While there are those who will continue to demand the Administration reverse itself, the reality is that if we, the Senate, were to vote on Kyoto today, it would certainly be defeated by a strong bipartisan vote.
We made it very clear by an overwhelming 1997 vote of 95-0, that this body would NOT support the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto may be a political lighting rod, but the treaty itself is a false issue. To continue to push forward on this failed treaty is to invite continual partisan bickering and ultimately delay a productive discussion on Climate Change.
I, for one, applaud the President for taking Kyoto off of the table.
Efforts to paint the President's position as extreme or reckless are not warranted, and the purpose for such charges must be closely examined. I strongly suggest that what we need is not more attacks but, instead, to get beyond Kyoto and focus our collective efforts on a more serious examination of the issue.
Our challenge is to look at the issue based on a hard examination of what we know, what we do not know, and what we must do in the name of prudence.
Not to steal the thunder of any of our excellent witnesses today, but let me attempt to boil down the state of the science that I believe is necessary for policy makers to understand.
First, what do we know for certain? Just three things:
1. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are increasing.
2. Human activities are responsible for a significant portion of that increase.
3. Like a high school chemistry experiment, at some point the increased concentrations will cause serious changes in the chemistry of our planet.
What DON'T we know? -- Pretty much everything else about climate change. All of the projections about sea level rises, temperature increases, the future rate of concentration increase and the cost of emission reductions are speculation; they are derived from models based on assumptions and predictions. The uncertainty in the results of this work is tremendous.
So, how do we craft policy from that much uncertainty? Cautiously. Very cautiously.
Many of those who have supported the Kyoto Protocol have argued that because emissions related to human activities have the potential to lead to adverse climate changes over the course of this new century, then we must err to the side of caution by dramatically reducing industrial emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
To that I say, caution is a good thing, but only when appropriately applied.
We should apply the precautionary principle not only to the examination of possible harm from emissions, but also to the possible harm to the economy from overly-aggressive emission curbs. An appropriate policy should recognize both the economic and environmental hazards of too little or too much action regarding climate change. If we are too aggressive we could damage our economy and cripple our ability to address this and other pending environmental matters. If we are too timid we could invite environmental peril, that could cause economic ruin in parts of the nation.
I believe all of us would like to make a policy decision based on more complete information. We should aggressively seek necessary information so that we may make an intelligent decision, and the steps that we eventually do take to address environmental concerns should be consistent with sound economic and energy policies.
The steps that we consider today should be based on sound science -- to buy time. Many companies are pursuing this type of activity today. Hundreds of American companies are investing in energy efficiencies that make good short-term economic sense, and at the same time avoid emissions in significant quantities.
For example in New Hampshire: More than 73 companies and public entities are committed to using energy efficient heating, cooling, and lighting fixtures in more than 22 million square feet of office space. This will result in a reduction of 2.5 billion pounds of CO2 -- an annual energy saving of $10 million. Similar efforts in Ohio will result in the elimination of 45 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually. Investments in energy efficient technologies in Oklahoma have prevented the release of 3.8 billion pounds of CO2.
Chevron has invested billions in efforts to reduce gas flaring. In just a single project, currently in the planning phase, will reduce greenhouse emissions by 100 million metric tons over the 20 year life of the project. This is only one of many ideas Chevron is working on.
CMS Energy is also working on similar efforts that will result in a reduction of nearly 3 million metric tons of Carbon per year
This is the direction our policy should lead. These are actions that make good economic sense, and may even lead to the development of technologies that all the world will buy from us in the future in order to address their own emissions. At the same time, we can begin to make slow our rate of emissions to buy more time for us to understand the problem we face.
One thing is for certain we all care about our children and future generations. We owe it to future generation to leave them a healthy environment and a solid strong economy. The choices we make today will determine that future.