SENATORS DEBATE SCIENCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
7/19/13

Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee noted the widening gulf between Congressional Democrats and Republicans on climate change during a hearing this week on the science behind the phenomenon. The Senate panel’s first hearing on climate change this Congress quickly fell into a familiar pattern July 18 as a hearing aimed at reviewing the most recent science behind global warming shifted into a forum for lawmakers to vent their opinions of President Barack Obama’s climate plan and criticize others with different views on the issue. “It’s a lot of theatre here, but it’s going to be fun,” said Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the upper chamber’s most vocal climate skeptics. “I don’t think this is theatre. This is deadly serious,” Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) quickly responded.

Committee Democrats said the current climate science is undisputable and that the action plan from the White House is much needed. “We need national policies to deal with these issues. I applaud the President Obama and the action he has taken with the authority he has as President to take action to clean up our environment, to reduce carbon emissions and deal with greenhouse gas problems,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said. Some members complained that disagreements over the issue in Congress had reached epic proportions. “This truly is an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ hearing,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said. “Within this room, we are clearly living in two separate worlds. Whether the differences are influenced by the fact that the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks trying to confuse the American people, or if we’re just dealing with politics here, I don’t really know. But to deny the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles believe not only that global warming is real and that it is man-made, and to continue that discussion that ‘we’re not sure, let’s not talk about it, let’s look at something else,’ is almost beyond intellectual comprehension.”

Republicans Say Temperatures Have Stayed Steady

Meanwhile, Committee Republicans noted that global temperatures have stayed stagnant for the last 15 years. “This is the opposite of what scientists expected before, but the alarmists can’t talk about it because they’ve received their instructions from the President,” Inhofe said. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said the data indicates that lawmakers should be more open to different sources of information related to climate change. “At the very least, I think it’s time for some tolerance in the public discourse regarding the many scientific viewpoints on climate change. Respect should be shown to those who have done the research but have come to a different conclusion,” he said. 

Other Committee Republicans appeared more combative. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that because there is still doubt about the science behind global warming, the White House should hold off on implementing any major climate regulations for the sake of the recovering economy. “We need to know what the science is to justify [the White House’s new regulations]. But we really don’t know how much of this warming will occur in the years ahead. That’s very much in question, so we need more science to try and figure that out,” he said. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said the White House plan is too economically burdensome. “When you combine all of what the President is proposing for new and existing coal-fired power plants, the compliance cost will be $130 billion. Those costs will be passed onto hard-working families and seniors on fixed incomes … it’s extraordinarily expensive,” he said. Barrasso announced he was introducing a new bill, the “National Energy Tax Repeal Act,” aimed at barring any new carbon standards for the power sector from taking effect.

U.S. Should Wait for China, India to Act, Some Say

Others said the U.S. should hold off on regulating carbon emissions until other major developing countries like China and India do the same, arguing that any unilateral action to reduce carbon domestically would be detrimental to the economy and have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions internationally. “Without reductions from China and India, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, we must question whether the environmental benefits are even discernable and whether they’re worth harming our economy at a time when three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.). Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the committee’s ranking member, reintroduced a bill earlier this year that would bar EPA from implementing any limits on carbon until after China, India and Russia have done the same.

Committee Democrats, meanwhile, said countries like China are beginning to act and that the U.S. should do the same. “Some will argue that we shouldn’t lead as a nation on this issue because it won’t make enough of a difference unless developing nations join us. The fact is, we’re risking falling behind right now. China is taking this issue seriously. It has set up pilot carbon markets and is taking action to invest in renewable energy,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, said in her testimony that instead of acting unilaterally, the U.S. help prompt emissions reductions in the developing world by aiding technology transfer there. “It makes more sense to assist China and India in reducing their carbon emissions,” she said. “Our coal is cleaner than the coal that is burnt in China. If we were to export our coal to China, that might reduce Chinese emissions, or if we helped China and India develop their sources of shale gas so they could move from their coal-fired plants and wood-burning systems to more efficient natural gas power plants that would have a bigger effect in decreasing global emissions than putting in place the measures that the President has proposed to do by regulation.”