[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18941-18942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, policymakers from all over the world will 
be meeting in Paris this week and next to address the issue of climate 
change. With much fanfare, they will purport to reach an agreement that 
will prevent the Earth's ``average global air temperature'' from rising 
more than 2 degrees Celsius. This 2-degree limit will supposedly mean 
success for the conference in Paris and success in the battle against 
global warming, thus preventing catastrophic events from occurring.
  So I come to the floor to call attention to several news articles 
pointing out problems with this approach, with this 2-degree Celsius 
approach. The first is a front-page story from yesterday's Wall Street 
Journal. I hold it in my hand. It is titled ``Climate Experts Question 
Temperature Benchmark.'' This is not an opinion piece, it is a news 
article. The article points out that the 2-degree target is both 
arbitrary and based on questionable research.
  The article quotes Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at the 
University College London, saying:

       It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific 
     analysis. It's not a sensible, rational target.

  The article goes on to say that despite assumptions by policymakers, 
the 2-degree target does not express ``a solid scientific view.'' 
Indeed, no report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
even mentions the 2-degree limit.
  Economics Professor William Nordhaus appears to have been the first 
to use the 2-degree figure. The article notes that his work ``argued 
that a rise of two or more degrees would put the earth's climate 
outside the observable range of temperature over the last several 
hundred thousand years.'' I ask my colleagues how did they measure air 
temperature 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, as Professor Nordhaus 
appears to have been concerned about. I would also point out to my 
colleagues that being outside the observable range is far different 
than being catastrophic. It is not the same thing, but from that has 
evolved the 2-degree model.
  This is not the first time the model has been criticized. In October 
of last year, David Victor and Charles Kennel wrote about it in the 
journal Nature. Victor is a professor of international relations at the 
University of California San Diego and Kennel is a professor at the 
Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA.
  Yesterday I got this article from the journal Nature and read it 
myself. In their piece, Professors Victor and Kennel wrote:

       Politically and scientifically, the 2 degree Celsius goal 
     is wrong-headed. . . . It has allowed some governments to 
     pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate 
     global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost 
     nothing.

  This is one of the things I worry about. This is one of the things I 
fear from the Paris conference. The United States will agree to do a 
lot, costing job growth here, and other countries will do almost 
nothing, as the professors say.
  Victor and Kennel say that the 2009 and 2010 U.S. conferences in 
Copenhagen and Cancun officially adopted this approach. They then 
conclude: ``There was little scientific basis for the 2 degrees Celsius 
figure that was adopted.''
  Additionally, in an op-ed last month for the Wall Street Journal, 
environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg cites his own peer-reviewed study to 
show how the most high-flown promises in Paris will fail to make any 
substantial impact on climate change.
  Even if every country fulfills every promise made in Paris over the 
next decade and a half, according to Dr. Lomborg, the growth of global 
temperatures would be reduced by less than .05 degrees Celsius, or 
five-hundredths of a degree Celsius--by the end of the century, the 
year 2100. So is it 2 degrees or is it less than five-hundredths of a 
degree? And is 2 degrees sensible and rational? Not according to 
Professors Maslin, Victor, Kennel, and certainly not according to Dr. 
Lomborg.
  One more quote from Professors Victor and Kennel. They point out one 
of the major problems in the 2-degree Celsius approach: ``Failure to 
set scientifically meaningful goals makes it hard for scientists and 
politicians to explain how big investments in climate production will 
deliver tangible results.''
  Yes, what are the tangible results? What can we expect in tangible 
results from the agreements that will certainly come out of Paris? We 
will be $3 billion poorer, that is for certain, because the President 
has pledged $3 billion from taxpayers for the Green Climate Fund. I 
would point out that $3 billion could be used for Alzheimer's research 
or malaria or malnutrition or any number of the other problems the 
people of the world see as more important than climate change.
  Tangible results coming out of Paris: Electricity bills will be 
higher. Lower income Americans will be colder in their own homes, our 
economy will have suffered, and job growth will have been slowed, 
perhaps by as much as $154 billion a year. That figure comes from 
Stanford University analysts who say that if we adopt the Obama 
administration's proposal of cutting domestic carbon dioxide emissions 
by as much as 28 percent, GDP will be reduced by $154 billion per year.
  If we spend all of this money, trim our GDP by $154 billion a year, 
and actually achieve this impractical 2 degrees Celsius, where will 
humankind be then? How much will the sea level not rise? No one can 
say. How much thicker will the icecap be in the Arctic or Antarctic? No 
one knows. How many coral reefs will be preserved? No one will even 
venture a guess. All of this to be done, all of this money to be spent, 
and experts cannot say how much it will help, if at all.
  Dr. Lomborg writes that the Paris agreements are ``likely to see 
countries that have flourished with capitalism willingly compromising 
their future prosperity in the name of climate change.'' Negotiators in 
Paris should weigh the real-world costs against the negligible 
environmental impact when discussing emissions reductions.
  Finally, the Obama administration's international promises should 
come back to the Senate for advice and consent of Congress. Under the 
Constitution, the approval by two-thirds in the

[[Page 18942]]

Senate is needed to enter into a legally binding treaty. I join many of 
my colleagues in urging the President to submit to Congress any 
agreement in Paris with regard to U.S. emissions targets and timetables 
or pledges that appropriate taxpayer dollars.
  Americans should have a say in the approval process. A recent FOX 
News poll showed that only 3 percent of Americans believe that climate 
change is the most important issue facing our country.
  In conclusion, the President's promises in Paris are not based on 
scientific analysis, according to these professors, but would certainly 
slow the economy, cost jobs, cost billions of dollars, divert money 
from real and pressing needs, and be of limited value. With so much at 
stake, these policies should come back to Congress for debate, 
consultation, and approval or disapproval.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow 
Senator Grassley after he has completed his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________