Speech for “Coping with Climate Change” conference
February 11, 2008
If I wasn’t an “energy wonk” before going to Congress, the fact is, I am now, and a gathering such as this, believe it or not, really is my idea of a good time!
But, you know, this event, like the topic of climate change, itself, does have its skeptics. One environmentalist I know heard through the grapevine about a conference on climate change with Tammy Baldwin and Jim Sensenbrenner on the same program and just assumed it was a hoax!
But this is not a hoax. While I am curious, as the rest of you are, as to how Mr. Sensenbrenner is “coping” with climate change, to my mind we cannot “cope” with this situation as we would some chronic, but non-fatal, illness…I believe that climate change is life-threatening and we must act decisively to find a cure! And I think you’re here to do just that!
The response to this conference reminds me, once again, of the exceptional people I represent in Congress. I can assure you that, among my colleagues, not many can go home and participate in a conference on the topic of climate change that brings together this sort of broad coalition of stakeholders in search of common ground and the common good.
If they did, maybe we wouldn’t be trying to dig ourselves out of the giant hole we’re in when it comes to our national energy policy.
But just as surely as compact fluorescent light bulbs are illuminating more spaces, so are we shining a stronger and more acceptable light on what is arguably the most pressing global issue of our time. Make no mistake, climate change is real and it threatens our economy, our environment, and our national security.
Much of the world knows this. And much of the world that has looked to the United States as a beacon of strength, hope, and ingenuity is dismayed by our lack of leadership on this global problem.
If you haven’t already seen or heard it, I recommend that you go to YouTube and watch the video clip of the representative from Papua New Guinea speaking at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, this past December. (The context for his remarks was that two weeks of negotiations had led to near-impasse, in part due to our Administration’s refusal to accept hard goals or deadlines.) He said to the assembled delegates from all over the world, and I quote: “There is an old saying, if you’re not willing to lead, get out of the way. And I would ask the United States…we ask for your leadership. We seek your leadership. But, if for some reason you’re not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us; please get out of the way!”
I believe the majority of Americans, including you here in this room, and my colleagues in Congress do want the United States to lead the world in solving this crisis. It’s maddening to think that the Administration’s negotiator in Bali left the world with just the opposite impression.
Clearly, we must act now and show the world that the United States can meet the challenges of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and preserving our planet for generations to come.
In theory, as Dr. Paul Meier, Director of the UW Energy Institute, explains so eloquently, the solution is quite simple. There are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
• Use less energy
• Use clean energy
• Capture and sequester carbon from dirty energy
It sounds so easy. In reality, achieving these goals is not easy, as you well know. But, I believe we’re finally moving in the right direction. Let me tell you why by first taking a look at where we were just two and a half years ago in Washington, DC.
In my last term in Congress (109th), I gained a seat that I had sought for a long time on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It’s a committee with far-reaching jurisdiction that includes national energy policy, health care, telecommunications, and consumer protection. And it gives me the opportunity to work on many issues directly relevant to the lives and welfare of all Wisconsinites.
Under the prior Republican leadership, the Energy and Commerce Committee held two hearings about global warming and climate change. Not much….but “at least,” we said, “finally some attention to this pressing matter.” So you can understand my dismay when, rather than holding hearings as a precursor to addressing global warming in a bipartisan, coordinated, and effective manner, the hearings centered on an attempt to discredit the scientists who are researching the Co2 levels and temperatures experienced in prehistoric times. They are called paleo-climatologists and, in 2005-2006, the Committee leadership wanted to make mincemeat of their scientific theories and conclusions.
Using the same tactics as those who protected “big tobacco” in their day, the objective of the hearings was to cast some doubt, poke some hole, in the otherwise overwhelming scientific evidence that:
• our planet is warming,
• that carbon dioxide levels are rising at alarming rates,
• and that human activities are largely the cause.
These hearings were a sham and did not bring us any closer to understanding scientific truth.
And while the leadership of the 109th Congress was doing its part to discredit scientific fact, the Administration waged its own legislative, political, and diplomatic war on the issue.
• By refusing to even acknowledge, at first, the threat of global warming,
• by failing to submit to the Senate the Kyoto protocol,
• by crafting an energy bill in secret that favored consumption over conservation and gave energy producers license, even funding, to further pollute the environment
• by censoring scientific documents put forth by the EPA and NASA,
• by sending “political minders” to control what government scientists said in public talks,
• by sending negotiators to international conferences with the mandate to not negotiate,
this Administration did everything possible to thwart any attempt to confront climate change.
Their policies had a direct effect on us in Wisconsin.
For example, efforts to boost wind power faced significant governmental obstacles after a Department of Defense study of the effect of wind turbines on military radars jeopardized the development of critical wind projects throughout the country, but especially in the upper Midwest.
I took a lead organizing role in sending letters to the Department of Defense, the FAA, President Bush, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. We urged the inclusion of mitigation techniques in the final DOD report. And, we encouraged the federal agencies to work together to balance the important task of protecting our national security with the need to increase our domestic energy security.
I understand and appreciate DOD’s concern that nothing interfere with military radar systems. However, as noted in the report, windmills have been around since 1888.
They have coexisted with military radar in the past, and can continue to do so well into the future.
Wind power, like other renewables, can play an important role in reducing our dependence on foreign energy. But, in order for them to become primary energy sources, they need the support of Congress and this Administration. This means that Congress must extend the production tax credits and the investment tax credit for renewable energy sources.
Additionally, we must vigorously fight the President’s FY09 energy budget, released last week, that calls for a 28% cut to investments in energy efficiency and renewables, while increasing handouts for controversial energy sources including coal, oil and nuclear.
In the summer of 2006, I was one of the token “do-gooders” invited to join several of my colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee on a fact-finding tour of some countries that are innovators in clean, efficient, and renewable, energy production.
We visited countries that have significantly smaller footprints on the world than we, both in terms of geography and population, yet are making incredible advances that improve the quality of the air they breathe, the food and water they consume, and the lifestyles they pursue.
I was particularly impressed by what I saw in Scandinavia:
• Denmark, the leading producer of wind energy and user of cogeneration for energy;
• Sweden, a country that has dramatically reduced its oil use over the years by emphasizing hydro-electric power and also wisely recycling heat created in the combustion process.
• And Norway, a country rich in oil, but one that invests its wealth from oil production (more than $196 billion) into the Norwegian Government Pension Fund.
Still, all of these countries are also able to meet their obligation to the planet as signatories to the Kyoto Protocol and other important environmental initiatives. They are leading the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.
You can imagine my excitement at meeting the science, business and political leaders in these countries, not just because they’re world leaders, but also because they care so deeply about energy conservation and climate change, and I was eager to learn from them.
But, you cannot imagine my disappointment at hearing some of my colleagues from the committee rebuff the standards and practices I found so appealing.
I wish you all could have been in the room with me in Sweden when a leader of the conservative party (that’s right, the conservative party) leaned across the table, looked our then Committee Chairman Joe Barton in the eye and said, “What will you tell your grandchildren about your failure to take climate change seriously?”
Almost two years have passed since that meeting, and Americans are paying a very high price for this lack of leadership…and not just at the gas pump.
But let’s jump forward to January 2007: The American people spoke at the ballot box. Democrats control both Houses of Congress. For the first time in my tenure, I’m a member of the majority party. And our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, charged all House committees with jurisdiction over the matter to bring to the floor legislation that would lead our country toward energy independence and confront the threat of global climate change.
In the Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, on which I sit, we immediately began a series of eighteen hearings where we took an exhaustive look into the causes and cures for climate change. We questioned executives from the auto industry and utility companies and officials from state and local governments. We discussed greenhouse gas emissions and carbon capture and sequestration. We reviewed existing cap and trade programs and the Department of Transportation’s proposal for reforming fuel economy standards.
We relied on scientists to deliver their peer-reviewed research findings, not politicians.
During a spring recess period, I held round-table discussions with Wisconsin experts on energy, the environment, and climate change in anticipation of the energy bill debate. Input from Wisconsin business and industry, UW-Madison researchers, consumer and environmental groups (some of whom are here today) helped inform my deliberations on, and my contributions to, the energy bill. During these meetings I learned about the impact that our decisions in Washington will have on us at home. And I learned how changes in the law can help Wisconsinites achieve greater energy efficiency.
In part from these discussions, I was able to successfully add language to the bill to:
• increase industrial and home energy efficiency standards,
• encourage advanced battery and plug-in hybrid programs,
• minimize exposure to mercury in energy efficient light bulbs,
• and study the adequacy of railroad transportation for domestically-produced renewable fuel.
And I’m proud to say these efforts were supported by industry, environmental, and consumer groups.
Let me take a minute to discuss the importance of a couple of these provisions:
Estimates reveal that industrial sources currently waste as much as 60-90 gigawatts of heat…heat that could be converted into energy, thereby displacing the need for 60-90 power plants.
My language in the bill requires us to first assess the quality and quantity of this wasted heat; then create incentives for companies to produce electricity from the recovered waste energy.
As for the rail provision…you may ask why you should care about the transportation of biofuels by rail, but let me give this some context. Since the railroad industry was deregulated in 1980, the industry has consolidated from forty major railroads to, essentially, four. These four now handle 90% of the nation’s railroad traffic. As a result, many shippers have access to rail service from only one rail company. This enables that railroad to provide unreliable service and charge exorbitant rates, forcing shippers to pass those costs on to each and every one of us consumers.
Who are these shippers? They include energy companies shipping coal to power plants, chemical companies, paper companies, farmers, and others. My provision requires us to look into this issue in greater depth.
And, as we increase our production of biofuels, there is significant concern about whether the rail infrastructure is, or will be, in place to move significant amounts of biofuels to our refinery and population centers at reasonable rates.
In December, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Independence and Security Act into law. This bill
• Strengthens national security, by lessening our dependence on foreign oil;
• Reduces global warming;
• Lowers energy costs for consumers;
• Creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs and strengthens our economy.
Formulating and passing this bill was not easy. In the process, boldness and vision came face to face with political realities. For example, we tried to pass a renewable portfolio standard that would have required utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Wisconsin already has implemented a similar standard at the state level. Unfortunately, the Senate objected to this provision.
We also tried to pass language to repeal about 21 billion dollars in tax subsidies for Big Oil. This language, too, failed to pass the Senate.
It wasn’t all bad news. After countless hours of negotiation, Congress increased CAFE standards without jeopardizing American jobs, in a manner that won the support of industry, labor, conservationists, and environmentalists.
In this new year, we confront these same political realities again as we now focus on designing a mandatory, market-based, cap and trade bill. Among the questions we’ll answer as we design this program are:
• Who should be covered?
• How will allocations be handled?
• Should there be an auction?
• What sort of complementary policies will accompany the program?
• Of what unintended consequences should we be aware?
• And, how will we handle developing nations so that we are not putting America at a competitive disadvantage? Now I know that this last issue is a big one for many of you (in fact, it’s the reason why some oppose a cap-and-trade system) so let me assure you that we do not take it lightly.
Chairmen Dingell and Boucher have told us that our climate change control measure will almost certainly include a provision designed to encourage developing countries to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.
Such a provision will be central to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the continued competitiveness of American industry.
However, we cannot use the actions – or inactions – of developing nations as an excuse for our behavior. Rather, we must show them, by example, that it is possible to rise to the challenge and enact meaningful legislation to create efficient, effective, and environmentally-friendly climate change programs.
Passage of the cap and trade bill this session is uncertain. Even more uncertain is whether President Bush would sign such a bill. What is clear is that the efforts we’re making now are laying the groundwork for the 111th Session and our 44th President whom, I believe, will lead the nation toward solutions that reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, reinvigorate our economy, and restore our standing in the world.
Of course, I have strong feelings about who that President should be…as, no doubt, do you. But whether it’s Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, or even Mike Huckabee with a Democratically-controlled Congress, (and I am hopeful about that), climate change will be acknowledged and confronted with mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions!
But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves…this session is not yet concluded and, despite the continuous din of the national political campaigns, we, in Congress, are doing substantive work.
In the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Dingell has announced that hearings on climate change will start in March and I can’t wait for them to begin. Fortunately, the citizens of this country are not waiting for Congress or the President to act.
Our own state government and municipalities, businesses, schools, universities, neighborhood groups, and individual citizens are taking meaningful steps on their own. Your presence here today is testament to that. And, some of our news media are doing a good job of spreading the word about their own, and other, “going green” campaigns.
Gaylord Nelson would have been very proud!
Wisconsin’s own Gaylord Nelson, who is called the father of the modern environmental movement, envisioned a world where our oceans, rivers and lakes are unpolluted, our air clean, and our planet preserved for future generations. He also knew that if the environment was to have its rightful place on the national agenda, it would be the people, not the politicians, who put it there.
So, he conceived of a nationwide demonstration and called it Earth Day. That first year, 20 million demonstrators came out to participate. The sheer numbers got the attention of Congress and led to the enactment of some of our most treasured environmental laws.
Senator Nelson never took personal credit for the success of Earth Day. He said, “Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level.”
People all over Wisconsin, and certainly you, here in this room, understand, as Gaylord Nelson did, that saving the planet, finding renewable sources of energy (as well as eradicating poverty, and ensuring health care for all), will not be achieved by the words of politicians, but by the will of the people.
When President Kennedy proposed the Apollo Project to the moon in 1961 he said, “I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.”
The same could be said for an Apollo-scale energy project today. And just as our nation did marshal the national resources and the collective will then, we must do so now; because reversing climate change is absolutely essential to life on earth.
It is hard to imagine the future. It is especially hard to work toward, and sacrifice for, a future that we may not personally inhabit. Too often we consider only the short-term: the sales figures for this fiscal year, the GPA this semester, the accomplishments in this term in office, the standings in the current season.
But we will leave a legacy! The question is, “What will that legacy be?”
It is undeniably time to work toward, and sacrifice for, the future of our planet; so that none of us ever has to explain to our grandchildren why we failed to take climate change seriously.
I trust that your work here today, and back in your offices, laboratories, plants, and classrooms, will result in firm, bold, and decisive actions that provide us with a roadmap for repairing the damage we have done to our planet and restoring America’s leadership in the world.
I take inspiration from this conference and your presence here. I take strength from your commitment to confronting climate change. And I’ll take your best ideas and practices to Congress to illuminate our work there. So I wish you good luck today and thank you very much.
