Statement of Senator James M. Jeffords
March
13, 2002
Today we’ll hear
testimony on the economic and environmental risks of increasing greenhouse gas
emissions. It’s important to note that
this hearing is not a debate about whether manmade emissions are causing
warming. For the time being, that
question has been settled by the National Academy of Sciences.
An Academy report
from June 2001 said, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere
as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” . . . and . . . . . “Human-induced
warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st
century.” We’re fortunate to have a
witness here today who worked on that report.
What the Committee
will review is the magnitude of the possible injuries or losses that may be
caused by this warming. I urge the
witnesses to stay on that topic and help us assess the risks related to
increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
One year ago today,
the President formally notified the world and the Senate of his decision to
unilaterally abandon the Kyoto Protocol.
At the same time, he also abandoned his campaign promise to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, or the fourth “P,” from power plants. That was a serious blow to a sensible,
market-based approach to reducing carbon emissions.
As a result, the
country has no actual policy in place to achieve a real emissions reductions
target. So, emissions will continue
unabated.
This is happening
despite our international commitment in the Rio Agreement to reduce U.S.
emissions to 1990 levels. Voluntary
measures are no substitute and have failed to do more than slightly slow the
rate of growth.
This situation
concerns me and it should concern all of my colleagues. Unconstrained emissions will increase
atmospheric concentrations. These will
lead to greater global warming and provoke even greater climate changes.
Some of my concern
is parochial. In Vermont, we rely on
the predictability of the seasons for our economic well-being and our quality
of life.
In the spring, maple
syrup production is important. In the
fall and summer, it’s tourism. In the
winter, it’s skiing, snowboarding and other outdoor recreation. It’s safe to say that most Vermonters aren’t
interested in moving to Hudson Bay to maintain their way of life.
Elsewhere in the
country, my colleagues should be concerned about the potential impacts of
climate change on public health, infrastructure, agriculture and wildlife. Sea-level rise should be of particular
concern to my friends who represent coastal states, especially with growing
areas.
As Senator Stevens
has noted, Alaskan villages have already started to experience some of these
effects.
However, these
gradual impacts may pale in comparison to what might happen with a sudden or
abrupt change. In December 2001, the
National Academy said, “greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the
earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt and unwelcome
regional or global climatic events.”
That should be a
sobering statement that encourages action.
Instead, the debate often seems to be focused on the trees rather than
the forest.
There are even some
people who think we should stop our efforts to assess the possible impact of
global warming on our economy or our environment. They want to wait for perfect information. That seems unwise and irresponsible.
We must redouble our
efforts to understand how global warming may affect us. We should continue working diligently to
reduce the uncertainties of predictions.
I am hopeful that
the President will soon send up the detailed global change budget, as required
by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
That budget must keep the national assessment moving without delay or
censorship.
But, that
information is not essential for Congress to begin acting. The potential calamity that awaits us
through inaction is too serious for Congress to ignore.
We acted on lead in
gasoline and on ozone-depleting substances even though we did not have perfect
information. We made the right
choice. The science on climate change
is sound enough to proceed with reductions now.
Many carbon
intensive businesses have already begun to take action. They see a duty to their shareholders and to
the public to start reducing their carbon risks. Major insurance companies are increasingly concerned about the
uncertainty of changing climate and their financial exposure. Several markets are developing for the
trading of greenhouse gas reduction credits, even in the United States. It seems that there must be some level of
economic or environmental risk associated with these emissions. Otherwise, how could the credits have value
and why would anyone trade them? But,
they are being traded at $1-$9 per ton.
Congress is often
slow to act on complex problems like climate, especially without vigorous
leadership from the White House. In
this situation, the private sector may have to lead us in the right direction.
Unfortunately, in
the meantime, it seems to be business as usual on emissions. They will continue to grow and we may reach
atmospheric concentrations that haven’t existed for hundreds of thousands of
years.
We need to know and
be prepared for what that means for our communities, our plans, and our
nation.
I look forward to
the panel’s testimony. It will help us
discover and better understand the risks that are posed by continuing to
increase greenhouse gas emissions.