Military Construction And Veterans Affairs And Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the solutions to one of the driving forces behind global climate change; that is, deforestation. After fossil fuel combustion, deforestation is the single largest contributor to human-induced climate change, but the exciting thing is that we have proven cost-effective solutions at hand that can go a long way in addressing this problem.

Forests in the United States and around the world provide important services to people--services that are not adequately or appropriately valued by the free market, creating a market failure. These services include many things that we all take for granted--clean air, clean water, wildlife habitats, and long-term carbon sinks that absorb and sequester carbon pollution for years. Because these functions of a healthy forest ecosystem don't have a dollar sign attached to them, they are often not incorporated into decisions made by businesses, consumers, and governments, but just because they don't have a pricetag does not mean they are without value. In fact, the 2008 study pegged the cost of deforestation to the global economy at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion per year.

As the U.S. Forest Service put it, ``When our forests are undervalued, they are increasingly susceptible to development pressures and conversion. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with economic and social value can help promote conservation and more responsible decisionmaking.''

I agree. Adequately valuing forests, and the services they provide offers many benefits to local populations to the climate. Limiting deforestation and forest degradation will not reduce global carbon pollution and slow the pace of climate change. It will also help to safeguard the livelihoods of the more than 1.6 billion people who the U.N. estimates depend on forest services.

What is more, tropical forests are the source of over one-quarter of all modern medicines. Forests impede the transmission of insect- and animal-borne infectious diseases. So beyond the economic benefits, we know that keeping our forests intact can improve the livelihoods of billions of people while avoiding drastic increases in global temperatures.

Thankfully there are good solutions available to address deforestation. We can start by properly enforcing laws that are already on the books. I plan on working with my colleagues to ensure that we fully fund the agencies charged with enforcing the ban on illegally sourced timber and paper included in the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act.

When the leaders, environmental ministers, finance ministers, and climate negotiators from all nations meet in Paris later this month, I hope they will keep in mind the many advantages of reducing forest loss in rainforest nations and other developing countries. I hope my colleagues will recognize the crucial role that the United States can play in sharing our best practices and helping to build capacity in those countries so we will all be better stewards of our natural environment.

A changing climate brings with it a unique set of challenges, but it is not too late to take the necessary steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. There is good news to be had. We have at our disposal a wide range of solutions for reining in our emissions of carbon pollution. Addressing deforestation is one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to slow global warming, while enhancing the lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of people who rely on forests and the services they provide.

CLEAN POWER PLAN

Mr. President, I wish to talk about another aspect of climate change and another reason for hope. Two weeks ago the Clean Power Plan was published in the Federal Register, meaning that it is now the law of the land. This is the signature achievement of President Obama's efforts to reduce carbon pollution. It will reduce carbon emissions from the power sector by 32 percent by the year 2030. The power sector is the source of some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions, and the Clean Power Plan is the most critical and vital step toward putting the United States on a path to a low-carbon economy.

Powerplants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the Nation, accounting for more than 30 percent of all U.S. carbon pollution. There are currently no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be emitted from powerplants. I want to repeat that. There is no limit under the law before the Clean Power Plan to the amount of carbon pollution that can be put into the air.

This is despite having landmark legislation already in the books called the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the Federal Government to regulate airborne pollutants. It doesn't require or allow the Federal Government to select from among a menu of airborne pollutants and decide which ones will be most cost-effective or most important to regulate. It says the EPA is charged with taking airborne pollutants and regulating them, to place limits on them. It is a mistake that over the last 20 years, even though we have recognized that carbon is an airborne pollutant, that it is not regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Power Plan fixes this problem. It is an innovative and flexible solution that gives States the right to develop their individual plans. This is also an important point. The first iteration of the Clean Power Plan was a little more of a blunt instrument. It was geographically constrained. It was powerplant constrained. Therefore, a lot of States, a lot of utility companies came back and said: Look, there are going to be individual instances where it is going to be very difficult to reduce carbon pollution at a particular site because it is rural, because it has already been capitalized, because we can't get the financing to reduce the carbon pollution at a particular site, but if you allow us to work what they call outside of the fence and you allow us State by State to reduce in the aggregate the amount of carbon pollution put into the air, then we can make this work. We can still have what they call good power quality, which is to say you don't want undulations in power quality to the point where you have blackouts and brownouts. That was industry. That was regulators. That was a public utilities commission. That was energy companies coming back and saying this is not workable.

The EPA came up with a scenario where we are still regulating carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, but we are doing it in a way that is totally workable for every State and every energy portfolio in every region in every State. It gives States the rights to develop their own individual plans to cut carbon pollution from the energy sector. The Clean Power

Plan has sent a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is serious about preventing catastrophic changes to our climate.

The American public knows that climate change is a problem and large majorities want us to act. A Stanford poll found 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. Now, 77 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, and 67 percent of Americans support EPA action to curb carbon pollution.

In other words, 67 percent of Americans support the EPA action that is being undertaken right now. They support the Clean Power Plan. They may not know the details, but they understand the basic premise which is that the Clean Air Act is the law of the land. It was passed a long time ago with large bipartisan majorities. The basic idea that the Federal Government has some simple responsibilities, and one of them is to keep us safe from air and water pollution, is a bipartisan consensus not in this Chamber, unfortunately, and not in the other Chamber, unfortunately, but across the country, everybody understands that carbon is a pollutant, and we should try to reduce it over time as much as we possibly can.

I think it is time we acknowledge that the electricity industry is already changing. We are rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as the dominant source of electricity generation. Soon even low-priced natural gas may not be able to compete with wind and solar energy. We should be celebrating these advances and devoting ourselves to finding ways to accelerate this transition, not throwing up roadblocks.

The truth is the Clean Power Plan is merely accelerating market trends that are already underway. Listen to this. Through the first 9 months of this year, over 60 percent of new U.S. capacity additions were renewable energy. More than 60 percent of the new power generation in the United States over the last 9 months has been clean energy. That is the change that is happening. That is the clean energy revolution.

In 1998, when I was in the State legislature and I was helping to work on net energy metering laws, solar tax credits, and a renewable portfolio standard, this was aspirational. This was something we hoped we would eventually achieve, but 60 percent of new generation this year in the United States is clean energy. It is already happening.

As wind and solar prices fall, they are increasingly competitive with new fossil generation in more and more places around the country. To my colleagues who warn of massive price shocks from the transition to clean energy, I point out that we are already underway with our transition, and the massive price shocks have not happened. The Clean Power Plan is the most important power tool that we have in our arsenal to fight climate change.

To my colleagues who are trying to stand in the way of making real progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I say this: When you are ready to be constructive and work on a comprehensive energy policy, to work on a comprehensive climate policy, we are open.

I have continued to come to the floor of the Senate over the last several months, over the year of 2015, and have said this is an issue that has unfortunately become incredibly partisan. This is an issue where we have Democrats coming to the floor offering constructive solutions and an empty side of the Chamber on the other side, but this is the challenge of our generation. This is our obligation as the indispensable Nation. The United States has to lead. The Senate has to have a real debate on climate and energy policy, and we need Republicans to step up. This issue is crying for Republican leadership, and I am looking forward to the day--hopefully very soon--where we will have it, where we will have a serious negotiation.

I understand that not all of my ideas will win out, not all of the progressive perspectives will win out, but that is the legislative process. We need a dance partner. We look forward to that moment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source