Secure Elections Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am so grateful to join my colleague today, Senator Warren, to discuss the financial and economic risks that are posed by climate change.

You have just heard the Senator from my neighboring State of Massachusetts lay out a powerful case. Given the gravity of these risks and given our recent experience of the 2008 financial crisis, we should be doing everything we can to prevent another economic meltdown.

We know exactly what we need to do to mitigate these economic threats. We need to transition from polluting fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. We can do this simply by giving renewables a fair market chance against the gigantic public subsidies on which the fossil fuel industry float. Put a price on carbon emissions so the price of the polluting product reflects its pollution costs to society. That is the economics 101 answer.

The problem is that fossil fuel behemoths are desperate to duck the costs of their pollution. They want to protect this massive market failure. Why do you suppose they are the biggest special interest political force in the world? It is to do that work. Look over in the House, where just recently an army of fossil fuel lobbyists and front groups pushed through an industry-scripted resolution and declared, falsely, that pricing carbon would be bad for the American economy. All but eight House Republicans voted the way the industry instructed--for a resolution that was, for them, politically correct in a polluter- obedient kind of way but was factually false.

Today, in my 217th ``Time to Wake Up'' climate change speech, I am going to relate recent testimony by a respected Nobel Prize-winning economics professor, Joseph Stiglitz. Unlike all of that cheap political chicanery around the House resolution, Professor Stiglitz' report was presented under oath and was subject to cross-examination. Fat chance the climate deniers would ever let themselves get cross- examined under oath. Truth is kryptonite for them.

Stiglitz' report came out in Juliana v. United States--a case in which the plaintiffs were children who sued the U.S. Government for violating their constitutional rights through a knowing failure to protect them from the costs of unlimited carbon emissions.

Here is what Stiglitz' testimony states:

[The U.S. Government's] continuing support and perpetuation of a national fossil-fuel based energy system and continuing delay in addressing climate change is saddling and will continue to saddle Youth Plaintiffs with an enormous cost burden, as well as tremendous risks.

Obviously, when Stiglitz talks about ``youth plaintiffs,'' his testimony actually covers all of the children and future generations who will bear the terrible, foreseeable costs of climate havoc.

In particular, Stiglitz notes that ``rising sea levels will lead to massive reductions in property value,'' just as Senator Warren and Freddie Mac have warned, and children and future generations will have to ``bear the enormous cost of relocating the people and infrastructure that are now on this [inundated] land.''

Of all places, the State of Kentucky has a report that warns that its population might rise because people will have to flee coastal States. Even the leader's own State recognizes this coastal problem.

This testimony echoes other warnings that I have related in recent speeches about this looming coastal property value crash--warnings we hear from sources as diverse as Freddie Mac, as the Union of Concerned Scientists, through insurance trade publications, and now from this Nobel Prize-winning economist. Peer-reviewed research also shows a gap emerging between coastal and inland property values, which is what you would expect as an early warning signal.

Stiglitz' report, however, isn't doom and gloom. It actually shows that economic gains result from a wise transition to sustainable energy sources.

Stiglitz writes:

Retrofitting the global economy for a climate change would help to restore aggregate demand and growth. . . . Climate policies, if well designed and implemented, are consistent with growth, development, and poverty reduction. The transition to a low carbon economy is potentially a powerful, attractive, and sustainable growth story, marked by higher resilience, more innovation, more livable cities, robust agriculture, and stronger ecosystems.

Think about that. The fossil fuel industry and its phony front groups have cooked up a phony hobgoblin of economic harm, which just so happens to protect the industry they serve at the expense of everyone else.

Here is a Nobel Prize-winning economist telling us that shifting to renewable energy would actually help us grow the economy. The need for this transition is also echoed in the warnings, which I have spoken about and which Senator Warren just so eloquently spoke about, of a carbon bubble and crash.

Why is it that the clean energy economy grows? The same reason the economy grew when we went from horse and buggy to automobile or landline to cell phones. The key word is ``innovation.'' As Professor Stiglitz says, we get more innovation as we manage this transaction.

Renewable energy, electric cars, battery storage, carbon capture, energy efficiency, low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels--these are technologies of the future, promising millions of great jobs. The question is whether these will be American technologies and American jobs or whether China, Germany, Japan, and other countries will win the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Growth will not just come from new jobs; it will come from lower costs. Stiglitz notes this: ``Many energy efficiency technologies actually have a negative cost to implement.'' Now, you have to be an economist to use the phrase ``negative cost.'' Negative cost, obviously, is ``economics-ese'' for ``that's a good thing.''

The reverse case is the Trump administration's recent decision to freeze fuel economy standards for cars. That is a bad thing. It will cost American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars more at the pump. It is no surprise that all of that extra cost for consumers in gas money goes to Big Oil, which has the Trump administration obediently in its pocket.

Stiglitz's testimony estimates the total benefits to the U.S. economy from shifting away from fossil energy sources at around $1 trillion by 2050--$1 trillion by 2050. As I said, a $1 trillion negative cost is a good thing. It is a really good thing, and if we weren't completely in tow to the fossil fuel industry around here, we would be striving for it.

Stiglitz recommends the policies to get us to that low-carbon economy. First, he says we must put a price on carbon. He testifies that putting a price on carbon could be beneficial to the economy all by itself. He says:

[A] carbon tax . . . could substitute for other more distortionary taxes. If governments made such a substitution, the aggregate cost of curtailing carbon emissions could be even less than zero, providing net benefits to the economy.

Second, he testifies that we must end the enormous, gigantic subsidies we grant to the fossil fuel industry. Here is what he says:

The full amount of post-tax subsidies in the U.S. [to the fossil fuel industry] has been estimated at nearly $700 billion per year, more than half of the Federal government's forecasted deficit for the next fiscal year. Eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies (implicit and explicit, many of which go to large corporations) could, therefore, both curtail fossil-fuel production, through forcing companies to bear more of the true costs of fossil-fuel production, and substantially reduce our national deficit in one fell swoop.

For the record, Stiglitz adds that ``equity would also be improved with corporations paying more and individuals, such as Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children, benefiting.''

Of course, around here, corporate interests get better service than the American people, so that observation doesn't count for much, but there it is.

There is one last bit of Stiglitz's testimony that is important. I quote him again: ``The more time that passes, the more expensive it becomes to address climate change.''

Time is not our friend. This doesn't get better or go away. Every day we delay is a missed opportunity. Every day we delay bears a cost, and we have been delaying--we are good at that--for decades.

James Hansen appeared before this body 30 years ago--three decades ago--to sound the alarm about climate change in a hearing called by Senator John Chafee. Stiglitz cites a 40-year-old report--four decades--to President Carter that subsidies to the fossil fuel industry were stifling competition from solar.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has jerked Congress's chain to keep anything from happening. Even now, their mischief is visible in the hobgoblin about economic harm.

By the way, it is not just Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz who says that pricing carbon emissions would be a good thing. Economists across the political spectrum agree. Just last month, economic researchers at Columbia University found that even if you look only at the pure economic effects, a carbon fee is a winner.

Here is a $50-per-ton carbon fee, and here is a $75-per-ton carbon fee, and both show growth compared to the status quo in the economy. You have to roll them back through the payroll tax, which is something we can do, to see this added growth effect from a carbon fee.

Remember, this growth--that is only the tax effects. This doesn't count the health benefits of a cleaner planet; this doesn't count the environmental benefits of a healthier planet. Both are huge. They are not even counted here. This is just the tax effects.

These carbon pricing ideas are a winner on their own, and it becomes a win-win-win when you add the environmental and health benefits.

So who are we going to believe, the front groups paid by the fossil fuel industry? If there were Olympic medals in having a conflict of interest, these phonies would take the gold. Unfortunately, you would have to hose off the medals platform afterward.

On the other side, you have actual experts, honest experts--the ones cited by Senator Warren, the economists I have mentioned here today, and many others--who all agree. They are all saying that we need to act now. They are all telling us that failure to act puts us in harm's way for serious economic disruption. They are all telling us that pricing carbon and ending fossil fuel subsidies will actually be a boon to the economy.

Our choice is clear. Going with the corrupt guys is not a good look, not when the day of reckoning comes. And warnings are more and more widespread and clear that a day of reckoning draws nigh.

So if you want, go with the oddballs and the fossil fuel flunkies, not the Nobel Prize winners; go with the scripted disinformation, not the sworn testimony; go with the industry protecting a $700 billion subsidy, not the actual scientists; and good luck looking your grandchildren in the eye.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source