Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - October 18, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I also want to say a few words on climate change and the issue of global warming. Let me begin by quoting from an op-ed that appeared in the Burlington Free Press, my hometown newspaper, on October 7, by Bill McKibben, well known as one of the most savvy and best known environmental writers in the world. He happens to teach at Middlebury College. He said:

It's not Democrats negotiating with Republicans or environmentalists negotiating with business interests. It's human beings negotiating with chemistry and physics, and chemistry and physics don't really do much in the way of bargaining. Science has told us what we need to do: cut carbon emissions quickly in the next few years, and keep that pressure on til we've trimmed our emissions at least 80 percent by midcentury. No loopholes for vested interests, no hard-to-quantify offset schemes, no giveaways to the utilities. Just a commitment to stop vetoing the laws of nature. That commitment has got to come soon .....

The point that Bill McKibben and many other scientists and environmentalists have made is, we are up against very serious laws of physics. That is what we are dealing with. It is not what I say or what anybody else says. It is whether we are going to get a handle on global warming. Because if we don't, this planet is going to suffer severe and irreparable damage.

I begin my remarks by thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their hard work in putting together America's Climate Security Act. As a member of that same subcommittee, I look forward to playing an active role in strengthening that legislation. I look forward to working with them on this issue.

I also take this opportunity to thank the 18 cosponsors of the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January of this year, S. 309. Those are Senators AKAKA, BIDEN, CARDIN, CASEY, CLINTON, DODD, DURBIN, FEINGOLD, INOUYE, KENNEDY, KLOBUCHAR, LAUTENBERG, LEAHY, MENENDEZ, MIKULSKI, OBAMA, REED, and WHITEHOUSE.

This legislation, S. 309, tackles global warming as best we could based on the science. To be more specific, this bill is based on the desire to limit the global increase in temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and to meet this goal science tells us we must stabilize global CO 2 concentrations at no higher a level than 450 parts per million. This level only provides us, the scientists say, with a 50/50 chance of keeping the worst from happening. These odds are not great. It is a gamble. If we were cautious and conservative about these things, we would err on the side of safety and keep the pollution down lower than this level in order to protect the one and only world that we have.

I thank all of the cosponsors of the legislation that Senator Boxer and I introduced for standing with science. We should also be clear about one other thing. This is a very important point. What the scientists are now telling us is, in terms of their projections, in terms of their analyses, they have been too conservative. What they are now telling us is the problem of global warming and the rapidity of the global warming changes is more severe than they had previously anticipated. In other words, we have to be even more aggressive, not less aggressive, in addressing this major planetary crisis.

It may well be that the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced is too conservative, but it is for sure that we should be going forward and not backward.

Let me take this opportunity to quote from some of the major environmental organizations in terms of what they are saying about the legislation introduced today by Senators LIEBERMAN and WARNER. I think it is best that I read from them rather than giving my views at this particular point.

This is what the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says:

We applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for their leadership on global warming. Time is running out to stop the worst effects of global warming, and this bill is an important starting point for action.

U.S. PIRG then goes on to say:

To rise to the challenge of global warming, this new bill must be strengthened. Three changes are essential:

(1) The bill must achieve faster and deeper cuts in pollution, which is what the science demands. The pollution caps in the bill aim to reduce total U.S. global warming emissions by about 11 percent by 2020 and by just over 50 percent by 2050.

Additional, modest reductions may be achieved through other policies in the bill, but those reductions are difficult to quantify and are not guaranteed. According to the current science, the United States must reduce its total global warming emissions by at least 15% by 2020 and by at least 80% by 2050. In addition, periodic reviews of the bill's scientific adequacy must trigger additional pollution-reduction requirements.

(2) Flexibility mechanisms in the bill must be tightened to prevent undermining the goals of the bill. The bill currently allows companies to exceed their pollution limits by paying sources not covered by the program to reduce emissions. Ensuring that a ton of pollution from such ``offsets'' equals a ton of real reductions is a major challenge. In addition, offsets delay the transition to cleaner technology that will be needed to achieve deep future cuts in emissions. Under the bill, a company could theoretically meet its entire 2020 pollution-reduction requirement through offsets. The number of offset reductions allowed under the bill must be significantly lowered.

(3) Polluters must be required to pay for every ton of pollution they put into the atmosphere. The bill gives hundreds of billions of dollars to polluters for free, which will create windfall profits, such as has occurred in Europe, and take vital resources away from easing America's transition to a clean energy future. In the United Kingdom alone, windfall profits from emission trading have been estimated at nearly $2 billion. These profits come directly from the pocketbooks of consumers. Under this bill, just under half (49%) of the pollution permits would initially be given to polluters for free, and it will take 25 years (until 2036) before we stop handing polluters free money.

That is what U.S. PIRG had to say.

Let me go to another group, an even better known environmental group, and that is the Sierra Club. Let me tell you what they said today in their press statement. I quote from the Sierra Club:

The bill is a significant political step forward for the U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as introduced still falls short from what is demanded by the science and the public to meet the challenge of global warming. This comes even as U.S. states, cities, and counties move forward with ambitious, science-based proposals to tackle the issue. We look forward to working with Senators to seek the additional improvements necessary for the bill to sufficiently address the challenge before us.

I continue to quote from the Sierra Club:

At this crucial moment, we must continue to insist on a global warming bill that is committed to scientific integrity and economic fairness. In order to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming, we must cut emissions 80 percent by 2050--an achievable annual reduction of about 2 percent. In order to get the market moving and bring America's clean energy future to life, any bill must start out strong by seeking a short-term reduction on the order of 20 percent of total emissions by 2020. Disturbances to the climate have come more quickly and forcefully than even the most pessimistic among us predicted. The Lieberman-Warner bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to catastrophic changes to the climate.

Continuing to quote from the Sierra Club statement of today:

While the bill has moved in the right direction, it gives too many free allowances to polluters for far too long--enriching executives and shareholders instead of generating the funds needed to help us meet our emissions goals and ensure a smooth transition to the clean energy economy.

That is some of the statement from the Sierra Club.

Let me now quote from another organization, an organization of physicians. It is called Physicians for Social Responsibility, a well-known group. They have also issued a statement today. Let me quote from the statement of the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Physicians for Social Responsibility appreciates the efforts of Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner to craft legislation to address global warming but calls on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to make necessary improvements before passing the bill.

It continues:

The reality of global warming is becoming more apparent every day, and the science is clear as to what action we need to take. In order to prevent this world-wide disaster, we must stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And, the U.S. must meet the challenge of starting now and reaching a goal of 80 percent reductions below a 2000 baseline. Unfortunately, the bill drafted by Senators Lieberman and Warner will not meet that goal.

Let me continue quoting from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, who, of course, are physicians. This is what they say, providing an interesting analogy:

Physicians for Social Responsibility's approach to this [global warming] is similar to the manner in which a physician treats a patient: what are the symptoms, what are the causes and how do we treat the disease? We would not prescribe half of the needed medication to a patient, and we cannot support a bill that does not fully address the causes of global warming. To protect human health and reverse global warming, we need to begin aggressive treatment right away.

That is Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I could sit here and quote from many other press statements or talk to my colleagues about the science, but I will not do that. This is what I want to say: If we are concerned about the future of this planet--I know every Member here is--and the lives and well-being of our kids and our grandchildren, not only in this country but all over the world, we are going to have to rise up to this issue.

It is not just a bargain here and a bargain there. Because you can have all the bargaining you want, and all the nonpartisanship you want, and yet this planet will face catastrophic damage unless we deal with the reality of the science. It is not whether we are nice guys or bad guys. This is what we are facing. We are facing science. What the scientists are telling us is their projections were too conservative. The problem is more severe than they had anticipated.

I note my friend and colleague, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, made a very important point that others have made, which is, as we deal with the issue of global warming, let us not forget about the workers who are impacted, the consumers who are impacted. Certainly and absolutely we must do that. One of the bright aspects, the positive aspects about this whole discussion of global warming is if we get our act together--if, for example, we begin the process of breaking our dependency on the automobile and expand our rail system; if, in fact, we produce cars that get the kind of mileage we know Detroit can produce--we can grow jobs in the transportation area, not see them shrink.

If we begin to move intelligently toward energy efficiency, if we retrofit our homes and our offices and our schools, we can create huge numbers of good-paying jobs through the installation and the production of the products we need to make this Nation much more energy efficient. It is all sitting there waiting to happen. If we have the courage to move away from fossil fuel, to move to solar energy, to move to wind, to move to other forms of sustainable energy, we can create millions of good-paying jobs.

I would mention to my colleagues that right now out on the Mall--I was there last evening--there is a wonderful display of solar homes put together by the Solar Decathlon. We have universities from all over the United States of America, and from Europe as well, showing us what we can do today in making energy-efficient homes and utilizing the potential of solar energy. California is making progress. Germany is making progress. We are not moving anywhere near the degree to where we should be moving.

Think about the jobs we create when 10 million homes in America have photovoltaic units on their rooftops. Think of the energy we produce through solar plants in the South and the West and the Southwest of this country. Think about what it means when we have small wind turbines all over rural America. It is not only moving away from fossil fuels, which are destroying the planet, not only moving to clean energy, it is creating millions of good-paying jobs.

We know how to do this. We know how to do it. The technology is there today. It will only get better. Our country has to start investing in these technologies. We can create the jobs. We can reverse global warming.

I conclude by saying this: I applaud Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I hope we can work together. But I think we have a distance to go to make that legislation better, stronger, more consistent with the science that is out there. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to do that.

Source