Senate Climate Change Hearing (video link)

[globalvillage]

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing this week at which statements were made by more than a dozen senators regarding their views on climate change. I'm posting highlights from Sen Kerry's testimony, but there are other exceptional statements from Senate members on the Climate Crisis.

The video of the hearing can be found at the committee website.

rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/epw013007.rm

Senator Carper's intro and Sen Kerry's statements can be found at 3:15:25.

CARPER: I want to welcome Senator Feinstein and Senator Kerry to this hearing, to our committee. ... And I'd just say to Senator Kerry, my friend, my old Navy buddy, that I think you were -- and I've said this to you before -- I think you were ahead in your time in 2004 when you ran for president with a huge focus on energy independence and a great road map to get us there. There's an old saying, "A prophet is without honor in his own land." You were a prophet, and the rest of us unfortunately just a few years behind you. But thank you for joining us today and for your leadership.

Kerry: ... the bottom line is the reason I mention all this, I know it's accepted. I know the science is accepted -- Senator Bingaman said it -- but the urgency is not accepted up here. The urgency is just not accepted. There are business leaders who are showing greater urgency, the recent 10 corporations that announced what they're going to do than the Congress of the United States is or than our government is. And there is only one way to deal with this issue. It is carbon dioxide that is the principal greenhouse gas emission that is causing--there are other greenhouse gases, but that's the principal one, and you have to cap the level of these greenhouse gas initiatives. It's the only way to do it. Now, Senator Snow and I introduced legislation last year to achieve this. We're going to reintroduce it. We establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce these emissions, and we'll set that out further later this week. But I remember being part of this debate in 1990 with John Sununu, George Mitchell, Bill Reilly and others at the table into the wee hours of the morning.

And I remember the industry sitting there saying to us if you do this, it's going to cost $8 billion and it's going to take 10 years, and you're going to ruin the industry. And the environment community said, no, no, no, no, it won't do that. If you do it, it'll take $4 billion and it would be done in about four years, and it won't ruin the industry.

Well, guess what? Both were wrong. It was done at about half the cost the environmental industry said it would, and in half the time. Why? Because no one was able to predict what happens when you start down the road and the technology begins to make advances, and technology begets technology and begets advances that we are not capable of predicting, which is why we need to make this commitment.

The fact is there are only three big ways of doing this. Number one, energy efficiency. There are enormous gains to be made in our country in terms of energy efficiency, and DuPont and General Electric and a host of companies are recognizing this and grabbing the profits. This is a for-profit effort, and we need to get people to realize this isn't just sacrifice. This is an ability to take the lead on health, on the environment, on jobs, on national security as well as the ability to live up to our obligation morally for the next generation. So you get about give major pluses. There are few public policy choices where you get that.

The final comment I'd make, Madam Chairwoman, let me pose this to you. There are two sides here. There are sides of people who are still obstructing, still saying no, still fighting this, status quoists, and they refuse to accept some of even the science now, then, there are those fighting to make it happen. Well, what's the downside of accepting the predictions of the Stern report that says we can do this at 1 percent of GDP and the costs of not doing it are five to twentyfold times more expensive than the cost of doing it?

So I ask colleagues in the Senate and I ask Americans, simple question. If the people who think climate change is a serious problem are wrong, and we take the steps to deal with it, what's the worst that can happen? The worst that can happen is we have cleaner air, a healthier nation, more jobs created. We lead the world in technology. We've made ourselves more energy independent, and we have a better environment.

What's the worst that can happen if the people who say it's not happening would want to stop it? What's the worst if they're wrong? Catastrophe, absolute catastrophe. So the question for the United States Senate, for the Congress, for the country, is which side of the ledger do we want to fall on, and I think the answer to that is pretty clear.

The full text of Sen Kerry's statement at:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/02/fighting_global_warming_part_i.html

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. K&R

So John Kerry was way ahead of his time, geez who woulda thunk. :sarcasm:

[porphyrian]

2. I'll kick that. - n/t

[ProSense]

3. Thanks for the link. More here:

Democrats Say Climate Report Smoking Gun

[Blaukraut]

4. kick because it's important

I watched about 2 hours's worth of the archived footage, including Senator Carper and Senator Kerry. The urgency of this issue is finally getting through to some people.
ABC News had a rather alarming report on Climate Change on its nightly newscast yesterday. The experts interviewed for the piece were not at all positive about being able to stop, or even reverse the global warming effects in time. So much more has to be done, and so few are willing to do anything at all.

[ProSense]

5. Agree.

Melting glaciers, sinking isles: Warming hits India (104 islands already gone)