Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, today I rise to talk about a movement-- a vision--called ``Keep It in the Ground'' and why it is so important to the future of our energy policy here in the United States and our energy strategy around the world.

The core challenge we face as citizens of this planet and as policymakers in the United States is that the impact of global warming is having devastating effects across our country and the world. We can simply look at my home State of Oregon and see that because the winters are warmer, and the pine beetles are thriving and killing a lot more trees. There is such a broad swath of dead trees that it is referred to as the red zone. You can fly above the red zone, as I have, in a plane and see--it feels like it is from horizon to horizon--this swath of red. It is causing extraordinary damage to the forests, and it impacts the natural ecosystem and timber industry, which is a key part of the economy of Oregon.

We could go across the State to the Oregon coast where the oyster industry started having severe problems about the time I was elected to the Senate. The problem was rooted in the fact that baby oysters were dying, and they couldn't figure out why. They thought that perhaps it was due to a bacteria or virus. They had help from research scientists who stepped in to study the situation. It turned out to be the increasing acidity of the Pacific Ocean, and that acidity was making it very hard for the baby oysters to form a shell. As a result, they were dying.

So they artificially manipulated the acidity of the water that the baby oysters were bred in, and that is helping quite a bit. What other challenges are there for the food chain in the oceans if our oceans have absorbed so much carbon and produced so much carbonic acid that it is affecting the formation of shells on our oysters?

What else will start going wrong? We can turn to the changing weather patterns that are producing drought and floods with greater intensity and understand the impact on agriculture. We can look to the Klamath Basin in my State, which has had the three worst droughts within a 15- year period. We can look at the impact of the snowpack in the Cascades and realize and see the decline of the winter snow entertainment industry.

We can look around the country and see all kinds of other impacts. We see that the moose are dying in the northeastern part of the United States because the winters are not cold enough to kill the ticks. The ticks are killing the moose and the moose are disappearing.

We can look at Louisiana. Recent reports say that they are losing a football field's worth of coastline every 48 minutes due to global warming. That is less than an hour. That is a substantial amount of land that is disappearing hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, and, of course, year after year. It is having a huge impact.

We have come to understand that as the weather warms, certain insects that provide hosts to various diseases gain a greater terrain. As the temperature changes, mosquitoes from the southern part of the United States are moving north, and two of those mosquitoes carry the Zika virus. That is just one example of the concerns that are presented by changing insect populations.

We can look at the impact on the lobsters in Maine. The lobsters are moving north as the water warms in Maine. They are also dealing with the loss of their cod fishery because of the changing water temperatures.

The impact is everywhere. For anyone who looks across the United States and does not recognize that we are in an extraordinary time of multiple changes in the weather patterns, temperatures, and the impacts on animals, insects, agriculture, and timber--if you can't see that, you are really choosing not to look, and we cannot afford not to look. It is our responsibility to be aware of what is happening, why it is happening, and how we need to respond. That is why I am on the floor today.

I am here to talk about ``Keep It in the Ground.'' I will be doing a series of speeches about different components of the challenge we have in responding to global warming. A part of those conversations will involve looking at these various effects in more detail, such as what I have already mentioned, and other speeches will talk about the promise of new policy strategies, new technologies, new investments, mission innovations, et cetera, that provide a glimmer of hope of what is happening here in the United States and across the globe.

Here is the challenge. What this all boils down to is that these problems are created by the massive burning of fossil fuels. I think people are generally aware that fossil fuels are created by hundreds of millions of years in which plant life has settled to the bottom of the ocean, then is trapped and submerged. Over time, it is converted into coal, oil, and natural gas. We are pulling out that carbon that has developed over these hundreds of millions of years in a very short span of a few generations on this planet--just over the last 150 years. It has been just over the last 150 years. We have been burning it so it is putting this massive infusion of carbon dioxide back into the air and changing the chemistry of our air. Therefore, it is changing the heat retention of our thin layer of atmosphere that covers our planet and thereby warming our planet--the greenhouse effect as it is referred to.

So our core challenge is to pivot from burning fossil fuels for energy to other forms of energy that do not put carbon dioxide into the air and to do so in a very short period of time.

Naturally, this leads to the question: How much of these fossil fuels can we continue to burn without devastating consequences? That is something that is referred to as the climate math, and that is what I am going to turn to now.

The basic situation is, we have proven reserves that equate to about 2,800 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Those are fossil fuels in the ground equating to about 2,800 gigatons of carbon dioxide. If we were to burn all of those proven reserves that we have in the ground currently, we would massively accelerate global warming, and with the feedback mechanisms, that is disastrous for our planet.

The international community has gotten together and said: What do we need to aim at in order to avoid these catastrophic consequences? There will be serious consequences. We already have serious consequences and we can't avoid them. How do we avoid catastrophic consequences? The general position they have put forward is that we need to limit the warming of the planet to no more than 2 degrees centigrade. In the United States, we primarily operate in terms of Fahrenheit, so we translate 2 degrees centigrade to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Since the time we started burning coal until now, we have already raised the temperature of the planet about half that amount--1 degree centigrade or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So we are already halfway toward the limit beyond which the effects become more and more catastrophic. As scientists have evaluated that 2,800 gigatons of carbon dioxide trapped in fossil fuels and asked how much more can we burn, they essentially have come to the conclusion that we can burn about one- fifth of it--one-fifth of the proven reserves.

Let's translate what that means. That means, to avoid catastrophe, we have to leave 80 percent of the proven reserves in the ground. This is an enormous challenge for human society--for governments and policymakers and individuals across the planet--to undertake because every owner of those proven reserves has the knowledge that their coal, their oil, their natural gas has substantial value on the market. They want to preserve the ability to extract it out of the ground and sell it for combustion. For example, some oil is used in making plastics, but the great majority is utilized in combustion--the creation of energy. That is where this challenge is coming from.

So how do we go about creating policies that keep 80 percent of the proven reserves in the ground, when they have so much value to their owners and the owners want to retain the ability to extract them? That is the challenge we face. It is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.

The reason I particularly want to emphasize this ``Keep It in the Ground'' movement is it shines a bright light on this carbon math, this global warming math.

When we talk about, well, the planet is getting warmer, and we have to burn less so we need to make our buildings more energy efficient, that is absolutely true, and we should do everything to make our buildings more energy efficient, but it doesn't convey the fundamental understanding of the size of the challenge we face, which is to keep 80 percent of the proven reserves in the ground.

When we talk about the need to make our cars more fuel efficient in order to burn less gasoline, which means burn less oil to produce less carbon dioxide, that is true. We absolutely need to make our cars more energy efficient, but talking about that doesn't convey the enormity of the challenge, which is to keep 80 percent of the proven reserves in the ground. When we talk about the need to move more freight on trucks that are more efficient and shift more freight to trains because they are more fuel efficient, that also is absolutely true, but again it doesn't convey the key challenge.

As we look at each of these areas of strategy and conservation, all of them are tools we are going to need to use to keep our reserves in the ground. We are also going to need to use other tools. Those tools certainly involve a quick pivot to produce more renewable energy to substitute for the electricity that is generated by the burning of coal and the burning of natural gas. We have to pivot quickly, but again, when we talk about pivoting quickly, it doesn't convey the size of the challenge.

What is that challenge? We must leave 80 percent of the proven reserves in the world in the ground. That is the challenge. So we must do energy conservation. We must proceed to pivot quickly to renewable energy, but we need to understand the urgency, the speed with which we do so because we have a limited carbon budget.

On this chart, the layout in the orange bar is the size of the proven reserves that are in the ground. Here, with this yellow bar, is the amount of fossil fuels we can burn and not exceed 2 degrees centigrade or a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit temperature change.

As we can see, the vast bulk of the reserves that are in the ground have to be left in the ground. That is the 80 percent that has to be left in the ground. This ``Keep It in the Ground'' movement is all about understanding this core carbon math and crafting policies in which we emphasize that we are on a pathway to achieving success; that is, to leave this 80 percent in the ground.

This also leads to a conversation about the U.S. ownership of a vast amount of fossil fuels. You and I, as citizens of the United States, we are owners of a huge amount of coal, a huge amount of natural gas, a huge amount of oil. We don't think of ourselves as energy barons, but each and every one of us as citizens collectively own a vast amount of fossil fuels because on Federal land there is a tremendous amount of oil, a tremendous amount of coal, and a tremendous amount of natural gas. We have the responsibility in the Senate and in the House and in the executive branch to manage what we own as citizens of the United States for the public good.

In the past, managing for the public good meant let's do leases and raise some revenue for the Federal Government, and we have leased out about 10 percent of the carbon reserves that we own as citizens--our citizen-owned carbon, fossil fuel reserves--but 90 percent of it has not been leased out. When we do a lease, it creates a legal contract in which the individual company that has purchased the lease now has the right to extract that oil, to extract that natural gas, to extract that coal for years to come, and to renew the lease. There are many leases that result in extraction going on for decades--for 10 years, for 20 years but even three decades, four decades, five decades into the future. We cannot afford, as Americans or as citizens of this planet, to be facilitating the extraction of fossil fuels to be burned three, four, or five decades into the future. There is no way that the world is going to meet this challenge of keeping 80 percent of the carbon in the ground, 80 percent of their fossil fuels in the ground if the public entities can't even exercise discipline not to extract and burn these fossil fuels.

So how much do we own? How big of oil barons are the citizens of the United States? How much oil and natural gas and coal do we have? Well, the total amount measured in terms of carbon dioxide is about 300 to 450 gigatons. That is this green bar. If we think about the 80 percent we leave in the ground, that substantial amount, which is over 2,000 gigatons, this amount we own as citizens is a substantial percentage. It has been estimated to be in the range of about 14 to 20 percent of the amount the world needs to leave in the ground.

So if we make the decision as Americans to leave what we own in the ground to save our planet, we have helped set the world on a course in which we reach this 80 percent target of what is left in the ground, but if we can't exercise discipline and quit leasing out our fossil fuel reserves, often at $1 or $2 per acre--if we can't stop that, how can we anticipate adopting the policies necessary to help lead the world in this enormous challenge?

So this has led to the keep-it-in-the-ground bill I introduced last year. The keep-it-in-the-ground bill says the fossil fuel reserves that you and I own best serve the public good by not burning them, by not doing new leases for extraction--extraction that will continue 30, 40, 50 years into the future; that we cannot afford to do that without devastating consequences to our planet. The existing leases--we have already leased out 10 percent of the fossil fuel reserves, which means there isn't a complete shutdown of the fossil fuel enterprise on public lands, but it does mean we are not going to go any further or, as it has been put, if you are in a hole, quit digging. In this case, we are in a carbon hole and we absolutely need to quit digging.

There have been a number of Senators sign on to the keep-it-in-the- ground bill, recognizing the best, highest use of our citizen-owned fossil fuels is to keep them in the ground, and I appreciate their support a great deal.

There has also been a series of conversations around the country since the time the bill was introduced that have been very relevant or related to these issues. The first conversation was about the Keystone Pipeline. Should we build a pipeline that turns the tap on to some of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet, the Canadian tar sands? The answer is no. Those tar sands need to be left in the ground. We need a Canadian keep-it-in-the-ground movement to say that Canada, too, is going to utilize its citizen-owned fossil fuels at the highest purpose, which is to leave them in the ground, to keep them in the ground. Certainly, the United States shouldn't be facilitating the extraction by building a convenient, cheap way to move those fossil fuels out of the ground. So I applaud all of those who stood with humanity in this key mission and said no to the Keystone Pipeline.

Another aspect has been offshore drilling. There was a big conversation about drilling in the Arctic. The Arctic, because it is so cold and frozen and full of ice, has been a terrain, particularly offshore, where drilling is extraordinarily difficult, with extreme risk of oilspill. Should an oilspill occur in very cold water, that means the damage will be enormous because the oil will break down so slowly. So I put forward a keep-it-in-the-ground bill for no offshore drilling in the Arctic. And that is not the bill we have had action on here in the Senate, but, as it turns out, we have moved forward. Shell, which was the leading company to explore offshore in the Arctic, sent ships up for several years. They had one calamity after another, one disaster after another because of the harsh and challenging circumstances. Citizens in the United States, in a grassroots movement, said: Shell, no. Shell, no. This is wrong. This is the height of irresponsibility to our environment and to have the U.S. leading extraction in a whole new area. We should be leading the Arctic nations and leaving the Arctic off limits as part of this ``Keep It in the Ground'' movement, not leading the front edge of extraction.

Well, Shell abandoned its leases, both because of the difficulty of drilling and because of citizen reaction here at home saying what they were doing is wrong. I thank Shell for ending its Arctic drilling program, and I thank the administration for saying that they are not going to issue any more leases for drilling in the Arctic waters.

Let's go further. The United States is the chair of the Arctic Council. Let's use that chairmanship to lead nations in putting the Arctic off-limits. That would be a tremendous collaborative effort among a small group of nations to move forward this ``Keep It in the Ground'' movement and to save our planet.

Another big piece of this conversation has been about coal leases. As I mentioned, we often lease acres of coal for just a few dollars. It is no substantial revenue in the large scheme of things to the United States. It is hugely beneficial to the cheap extraction of coal, though, which is the opposite of the direction we need to go. So we need to quit doing new coal leases. That is part of the keep-it-in-the ground bill I introduced. No more leases of citizen-owned fossil fuels. And the Obama administration has now suspended its leases on coal, new coal leases. That is a tremendous event. Part of what the administration said was that we need to pause and evaluate the impact on global warming in doing these leases.

We need to also evaluate the impact on American leadership in the world on this major issue facing humanity. If we are telling other nations ``Please don't burn coal. Please expand your use of renewable energy and do it quickly,'' how is that consistent? How is our plea for partnership--because we must do this as a collection of nations--how is our request for partnership in this great and important mission of our generation consistent with us continuing new leases of coal? It certainly is not consistent. We need to put an end to these coal leases, and I applaud the administration. And in the next administration, whether it is Democratic or Republican, we need to work together to do no new coal leases. So that was a tremendous step forward in this effort.

Back in December, nearly 200 nations came together to work together to create an international accord with the singular goal of reducing the burning of fossil fuels and converting to renewable energy or reducing the burning of fossil fuels because of energy conservation. The countries made a variety of pledges. One of those countries that made those pledges was India. I had a chance to lead a bilateral meeting between legislators from the United States and members of the Government of India. They said: We have 300 million citizens in India who do not have access to electricity. As a national government, we have to expand our electric infrastructure to provide electricity for a basic standard of living and basic economic development.

We can certainly understand that mission. We went through rural electrification. Our goal was to make sure there was wiring in every house in America to improve the standard of living for Americans. So Americans we are certainly understanding of the goal of the Indian Government.

They proceeded to say this: Right now we plan to provide electricity to 100 million individuals through renewable energy and 200 million citizens of India through coal-burning power.

It almost causes your heart to sink, this plan for massive increases in coal-burning in India.

So here is an opportunity. How can we in the United States work with India so they can meet that demand of 300 million citizens with conservation and renewable energy rather than new coal plants? How can we work in partnership with China as they work to provide electricity to their hundreds of millions of individuals and to do so with renewable energy and conservation, not new coal-burning plants? This is a challenge for us, and an important challenge, but we certainly have no credibility talking to India about trying to make sure they do no new coal-burning plants if we are signing new leases to extract coal off of our public lands. Credibility is very important in this international conversation.

It has been said that we are the first generation to feel the impacts of global warming and we are the last generation to be able to do something about it. That is profoundly true. That is the moral challenge to American leaders in our generation. That is the moral challenge to international leaders in our generation. Our children and our children's children, our children's grandchildren and great- grandchildren are going to say: You were the generation that saw the impact of global warming on our Nation and on our planet, and you knew from the science that we had to move quickly to pivot off of fossil fuels, and yet you did too little and you damaged the quality of life for billions of children and children of children for generations to come because of your short-term failure to act.

Let that not be the story told by our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Let them instead say: That generation was the first to see the impact of global warming and know they had to act quickly to reverse the steady climb of temperature on our planet. Let's thank them because they saw the challenge and they acted, and we are forever indebted to them for doing so.

Let that be the story that is told. Let this be the moment that we act.

Thank you, Madam President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source