Global Warming

Floor Speech

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I understand that some of my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House as well do not believe global warming is real and they do not want to see our country and, in fact, other countries around the world take the necessary actions to deal with this issue. That is fine; everybody is entitled to their opinion. But it does seem to me to make a bit of sense that we listen to the leading scientists of this world, not only in our own country but throughout the world, and hear what they have to say about global warming and the need to respond.

The National Academy of Sciences in our country, the United States, joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, have said ``climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.''

They are not talking about whether climate change is real or not real. What they are saying and what scientists all over the world are saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously reported. Eighteen scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science said:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

That comes from the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Further, it is not just scientists in our own country or throughout the world who are talking about climate change, who are talking about the need to respond vigorously to that crisis, but right within our own government, the U.S. Government, we have the Department of Defense saying:

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

What that means is that when there is drought, when countries around the world are unable to grow the food they need, when there is flooding and people are driven off the land, and when people migrate from one area to another, this creates international instability, which is of concern to the Department of Defense.
The CIA understands that ``climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is from our own CIA.

But it is not just scientists around the world, not just government agencies in the United States; you have a business whose life and death, whose profit margin depends upon understanding this issue and that is the insurance industry. If the insurance industry ends up paying out a whole lot of money when there are disasters, they are going to lose money. They have to understand climate change and the disasters, the weather disturbances that occur from that. This is what they say, in a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They found there is ``broad consensus among insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.'' These are guys whose profit margins depend upon that analysis.

Many Americans and people around the world are concerned about the future impacts of global warming on our planet and what is going to happen 10 or 20 years down the line, and that is terribly important. We have to understand what climate change is going to do to our planet in years to come. But we do not have to just look at what may happen 20 or 30 years from today; we should be looking at what is happening right now, in the year 2011. The World Health Organization reports annual weather-related disasters have tripled since the 1960s, causing more than 60,000 deaths per year. The National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States this summer. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of any State since instrument records began in 1895. Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding records set during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Drought in Texas has led to wildfires that destroyed more than 1,500 homes in Texas.

A 2010 heat wave in Russia killed 56,000 people. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 killed 35,000 people. We can look at Pakistan, which in 2010 had a record 129-degree temperature. All of that is consistent with what scientists have been warning us about for years.

NASA's James Hansen said climate change ``loads the dice'' in favor of more extreme weather events. Hansen said the answer to whether greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these extreme weather disturbances is ``yes ..... humans probably bear responsibility for the extreme event.

There is much to be said. I think a number of colleagues are coming to the floor. But I want to yield the floor to a Senator who has been an absolute leader on this whole issue, fighting for the environment, and that is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the very important point that Senator Whitehouse has made. This struggle is not only to transform our energy system, to move away from fossil fuel, and to end the absurdity of importing over $300 billion a year in oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries and move toward energy independence, this effort is to cut greenhouse gas emissions so that we save the planet. This effort also has to do with creating jobs in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I hope that every Member of the Senate is on the side of the American workers in helping us to grow sustainable energy companies so we create the jobs we need in this country rather than let China and other countries dominate those industries.

Mr. President, I am very proud to give the floor over to the chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, certainly one of the great environmental leaders here in the Senate, Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Boxer very much, not only for her words but for her leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I wish to reiterate a very important point Senator Boxer made. She reminds us of great moments in the history of this country. This country, with great difficulty but persistence, built a railroad ahead of the rest of the world that went from the east coast to the west coast. It was not easy. This country led the world in putting a man on the Moon. It was not easy, at great expense, difficulties, but we did it. Does anybody not think this country can lead the world in transforming our energy system away from polluting fossil fuels to energy efficiency, to sustainable energies such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, other technologies? Can we not lead the world in making our own country more energy efficient, making our air cleaner but also in creating large numbers of jobs as we weatherize our buildings, as we build the solar panels we need to build the wind turbines, as we put more engineers and scientists to work to help us in this energy transformation.

I wish to pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse made a moment ago, which is that while we talk about energy transformation, while we all understand that over a period of years, the oil industry, for example, has received billions and billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks, what we are fighting for right now is to see that the 1603 renewable energy grant program is renewed. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, 1603 allows renewable energy developers to get a grant instead of a tax credit. Since 2009, when this program was enacted, it has leveraged nearly $23 billion in private investment supporting 22,000 projects in all 50 States and supported approximately 290,000 jobs, according to the National Renewable Energy Lab. Since 1603 was enacted, solar jobs doubled to more than 100,000 jobs.

We have to make sure that before Congress adjourns for the Christmas holidays, we renew 1603. It is enormously important for the renewable energy industry, enormously important for jobs in our country.

With that, I would yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from Maryland not only for his important remarks now but for, year after year, the strong work he is doing in trying to create jobs in America in sustainable energy.

I would like to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for his thoughts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I wish to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his remarks and for his extraordinary effort in fighting for jobs and protecting our environment.

If we read some headlines today in the media, we might think, especially the rightwing media, that renewable energy in America is on the verge of collapse. Quite literally--this is quite literally the case. A recent headline from FOX News said: ``Entire solar industry on brink of collapse.''

The reality is quite the contrary. The fact is, not only is the solar industry not on the verge of collapse, the reality is the American solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry more broadly. We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 2009. It does not sound to me like that industry is collapsing. It sounds to me like it is doing extraordinarily well.

Today, more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at more than 5,000 companies in every single State in our country, and that includes manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.

Mr. President, last year we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar power in the United States--more than double the amount installed in 2009. That doesn't sound like an industry that is collapsing to me. With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all over our country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over just the last 2 years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of solar and making it more and more competitive with other energy technology.

(Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, everyone, from Walmart to the U.S. Marine Corps, is looking toward a future in solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 130 stores in California, and they say:

Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million dollars through our solar program.

The military--the U.S. Department of Defense--is using solar energy with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in Afghanistan.

Marine COL Bob Charette said:

For the Marines, renewable energy is about saving lives by reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for resupply.

The reason I am making these points is that many people don't know the extent to which we are already making progress in sustainable energy. We are on the verge of something extraordinary. But it is important to understand where we are today and to refute those people who suggest that solar and wind are not the technologies for the future.

In terms of wind, that technology is growing rapidly. Texas alone has more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed. That is equal in capacity to 10 nuclear powerplants--in Texas alone. Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs in America today and more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 States. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 25 percent in 2005.
In the midst of this horrendous and painful recession, the story of renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news story. It is a good news story. Renewable energy is helping to cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it is making our country more energy independent, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

But all of this could be significantly slowed down if we do not continue Federal support for the renewable energy industries at a fraction of the kind of support we are giving to fossil fuels. It is absurd that we even have to fight to extend renewable tax credits and grants when fossil fuel industries enjoy permanent subsidies. Mature industries, such as oil and gas, continue to reap billions every year in Federal subsidies and massive tax breaks that never expire, despite the fact that the top five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. So here we are struggling to help wind and solar--new technologies--and we are giving massive tax breaks to mature industries that are incredibly profitable.

Contrast what we do for renewable energy to what we do with fossil fuel and specifically with regard to the production tax credit for wind energy, which was allowed to lapse three times in recent years--1999, 2001, and 2003--leading to an average dropoff of 81 percent in new wind energy installation each time the credit expired. The wind credit is set to expire again in 2012.

The point here is the one Senator Cardin made a moment ago. Unless there is predictability, unless the industry knows these tax credits will be there, they are not going to start investing or working on new projects only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. They need stability and predictability, which is why we have to move not only to extending these tax credits but to making them permanent.

I also want to say a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and that is to say there are some in the House and some in the Senate who want to use year-end legislation to tack on a rider that says to the State Department: You have to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline. What we are talking about is a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would carry tar sands oil. Tar sands oil is not like regular oil. It requires an energy-intensive process to get it out of the ground, extract it, and, in fact, to refine it. That means it emits approximately 82 percent more carbon emissions when produced compared to regular oil, according to the EPA.

Tar sands oil is also hard to clean up when it spills. Refining tar sands also produces more toxic air pollution

compared to conventional oil. A tar sands spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that happened in 2010 is still being cleaned up, at a cost now exceeding $700 million.

In my view, the last thing we need is to eliminate the environmental and safety reviews now taking place and fast-track approval of this pipeline.

I also note to my colleagues who want to fast-track Keystone XL that I, along with several other Senators and Congressmen, asked the State Department inspector general to look into allegations of conflicts of interest in the preparation of the environmental impact study of Keystone XL. The contractor the State Department used for the impact study, Cardno Entrix, has financial ties to the project developer, TransCanada. Those ties need to be investigated to ensure that the Federal environmental and safety reviews were done correctly and without bias. That inspector general special review is under way right now. I think it is completely inappropriate to try to fast-track this pipeline when we have not even heard back from the inspector general about potential conflicts of interest. I urge my colleagues to allow that special review to play out before any decisions are made.

I will conclude my remarks this morning by thanking my colleagues for joining me--Senators WHITEHOUSE, BOXER, and CARDIN--who speak for many other Members of Congress and I think who speak for tens of millions of Americans, who see an energy future in this country in which we break our dependence on foreign oil, in which we no longer spend over $300 billion a year for oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries; who see a future in this country where we move toward energy independence; who see a future in this country where the United States is a leader in reversing global warming by not only cutting greenhouse gas emissions in America but providing technology and expertise for countries all over the world, for them to do the same; and also understand that, as we move to energy efficiency--and I have to tell you that in Vermont we are leading the country in energy efficiency. What we are seeing as we weatherize homes is fuel bills going down for the middle-class, working-class people by 30, 40, 50 percent. We are investing in weatherization, and the payback is pretty good. It takes place over a very few years, when you cut fuel prices 30 to 50 percent.

In Vermont, we are probably doing as well as any other State in that area, but we can and will do a lot better. Tens of thousands of homes in our State can be weatherized. When we do that, we not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, we not only reduce the need to import foreign oil, we also create jobs. We create jobs for those people who are producing the insulation, the new doors, the windows, and the new roofing that makes homes and buildings more energy efficient.

Furthermore, in our State and around the country, we are seeing, as I indicated a moment ago, significant progress in moving to sustainable energy--the solar industry, growing very rapidly; wind energy, growing very rapidly; other technologies, growing very rapidly. As a nation, we should be proud of the change that is taking place. But understand that we have a long way to go to be the kind of energy efficient and sustainable energy Nation we know we can become and to help lead the world in a new energy direction.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source