Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, the social cost of carbon is an important tool that allows us to put economic value on the cost of greenhouse gas emissions to society as emissions continue to grow.

As we inch closer to the tipping point for being able to reverse the impacts of climate change, the social cost of carbon is even more important for us to know. This kind of analysis is used to evaluate policy proposals and helps to take into account the nonmonetary costs of carbon emissions, like its impact on pollution, drought, public health, and more.

As a real-world example, a social cost of carbon analysis can help more accurately measure the price of oil by taking into account the health and environmental impacts of emissions from oil refineries on nearby communities.

By correctly valuing the damage of each additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions, we can see the real costs or benefits of raising or decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Using the social cost of carbon now will not only provide massive financial savings in the future for individuals, businesses, and the government, but it will also help to better evaluate the significant public health impacts of climate change.

In the district I represent and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, we are continually hit by the impacts of climate-fueled wildfires and drought, among other disasters, as we have seen in the past year alone. The area I represent is a heavy fossil fuel-impacted area with five oil refineries. My district is the headquarters of the second- largest American petroleum company, Chevron.

We have a lot of economic importance in this community, but we are also at the forefront of transitioning, making sure that we are analytical and peer-reviewed in those objective reviews, including cost-benefits, so we make the right decisions in this transition. This is why this is important.

These disasters that we have been impacted by--direct and indirect impacts on public health, including physical injury, mental health impacts, and making chronic illnesses even worse--put extra burdens on individual families in the medical system locally, at the State level, and nationally. This only highlights the need to use all the tools available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but in a thoughtful way by having the best analysis possible.

By knowing the true value of certain investments and policy action, and objective criteria, we can make more informed decisions on how our actions today will impact future generations.

Addressing climate change takes a whole-of-government approach. Having been a former board member of the California Air Resources Board, and having served under two Republican Governors and one Democratic Governor when we did these kinds of analyses that were bipartisan, I know firsthand the importance of correctly evaluating the reduction of emissions from all angles.

At that time, both Republicans and Democrats in California valued legitimate cost-benefit analysis. The board had to consider this by a State statute, which was signed by Ronald Reagan when he signed the California Clean Air Act, and consider all of these consequences.

Unfortunately, the bill in front of us today prohibits the Federal Government from doing just this kind of carbon analysis on a cost- benefit basis. This is just another misguided, partisan effort, unfortunately, to dismantle our work to address, in a thoughtful way, climate change that will continue to be detrimental to all communities, industries, and businesses.

My amendment would strike this prohibition and continue to allow for agencies to use the social cost of carbon in a cost-benefit way as one tool in the larger decisionmaking process.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I unexpectedly and respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague.

As in all cost-benefits, it takes time to make them more effective. In California, we are doing that as part of the tradition of the California EPA and CARB. We work closely with the Federal agencies, and then everyone benefits from it, whatever their position on energy and the effect of climate.

As I said, as somebody who has been involved with the fossil fuel industry and wants to make sure that there is a correct transition, and as someone who views the impact of carbon very seriously and thinks we are in a very difficult time, these kinds of cost-benefits, if done right, help the argument.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source