Appropriations question?  Visit the Committee website.

E-mail
Senator Byrd

Leadership.      Character.      Commitment.

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

October 30, 2003

The Administration's Failed Climate Change Policy

I come to the floor today to discuss the very critical issue of global warming and to summarize events of recent years that have led us to this point.  We are discussing the paramount energy and environmental challenge of our time; namely, the inexorable increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that will lead to changes in the global climate.  The primary contributor to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide, and it remains in the atmosphere for over a century.  These human-produced emissions are adding to a growing concentration in the global atmosphere that is expected to more than double by the end of this century.  Therefore, we are bequeathing this problem and its consequences to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.

While I am very concerned about the challenge posed by global warming, let me state at the outset that I have long been a strong critic of climate change policies that are not in the national interest of the United States.  I will yield to no one on that point.  I have insisted on a rational and cost-effective approach to dealing with climate change. 

As the coauthor, along with Senator Hagel, of S. Res. 98, that passed 95 to 0 in 1997, during the 105th Congress, I sought to express the sense of the Senate regarding the provisions of any future binding, international agreement that would be acceptable to the Senate.  The Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of S. Res. 98.

That resolution was supported by many industrial trade associations and opposed by many environmental organizations.  While those on both sides of the issue have attributed many interpretations and misinterpretations to S. Res. 98, no one has misrepresented and misconstrued S. Res. 98 moreso than this present administration.

S. Res. 98 was intended to provide the sense of the Senate on what should be included in any future binding international treaty.  The resolution laid out the conditions under which the Senate could agree to a new binding treaty that would subsequently be considered at the Kyoto conference.  S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time.  This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing.   

As I explained in 1997, a voluntary approach had already been tried and had already failed.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Rio Convention, failed to reduce emissions largely because it was voluntary.  That is why Kyoto concerned binding commitments, and S. Res. 98 was intended to guide that effort rather than kill that effort. 

The administration's climate team has merely returned to the voluntary approach of Rio, despite a complete lack of evidence that this so-called plan will ever succeed.  Industrial nations have never initiated significant reductions in pollution of any type on a strictly voluntary basis.  This administration must finally come to terms with taking action toward globally binding commitments. 

As well, developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty.  Another point that has been misunderstood is what S. Res. 98 would require of developing countries.  An international treaty with binding commitments can and should provide for the continued growth of the world's developing nations.  Unrealistically stringent emissions targets need not choke off their economic growth.  The initial commitments could be relatively modest, pacing upwards depending on various factors, with a specific goal to be achieved.  Today, however, the world is even further away from a credible, workable global strategy to deal on climate change than we were in 1997.

The blame for this circumstance can be laid squarely at the feet of this administration which abandoned international negotiations in which it could have kept pressure on developing nations to agree to some level of mandatory emissions reductions.  Moreover, developing nations should be a prime market for clean energy technology projects.  But, with little pressure on those nations to reduce or contain the growth of emissions, a huge and fruitful market for those types of technologies -- technologies that are being developed in the U.S. -- is likely to dry up.  In other words, while this nation has been making great strides in developing technologies to use our own energy resources more efficiently and more cleanly, significant efforts to help deploy these technologies overseas have been undercut by this administration's unilateral approach to climate change.

Thus, S. Res. 98 was an effort to strengthen the hand of the administration as it undertook international negotiations.  It enabled our negotiators to walk into talks and point to the ever-present Congress, looking over their shoulders, to ensure that the interests of the U.S. would be protected in any agreement that eventually came to fruition.  The administration has never understood the value of S. Res 98.  Rather than employing that tool to positively influence international negotiations, it has used the resolution as cover to simply walk away from the table.  Having abandoned a constructive role in the global negotiations on climate change, th U.S. is now in a much weaker position globally.

The Bush administration must be challenged on its environmental, economic, and energy responsibilities, both domestically and internationally.  The U.S. is in the best position of any nation to positively influence an international response to global climate change.  Yet, we will all suffer from the consequences of global warming in the long run because we are all in the same global boat.

This administration has attempted to hide behind S. Res. 98 to defend its current do-nothing and know-nothing policies on climate change, and I strongly object to that.  The difference between my view and that of this Administration is simple.  I believe the problem is real and demands action.  The administration does not.  The President also claimed early in his Administration that his goal was to oppose Kyoto.  If the administration's representatives had stayed at the table and negotiated in good faith on a treaty to comply with S. Res. 98, then the administration could have guided the world toward a new binding treaty with mandatory requirements to reduce emissions that would correct the deficiencies of Kyoto.

The reality is quite different.  Our nation has been represented at the international negotiations in name only.  We would be better represented at the international negotiations by a row of empty chairs.  That would at least accurately represent the vacuous nature of our current policies.  For President Bush not only disavowed the Kyoto Protocol; he also turned his back on any negotiations because they concern a binding treaty that includes mandatory commitments.  The rest of the world was outraged by this unilateral rejection of a decade of negotiations and of the new American isolationist approach to deal with climate change.

And what will happen in one year or five years when a new administration enters office?  What will happen if Russia does decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it enters into force?  Will the administration be able to go back to the table and demand changes to binding international law -- international law that will have been in force for perhaps many years?  The President's industry supporters may one day wake up and realize that they live in a partially Kyoto-controlled world where there is no turning back.

One senses confusion and a lack of direction in the administration.  It seems that the administration's right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing regarding its climate change policies.  The White House does not know whether to believe the science or not, and they have certainly not articulated a plan of action.

Finally, I am compelled to observe that it is the height of hypocrisy for this administration or its supporters in industry to claim that they are defending the goals and provisions of S. Res. 98.  They cannot make such a claim in the debate today or in any international forum.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This Administration can no longer hide behind the mantle of that resolution. 

It is this administration that undermined the tenets of that resolution.  They now support only vague, voluntary measures.  That is true both domestically and internationally.  The evidence suggests that the Administration's negotiators have even formed an alliance with the key emitters in the developing world, and together they oppose any additional discussion during the international negotiations of binding commitments for the developing world as called for under S. Res. 98.  That is of course a logical result of the Administration's policies, since it is impossible to apply binding commitments to China if we refuse to apply such standards to ourselves.   We now have little hope of seeing an effort made to produce a treaty that will comply with S. Res. 98 -- at least not during the tenure of this President.

If there is no prospect for a binding international treaty, then how can we deal with the enormous challenge posed by global warming?  The critics of the amendment before us argue that we should stay the course and support this Administration's policies.  If I may ask -- what are those policies?  What concrete programs have been put in place?  In point of fact, the administration has asked industry trade associations to develop their own voluntary reduction programs.  The proposals are vague and actually allow emissions to continue to increase.  Taken together, none of these programs is expected to result in any serious decrease in emissions.

These events over the last three years have led me to conclude that we must look elsewhere for effective action on global warming.  The Senate should not be put in the position in which it now stands.  It should not be faced, as we are now, with the prospect of considering an energy bill devoid of provisions to address climate change.  The Senate should be considering our nation's energy security from a broad view that includes a global response to climate change and the international politics of energy.

Proponents of the amendment now before us argue that it sends the clear message to the White House.  If President Bush rejects the advice of this body, then he is refusing to negotiate in good faith toward a binding international treaty and is only offering hollow domestic programs.  The Senate has little choice but to consider further steps, including modest mandatory approaches, that would apply to our domestic economy. 

The amended version of S. 139 freezes emissions at their current levels rather than seeking a sharp reduction as has been the case in other approaches.  The McCain-Lieberman bill also allows companies to offset their emissions, for example by planting trees that absorb and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) or by constructing more efficient power plants in the developing world than what those nations would otherwise build -- and claim the difference as an earned offset or credit. 

I would prefer not to be faced with a measure like this today.  I note that this bill has not had committee consideration.  That said, it is very much the case that several key chairman with jurisdiction over energy or environmental policy have shown very little interest in seriously dealing with climate change.  We have certainly witnessed this in the energy bill.  I want to further commend Senators McCain and Lieberman for their diligence and hard work to find a middle ground.  They have come a long way on this proposal.  If the principles of their proposal were combined with those of other Members like myself, then the Senate could have a strong package to offer the American people.  While I will not be able to vote for the amendment today, I want to make it very clear that I will work with the sponsors of this bill and other Republican and Democratic Senators who want to go beyond this administration's empty-headed approach. 

In closing, I want to express my own growing frustration for our seeming inability to deal with the problem at hand.  I have been troubled by this for a long time.  I do not believe I need any more scientific evidence to show that we have seen these changes.  I have seen the changes in weather patterns, and those changes that I have personally seen during my nearly 86 years lead me to believe that there is something happening.  We need to do something about it.  What we do may be painful in some respects, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren to have the foresight to see that something is happening and to understand that we ought to do something about it soon.  If not, we maybe going beyond retrieval. 

So, I would say again that the two Senators are to be very much complimented, and I yield back the balance of my time.

###