Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his powerful words and his participation in this great debate. There is plenty of room for a robust discussion about what set of choices we need to make in order to deal with this very…
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his powerful words and his participation in this great debate.
There is plenty of room for a robust discussion about what set of choices we need to make in order to deal with this very real challenge. We are here tonight to ask for that discussion, for that debate, in the tradition of this great body. Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and the debate of how we confront it belongs here in the Senate.
We have no illusions about being able to reach the number of votes we need to pass significant legislation during this Congress, but we must start this conversation now. We must start now. We are here agreeing it is time for us to find a way to work together to find solutions.
The Senate is supposed to be the place where we address and debate the big issues. I hope we can work with the House on how best to tackle climate change as well. But there is no room for those who deny science itself exists or those who deliberately propagate misinformation and scare tactics because they profit from pollution.
I know people are smart enough to know the difference between today's weather and what is generally happening with the climate. People cannot be misled into thinking that just because winter still exists, the planet isn't warming in totality. We can't possibly believe that because there was a snowstorm last week, there is no such thing as climate change.
Since 1991, scientists have published more than 25,000 scholarly articles on climate change. Only 26 out of the more than 25,000 articles reject the existence of climate change. This is 1 in 1,000. The idea that because scientists, frankly, are scientists and always leave a little room for additional information or for the possibility of revising their projections, assessments, and estimates somehow introduces significant doubt about what climate change is does violence to the very principles on which science operates.
This problem is no longer confined just to our wilderness areas or to those of us concerned with biological diversity or environmental issues. In other words, this is no longer an environmental problem. This is an economic one. All we have to do is look at the extreme weather and the way it has affected both the Nation's fiscal condition and our continuing ability to deal with natural disasters, and the very real possibility that many of our coastal communities will be literally flooded by the end of the century. There is no way we can allow this issue to remain a priority for only one party in American politics. This is everyone's problem. This issue impacts every single American.
Every single Senator should be down here. This is our responsibility for future generations, not just to preserve birds and butterflies but to preserve the American economy and our way of life. Scientists, leaders of States, cities, and counties, the leadership in our Department of Defense, the rest of the world, the business community, the largest insurance companies--which insure actual risk--all agree on the reality of climate change. The only place where we are proceeding as if this is an actual open question, as if the science is not settled, is in the four corners of the U.S. Capitol.
I am not going to point to any one extreme weather event and say it was caused by climate change, but climate change has increased the likelihood of increasingly strong and frequent storms, drought, and floods.
Through the 1980s, the United States experienced an average of two to four billion-dollar disasters per year for storms severe enough to rack up more than $1 billion in damage. But 2011 and 2012 together experienced 25 individual billion-dollar storm events. This is over $25 billion in damages in just 2 years.
I will talk a little bit about what is happening with our Department of Defense. There is growing consensus within the Department of Defense that climate change is shaping the global security environment in new and profound ways which will affect the U.S. military. Climate change is dramatically shaping the U.S. military's strategic operating environment. In its 2010 strategic planning document, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense concluded that:
While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may
act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a
burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries
around the world.
The U.S. military concluded that it is increasingly likely to be called on to respond to crises which manifest as a result of climate- related instability. These include natural disasters which emanate from extreme weather events, which climate scientists expect to become more frequent and more severe as a result of climate change, because, like many first responders, the U.S. military has an obligation to respond when called for help, and indeed, the U.S. military is often the only organization capable of helping, with its fixed-and rotary-wing lift capacity and personnel to get relief supplies to those most in need.
Admiral Locklear, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, headquartered in my home State of Hawaii, said last year that climate change is the greatest long-term security threat in the Asia-Pacific region, an area covering more than half the Earth's surface area and almost 60 percent of its population. Upheaval and political instability from climate change, he said, ``Is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.''
Eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals in 2007 stated that climate change is ``a significant national security challenge'' which can serve as a ``threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.''
Climate change is also likely to impact the U.S. military's facilities and capabilities. America's military installations may be particularly vulnerable to climate change, and the Department of Defense has dedicated resources to assess the risks. According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council finding:
More than 30 U.S. military installations were already
facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.
The Department of Defense's own QDR acknowledged that the U.S. military's operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space, which means ensuring that climate change does not prevent the military from accessing these critical training and range areas. This may require costly intervention to adapt to sea level rise and other climate impacts that might otherwise undermine defense readiness and preparedness.
The Department of Defense is already working to map out its vulnerabilities with offices like the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, helping installation planners develop the tools they need and to plan accordingly. Climate change has become an urgent national security challenge that our military cannot and will not ignore.
Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that among the global challenges ``know no borders''--``terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction''--``the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them.''
Let me talk about the insurance industry. I make this point about the Department of Defense not because this admiral or these generals are members of the Sierra Club or the National Resources Defense Council. It is because when they do their defense review, they have a single- minded objective: To analyze what they see as their strategic challenge. They are not grinding an ideological ax. They are talking about what is real.
Insurers are risk experts in a different way. They are not paid to care about the environment or conservation or future generations or to steward resources. If insurers have personal environmental opinions or whether they voted for President Obama or Governor Romney, they do not bring that point of view to the table when it comes to risk assessment. They can only think about and quantify risk. Their goal is to figure out what is going to happen and how much it is going to cost to cover it. What they are saying about global climate change is it is happening. Climate change is presenting real risk. They have determined that climate change is underway already and is causing economic damage and therefore needs to be insured and underwritten. From their standpoint, when billions and trillions of insurance and reinsurance dollars are in play, they recognize what is real, which is the threat of climate change.
When it is the highest stakes, projections, and assessments, these people look at the world with very clear eyes and say climate change is real. It is happening now, and it is already causing economic damage. When money is on the line, whether these people are Democrats, Republicans or Independents or do not vote, they are looking at the facts and measuring the risk. They have determined that this risk is already upon us. It is not imaginary.
Let's talk about big business. Big businesses, from Nike to Coca-Cola to Starbucks, and insurers like Lloyds of London, recognize the economic threat of climate change as well because it affects their bottom lines. For them it is simple numbers. Their motivation is simple: Protect the bottom line. With billions and trillions of dollars at play, risk experts such as Lloyds are making high stakes risk projections to protect their business models. These projections are telling them that the risk is increasing.
For many multinational companies, climate change has moved from a corporate social responsibility issue to a bottom-line issue. They are starting to see the impact of unpredictable and extreme weather and realize that investing in environmental protection means investing in the economy. Climate change affects the supply of key inputs, disrupts factories, demolishes infrastructure, and drives up prices. The economic calculus is shifting for them.
Major companies doing business in America have signed the climate declaration, which acknowledges that tackling climate change is one of America's greatest economic opportunities of the 21st Century, and it is the right thing to do. These companies include Apple, Avon, eBay, GM, Ikea, Intel, Levi's, Mars, Microsoft, Nestle, Nike, Owens Corning, Starbucks, Swiss Re, Symantec, The North Face, and Unilever. If we do not make serious changes, the only thing we can be certain of is that uncertainty will increase. Extreme weather events, drought, floods, spreading infectious diseases, resource wars and other tests of human civilization will test us repeatedly. Our economy thrives on certainty. Climate change increases uncertainty. The pragmatic, conservative approach requires us to take action.
We have heard the argument tonight, earlier in the evening from the Senator from Oklahoma, from some in this body at other moments, about climate change today, that there is either nothing we can do or that action will be too expensive. Regulations will kill jobs and hurt the economy, driving up prices on everything from gas to bread. Opponents of the Clean Air Act, vehicle efficiency standards, energy efficiency, and removing lead from gasoline all used the same arguments. They denied it was happening, they spread misinformation, and they sowed fears of economic destruction. In every case they were wrong.
Largely as a result of government regulations between 1970 and 2011, total air pollution dropped 68 percent while the U.S. gross domestic product grew by 212 percent, more than doubling.
Well designed solutions to environmental problems can, in fact, contribute to a healthier and growing economy. America can innovate its way out of this problem. Inaction comes with financial costs. Climate change is absolutely right now hurting our economy. It is affecting individual fishermen everywhere from my home State of Hawaii, to the Presiding Officer's home State, to the lobstermen in Maine--which my good friend from Maine has already discussed.
A 2012 study commissioned by 20 governments which was written by more than 50 scientists, economists, and other experts found that climate change is already contributing to multiple deaths per year costing the world $1.2 trillion in 2010, and reducing global GDP by 1.6 percent.
The study also said by 2030 the cost of climate change and air pollution combined could rise to 3.2 percent of global GDP with a 2 percent hit to the U.S. GDP. Similar effects could cost China $1.2 trillion. Every time we try to move forward with environmental or public health legislation there are people who will say that the U.S. economy will collapse as a result. This happened with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Almost every time they are proven wrong.
The American economy is an innovation economy. Whenever we require our American companies to innovate, whether in the interest of public health, the environment or the economy, they have thrived. They step up to the plate. Climate change is a challenge where America can once again be the global leader. We have to believe in our ability to innovate our way out of this problem.
When the U.S. economy and our businesses are presented with opportunities to innovate, they thrive. During the debate on the Clean Air Act we heard those standards would destroy the economy, but since 1970 every dollar invested in compliance with the Clean Air Act standards has actually produced $48 in economic benefits. It is not just that the American economy and business can innovate and thrive in this context, it is also that we are still the indispensable Nation. America is still the Nation where other countries look to see whether real leadership will be displayed. For that reason we need to act.
On this issue that affects every single American and the entire planet, we cannot afford to give up on American leadership. We have to believe in our
ideas and the power of our ability to innovate, in the strength of our economy and in the American ideal that whatever problem our generation is faced with, we will meet it.
The idea--and we have heard it before on this floor from climate change deniers--that we shouldn't do anything because China won't do anything misses the point. If we do something, China will do something.
Some are saying let's not do anything because of China and India. I am saying let's do something because of China and India. If we lead here we will have the economic advantage.
In fact, China has already begun the work to fight pollution and to transition to a clean energy economy. Last week at the opening of China's annual meeting of the parliament, the Chinese Premier said that China will declare war on pollution in the coming years. China faces a two-fold threat of extreme local pollution and the effects of climate change, and it recognizes that transitioning to clean energy sources is an economic and political stability imperative.
In January the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change said that China is ``doing it right'' as it begins to tackle climate change. She said that the Chinese are ``not doing this because they want to save the planet, they are doing it because it is in their national interest.''
The Chinese State Council's September Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Action Plan set specific goals: A reduction in the construction of new coal-fired power plants, a goal of generating 13 percent of its electricity from clean energy resources by 2017.
Last year China installed 12 to 14 gigawatts of solar panels and is expected to do it again this year. Prior to 2013 no country had ever added more than 8 gigawatts of solar in a single year. A price guarantee for utility-scale solar projects known as a feed-in tariff, as well as low-cost panels drove this dramatic growth. China is taking decisive action. I, for one, do not want to give up on American leadership here.
We have to believe in our ideas, in the power of our ability to innovate, and the strength of our economy, and the American idea that whatever problem our generation is faced with, we will address it.
I would like to talk a little bit about our Hawaii experience. I have seen firsthand from our experience in Hawaii that with commitment and specific goals, real progress can be made. We have led the way to building clean energy infrastructure, producing renewable energy, and reducing our petroleum dependency. I know we can achieve this kind of change across the Nation. As Lieutenant Governor, I led our efforts toward Hawaii's 70-percent clean energy goal by the year 2030, and we have made encouraging progress. The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative Partnership has the enthusiastic support of our business community, the U.S. DOE and DOD, the State government and even our monopoly electric utility company. By 2013 it would surpass our 2015 goal of 15-percent clean energy while having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Nation. Hawaii's progress has taken creativity, collaboration, and innovation, the same qualities that have helped America overcome other seemingly unsolvable problems.
Transformation did not come easily and would not have occurred without collaboration between Federal, State, county, and private sector partners. But because of their hard work, we are now on track to achieve the highest renewable energy portfolio in the Nation, with 40 percent by the year 2030. Not everything we are doing in the State of Hawaii will work in all states, but we are learning that some policies have broad application. We know that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by humans, but we also know that it is a problem that we can fix, and we know what to do.
The challenges of climate change won't disappear overnight if Congress acts, but for the U.S. or the world to fight climate change while Congress sticks its head in the sand is like trying to fight with one hand tied behind their back. Americans agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. They agree that something must be done. Congress is a necessary but not sufficient part of this problem, for we face the biggest collective action problem in the history of humankind--bigger than war, bigger than disease, bigger than poverty.
America must continue our role as a leader that does not shy away from the big problems. Climate change is an economic issue, a health issue, and a national security issue.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the many professionals who have made tonight possible. The Senate stands out as the greatest deliberative body in the U.S. and, in my opinion, the world. Even in our disagreements, our remarks are generally at least collegial and usually friendly. The reason is simple: Respect. Respect for one another as representatives of the concerns of our home States, respect for the diversity of experiences that qualify us to serve as Senators but, most of all, respect for this institution, which is so much more than the physical infrastructure.
Even for the short time I have had the honor of serving, what I see is an institution built on people. The Capitol may be made of bricks and mortar, but the Senate lives and breathes through the people who work here. Often in the course of our daily business, we thank the people we work with for their help. But in light of the unusual demands that our event requires tonight, I would like to thank not only the individuals but their offices and departments. Without them, we would be unprotected, we would be in the dark, and we would be unable to function.
I would like to start with the Sergeant at Arms and all of its departments: doorkeepers, capitol facilities, media galleries, executive office, recording studio, printing and graphics, direct mail, the fleet office, and the U.S. Capitol Police. You keep our Senate orderly, safe, and functioning smoothly, and we thank you for that.
We almost must recognize the Secretary of the Senate: the executive office, the office of the Bill Clerk, the Captioning Services office, the Daily Digest office, the office of the Enrolling Clerk, the office of the Executive Clerk, the office of the Journal Clerk, the Legislative Clerk, our Parliamentarians, and the Official Reporters of Debates. You maintain order in the legislative process and record our actions so this body's work can be transparent and accountable to the American people, and we thank you.
The cloakrooms help to preserve order on the floor so that our deliberations perpetuate the rule of law in our great Nation, and we thank you.
The Senate librarians and CRS make it possible for us to make informed statements based on the best information available, and we thank you.
The Senate pages stepped away from their usual classrooms and schoolmates to support our actions here and participate in American democracy. We thank you.
While all have roles to keep tonight moving smoothly, I would like to call special focus on the Official Reporters of Debates. These folks transcribe every word we speak here tonight for the Congressional Record, which is then distributed the following day to more than 20,000 subscribers.
In 1956, then-Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson explained the importance of the Congressional Record:
Locked in its pages are the debate, the resolutions, the bills, the memorials, the petitions, and the legislative actions that are the reason for the existence of the Senate. Without them, our words tonight would be lost, so I offer on behalf of all the Members who have helped to coordinate tonight our sincerest thanks.
I am happy to yield to the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey if they are ready; otherwise, I would be happy to continue to speak.
Does the Senator from New Mexico need a few minutes to prepare or would he like to start?
I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New Mexico for such an energetic discussion at this earlier or late hour, depending on how you define it. It is nearing bedtime in my home State, but for the rest of us across the Nation, many of us are asleep. But we are up for climate. The hashtag is up4climate, and we encourage you to jump on that hashtag.
I thank both of the Senators for participating in that discussion.
I spent a fair amount of time on the Senate floor today talking about how serious, how dire, and how real climate change is. But I think it is important--and consistent with what Senator Kaine from Virginia and Senators Booker and Heinrich have talked about--to talk about the opportunity for American leadership in economic and technological innovation. There are such incredible opportunities for our country in innovation that it is really worth drilling down and talking about the details.
First, let's talk about battery storage. One of the challenges in the State of Hawaii is this. We have abundant wind and solar energy. We are the most isolated populated place on the planet. We still burn 85 percent of our energy as low-sulfur fuel oil. In other words, we import oil and burn it for electricity, which at this point in time is really unheard of and overly expensive. Three to four times the national average is what we pay for our electricity. It is really hurting us in the pocketbooks, and so we are adopting solar and wind and other clean- energy resources as fast as we possibly can.
The challenge with a grid system that is island by island is this. When you need the energy, you need the energy. If the sun is not shining, and it is the evening time, or if the wind is not blowing, you need either dispatchable power or some other kind of reliable
power. The breakthroughs with battery storage that are being driven by this new clean-energy economy in the State of Hawaii is really extraordinary.
The technicians that have run the utility companies for many years used to think that the maximum penetration of renewable energy on to the grid--a grid like Hawaii--ought to be around 15 percent. Well, we blew through 15 percent in parts of our grid 3 or 4 years ago. There are parts of our grid that are in the high 20s to low 30s. We are on the leading edge of all of this.
The good news is that on the utility side--in terms of battery storage--the consumer side, and the power-producer side, we are making tremendous breakthroughs in battery storage. That brings us to this overall question of the smart grid.
The smart grid means a lot of things to a lot of people. It means increasing the resilience of our infrastructure in the case of either a manmade or a natural disaster. It means making sure we are not wasting energy by curtailing power. What is curtailing power? It basically means that sometimes there is clean energy coming onto the grid that cannot be used. Because battery storage is still overly expensive, there is no way to store that energy.
Although the wind might be blowing on the island of Maui--sometimes the wind is blowing and the turbines are turning, but we can't utilize that power because we don't have a smart enough grid. So what we are doing is attracting investment from all over the planet to develop a smart grid.
We have a partnership in Maui County and with the State of Hawaii with the Hitachi Corporation and the Japanese government. They are investing tens of millions of dollars in little Maui County to better understand how to integrate large-scale penetration of renewable energy into a relatively small grid.
There is a new area that I am learning about where we are really innovating in the State of Hawaii, and that is aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. Unlike the Presiding Officer, I do not have a background in engineering, but I understand aerodynamics and hydrodynamics in the following way: It is basically trying to get things to move through water or air as efficiently as possible. This has tremendous implications.
As you can imagine, the Air Force is very interested in aerodynamics because fuel costs are really out of control for all branches of the service, but in particular in the Air Force and the Navy. The Navy is also looking at hydrodynamics to try to figure out how their ships and other vessels can move through the water as efficiently as possible, and again, not for conservation reasons. It is not because they are so interested in the climate, but because they want to save money on fuel. So we are making really good progress in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics.
We have a company that has a test case where they think they can increase the productivity of a wind turbine by 15 to 25 percent. What would that mean? If they can actually prove this technology out, every existing wind farm--if they just swapped out the turbines--could be 15 to 25 percent more productive for the grid. That means no additional siting and no additional permitting. If we could simply swap out new wind turbines, we could see a massive new increment of clean energy onto the grid.
Solar energy is another area that is exploding all across the country. I was talking to somebody who was working in the Capitol Rotunda as we were doing a live television show this afternoon. He was telling me how he just got solar energy, and that is happening all across the country. Solar is just absolutely going crazy in the State of Hawaii. With costs of 38 to 40 cents a kilowatt, solar energy makes a lot of sense for everybody.
We are doing utility scale solar, but we are also doing distributed solar because people want to get their own savings. They want to participate in a clean-energy economy, but speaking practically--this is not ideological, this is not political, this is a pocketbook thing-- they are doing the math. These people are not Democrats or Liberals or Independents. They don't wake up every morning--like many of us-- thinking about how to solve this problem. They are looking at their own bottom line and saying solar makes sense.
I am happy to yield.
I thank the Senator. Although the tea party is in the State of Hawaii, they are not as strong there as they are in other places across the country. We do have a strong strain of conservatives across the State of Hawaii who want to get off the grid or at least want to participate in the clean-energy economy, and it has to do with the very simple fact that we pay 38 cents a kilowatt hour for the privilege of burning low-sulfur oil for electricity. That is not a left-right issue. That is a ``this makes no sense'' issue.
We are one of the very few States where we have a good bipartisan consensus. We have been moving forward with our clean-energy initiative previously under a Republican Governor with the participation of the Republicans in our legislature, with our Chamber of Commerce, with our business roundtable, with our tourism industry, with our Department of Defense. It is exactly what the Senator from Rhode Island has been talking about. It is about doing what makes sense rather than subscribing to any particular political ideology.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given permission to engage in a colloquy.
One of the things I would like to add is a specific technology that is happening that is trying to be developed in the State of Hawaii
and which is a perfect example of the kind of partnership between the clean-energy industry and some of the more traditional companies. It is called seawater air conditioning. Even with my nonengineering background, I can understand it. It is cold water from deep within the ocean that cools air conditioning systems.
Rather than using electricity to try to cool water and cool air and blow it through, you just grab the cold water and put it into the pipes and it cools systems. This makes perfect sense for Waikiki and for the physical plant of Waikiki as well as our millions and millions of visitors and our thousands and thousands of hotel rooms and our 38-cent kilowatt costs.
One of the highest cost drivers--more than labor and more than our physical plant--is the cost of energy for the Waikiki hotels. We believe that having a private sector company--one that is trying to build a seawater air conditioning system which would be environmentally conscious--move into Waikiki can literally save 40 percent for all Waikiki hotels. This is an extraordinary opportunity.
The Sheraton and the Royal Hawaiian and the Hilton Hawaiian Village and the Queen Kapiolani Hotel, and all of these wonderful hotels, I know their GMs, I know the work they do, I know their employees, and they are all doing great work. But they are not interested in sea water air-conditioning necessarily because of its environmental benefits. They are looking to save 40 percent on their electricity bill and that it just makes sense. That is what this is all about.
I wish to ask the Senator from Rhode Island to give us a little bit of context. The Presiding Officer and I are new to the Senate. I think it is important to understand tonight in context.
From my perspective, having 30 Senators on the floor, to take the floor for about 15 consecutive hours to speak about one topic, with the emphasis, with the clarity, with the unanimity of this group, 28 Democrats and 2 Independents, is significant. It is historically important. But I am wondering whether the Senator from Rhode Island can give us a little context and let us know what has happened in the past and how he views tonight in the arc of our efforts to take action on climate.
I wish to speak a little bit about how I believe taking action on climate is consistent with conservative principles. My understanding of conservative principles--and I am a progressive--but my understanding of conservative principles is basically that they value incrementalism, that they understand the importance of institutions, that they try to move slowly where possible, that they try not to make radical changes to communities or societies or organizations unless it is absolutely necessary. There is no more radical change that we could make to our economy, to our physical environment, to our communities, to our government than to allow climate change to move forward.
It seems to me what the Senator is saying is exactly right. There are plenty of conservatives who are prepared to take action in this area. Right now what we need is a Republican dance partner. I think we have them. I think there are those who understand and may have quiet conversations with us and nod and agree that the situation is getting increasingly dire and increasingly real and scientifically based in fact, but they don't want to be the first one caught making sense. They don't want to be putting themselves at the tip of that spear.
So one of the reasons we are here tonight is to hopefully galvanize the American public to go back to their more reasonable Republican Members and say: Remember when you said you would be a middle-of-the- road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a middle- of-the-road Republican. This is the way to demonstrate that you are a true moderate.
When the Department of Defense is saying this is a real strategic challenge, this is not the province of the League of Conservation Voters anymore. I love them. But listen. This is
beyond conservation organizations. This is beyond my particular passion for Hawaii's environment. This is about the future of the United States of America and our economic viability. So there are going to be Republican dance partners, but we all as--not just as a Senate but as a country--have to create a political environment in which they can operate with us and we can get to 60 votes. We don't have those votes right now. But as the Senator from Rhode Island said, it always looks more difficult than it is, and it is always impossible until you get it done.
So that is what this is about tonight.
I would just add there is another motivation that I think will come to bear among all of our colleagues. Actually, the Presiding Officer spoke passionately along these lines, and that is our conscience. There is no doubt there are people of good will on both sides of the aisle in this Senate and in the House, and what is happening to people as a result of climate change pricks everyone's conscience.
I wish to talk a little bit about a small island state that probably most people have never heard of. It is called Kiribati. It has become a cautionary tale for low-lying places across the Asian Pacific region and the world. It is 900 miles south of Hilo. Kiribati's Fanning Atoll is the closest land feature to Hawaii, making Kiribati actually way closer to Hawaii than to California.
Put another way, the people of Kiribati are our neighbors. More than 100,000 people live on 21 of Kiribati's 33 corral islands. Thirty-two of those islands are low-lying atolls where most of the population lives just 2 meters above sea level.
The close proximity to the sea is already taking its toll, as rising seas contaminate water tables with salt water, denude fertile land, and decimate the few island crops the land can support.
Kiribati's President, Anote Tong, has taken great pains to focus attention on his country's plight. His sobering remarks from last November are worth recounting. He said:
The outer island communities have been affected, we have a
village which has gone, we have a number of communities where
the sea water has broken through into the freshwater pond and
is now affecting the food crops.
That is happening on different islands, it's not an
isolated event, serious inundation is being witnessed. These
are the realities we are facing, whether they are climate
change induced or not.
If you travel around Kiribati, it is impossible to miss the long stretch of seawalls people have built to protect their homes from the encroaching sea. Besides the sea level rise, low-lying atolls such as Kiribati face risk of being pummeled by the next tempest. Barely above the water's edge, places such as Kiribati face the risk of having storm surge and sea level rise amplified by the typhoon that roars through the Pacific, washing over runways, roads, and homes lying just above sea level.
The risks are even more acute for families living in these Pacific island states where, because of the limited space for agricultural and commercial development, population density remains extraordinarily high.
Take South Tarawa, the capital of Kiribati, where the population is close to 5,000 people per square kilometer--one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. These densely populated areas make Mother Nature's destructive power even more devastating. The cards would appear to be stacked against countries like Kiribati, and not surprisingly outside observers have been less sanguine about its fate.
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg described it this way:
The apocalypse could come even sooner for Kiribati if
violent storms, of the sort that recently destroyed parts of
the Philippines, strike its islands.
He said:
For all of these reasons, the 103,000 citizens of Kiribati
may soon become refugees, perhaps the first mass movement of
people fleeing the consequences of global warming rather than
war or famine.
Almost 6,000 nautical miles away, in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives face a similar fate to Kiribati. The island state of nearly 400,000 faces risks of sea level rise and extreme weather events that threaten to inundate its communities with swells of storm surge that leave families and their loved ones literally underwater.
In 2009, leaders in the Maldives staged a dramatic demonstration ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, when they held a cabinet meeting on the bottom of the ocean floor to foreshadow their impending fate if the world failed to act in the face of climate change.
Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed told observers:
We're now actually trying to send our message, let the
world know what is happening,
and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change is not
checked.
If the Maldives cannot be saved today we do not feel that
there is much of a chance for the rest of the world.
Leaders spent 30 minutes on the ocean floor that day. When later asked about what would happen if the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen failed to produce an agreement among states, President Nasheed simply said: ``We are going to die.''
In addition to sea level rise, island nations face other immense challenges from climate change. Slight changes in ocean temperature from increased warming and increased ocean acidity, which scientists explain as a consequence of oceans observing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, disproportionately affect communities living on island nations.
I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island to talk a little bit about ocean acidification and the impact it is having on fisheries in the Northeast. I know it is having a real cultural and economic and environmental impact, and I am not totally sure people are fully grasping how dangerous this is, not just from an ecological standpoint but from a food security standpoint, from a price of food standpoint, from the standpoint of jobs and the economy. I am hoping the Senator from Rhode Island can elucidate this.
I ask the Senator, what does that mean as a practical matter for the fisheries industry, for people who like to eat fish? What is the impact of ocean acidification? Because the Senator has, in very plain language, explained the science of this.
But what does this mean to a regular person?
You should be proud of your Rhode Island oysters. I care about oysters.
Well, it is really important to dwell on the question of what is happening to our oceans, not just because it is critically important but because I think that because it is more difficult to see it does not get enough attention. What is happening to our fisheries is every bit as drastic, in some cases more drastic, than what is happening in our agricultural sector. When there is a drought or when there is difficulty in our agricultural sector, it is ably represented in the Senate by its able home State Senators. Yet when there is a fisheries difficulty, it is more difficult to pin down. It does not necessarily become the new story a drought or any difficulty in a growing season may create.
This is something we have to talk about both on the recreational fisherman side as well as on the commercial fishing side. I know that in a lot of States in the Southeast, in the northeast, on the west coast and certainly in Hawaii, people who fish, maybe recreationally, maybe for subsistence, or maybe as a commercial venture, it is really part and parcel of the culture of the place. It is not purely an economic issue, it is something you do with your children and their children. It is part of where you live. It is part of what it means to be from Hawaii or from Louisiana or from Florida or from Rhode Island. This is part of the American experience.
To the degree and extent we are diminishing that experience, setting aside the economics for the moment, that is very significant. I know people across the State of Hawaii grew up fishing and treasure that opportunity to share what is in the ocean with their families.
I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
I am going to talk about something that I think is astonishing. The Senator from New Mexico earlier talked about this, but this is mind- boggling to me, and it may be a surprise that the Senator from Hawaii is talking about this. I have a 10-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter. It has been at least that long since I have been snowboarding, but I enjoyed it when I was a lot younger and my knees were better. But what is happening to winter recreation is really bad news. One source states that roughly 23 million people participate in winter sporting activities, adding $12 billion to the economy and employing almost 212,000 people. Roughly 20 million Americans over the age of 6 ski or snowboard. The industry generates more than $11 billion across 38 States.
You do not have to be a climate scientist to recognize that skiers are dependent upon consistent, plentiful snow. You do not have to be an economist to realize that ski areas are only sustainable in places with plentiful snow and cold weather, aside perhaps from the indoor ski slopes in certain places such as Dubai.
So what does it tell you when you see ski resorts struggling to meet their bottom lines due to winters so warm that even with enormous artificial snow systems, they cannot keep snow on their mountain? Mountains cannot move. They cannot migrate. So when the climate warms, ski resorts that depend on them face difficult choices, if they have any choice at all.
According to one study on the impact of climate change on the ski and snowboard industry, more than half of all sky resorts in the northeast will no longer be viable by 2039. I will repeat that. More than half of all ski resorts in the northeast will no longer be viable by 2039.
Another study of Washington State ski resorts found that almost 13 percent of the ski areas in the Cascades and fully 61 percent of the ski areas in the Olympic mountain range are at risk from the future effects of climate change.
Another study of ski areas in southern Ontario Canada cautioned that by the year 2080, with current snow-making technology, the ski season will be reduced by anywhere from 11 to 50 percent. Operators of ski areas do not have too many ways to adapt. They can move their runs to north-facing slopes, landscape trails to reduce the need for snowpack, and move to higher altitudes. All of these efforts, however, involve massive capital investments. It is difficult to know with certainty if these changes are real solutions or just stopgap.
Of course, skiing and snowboarding are just two examples of outdoor recreational activities that are increasingly in peril as a result of future climate change. Sportsmen such as hunters and fishers should keep a watchful eye on the changing climate as well. We all know that Americans in every State love to hunt and fish. In 2011, almost 14 million people, or 6 percent of the United States population 16 years old and older, went hunting. Hunters spent $34 billion on trips, equipment, and licenses. More than 33 million people 16 and older fished in 2011, spending almost $42 billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items. As the climate warms, hunters and anglers will see decreased opportunities as a result of lower streamflows, population declines, and changing migration patterns.
Organizations such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership which exist to promote hunting and fishing recognize this trend and believe it is in the best interest of the hunting and fishing communities to take action on climate change. The organization's director, Bill Geer, published a cautionary note in 2012 that is worth recounting:
Contentious or not, climate change is real, and it is
already affecting our natural resources, fish and wildlife
and outdoor opportunities. At the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership we aim to educate sportsmen about
the effects of climate change and ensure sportsman
involvement in mitigation efforts.
This is another example of conservatives, of independents, of progressives, of basically everybody outside of the four corners of the U.S. Capitol recognizing that is what is actually happening is actually happening. It is only in the four corners of this Capitol that the debate rages on, as if we can ignore the facts of the matter. This is no longer confined to conservation organizations or people who are concerned primarily with biological diversity.
Look, I am a hiker. I am a surfer. I love Hawaii's natural environment, in particular. So that is the origin of my passion for this issue. But the way this issue has evolved, it is way beyond any of those questions. It is national security; it is economic security; it is our ability to grow our own food and catch our own protein; it is literally the American way of life that is at stake here.
I think the reason we have had such great participation last night and well into the morning is because there is a growing recognition on the left, right, and center that we have got to take action.
I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
I would like to offer a personal story from a young lady in Hawaii because I think it is very important to think of this in generational terms. Her name is Kara Tanaka, and she is a senior at a school called Hanalani. She wrote me a letter, and I will read it into the Record.
She states:
Recently, I read that Hawaii is one of two destinations
being considered for the World Conservation Congress.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature is
the organization that convenes this meeting which brings
together nations to discuss conservation on a global scale.
As this meeting has never been held in the US, Hawaii hopes
to be selected as the host location. For many reasons, Hawaii
is the perfect place to hold this meeting.
Hawaii is the most remote set of islands in the world and
has the most concentrated examples of flora and fauna that
are in jeopardy in the United States, our islands could be
subjected to rising waters caused by global warming.
(Mr. Murphy assumed the Chair.)
Continuing:
The outer reefs that protect our shores will be in crisis
if the current environmental challenges are not addressed and
solutions enacted upon.
I have been blessed in growing up on the north shore of
Oahu and have experienced the beautiful scenery of nature
which surrounds me.
As a first generation Japanese American, my 92 year old
grandpa loves to tell me stories about spending his youth
living on the plantation fields in Mokuleia. During our early
morning hikes up Peacock Flats and lunches on the beach, my
grandpa enjoys telling me about all the edible plants we walk
by and can identify all the animals that we hear and see.
My grandpa also shares with me the things that are no
longer around: dry streams, less wildlife, and lower water
levels. Although there may be other factors affecting the
environment, I truly believe that climate change is a major
reason causing these changes.
For both my grandpa and me, climate change is real, he sees
the changes. It is a very important thing because Hawaii's
wildlife is a very sentimental and beautiful part of our
life.
Scientists tell us that the effect of climate change could
be catastrophic.
For example, the rising temperatures will cause loss of
habitat, there will be changes in water supply, and it could
push certain species to the endangered species list. The
animals my grandpa and I look and hear for may soon no longer
be there at all.
In addition, I can't even imagine how it will be like if
our coral reefs die from global warming. Beach erosions will
multiply rapidly and people's homes will be prone to
destruction. Hawaii's beaches could be gone. Not only would
this affect Hawaii's beauty, but it would affect Hawaii's
economy because of the heavy reliance on tourism. Climate
change is real and in need of full attention.
I have seen many programs for sustainability in my
community from the recently built wind turbines by my house
to programs in elementary schools, like Aina in the Schools,
that have raised the awareness of climate change.
I believe that there needs to be more research about
climate change and its effect on the environment. When I
become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds and
sights that my Grandpa has shared with me, to experience
wildlife with my children rather than teach them how the
environment could have been or was like before.
Kara's words, spoken from her heart, reflect the deepest feelings of her generation, not only in Hawaii but throughout the United States. I repeat the most resonant of her thoughts:
When I become a parent, I hope I can share the same sounds
and sights that my Grandpa has shared with me.
Indeed, Hawaii has a remarkably beautiful environment. Yet I think we all agree that throughout our home States, from sea to shining sea, there are lands that define who we are and that call upon us to teach what is right and to rightfully protect them.
These thoughts from Kara inspire me. I think they inspire all of us. There is a Kara Tanaka in every community who inspires us to take action. It is time to wake up. That is why we are up for climate, and that is why we are in this fight.
If I may, the Senator from Rhode Island has elucidated the problem with respect to climate change deniers. I wish to read a few quotes from Members of Congress, unfortunately. They would be funny if they weren't so alarming. These are direct quotes from Members of Congress who are denying the reality of climate change.
The first quote: Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?
Second quote: We don't know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. It could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows. Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because what we have got is you have got----
I would hope.
Global warming is a total fraud, and it is being designed because what you have got is you have got liberals who get elected at the local levels, want State government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then at the State level they want the Federal Government to do it, and at the Federal Government they want to create global government to control our lives.
Here is one about global climate change.
It could just be a shift on the axis.
I don't even know what that means. And they are a little humorous except these are sitting decisionmakers. So it is time to wake up. It is time for those folks who are denying the reality of climate change to move off of their position, and for those who are quietly agreeing with us about the sciences but not stepping forward and showing leadership to show leadership.
Frankly, I think it is time for those of us who have been passionate about this issue to work together and to redouble our efforts. But I have 20 or 30 pages worth of quite alarming quotes. Again, they would be funny if they weren't from sitting decisionmakers who have real authority over this question.
I think the Senator is exactly right. In some ways that is a
more dangerous argument than some of the other denier arguments, because it sounds like science. It is not, but it sounds like science.
But the most recent, and in my view most absurd, and we have now I think seen it for three or four winters, is every time there is snow-- and at first I thought it was sort of a little jab, a little rhetorical joke--but they are actually saying that because it was snowing last week there must not be climate change. That is an argument they are relying upon.
I think because in the face of actual evidence they are now having to rely on anecdotes, on the fact that it is icy in Antarctica or there was a snowstorm in DC, or it was unseasonably cold for a weekend in Georgia or whatever it may be, but to rely on individual anecdotes about the weather I think is pretty tough stuff to take and I want to make sure we don't let that stand; that the idea you get to look out the window and understand what is happening with the climate is a lack of understanding about the climate.
Climate is long-term patterns over large swaths of land or ocean. The weather is you get to check it on your iPhone app tomorrow morning. That is the weather. It is not the climate. It may or may not be hot or cold tomorrow. That doesn't tell you a thing about what is happening to climate change. And to the extent someone wants to pick off a day and say: Look, it is 32 degrees in Seattle and, therefore, climate change is not real, I don't think anybody actually believes that argument. But it is important the American public realizes how specious that claim is.
I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from New Jersey for engaging in such an energetic dialogue about these issues.
Allow me to brag about Hawaii a little bit. I would like to speak about the incredible work Hawaii has done in energy transformation. We have taken a problem--high energy prices, no in-state fossil fuel resources--and turned it into an opportunity to transition the State to clean energy. Hawaii, like Alaska and the territories, is geographically isolated from the rest of the country. This relative isolation presents unique challenges.
Hawaii has some of the highest energy costs in the country. Our energy mix is heavily reliant on oil and our multiple islands mean we have multiple electric grids. This challenging picture also presents unparalleled opportunity because the high cost of energy makes renewables not only competitive but often the low-cost option. We have abundant natural resources in solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy. But that doesn't make a transition to clean energy easy. Current policies, entrenched modes of thinking, longstanding business models, along with high upfront costs for capital for clean energy mean we need to aggressively encourage market transformation using a variety of policy tools. Thankfully, farsighted and committed policymakers have helped Hawaii to develop and implement some of the most aggressive clean energy and efficiency goals in the country.
This effort began in earnest in 2008 with a unique partnership between Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Energy that became the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, or HCEI, is a partnership between the state, the Federal Government, the not-for- profit and the private sectors. It helped to lay out a roadmap for Hawaii to achieve our aggressive clean energy goals.
Our job is far from done, but as a result of this effort I am optimistic about Hawaii's energy future and our ability to reduce carbon pollution. I strongly believe that despite Hawaii's unique characteristics, opportunities exist for other States and regions to replicate the successes we have had. Already energy regulators and policymakers from other parts of the country and the world are coming to Hawaii to learn what we are doing. I say that with great appreciation for the enormous work others are doing to transition to a clean energy future. I do not claim Hawaii has all the answers, but I do think we have discovered some of them.
Let's start with a brief overview of the energy sector. We are the most geographically isolated major population center in the world and we are also internally separated, with seven different populated islands. We are the most oil-dependent State in the Nation.
In 2010, 75 percent of the State's electricity came from foreign petroleum. This reliance leads to both high and volatile energy costs. Hawaii's electricity rates are the highest in the Nation at around 37 to 40 cents per kilowatt hour. This is three times the national average and twice as high as Alaska's rate, the country's second highest. Hawaii's multiple islands mean multiple grids that all must be managed independently.
Looking forward, the State is considering an undersea transmission cable as one of the key possibilities for sharing renewable energy and reducing rates throughout the islands. A major consequence of our geography is that the best clean energy resources are not located in the same places as our demand center.
Oahu is by far the most populated island with the highest electricity demand, with Waikiki and the Pacific Command, and yet technical analysis has shown that Oahu may only be able to realistically generate 30 percent of its own energy. Hawaii has been unable to take advantage of the mainland's natural gas, while our State continues to pursue its clean energy goals. Various groups have begun to explore bringing low- cost LNG to Oahu to further transition away from our dependence of low sulphur fuel oil for electricity.
So back up to 2008 with high energy costs and the desire for greater energy security and the pressing need to get serious about reducing carbon solutions. It was clear we needed to do something. HCEI was founded on a memorandum of understanding signed between the State of Hawaii and the U.S. DOE in 2008. This partnership resulted in an ambitious plan to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent and increase electrical generation from renewables to 40 percent of the total mix by the end of 2030. These renewable and efficiency goals are now law. But such goals, even enshrined in law, need a suite of policy tools to help implement them, and they need the political will to relentlessly see them through.
One of the key policy tools aiding compliance with the State's RPS, and especially the efficiency standards, is the decoupling of the electric utility's income from fluctuations in sales and revenue. This is crucial in a place such as Hawaii where distributed generation is playing an important role in meeting our goals. This way we can ensure that the utility receives financial incentives for increasing renewable production from independent power producers and decreasing total energy use. Hawaii's decoupling policy began in 2011 and allowed the State utility to be compensated through revenue-balancing rate adjustments approved by the PUC. Like many other States, Hawaii supplements Federal tax incentives to deploy greater technology such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Our incentives create tax incentives for producers at every level for commercial and resident.
In June of last year Hawaii passed legislation to establish a green infrastructure financing program. The Green Energy Market Securitization Program, which we call GEM, creates an integrative financing model that will help low-to-moderate-income households, including renters, to take advantage of clean energy improvements and energy efficiency. It aims to address the financial barriers of investing in and installing energy cost-savings products.
The heart of the program is an on-bill financing structure backed by state issue rate reduction bonds that allow customers to overcome the high upfront costs of clean energy products. What does that mean? It does this by allowing customers to pay for clean energy investments over time via surcharge on their electricity bill. In other words, you can simply sign up for clean energy. Some of the savings go to the company that is providing you the clean energy, and some of the savings go to you, and all of it gets taken care of by the electric utility on your bill. On-bill financing is a wave of the future whether it is in electricity generation or in energy efficiency. This program will begin by targeting distributed solar, but will quickly expand to other technologies.
HCEI also works to promote Hawaii as an attractive place to invest in commercial production of clean energy technologies and serve as a test bed for demonstrating and proving out cutting-edge ideas and energy management practices. Outside groups have looked at Hawaii, especially when it comes to smart grid development.
In May of 2011, Japan-based New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, NEITDO, contributed $37 million as a partner to our Maui smart grid project. This is a demonstration project to reduce peak loads through demand response to integrate intermittent energy sources, to incorporate grid scale battery storage technology.
What does that mean? It means on the island of Maui we have lots and
lots of wind energy and yet we are lacking in the ability to actually utilize all of that energy at the same time. So we are looking at using distributed electric vehicles to take that energy off of the grid and be stored in electric vehicles. Hitachi Corporation, NEITDO, the U.S. DOE, our Natural Energy Lab, they are all very interested in trying to figure out how to make our grid more intelligent and more efficient. Hawaii's high levels of renewable energy penetration, especially on our neighbor islands, make it an excellent place for utilities on the mainland to come and observe grid operators manage the grid under demanding circumstances. What we are hearing from grid operators across the continental United States is they come to Hawaii to understand the kinds of pressures their grid is going to be under in 3 to 5 to 7 to 10 years depending on where they are from.
Public investment and early-stage technology companies continue to play a key role. In September of 2013, the Office of Naval Research provided $30 million to support an energy accelerator startup program. This program has already invested in projects that are attracting private investment including from the local utility. So far it has helped 17 energy companies bring their product to market. These products have subsequently been able to raise over $38 million in follow-on funding. Let's take a quick look at how Hawaii's energy sector has fared in the years since HCEI began.
In 2012 Hawaii reached an important new milestone by generating almost 14 percent of its electricity from renewable resources. We are close to our stated goal of 15 percent by 2015, which means we are on track to reach our interim target of 25 percent by the year 2020.
In terms of distributed generation--primarily rooftop solar--2012 saw installations more than double from over 5,000 in 2011 to more than 12,000 in 2012. At the end of 2012 the cumulative number of systems sold statewide totaled 22,000, with a total capacity of 138 megawatts.
In energy efficiency, Hawaii had reduced consumption by 14.5 percent as of 2012. One of the questions people ask when you make good progress in energy efficiency is whether it is simply tracking the economy. In other words, generally speaking, when the economy goes down, so does energy consumption. But our energy efficiency gains have been made whether or not our economy has been growing or shrinking. They have been extraordinarily strong over the last 5 years because we have a great and aggressive energy conservation program that is really groundbreaking. Rapidly improving energy efficiency efforts, along with increased renewables, have contributed to decreasing energy costs in Hawaii.
From 2008 to 2012 electricity use has declined while the State GDP grew by 9 percent. Hawaii's transformation to a clean energy economy has helped to create many of the State's 14,000-plus green jobs. Hawaii ranked third in clean energy job growth nationally.
The implementation of HCEI goals has not come without challenges. One of the biggest challenges has been integrating intermittent renewable energy sources into our various grids--grids that are often quite small in scale.
Making things even more challenging, much of our renewable energy is distributed, which means that our utility companies don't even know whether they are coming or going. They have no visibility into what is happening with rooftop solar. They are trying to develop technologies to understand what is happening with the grid. For example, wind farms on Maui were recently forced to spill about 28 percent of their energy production due to lack of demand on the island. In other words, 28 percent of our wind energy was actually wasted.
Here is a real success story of learning by doing. This fall the Maui Electric Company announced recent operational changes to bring that number down to 9 percent. That is a huge achievement. We didn't have to install any additional wind turbines, but we are now able to use more clean energy on the grid because of technological improvements.
In Hawaii we are particularly concerned with ensuring that every citizen can participate in the clean energy economy and benefit from the competitive cost of renewables. I am confident that the State's GEMS Program will be a groundbreaking State-level policy that will make clean energy and efficiency investments available to all.
Finally, we need to keep the momentum going in the face of a changing State legislature, State administration, and evolving Federal policies--the latter of which is perhaps the biggest challenge. The recent expiration of the production tax credit and a host of energy efficiency and biofuel incentives have had a profound effect on economics of clean energy technologies. These incentives must be renewed, and Congress must and should act to ensure continued growth of the clean energy sector.
I am particularly grateful to the chairman of the Finance Committee for joining the task force tonight in calling for action on climate change and greatly appreciate his leadership on these issues.
Many, if not most, States and territories are doing excellent work to encourage clean energy, and I am sure Hawaii has a lot to learn from those States. But the HCEI model can be an effective tool for States, the Federal Government, and for other countries. It is profoundly difficult to get all or even some of the interests in the energy sector to agree. HCEI, especially at the beginning, provided a forum for Hawaii's different groups to come together and find common ground and then move forward. At its core, HCEI is designed to be a collaborative effort between all citizens of Hawaii to leverage their respective strength in achieving a clean energy future. Without the participation and cooperation of all of the key players involved and the support of the general public, HCEI would not succeed.
I also can't stress enough the importance of the partnership we have with the U.S. DOE. DOE offers a unique ability to act as convener, facilitator, and an active, long-term partner in HCEI. DOE continues to serve as a conduit between Hawaii and other entities, such as the national labs, Federal programs, R&D groups, other Federal agencies, and national organizations that support the strategic planning process and contribute to the execution of core activities. DOE provides assistance to the State for producing technical and economic tools and analysis necessary to realize the goals of initiatives as well as the implementation of pilot projects. If the States are truly the laboratories of democracy, then we in Congress should provide them with the tools they need to experiment and innovate.
The United States faces the same energy and environmental challenges as the State of Hawaii. A majority of energy assets in this country are ready for retirement or replacement, and decisions made today will have lasting impacts. The energy sector faces a wave of new technology, new regulations, and rapidly evolving market and business conditions. These uncertainties will impact investment decisions, policy formulations, and ultimately economic growth.
We must meet the challenge of climate change head-on. We have more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and we need to reduce localized pollutants and address the increasing number of cyber and physical attacks on our energy infrastructure. These challenges are not physically constrained by State boundaries, jurisdictions, or even our international borders. Recent blackouts and regional fuel shortages have highlighted the interconnected nature of U.S. energy systems, with energy disruptions starting in one State and extending to neighboring States and regions. This fundamental property of U.S. energy systems means that preparing for uncertainty and threats in a robust and effective manner will require regional and national strategies and plans if we are going to successfully address the challenges we face in the coming years.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, as you have heard here tonight, climate change is real, it is caused by humans, it is happening now, it is solvable, and it is time for Congress to wake up and take action.
I want to talk now about an important sector of the U.S. economy and how it is specifically impacted by climate change.
I am talking about travel and tourism. It is a major economic driver in this country, representing almost 3 percent of the gross domestic product. It generates nearly $1.5 trillion in economic output and supports nearly 8 million jobs.
This sector is critical to my home state of Hawai`i but as chairman of the commerce committee's tourism subcommittee, I am also concerned about the economic impacts climate change could have on this critical industry for the entire Nation.
The U.S. welcomed nearly 70 million international arrivals in 2012 who spent almost $130 billion on hotels, restaurants, airline tickets, shopping, attractions, and more. This is significant.
As the United States works to meet our national goal of welcoming 100 million international visitors annually by 2021, we must think of how climate change factors into the equation for this economic sector as well as how the industry itself contributes to climate change.
Travel and tourism is responsible for about 5 percent of global CO2 emissions. Transportation generates three quarters of these emissions with the majority coming from air travel.
In addition to transportation, the hospitality sector also consumes significant amounts of water for bathrooms, landscaping, laundries, and kitchens, and consumes sizeable quantities of electricity for lighting, heating and cooling systems and elevator and other equipment.
Changes in extreme weather caused by climate change will impact this industry and the experience our visitors have while exploring our States and territories by potentially damaging travel and tourism- related infrastructure, increasing the required investment in emergency preparedness to prepare coastal tourism communities for disasters, increasing operating expenses to do business in challenging and uncertain conditions; and discouraging travel to affected areas.
As we certainly know here in Washington, DC, the United States has experienced an extreme winter season this year, with record cold temperatures and plenty of snow. As extreme weather events continue to occur, made more frequent by a changing climate, the travel and tourism industry will continue to feel the impact.
To put this into real terms, economists estimate that the cancellation of one domestic flight for weather-related reasons costs over $31,000 in passengers' lost economic activity or $3.5 billion in 2013.
The travel and tourism industry is a major economic driver in Hawaii. It is the biggest generator of jobs. More than eight million visitors came to Hawaii in 2013 and spent $14.5 billion in Hawaii. Damage to our visitor industry will cost us jobs and threaten our economic prosperity.
If we don't act now, climate change over the next several decades could have a negative impact on Hawaii's visitor industry. Climate change affects the quantity and quality of Hawaii's tourism assets, including our beaches, coral reefs, and tropical ecosystems.
Extreme weather and natural disasters, like droughts and hurricanes, are also made worse and more severe by climate change and impact residents and visitors alike.
But it is not enough to just recognize the impacts of climate change on tourism. One of the themes here tonight is that climate change is solvable.
We have a responsibility as policymakers to strike a sensible balance between the positive and negative aspects of travel and tourism and ensure that it is conducted in an environmentally sustainable way.
According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, ``There is now a wide recognition of the urgent need for the tourism industry, national governments, and international organizations to develop and implement strategies to face the changing climate conditions and to take preventive actions for future effects, as well as to mitigate tourism's environmental impacts contributing to climate change.''
The U.S. travel and tourism industry recognizes its impacts and is stepping up to the challenge of mitigating its contribution to climate change.
The US Travel Association says that, ``the [U.S.] travel community as a whole and its sectors individually are committed to taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and explore mitigation measures needed to address climate change impacts.''
In my home State, Hawaiian Airlines is working to reduce its emissions. It was awarded the first ever aviation-based carbon credit in 2012 for its use of the EcoPower engine wash system, which reduces fuel consumption--saving the company money at the same time.
One of our biotech companies is working on producing advanced biofuels for aviation and has signed a deal to produce green fuel for Alaska Airlines, perhaps as soon as 2018.
Hotels have gone far beyond simply asking guests to reuse towels and close lanai doors to save on water and energy. They have invested in technology to improve lighting efficiency, manage energy use in unoccupied spaces and improve the efficiency of building equipment to decrease energy and water use while not impacting guest services. And they are continuing to look for more ways to operate efficiently, including technology such as seawater air conditioning.
We can solve the problem through reductions in our energy use by improving energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, changing how we conduct business, and adopting policies that promote sustainable tourism.
We need to work together to implement policies that support the continued growth of this important sector to support jobs and economic prosperity. We need to protect the natural resources that bring visitors from around the world to our beautiful country and to my home state of Hawaii.
It is time for Congress to act.
Asia Pacific
Mr. President. We have heard from many colleagues tonight about the challenges of climate change and the need for urgent action. Left unaddressed it has the potential to impact the lives and livelihoods of nearly everyone on the planet.
As Secretary of State John Kerry cautioned recently in a speech in Jakarta, climate change is akin to many other global challenges that ``know no borders,'' like terrorism, disease, poverty and nuclear proliferation.
``The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single
one of them,'' he said. I could not agree more.
But with every challenge comes an opportunity. And just as the world has come together to confront the crises of pandemic disease and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change too holds the potential for collective action.
So I would like to spend some time tonight discussing climate change in a different way--not just as a problem to be solved, but as an opportunity for the U.S. to exercise its leadership in the world; an opportunity for the U.S. to develop long-lasting and effective partnerships with the international community.
Regardless of whether all Americans believe global climate change should be a top priority and an issue worthy of immediate Congressional attention, I believe that we all can agree this issue should be a part of our diplomatic and development efforts with countries facing the gravest and most immediate climate change impacts.
Nowhere is this more true than in the Asia-Pacific region, where America's partners and allies face acute and imminent risks associated with climate change, such as sea-level rise, extreme weather, flooding, and environmental degradation.
According to the U.N.'s Environmental Program:
Asia-Pacific is one of the most vulnerable regions to
climate change and impacts are likely to become more intense
in the future. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events
have contributed to loss of crop yield in many countries.
Crop yields are projected to decline by a further 10 percent
by 2020.
Sea-level rise is likely to result in significant losses of
coastal ecosystems and put nearly a million people along the
coasts of South and Southeast Asia at risk. Diarrheal disease
primarily associated with climatic changes will also put many
lives at risk in South and Southeast Asia. In addition, the
greenhouse gas emissions of a number of Asia-Pacific
countries are large and will grow significantly in future if
actions are not taken to curb emissions.''
The Obama administration's foreign policy rebalance to the Asia Pacific has been well-covered in recent months. With nearly a third of the Earth's population and one quarter of global GDP, ``America's future prosperity and security are intertwined with the East Asia Pacific region.'' What America's rebalance to the region will mean for U.S. military engagement and U.S. traditional diplomacy in the region has been widely discussed. Yet, issues such as the region's huge proportion of the planet's biodiversity vulnerable to climate change have gone largely unnoticed in the discussions.
To strengthen our existing relationships and to develop new partnerships, we must bring our engagement with Asia-Pacific countries on global climate change issues to the forefront of diplomatic and development efforts. This includes promoting efforts to help countries adapt to their most vulnerable risks. By developing a robust global climate change engagement plan, we are also countering the naysayers who claim that the United States rebalance to the Asia Pacific is only about projecting military power in the region.
In fact, promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies as part of our foreign policy toolkit would serve to deescalate military tensions in the region by demonstrating that our realignment to the region is more than military power. I would like to spend the next few minutes detailing several avenues for addressing climate change in the region, with some specific examples of how we and our partners are already engaging on the issue.
First, I will discuss our traditional diplomatic efforts and the importance of developing and enhancing bilateral and multilateral agreements and partnerships.
Second, I will highlight how climate change mitigation has become an integral part of our development and foreign aid packages. Finally, I will advocate for a cross-sector approach that brings together private sector investments, non-governmental organizations, and educational and scientific partners.
It is important for the United States to collaborate in ways that, first and foremost, promote America's interests. However, we must also recognize that we can learn valuable lessons from our partners and allies as well. As a recent progress report on President Obama's Climate Action Plan states: ``Just as no country is immune from the impacts of climate change, no country can meet this challenge alone.''
In that light, we have much to learn from other countries confronting the crisis of climate change, just as much as we have to share about our efforts to manage the challenge ourselves.
In June 2013, President Obama presented his Climate Action Plan, which laid out the case for action on climate change and the steps his administration will take to address it. The Climate Action Plan includes measures to lead international efforts to address global climate change.
It is particularly important that we expand bilateral cooperation on climate change with the major emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region, China and India, and the President's plan has started to do that.
Climate change was a central theme of the United States-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2013. The United States-China Working Group on Climate Change launched five focus areas to deepen bilateral efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions: reducing heavy- duty vehicle emissions; smart grids; carbon capture, utilization, and storage; collecting and managing greenhouse gas data; and energy efficiency in buildings and industry.
In December, during Vice President Biden's visit to China, the United States and China committed to reviewing their fossil fuel subsidies under the G20 process. In addition, China committed to implement aggressive low sulfur fuel and motor vehicle emissions standards. These standards can pave the way toward the adoption of more fuel efficient technologies, and ultimately lower greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is also working with China to combat short-lived climate pollutants.
During Indian Prime Minister Singh's visit to Washington in October 2013, the United States and India launched a new large-scale off-grid clean energy initiative to help bring clean energy to those under- served by the electricity grid, as well as an initiative to help India deploy advanced space cooling technology.
We must also continue to engage in the region through multilateral organizations like the United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC. ASEAN members are also attempting to tackle climate change issues in the region. Several countries have announced voluntary mitigation targets, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. ASEAN has also developed a Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint, an innovative strategy to ``enhance regional and international cooperation to address the issue of climate change and its impacts on socio- economic development, health and the environment in ASEAN Member States through implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures, based on the principles of equity, flexibility, effectiveness, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, as well as reflecting on different social and economic conditions.''
On the economic and energy front, APEC leaders have:
proposed a regional goal to reduce energy intensity by at
least 45 percent by 2035. To this end, APEC Ministers
determined to improve energy efficiency and support the use
of cleaner and more efficient energy technologies by setting
individual goals and action plans; collaborating with the
International Energy Agency to develop energy efficiency
indicators; sharing information on energy efficiency policies
and measures; and encouraging APEC economies to contribute to
and utilize the APEC Energy Standards Information System.
Economies are held accountable through the APEC Peer Review
Mechanism on Energy Efficiency.
This peer review is also a vehicle for economies to share
their respective policies, experiences, information and
ultimately to improve energy efficiency.
United States development assistance is also rising to meet the challenges of climate change in the Asia-Pacific region. Three projects are particularly noteworthy:
The United States Agency for International Development is investing $7.3 million in the Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support program, which works with the Indonesian government, the private sector, and communities to improve forest governance and planning
at the district level; promote sustainable forest management in target landscapes; and increase sustainable development of local economies by engaging private sector partners who can provide financing and technical expertise;
The United States Agency for International Development is investing $2.9 million in the Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Support Facility, known as ADAPT. ADAPT will work with governments in the Asia- Pacific region to support training on the preparation of financeable adaptation projects, and provide assistance for analysis and financial review of selected project proposals. The program will link climate fund managers with representatives of government adaptation projects to identify adaptation investment opportunities and facilitate access to climate funds. A regional knowledge platform will also broadly disseminate best practices, climate fund eligibility requirements, and application procedures;
The United States Agency for International Development is investing $2 million in the Maldives Program to Enhance Climate Resiliency and Water Security. The United States Agency for International Development will partner with the Maldives Ministry of Housing and Environment, provincial utility service providers, and Island Councils and residents on two northern islands to assess long-term climate vulnerability and develop cost-effective adaptation strategies. The program will support innovative solutions to the growing problem of water scarcity, which is made worse by climate change and sea level rise. The program will assist the Government's goal of developing the standards and criteria for a ``climate resilient island'' model program that can be replicated throughout the country, and potentially in other small island developing states.
As a Senator from the island State of Hawaii, I have a particular interest in this last project. Hawaii stands in the center of the Asia- Pacific region.
The people of Hawaii--including native Hawaiians who have lived on our islands for millennia--and Hawai`i-based institutions such as the East-West Center provide a unique cultural and geographic perspective on global climate change and stand ready to serve as ambassadors for climate change issues in the region.
In Hawaii, I have been involved with the Asia Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience, APDR3, initiative, which was launched at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Honolulu in 2011. APDR3 recognizes that ``there are steps we can take to mitigate the impact of natural disasters, but we must work together across all sectors of society in order to maximize our effectiveness.
The APDR3 network, hosted by the University of Hawaii Foundation, is a collaborative initiative, which works across six sectors of society-- academia, business, government, military, nonprofit organizations and civil society, and philanthropy. The network believes that by working together through a `whole of society' approach, we can enhance our ability to reduce risks from disasters and build more resilient communities and economies in the Asia-Pacific region.
Government and international organization efforts to mitigate climate change are important, but the public sector cannot do it alone. If we are to truly make significant progress, the APDR3's cross-sector approach must be replicated on a much wider scale. Innovative solutions are being developed in think-tanks, universities and other non-profit institutions across the United States.
To cite just one example, International Food Policy Research Institute fellow Mark Rosegrant has published findings that climate change could cause the production of irrigated and rain-fed staple crops--rice and wheat in Asia, and taro, sweet potatoes, and cassava in the Pacific--to decline by as much as 25 percent by 2050.
According to Rosegrant, ``this will have a direct effect on nutrition, increasing the number of malnourished children in the area by an additional 9 to 11 million.'' However, Rosegrant proposes solutions to the worst scenarios. Through ``targeted, aggressive investment in agricultural research, rural roads, and irrigation,'' Rosegrant believes we cut the increase in childhood malnutrition due to climate change significantly. This type of investment, however, hinges on ``regional cooperation on research'' and ``nonagricultural investments for clean water and maternal education.''
``In addition to these increased investments, Rosegrant's other recommendations include establishing regional centers of excellence in the Pacific countries to link national and international research centers; forming integrated data management, monitoring, and evaluation systems for a wide range of market and climate information; opening the global agricultural trading regime to share risk and increase resilience; and revitalizing extension systems to include local participation and effectively coordinate public, private, and NGO providers.''
Many of these ideas would help countries in the region mitigate other potential effects of climate change as well. It is crucial that governments utilize studies and recommendations such as these when developing policies on climate change.
I close with this reminder: climate change is not merely a complicated problem to be solved; it is an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate forward-thinking leadership and positive engagement with the world community. Climate change diplomacy, especially in the Asia Pacific, has the potential to transform our relationship with present and future partners and strategic allies for years to come.
It must serve as cornerstone of our rebalance to the region. Let us seize that opportunity.
National Security
Mr. President. One of the themes that we have heard tonight is that climate change is a challenge that affects all Americans--from small businesses and local farmers to major corporations and agricultural communities. But there is one community that I would like to focus specific attention on because the consequences of climate change fall on its shoulders in unique ways: the U.S. military.
In an interview last year, ADM Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of the United States Pacific Command in my home State of Hawaii, argued that climate change is the greatest long-term security challenge in the Asia-Pacific region. Upheaval and political instability from climate change he said ``is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.''
His comments echoed those of 11 retired 3-star and 4-star admirals and generals who, in 2007, unequivocally stated that climate change is a ``significant national security challenge'' that can serve as a ``threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.'' Their comments are not without a sense of urgency.
As Admiral Locklear explained last year, ``I'm into the consequence management side of it. I'm not a scientist.'' When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, Admiral Locklear made his point clearer when he explained the urgency for preventive action. He said:
We are also seeing--if you go to USAID and you ask the
numbers for my PACOM AOR how many people died due to natural
disasters from 2008 to 2012, it was about 280,000 people
died. Now, they weren't all climate change or weather-
related, but a lot of them were due to that. About 800,000
people were displaced and there was about $500 billion of
lost productivity.
Admiral Locklear's comments and those of his former colleagues before him are not out of the ordinary. They reflect the growing consensus within the Department of Defense and the broader national security community that climate change is real and already shaping the global security environment in new and profound ways.
The Department of Defense is focused on two areas in particular.
First, climate change is shaping the U.S. military's strategic operating environment, forcing the Department of Defense to grapple with new mission requirements that it generally did not anticipate a decade ago.
In its 2010 strategic planning document, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense for the first time concluded that, ``While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability
or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.''
Simply put, the drivers of instability that fragile States already confront--drought, food shortages, water scarcity, and pandemic disease--may be made worse as a consequence of climate change. These stresses could break the backs of weak central governments and institutions in countries around the world where the United States has enduring interests--places such as Burma and Pakistan, to name a few.
Last week, the Department of Defense confirmed its initial conclusions when it published its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, noting that:
The pressures caused by climate change will influence
resource competition while placing additional burdens on
economies, societies, and governance institutions around the
world. These effects are threat multipliers that will
aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental
degradation, political instability, and social tensions--
conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms
of violence.
The more pressing concern for the U.S. military, perhaps, might be with those countries that are most vulnerable to extreme weather events and least capable of responding to them. Like drought, food shortages and other environmental grievances, natural disasters can overwhelm weak governments, contributing to the conditions that lead to instability and violence.
With each passing day, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we know that we are increasing our chances of extreme weather events that carry with them dangerous consequences.
The Asia-Pacific region is particularly at risk of extreme weather events that may become more frequent and severe as a result of climate change. The National Intelligence Council cautioned last year that, ``Asian cities are vulnerable to the severe weather connected to climate change, which amplifies storm surges and flooding of low-lying areas.''
The tragic typhoon that struck the Philippines last November, while not directly attributable to climate change, is a stark reminder of the kinds of natural catastrophes that the U.S. military gets called on to respond to.
As Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel noted not long after this awful event:
Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines is a reminder of
humanitarian disaster brought on by nature. And
climatologists warn us of the increased probability of more
destructive storms to come.
The Department of Defense recognizes that it has a role to play in supporting humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. And like many first responders, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces have an obligation to respond when called on because the U.S. military is often the only organization with the capability and personnel necessary to support those most in need, including fixed- and rotary- wing aircraft that can bring relief supplies to communities otherwise cutoff from the outside world.
But we should not be resigned to be the world's 911 first responder-- crouched in a reactive posture to respond to the next climate-related disaster. As the Department of Defense has already noted and planned for, ``Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events.''
And as Admiral Locklear stated, U.S. Pacific Command can play an important role in helping our partners and allies build their capacities to respond to natural disasters, building their civil defense forces so that they can mobilize ahead of an impending storm. The U.S. military can work with them to professionalize their air forces, training them to be more efficient users of search and rescue aircraft and other capabilities so that they can do more with less.
Next month, Hawaii will host the inaugural United States-ASEAN Defense Forum in Honolulu, convening 10 of the defense ministers from the Association of Southeast Asia Nations to discuss challenges that our countries face in the region. I hope that leaders use this forum in part as an opportunity to discuss the urgency of climate change and an opportunity for proactive engagement to weather any climate-related impacts in the future.
Proactive engagement is cost-effective and can serve as a force multiplier for U.S. military forces in the future by helping our partners and allies develop the resources and skills they need to help themselves; freeing our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen to defend our interests elsewhere, responding only when absolutely necessary.
The simple fact though is that the U.S. has treaty obligations and agreements with many of these vulnerable states. But regardless of those commitments, we also have a moral obligation to help those countries most in need. When the next disaster strikes, the U.S. military will be called on to provide relief. And that will force defense planners to make tradeoffs somewhere else. But if we can reduce the number of military assets and personnel required to support natural disaster relief by making it possible for other countries to help themselves then we should do that.
In an increasingly lean budget environment, we owe it to the U.S. military to make wiser investments where possible. Preventive engagement is a smart solution. Such a commitment of our time and resources would recognize an age-old truism that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Besides the prospect of more frequent humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, the Department of Defense is also facing new mission requirements as a result of a new theater of operations that until recently has largely been quiet--the Arctic.
Rapid environmental change at the top of the world is quickly making the Arctic one of the most accessible maritime domains on the planet. Secretary Hagel declared last November that, ``Climate change is shifting the landscape in the Arctic more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.''
What is striking is how quickly the region is changing. Chief of Naval Operations ADM Anthony Greenert wrote recently in the U.S. Navy's updated Arctic Roadmap that ``ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean are changing more rapidly than first anticipated.''
The pace of change in the region compelled the Department of Defense to develop its first-ever arctic strategy to provide for a ``secure and stable Arctic,'' which Secretary Hagel presented last November to an international security forum in Halifax, NS.
To achieve the strategic aims that he laid out for the Department, Secretary Hagel presented eight simple objectives, to include ``[evolving] Arctic infrastructure and capabilities at a pace consistent with changing conditions.''
Simply put, the U.S. military will likely face new mission requirements in the Arctic as a result of climate change, and those requirements might develop sooner than we may expect.
These new mission requirements did not come out of the blue, of course. The U.S. military operated in the Arctic during the cold war, and there had been growing acceptance that as climate change continues to take its toll on the region it would operate in High North once again.
The Defense Science Board concluded in 2011, for example, that ``Climate change is currently having a major impact on the demands of military operations in the Arctic,'' and that the military would need ``additional capabilities to meet the demands of the expanded Arctic mission.''
What sets today's Arctic apart from yesterday's is the mission that the U.S. military is likely to confront. During the cold war, the U.S. Navy largely stayed under the ice. But many suspect that with the ice disappearing, the U.S. Navy's surface fleet could play an ever increasing role in the region.
The need for additional capabilities in the Arctic may also require the U.S. Navy to think anew about whether its tried and tested capabilities are well calibrated for a changing operating environment.
There is new evidence to suggest, for example, that climate change could have direct and indirect effects on the Navy's operating environment, particularly in the Arctic.
A study by one national security think tank found that, ``ice melt will change water densities, as an infusion of fresh water lowers the density of high-latitude northern waters, while increased evaporation from a warmer atmosphere increases the density of tropical waters.''
The study cites one example when, ``In 1999, the Sturgeon-class nuclear-
powered attack submarine, USS Hawkbill, noted how changes in water salinity--attributed to polar ice melt--made it harder for the captain to maintain neutral buoyancy''--essentially, making it difficult for the submarine not to sink or rise.
The same study found that:
Water density affects not only submarine mobility but also
sonar . . . Sonar detection is especially crucial in arctic
regions, where it is necessary for detecting underwater ice
ridges. Accurate detection will be critical in the coming
years, as submarine operators have to contend with the
continued break up of major ice sheets, which can drive ice
ridges deeper under water. In the 1999, aforementioned
expedition by the USS Hawkbill, the crew noted risks
associated with detecting ice ridges.
Outside the Arctic, the Department of Defense must confront
other operational challenges that could result from climate
change. This is the second area of concern that bears
mentioning, and one where the Department of Defense has
focused considerable time and resources.
The Department of Defense has warned that climate change is likely to impact the U.S. military's facilities and capabilities. In particular, America's military installations may be particularly vulnerable to climate change.
According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council finding, ``more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.''
The Department of Defense's recent Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledged that the U.S. military's ``operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space,'' which means ensuring that climate change does not prevent the military from accessing these critical training and range areas.
Following the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense began working in earnest to map out its vulnerabilities, with offices like the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program helping installation planners develop the tools they need to plan accordingly.
Last year, the Department of Defense released its climate change adaptation roadmap which lays out in greater detail a plan of action for managing the short- and long-term consequences of climate change. Referencing the 2010 findings from the Quadrennial Defense Review, the adaptation roadmap concluded that, ``The military is potentially vulnerable to climate change in many of the same ways as the rest of society, and in ways that are unique due to its operations and mission.''
There is still much work that the Department of Defense must do to assess its vulnerabilities at the regional and installation level, including where to best prioritize adaptation efforts at each of the most vulnerable bases.
The Department of Defense committed itself in its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review to ``complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on our missions and operational resiliency, and develop and implement plans to adapt as required.''
Although these assessments are ongoing, the last several years have nevertheless witnessed a groundswell of support in an effort to better understand the specific mission vulnerabilities that the U.S. military may face as a consequence of climate change.
These vulnerabilities are not specific, but they can better frame the risks that the Department of Defense faces so that we in Congress can ensure that they have the resources they need to plan accordingly.
These risks include the potential for: increased occurrence of test/ training limitations due to high heat days; reduced land carrying capacity for vehicle maneuvers; increased maintenance cost for roads, utilities, and runways; limits on low-level rotary wing flight operations; temporary or prolonged disruption of military operations or test and training activities due to intense storms and resulting storm damage; inundation of and damage to coastal infrastructure; degradation or loss of coastal areas and infrastructure; increased cost of infrastructure reinforcement to withstand increased storm intensities; and ``coastal installation vulnerability.
These potential vulnerabilities are particularly worrying in my home State of Hawaii, where U.S. Navy and Marine Corps installations like Pearl Harbor Naval Base and Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay are literally on the water's edge. I am glad that the Department of Defense is assessing these risks now and making short- and long-term plans to adapt where it needs to.
Hawaii is America's anchor for the strategic rebalance to the Asia- Pacific region. A cornerstone of that rebalance rests on ensuring that America's military presence in Hawaii and the region can cope with the turbulence of more frequent and severe weather events, operate under those conditions, and help America's partners and allies do the same.
I have focused on the U.S. military because of the unique ways in which the men and women of the Armed Forces are and will continue to shoulder the burden of managing the challenges of climate change.
But to say that climate change is a challenge that can only be managed by the U.S. military would be wrong and undermine the serious efforts underway within the broader foreign policy and national security communities to confront this issue.
The men and women of our diplomatic corps and consul services are invaluable to facilitating cooperation between our partners and allies, and will continue to play an important role in ensuring that we are providing the resources they need to plan for the future. Aid workers with the U.S. Agency for International Development have the expertise that is necessary for designing and deploying toolkits that can help vulnerable communities improve their resiliency to natural disasters and other environmental crises.
The Department of Defense has an important role to play in helping the United States manage the challenges of climate change. But in many ways it is other agencies, not the U.S. military, which must lead on our climate engagement abroad.
What the Department of Defense's efforts to date show is that climate change is no longer solely the purview of conservationists concerned about protecting endangered species, or of environmentalists concerned about preserving the Earth for future generations.
Climate change is an urgent national security challenge.
Secretary of State John Kerry put it well when he said recently that among the global challenges that ``know no borders . . . terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction . . . the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them.'' Secretary Kerry went on to add that the United States cannot confront this challenge alone. That like the challenge of confronting nuclear weapons proliferation, we must come together as a global community and take collective action to confront the challenge together.
The consequences of inaction are too real. For ``in a sense,'' Secretary Kerry said, ``climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.'' We must attack the challenge with the same fierceness and urgency that we would nuclear weapons proliferation, because the consequences are no less real.
Congress can begin by giving climate change the rightful attention that it deserves, rather than ignore its responsibility of dealing with the hard choices of managing one of the greatest challenges a generation of Americans faces.
Energy Sector
Mr. President, I will discuss the role of the power sector in the United States. Modern sources of fossil energy have been a tremendous force for good, but they also come with a cost--pollution--requiring us to quickly and decisively transition to cleaner sources of energy.
The effects of pollution are both local and global, and as many of my colleagues have discussed here tonight climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is one of the greatest threats to the future prosperity and health of the human race.
As we look for ways to combat climate change, we must redouble our efforts to transition away from fossil fuels, reduce energy use, and build an energy sector based on renewable and low-carbon power.
Humanity has been using fossil fuels for centuries. It was not until the industrial revolution of the late 1700s and
early 1800s that its use really began to take off. The first U.S. commercial coal mine opened in Virginia in the 1740s, and as the industrial revolution came to the U.S. in the 1800s, coal was the driving energy source behind steamships, railroads, and factories.
From 1800 to 2000, the world saw total energy use increase 80 to 90 times over. Fossil fuels drove almost all of that growth and today account for three quarters of global energy use.
As coal, then oil and natural gas grew in availability, humanity found new ways to use these new energy resources, driving even further development in energy hungry industries. The widespread adoption of fossil fuels during this time contributed to unprecedented global population growth and urbanization.
There is no doubt this explosion of fossil fuels and the multiple opportunities it presented for use was a major driver of American and global economic growth. And this had enormous benefits for humanity. It helped increase efficiencies in agriculture, improved human health, created increased opportunities for trade, and improved standards of living for many people in the world.
I say all of this to make it clear that when I call for a transition away from fossil fuels--it is not because of some inherent dislike for them, or some capricious judgment of those who make a living in that industry. But as their use increases, the downside of fossil fuels-- pollution, and a dramatically changing climate--is too big an issue to ignore.
Global pollutants--greenhouse gasses that contribute to the warming and changing climate on the entire planet, and chemicals that threaten the earth's protective ozone layer--are causing global pollution. And global pollution requires global solutions. No one country can solve the problem alone--but let me be clear here--any solution will require bold leadership by the United States.
My colleagues and I have stressed the following points all evening: Climate is real, and it is caused by burning fossil fuels. Analysis of peer-reviewed scientific studies finds that over 99 percent of actively publishing climate scientists are firmly convinced that climate change is real, that human activities are a significant cause, and it will increase if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
The most recent United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report calls evidence that the earth is warming ``unequivocal'' and plainly states many of the changes to the climate we see today are ``unprecedented over decades to millennia.''
And at the risk of repeating myself this evening, it is important to note the IPCC report shows that the biggest driver to the changing climate is ``the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.'' This is a key point, because humanity's use of fossil fuels for energy, heat, and transportation--is responsible for close to two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions each year.
The U.S. electricity sector is the largest user of fossil fuels in the country. In 2012 we used coal to generate 37 percent of our electricity and natural gas to generate almost 30 percent. Nuclear power, which emits little to no greenhouse gases, was almost 20 percent of the mix, with renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower contributing just under 13 percent of the Nation's electricity.
This overreliance on fossil fuels is exactly why I support President Obama's Climate Action Plan to set carbon pollution limits for new and existing power plants, and to continue to push the transportation industry towards advanced vehicle technologies, advanced biofuels, and greater fuel efficiency standards. President Obama's plan is a good one, but there is only so much he can do. Without decisive legislative action, Congress is choosing to hold American innovation and leadership in check.
We must do more to transition energy to renewables, reduce emissions, and improve efficiency. The world has made tremendous strides in developing and improving renewable energy technologies, and the United States has benefited. Between 2008 and 2013 total U.S. renewable energy generation, not including hydropower, almost doubled. 2014 will likely be the first year generation from hydropower is overtaken by generation from other renewable energy technologies.
Prices, one of the major barriers to renewable energy deployment, have dropped dramatically. Solar module prices have declined by 99 percent since 1976 and a stunning 80 percent in the last 6 years. Wind power costs have also declined markedly to the point where wind is often the low-cost option. For example, a utility in Michigan decided to lower its customers' rates 6.5 percent for 2014, and one of the major factors it cited in the decision was its ability to provide low- cost wind power.
Solar power is growing by leaps and bounds both at the utility and distributed scales, as homeowners in some parts of the country are finding that putting solar panels on their roofs can lower their energy costs. My home State of Hawaii is a prime example of this. Distributed energy installations have skyrocketed in recent years, with the total number of annual installations doubling from 2011 to 2012. At the end of 2012, Hawaii had a total capacity of 138 MW in distributed generation--most of it coming from solar power.
Wind energy has been an incredible success story in America. Aided by important tax incentives and State renewable energy goals, wind power in 2012 was the number one source of new U.S. generation capacity for the first time in history. This represented a $25 billion investment in the United States. Wind energy is also a great story for American jobs. Over 70 percent of the content of wind turbines is made right here in the United States.
Globally, investment in clean energy has been strong, hitting an all- time high of $318 billion in 2011 following the great recession. But in order to successfully drive down costs and accelerate deployment, investment in clean energy must increase, and Congress can help.
In order to help the United States do its part in avoiding the most extreme effects of climate change, Congress must double, triple, or perhaps quadruple-down on current policies to drive down costs of clean energy technologies and accelerate widespread adoption.
Reauthorizing and extending important tax credits for wind, geothermal, marine and hydrokinetic power, efficiency improvements, and advanced biofuels should be a number one priority. There is no excuse for the on-again off-again policies of Congress which create false boom-and-bust cycles for crucial industries. I applaud the new Chairman of the Finance Committee for making an extension of these incentives his first order of business.
Congress must also encourage technologies which help with the transition to renewable energy. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that would create incentives for energy storage, which can help with grid management, especially as we move towards intermittent resources.
The United States and Europe have done incredible work improving energy efficiency over the last several decades. As recently as the early 1990s, electricity sales in the United States were growing by over 2 percent per year.
According to a new study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, growth in electricity sales has stopped. In fact, retail sales in 2012 were almost 2 percent lower than in 2007. This study finds that the drop in economic activity due to the great recession cannot fully explain this decline in electricity demand. Rather, energy efficiency in the residential and commercial sectors plays a critical role. The last several years have been the first in which energy use and economic growth have moved in opposite directions--a highly encouraging sign for a leaner and meaner American economy.
I wish to highlight energy efficiency as an important part of the solution to reducing carbon pollution. By being able to do more with less power, we reduce the need to burn additional fossil fuels in the short term, and we save ourselves money by having to build less new power generation capacity in the future.
At the commercial and utility level, innovative financing mechanisms and business models are driving energy efficiency. Energy Savings Performance Contracts allow building owners to
work with efficiency experts that reduce their clients' energy bills and get paid through a portion of the savings.
As the largest energy user in the country, the Federal Government continues to expand its use of these contracts--a goal specifically highlighted by President Obama in his Climate Action Plan. I have introduced a bipartisan bill which would offer the government even more choice in executing these energy savings contracts. It is an excellent example of a commonsense small step we can take immediately to save money and energy.
I would be remiss here without mentioning the important work done by Senators Shaheen and Portman on their pragmatic bipartisan energy efficiency legislation. It is another commonsense piece of legislation that deserves immediate consideration by the full Senate.
I wish to turn now to discuss the incredible government support enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry over the decades, and make the argument that renewable energy technologies deserve a similar commitment.
Because of their importance to U.S. and global economic growth, fossil fuels began to receive government subsidies early in their commercial development. From 1916 to 1970, Federal energy tax policy focused exclusively on promoting oil and gas production. In addition, government-funded research into fossil fuel production helped to create the technologies that today drive one of the biggest energy booms the world has ever seen. This sustained and ongoing Federal support has provided unbelievable certainty for the fossil fuel industry.
The energy crisis of the 1970s showed just how dependent on foreign energy the United States is, and spurred an additional focus on efficiency and alternative sources of transportation fuels. After a brief dalliance with renewable energy incentives in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress enacted incentives for wind and biomass electricity generation in the early 1990s. This credit was sparingly used, however. It wasn't until 2005--not even 10 year ago--Congress finally began to show real commitment to incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
And in just that short time, with stop and start policies in recent years; look at the success of renewable energy in America. We are on the verge of full-fledged, competitive domestic industries in wind, solar, advanced biofuels and geothermal, but if we stop now and don't nurture these industries, we may lose them to other countries. We cannot go backwards.
Congress should seriously examine, and consider repealing, tax incentives for fossil fuels. The billions of dollars spent per year to subsidize one of the most mature and profitable industries in the world is not money well spent. Nor is there sufficient evidence these subsidies result in lower fuel prices for Americans.
Rather, we should use this money to invest in innovative federal financing programs for cutting-edge technologies and incentives to help deploy more renewable energy systems.
Let me be clear, fossil fuels have done a lot for humanity. They have, in a very real sense, reshaped our civilization. But if we continue to rely on them, they will reshape our world once again, and this time not for the better.
We know we cannot switch completely to low or zero emissions sources of energy overnight--especially in a sector which makes long-term, capital-intensive investments. This will take a sustained commitment from individuals, States, and the Federal Government. The best thing Congress can do to unleash innovation in the private sector is to send a clear message to the private sector by crafting policies that encourage renewable energy technologies, reward efficiencies, invest in our national infrastructure, and remove hundred-year-old subsidies for already mature industries. We need to give our energy sector the tools to reshape itself, and we need to do it now. The world will not wait.
Insurance Industry
Mr. President, I wish now to speak about how the insurance industry is dealing with climate change today and preparing for it in the future.
Insurers are risk experts--it is not their job to care about the environment. Their job is to look at the facts to calculate value and the odds of loss--and then put a price tag on insuring the value. As hardnosed folks who work from spreadsheets and calculators, they keep their personal politics out of the equation. And they say the risks are real.
In 2009, Lloyd's of London issued its assessment: ``Climate Change and Security: Risks and Opportunities for Business.'' The report recognizes the uncertainty of the exact timeline for climate change, and instead focuses on a simple message--to be successful, businesses must adapt:
As climate change takes hold, few businesses will be able
to escape the impact of greater competition for resources. As
nations become more protective of their assets, and markets
become more volatile, it can no longer be business as usual.
Lloyd's of London is not alone. Major players like Allianz, Swiss Re, and Munich Re have all published their own reports on climate change to urge businesses to start planning now.
Their motivation is simple: protect the bottom line. With billions and trillions of dollars in play, risk experts like Lloyd's are making the high stakes risk projections to protect their own business models. Those projections are telling them the risks are increasing, and so outreach to industry is part of their pro-active plan to manage their own risk.
To understand other ways insurers are adapting to climate change, the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2007 examining the substantial climate related risks to insurers in coming decades. The general findings should come as no surprise: the insurance industry has concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, and that it will have an enormous effect.
Their projections are telling them the risks are increasing, and so they are acting to reduce their exposure to catastrophic events in reinsurance and primary insurance coverage along the gulf coast and the east coast.
Part of ``reducing exposure'' means the outreach and education I just discussed, but it also means raising insurance premiums in coastal States.
Even these pro-active measures may not be enough. According to a Congressional Research Service report, there is serious concern both within the insurance industry and among policymakers about the ability of the insurance industry to pay for extremely large disasters or multiple catastrophic events that happen within a short period of time.
The report says that, and I quote:
Insuring increasingly vulnerable residential private
property risks will likely require a substantial increase in
risk transfer capacity that is currently beyond the existing
property and casualty insurance industry's total claims
paying capacity.
In other words: the increasing intensity of many natural disasters means increasing risk of catastrophic loss--and one day, we may reach the point where the insurance industry will be unable to cover our losses.
When disaster strikes, insurers and reinsurers bear the initial costs of reconstruction. Those costs get passed on to the public in the form of: increased insurance rates; reduced coverage; withdrawal of insurers from some high risk locations; and increased demands on government-run insurance programs.
This is already happening because some extreme weather events are happening more frequently, as the reinsurance industry has testified before Congress. For the risk experts the facts are clear: the rate of major natural catastrophic events increased both globally and in the U.S. between 1980 and 2012.
Frank Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association, has spoken out to Congress. Last year, Mr. Nutter testified on climate change before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In his testimony, he quoted the reinsurance industry giant, SwissRe which said:
Today, global warming is a fact. Since the beginning of
industrialization and the rapid growth of world population,
man's activities--along with natural variability--have
contributed to a change of climate manifesting itself as a
considerable increase in global temperature . . . the
financial services industry can help guide society towards an
effective response.
However, the industry can only be effective in this role if
the regulatory and legislative framework establishes the
right incentives for emissions reduction and adaptation . . .
Mr. Nutter's testimony is not an empty pledge. Hartford, one of the oldest insurance companies in the U.S., agrees with this analysis and is acting:
The Hartford Financial Services Group recognizes the clear
consensus in the scientific community that climate change is
of real and increasing concern.
As an insurer, investor, employer, property owner and
responsible corporate citizen, Hartford is committed to
understanding, managing and mitigating the risks associated
with climate change.
Suiting actions to words, Hartford has engaged in an effort to promote energy efficiency and reduce waste and emissions. By 2012, the company reduced its own greenhouse gas emissions by 42% from their 2007 base year. It has also worked with the American Insurance Association to advocate for land use planning and building codes that reflect risk exposure. Raising premiums is also part of the response, and so they have warned that ``proper pricing will send appropriate risk signals to the most vulnerable areas.''
Hartford is not alone. Allianz is an integrated financial services and insurance company that is over 120 years old and has over 80 million customers worldwide. Here is what it says about climate change:
Human-induced global warming threatens to radically change
our climate. This poses a major risk to the global economy,
and for a global insurance company like Allianz, could have a
severe impact on our business. In recognition of this, we
have been implementing a group-wide strategy covering
climate-related risks and opportunities for our business and
our clients.
As an integrated financial services provider, we are well
aware that climate change could result in a range of compound
risks and opportunities that affect our entire business. As a
result, we are committed to supporting the development of a
low-carbon economy, and see this as not just a sustainability
priority--it is a viable business and investment case.
Insurance and re-insurance companies are risk experts. They measure risk, they are seeing risk all around them from climate change. And they are speaking up and acting to protect their bottom lines.
As a Congress, we need to support their efforts by establishing incentives for industry to incorporate the risks from climate change into their business plans.
Agriculture
Mr. President, I want to discuss how climate change potentially hurts our farms. Agriculture is profoundly affected by climate change, and we must take action now to ensure that we are able to protect crop diversity, yields, and food security in coming decades for a growing population.
Farmers and ranchers occupy an important cultural part of the American psyche, even if recent decades have seen a consolidation of the farming sector. Concepts of ample subsistence, self-reliance, and the virtues of farming pepper early-American literature.
More than anyone else, Thomas Jefferson articulated the notion of a country founded on agriculture. In 1785, he wrote, ``Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.''
During World War I and World War II victory gardens became an effective way to relieve the pressure on the food supply, as well as a symbol of patriotism--farming became a civic duty.
Today, amidst incredible changes in global agriculture and an increasingly scientific and mechanized approach to farming, a noticeable trend towards organic farming, local agricultural economies, and crop diversity has reinvigorated the cultural importance of farming in the United States. Farmers markets have become an increasingly visible sight, especially in urban areas.
Agriculture is an extremely important part of the American economy and contributes at least $200 billion to the economy each year. U.S. farmers are the most productive in the history of the world, and food is more affordable here than in any other developed country.
Climate change could have an enormous impact on farming worldwide, and this could come at a time when the world's producers must prepare to grow even more. Today the world population stands at 7.2 billion people. By 2050 the world will be home to more than 9.6 billion people. The World Bank estimates that agricultural production must increase by 70 percent during that time in order to feed the population.
One of the myths that climate deniers spread is that climate change will mean longer growing seasons and more carbon dioxide for plants, which will translate into increased yields and abundant food resources. That does not align with what our scientists say. While slightly warmer temperatures could bring some benefits, climate change brings much more than rising temperatures and increased carbon dioxide. Both observation and modeling estimate that by midcentury and beyond, any CO2-related benefits to crops may be outweighed by the downsides of global temperature increases. For example, scientists have projected that for each degree Celsius of warming, yields of corn in the United States and Africa, as well as yields of wheat in India, could drop by 5 to 15 percent. As yields fall, farmers must deal with increasing threats. They currently spend over $11 billion per year dealing just with weeds. Warming means that crop pests, weeds, and plant diseases will expand in both geographic range and frequency, potentially affecting crop yields and increasing the need for pesticides and fungicides.
As shortages become more common, prices could go up, especially as the population grows, and increasing extreme weather events may further threaten crops.
This future is not far off. A 2013 Department of Agricultural report found that within 40 years, climate change might have a negative effect on both farming and ranching in the United States. This will have an economic cost for both the private sector and the Federal Government. A GAO report that studied crop insurance and climate change found that the three biggest causes of loss to crops were ``drought, excess moisture, and hail.'' It is worth repeating that scientists agree that climate change will mean more extremes: wet places get wetter and dry places get drier, meaning that it is possible that crop insurance claims--and government costs--will increase.
We need to do the big things necessary to fight climate change but in the meantime, we are taking small steps.
I am proud to have supported the 2014 farm bill and appreciate the leadership of the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee. This bill authorizes almost $900 million in mandatory funding for energy, which includes important programs for advanced biofuels like biodiesel. It also supports the Rural Energy for America Program, which is a major source of funding for renewable energy systems in rural America. Importantly, these programs are available to small businesses and non- profits in rural America, not only to farmers.
The farm bill's conservation programs also deserve mention.
Perhaps the most important achievement is the linkage between crop insurance assistance and basic conservation practices, which requires that farmers take common sense steps to conserve soil health in return for crop insurance assistance.
But we can and must do more--both to fight climate change and to adapt to its effects. Farming is a practice that knows no political boundaries. Farmers and ranchers might feel the effects in red and blue States alike, and if they don't have the resources to be able to adapt, in the long-term their production and income could suffer, which means that every American might pay more for fruits, vegetables, bread, and milk.
There is a representative in Congress from every single part of the country, As a body that must balance both local and national interests, Congress should be acutely aware of the need for action on climate change. It may have real economic consequences on our farmers and ranchers in the coming years. And those consequences threaten a part of our culture with deep roots in the history of our Nation. We must act to preserve that culture and come to the aid of those farmers who ``are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.''
Transportation
Mr. President, I will take some time now to talk about climate change, transportation, and infrastructure. Every day millions of Americans rely on cars, trucks, transit, trains, ships,
and planes to get to work, visit relatives, and go to the doctor. Transportation is vital to the continued success and growth of our economy. But we know that our transportation system is a major driver of climate change, and if we are to tackle this problem, we will need to reduce this sector's contribution to global greenhouse gas pollution.
Thankfully, we have solutions--solutions that are creating jobs and improving the ease and efficiency of moving people and goods. We are on the right track, but we need to continue in this direction by making our vehicles more efficient, building resilient infrastructure, and making smarter decisions about how we get around. This will take a strong commitment from government, business, and the American people.
Transportation accounts for more than 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In Hawaii, this is even more pronounced, where transportation accounts for approximately 50 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. We all face different challenges, but regardless of where we are from, we can't tackle climate change without addressing the emissions generated by getting people and goods from point A to point B.
In the United States transportation grew as a contributor to climate change through economic and population growth--our more affluent population takes more trips on planes, trains, and by car. Demand for consumer goods has increased, and sprawling development patterns have increased auto travel. We are seeing some of these trends across the world. Currently, the transportation sector accounts for 15 percent of worldwide emissions. But in many countries, this trend is expected to grow. In China, for example, energy consumption and CO2 emissions are expected to increase almost fourfold in 2030 compared to 2005.
Even as transportation is contributing to climate change, severe weather is threatening our critical national infrastructure--our roads, bridges, ports, and airports. Severe weather can wipe out our infrastructure connections quickly and catastrophically. We saw this with the tragic Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the Northeast when it made landfall in October 2012, washing away roads and bridges and flooding the subway system and two major rail tunnels under the Hudson River.
These Hudson River tunnels--critical access points on the busiest commuter corridor in the nation--were flooded with more than 3 million gallons of water, halting all Amtrak Northeast corridor and New Jersey Transit service into Manhattan for roughly 5 days. Let me repeat that. Commuter and subway tunnels in New York City were flooded with more than 3 million gallons of water. That is not a projection; that is a fact. This impacted nearly 600,000 daily riders and caused significant economic disruption.
Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood highlighted the importance of building our infrastructure to withstand storms:
Hurricane Sandy exposed the risks of relying solely on a
system of century-old tunnels for rail access into New York
City. We were fortunate that these tunnels were not destroyed
during the hurricane, and providing Amtrak with funds to
preserve its ability to build a second tunnel will provide
much-needed resiliency to the Northeast Corridor in case of
future disasters.
I am glad Congress directed emergency funding to be used to harden and rebuild our infrastructure. But we need to invest much more.
Continued weather fluctuations will amplify issues we face today. For example, derailments during extremely hot days are safety hazards, and hundreds of thousands of rail commuters are inconvenienced by slower travel times. Air traffic disruptions due to severe weather have already cost airlines and passengers $5.8 billion this year, according to a recent study.
We also need to plan for the longer term impacts of climate change, which will wear down our infrastructure even faster. Transportation infrastructure is expensive and built to be long-lived. Studies show that climate change impacts will shorten that infrastructure life. Temperature fluctuations continue to degrade our pavement and bridges while severe flooding damages low-lying infrastructure, imposing significant costs to drain and rebuild.
Water temperatures are expected to affect the volume and rates of water flows throughout our marine highways, threatening to reduce shipping access to docks. All this translates into higher maintenance and construction costs for a system that already has significant needs--the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the United States will need to invest approximately $2 trillion by 2020 to maintain and expand our transportation infrastructure.
In Hawaii, we can't escape the reality that climate change is threatening the way we move our people and our goods. It affects all aspects of transportation infrastructure--our ports, airports, roads, bridges, and transit systems. On Maui, we need a new bus storage facility because the current facility is now in the flood plain. By 2100, all of our most critical transportation assets--our harbors, airports, and roads--will be highly vulnerable to sea level rises, storm surges, or high intensity rainfall.
We don't even yet know how much it will cost to protect against climate change. As an island State, we are more vulnerable to the disruption of transportation infrastructure than most. First, 90 percent of Hawaii's goods are imported into the State, which means that if severe weather or environmental change disrupts transportation, we lose access to food and other necessities.
That makes Hawaii especially vulnerable to maritime disruptions--but also to disruption of truck and rail transport to west coast ports. We can't afford to have our transportation system disrupted; we need to invest now in resiliency.
Recent estimates put the minimum cost of hardening our infrastructure in the tens of billions of dollars each year. For example, annual costs for strengthening our bridges alone are estimated at around $2 billion between now and 2090. The full costs--which also include rebuilding and restoring services after extreme events and maintaining and making design changes for the full range of critical infrastructure--could easily rise to hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
Building in resilience is common sense management to protect our infrastructure investments, but simply hardening existing infrastructure will not solve our problems because the costs of this approach will grow over time.
In order to build true resilience we need a combination of traditional mitigation measures and forward-looking approaches that find resilience in other ways--from green infrastructure, to growing our own energy and food independence.
At the national level, the U.S. Department of Transportation is already working to integrate climate change impacts and adaptation into future planning and operations. But we need to do much more to help our States and cities address the costs of climate change. This includes smarter, integrated planning, prioritization, and funding.
We also need to make our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient. The good news is that the United States can lead by example. We have already begun implementing a number of solutions developed by industry with public sector support that are cutting into transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies are being developed for all modes of transportation that are cleaner and more efficient.
U.S. automobile manufacturers are working hard to increase fuel efficiency and develop vehicles that run on alternative energy such as fuel cell, hybrid, and electric vehicles. They have paired with our universities and research institutions to advance biofuel development and alternatives to oil.
These investments promote research and manufacturing jobs and save money for consumers at the pump. In turn, they have more in their pockets to spend in the U.S. economy.
Many of these advances are part of the President's Climate Action Plan. CAFE standards are helping to improve fuel economy. In 2013, more than 400 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or better were on our Nation's highways. And we will continue to see improvements in fuel efficiency of our light-duty fleet. I applaud President Obama's recent call for new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks by 2016.
Focusing on these trucks will get us more bang for our buck--20 percent of the transportation-related emissions in this country are from heavy-duty trucks, even though they make up only 4 percent of vehicles on the road.
Across the country our universities and industry are working together to develop ideas and solutions to decrease transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. In my home State of Hawaii, a number of innovative state and private sector initiatives are leading the country in the areas of bioenergy and other alternative fuels and vehicles. For example, Hawaii BioEnergy, a consortium of three of Hawaii's largest landowners as well as partners in the venture capital community, is planning to use locally grown feedstocks to produce biofuels. Last year, Hawaii BioEnergy announced a deal to supply Alaska Air with sustainable biofuel for their aircrafts possibly as soon as 2018. Pacific Bio-Diesel is producing diesel from recycled cooking oil that is used in public transit buses and other vehicles. Hawaii is home to a number of demonstration projects, including the sustainable hydrogen project at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam that demonstrated the use of hydrogen produced by solar and wind in aircraft towing vehicles, trucks, small buses, and cars made by General Motors. General Motors has also deployed fuel cell cars in Hawaii, and the Department of Energy has funded a project on Hawaii Island to demonstrate the use of buses powered by hydrogen produced with geothermal energy that would otherwise have been curtailed. The State of Hawaii used stimulus funds to deploy the Hawaii E V Ready Program--a network of electric vehicle charging stations to encourage early adoption of this exciting technology. The Maui Smart Grid Project now includes fast chargers as part of an initiative to demonstrate the use of electric vehicles as part of an electric grid management project.
It is important to note that many of the exciting projects my State is working on extend past improving efficiency for our trucks and cars. We are committed to making travel by sea and sky more efficient and cost-effective.
Our consumers and businesses don't want the instability of the wild fluctuations in the oil market. This is especially important in Hawaii, where we are so dependent on air travel, and I am proud that Hawaiian Airlines is one of the Nation's most fuel efficient airlines.
As a nation we are investing billions of dollars in Next Generation Air Transportation System upgrades, which will help to make air travel more safe, productive, and sustainable. Through improving efficiency and easing congestion in our skies, NextGen will improve air quality and limit aircraft emissions. The FAA predicts net reductions of the climate impact from all aviation emissions over the long term by 2050.
We need to continue to support critical clean energy research and development to further these types of advances. In addition, we need to act now to extend important tax credits for advanced biofuels and advanced vehicle technologies.
In the same way that we look at increasing fuel economy for our trucks and planes, we can improve the efficiency of our transportation systems by making smarter choices about how we build our communities. By providing American workers and families options other than driving to get to where they need to go, we can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase mobility, and improve the quality of life for all Americans.
In Hawaii, we recognize that in addition to making our vehicles more fuel efficient, improving reliable transportation options is a critical part of reducing our impact on climate change. This is one of the reasons why I have been such a staunch supporter of the Honolulu Rail Transit Project. Electrically powered rail transit will not only ease traffic congestion in Honolulu, but it will also advance Hawaii's goal of 70 percent clean energy by 2030.
As noted by the National Resources Defense Council, ``By investing in transit we can give people real transportation choices so people aren't forced to burn a gallon of gas every time they need to pick up groceries or get to work. Along with other solutions--like charging stations for electric cars, smart traffic technology, or communities where people can walk or bike to shops, schools and work--transit can help break our addiction to oil. Laying the groundwork for a 21st Century transportation system that makes our communities more productive and efficient will free us from constantly worrying about prices at the pump while boosting our economy, safeguarding our environment, and improving our quality of life.''
Major transit investments, like Honolulu Rail, have the added benefit of attracting development around stations. Transit-oriented development, or building neighborhoods with homes and businesses close together and accessible to transit, allows residents to choose to make at least some trips without a car, reducing emissions. The market is showing that more and more Americans want these options, and for good reason.
Transportation is the second largest item in the average American household budget, and more options can shorten commutes and save money. Families can save on gas or forego that second car and the payments that come along with it. When communities become livable and walkable, property values skyrocket. And when our children and seniors can walk and bike to school, community centers, and shopping destinations, we see health benefits. Building our communities with housing and transportation near jobs, schools, stores, and restaurants can help support local economies while protecting the environment.
I am working hard to find ways to support these types of commonsense options at the Federal level. One of those commonsense solutions I have championed is my Military Installations Enhancement Act of 2013, which was included in the 2013 defense authorization. Commanders now have more authority to make smart, cost-saving choices about how we use space on facilities. Using less space is more efficient.
It is also about improving quality of life on bases, connecting our military families housing to jobs, the commissary, and the rest of the community.
In Hawaii we are already moving on this. Honolulu is in the process of building our rail system, and the military is working with the local transit authority to situate two stations next to Pearl Harbor-Hickam.
Though the Department of Defense has been looking at these benefits primarily to promote defense readiness, they also help address climate change by making bases more sustainable over the long term. With destinations closer together, people who work on or visit the base can choose to walk, bike, take transit, or drive. Having these options means less air pollution and less traffic on roads.
Biking and walking are great ways to take zero emissions trips, but taking that trip isn't an option if it means you risk your life to do it. I recently introduced the Safe Streets Act of 2014 with my colleague, Senator Begich. The Safe Streets Act would require complete streets policies in all States, meaning that roads would be built to be safe for all of the people who use them, including bikers and walkers. This is especially important in Hawaii, where we have some of the most dangerous roads in the Nation for seniors.
AARP highlighted how important this bill is: ``Safe mobility options are . . . essential to the independence and well-being of mid-life and older Americans. Fully one-fifth of persons ages 65 and above does not drive. Yet almost half of respondents to an AARP survey of persons age 50 and above said they cannot safely cross the main roads in their neighborhoods . . . AARP supports Safe Streets legislation because it would ensure that federal transportation infrastructure investments provide safe travel for all-whether driving, bicycling, walking, or taking public transportation.
These improvements that allow older adults to travel by foot will benefit younger road users as well. Your bill will help ensure that all users are safe, that scarce transportation dollars are spent wisely, and that Americans have choices in how they move around their neighborhood.''
Smarter transportation choices improve mobility, save money, and reduce emissions. We have an opportunity in
the next surface transportation authorization to ensure that we continue Federal support for transit, biking, walking, and smart development.
All these innovations in the transportation sector to reduce carbon pollution have benefits beyond climate change. The research, design, development, and production of fuel efficient vehicles and airplanes help to create new high paying jobs. Such innovations will help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil and shield consumers from the volatility of fluctuating foreign oil prices. Moreover, high-quality public transportation surrounded by mixed-use developments will increase mobility and expand job opportunities for all Americans. Overall, this is a win-win for businesses, consumers, and the environment.
It is time for Congress to wake up to the realities of climate change and take action to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, but we can make real and lasting changes to our transportation sector and infrastructure without climate change being our primary motivation. Reducing our dependence on oil just makes long-term economic sense. It is a pragmatic decision that will have dramatic impacts to our economy, our health, and our way of life.
Water Resources
Mr. President, without water, life on Earth would not exist. Water sustains our ability to grow crops and raise livestock. It quenches. It cleans. It provides habitat for plants and animals and produces electricity. It is perhaps the world's most valuable resource. Yet many of us in the United States take water for granted on a daily basis when we turn on our faucets, flush our toilets, water our plants, cook our food, and drink from our cups. Others around the globe do not have that luxury. The World Bank estimates that 1.6 billion people live in countries or regions with ``absolute water scarcity'' and that number is expected to rise to 2.8 billion people by 2025.
Growing up in Hawaii and now representing my State in the Senate, I know the value and scarcity of our planet's water resources, especially as we confront the effects of climate-driven changes to our environment.
As stated by the Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy, ``Hawaii water experts have recognized that alterations in rainfall, temperature, wind, or other climate phenomena have the potential to devastate natural resources and human communities'' on our islands. Our freshwater resources are particularly at risk.
Water resource issues are by no means confined to my State. Most of the other 49 are also facing or may soon face water-related problems, such as changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, drought, flooding, and sea level rise, that have the potential to be catastrophic. From California, through the American Southwest and Midwest, down to Florida and up the east coast, our cities, farms, and communities are at risk.
I will begin tonight by stating the facts. Climate change is real, and it is perhaps most real in its effects on the water patterns of the planet. Countries around the world, including the United States, have always been afflicted by some degree of variability. Droughts have stricken portions of North America for thousands of years. Floods have been commonplace on our major rivers and tributaries. But never before has this variability been caused by humans.
Scientists predict that warmer temperatures have three major effects on the planet's water: increased evaporation, increased precipitation, and a rise in sea levels.
These in turn may drastically affect our water resources. Increased evaporation, caused by higher temperatures, heightens our risk for longer and more severe droughts--what scholars have termed ``megadroughts''--especially in our already vulnerable drought-prone areas. Changes in precipitation and runoff patterns leave areas near rivers, lakes, and streams much more susceptible to devastating floods. And sea level rise endangers the homes and infrastructure in our coastal communities and can taint their drinking water.
When it comes to these water resource issues, the future is now. The effects of climate change on our water resources are already upon us.
Drought is among the earliest documented events related to climate and has been a part of human history much longer. Evidence even exists to suggest that a megadrought in Africa more than 100,000 years ago may have caused the migration of our ancestors out of the continent.
A report by the Congressional Research Service notes that precolonial North America was subject to ``severe, long-lasting droughts'' that ``may have been a factor in the disintegration of Pueblo society in the Southwest during the 13th century, and in the demise of central and lower Mississippi Valley societies in the 14th through 16th centuries.''
More recently, ``droughts in the 1930s Dust Bowl era and 1950s were particularly severe and widespread. In 1934, 65 percent of the contiguous United States was affected by severe to extreme drought, resulting in widespread economic disruption and displacement of populations from the U.S. heartland--many relocating to California's Central Valley--and revealing shortcomings in agricultural and land use practices.''
The CRS report states that in the past 50 years, human-induced climate change has caused scientists to question whether we are entering a ``new megadrought era'' akin to the worst megadrought periods of the past, which are believed to have been caused by a warming climate. Large areas of the United States, such as the American Southwest and California, would be particularly susceptible to megadroughts.
In California, the snowpack in the Sierra Mountains as of February 2014 was, according to the CRS report, ``well below normal, and water levels in multi-year reservoirs were below average conditions for that time of year.'' This follows 2013, which was California's driest year on record. Now I want to be clear: We still cannot connect any single weather event or drought directly to human-caused climate change, but we can use these extreme weather events as examples of what future climates might look like. We know firsthand the economic consequences of major weather events.
Looking to examples in our history will help illuminate the future. Islands like Hawaii with small land masses and limited water resources also face difficult times ahead if global temperatures continue to rise due to greenhouse gases. Recent studies have shown that most of the Hawaii islands have experienced a steady decline in rainfall over the past 20 years, which has had an enormous effect on our ranching industry.
I am pleased that Governor Abercrombie and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture are working to improve our State's irrigation systems and to develop long-term solutions to help the farmers of Hawaii deal with the effects of climate change.
To quote Scott Enright of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, ``We know we will experience climate change in Hawaii and the department has been putting through legislation to help us with that.'' Such efforts at the State level are crucial to helping the agricultural sector adapt.
Like droughts, floods have been a scourge to humanity since the beginning of civilization. Climate science predicts that severe floods may result from global warming.
According to the National Resources Defense Council, ``Climate change has contributed to a rise in extreme weather events.'' These events ``will increase the frequency of heavy rainstorms, putting many communities at risk for devastation from floods. Flooding can cause a range of health impacts and risks, including: death and injury, contaminated drinking water, hazardous material spills, increased populations of disease-carrying insects and rodents, moldy houses, and community disruption and displacement. As rains become heavier, streams, rivers, and lakes can overflow, increasing the risk of water- borne pathogens flowing into drinking water sources. Downpours can also damage critical infrastructure like sewer and solid waste systems, triggering sewage overflows that can spread into local waters.''
I turn now to the issue of sea level rise, which, as National Geographic has noted, can have ``devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches
farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of drinking water and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.''
Like drought and floods, sea level rise due to climate change is already upon us. A recent joint report from the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society shows that since 1901, global sea level rose by about 8 inches, with a large percentage of that rise coming in the past two decades.
If greenhouse gases continue to increase on their current trajectories, it is projected that sea level may rise by as much as 3 feet by the end of the 21st century. And ``rising sea levels will not stop in 2100; sea levels will be much higher in the following centuries as the sea continues to take up heat and glaciers continue to retreat.''
Eight inches of sea level rise might not sound like a big deal, but it is.
Even very small increases in sea level, such as those seen already, can have devastating impacts, one of which is saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources, which is a fancy way of saying that drinking water along some coasts will become salty and undrinkable.
``Rising sea levels are causing saltwater to flow into the Ganges, India's biggest river, threatening its ecosystem and turning vast farmlands barren in the country's east,'' according to a Reuters article from several years ago. In the United States, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reports that Florida aquifers, which provide much of the freshwater to communities throughout the State, are in danger of oversalinization.
More than half of freshwater used in Florida is from underground sources like the Biscayne Aquifer. The consequences of climate change induced sea level rise are dire for some low-lying coastal areas.
The combination of sea level rise and a growing population are putting strains on freshwater sources in Florida. A local natural resources official noted in the Sun-Sentinel article that ``potable water supply is obviously a major concern long-term.'' One possible solution proposed by the Southeast Florida Utility Council is reengineering stormwater runoff to drain into the aquifers, instead of flowing back out to sea. This would beat back the saltwater intrusion and replenish freshwater.
Saltwater intrusion also poses problems in low-lying parts of my State and many other Pacific island nations and U.S. territories with limited freshwater supplies. If sea levels continue to rise, these areas could quickly become uninhabitable.
The United Nations reports that rising sea levels have left and are leaving salt deposits in the soil and contaminants in the groundwater supply. Both of these have adverse impacts on agriculture, food, and water security. Many small Pacific nations face the risk of saltwater intrusion of their freshwater supplies.
Allow me to share with you a few words from the Honorable Enele S. Sopoaga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who spoke at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2013: ``Some have suggested that the people of Tuvalu can move elsewhere. Let me say in direct terms. We do not want to move. Such suggestions are offensive to the people of Tuvalu. Our lives and culture are based on our continued existence on the islands of Tuvalu. We will survive.'' It is our duty as a pacific nation to help the people of Tuvalu and other island communities do just that--survive.
Let me end on a positive note and describe some of the additional ways that I have supported protecting our water resources through legislation at the national level.
As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, I have introduced the SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014 to conserve water resources and promote sustainability.
As part of the SECURE Water Amendments Act, I am fighting for funding for a national water inventory. In its last major report on water use in the United States in 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that over 400,000 million gallons of water are withdrawn every day. However, we also need to know how much water we have and where we have it so that we can better prepare for the effects of climate change on our water resources.
Finally, I support the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act, which President Obama signed into law on March 6. As the White House noted in its official statement, ``This bipartisan legislation ensures that the federal government can continue to provide timely, effective drought warning forecasts and vital support to communities that are vulnerable to drought. States, cities, towns, farmers, and businesses rely on tools and data from the National Integrated Drought Information System to make informed decisions about water use, crop planting, wildfire response, and other critical areas.''
Mr. President, I am joined tonight by many of my colleagues, who also understand what is happening to our planet and what will continue to happen if we do not address the causes and effects of climate change. As I conclude, however, let me speak not just as a Member of Congress but as a father. Every parent worries about the future that their children face, and I am particularly troubled about the planet we are leaving for our children.
Several decades from tonight, when my son and daughter are the same age I am now, will they have adequate water resources? And if they have chosen to live in Hawaii or any of the other communities in the United Sates with water resource issues, will there even be any useable water left at all?
Despite my worries, I am hopeful that this scenario will not play out. It has been said that water seeks its own level. I see this as true both literally and figuratively. Those who are convinced that climate change is real and who also have real solutions are seeking each other out. And someday, in the not too distant future, I am confident we will reach that critical mass of people who firmly believe that we can no longer sit idly by in the face of climate change and that the time to act is not tomorrow but now.
Emergency Management
Mr. President. I now will use some time to discuss the impact of climate change on our Nation's security and resiliency.
The effects of climate change will require additional investments in our communities in order to protect our most critical infrastructure, such as our roads, bridges, and powerplants. As extreme weather events become more frequent and severe, there will be a need for increased disaster assistance and mitigation efforts.
These events will have a direct impact on our economy. One need only look at the $1 trillion dollars in damages that the United States has accumulated since 1980 due to extreme weather events, which scientists know are becoming more frequent and severe. This is one of many reasons why Congress must wake up and take action now to address climate change.
We know we cannot attribute any one event to climate change, but what science is telling us is that with each passing day, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are increasing our chances of extreme weather events that carry with them dangerous consequences.
Global average temperatures have risen by more than 2 degrees in the last 50 years. Climate scientists caution that this warming increases the chances of more intense and frequent droughts and heat waves. Rising temperatures in various parts of the country could also increase the severity and frequency of wildfires.
Precipitation levels have increased by an average of 5 percent and heaviest downpours have increased by 20 percent over the last 50 years. These higher levels of precipitation can lead to more flood events throughout the country.
A changing climate could cause hurricanes to become more intense and severe. And this is particularly worrisome in the Pacific, where hurricanes have increased in strength since the 1980s. Moreover, sea levels have risen in the past 50 years along our coastlines and will continue to do so as the Earth warms. As a result, our coastal areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable to flooding, erosion, and damage caused by storms. The combination of sea level rise and increased strength of hurricanes amplify the destructive force of Mother Nature by putting more coastal communities at risk of dangerous storm surge.
My home State of Hawaii is expected to experience worsening severe weather. Last year, researchers at the University of Hawaii found that warming temperatures and changing storm patterns will lead to fewer but stronger tropical cyclones that will track more toward Hawaii in the future.
Across the country, we are seeing an increasing number of disasters. The number of Presidential disaster declarations has increased from 65 in 2004 to 98 in 2011.
During that time, FEMA provided more than $80 billion in disaster assistance. As the severity and frequency of weather-related disasters continues to increase, FEMA will need to spend more to help communities respond to and recover from disasters. For instance, disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy totaled around $60 billion.
In addition, due to the increasing potential of flood related events, more funding will be needed for the National Flood Insurance Program. This program is currently $24 billion in debt due to increasing costs and payouts because of extreme weather events.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office added managing climate change risks to its high risk list. According to GAO, ``Climate change creates significant financial risk for the federal government, which . . . provides emergency aid in response to natural disasters.'' Overall, the fiscal impact of climate change on the United States economy could top more than $1 trillion by the year 2050. Emergency managers at all levels of government would have to stretch their budgets even further to prepare for and respond to such devastating events.
We know how severe weather-related events can endanger our communities and put lives at risk. But these events also threaten our critical infrastructure. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that ``higher temperatures and more intense storms may damage or disrupt telecommunications and power systems, creating challenges for telecommunications infrastructure, emergency communications, and the availability of cyber systems.''
Many of our roads, bridges, water systems, and electrical grids are already very old and in need of repair. According to GAO, ``Infrastructure is typically designed to withstand and operate within historic climate patterns. However, according to the National Research Council, as the climate changes and historical patterns--in particular, those related to extreme weather events--no longer provide reliable predictions of the future, infrastructure designs may underestimate the climate-related impacts to infrastructure over its design life, which can range as long as 50 to 100 years. These impacts can increase the operating and maintenance costs of infrastructure or decrease its life span, or both, leading to social, economic, and environmental impacts.''
Additional funding will be needed to spend on adaptation, which is the process of adjusting systems to possible climate risks. This is to ensure that businesses and communities are protected against changes in the climate.
FEMA has already established an Agency-wide directive to integrate adaptation planning into its policies and operations. Federal agencies are working to develop guidelines that incorporate climate change into risk-based analysis to ensure that infrastructure is more resilient.
Emergency managers will be required to better coordinate with all levels of government for better mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. Federal emergency managers are trying to mitigate the impact of climate change by raising awareness. But it is important that Congress promote these policies too.
We need a unified national approach to encourage investments in making our infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather events brought on by climate change. We need to promote weather-ready planning and ensure that funding is available to emergency managers to effectively prepare for these types of events. We also need to equip individuals to be prepared by increasing their awareness.
Congress needs to wake up and act now. Failure to do so puts our Nation at risk.
International Action
Mr. President, the only place where people continue to debate whether climate change is real is right here in Congress. But while Congress is paralyzed by inaction, the rest of the world is acting.
People around the world are concerned about what the science is telling them. A Pew Research Center poll published last year found that a majority of publics in many of the countries surveyed said that global climate change is one the greatest challenges facing their countries. Concerned communities spanned from Latin America and Europe, to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asian-Pacific.
Not surprisingly, leaders in these countries are already acting to confront climate change with the sense of urgency it deserves. Some of them have focused on efforts to mitigate climate change by placing caps on their greenhouse gas emissions; others have focused on efforts to adapt to climate change with targeted investments in coastal defense and other programs that will make them more resilient in the face of climate uncertainty in the future.
The steps that these representatives have taken to confront climate change are proof of what is possible when we cast aside partisanship and decide to act on the science.
Just across the Atlantic, our allies in the United Kingdom have demonstrated what is possible. In 2008, leaders in London made the United Kingdom the first country in the world to adopt legally binding targets that required the country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the first country to require businesses to report their carbon emissions. The 2008 Climate Change Act was a seminal piece of legislation that has put the United Kingdom on track to confront its contribution to climate change, with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 80 percent from its 1990 levels by 2050 below the nation's projected baseline.
In 2012, Mexico followed in the United Kingdom's footsteps, becoming only the second country in the world to set legally binding reductions on greenhouse gas emissions. The landmark bill signed into law that year committed Mexico to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2050.
What is most remarkable about the legally binding targets that the United Kingdom and Mexico enacted and have continued to advance is that it proves that both developed and developing countries are both capable of cutting carbon pollution.
While greenhouse gas targets are important, that is only one activity that countries across the world are undertaking to address climate change. Given that climate change is already happening, many countries are being forced to take matters into their own hands and adapt to the reality around them.
We have heard numerous accounts tonight about how one of the most pernicious impacts of climate change is sea level rise.
Sea level is expected to rise nearly one meter by 2100. This seems like a distant challenge. But with each passing year, as the seas inch higher, tides grow more threatening and storm surges more dangerous. Even slight changes in sea level rise pose serious dangers to coastal communities, from the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati to the mangrove villages along the Bay of Bengal in eastern India.
The Netherlands is wasting no time in preparing for sea level rise. The seawall of the Netherlands is 42 feet high and 50 yards thick at its base. The people have raised the wall several times since 1976, when it stood half as tall. Over the next 100 years, the Netherlands plans to invest $25 billion in strengthening existing sea defenses. With $2.5 trillion worth of existing infrastructure, the seawall is vital to the Netherlands's future.
The Netherlands is just one dramatic example of how countries are working to adapt to the challenges of climate change.
In addition to leading the world in crafting national greenhouse gas legislation, the United Kingdom is working to assess its climate vulnerabilities. In order to better examine the risks that climate change poses to its communities, the government has produced its
first Climate Change Risk Assessment and plans to release an updated assessment every 5 years, informed by the best available science.
Denmark has, in recent years, increased wind power to generate over 30 percent of its electricity and aims to be 100 percent fossil fuel free by 2050. While these efforts are in part to help the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, its embrace of renewables is also likely to make it more resilient to climate change in the future by diversifying their energy portfolio. It is no wonder that Denmark is, according to the Climate Change Performance Index, No. 1 in taking actions against climate change.
Efforts to confront climate change head on are not unique to developed countries either.
In 2013, Kenya launched its National Climate Action Plan, which outlined options for low carbon emissions, climate resilient development, and ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Like most developing nations, Kenya's greenhouse gas emissions are low compared to those of developed nations. However, Kenya feels the effects of climate change and is planning for increased uncertainty in the future. Indeed, leaders in Nairobi know too well that climate change will disproportionately impact the world's poorest, and they need to be prepared.
Developing countries have long understood the risks of a warming planet, even though the world community has continued to debate who, precisely, is responsible. In the 1990s, the government of the African state Seychelles prepared its own Environmental Management Plan.
The purpose of the plan was to conform to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. Part of the plan was dedicated to sustainable development of the islands, to ensure that proper environmental protections were taking place throughout the country's development.
Leaders in the Seychelles, which at the time had a population of only 70,000, took it upon themselves to make sure they took the necessary steps to protect their home. Today, Seychelles, comprised of 115 granite and coral islands, is at risk from sea level rise. Seychelles has been dumping granite boulders on sand beaches to prevent them from washing away.
Ronald Jemeau, Seychelles' Ambassador to the United Nations and the United States, offered these sobering remarks in 2010 that are worth repeating at length:
We're having the problems of the coral reefs. And coral
reefs are central to our economy, central to our culture,
central to our way of life. What many people don't realize
about coral reefs is not--it's not that they're just
beautiful for diving and, as we call them, the rainforests of
the ocean. But coral reefs are where many of the deep sea
fishes spawn and grow up. It's a nursery for small fish. So
if coral reefs die, you are affecting fish in the deep seas,
which we use for--which we fish. Also, coral reefs are the
first defense--natural defense of violence against ocean
waves. When the coral reefs die because of--after they're
bleached, they break down, and they allow the waves to hit
the shore.
For some time now, our islands are being--have been eroded
away, islands actually changing shape because of the problem
of--on the one hand, the dying reefs. On the other, you have
much more serious, much more intense storm events, higher
tides, very strong tides which have been really eroding our
beaches. And the only defense we've been able to do--we have
a lot of granite. We are the oldest oceanic islands because
we have a lot of granite. And we've been dumping granite
boulders on our sand beaches to prevent them from being swept
away. That's not exactly the reason tourists come to
Seychelles. They come to see beaches with white sand, not
beaches strewn with boulders.
Mr. President, I want to take a moment to address opponents of action who say: Well, China is the biggest polluter of them all, and they aren't doing anything, so even if the United States does act, it wouldn't mean a thing.
By the way, notice how that argument implicitly accepts the realities of climate change. It is no longer a scientific argument; it is a collective action argument.
Well if that is all that is holding some Americans back from taking action, then I have news. China is working to fight pollution and climate change. The United States is the laggard.
Last week at the opening of China's annual meeting of Parliament, the Chinese Premier said that China will ``declare war on pollution'' in the coming years. China faces the twofold challenge of extreme local pollution and the effects of climate change and recognizes that transitioning to clean sources of energy is a decision that has enormous implications for its economic and political stability.
In January, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said that China is ``doing it right'' as it begins to tackle climate change. She continued to say that the Chinese are ``not doing this because they want to save the planet. They're doing it because it's in their national interest.'' Regardless of their motivations, the Chinese are acting.
So what exactly is China doing? Last September, the Chinese State Council released its Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Action Plan, which called for a reduction in the construction of new coal-fired powerplants and a goal of generating 13 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2017.
In 2013, China installed 12 to 14 gigawatts of solar panels and expects to do it again this year. Prior to 2013, no country has ever added more than 8 gigawatts of solar in a single year. A price guarantee for utility-scale solar projects known as a feed-in-tariff, as well as low-cost panels, drove this dramatic growth.
The argument that the United States shouldn't act until China acts doesn't fly anymore because China is taking action.
Chinese officials have announced that they plan to institute a tax on carbon pollution in 2015 or 2016. Certain regions have also started to implement pilot cap-and-trade programs and are beginning to develop plans to create a national carbon market by 2020.
How about current investments? In 2012 the United States spent about $35 billion on renewable energy, while China spent $64 billion.
The overwhelming buzz of climate action that we hear coming from capitals around the world is a stark contrast to the deafening silence here in Washington.
I worry about the message that Congress's inaction sends to the rest of the world, that while so many countries are going to great pains to confront climate change, too many Members of Congress would deny that change exists at all.
Many of these world leaders are looking for American leadership. They want American leadership. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso acknowledged this ahead of the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali when he said, ``We can succeed only if we have the United States with us.'' We must meet our partners on this issue. We risk conceding our credibility on this issue to others who are rising to the occasion.
I am grateful that we have a true champion on climate change in President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Despite our neglect here in Congress, Secretary Kerry has been America's ambassador to the world on climate change, working hard to preserve our leadership position on this crucial issue.
Secretary Kerry has thoughtfully said before that ``those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.'' I have no doubt that leaders in these countries know, through their dialogue with him, that he is committed to tackling climate change and, through him, America's commitment is real. I have no doubt that despite Congress's stubbornness, America understands the challenge.
Washington might be paralyzed, but the rest of the world is not. Once you get outside of Washington, outside the grip of special interests, the rest of America is further ahead in confronting climate change.
Take my home State of Hawaii.
Besides being on the cutting edge of climate science research, policymakers in Hawaii have shown incredible leadership in adopting pragmatic and principled legislation to confront the challenge of climate change.
In 2007, Hawaii became only the second State in the country to adopt binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions. The bipartisan Global Warming Solutions Act committed Hawaii to an aggressive goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
At the time, skeptics of the legislation thought that the legislation would doom Hawaii given the State's outsized reliance on fossil fuels for electricity. But, in fact, it is working in concert with the aggressive greenhouse gas targets that legislators adopted that year with a burgeoning partnership between Hawaii and the Department of Energy that became the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative.
The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative has been perhaps one of the most successful partnerships between the State, Federal Government, nonprofit, and private sector. It helped lay out a road map for Hawaii to achieve its aggressive greenhouse gas emissions goals with clean energy as the means for doing it. Our job is far from done, but as a result of this effort I am optimistic about Hawaii's energy future and our ability to reduce carbon pollution.
Hawaii is just one example of the many efforts under way outside of Washington to confront climate change. All across the country, cities, counties, and State representatives are waking up to the reality of climate change, just as international leaders already have.
The only people who are asleep on this issue are here, right here in Congress. It is time for them to wake up.
Ocean Acidification
Mr. President. I will now address another impact of rising carbon dioxide: ocean acidification, or OA. The ocean absorbs CO2 gas from the atmosphere based on its concentration level: the higher the levels of CO2, the more the oceans will absorb. When this happens, the CO2 reacts with water to become more acidic.
Although acidity levels vary from place to place, NOAA scientists estimate that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has risen approximately 30 percent.
Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in acidity levels that the oceans haven't experienced for more than 20 million years.
Scientists have been studying rising CO2 levels and ocean acidification for years, and I am proud to report that Hawai`i in particular has been at the forefront. Our Mauna Loa observatory sits at an elevation of over 11,000 feet above sea level on the island of Hawai`i, and has been recording CO2 levels since the mid- 1950s, making it the oldest continuous CO2 measurement station in the world. As such, it is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the increase of this gas that contributes to both global warming and ocean acidification.
In addition to watching CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, Hawai`i has also kept track of ocean chemistry at Station ALOHA, just north of Hawai`i where the University of Hawai`i monitors a variety of oceanographic conditions in a project known as HOT--the Hawai`i Ocean Time-series. With continuous observations of ocean waters at Station Aloha since October 1988, scientists have learned that the surface ocean grew more acidic at exactly the rate expected from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Their research indicated the need for further inquiry, however, because the year-to-year rate of change varied considerably.
For marine animals, ocean acidity is similar to humans living with air pollution: the increased acidity can cause health issues-- particularly for shellfish and coral. Most species of coral, oysters, clams, and mussels experience slower shell and skeleton growth as the waters become more acidic, which will have significant impacts on coastal communities and their economies.
The stakes from ocean acidification are high. According to NOAA: In 2009, U.S. shellfish accounted for about half of the Nation's estimated annual seafood revenue of $3.9 billion. Coral reefs provide habitat for an estimated 1 million species, and offer food, income, and coastal protection for about 500 million people globally.
Unfortunately, the negative impacts of OA are not speculative. The shellfish industry has already started to feel the effects of OA along the Pacific Northwest, where failures at oyster hatcheries beginning in 2007 have been confirmed as a result of the growing acidity of coastal waters.
To get a sense of the impacts, consider this: NOAA estimates that Washington's seafood industry is estimated to contribute over 42,000 jobs and at least $1.7 billion to the gross State product through profits and employment at businesses such as restaurants, distributors, and retailers.
This is not an abstract, theoretical problem, so to illustrate, I would like to highlight the efforts of several firms that are finding ways to adapt to adversity brought on by the changing climate.
Penn Cove Shellfish, Coast Seafoods, Taylor Shellfish and Goose Point Oyster Company--among the largest shellfish farms in America--provide sustainably farmed shellfish products to customers nationally and across the world: as seed mussels, clams, and oysters for other farmers to grow out, and as fully grown shellfish, ready to eat.
After their hard work to develop their businesses, I can only imagine the panic they must have felt when suddenly, some of their mainland shellfish hatcheries started to see production rates declining sharply, and it appeared that something was affecting the health of the larvae.
Working with scientists and researchers, the problems were diagnosed as being caused by ocean acidification. The researchers found that as more and more atmospheric CO2 was absorbed by the ocean, the special form of calcium used by shellfish to create their shells--known as aragonite--declined. This lack of aragonite prevented the shellfish larvae from creating their protective shells, and so many of them died as a result.
Fortunately, research on ocean acidification is not just science for science's sake, so when the shellfish industry's hatchery problems were definitively linked to ocean acidification, Federal science agencies like NOAA found ways for businesses to adapt to increasing CO2 conditions. Together, scientists from NOAA, academia, and the shellfish industry formed a strong partnership to help industry to adapt.
Here's how NOAA described the team's efforts:
Together these researchers determined that acidification
was threatening oyster production and offered an approach to
address it. They installed carbon chemistry monitoring
equipment at shellfish hatcheries. Real-time data from
offshore buoys now serves as an early warning system for
shellfish hatcheries; these buoys are capable of signaling
the approach of cold, acidified seawater 1-2 days before it
arrives in the sensitive coastal waters where larvae are
produced. The data have enabled hatchery managers to schedule
production when water quality is good and avoid wasting
valuable energy and other resources when water quality is
poor.
These efforts solved the immediate problem, but the experience set them thinking about long-term environmental risk to their businesses.
First, they recognized that based on the best available science, ocean acidity levels can vary greatly--so to find a way to insulate themselves from changes to the waters in coastal Washington, they figured they should look to a different State altogether.
That State wound up being my own home: Hawai`i. It happens that we had existing infrastructure at the Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii; NELHA, to support shellfish aquaculture in Kona on Hawai`i Island, and so Penn Cove and Coast Seafoods negotiated and moved in at Kona Coast Shellfish, and Taylor Shellfish followed suit with a separate hatchery at the same facility. More recently, the Goose Point Oyster Company has developed a new hatchery known as Hawaiian Shellfish near Hilo. Now, in addition to having more security for their supply chain, the increased production has allowed them all to expand sales to reach new North American and Asian markets, and grow their business.
Their case is an object lesson on how adaptation can create economic opportunity, and I am grateful they chose Hawai`i to locate their backup facilities! But it's also a stark reminder of how changes in ocean chemistry have already disrupted the ability of shellfish to live in their native habitats and why there is so much urgency to act now.
Hawai`i is also connected to the other side of ocean acidification: its effects on coral reefs. Unfortunately,
ocean acidification is not the only pressure on coral reefs.
Warming ocean waters, pollution and sedimentation from the land, and overfishing all reduce coral growth and vitality, making it harder and harder for reefs to survive into the future. Like the impacts on shellfish, the threat to corals from ocean acidification is invisible-- unless you work with them on a daily basis, like coral scientists do. However, considering that coral reefs provide the habitat for an estimated 1 million species, and offer food, income, and coastal protection for about 500 million people globally, it is a problem that everyone should care about.
Because it's their daily bread, coral scientists at the University of Hawai`i see vividly how ocean acidification is changing our reefs and they are doubling down to refine scientific understanding of corals and to find solutions. For others, like Dr. Bob Richmond, it's about maintaining strength in science, while reaching out to elected officials, community leaders, and members of the public to share what researchers have learned.
The Honolulu Star Advertiser recently recognized Dr. Richmond's efforts:
Ocean scientists were urged . . . to go beyond their own
scientific research and inject themselves into the political
realm to give politicians and decision-makers the information
they need to make the best policy decisions.
Robert Richmond, director of the University of Hawai`i's
Kewalo Marine Laboratory, used his own research on coral
reefs to illustrate how it can be done in a speech before
hundreds of scientists from around the world at the 2014
Ocean Sciences Meeting at the Hawai`i Convention Center.
Richmond, president of the International Society for Reef
Studies, said there's a need to teach scientists to be better
communicators.
In discussing his own research, Richmond described talking
to chiefs in Palau, community members in Guam and Pohnpei and
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in East Honolulu to
accomplish successes in support of coral reefs on the local
level.
He urged the scientists to work with local organizations,
elected and traditional leaders, and stakeholders to effect
change. ``It requires partnerships. I've worked with groups I
never intended to, from economists to cultural
practitioners.''
Dr. Richmond's approach to bridge science and policy led him to work with colleagues to develop a Consensus Statement on Climate Change and Coral Reefs, which has been signed by over 3,000 coral reef scientists from all over the world.
The consensus statement expresses the shared conclusions of the science community about the impacts of greenhouse gases on the world's coral reefs, along with their best predictions about the future. The statement is intended to assist people like us--government officials-- to make decisions with a firm foundation of objectively verifiable science.
The science presented in the consensus statement is clear and sobering: If CO2 emissions continue at the current rate, the combination of warming and acidification of ocean waters will reach levels that have not occurred since 55 million years ago. At that time, there was a ``coral reef crisis'' where environmental conditions caused a dramatic reduction in reef development, and scientists fear that we will face a similar situation in our lifetimes.
The situation is grave, but the consensus statement also details the science-based steps we can take to improve the outlook for our corals.
The topline item, however, is one that my colleagues here tonight and I have long suspected: that we need a dedicated and consistent effort to reduce climate change through reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world. This is simply the only long-term, comprehensive solution to the problems of climate change.
Scientific research shows that we can also make a difference by taking steps to reduce the damage done by local actions. For example, communities can: Rebuild fish stocks; Reduce runoff and pollutants coming from the land; Rebuild populations of iconic species like turtles, whales, seals, and dolphins; Identify and protect the most resilient reefs; and Promote aquaculture without increasing pollution and runoff.
Unfortunately, these steps alone will not solve the challenge facing coral reefs, but they will empower individuals to claim a role in protecting their reefs.
Another notable Hawai`i coral scientist, Dr. Ruth Gates, who is based at the University of Hawai`i's Hawai`i Institute for Marine Biology, has focused on a different science-based approach: finding resilient corals that can stand up to the pressure of global warming and ocean acidification. Her work was featured in the Honolulu Star Advertiser last week:
``We can confirm that reefs are declining. There's no
disputing that,'' Gates said on a recent morning, a cool
breeze blowing off a cloudy Kaneohe Bay behind her. ``But
it's not all doom and gloom.''
Using the popular Oahu bay's turquoise waters as a
laboratory, Gates has spent the past several years scrambling
to find the hardiest, strongest coral--the ``professional
athletes'' of the bunch--that can endure the warmer and more
acidic seas of the future.
The idea is to then take those corals' traits and breed
them on a large scale similar to breeding preferred traits in
dogs and other animals.
In Hawai`i, a State that has become a flash point in the
debate over the use of genetically modified organisms, the
Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology researcher is quick to
stress that her concept of selective coral breeding is
something entirely different.
``We're looking for the supercorals that already exist''
several feet from a stretch of coral just offshore, Gates
explained. The approach would not introduce foreign DNA into
coral, as is done in the controversial GMO process.
It's more than just scientists who are working to save
reefs in the face of ocean acidification and global warming.
Community leaders, cultural practitioners, scientists, and
the general public have all come together to designate a
National Estuarine Research Reserve in O`ahu's He`eia estuary
in Kane`ohe Bay, and I am doing all I can to support their
efforts. When we succeed, the He`eia site will provide a rich
base of information from diverse knowledge bases: Native
Hawaiian cultural practitioners; The University of Hawai`i's
Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology, which specializes in
coral research, and is located on a small island in K?ne ohe
Bay; and The local community of Kane`ohe.
Because the site lies within the footprint of Kane`ohe town, we can use it to learn how best to live with coral reefs so that we can preserve the economy and the environment at the same time.
As legislators in the national Congress, we have a role to play as well. My distinguished colleague from Florida, Bill Nelson, has developed an impressive reauthorization of the Coral Reef Conservation Act. In addition to continuing the strong efforts already present in the Federal Government, this bill would empower local action and mandate the development of an international strategy for coral conservation. I am a proud cosponsor of his bill.
We can also continue to support the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, or FOARAM, which provided the science that helped the shellfish industry. I understand that my friend from Washington State, Maria Cantwell, is working hard to develop a reauthorization of this bill. She is a real ocean champion, and I am grateful for her leadership on this important issue. I look forward to supporting her efforts.
Finally, we need to continue to support NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System, which provides critical data that coral scientists rely on to understand how the changing acidity of the ocean impacts our reefs.
I was glad to help organize a bipartisan coalition of 15 colleagues from this Chamber to express support of the program to our distinguished colleague, Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski.
Friends, the threat of ocean acidification is real and imminent, but we can still take action. Thank you for your time to hear me out on this issue of great national and global significance.
Big Business and Economic Impacts
Mr. President, when the financial crisis hit, global economic output dropped 1.3 percent. It was catastrophic.
The world now faces the risk of another major blow to global GDP-- climate change. By some estimates, the impact could be several times the size of what we saw during the financial crisis.
Climate change could be the biggest shock to the global economy we have ever seen.
To put the cost in context, consider what the United States spent trying to recover from the financial crisis. We committed almost $500 billion to stabilize the financial system, and the
Federal Reserve continues to pump trillions of dollars into the economy to stimulate growth. That investment will seem tiny in comparison to what it will cost to deal with the fall-out from climate change.
Climate change is not a new challenge. What is new is that big business is finally starting to pay attention.
Big businesses are vulnerable to changes in our climate--and they know it.
Already, these changes are affecting their bottom lines by driving up the price of inputs, disrupting global supply chains, and introducing uncertainty into their business plans.
Now that we have the attention of multinational corporations, it is time to harness those powerful economic interests to drive solutions to climate change before it is too late. It is time to get the attention of those in Congress who would even deny a problem exists.
The impact of climate change on our global economy will be massive.
Climate change is likely to hurt industries that are sensitive to changes in the environment--such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism.
The global economy will also be hit by higher costs as we need to do more to cool our environments. We will spend more to get the water needed for industry and human consumption, and to repair the damage caused by extreme weather, which will continue to disrupt global supply chains. The cost of these disruptions will ripple throughout the world economy.
We can also expect to see negative impacts on capital flows, investment, and savings as a result of lower economic output and uncertainty about the future.
The economic impact of climate change will not just be felt in our markets. We will face rising healthcare costs as a result of the spread of infectious diseases and health problems associated with intense heat waves, droughts, and floods.
So what do we know about the actual cost of climate change? Quite a bit, actually.
Just within America's borders, we have seen how costly extreme weather events can be--Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, record droughts on the west coast, wildfires and floods in Colorado, devastating floods in the Midwest, and record heat waves in the Northeast.
The price tag is not just the cost of rescuing people from harms' way, repairing the damage, and rebuilding communities. There is also the cost of higher food prices, lower tourism revenue, and the loss of economic productivity when people can't work.
A recent study was commissioned by 20 governments of countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change. The study estimated that, in 2010, climate change cost the world over $1.2 trillion, or 1.6 percent of global GDP. It also showed that, by 2030, climate change will cut global economic growth by over 3 percent.
The International Monetary Fund is paying close attention to the risk that climate change poses to the world economy. In its view, studies that attempt to estimate the global economic damage of climate change tend to be underestimates.
That is because these studies are based on fairly conservative estimates of changes in global temperatures. And they have a hard time taking into account the multifaceted and far-reaching impact of climate change.
As an example, Lord Nicolas Stern, author of the most respected study on how climate change will impact the economy said the following:
``I got it wrong on climate change--it's far, far worse.''
Keep in mind that his initial study predicted dire economic consequences for the world. And now, just 6 years later, he's saying those predictions were not dire enough.
Americans are taking action. Former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson teamed up with the founder of a global investment capital firm in a nonpartisan effort to conduct an assessment of the economic risks of climate change to the United States.
In Mayor Bloomberg's words, ``If the United States were run like a business, its board of directors would fire its financial advisers for failing to disclose the significant and material risks associated with unmitigated climate change.''
Big business is finally paying attention.
Unlike Congress, big business has finally woken up to the reality and urgency of climate change.
A recent article in the New York Times ran with the headline ``Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change.''
According to the article, senior officials at Coca-Cola and Nike are joining a growing group of American business leaders who see climate change as a major challenge to global economic growth.
A senior official at Coca-Cola listed risks to the company's bottom- line: in his words, those risks include ``increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, [and] hundred-year floods every two years.'' These risks are not hypothetical--Coca-Cola has already seen the effects in real time. In 2004, Coca-Cola lost a major operating license in India because of a serious water shortage.
Likewise, Nike has seen its supply chain disrupted by changes in climate and extreme weather. Floods have shut down Nike's factories in Southeast Asia. Droughts have lowered production of the cotton the company relies on to make its athletic clothes. Nike, like many other corporations, now includes the risks posed by climate change on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Recently, Chipotle made headlines when its annual financial report disclosed that climate change could have a significant impact on the price or availability of its avocadoes. The company warned that if costs went up too much, it could have to stop serving its much beloved guacamole.
Starbucks also has its eye on how climate change will impact its bottom-line. The company sources nearly two-thirds of its coffee from small-scale producers in Latin America, Africa, and Indonesia. These regions are vulnerable to both droughts and excessive rain. Changes in weather patterns are likely to reduce their coffee yields and hurt the quality of their beans. Extreme weather is also likely to affect the roads that the company relies on to move its goods around the world. These risks are not far-off or theoretical. They affect the company today.?
Some deniers accept the science but say we're better off doing nothing. They should start listening to the business world.
They say it's too expensive: regulations will kill jobs and hurt the economy, driving up prices on everything from gasoline to bread and milk.
We have heard this argument before; many times in fact, and it is always proven wrong. Over and over again, large-scale collective action on environmental problems has helped to grow the economy and improve human health.
For example, a 2011 peer-reviewed EPA study found that programs established by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will yield direct benefits to Americans vastly in excess of the costs. In just a couple of decades, the study estimates that the benefits of this legislation will exceed the costs by a margin of 30 to 1--and may even approach 90 to 1.
What kind of benefits am I talking about? The study estimated that in 2011 alone the cleaner air we now enjoy avoided more than 160,000 premature deaths from things like heart attacks. It also avoided millions of cases of acute bronchitis and asthma attacks. These meant 13 million fewer lost workdays and 3.2 million fewer lost schools days.
National vehicle efficiency standards, put in place in 1975--have achieved a major reduction in pollution and significant economic benefits to consumers, despite dogged resistance from opponents. And new standards implemented by President Obama are projected to not only reduce our consumption of gasoline but also yield significant savings.
One study finds the following: ``The standards will save consumers $140 billion in 2030. When compared to a typical vehicle on the road today, a new car buyer will save more than 8,000 dollars over the lifetime of a new 2025 vehicle, even after paying for the more fuel- efficient technology.''
The Department of Energy efficiency standards for appliances are another great example of Federal standards that both reduced pollution and saved consumers money. As a result of the standards under this program, the Department reports that consumers saved close to $40 billion on their utility bills, just in 2010 alone. They estimate that by 2030, total cost savings from these standards will be well over 1\1/ 2\ trillion dollars--and will reduce carbon pollution equivalent to the annual emissions from 1.4 billion cars. And yet still today, members of Congress waste time and effort trying to get rid of efficiency standards for things like light bulbs--standards that the lighting industry itself has requested.
The removal of lead from gasoline has had enormous positive impacts. In the 1960's, scientists began to establish that humans were contributing enough lead to the environment to have an effect on human health. And scientists and doctors were showing that lead pollution was contributing to IQ deficits in children, nerve damage, anemia, and mental retardation.
Industry, as you can imagine, resisted strongly. In 1965, the American Petroleum Institute responded to reports that lead was increasing in the environment with the following quote:
These findings ``have no real bearing on the public health aspects of lead . . . the mass of evidence proves unquestionably that lead isn't a significant factor in air pollution and represents no public health problem in any way.''
It took over 10 years and a major court decision for the EPA to even begin phasing out lead in gasoline, and that's due to outright falsehoods such as this one.
By 1986, studies showed that the health benefit to cost ratio was 10 to 1. Blood levels of lead across the country dropped significantly as soon as the lead phase-out began.
From 1978 to 1991 they dropped 78 percent.
If you remember one statistic from this speech, remember this one. Largely as a result of government regulations, between 1970 and 2011, total air pollution dropped 68 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic product grew 212 percent.
The evidence is overwhelming. Well-designed solutions to environmental problems aren't harmful; they contribute to a healthier and growing economy. A warming planet and changing climate is what will hurt the economy.
For many multinational companies, climate change has moved from a corporate social responsibility issue to a bottom-line issue. They are starting to see the impact of unpredictable and extreme weather and realize that investing in environmental protection means investing in the economy. Climate change affects the supply of key inputs, disrupts factories, demolishes infrastructure, and drives up prices.
The economic calculus has shifted--business as usual will lead to no business at all.
Businesses have woken up to the risks of climate change, and they are calling out for Congress to act. It is time for Congress to wake up.
Ascent Conference Mini-Speech
Mr. President, finally, I wish to report on activities in my home State of Hawaii that show how our Nation is making progress toward sustainability and adaptation to climate change. Back at home, we see the effects of climate change up close and personal. Our coral reefs, our beaches, and the lush vegetation that greens our landscape--it's all imperiled by climate change, and people are standing to take action.
They recognize that the rhetoric of denial will not hold back rising sea levels. They understand that junk science will not save our coral reefs--or bring back the tradewinds and rain that supplies our water when climate change has traded it for cycles of hurricane and drought.
That is why they have come together to host a first-of-its-kind conference in Hawaii on sustainable development and climate adaptation. From transportation to energy to community development, the conference will bring local and national leaders together to share stories of success, and inspire action for the future. We call it ``Ascent'' to recognize our upward progress, and to challenge ourselves to aim higher and higher.
Our Ascent conference will be held on April 15, 2014, when University of Hawai`i Sea Grant College Program, University of Hawaii Chancellor Tom Apple, and I will hold a 2-day-long conference and Senate field hearing featuring world-renowned experts from across the State and Nation. These experts will address key underlying issues of sustainability, and engage directly with high school and college students who are poised to lead these efforts in the future.
We will be happy to welcome Mr. Nainoa Thompson, president, Polynesian Voyaging Society; Mr. Geoffrey Anderson, president, Smart Growth America; and Mr. Jeff Seabright, vice president, Environment & Water Resources for The Coca Cola Company, among other visionaries at the conference. They will be partnering with State and local experts as well as Hawai`i's youth to examine risks and propose solutions to energy and water resource security, and the complexities of climate change.
That evening, we will also welcome former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who will present a free public lecture on sustainability and climate at the University of Hawai`i.
The Ascent conference was created because we recognize that the only way to solve a problem is to own it, and act. I respect our colleagues from across the aisle for their work to focus on the fiscal issues our Nation faces. Together we have rolled up our sleeves and found solutions. Now we need to do the same on climate change. Denying the problem and trying to muzzle the opposition will not make environmental change go away. Owning up, and facing it together will.