Climate Change

Floor Speech

CLIMATE CHANGE -- (Senate - June 05, 2008)

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the American public observes and listens to the debate on climate change and global warming, I think there are probably three fundamental questions everybody wants answered. The first question is an obvious one, and that is: Is climate change occurring? Is global warming a fact and a reality that we need to deal with? I think you have to assume the answer to that question is yes. There are changes going on in our climate, on our planet, some of which we can explain and some of which we cannot explain.

Honestly, I will use South Dakota as a case in point. We have experienced--probably for the last decade--successive and continuous years of drought. Yet, this year, in May, we had the wettest year in western South Dakota--in Rapid City--ever since they started keeping historical records. So there are changes that occur that have to be viewed in the context of time--not just a decade period but a hundred- or thousand-year period--to determine what are the causes of the changes we are seeing in the climate. We had, in South Dakota, the coldest April this year we have had historically, going back 50 to 100 years, and blizzards into the month of May. So there are a lot of changes that are going on, some of which I think can be explained and some of which cannot be explained. We need to look at them in the broader context of what has happened over a long period of time with respect to our climate.

The second question the American people would ask is this: If, in fact, climate change is occurring--and we assume the answer to that is yes--is human activity contributing to that? If we, again, assume the answer to this question is yes, then we have to get to the next question. I think, frankly, I would answer, if we look at the question of whether human activity is contributing to that, we cannot put our heads in the sand. Obviously, changes are occurring. We assume that the presence of humanity on this planet and some of the things we are emitting into the atmosphere are creating changes. I think we need to acknowledge that.

That leads to the next question that I think has become the focus of the debate in the Senate, and that is this question: If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, it is occurring, and 2, it is occurring at least on some level--and we don't know how to quantify that because of human activity--what are we going to do about it and at what cost? That is really the focal point of the debate in the Senate today.

In my view, there are many problems associated with the bill currently under consideration on the floor of the Senate. First off, it provides a minimal environmental benefit since it is a unilateral solution. China has exceeded us in terms of CO2 emissions. It will not get them to stop their CO2 emissions because the United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade program. So you don't gain environmental benefit. In fact, it could likely have some profound and devastating impacts on our economy.

With regard to the first point about the other polluting countries around the world, this was said recently by President Clinton with regard to the Kyoto protocol. He said that 170 countries signed the treaty, and only 6 out of 170 reduced their greenhouse gases to the 1990 level, and only 6 will do so by 2012 at the deadline.

These countries signed a binding agreement, and yet they are doing really nothing to get back to the goal or targets called for in that protocol.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the European Union, which began to operate its cap-and-trade system in 2005, has actually seen carbon dioxide emissions rise by 1 percent per year since that time. Interestingly enough, in the United States, since that same time when Europe implemented their cap-and-trade system, carbon dioxide emissions have actually declined by about 1 percent.

I guess the bigger question here to this last question is, if this is occurring, what do we do about it and at what cost? We have to think long and hard about that in light of some of the things that are occurring in the country. We have $3.99 gasoline and $4.67 diesel. We have had devastating impacts on the economy in the United States as a result of our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. We need to lessen that dependence and look for technologies that will clean up our environment. Imposing an onerous, burdensome system from the top in which we impose a big tax burden on literally every American, because with $3.99 gasoline and all the studies done by the Energy Information Agency--11 studies have been done, all of which have concluded that they will increase gas prices substantially and electricity prices substantially. We have to take a hard look at what the impact will be on our economy.

I understand the time for morning business is going to expire. I would like to address some of those impacts as this debate on the climate change legislation gets underway. If I could wrap up morning business, I would like to continue with the debate on the climate change legislation, if that would be in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota may continue.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to start with, regarding these economic impacts, looking generally at the economy.

In the fourth quarter of last year, the economy grew at six-tenths of 1 percent, and in the first quarter of this year it grew at nine-tenths of 1 percent. Some analysts and elected officials are looking at the record-high energy prices, the crisis in the financial services and housing markets, and the recent job losses as signs that we are already in a recession. In the last few weeks, we have seen oil traded at $130 a barrel, which has caused the price of virtually all consumer goods in this country to increase. However, after months of debating high energy prices and a sluggish economy, we are now debating a bill that would actually raise energy prices and slow economic growth. I don't blame my constituents when they wonder how Washington works and complain that Congress seems to be out of touch with their everyday reality.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, millions of families were faced with record-high gas prices. As they planned their vacations to travel to see loved ones, they were met with average gasoline prices that hovered around $4 per gallon.

I point out that as the economy has slowed down, high energy prices have gone up, and the impact it has had on every American family--again, the EIA analyzed this bill on the floor today, and it would project gasoline prices to increase at 21 percent, or higher, in 2020 and 41 percent in the year 2030 under this proposal before us today. The Environmental Protection Agency also looked at the bill and concluded that gas prices would increase over 20 percent by 2030.

As we have debated this bill this week, there has been one particular impact that I think may have been overlooked in the legislation that has been drafted, and that is the impact on our Nation's domestic aviation sector.

Many of my colleagues and consumers in the country have witnessed firsthand in the first few months of this year that the domestic airlines are being crippled by the record price of aviation fuel, which will continue to rise in price under the cap-and-trade structure of this legislation. I will point out headlines of a few articles from yesterday and today: ``Continental Airlines to cut 3,000 jobs and capacity''; ``Summer airfares double, triple, quadruple''; ``United to cut back service, eliminate jobs.''

The U.S. airline industry recently sent a letter to all Senators in anticipation of the debate on this climate change legislation we have in front of us today. Here is what it says:

The proposed bill adds a significant additional increment to the cost of transportation fuel. Assuming that emissions allowances are modestly priced at $25 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2012, when the bill would go into effect, this legislation would add another $5 billion to U.S. airline fuel costs, escalating each year thereafter. Assuming a lower-end estimate in the prices in 2020, a $40 per metric ton CO2 price, the bill would impose a $10 billion additional fuel tax on the U.S. airlines, again escalating annually thereafter. Such costs will result in further job losses, losses in air services to small communities, and negative economic effects.

I certainly agree we should all be doing more to promote cleaner forms of energy. But the legislation, as drafted, that we have before us today has significant ramifications that I think many individuals haven't fully considered.

I have been a strong supporter of renewable fuels that can be produced in the United States and used in automobiles to reduce our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. These alternative fuels are not applicable to our Nation's aviation sector. Now, it would be one thing to require sectors of the economy to transition to cleaner forms of energy, but this legislation, as drafted, would have a significant cost on our domestic airlines, which are already being significantly impacted by the record cost of oil, by adding additional costs that will be passed on to the consumer, which, in my opinion, could result in not only fewer people traveling but could bankrupt U.S. air carriers, while at the same time not requiring foreign air carriers to be subject to the same taxes that will be passed along under the cap-and-trade system that is envisioned in this legislation.

So one impact that I don't think has been entered in this debate as heavily as it should have been is the aviation sector of our economy, which is going through tumult and is experiencing economic hardship because of high fuel prices. This would complicate that further, and because they don't have access to using some of the cleaner fuels we are able to run through automobiles, it only worsens the situation they face. That is on top of what we are talking about today in terms of our headlines on job losses, capacity losses, airfares doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and cutbacks in service.

What do we do, then, in response to the question, If this is occurring--climate change--and if human activity is contributing to it, what do we do about it and at what cost? I think there are a lot of things we could and should be doing.

Honestly, irrespective of the answers to the first two questions, we should be making every effort we can to get emissions such as CO2 out of our atmosphere. We ought to work as hard as we can to do that. Rather than creating a cumbersome new bureaucracy that would increase the price of gasoline, Congress ought to look to lowering gas prices through increased domestic production and refining capacity and investment in alternatives, such as biofuels.

With respect to electricity rates, again, according to the EIA, electricity prices are projected to increase up to 27 percent in 2020 and a 64-percent increase in electricity prices by 2030. Under the bill before us, average annual household energy bills, excluding transportation costs, would be $325 higher in 2020 and $123 higher in the year 2030.

I think there are some really good things that can be done and should be done. We need to start by investing in clean energy. I agree that we need to research and develop a new, reliable low-carbon energy source.

In South Dakota, we have examples of how that works. We are going to be producing a billion gallons of ethanol by the end of this year. New corn-based ethanol plants are producing ethanol with a 20-percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline. In the coming years, we will be producing cellulosic ethanol that will reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent. South Dakota also has an abundant source of wind, which is a zero-carbon-emitting source of energy.

A recent DOE study noted that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its generation needs with wind by 2030. We can promote low-carbon energy without destroying jobs. We can do this without raising taxes, and we can do this without raising gasoline prices.

The climate change bill before the Senate puts the cart before the horse. The bill enacts mandates on at least 2,000 entities, and then the Federal Government collects the revenue through annual allowance auctions, and then the Government invests in new technologies. Meanwhile, jobs are lost, our economic growth slows, and family budgets get squeezed. If we are willing to make a bipartisan commitment to research and development of new technologies today, carbon reductions, in the very near future, will be considerably less expensive.

In November of 2007, the Senate Commerce Committee held one of many hearings on clean coal technology, which will play a major role in the future of our Nation's energy portfolio. The nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute, which was represented at that hearing, identified the research and development pathways to demonstrate, by 2025, a full portfolio of economically attractive, commercial-scale, advanced coal power and integrated CCS technologies suitable for use with the broad range of coal types. If we make the commitment today to fund the research, finance the demonstration projects, and fund the loan guarantees first--if we do all those things first--reducing carbon emissions in the future will be far less costly to our economy.

Mr. President, my message to my colleagues is very simply that we need to develop the technology before enacting onerous Government mandates on virtually every single part of our economy. Higher gas prices, higher electricity rates, a shrinking GDP, job losses, and minimal environmental benefit is what will come about as a result of this legislation if enacted.

There is a better way. We ought to be doing everything we possibly can to get CO2 emissions and other pollutants out of our atmosphere to address the concerns we have about our environment, to be good stewards, to pass on a better world to the next generation, but there is a way we can go about this that is incentive based, that gets away from the heavy-handed, onerous regulations imposed by this bill and the enormous cost that will be imposed on literally every sector of our economy and, most importantly, on the hard-working American families who will be faced with higher prices for gasoline, higher prices for electricity at a time when we should be desperately looking for ways to reduce those prices and to lessen the economic hardship that every family in this country is experiencing.

I hope my colleagues will vote no. I, too, have some amendments to offer to the bill if we get the opportunity to offer the amendments. My understanding is the amendment tree has been filled. That is unfortunate. This is a bill of enormous consequence to this country. Some have described it as the biggest reorganization of the Government since the 1930s. Given the complexities and the enormous impact this would have on Americans' everyday lives, we need to go about this in a way that allows us to have open debate, offer amendments, and improve this bill.

I regret the fact that the Democratic leadership has decided to abandon that open process in exchange for filling the amendment tree and preventing us from having an open debate and considering amendments that actually would protect consumers from higher gas and energy prices that would be the result of this legislation.

If we get to an open process, I hope to have further debate and amendments we can consider.

I yield the floor.

Source