WASHINGTON – Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, today made the following statement at full committee hearing on the United States Climate Action Partnership:
“Mr. Chairman, I’m very willing to work with you and others on the committee to accomplish the goal you just announced. I think it’s good for the chairman to have goals and that’s certainly a worthy goal. Having said that, I want to make a couple of comments that are cautionary.
“First, several of our members in their opening statements earlier before the panel got here indicated that the science is settled on climate change. The science is not settled. I would point out though that until Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, the science was settled that the earth was flat. I’ll also point out that until the mid-1800s, the sign of science that was settled was that if somebody was sick, you bled them. And as late as the mid-1940s, the science was settled that airplanes couldn’t exceed the speed of sound. What I will say is that the science is settled that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. That’s a true statement. I will also stipulate that in some parts of the globe, temperatures are going up. I’m still not sure what average world temperature indicates. To me, what’s much more important is what the temperature in Arlington, Texas, is at a time certain and place certain.
“Until you show me one of these U.N. models that predict the past with at least 50 percent accuracy, I’m not going to stipulate that the science is settled. Having said that, we are here today because we have a distinguished list of panelists who have joined together to come up with a matrix on how to help our environmental and our economic issues.
“One of the things they say in their statement of principles is they want a plan that’s economically viable. Let me just read the stock prices of the witnesses today who are here before us. We have the CEO of ConocoPhillips. His stock price a year ago was $75.15 a share. It closed yesterday at $48.82 – that’s a 35 percent reduction. Duke Energy – Mr. Rogers is with us. His stock price a year ago was
$20.05. It closed yesterday at $14.89. That’s a decline of 26 percent. Mr. John Rowe – who represents Exelon – his stock price a year ago was $77.49. It closed yesterday at $52.84. That’s a decrease of 32 percent. Mr. Crane – who represents NRG – $40.99; $23.17 yesterday, or minus 43 percent.
“General Electric, one of the bedrocks of American industry – $35.27 a year ago, $13.87 yesterday. That’s a decline of 61 percent. Unfortunately I own some of that stock so I’d like our GE folks to get with the program here. Rio Tinto – $402.09, closed yesterday at $81.52, a decline of 80 percent. Siemens closed yesterday 61 percent off. PNM, $20.09 a year ago, $10.31 yesterday, a decline of 49 percent. And the winner, in terms of least decline, is Pacific Gas & Electric. Mr. Darby, your stock a year ago was $44.22, yesterday it was $36.52, which is a decline of only 17 percent. There must be something about the California economy, Mr. Chairman, that resulted in making Mr. Darby an unbelievably excellent leader.
“My point is, there’s not one CEO here today whose stock price is even close to what it was a year ago. We’re in a very serious economic recession. You cannot tell if we adopt one of their principles of a mandatory cap-and-trade program on CO2 emissions for our economy that it’s going to help their stock prices. Now stock price is an inelegant value of the whole economy. I understand that, but we should be about protecting jobs and creating jobs.
“If we can do things, Mr. Chairman, that improve energy efficiency, if we get more output for less energy and there is an environmental benefit consequently because of that, that’s a good thing. But if we say we have to do things to lessen CO2 regardless of the economic consequences, in my opinion that’s a bad thing. I think we should start with solutions that work.
“Mr. Boucher has a bill that is a research and development program for CO2 carbon capture, conversion and sequestration. There is consensus on both sides of the aisle that that bill is a good first step. We should move that bill, Mr. Chairman. Then we should look at the experience in Europe with their cap-and-trade program, which is not working, and go from there.
“And the last thing. We don’t have the CEO of ExxonMobil here – I don’t know if they are a member of USCAP. He has come out and said if we have to do something about carbon, let’s have a carbon tax. Now I’m not an advocate of a carbon tax but I do believe that if you really, really, really want to reduce CO2, a carbon tax is the most efficient way to do it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
