Climate Security Act of 2008--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 03, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his kind words and, more importantly, for his leadership.

Madam President, for the first time the Senate is embarked on a full debate on one of the most pressing issues facing America and the world today; that is, reducing the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

This legislation, admirably and painstakingly pieced together by Senators WARNER and LIEBERMAN and by our chairman, Senator Boxer, takes a historic step to confront the crisis before us.

As we speak, unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are causing the most significant and rapid climate and ecosystem shifts living memory has ever witnessed, affecting our oceans, our rivers, our lakes, our plants, our crops, and our wildlife. They affect our economy. They affect our very national security.

The evidence of global warming can be found in every State in the country. My home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, is perhaps the smallest, but it is no exception. Over the past 20 years, the annual mean winter temperature in our beautiful Narragansett Bay has increased by about 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, the difference between, say, 63 and 67 degrees may not feel like much to someone plunging into the clear waters of Narragansett Bay, but for the populations of fish and shellfish that make Narragansett Bay their home, that feed Rhode Island families, and fuel Rhode Island's proud fishing tradition, it is an ecosystem shift. It displaces cold water species, and it threatens the fragile and rich diversity of marine life in our precious Narragansett Bay.

So far, the consequences of global warming have been relatively mild. But there are worse things to come--in the world and in the waters around us. We are forewarned by overwhelming and undeniable scientific evidence.

Let me speak briefly about the science underpinning the evidence of global warming. We are fortunate to have an enormous body of scientific data measuring the warming of the Earth, the rising of the seas, the shift in weather patterns, and the effects on all the Earth's creatures. This data comes from all corners of the world and from the full spectrum of scientific thinking, most recently, indeed, from a report by the Bush administration's own Department of Agriculture. The scientists essentially all draw the same ultimate conclusion: Global warming is happening, it is manmade, and it is getting worse.

Let me talk for a minute about some of the very foundations of the science we will be discussing.

As shown on this chart, this is a very simple scientific device: the bell curve, the standard normal distribution. It basically is the standard analytical device for almost all the observations in which science works. In this dimension, one measures the danger of what could happen. In this dimension, one measures the likelihood that will happen.

What you find in the bell curve is that there is a strong agreement, a strong, solid foundation of observed agreement around a level of danger that has a very high likelihood of taking place. It is this area, as shown on this chart--this key area--where the likelihood is the greatest that we face the dangers that have been described on this floor so eloquently by Chairman Boxer and Senator Kerry and others of the global warming that the Earth is undergoing.

Now, you will, during the course of this debate, hear about other points of view. I am confident of that. Most of them lurk down here, as shown on this chart, in the area where the likelihood is the least, but the danger is the least. That is the key. But this is really fringe science. The body of science on global warming, like the body of science on almost any other topic, follows a curve in which the vast majority of the observations, the vast majority of the scientific conclusions follow an allocation, a curve like this.

What the people who are fond of pointing out these low-danger but low-likelihood opinions usually forget to tell you is that there is this side of the curve. This side of the curve may also be unlikely, but it is very significant to us as a species because here the danger is even greater than what the vast bulk of the science we are relying on here in this discussion today would indicate. These are very significantly dangerous scenarios for our species.

What we have found as time has gone on and as the scientific observations have kept coming in is that we think it is here, as shown on this chart, but when the observations come in, they tend to be here, as shown over here on this chart. We are always running ahead of the science when the observations come in. Science is not telling us: Take it easy, don't worry. Science is telling us that the more information we get, the more dangerous it appears to be.

It is a simple, traditional, normal distribution curve. The discussion that supports the changes we are making here is taking place where the weight of the science is. If people try to take you off that and show you this end of it, beware because there is just as great a likelihood that this other end of the danger spectrum will occur.

Another aspect of the science here is the so-called trend line. Now, this is just an example. It is not any statistics at all; it is just dots we put together to show a variety of data over time and how a trend line flows through it. It is calculated through a very established scientific process.

There is a book that was written several years ago called ``How to Lie with Statistics.'' A trend line provides a lot of opportunity to mislead people with statistics.

In this debate, unfortunately, that happens a fair amount.

I will give an example of that in a second. But basically, each of these, as data points come in over time--and in this case the temperature of various places on the Earth is measured--scientists are able to draw a trendline that essentially any reputable scientist, almost any reputable mathematician, can draw through those points, and then you base your conclusions on the trendline. That is standard, grade A, basic 101 science.

Now, let's look at how that works in terms of global warming. Here are temperature changes plotted over years 1978 through 2003. Here is a trendline that has been plotted through all of these orange data points. It clearly indicates the warming of the Earth. This is the type of information on which reasonable and prudent people across this country--in businesses, in homes--base their decisions all the time. It is the type of decisionmaking our military relies on, our intelligence communities rely on, our scientists rely on, our corporate leaders rely on. It is not anything special or magic. The trendline is very clear about what is happening.

Now, in the green box I have highlighted a section of the data because what I have seen is a number of reports that have focused on only this little piece of information. If you pull this little piece of information out--this was an El Niño year, so temperatures were unusually high. If you pull this little bit of data out, you can draw a very different trendline through this. It would probably look something like that. There have been people who have said: Well, that shows that in 1998 global warming stopped--because they took this tiny little segment of the overall data and tried to focus only on that.

So it is very important in this debate, when you see some of the information that has been brought out, to understand that books such as ``How To Lie With Statistics,'' their principles are still alive and well, and unfortunately, data such as this has even seeped into discussion in the Senate.

For many years, global warming denial thrived on an industry of sham science bought and paid for by special interests. Those days are diminishing. Even the most vocal global warming deniers have increasingly fallen silent because the science is speaking to us now with an unequivocal voice. We can reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming, and time is of the essence. The bill before us takes a badly needed step toward the new green economy that beckons America with the promise of new technologies, new products and, most importantly, new jobs that will drive our American economy for decades to come.

This country has never before shied away from the next great challenge or the next big idea. Classic American know-how has always led the world into new frontiers of scientific and technological discovery. The cold hand of the past always has reached out to impede progress, and we see it clawing on this floor today. But America is called by the future, not by the past.

We have heard discussion today on whether there are costs if we act to address the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. What are the costs if we do not act? If we do not act, we will continue to send our hard-earned dollars overseas to buy oil from nations that do not care for us. The economic implications of our crippling dependence on foreign oil are evident to every American every time they pull up to the gas pump. The challenge to our national security grows increasingly clear with every day our troops spend mired in the war in Iraq. If President Bush had tackled this problem 7 years ago after he was elected, we would not have the gas prices we see today. We would not have the weakened oil economy we live in today. We are paying at the pump because President Bush was AWOL when the future called.

If we do not act, we will not only keep paying at the pump for our continued addiction to foreign oil, but we will fall behind the rest of the world in developing and exploiting the green jobs and technologies of the future. If we do not act, we will witness increasing destruction of our natural landscape, disappearing coastlines back East, fire-swept prairies out West, a tornado-ravaged heartland, our hurricane-battered gulf coast. Hunters will see game species change their patterns and migrate away. Trout fish will find rivers too warm. If we do not act, we will allow the extinction of cherished creatures who share God's Earth with us, from the struggling polar bears of Greenland to Rhode Island's own little piping plover.

If we do not act, we will become the first and only generation of Americans--the first and only generation of Americans--to leave the world to our children in worse condition than the one that was handed to us. We should not make ourselves that first and only generation. We should not break the faith with our children and grandchildren.

I look forward as much as anybody in this room to a spirited debate that will give all Members of this body the opportunity to share their ideas and concerns. But when the debate is done, we must not shirk our duty. This has to be a legitimate debate. This can't be just about scoring political points. There is a true problem before us. We have it within our care, within our control, within our power to do something to get this right. I look forward very much to this debate. I hope my colleagues are all joining in it in good faith. I hope we will rely on real science and real arguments and not on talking points from industries that haven't gotten it yet.

But when you see indications such as this, that people are willing to take one little segment of the data out of context as much as that, I think people who are watching this can see if that is what people are doing, there is cause for concern about how serious they are about solving this problem.

Madam President, I thank you very much and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that I may respond to the questions that were asked of me by name.

Mr. INHOFE. OK. For 1 minute. After this I think we will try to stay on schedule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, since time is very short, to my good friend Senator Corker from Tennessee I say this: First, the basic principle of this legislation is that polluters should pay, and I would hope that every person in this room would agree with that. Polluting industries should not get away with causing global warming by releasing carbon pollution for free and having all the rest of us pay the costs of that. If you agree with the proposition that polluting industries should pay, then you have to, as you suggested, figure out the best way to get the funds back to the American people.

We try to do it in this bill in ways that step us into the green economy we need for the future and in ways that step us up toward energy independence. The Senator may disagree. That is what the bill is about. If the minority would allow us to go to amendments, we could discuss that. That is not the way it is right now. We have to step forward. Senators Biden and Lugar are going to come forward with foreign policy recommendations to make sure the rest of the countries move with us. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that we have to make sure the rest of the world moves with us. But we cannot wait for the rest of the world to move.

Source