Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I offer amendment No. 29.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, everyone who doesn't deny the science understands that climate change is real and dangerous. Uncontrolled carbon pollution is going into the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and warming the planet.
Americans are experiencing the results in every part of this country. From more devastating fires in the West, including San Diego, to flooding in West Virginia, to coastal erosion in superstorms along the east coast, we are experiencing climate change today and it is getting worse.
We have a choice--pretend it is not happening and abandon future generations, or start to clean up the carbon pollution that is driving climate change.
As President Obama recently said: ``Climate change is no longer some far-off problem. It is happening here. It is happening now.''
We can't wait for some future generation to take action. To that end, the EPA finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, which are the largest uncontrolled source of man-made greenhouse gases in the United States.
The Clean Power Plan gives the States tremendous flexibility to choose how to achieve those reductions. The goals are State-specific and cost-effective. This is a moderate and reasonable approach that ensures flexibility, affordability, reliability, and investment in clean energy technologies; and polls show that the public supports the Clean Power Plan by large majorities. It outlines a path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy. If we make these investments in cleaner energy, the United States can be the world leader in industries of the future.
The majority wants to stop this. They want to deny the science, pretend climate change isn't happening, and let power plants keep spewing carbon pollution without control. They refuse to act to limit carbon pollution, and now they are outraged that President Obama is keeping his word and using his authority under the Clean Air Act to act because we in Congress won't. So they included language in the underlying bill that aims to block the implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the EPA's carbon pollution standards for new and modified power plants. This is a ``just say `no''' agenda. My amendment strikes the harmful rider from the bill.
Let's not heed the arguments on behalf of companies that profit from the status quo. These are defeatist arguments. They aren't interested in developing a plan to help us reduce emissions while maintaining a reasonably and reliably priced electricity system. We have already wasted enough time on legislation to ``just say `no''' to climate action. Now Congress must move on. What we cannot do, as President Obama said, is ``condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair it.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment. The Clean Power Plan is an important, long overdue, and critical tool in our fight against global climate change.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concern about coal. Without the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, coal has been affected by the market, not by the EPA, and the availability of natural gas has certainly, I think, hurt the coal industry. I understand that, but this is a sensible approach to dealing with air quality and climate change; and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would strike section 434, a harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental agencies to take action to improve public health and to fight the root causes of climate change.
If we are to lower the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need Federal action. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is from burning fossil fuels, which raises atmospheric levels of CO
This rider blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing efforts to reduce the damage that hydrofluorocarbons do to our climate. Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are factory-made gasses that are used in air-conditioning and refrigeration and are up to 10,000 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide.
While not as abundant as carbon dioxide, super pollutants, like HFCs and methane, have contributed up to 40 percent of observed global warming. Unless we act now, the United States' HFC emissions are expected to double by 2020 and to triple by 2030.
By limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to propose, finalize, or enforce any regulation or guidance regarding HFCs, this rider would undercut its ability to protect public health and to demonstrate American leadership in emissions reductions.
The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, or SNAP, requires us to evaluate substitutes that are already being developed by industry for super pollutants like HFCs. Through SNAP, we can ensure a more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's industrial sector. Last year, the SNAP finalized a new rule on HFCs that the Environmental Investigation Agency estimates will reduce emissions by 2030 by the equivalent of taking 21 million cars off the road.
The standards set by the EPA will drive U.S. and international innovation and the market development of low-emission and energy- efficient refrigeration, air-conditioning, foam blowing agents, and aerosol technologies. These innovations will actually get at one of the root causes of climate change before we are forced to react to increasingly extreme weather and sea level rise.
By embracing these forward-thinking proposals, we can tackle the low- hanging fruit while adopting alternatives that are actually much more energy efficient than current HFCs. This is one example of how embracing the clean energy revolution doesn't just limit damage to our climate but also increases America's competitiveness and creates economic opportunity. Last year, we saw major companies, including Coca-Cola, Carrier, DuPont, Honeywell, PepsiCo, and other industry leaders commit to voluntarily reducing harmful HFC emissions.
I appreciate the concerns of some in the industry about the pace at which they are required to transition to lower emission materials, but the answer to that is not to halt this process entirely. Preventing the SNAP program from functioning when less harmful materials are being developed is not the right approach. My amendment strikes this shortsighted rider so that America can continue to be a leader in advancing innovative solutions to reducing our emissions. We should not be handcuffing the important work being done at the EPA to reduce super pollutants. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I take the gentleman's point. I would just say again that, if there are concerns about the timeline, I would be more than willing to work--and I am sure my colleagues would--on a better timeline, but stopping all activity is not the answer. That is why I think this is the appropriate response; so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, the social--or real--cost of carbon is the monetary estimate of the damages caused by carbon dioxide emissions to the environment, health, and economic growth.
Today's bill contains an unnecessary and harmful policy rider that would delay, indefinitely, incorporating that cost in rulemaking or guidance documents. My amendment would strike that bad rider and would, instead, put us on a path of responsible policymaking that reflects the realities of changing climates and increasingly extreme weather events.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bipartisan Risky Business report notes that accounting for the real cost of carbon emissions and preparing for climate change is a smart business practice.
If we continue on our current path, by 2050, between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide. Eighty percent of California's GDP is derived from our coastal counties.
Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature by burning fossil fuels will necessitate construction of new power generation that Mayor Bloomberg's report estimates will cost residential and commercial ratepayers as much as $12 billion per year. That is $12 billion that could be spent by families to put their kids through school or to buy a home. It could be spent by businesses to hire more employees or give annual bonuses.
Accounting for the social cost of carbon now provides greater certainty and greater freedom in the future.
I anticipate my colleagues in opposition to this amendment will suggest that the harmful rider merely delays using the social cost of carbon until a new working group can update the data we use to guide rulemaking. In practice, this would send this rule back to the drawing board when the data we have now about how carbon emissions damage our economy and our health is perfectly adequate and backed by peer- reviewed science.
By adding more layers of bureaucracy, this rider rejects a forward- thinking approach already used by the private sector and backed by science in favor of the status quo, in favor of doing nothing.
There is a real cost to our environment and our prosperity associated with delaying this rule. For too long we have heard that we have had to choose between supporting prosperity and a clean environment. The implication is we can't have both, but that is a false choice we can't afford to make. We have to provide both economic opportunity and clean water and air for future generations.
I want to take a cue from the private sector, from businesses that already account for the cost of carbon, and let's be sensible and support this amendment.
I want to thank my friends--Congressman Polis, Congressman Lowenthal, Congresswoman Esty, Congressman Beyer, and Congressman Welch--for backing this effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think the gentleman makes an excellent point that 7 percent is a pretty aggressive discount rate and maybe we should talk about the methodology. But what we should not do is prevent the discussion in its entirety, which is what that language does.
So I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment and that we will be able to get it right. We can agree on a methodology that fairly represents this issue, and I would be happy to work with my colleague. I hope they will support my amendment so we can, at least, have this discussion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source