[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9350-9351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one thing we learn at a young age is the 
very basic principle that, when you give your word, you keep it. On 
June 1, on the international stage, President Trump signaled to the 
rest of the world that America cannot be relied upon to meet this very 
basic tenet. On one warm afternoon in Washington, President Trump 
withdrew the United States from one of the most sweeping global 
environmental accords in generations. Abandoning our obligations to the 
Paris climate accords doesn't make America great. It doesn't reflect 
America's traditional role as innovator, leader, and standard bearer in 
our shared commitment to protecting the environment.
  The chief U.S. negotiator of those accords, Todd Stern, is a former 
member of my staff. No one among the ranks of our government was closer 
to these negotiations, which led to a deal that was a win for American 
workers and businesses and a first step toward ensuring the survival of 
our planet. His words, published by the Washington Post on

[[Page 9351]]

June 1, should be required reading for every American, including the 
President.
  By reneging on our pledge to honor these accords, which were forged 
through U.S. leadership, President Trump is ceding American leadership 
in emerging clean energy technologies and worsening one of the genuine 
existential threats to the world. The President's decision was a 
serious setback in our fight to save our planet. But as Mr. Stem 
writes, ``This is not the end of the line. This is a call to arms.''
  Governors and mayors and State and local officials are heeding this 
call, rejecting the President's decision, and pledging to move forward 
with aggressive efforts to curb climate change. President Trump may 
think this is the end of America's involvement in the Paris climate 
accord. But, like Todd Stern, I believe a majority of Americans will 
reject this move. I, too, hope they will double down on our shared 
commitment to protecting our environment and our world for generations 
to come.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Stern's column, ``Trump just 
betrayed the world. Now the world will fight back,'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 1, 2017]

     Trump Just Betrayed the World. Now The World Will Fight Back.

                            (By Todd Stern)

       President Trump has made a colossal mistake in deciding to 
     withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. There is simply no 
     case for withdrawal, other than a desire to double down on an 
     ill-informed campaign promise, while the case for staying in 
     is overwhelming. But damaging as it is, this decision is not 
     the beginning of the end for efforts to contain climate 
     change. The world decided in Paris to confront the climate 
     threat, and it is not turning back.
       Around the world, climate change is a metastasizing danger, 
     for some countries even an existential threat. It was 
     understood in the years leading up to the Paris negotiation 
     that the climate challenge could be met only with a new kind 
     of agreement premised on concerted effort by all. That 
     agreement--ambitious, universal, transparent, balanced--was 
     reached in Paris, with the help of U.S. leadership every step 
     of the way.
       Trump's suggestion Thursday that he is willing to 
     renegotiate the deal to make it fairer to the United States 
     doesn't pass the straight-face test. The Paris agreement--for 
     anyone who actually understands it--is entirely fair to the 
     United States. The idea that 194 other countries will listen 
     to Trump's insulting Rose Garden blather and say, ``Sure, 
     let's sit down and negotiate a new deal'' is ridiculous.
       Instead, Trump's decision will be seen as an ugly 
     betrayal--self-centered, callous, hollow, cruel. The ravages 
     of climate change have been on display in recent years in the 
     superstorms, floods, rising sea levels, droughts, fires and 
     deadly heat waves that will only get worse as the carbon 
     index mounts. Vulnerable countries will look at the United 
     States, the richest power on Earth, the largest historic 
     emitter of greenhouse gases, and think--even if they do not 
     say--how dare you?
       President Barack Obama once said to business leaders, in a 
     Roosevelt Room meeting I attended, that climate change was 
     the one threat, other than nuclear weapons, with the 
     potential to alter the course of human progress. A near-
     consensus of major U.S. companies urged the Trump 
     administration to stay in the agreement because they know 
     climate change is real, that the Paris agreement is a good 
     and balanced deal, that their own concerns on matters such as 
     intellectual property and trade will be defended only if U.S. 
     negotiators are at the table and that turning the United 
     States into a climate-change pariah will be bad for business, 
     for access to markets and for investment. But our chief-
     executive president decided to leave U.S. business in the 
     lurch.
       All this is more than disappointing. And watching the so-
     called internal battle on this issue play out between 
     determined antagonists on the one side and diffident, sotto 
     voce defenders on the other was downright depressing.
       But let's be clear: This is not the end of the line. This 
     is a call to arms.
       Countries won't follow Trump out of the Paris climate 
     agreement and over a cliff. They won't give Trump the 
     satisfaction of ``canceling'' the agreement, as he promised 
     during his campaign. They will want to show that they can 
     carry on without the United States. And they know too well 
     that climate change is real and that if the Paris regime fell 
     apart, they'd just have to build it again. They will hold on 
     to the hope that the current administration will be a one-
     term wonder. It is true that, in the longer run, it would be 
     difficult for the Paris regime to produce accelerated action 
     at the level that is needed without the United States. But 
     other countries will probably bet that the United States will 
     come back.
       Progressive U.S. states and cities also have a crucial role 
     to play, not only in extending the good work they are already 
     doing on climate change, but also by sending a clear and 
     resounding message to the global community: that while 
     Trump's Washington may have gone dark on climate change, 
     inspired centers of innovation and commitment are lighting 
     the way forward all over the country. In states such as 
     California and New York, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, 
     Illinois and North Carolina, and in New England; in cities 
     such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and New 
     Orleans, among many others. These entities account for a 
     sizable chunk of both U.S. gross domestic product and carbon 
     emissions. They may not be able to get the United States all 
     the way to our 2025 Paris emissions target, but they have the 
     potential to go far.
       Private companies, too, have been instrumental in driving 
     the clean-energy revolution, pursuing the massive economic 
     opportunities presented by the need to decarbonize our energy 
     system. And consumers are increasingly demanding that 
     companies not only provide desirable products or services, 
     but also stand as good corporate citizens.
       Finally, for citizens, it is time to hold our leaders 
     accountable at all levels of government. Protecting our 
     nation, our children and our American heritage should not be 
     optional for an elected leader. Nor should preserving 
     America's singular standing in the world.
       Thursday was not a good day for climate change, and it was 
     not a good day for the United States. Nothing we say now can 
     change that. But it is a day that needs to be remembered as 
     the visible moment the rear-guard opposition went too far. It 
     is a day to spark action and resolve. It is a day that needs 
     to count.

                          ____________________