Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Mr. Tonko, and I thank my colleague Mr. Schauer from Michigan for his passion about the situation, the deteriorating situation in the great State of Michigan, and the hope a green economy…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Mr. Tonko, and I thank my colleague Mr. Schauer from Michigan for his passion about the situation, the deteriorating situation in the great State of Michigan, and the hope a green economy brings to that situation. I look forward to joining with my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, on his take on this very important subject.
Mr. Speaker, although the sky is falling, you will notice I'm not wearing a helmet. Today, a small but organized and well-compensated group of Chicken Littles is claiming that a bill to reduce global warming pollution will somehow wreck our economy and create lots of new taxes. We've heard it all before--and none of it was true.
When Congress was considering whether or not to reduce acid rain in 1990, polluting industries and their paid lobbyists claimed then that it would drive up electricity bills and destroy the domestic economy. Neither predicted disaster transpired. Moreover, in addition to the acid rain solution and with the implementation of the Montreal Protocol to reduce CFC pollution, we also used a cap-and-trade system to reverse the growth in the ozone hole due to chlorofluorocarbon, once front-page news.
During the 1960s and 1970s, sulfur dioxide pollution was poisoning rivers and streams across America, while inflicting damage on infrastructure and some of our most famous public art, to say nothing of deforesting huge swaths of woodlands here in the United States and North America and in Europe.
This pollution came from some of the same sources that are emitting global warming pollution today, including coal-fired power plants especially. In 1980, polluters released over 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Since implementation of a cap-and-trade program--yes, a cap-and-trade program that we adopted, legislated, and implemented to stop acid rain, we reduced acid rain pollution by 8.9 million tons--a 50 percent cut every year.
When Congress was considering capping acid rain pollution in 1990, polluters claimed that such a cap would drive electricity prices through the roof and cripple the economy. Sound familiar? In fact, the acid rain cap-and-trade program has saved $40 in costs for every dollar spent on pollution controls. This 40-1 cost to benefit ratio saves Americans $119 billion every year.
Each dollar that we don't have to spend on premature health problems or damaged infrastructure due to acid rain is another dollar saved and invested. By reducing sulfur dioxide pollution that causes acid rain, we also reduce ground level ozone that causes asthma and other respiratory health problems. By reducing sulfur dioxide pollution that causes acid rain, we also reduce the incidence of premature heart problems in America.
Nor did the acid rain program hurt American energy production, as predicted. Coal companies installed scrubbers that remove sulfur dioxide as well as other pollutants like mercury from their facilities. Installation of these scrubbers created high-paying jobs right here in America, the kind that Mr. Schauer from Michigan just finished talking about. We created new sources of employment for electricians and other skilled tradesmen to retrofit older coal-fired power plants.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has conducted several reports on the efficacy of the acid rain cap-and-trade program. A recent CRS memo, which I would introduce into the Record at this point, notes that the acid rain reduction program is nearly 100 percent compliant in pollution reduction and has not experienced any problems with market manipulation. It's an extraordinary success story and a template for what we're talking about on a larger scale, admittedly, on carbon dioxide.
[From the Congressional Research Service]
The Sulfur Dioxide Cap-and-Trade Program
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from electricity
generators and other sources contribute to acid rain and fine
particle concentrations in the atmosphere. Specifically, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides (NOX), in their
various forms, lead to the acidification of lakes and streams
rendering some of them incapable of supporting aquatic life.
In addition, they impair visibility in national parks, create
respiratory and other health problems in people, weaken
forests, and degrade monuments and buildings.
The electricity sector emits approximately two-thirds of
the SO2 emissions in the United States. To address
these emissions of SO2, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 added a cap-and-trade program to the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The object of the program
is to reduce SO2 emissions to 8.95 million tons,
compared with 17.3 million tons emitted in 1980. From the
beginning of the program in 1995, SO2 emissions
have declined to 8.9 million tons in 2007--a reduction of
almost 50% from 1980 levels.
According to EPA, the lower SO2 emission levels
from the power sector have contributed to significant air
quality and environmental and human health improvements. In
its 10-year report in 2004 on the program's progress, EPA
listed the following accomplishments:
Led to significant cuts in acid deposition, including
reductions in sulfate deposition of about 36 percent in some
regions of the United States and improvements in
environmental indicators, such as fewer acidic lakes.
Provided the most complete and accurate emission data ever
developed under a federal air pollution control program and
made that data available and accessible by using
comprehensive electronic data reporting and Web-based tools
for agencies, researchers, affected sources, and the public.
Served as a leader in delivering e-government, automating
administrative processes, reducing paper use, and providing
online systems for doing business with EPA.
Resulted in nearly 100 percent compliance through rigorous
emissions monitoring, allowance tracking, and an automatic,
easily understood penalty system for noncompliance.
Flexibility in compliance strategies reduced implementation
costs.
A 2005 study estimates that in 2010, the Acid Rain
Program's annual benefits will be approximately $122 billion
(2000$), at an annual cost of about $3 billion--a 40-to-1
benefit-to-cost ratio.
Thus, the program has achieved its environmental goal of
reducing acid deposition, its economic goal of reducing
SO2 emission in a cost-effective manner, and
achieving almost 100% compliance. It should be noted that
there have been no indications of allowance market abuse
during the implementation of the program. However, it should
also be noted that the secondary market for sulfur dioxide
allowances is not heavily traded, as the free allocation of
almost all allowances to electric generators has reduced the
need for such entities to enter the secondary market to meet
compliance requirements.
Today, the minority party claims we can't afford to reduce greenhouse gas pollution because it will increase costs and hurt the economy. We have heard these arguments before during the acid rain debate in 1990, and they have all been proven false. We have saved money by cutting acid rain and pollution, created clean energy jobs, and improved public health, and achieved our goals of reducing pollution. Far from being a burden, reduction of acid rain pollution improved our quality of life.
Here in Washington, there is a great debate about the reality and threat that global warming poses to our quality of life and long-term economic prosperity. That debate, manufactured by the polluters who want to continue to pass along their costs the average Americans, is not taking place in communities across America. The vast majority of Americans understand that global warming is real and it threatens not only distant ecosystems, but neighborhoods and ecosystems all across our great country.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, our constituents understand that inaction carries very high costs. We cannot afford to let polluters pass along their costs to average citizens. For the sake of our health, our children's health, our agriculture production, our coastal communities, we must make polluters pay in order to avoid what would otherwise be catastrophic impacts of global warming.
We know from past experience we can achieve dramatic reductions in air pollution that save money for the average American while improving our quality of life.
Many Americans, Mr. Speaker, remember a time when the ozone hole was growing, raising the threat of skin cancer and other health problems, while damaging the environment. Such a large problem seemed difficult if not impossible to address.
The growing ozone hole was the subject of front-page newspaper stories all across the country, amid widespread concerns of its health impact, particularly with respect to skin cancer. Using a cap-and-trade system, again, to reverse the growth in the ozone hole, we successfully tackled one of the most pressing environmental issues this country and the world has faced by establishing a cap-and-trade system to reduce pollution from chlorofluoro carbons and other pollutants that were destroying the ozone.
We have not one but two successful models of cap-and-trade systems right here in the United States. They help solve problems that seem too big to solve at the time. Today, children may not even remember that we had to deal with the hole in the ozone. The fact that we haven't heard of it much is evidence of the success of a cap-and-trade system. Let us seize that opportunity again.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Tonko, is exactly right. I think there are some who live with a static model rather than a dynamic model. And it's all a zero sum game. In fact, that's not just how it worked.
And you're absolutely right, Mr. Tonko, that when in fact we have used it, we created jobs, we avoided health care costs, we innovated in industry, and the economy moved forward in a dynamic and vibrant way rather than in fact contract.
My colleague, Mr. Speaker, made reference to John Kennedy's call to put a man on the Moon by the end of the sixties. Think about the positive externalities, the positive consequences of that innovative decision and innovative investment. Think of the technologies that spin off inventions, patents and economic wonders that were generated by that one decision to make that one critical investment. Similarly, the investments my colleague Mr. Tonko was talking about--and he's absolutely right--will have a lot of positive consequences for this economy for a generation to come. I would also suggest to my colleague, Mr. Tonko, that there's also a very high cost for inaction, and that needs to be examined as well. Some on the other side of the aisle seem to think that maybe if we wring our hands and hold our breath, perhaps it will all get better or go away. And I think there are huge costs that don't often get talked about associated with inaction.
I thank my colleague from New York. I'm struck by listening to you, Mr. Tonko, and you, Mr. Schauer, especially on the whole issue, for example, of advanced battery research.
The enormous extraordinary potential of an innovative investment, when we look at advanced lithium batteries for example and the impact potentially on your home State, Mr. Schauer, of Michigan, in particular it could completely revolutionize the automotive industry and once again put the United States at the edge, the competitive edge and the dominance of the automotive industry as in years past. That advanced battery research has the potential to create a plug-in hybrid, for example, that gets on average the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. If every vehicle on the roads in the United States, just as an example, actually could average 100 miles per gallon, we could virtually eliminate the need for foreign oil imports in the United States with just that one innovation. That is the power of advanced battery research.
Similarly, and you mentioned it, Mr. Tonko, the potential of new batteries to store power could transform the solar panel industry and suddenly make solar affordable and accessible to residents and commercial entities alike. And I had reason recently to look at the German experience before I came to Congress. In Northern Virginia, we have a sister relationship with the Stuttgart region in Germany, and we went and we looked at a combination of solar and geothermal as an alternative to high utilization of fossil fuels. And these two renewables dominated huge swaths of Germany that we visited: Berlin, Hamburg and Stuttgart.
Now, Germany is not known for its sunny climate, and yet they are making it work with a combination of Federal incentives and a lot of research that has made the deployment of solar practical for Germany. And I believe that the advanced battery research that we funded in the stimulus bill earlier this year in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 holds enormous promise, similar, Mr. Tonko, to that call to put a man on the moon over 40 years ago.
I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.
I heard your eloquence and I heard you talk, Mr. Lujan, about the high cost of oil imports. Sometimes I want to have us focus on the other side of the equation, what are the costs of inaction? You talked about how, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter came into office, but prior to that, in the Nixon-Ford years, the United States had committed itself to energy independence. Is that not correct?
And how did that turn out for the United States of America?
But with respect to energy independence, is it not true, Mr. Lujan, that instead of creating energy independence that the United States became more energy dependent on foreign oil?
Doesn't that underscore the reason and the imperative nature of why we need to take action now?
Mr. Lujan, I just want to echo, if I may, what you just said about national security. It is another cost to the United States. Every year, because of our growing appetite for foreign oil, we are putting money into the hands and into the pockets of many countries who don't necessarily have American interests at heart. Is that not true?