
areas where drought has left water levels too low for safe passage. The 
American Waterways Operators and the Waterways Council estimate that $7 
billion worth of commodities are supposed to ship on the Mississippi in 
December and January alone. An interruption of that would have a 
considerable economic effect. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 
begun a $10 million project to clear rocks from the waterway to prevent 
that shutdown. The other option is to release water from the Missouri 
River, but that would just draw down water supplies in upriver States 
that are already suffering from drought themselves, such as Montana, 
Nebraska, and North Dakota.
  Water is also essential for power generation. According to the U.S. 
Geological Survey, powerplants account for

[[Page 18550]]

nearly half the daily water withdrawn in the United States. Drought and 
heat go hand in hand to push powerplants toward shutdown. A 2008 
drought put several powerplants in the Southeast within days or weeks 
of shutting down. Texas, California, and the Midwest now face a similar 
challenge with drought stressing their power production.
  In the Northeast, it is not low water but warm water that caused the 
shutdown of Unit 2 at the Millstone powerplant in Connecticut. The 
temperature of the water in Long Island Sound, from which the plant 
draws its cooling supply, climbed to over 75 degrees Fahrenheit this 
summer--too warm for cooling the Newark reactor. Of course, the cost to 
our economy of disruptions in our power supply is particularly high 
during warm weather, when energy use is at its height to run air-
conditioners.
  Scientists tell us the droughts and heat waves will get worse and 
water temperature will continue to increase. Agriculture, shipping, and 
power industries will be operated under new baseline environmental 
conditions.
  Warmer oceans, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events create 
an obvious threat for our fishery industries and the marine trades they 
support. It is not just the fishermen who are affected but the people 
who repair their engines and nets, sell them equipment and gear, as 
well as the companies that buy and process their catch are affected.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, average coastal water temperature 
has risen by 4 degrees over the past two decades, affecting our 
historic fish stocks and hurting local fishermen. It is not just in 
Rhode Island where the seas are changing. To use another example, 
rising ocean temperatures and acidity threaten corals, which, as well 
as being a cornerstone of ocean biodiversity--but never mind, this is 
supposed to be a speech about the money--the coral reefs are a mainstay 
of Florida's water and boating industry. People go there to snorkel, 
scuba dive, and see the corals. If the corals are not there, it is 
going to affect those industries.
  The increasing acidification of ocean water driven by the rising 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lowers the ocean's saturation levels 
of calcium carbonate. That sounds boring. Who the heck cares about the 
ocean saturation levels of calcium carbonate? Calcium carbonate is the 
fundamental building block of the shells of aquatic species such as 
oysters, crabs, and lobsters. Fisheries we actually do care a lot 
about, even if we may not care about calcium carbonate. It is the basic 
building block of the plankton that comprise the very base of the food 
web. Ocean acidification caused 70- to 80-percent losses of oyster 
larvae at an ocean hatchery in Oregon from 2006 to 2008. Wild oyster 
stocks in Washington State also failed under the stress of that more 
acidic water. This is an industry worth about $73 million annually 
along our Pacific coast, and it is faced with the threats from climate 
change.
  The pteropod, which is also known as the sea butterfly, will be 
harmed by ocean acidification. The pteropod is a humble beast. It is a 
tiny aquatic snail. Nobody goes fishing for pteropods, so who the heck 
cares? Salmon care. Indeed, 47 percent of the diet of some Pacific 
salmon species is pteropods. The salmon fisheries which support coastal 
jobs and economies care an awful lot about the salmon.
  Extreme weather events such as storm surges have become more frequent 
as our climate and oceans warm. Extreme storms such as that are 
particularly hard on shell fisheries. The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration reported that ``because oysters require two 
or more years to grow to marketable size, full recovery from . . . 
hurricanes may take years, and some oyster habitats may be lost 
permanently.'' National Geographic noted that after Hurricane Katrina, 
90 percent of Mississippi's oyster beds and 74 percent of Louisiana's 
oyster beds were destroyed. Just this fall, Hurricane Sandy disrupted 
shellfisheries all along the east coast.
  Coastal economies, such as in my home State of Rhode Island, are 
threatened in other ways by sea-level rise and extreme storms. The 
Rhode Island economic development Council notes that tourism in Rhode 
Island is at the absolute center of our summer economy. People from all 
across the Nation come to Rhode Island in the summer to enjoy our 
beautiful beaches, our sparkling bay, sail, and participate in all the 
beachside activities. Damage to that economy would be very significant.
  We are rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy so we will be ready when our 
beach visitors come this summer, but it is a reminder of how important 
that economy is to Rhode Island, and it is a reminder of how vulnerable 
it is to extreme weather.
  Let's turn to the West, where by August of this year more than 6 
million acres had burned in wildfires. A new analysis by NASA predicts 
that by the middle of the century we can expect to match the severity 
of 2012 fires every 3 to 5 years. It is going to become commonplace.
  A recent study by the University of Oregon--and I see the Senator 
from Oregon on the floor--found that large wildfires caused long-term 
instability in local labor markets. Increased local spending fighting 
the fires is not enough to outweigh the economic loss caused by the 
disruption of businesses and damage to property from the fire.
  In August, Reuters reported that wildfires were hurting tourism in 
Western States. One small business owner in Salmon, ID, claimed she had 
nothing but cancellations as a result of the fires.
  The New York Times has reported that the declining snowfall and 
unseasonably warm weather had been a drag on winter sports and 
recreational tourism last winter. The reported forecast is that before 
the end of the century, the number of economically viable ski locations 
in New Hampshire and Maine will be cut in half. Skiing in New York will 
be cut by three-quarters, and there will be no ski area in Connecticut 
or Massachusetts. That will have an economic effect.
  Looking back West again, the Park City Foundation in Utah predicted 
an annual local temperature increase of 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2075, 
which would cause a total loss of snowpack in the Park City resort 
area. The Park City Foundation report estimates this will result in 
thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, and hundreds 
of millions in lost economic output to Utah. Ominously, in Colorado the 
ski season was pushed back at least a week this winter for lack of 
snow.
  I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, whether 
from coastal, agricultural or mountain States, feel the concern for 
their State's economy as I do for Rhode Island. To protect these 
economies, we will all have to act prudently, and that means waking up 
and addressing climate change head on in Congress. The majority of 
Americans of all political affiliations accepts the science behind 
climate change. Yet Congress refuses to act.
  There is a consensus among scientists where around 98 percent--the 
other day I came with a circle graph which showed a tiny little wedge 
of fringe dispute on this question is barely visible in the sea of 
agreement. Yet Congress refuses to act. Even after hearing from our 
national security officials about the dangers and threats from climate 
change, Congress refuses to act.
  That refusal to act will have an impact on the American economy. A 
Brookings report has found that well-designed climate legislation would 
increase investment, increase employment, and significantly increase 
America's gross domestic product, but here in Congress we are more 
likely to hear that any climate change legislation would hurt the 
economy and kill jobs. The opposite is true. We are missing 
opportunities to grow a clean economy that is manufacturing and export 
intensive and that creates the kinds of jobs that support a strong 
American middle class. We are failing to protect against carbon 
pollution that will harm our States' economies all across the country, 
and we are failing to take prudent steps to protect ourselves

[[Page 18551]]

against the coming changes from our carbon pollutants that have now 
become unavoidable. With the carbons up in the air, the changes are 
going to happen. We can't stop those. We need to prepare for them, and 
we are failing to take those prudent steps. Those of us on the east 
coast who weathered Sandy have gotten a preview of coming attractions 
as the oceans continue to warm and extreme storms become more common.
  As I said before, here in Congress we are sleepwalking through 
history. We are lulled by the narcotic of corporate money from the 
polluters and from their allies, we are ignoring the scientific facts, 
and we are refusing to awaken to the many ringing alarms that nature is 
now sounding. I hope we can soon find a way to correct this grievous 
folly and omission.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________