[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12316-12319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here once again, actually now for 
the 40th time, to urge my colleagues to wake up to the threat of 
climate change.
  I am very pleased to be joined today by our colleague Senator Brian 
Schatz of Hawaii, who is a champion of renewable energy and energy 
efficiency. As Hawaii's Lieutenant Governor, he coauthored his State's 
net metering rule, which encourages renewable energy, and he led the 
design of the State's Renewable Energy Portfolio, which is on track to 
be No. 1 in the Nation. He has pushed commonsense ways to boost energy 
security and battle climate change, and it is no wonder he has been 
called Hawaii's ``Ambassador of Energy.''
  We are here today in the wake of a hearing last week in the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. The premise of that hearing was 
simple--``Climate Change: It's Happening Now.'' Disappointingly, again, 
allies of the fossil fuel industry attempted to discount or downplay 
that straightforward call to action.
  Of the climate scientists on hand, everyone--even the minority 
witnesses--agreed that carbon dioxide causes climate change. That is 
physics 101. And all but one agreed that climate change is a real 
problem. The only academic who did not, Dr. Roy Spencer, is affiliated 
with the industry-backed George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland 
Institute.
  Regrettably, Dr. Spencer played a tried-and-true trick of the climate 
deniers: deselecting data that does not support your conclusions. 
Scientists around the world have been collecting high-quality surface 
temperature data for more than 100 years. To Dr. Spencer, however, the 
only data that matters are satellite and balloon readings of 
atmospheric temperatures in the tropics. Why ignore data outside the 
tropics? Why ignore surface temperature data? Why ignore ocean data, 
when the oceans cover two-thirds of the globe? Well, when you look at 
all the data, it shows the Earth warming at a much faster rate than his 
data in isolation.
  Other minority witnesses played similar games.
  Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, who is not a climate scientist, testified. She 
appears to be a sort of all-purpose witness-of-all-trades for the 
Republicans on topics that range from job training to health insurance 
to constitutional law, even to Samoan fisheries. She claimed that 
climate change has stopped.
  Well, if you look at the past decade, you can convince yourself that 
climate change has stopped. Actually, on this chart I have in the 
Chamber, you can convince yourself that climate change has stopped five 
different times. But when you look at the whole picture, the only 
conclusion is that the Earth is getting warmer. The past 10 years were 
warmer than the 10 years before that. In fact, the past 10 years were 
warmer than any other 10 years in recorded history.
  The continued, now-near-fraudulent denial of climate change is 
pernicious. Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers called out in her testimony 
what she calls ``climate misleaders.'' She explained--and I will quote 
her--

       These are people who [are] deliberately ignoring and 
     misconstruing the science in an attempt to convince 
     [lawmakers] and the public that either human-caused climate 
     change isn't happening, or that it's nothing to worry about.

  Well, I am sure Senator Schatz is aware that observations around the 
world, including in his home State, show climate change is indeed real 
and already happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind words. He 
is a real expert and a leader on climate change, and I look forward to 
continuing to work together with him and our colleagues on this 
important issue. He has just discussed the overwhelming evidence that 
global temperatures are rising. I would like to build on his remarks 
and add that temperature is not the only indicator that climate change 
is real and it is happening now.
  We see the changes in Hawaii and all over the world. One only need to 
look to the top of the world, where Arctic Sea ice is melting faster 
than scientists had predicted originally. Just last summer, the ice 
covering the Arctic Ocean retreated to its smallest size in recorded 
history, shrinking by 350,000 square miles--an area about the size of 
Venezuela.
  Glaciers continue to retreat. The Greenland ice sheet provides a 
stark example of the rapid recession of the world's ice. For several 
days in July of 2012, Greenland's surface ice cover melted more than at 
any time in 30 years of satellite observation. During that month an 
estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet thawed.
  Some types of severe weather are also on the rise. While climate 
scientists are extremely careful not to attribute any single weather 
event to climate change, there is no doubt that increased climate 
change has ``loaded the dice,'' which means extreme weather events are 
increasingly likely.
  Extreme weather events cost us in lives and in money. Of course, the 
sea level continues to rise. As water warms, its volume expands. 
Scientists have observed that the top layer of the world's oceans has 
stored an enormous amount of heat, raising sea levels in many parts of 
the world. This ocean warming has contributed to an estimated one-third 
to one-half of the increase in sea level rise to date.
  Sea level rise is a serious challenge for my home State of Hawaii in 
particular. Just a 3-foot rise in sea level, which scientists project 
for this century, will flood many parts of Honolulu, including the 
iconic hotels and businesses along Waikiki Beach, leaving beaches 
eroded and hotels, businesses, and homes possibly inundated by the 
ocean.
  My colleague from Rhode Island, an ocean State, is especially aware 
of these changes.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, tide gauges in Newport, RI, show an 
increase in average sea level of nearly 10 inches since 1930. That is a 
big deal for Rhode Islanders when we think about how devastating our 
great hurricane of 1938 was and what worse would now befall us with 10 
more inches of sea for storms to hammer against our shores.

[[Page 12317]]

  Those measurements show that the rate of sea level rise is also 
increasing. This matches reports that since 1990, sea level has been 
rising faster than the rate predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. Part of what has caused sea level rise is ocean 
warming, as described by Senator Schatz.
  When fluids get warm, including ocean water, they expand and 
therefore rise. During last week's EPW hearing, we heard about the 
heat, significant amounts of heat, that oceans are now absorbing. Even 
if atmospheric warming had hit another temporary level, the ocean is 
still warming, and ocean warming hits ocean ecosystems.
  Dr. Margaret Leinin testified at the hearing last week about a study 
that showed economically important species such as cod, haddock, 
yellowtail, and winter flounder shifting northward over the last four 
decades. The study suggests that the fish are moving to locations 
within their preferred temperature range.
  Scientists have begun to tease out how what seem like small changes 
in average temperature are important to fish and other animals in the 
ocean. In Narragansett Bay, we have a continuous temperature record 
going back to 1959, along with data on what is living in the water. We 
know water temperature is rising. One study found on average winter 
temperatures are up almost 4 degrees since the 1960s in Narragansett 
Bay, and that is not good for the winter flounder.
  NOAA scientists working in Rhode Island found that winter flounder 
incubated in warmer water are smaller when they hatch than those 
incubated in colder water. Juvenile winter flounder need time to settle 
to the bottom of the bay and to grow larger before abundant bottom 
feeders such as the sand shrimp arrive. It looks like warmer water 
brings the shrimp in earlier while the flounder are still small enough 
to eat, making them easier prey.
  So the evidence is that warmer waters load the dice against winter 
flounder in Narragansett Bay, and the fisherman who relied upon this 
fishery paid the price. Catches are down to less than one-tenth of what 
they once were. Fishermen in Hawaii are paying the price as well.
  Mr. SCHATZ. As Senator Whitehouse has described, our oceans show the 
effect of climate change by absorbing much of the heat from our warming 
planet. But they do more than that; our oceans absorb almost 25 percent 
of the carbon that humans release into the atmosphere. If they did not, 
even more greenhouse gasses would warm our planet at an even faster 
pace. Our oceans and the life in them pay a price for all of this 
carbon.
  Increasing carbon dioxide creates a chemical reaction that raises the 
acidity of the sea water. This is called ocean acidification. So that 
is a technical term, but what does it mean as a practical matter? In 
plain terms, ocean acidification makes it difficult for shellfish, 
corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells that they 
need in order to live. As a result, fewer survive, which means entire 
populations are put at risk. Acidification negatively affects crucial 
parts of the ocean food chain from shellfish and coral reefs to 
fisheries.
  So what does this mean for human beings? Ocean acidification has real 
economic consequences for communities that depend on the ocean for 
food, for jobs, and for tourism, such as my home State of Hawaii. 
Further acidification and warming will hurt our local fishing and 
tourism industries, industries that make up the backbone of our 
economy. All the fish and the seafood we depend upon may become scarcer 
and likely more expensive.
  If we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate, our oceans 
may become 150 percent more acidic by the end of this century. That is 
a higher level of acidity than has been seen in the last 20 million 
years.
  Today, more than 1 billion people worldwide rely on food from the 
ocean as their primary source of protein. So without solving the 
problem of ocean acidification, we will leave people, industries and 
entire economies, vulnerable, especially in developing countries. 
Climate change is threatening the basic foundation of many of our 
economies and especially the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii economy, 
culture, and history are derived from the ocean. So any dramatic 
changes to our ocean environment will impact our lives especially.
  As I mentioned before, sea level rise threatens our beachfront 
property from Waikiki to Ka'anapali to the North Shore of Kauai. These 
beaches are important for Hawaii tourism and our economy and to local 
people across the State. Each year, Hawaii hosts an estimated 8 million 
visitors, with many of them drawn to our beaches. Tourist receipts 
alone made up almost $12 billion in revenues last year. So climate 
change could also usher in a period of more frequent and severe 
weather, which could make Hawaii's communities increasingly vulnerable 
to flooding and storm damage.
  Climate change threatens more than our economy. Our national security 
institutions face a similar risk from sea level rise and ocean 
acidification. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, an assessment 
produced every 4 years by the Department of Defense, concluded that 
climate change will affect the military and its mission. In particular, 
low-lying naval installations, such as Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, 
face similar threats from sea level rise that could leave parts of the 
base flooded, requiring millions of dollars in costly upgrades.
  With the United States rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, 
sustaining our naval capabilities and ensuring that they too can 
weather the effect of climate change will be increasingly important for 
Hawaii and for our Nation.
  I know the Senator from Rhode Island has concerns about his own 
State. I yield to him.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. As the Senator from Hawaii said, it is not just 
Hawaii, it is not just Rhode Island actually, it is all of our States 
that will be affected. Dr. Leinin, who testified at our EPW hearing, is 
from Florida Atlantic University. She highlighted how sensitive Florida 
will be to climate change.
  In her testimony, Dr. Leinin said:

       The Caribbean/Florida region has shown sea surface 
     temperature increases of about . . . [2 degrees Fahrenheit] 
     per decade concurrent with losses of viable coral reef area 
     of between 5.5 percent and 9.2 percent per year. Western 
     Atlantic reefs have the highest percentage area affected by 
     bleaching of any reefs worldwide.

  Not so great for Florida's diving and snorkeling economy. Dr. Leinin 
pointed out that Florida's population ``is heavily concentrated, with 
almost 14 million people living along our coast. In South Florida, 
Miami, the seventh largest city in the country, the Florida Keys, 
coastal and inland portions of Broward County, the Florida Everglades 
and Ft. Lauderdale are all below 2 feet in elevation.''
  The effects of sea level rise that we discussed for Hawaii and Rhode 
Island appear to be more evident in Florida. Dr. Leinin told us: 
Although sea level rise has only risen these few inches in 50 years, 
that rise has been sufficient to prevent drainage systems from working 
during lunar high tides and during storms. The streets of Miami Beach 
are now routinely flooded at peak high tide. The addition of storm 
surges to these higher sea levels means that drainage systems no longer 
work reliably, causing seawater to move into storm sewer systems 
forcing water inland.
  So South Florida is ground zero for sea level rise. As Senator Schatz 
said earlier, this is one of the effects of climate change. Sea level 
rise has not stopped or slowed down, especially not in South Florida. 
It is time to wake up and get to work slowing these changes where we 
can, and adapting our communities to their inevitable effects.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Commonsense solutions to the threat of climate change are 
everywhere. We have been talking a lot about the risks of climate 
change, but let's talk a little bit about the opportunities--the 
opportunities to fight climate change, to transform how we produce and 
consume energy, and to grow a clean energy economy.
  We know what we need to do. We also know how to do it. Congress may 
not

[[Page 12318]]

enact comprehensive climate legislation this year, but it can still 
take action to make a difference. As I see it, we have an opportunity 
for common ground in three areas: energy efficiency, tax incentives, 
and innovative financing structures to promote clean energy deployment.
  Perhaps the greatest opportunity for compromise is in energy 
efficiency, the commonsense idea that we ought to save money and reduce 
pollution at the same time by simply consuming less energy to perform 
the same tasks. Senators Shaheen and Portman have taken this up and are 
writing excellent legislation to improve and enhance energy efficiency 
across the Nation.
  Their bill includes sensible measures that will help to achieve 
significant reduction in energy use. Buildings use close to 40 percent 
of the energy used in the United States. This bill will contain 
provisions that will update the building codes, increase efficiency 
goals for Federal facilities, and provide incentives to industrial 
facilities, commercial buildings, and homes.
  In recent weeks, we have been hearing that Shaheen-Portman may come 
to the floor. We are encouraged by that. We encourage both the majority 
leader and the minority leader, as well as the managers of this 
legislation, to move it to the floor expeditiously so that we can take 
care of it before the August break.
  Second, I urge my colleagues to support tax incentives for clean 
energy, many of which expire at the end of this year. Senators on both 
sides of the aisle have repeatedly worked together to extend these 
incentives, especially the wind credit. We can build on this common 
ground to support sensible solutions. We not only have the opportunity 
to extend clean energy incentives as a part of tax reform but to 
improve upon them. We should focus on creating credits that reward 
performance and innovation and do not pick winners and losers. They 
should help industries scale up, bring costs down, and become 
competitive on their own.
  Finally, the Federal Government must do more to help new and 
innovative technologies reach the marketplace. New technologies face 
significant barriers to market entry; barriers that focused government 
intervention such as loan guarantees and other financing mechanisms can 
help overcome.
  The Senator from Rhode Island may also have thoughts on other 
commonsense solutions. I yield to him for any comments he may have.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Rhode Island is preparing for climate 
change. We are doing it in commonsense ways. Along our coasts, we are 
identifying areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise. The University 
of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography is a world leader in 
measuring and understanding the effects of climate change on our 
waters.
  Rhode Island's Department of Health, with a grant from the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, is preparing us for the health 
effects associated with climate change. But it is not enough for 
individual States to have to act alone. That is why Senator Schatz and 
I, along with our colleagues in the House, Representatives Waxman and 
Blumenauer, have put forward a discussion draft for a fee on carbon 
pollution.
  It is clear when we consider the damage climate change will cause, 
indeed already has begun to cause, there is a social cost of carbon 
pollution. It is not factored into the price of fossil fuel.
  That is a market failure, and our approach would correct that market 
failure.
  We wish to discuss with our Democratic and Republican colleagues how 
best to implement this solution, what the price should be, how fast it 
should rise, and how to return the proceeds back to Americans. A market 
solution like this should be right up Republicans' alley. This is why 
Republicans such as Art Laffer and George Shultz are talking about it.
  A fee on carbon can reduce emissions. One option, to use the proceeds 
to reduce taxes, should be attractive to our Republican colleagues.
  To give one example, with the majority of the carbon pollution fee 
proceeds, setting a little reserve aside for the lowest income people, 
putting the rest of it to work lowering corporate income taxes, and 
just with that you can reduce the top of the American corporate income 
tax rate from 35 to 28 percent, that is a pretty considerable value to 
those businesses that are still considering paying the top rate, and 
that should be worth something during negotiations.
  As I have said before in these talks, it is time to wake up. It is 
time to get to work.
  I wish to thank my friend Senator Schatz for his leadership in the 
effort to protect Americans from the harms of climate change.
  I turn to him now for his final remarks and welcome Senator 
Blumenthal, who will be joining us in this colloquy.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for being a leader for 
so long, for being so forceful and so factual on this issue. I applaud 
his leadership and look forward to continuing to work together on this 
important issue.
  Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by humans, and 
climate change is solvable.
  I wish to end on a note of optimism. The urgency of this situation 
creates a real opportunity. We have a chance to start a second 
Industrial Revolution that will drive our economy for decades to come.
  We have the chance and the responsibility to transition into a clean 
energy economy and leave our world in better shape than we found it.
  I yield the floor for Senator Blumenthal.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I wish to join with my two very good friends and 
colleagues who have highlighted an issue that concerns the whole 
country, not just Hawaii, Rhode Island--and no two States are farther 
apart geographically--but we share this very dire and dangerous 
problem, often characterized as climate change. I think it is climate 
disruption. It is global destruction.
  One of the myths that surrounds this area that my two colleagues have 
sought to expose is the supposed incompatibility of reducing 
destruction of our planet and, at the same time, growing our economy. 
Often, economic growth is thought to be in conflict with environmental 
protection and responsibility.
  In fact, ecology and economy go together. We can expand our economy 
by developing new sources of fuel, renewables such as wind and solar, 
but also fuel cells, which in my State of Connecticut are a growing 
source of energy responsibility and economic growth.
  Far from being incompatible, these two goals are complementary. More 
jobs, more economic growth, can be the result of controlling carbon 
pollution.
  In fact, the President's program for controlling carbon pollution, 
which would dramatically cut the magnitude of our air contamination and 
make us a more responsible nation, will increase jobs and economic 
growth. It will also put us in a position of leadership around the 
globe and enable us to regain the position of trust and leadership that 
we have exercised on so many other issues. We cannot be a leader if we 
don't lead ourselves.
  We cannot tell others what to do when we don't follow the example 
that we should be setting. It should be and it must be leadership by 
example.
  My colleague Senator Murphy and I--and he will be shortly speaking 
about another subject--brought together a very powerful coalition in 
Connecticut last week to highlight this issue of climate change and to 
dramatize how many different interests and ages have commonality in 
this goal: labor leaders, environmental activists, young people wearing 
T-shirts and carrying signs.
  They get it. They know. The science is there. The reality is 
pressing, urgent, and we must address it.
  I wish to thank all of my colleagues who are uniting on this historic 
cause. I hope we can join together in colloquies going forward.
  The Presiding Officer has been a leader in the House and will be now 
in the Senate; most especially, my friend and colleague Senator 
Whitehouse, who literally week after week, in many

[[Page 12319]]

different themes and widely diverse ways, has brought our attention, 
riveting our minds, on this very important subject. I congratulate him 
on the 40th speech, and I look forward to participating more with him.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I look forward to that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________