Project Vote Smart - Senator Joseph I. Lieberman - Climate Security Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

Current Office: U.S. Senate
Seniority: Junior Seat
First Elected: 11/08/1988
Last Elected: 11/07/2006
Next Election: 2012
Party: Independent Democrat

Biographical Voting Record Issue Positions
(Political Courage Test)Interest Group Ratings Position Papers Speeches and Public Statements Additional Biographical Information Campaign Finances

Title: Climate Security Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed - Continued
Date: 06/03/2008
Location: Washington, DC
Speech

CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 03, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.

I rise to build on something that Chairman Boxer just said about the national security implications of the global warming problem.

Last week I had the privilege to attend an Asian-Pacific Security Conference in Singapore, which is called the ``Shangri-la Dialogue.'' At that conference, there were high-ranking defense officials from just about every country in the Asian-Pacific region, large or small. I noticed on the schedule of meetings there was a session on climate change. So this intrigued me because, again, this was a defense group, an international security group.

I went to the conference, and it was quite something. Our friends in the Asian-Pacific region are deeply concerned about the possible consequences of global warming and anxious that the world unite to protect them and us from the worst of it. A gentleman leader in the Defense Department of Singapore said they have begun to negotiate with European experts in the construction of dikes, because they think if they can build adequate dikes, they can probably withstand a rising sea level which they believe will happen--probably will happen, according to the best science--of a meter. But if the water rises above a meter, their leaders have concluded that as much as a third of Singapore could be under water. There was a gentleman there from the Defense Department of Bangladesh who said they are beginning to try to make plans for confronting a migration of as many as 5 million people in Bangladesh who will be forced by rising tides to leave their homes--5 million people.

Now, I say by reference, we don't think about those extraordinary effects of global warming, but if seas rise--to say the obvious, the United States has enormous coastlines and our low-lying areas will be subject to consequences that could be severe to the way of life of the people there. There has been a trend in our country of people moving to the coast, millions and millions and millions. If we don't do something about global warming soon, the life they lead will be severely compromised, and that is what this bill is all about--trying to avoid that.

I thank the chairman, Senator Boxer, for stressing that this is not only an environmental protection bill, this is not only an economic growth bill; this is a national security bill.

I thank the Chair, I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me respond to some of the things that have been said in the last half hour. But let me come back to why we are here and why the Environment Committee reported this bill.

This bill has a purpose, and the purpose is to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because we want to turn this country and this planet over to our children and grandchildren and those who follow them in a better, safer condition than it will be if we just let global warming go unchecked.

There have been a lot of things that have been blamed on this bill today: Gas prices, which got pretty high without this bill being adopted because it has not been adopted. The response has been given to that. Tax increases. These are not tax increases. We rejected a carbon tax. This is the result of a market where businesses exercise choice. They can either reduce their carbon emissions below the cap, in which case they have some credits to sell or, if they cannot do it, they will go back out in the market, of their own choice, and buy some at auction, and that creates the revenue which we then refunnel.

In the last block of time, what seemed to be suggested was that the passage of this bill would gravely hurt the American economy. In the first place, my friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, cited a study by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. I believe the underpinnings of this study have been undercut by independent authorities.

At a May 20 hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Agency--part of the Department of Energy, part of the Bush administration--Mr. Howard Gruenspecht said that this NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, modeling mistakenly attributes costs due to rising world oil prices as impacts of the Climate Security Act, which will reduce world oil prices because it will reduce demand for oil, rather than considering those costs as part of the economic baseline for the study. The fact is--and here again I cite two studies done by agencies of this administration, the EPA and the EIA--both predict continued strong growth for the U.S. economy under this Climate Security Act. The modeling of the Environmental Protection Agency found that under this bill, gross domestic product would grow by 80 percent between 2010 and 2030.

Here is the slight impact of the Climate Security Act.

Incidentally, these studies all do not account for the costs of doing nothing, which we believe would be many billions of dollars. Look at it this way: If we do not pass this act--and this does not count for the cost of hurricanes and other extreme effects of global warming--the total output of the American economy is projected to reach $26 trillion--that is a great number--in June of 2030. With the passage of the bill, the economy will reach $26 trillion in April of 2030. So is it worth that few months' delay to get to the $26 trillion to avoid the cost of doing nothing and the harm global warming will do to our country and our planet, affecting our children and our grandchildren? My answer is yes.

Let me suggest this too. There is a cost of the status quo for industry. My friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, comes from a great coal-producing State. Coal is America's most abundant natural energy resource. America has the largest coal reserves in the world. This bill aims to continue to allow American industry, power companies, to use coal--in fact, to use it more.

But let me suggest this: Under the status quo, without this bill, coal and those manufacturers who rely on it are in trouble. Fifty-four percent of the new coal-fired electric power capacity ordered in this country since 2000 has been canceled. Why? Because companies cannot get affordable financing to build the plants. And why not? Because investors have 100 percent certainty that a climate law is going to be enacted in this country within the next few years, certainly within the lifetime of a coal plant.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The bottom line is, coal and the manufacturers who depend on it need this bill to raise the money they need to build additional coal plants to provide energy for American industry. That would be great for our economy.

Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island, who I might say played a very important and constructive and creative role in the work the Environment Committee did in bringing S. 2191 to the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California. In the midst of all the attacks being made against the Climate Security Act, something may be missed by those who are listening or watching. We have a problem. It is called global warming. This bill, according to the Environmental Protection Agency of the Bush administration, solves that problem, protects us from the worst consequences of global warming.

I presume, because my friends on the other side are opposed to the bill, they don't deal with either the reality of global warming or the fact that our bill solves it. They are blaming just about everything but the common cold on our bill.

One of the biggest deceptions is this business that this bill will increase gasoline prices. I presume that argument is being made because all of us and the American people are angry about the increase in gasoline prices. The truth is the Climate Security Act will not increase gasoline prices, it will decrease gasoline prices because it will decrease our reliance on oil. In reducing carbon emissions, we have to stop using oil and use other ways to power our vehicles and that reduces the demand for oil.

Look at this chart. This is a study done by the International Resources Group, an economic consulting firm. This is the line for what oil imports will be in 2015 if we do not pass this bill: about 15 million barrels a day. Here is the line for 2191 if the Climate Security Act passes: down 58 percent, 6.4 million barrels a day, the lowest amount of imported oil in this country since 1986. That is 8.4 million barrels per day less imported into the United States.

We know there is speculation in the oil market, but the laws of supply and demand still have some effect. If we can reduce demand for oil that much, we are going to reduce the cost of gasoline. That is what this bill is all about. It is going to take that money and invest it in the kind of new technologies America has been waiting for, and they exist.

So let's go from the attack to something positive. Let's protect our children and grandchildren from global warming caused by carbon pollution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, two points. One is on the discussion of an increase in the cost of gasoline. There was a lot of citing from Senator Alexander and others about the projection of a 53-cent increase per gallon of gasoline. Again, it is over 22 years, made by EPA, 2008 to 2030. That is about a 2-cent-plus, at the outside, per year increase in a gallon of gasoline.

I tell you, look at what it has done this year. Just this year, in 8 months: January 7, $3.11; May 26, $3.93--an 82-cent increase since the beginning of this year--compared to about a 2-cent a year, outside, increase projected to do something, which is to help us achieve the purpose of this bill, which is to reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming. That is the point.

The second point, and we are going to come back to this, Senator Alexander--and we agree--sees there is a problem. He wants to deal with it in a mandatory way and agrees on cap and trade. But he only wants to do it for the powerplant sector. We think if you do that, and eliminate the oil and fuel sector, eliminate the industrial sector, you are simply not going to get the reductions in carbon pollution we need to reduce global warming, and you are going to diminish the marketplace.

A lot of the companies that want to come in are going to be deprived of the kind of broad marketplace we believe will work best to stimulate innovation and to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Contact Us \| About Us

All content © 2002-2007 Project Vote Smart Project Vote Smart One Common Ground, Philipsburg, MT 59858, 406-859-8683 Questions? Need help? Call our Voter's Research Hotline toll-free 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762). Legislative Demographic Data provided by Aristotle International, Inc.