June 5, 2008
Statement

Floor Statement on Climate Change

Mr. REED. Thank you, Madam President. We are engaged in an extraordinarily important debate here. It is somewhat disappointing that the debate has been shortchanged due to procedural maneuvers by the minority party, which forced the clerk to read the entire bill and forced the majority to file a cloture petition.

I think what Senator Kyl and many others have said, I might not agree with, but it is important to have this vigorous debate. I am somewhat disappointed that it has been curtailed.

But now we are engaged in something that will impact this country and generations to come in a significant way. Seldom have we debated such an issue with global ramifications over decades and decades and decades.

We talk about many times the burden that our children and grandchildren will bear as a result of the Federal debt.

But there is an equally daunting burden placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions.

Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes and public health.

The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today, the more drastic the consequences will be in the future. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years, and it continues to grow.

Madam President, what we do or what we fail to do with respect to climate change will have an impact not only on our country but on life on this planet into the next century and beyond. Seldom has this body grappled with an issue with such sweeping global ramifications.
  
We frequently talk about the burden that is placed on our children and grandchildren by the Federal debt, but an equally daunting burden will be placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions. Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes, and public health. The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today the more drastic the consequences will be in the future.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years and it continues to grow. With near scientific certainty, the IPCC tells us that the high level of greenhouse gases in the air has led to the increase in global temperatures that has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. This increase has accelerated in the last 50 years, making the years 1995-2006 the warmest on record. Indeed, global temperatures may now be the hottest observed in the last 1,300 years.

The impacts of climate change are already observable:

Higher ocean temperatures have led to an increase in the number of intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the last century.

In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the water temperature has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 40 years, coinciding with declines of winter flounder and lobsters.

Permafrost is thawing and becoming unstable, causing buildings to collapse in the Arctic region.

In 2007, the extent of Arctic sea ice was 23 percent less than the previous all-time minimum observed in 2005.

Snowpack and glaciers are diminishing and are melting earlier in the spring. This, in turn, is causing a decline in the health of rivers and lakes and is threatening habitat for endangered species.

There has been an effect on human health, with increased mortality from extreme heat and changes in infectious disease vectors. For instance, in Rhode Island this has meant an increase in the incidence of tick-borne disease.

The best science tells us that we must begin to curb emissions within the next decade in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. If we fail, temperatures will continue to rise with dramatic results:

With an increase of 2 degrees Celsius, millions more people will experience coastal flooding each year.

An increase of 3 degrees will result in the loss of 30 percent of the world's wetlands.

An increase of 1-5 degrees will place 30 percent to 40 percent of species at risk of extinction.

Hundreds of millions of people, including up to 250 million people in Africa, will lose access to reliable water supplies.

But this is not a debate solely about plants and animals. It is not merely about feeling better about how we treat the Earth. At its heart this issue is tied to the fundamental national security challenge of this century, energy and our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Changes to the environment do not occur in a vacuum and will have far-reaching impacts on our national interests and our national security.

The U.S. intelligence community has recognized the threat and is in the midst of conducting a national intelligence assessment on the effect of climate change on our security.

Last year, the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board, consisting of 11 former general and flag officers, led by former Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gordon Sullivan, called for action to stabilize global temperatures. They warned:

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.

Just this week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer reiterated that the alliance must prepare for new threats that stem from the impact of global warming, saying: ``climate change could confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments--developments which no single nation-state has the power to contain.''

Regrettably, we have already witnessed the political ramifications of climate change. In writing in the Washington Post last summer, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted that ``[a]mid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.'' As Secretary General Ban notes, a protracted drought, likely brought on by climate change, served to spur conflicts over resources and fuel the hatreds that brought genocide to this region.

With so much at stake, the United States cannot fail to lead. In fact, we have a special obligation. As noted NASA climate expert James Hansen recently wrote, carbon dioxide from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is still present in the atmosphere today, contributing to the warming our planet is experiencing. He estimates that the responsibility of the U.S. for the level of greenhouse gases is three times greater than any other country.

These are the imperatives that bring us to this debate.

I commend Senator Boxer for her efforts to bring this legislation to the point where it is today. Certainly, there must be compromise on legislation of this magnitude. As we engage in this debate, I want to highlight some areas of concern.

First, we should be setting more aggressive targets for emission reductions so temperature increases are contained within an acceptable range. In that regard, I'm concerned that the bill will reduce emissions, at most, by 63 percent by 2050. The IPCC has estimated that we may need to reduce emissions by as much as 85 percent in order stabilize carbon. Sixty-three percent leaves very little room for error. Given the stakes, I believe we should be setting a higher target. As a cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, S. 309, which sets a final reduction target of 80 percent, I believe this is the goal we should set in this legislation. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of Senator Sanders' amendment to reach this goal. I am also pleased to join Senators Kerry and Feinstein in their amendment to require a scientific review by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure the goal we are pursuing is sufficient to stabilize carbon concentrations and to require new legislation to be proposed by the President if we are projected to fall short.

Second, because we must ensure that emissions begin to decline no later than 2020, we must implement the carbon cap as quickly as possible. I think we should begin implementation in 2010. Equally important, I have serious concerns about the bill's cost-containment provisions which would allow the auction of allowances borrowed from future years in order to provide additional allowances in early years. Although unlikely, this mechanism creates the potential for a situation in which there could be almost no reduction in U.S. emissions through 2028. Even if it is remote, it's not a possibility we should accept.

Third, we should ensure that the needs of consumers, particularly low-income consumers are recognized in the policy that we enact. I was disappointed to see that auction proceeds that were dedicated to the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, under the committee-reported bill were removed. As this debate progresses, I plan to offer an amendment that will again provide funding for these programs, which not only help consumers pay their energy bills but also make important strides in reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Fourth, I appreciate the steps that are taken to promote and coordinate market oversight among various regulatory agencies, but I am concerned about the capacity of the EPA to lead the effort to provide oversight to a market of this size.

Fifth, we need to make sure that in any climate change bill we address the very real impacts that capping carbon will have on everyday Americans living paycheck to paycheck. That is no small task, but no climate change bill will be a success unless we find a way to provide help to middle class families already struggling in an ever more competitive global economy. They must be afforded the same kind of transition assistance that many on the other side want to provide to carbon emitters.
  
Make no mistake, addressing climate change will not be easy. It will involve change and sacrifice, but it also offers opportunity and hope. We hold the power to unshackle ourselves from the dangerous energy resources of the fossil age and develop an economy based on new, clean energy sources and technologies. Instead of becoming increasingly beholden to foreign energy suppliers, we have the opportunity to become an exporter of energy technology and to bring light to the 2 billion people in the developing world who lack access to reliable energy. By making the choice to face the reality of climate change, we will help leave the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

While I hope that we can continue to make improvements to the bill, I believe that this is an essential debate to have.

###