American Energy Renaissance
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the very unfortunate events in Ukraine in the headlines and the Ukrainian people close to our hearts, I rise today to speak to a topic that has significance not only for that European crisis and for our own well-being but also bearing a little bit on the longer term subject of climate change, which, of course, was a big discussion here last night.
This morning I am speaking to the American energy renaissance and its broader benefits to us all.
Today American technology and know-how are delivering energy abundance, keeping energy affordable, enabling energy to be cleaner than the next most likely alternative, permitting us to rely on ever more diverse energy sources, and, finally, improving energy security for our people here in this country and around the world.
America's overall production of nearly every type of energy is rising. The efficiency of just about everything--whether it is our vehicles or whether it is our buildings--is increasing. And in comparing our supply with our demand, we are rapidly approaching a self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent. The American energy revolution has generated a variety of welcome benefits. It is creating jobs. It has generated revenues. It has helped reduce both energy prices and price volatility. And as our Nation imports less, the simple fact is there is more energy available for others. That, in turn, is creating the kinds of supply conditions in the world oil market that allow all of us to deal with the bad actors from a position of relative strength.
There was a recent essay in Foreign Affairs which argued that energy has been viewed as a strategic liability in the United States since back in the 1970s. Now energy is becoming a strategic asset--a strategic asset--and one that can boost the U.S. economy and grant Washington newfound leverage around the world. It is really hard to disagree with that.
The question then becomes, What will we do with this strategic asset? How will we use our newfound position? There was a survey of responses to Russia's disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty, and of those prudent areas where the United States might go. Energy is clearly among the most major strategic assets we possess. How we use it to bring about geopolitical stability can really define our leadership in the world.
Our first real challenge as a nation is how to keep this American resurgence going. There are two specific areas where we have to make some decisions; that is, whether to grant access to new lands and new markets, and that will go a long way in determining whether we actually do that.
As I noted, America's total energy production has increased dramatically in recent years, but within those numbers there is a serious dichotomy. Nearly the entire oil and gas production resurgence here in the United States has occurred on State and private lands, not the millions of acres managed by the Federal Government. Despite the discussion of all of the above and no small amount of credit taken by the administration, combined carbon fuel production on Federal lands actually fell from 2008 to 2012. That is a disappointing trend which, in my view, needs to be reversed.
Consider, for example, the opportunity we are missing in my State of Alaska. Thirty years ago, in March 1984, Alaskan crude oil production stood at 1.6 million barrels per day. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System had been completed just a decade earlier. There were debates over opening new areas to production and even allowing exports of crude oil from the State, but the Federal Government did not act at that time. It did not seize Alaska's best and most obvious opportunities. Production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in March 1988. It has been on general decline ever since then. Alaska's production has dipped below the half million barrels per day marker several times since 2012. This is a fall of nearly 75 percent from its high.
Back home we keep talking about a pipeline that is less than half full. The difference is not only geography, it is also policy. Our Federal policies are not working as they should. State policies, combined with private sector inventiveness, powerful as they are, cannot overcome the Federal barriers. In North Dakota, where we see a booming energy market, only 4 percent of that State is federally held. In Texas, it is just 2 percent of Federal lands. In Alaska, 62 percent of our lands are Federal, and most of our untapped resources are within these Federal areas.
Alaska's falling production is a missed opportunity--a missed opportunity--to create jobs, to generate revenues, to stabilize world energy prices, to diversify world energy supplies. And it is not the only place in America where potential growth is going unrealized. We are passing up tremendous opportunities off of our Atlantic coast, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Rocky Mountains West. We also have increasingly burdensome regulations that slow the pace of development in the Federal lands that are open.
All of this highlights the need to reexamine our Federal energy policies and really reorient them for a new century.
That leads us to the subject of exports.
Back in January I laid out the case for why we need to renovate the architecture of U.S. energy trade. We have substantial opportunities for exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, natural gas liquids, renewable technology, nuclear technology, and even crude oil. I have called for the lifting of the de facto prohibition on crude oil exports as a preemptive measure. I say what we need to do is lift it to prevent future losses of production and jobs when our trade restrictions inevitably collide with this surge of light tight oil and condensate production that comes out. The conversation I hoped to frame last year in January when I submitted my ``Energy 20/20'' report is really very well underway.
My point is that we must increase the value of energy as an American strategic asset for global security and price stability.
I wish to say a couple of words--maybe more than a couple but a few words--about climate change. Many groups have formed to go on the offensive to ``wake Congress up'' on the issue of climate. They want to force the Nation to talk about this subject no matter what the issue of the day might be. Unfortunately, they also seem to want to blame Republican Members and somehow also to adopt policies that this body has rejected year after year. So much of the climate change conversation seems to be defined by old ideas that have been rejected. It seems that if one is not supportive of yet another regulatory edifice, either through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or letting the EPA expand its authority without any checks by the people's representatives in Congress, then somehow or other one is against the environment. I reject that.
I want to see greater balance. I know we can achieve it, and I think it is important that, again, we reframe the conversation. I think finding agreement on environmental policy is hard, but it is not impossible. I think what we need to do is kind of pull back and change the conversation we are having.
What I want to remind my colleagues of is that part of the opposition I have had to some of the ideas I have heard from folks is based on what those policies would mean for our affordability of energy. Here I mean not just for Americans who are energy insecure, including residents in my State and in some of our most remote areas who already face exorbitant energy costs, but also the 1.3 billion people across the globe with no reliable access to electricity.
Worldwide--worldwide--families are struggling to attain the basic necessities of life. Although many portray climate change as our most pressing moral issue, I would suggest it is but one of many. Energy poverty and energy insecurity are others, and ones that we simply cannot ignore and we should certainly not make worse.
Another part of my opposition to cap and trade or a carbon tax is based on what we have seen in Europe as compared to what has actually happened here in the United States. Without climate legislation, but with the advent of increased domestic production here through shale gas production, our greenhouse gas emissions are now 11 percent below our rate of emissions in 2005. Yet our friends across the Atlantic, who actually did pass cap and trade several years ago, haven't exactly seen the expected results. In the face of weak growth, high unemployment, and high debt, some European nations are now dialing back the extremely expensive subsidies they have offered and, at the same time, many of our NATO allies are clamoring for the cheap and the abundant natural gas that we are now producing on our State and our private lands, and they are importing our abundant and affordable coal.
The unfolding situation in Ukraine also highlights the compelling importance of energy security--something that neither a carbon tax, cap and trade or any climate bill we have seen in the Senate has properly accounted for.
Then there is the approach the President seems to want to take. Earlier this year he threatened to use his regulatory authority to regulate greenhouse gases if Congress failed to act. It is really quite a choice here. He suggests either to pass legislation that we don't like or he will enact regulations that we don't like, either way to be carried out under the Clean Air Act, just not according to the Clean Air Act.
It is difficult to consider really whether this is a serious offer. What we can say, though, is this threat and the rulemakings that will follow is contrary--contrary--to what our forefathers envisioned. Executive authority foregoes the benefits and protections of a legislative process and it curbs the debate that is needed to ensure fair and balanced policy, and particularly in this area where we need to ensure they are fair and balanced policies.
To effectively combat climate change we have to safeguard our economy. Prosperity is key to the resources that we will need to make progress. The Nation has to pursue all forms of energy and stress energy security. We cannot exclusively count on renewables to achieve a low carbon environment. Emission free nuclear energy has to be part of the solution. Technology must play a role in reaching the goals that we set for our country.
Finally, as we discuss the issues and the approaches to these issues, we have to do so with humility, keenly aware of the unintended consequences that could be worse than no action at all. Climate change is a global issue that requires global acknowledgment of the issue and global action. But through it all we must be deeply concerned and always aware about the impacts of our actions on the individual family.
I spend a lot of time in the rural parts of my State. We don't even call them rural; we use the terminology ``bush'' because it is just so remote, and these are areas where the only way to access the communities is either by air or by boat, up the river by barge. Supplies are brought in two times a year, if you live on the river system. You look around and you may be able to see the impact of climate change, and that is an awareness the people in this region have, but first and foremost, these people need to be able to live. This is where they have lived for thousands of years.
When you appreciate the costs they are paying for their energy right here and right now, I can't support anything that is going to increase the energy cost for the people in my State who are already paying--some--close to 50 percent of their income for fuel to stay warm in the wintertime.
I have one letter here that I received just last week from a village by the name of Kwigillingok. This is an area out in the coastal villages region. In this letter from the tribal council they state:
The current cost of heating fuel is 6.02 per gallon and gasoline at 6.52.
If I were to suggest to the fine people in Kwigillingok that in order to arrest what we may be seeing with increased emissions around the globe that their energy prices are going to double, that the cost of their heating fuel is going to go from $6.02 per gallon to $12, how will these people live?
We have to be aware of the energy insecurity, the energy poverty in far too many places in this country and truly around the world.
So as we discuss these very important issues about energy and how we do right by all, again let us do so with a level of humility and a level of respect for people all throughout our Nation.
I see that my colleague from Texas is here, another fine producing State. In fact, Texas is a State that is really doing quite well right now when it comes to our energy and our energy resources. Through the efforts of States such as Texas, North Dakota, and California we are seeing a true resurgence in our energy production, and I think an opportunity for us as a Nation to again not only provide for our energy security as a Nation but to provide for security and stability on the global scene as well.
With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source