[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15526-15527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

  Mr. INHOFE. I read with a lot of interest about the trip President 
Obama made to China and his meeting with President Xi over what they 
characterized as an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. I didn't 
hear any kind of agreement or anything that was said by the President 
of China, and they have been talking about this as a historic 
breakthrough. That is exactly what they said in 2009, back when 
Copenhagen was center stage for the big annual party.
  Just so people are aware of what goes on, the United Nations throws a 
big party to get countries to agree to reduce greenhouse gases by a 
certain amount. It is kind of interesting since at one of the first 
ones I went to, I saw a good friend of mine from Benin in West Africa, 
and I said: You guys are not sucked into this thing--I know that for a 
fact--in terms of any kind of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 
What would happen to the economy of West Africa if you did that?
  He said: This is the biggest party of the year, so we are all going 
to be here.
  The same thing was true in Copenhagen.
  Before I go into that, let's take a look at what they called a major 
historic breakthrough between the United States and China where the 
President pledged to reduce the emissions in the United States between 
26 and 28 percent by 2025. What did China agree to? First of all, even 
if they did agree to reduce emissions, we would not believe them 
because they don't end up doing what they say they are going to do in 
these agreements. But China says that what they are going to do is stop 
increasing their CO2 emissions by 2030. In other words, 
between now and 2030 they are going to continue to increase their 
levels of CO2 emissions, which I agree they are going to do 
that.
  Next year--that is, a year from December--there is going to be 
another big party that will be in Paris, and it will be the one where 
President Obama says he and President Xi from China have an agreement. 
But, of course, that is going to be kind of like it was in Copenhagen 
back in 2009.
  I remember 2009 so well. At that time I was--and I still am--on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a wonderful lady who was 
President Obama's appointee to be the Director of the EPA, and at that 
time in Copenhagen they already had Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator 
Boxer, President Obama, and then-Senator John Kerry. All of them were 
over there promising the 191 countries that were in Copenhagen that we 
were going to pass some kind of cap and trade.
  After that was over, I went on a quick roundtrip to Copenhagen. I 
always remember that trip because I was on the ground, after all that 
travel, all of 3 hours, but I think it was the most enjoyable 3 hours I 
ever had because I was able to be over there as a one-man truth squad 
and to say to the people attending that great meeting there that

[[Page 15527]]

the United States was not going to pass any kind of cap and trade. In 
fact, the most votes they could have gotten in the Senate at that 
time--and the Senate is changing, as we all know--was 30 votes. 
Obviously it took a lot more than that to do that.
  I went over as the one-man truth squad to tell them that they were 
not telling the truth and that there is no way in the world we are 
going to pass it, and the same is true this time.
  I will tell you what that meeting reminds me of. It reminds me of the 
meeting that took place in China a couple of days ago with our 
President. It reminded me of the meeting that took place in Rio de 
Janeiro. This would have been in 1998, which was during the Clinton 
White House. They went over there and agreed and signed the Kyoto 
Treaty. They signed the treaty knowing for a fact that it would not be 
ratified on this end. We know it takes a supermajority to ratify a 
treaty in the Senate.
  We had a resolution that was passed at that time called the Byrd-
Hagel resolution. It said that we would not ratify any agreement, such 
as Kyoto or anything like that, that didn't do two things--that were 
either harmful to the economy or didn't treat all countries the same. 
In other words, we have to treat the reductions in China the same as 
they would be in the United States. Of course the Kyoto Treaty didn't 
do that. They knew at the time it was not going to be ratified. In 
fact, they were not even going to submit it for ratification to this 
body, and that is exactly what did happen.
  Let's look at what is happening in China right now. China is doing 
pretty well. Between 2005 and 2011, China added roughly two 600-
megawatt coal-fired powerplants per week. That is two powerplants a 
week. In 7 years, China added more coal capacity to its fleet than 
existed in the entire United States. This is not going to be slowing 
down in the years to come. By their own admission, they will be 
increasing between now and 2030. China is expected to bring a new coal-
fired powerplant online every 10 days to give its economy the 
electricity it demands. So China is now the largest consumer and 
importer of coal in the world.
  It is kind of interesting. We are going through the shale revolution 
in this country. Wonderful things are happening here. If we did not 
have the resistance from the White House, we could be totally 
independent from any other nation for the production of energy. China, 
on the other hand, doesn't have the shale or the oil or the gas. They 
don't have the coal, but they can import the coal, and that is exact 
what they are doing, and they will continue to do that. Stop and think. 
If you don't like the arguments, just use logic. Why would China ever 
agree unilaterally to reduce its emissions when that is the only way it 
can produce electricity?
  I have talked to them before. I talk to people who smile and laugh at 
us and say: Wait a minute. You say you believe us when we say we are 
going to reduce our emissions? We applaud the United States. We want 
the United States to reduce its emissions. If they do that, the 
manufacturing base has to leave the United States and come to China.
  So it is to their advantage to increase their emissions, and that is 
exactly what will happen.
  We will talking about this a lot. I will chair the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I chaired that several years ago when the 
Republicans were in the majority, and the Republicans are a majority 
again. We will look at these things logically, and we will conduct 
ourselves in a way that will not give the United States of America the 
largest single tax increase in history.
  Way back in the beginning, in 2001 and that timeframe, a lot of us 
thought there was actually some truth to the global warming issue, and 
a lot of people are trying to resurrect that now. However, at that time 
people didn't know what the cost was going to be. Shortly after that, 
it was the MIT, Charles River Associates, and the Wharton School that 
came out with an approximation of what it would cost in the way of a 
tax increase for the American people if we were to adopt the global 
warming provisions they wanted to adopt, which was between $300 and 
$400 billion a year.
  If you follow that statement with a statement not from me and not 
from anyone else on the floor of the Senate but from Lisa Jackson, who 
was the Director of the EPA and was appointed by President Obama--I 
asked her this question on the record: Let's say that we go ahead and 
pass one of these resolutions.
  The resolutions have been offered since 2002. The first one was 
offered by McCain and Lieberman and the last one by my friend Senator 
Markey, who was then in the House.
  I said: If we pass any of these--the largest increase in history--
would this have the effect of reducing greenhouse gases?
  Her answer--Lisa Jackson, Director of the EPA, said: No, it would 
not. She said the problem is in China, India, and Mexico, and that 
would not affect the overall world emissions of CO2.
  So for those who really believe there is going to be something that 
comes before us in the form of a treaty--as our President has said will 
happen in Paris 13 months from now--keep in mind that it is something 
that will not happen, the same as it was not going to happen in 
Copenhagen. The American people are not ready. They have studied this 
issue. They know the science is not there, and what they want to do is 
to avoid any kind of a negative effect on our economy, and that is 
exactly what I think will happen.
  I see my good friend is here, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________