Statement by
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Committee on
Environment and Public Works
March 13, 2002
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome all of the
witnesses, especially Professor Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony
and hope that we can use your collective knowledge to reach a better
understanding of the economic and environmental impacts of greenhouse gas
emissions on global climate change.
Climate change or global warming has
become one of the most talked about environmental issues for the last several
years. The United States and other
nations have spent millions of dollars to study climate change. It seems that the more we spend and study,
the more we realize that we don't know.
Our studying climate change for the last
ten years has led us to two conclusions:
First, human activity has had an impact on
the global climate. In announcing his
global climate change strategy, President Bush acknowledged this fact.
However, our years of careful study have
made, for policymakers, an even more important conclusion: that we have
inadequate evidence to demonstrate humanity's affect on climate change. Since our science is unable to tell us the
level of causation, science can't tell us what mitigation strategies we, in
Congress, should pursue.
Throughout my career of public service I
have tried to base my decisions on the best available information, particularly
when those decisions have dramatic consequences on the lives of Coloradans. Unfortunately, in the case of global climate
change, we are seeking to craft a policy with profound implications on
completely inadequate and speculative information.
In his book, The Skeptical
Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg (Bee-Yorn Lom-Borg) simply asked, "Do
we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way or do we use global
warming as a stepping stone to other political projects."
Even Mr. Lomborg, a Danish statistician,
noted the political salience of the climate change debate. Unfortunately, this important issue has
become so politicized that many people look past the facts and, instead, focus
on doomsday scenarios.
In noting our lack of understanding of the
Earth' climate system, one of our very own witnesses made an equally important
point. In her testimony today, Doctor
Sallies Baliunas stated, "A value judgment is prerequisite to evaluating
the need for human mitigation of adverse consequences of climate change."
Again, "a value judgement is prerequisite." In short, since we don't have enough
information, some suggest that we just assume that humans can mitigate adverse
consequences of climate change.
Well, this Senator is not ready to make
that assumption when making that leap of faith could result in the loss of
countless U.S. jobs.
I am happy that the President has chosen
to look at the facts in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. He properly noted that greenhouse gas emissions is directly
attributable to U.S. production and economic growth. In my state of Colorado, implementing Kyoto would have translated
in the loss of 47,400 jobs and 2 billion dollars in tax revenue by 2010.
I am not ready to make decisions with such
consequences without adequate information.
We all make "value judgements"
in policymaking. I would ask my friends
to ask themselves what it is they value.
And in making that "value
judgement" I would ask them to consider the words of John Adams when he
said: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of
facts and evidence."
I look forward to the distinguished
panel's testimony, and ask that my testimony be reported in the Record.
Thank you.