Climate Change

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there has been some activity on the Senate floor today regarding the President's Clean Power Plan, with fossil fuel State representatives coming to decry that plan. I would simply note that on October 22, in the Wall Street Journal, many of the leaders of America's national security took out an advertisement to say: ``Republicans & Democrats Agree: U.S. Security Demands Global Climate Action.''

We have had generals and admirals, former National Security Advisers and Directors of National Intelligence, Secretaries of the Treasury, Secretaries of Defense, Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Governors, Senators, Under Secretaries of State, many Republicans all saying this is important; that it is time for America to lead. And what do we get? We get complaints about America leading.

If my friends have a better idea than the Clean Power Plan, I would be glad to listen. I am sure we would all be glad to listen. What is it? What is the other plan? Because if you have nothing, then you really don't have a seat at the table and you certainly don't have occasion to criticize what the President is trying to do. Show us something--anything. What have you got? Where is the Republican bill that even talks about climate change--let alone does anything serious about it.

It is truly time for this body to wake up and not just wake up to climate change but also to the decades-long purposeful corporate smokescreens of misleading statements from the fossil fuel industry and its allies on the dangers of carbon pollution. So I am here for the 116th time seeking an open, honest, and factual debate in Congress about global climate change.

The energy industry's top dog, ExxonMobil--No. 2 for both revenue and profits among the Fortune 500 of companies--has been getting some bad press lately. Two independent investigative reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon's own scientists understood as far back as the late 1970s the effects of carbon pollution on the climate and warned company executives of the potential outcomes for the planet and humankind, but Exxon's own internal report also recognized heading off global warming ``would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.''

So what did this fossil fuel company do? Rather than behave responsibly, rather than face up to that truth, rather than lead an effort to stave off catastrophic emerging changes to the climate and the oceans, what Exxon chose to do was to fund and participate in a massive misinformation campaign to protect their business model and their bottom line.

This started right at the top. Exxon's former chairman and CEO Lee Raymond repeatedly and publicly questioned the science behind climate change, notwithstanding what his own scientists had said. ``Currently,'' Raymond claimed in a 1996 speech before the Economic Club of Detroit--20 years after this work by his own scientists--``the scientific evidence is inclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.''

There was already an emerging international consensus that unchecked carbon emissions were warming the planet. There was already Exxon's own internal research that showed carbon emissions were warming the planet, and it has gone forward to now with the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating that ``warming of the climate system is unequivocal.'' Unequivocal.

The current ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, still emphasizes uncertainty and goes out of his way to overestimate the costs of taking action. In 2013, he asked: ``What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?'' All right, someone needs to explain to me how if we fail to save the planet, humanity does not suffer. I guess it is Exxon's position that we only suffer if we try to save the planet.

At this year's annual shareholders meeting, Mr. Tillerson argued that the world needs to wait--that is always their argument, the world needs to wait--for the science to improve--unequivocal is evidently not enough--and to look for solutions to the effects of climate change as they become more clear--more clear.

Our oceans are clearly warming and acidifying, and this has been clearly measured. Atmospheric carbon is clearly higher than ever in our species' history on this planet, and this has been clearly measured. In Rhode Island, we have measured nearly 10 inches of sea level rise since the 1930s, right on our shores. What is not clear?

While Exxon was peddling climate denial here in Washington, the L.A. Times reports, they were using climate models to plan operations in the warming Arctic. Between 1986 and 1992, Exxon's senior ice researcher, Ken Croasdale, and others studied the effects global warming would have on Arctic oil operations and reported back to Exxon brass. They knew melting ice would lower exploration and development costs. They also knew higher seas and thawing permafrost would threaten the company's ships, drilling platforms, processing plants, and pipelines.

So Exxon was challenging the climate models publicly while it was using them privately to guide its own investment decisions. Exxon understood the dangers, but instead of sounding the alarm or trying to help, they chose to sow doubt.

Then there are the Exxon front groups. A study out just last month in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change says that ExxonMobil paid over $16 million between 1988 and 2005 to a network of phony-baloney think tanks and psuedoscience groups that spread misleading claims about climate science. The company's network includes organizations that name themselves after John Locke, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and even George C. Marshall. It also includes the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which pedals anti-climate legislation in State legislatures. ALEC denies the human contribution to climate change by calling it a ``historical phenomenon,'' asserting ``the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions.'' The climate denial coming out of ALEC is so egregious even Shell Oil left the group this summer.

Don't forget the paid-for scientists. The Exxon network includes Willie Soon, whose work consistently downplayed the role of carbon pollution in climate change. Well, investigative reporting revealed Dr. Soon received more than $1.2 million from oil and coal interests, including ExxonMobil, over the last decade.

So the cat is out of the bag now, and all the bad press has got Exxon a little jumpy. Exxon's VP of Public Affairs, Ken Cohen, took to Exxon's blog to proclaim that his company has a legitimate history when it comes to climate. ``Our scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications,'' he said. He goes on to say that Exxon has been involved with the U.N. IPCC, the National Academy of Science's National Climate Assessment, and that Exxon funds legitimate scientists at major universities as they research energy and climate.

Right. The problem is that is only half the story. That is the half of the story that shows Exxon knew better. What is the rest of the story? Decades of funding to a network of front groups that led a PR campaign designed to undercut climate science and prevent legitimate action on climate change. For decades, Exxon invested in legitimate climate research, you say? That is the proof of actual knowledge. That makes the route they chose of denial and delay all the more culpable, and that denial and delay, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story.

What are Tillerson and ExxonMobil waiting for? Why this campaign of deceit, denial, and delay? Sadly, it is our American system of big business and paid-for politics--just follow the money.

Exxon foists the costs of its carbon pollution on the rest of us--on our children, on our grandchildren--and all the while they make staggering amounts of money. And Congress, funded by their lobbyists, sleeps placidly at the switch.

Exxon even fights to protect their status quo with their own shareholders. The Institute for Policy Studies reports that shareholders of ExxonMobil have introduced 62 climate-related resolutions over the past 25 years, and all of them have been opposed by management. Rex Tillerson, who made $21.4 million in stock-based pay in 2014, has openly mocked a shareholder who asked about investing in renewables. This is rich. Tillerson responded that renewable energy ``only survives on the backs of enormous government mandates that are not sustainable. We on purpose choose not to lose money.''

Well, ExxonMobil spends huge amounts of money on the complex PR machine to churn out doubt about the real science in order to protect the market subsidy that ignores the costs of Exxon's carbon pollution and makes clean energy face an uphill battle. So it is really kind of nervy to say that clean energy survives on the backs of enormous government subsidies when oil gets the biggest subsidies ever.

Things could have been different. Exxon could have heeded the warnings of its own scientists and helped us make a transition to clean energy. It is happening now without them. The International Energy Agency found that the cost of generating electricity from renewable sources dropped from $500 a megawatt hour in 2010 to $200 in 2015. Imagine if we had rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work way back when Exxon first learned of the dangers of carbon pollution. Imagine the leadership that company could have shown. Imagine how much of the coming climate and ocean changes we could have avoided. But they didn't, and the time of reckoning may now be upon the likes of Exxon and others in the fossil fuel industry. That PR machine may end up costing the company a lot. Look at what happened to big tobacco.

Two weeks ago, Congressmen Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding these newly reported allegations that ExxonMobil intentionally hid the truth about the role of fossil fuels in influencing climate change. ``The apparent tactics employed by Exxon are reminiscent of the actions employed by big tobacco companies to deceive the American people about the known risks of tobacco.''

Last week, my friend, the junior Senator from Vermont, joined in the call for the Attorney General to bring a civil RICO investigation into big fossil fuel. ``These reports, if true,'' reads Senator Sanders' letter to Attorney General Lynch, ``raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry's actions--conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions''--actually, a judgment. It was civil. But it is otherwise accurate.

Also last week, Sharon Eubanks, the former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who actually brought the civil action and won the civil RICO case against the tobacco industry, said that, considering recent revelations regarding ExxonMobil, the Department of Justice should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies--that it ``is plausible and should be considered.'' That was her quote.

Let me show why it is plausible and should be considered. Let me read from U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's description of the culpable conduct in her decision in the government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco:

Each and every one of these Defendants repeatedly, consistently, vigorously--and falsely--denied the existence of any adverse health effects from smoking. Moreover, they mounted a coordinated, well-financed, sophisticated public relations campaign to attack and distort the scientific evidence demonstrating the relationship between smoking and disease, claiming that the link between the two was still an ``open question.''

Defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific community that smoking caused lung cancer and other diseases. Despite that fact, they publicly insisted that there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings linking smoking and disease knowing their assertions were false.

Now, let's read that exact same language back but apply it to climate.

Each and every one of these Defendants repeatedly, consistently, vigorously--and falsely--denied the existence of any adverse [climate] effects from [carbon pollution]. Moreover, they mounted a coordinated, well-financed, sophisticated public relations campaign to attack and distort the scientific evidence demonstrating the relationship between [carbon pollution] and [climate], claiming that the link between the two was still an ``open question.''

Defendants knew there was a consensus in the scientific community that [carbon pollution] caused [climate change] and other [harms]. Despite that fact, they publicly insisted that there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings linking [carbon pollution] and [climate] knowing their assertions were false.

Just change the words, and there is her judgment against the tobacco industry, and it plainly applies to climate denial.

The investigative journalism from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times is damning. The calls for greater scrutiny of ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry are mounting, and the phony-baloney denial network is up in arms, trying to shovel this campaign under the protection of the First Amendment. Sorry, guys, the First Amendment doesn't protect fraud.

Describing Caesar at the Battle of Monda, Napoleon said: ``There is a moment in combat when the slightest maneuver is decisive and gives superiority; it is the drop of water that starts the overflow.''

Is the tide turning? Is this the decisive moment? Despite documented warnings from their own scientists dating from the 1970s, ExxonMobil and others pursued a campaign of deceit, denial, and delay. They may soon have to face the consequences. In any event, history will not look kindly on their choice.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source