10.30.03

Statement of Senator Cantwell on The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Climate Stewardship Act. I hope the Senate will seize the historic opportunity before it today and vote to begin seriously dealing with this worldwide threat.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid Congress is not very good at passing laws that will only benefit future generations, especially when there might be a cost – no matter how small – for our constituents today. But I hope that this vote will be different and that my colleagues will join me in passing this sensible legislation to prevent a costly, and potentially catastrophic, rise in global temperatures.

As Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others have already articulated, the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to an accelerated rate of climate warming is beyond debate. Thousands of climate scientists convened under the United Nations and our own National Academy of Sciences have stated definitively that human activities – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – have contributed and will continue to contribute to rising atmospheric temperatures. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I don't believe any of my colleagues are, so I hope everyone here will defer to their expertise on this matter.

Climate change is an existing and scientifically supported phenomenon which human beings have a responsibility to mitigate. And since the U.S. has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world and one of the highest emissions rates per dollar of Gross Domestic Product, we have a particular duty to lead the world on this critical issue.

Even the Bush Administration, whose sincerity in dealing with this issue is suspect, acknowledges the reality that human activities cause climate change. Last year, in its United States Climate Report for 2002, the Administration outlined a vast array of consequences climate change would inflict across our country. I would like to highlight some of the "likely" effects mentioned in that report that would have a particularly harsh impact on my home state of Washington:

"The resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff are very likely to have significant implications in some basins for water management, flood protection, power production, water quality, and the availability of water resources for irrigations, hydro power, communities, industry, and the sustainability of natural habitats and species."

"Reduced snow-pack is very likely to alter the timing and amount of water supplies, potentially exacerbating water shortages, particularly through the western United States."

"The projected increase in the current rate of sea level rise is very likely to exacerbate the nationwide loss of existing coastal wetlands."

"Habitats of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in the contiguous United States are likely to be reduced and, possibly in the long-term, eliminated as their mountain habitats warm."

"Rising temperatures are likely to force out some cold-water fish species (such as salmon and trout) that are already near the threshold of their viable habitat . . . "

"These conditions would also increase stresses on sea grasses, fish, shellfish, and other organisms living in lakes, streams, and oceans." The non-profit group Environmental Defense compiled research that shows that the winter snow pack in the Cascades could decline by 50 percent within fifty years. A reduction even a fraction of that size would have a devastating impact on runoff that is vital for hydropower, agriculture, salmon habitat, and drinking water supplies. And I'm sure many of my Western colleagues would be similarly alarmed by potential reductions in their scarce water resources.

Just the damages from decreased runoff would cost my state billions of dollars annually, dwarfing even the most pessimistic costs that some opponents contend may result from this bill. But besides the costs this legislation can help avoid, I think it is critical that we consider the tremendous benefits this bill would initiate.

Today, we know that the tired mantra that "protecting the environment costs jobs" is no longer true. In fact, the market-based mechanisms used in this bill would unleash unprecedented productivity and efficiency gains in our energy sector, as well as catalyze countless new environmental technology industries. That translates into many new high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs and tremendous new export opportunities.

A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy, which included contributions from Washington state's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, forecast significant job growth for jobs in a range of emerging "green" industries, such as wind power, biomass energy production, and other energy efficiency specialties.

I am proud that my state hosts one of the largest wind farms in the United States. I visited our Stateline project and saw first hand one of the many solutions that the market will find to meet the goals of this legislation.

These conclusions were confirmed by a 2001 study carried out in collaboration with public and private partners in the Pacific Northwest that found that the global market for clean energy technologies is expected to reach $180 billion a year – about twice the size of the passenger and cargo aircraft industries – within the next two decades. Already, in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia this sector is a $1.4 billion per year industry.

Despite the potential of these new markets, some of my colleagues have argued that the costs of addressing this problem are too high, because they believe this bill might raise energy costs. While that is highly disputable, I am curious if opponents of this measure also support lifting controls on other pollutants? I'm sure we could make coal-generated electricity even cheaper if we did not require pollution scrubbers. We could allow millions of tons of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other toxins to flood our nation's air in the name of cheap energy. But of course we wouldn't do that because we know that true costs of such a policy – whether it be the health of our children, the effects of acid rain, or even the visibility at our national parks – would far outweigh any short-term financial gains we may achieve by removing emission controls.

The same principle is true of climate change. We may save some money now by ignoring this problem, but entire industries like timber and fishing – key sectors of my state's economy – would be dramatically impacted by climate change. There is no way to deny that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and need to be monitored and controlled as such.

Mr. President, as I have listened to this historic debate, I have been frustrated by the dueling charts and reports which have been used to support one position or another. While I, along with many of our nation's governors and world leaders, believe that the scientific evidence is indisputable, there may be another important way to view this issue: as an insurance policy.

I am confident that even the most vocal opponents of this bill would be reluctant to say that there is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of climate scientists are right about this issue and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Perhaps the climate skeptics would change their position if they realized that this legislation is really an insurance policy for our children, one that guarantees they will be able to enjoy the same natural world that benefits us today.

I believe that is how the American people instinctively understand this issue. This is borne out by a recent nationwide survey that showed that three-quarters of Americans support the McCain-Lieberman climate change bill and two-thirds agree that we can control greenhouse gases without harming our economy.

Mr. President, we are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our problems; we don't push them off on our children and future generations. Like the threat of terrorism, climate change is too alarming and disturbing a problem to ignore.

The risks of ignoring this problem heavily outweigh the benefits of preserving the status quo. Allowing rapid changes in the temperature of the earth's surface and shifts in worldwide weather patterns that result from global warming would be devastating to the economies of my state, this nation, and the world. Let's make sure this problem gets the serious action it deserves. I urge my colleagues to support this critical bill.