Statements about Global Warming
04/03/2007
"I think we've reached a tipping point in this debate. It's long overdue. I say that because I saw what happened in the state of California with Governor Schwarzenegger, and what they have done recently. I see coalitions of states all over America joining together to try to address this issue. I see the American public swinging significantly in our direction." "Climate: Sen. McCain pledges push for ‘long overdue' emissions bill." E&E News PM.
04/03/2007
"There are still members of the administration and the congress that are convinced it's all a myth. How you rationalize that argument I cannot explain… The Earth is warming and it's a direct result of human activity which generates greenhouse gas emissions. The question is not whether it's happening, the question is how severe and how devastating "-"US Senators bear witness to climate change." Yukon News.
04/03/2007
"The announcement today by a top U.S. business leader recognizes that our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming. It underscores not only the seriousness of the problem, but that America has much to gain in terms of jobs and trade by meeting the growing world demand for advanced, environmentally sound technologies.''-(regarding GE investing $1.5 billion in green technology) "GE Doubles Down on Green." Waste News.
02/14/2007
"The debate is over, my friends. Now the question is what do we do? Do we act, do we care enough about the young people of the next generation to act seriously and meaningfully, or are we going to just continue this debate and this discussion?" Speech to Group of Eight (Reuters)
01/30/2007
Testimony of Senator John McCain
before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
to hear "Senators' Perspectives on Global Warming"
January 30, 2007
Madame Chairman, let me thank you for calling today=s hearing to discuss
the most important environmental issue of our time: climate change.
Over the past several years, a number of my colleagues and I have spent
considerable time studying the issue of climate change. We have traveled around
the globe to see first hand the impacts of climate change and how it is changing the
lives of people even as we speak. I am pleased to have visited Alaska, Antarctica,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South America, Norway, and other parts of the
Arctic region. Let me say, if anyone remains in doubt that climate change is real, I
invite them to visit some of these places to see for themselves.
The number of individuals in Washington who reject the clear evidence of
global warming appears to be shrinking as its dramatic manifestations mount. A
large number of prominent scientists, industry leaders, environmentalists, state
and local government officials, the faith-based community, and others agree that
climate change is real and we must move quickly to address the problem in a
meaningful and sustainable manner.
We are no longer just talking about how climate change will effect our
children=s and grandchildren=s lives, as we did just a few years ago, but we now are
talking about how it is already impacting the world. Drought, declining snow
packs, forest fires, melting ice caps, species dislocation and habitat loss, and
extreme weather eventsBall are examples of how climate change is impacting us.
We need to act to mitigate and adapt to these devastating events.
More and more Americans are acknowledging that climate change is not
only real, but that our action is critical. On Monday of last week, a coalition of
major U.S.-based businesses, with a combined market capitalization of over $750
billion, joined with environmental organizations to call upon our federal
government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The members of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership recognize that setting the ground rules now for managing greenhouse
gasses will unleash American ingenuity in an all out effort to meet this complicated
challenge.
In their letter to President Bush, the coalition said that, Aproperly
constructed policy can be economically sustainable, environmentally
responsible, and politically achievable. Swift legislative action on our
proposal would encourage innovation and provide needed U.S.
leadership on this global challenge.@ They further stated that AYclimate
change will create more economic opportunities than risks for the
U.S. economy.@ I agree.
While action at the national level is essentialCand it will eventually occur
because the American public will demand itCI am pleased to also mention progress
that is already being made at the state and local levels.
B Just six months ago, the state of California enacted legislation requiring
mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the first of its kind in
the nation. That legislation would require that California=s emissions be
reduced to the year 1990 levels by the year 2020.
B The Northeast states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, and Vermont agreed in December 2005 to
implement a "cap-and-trade" program to lower carbon dioxide emissions
from power plants. This effort is continuing to grow as evidenced by the
state of Massachusetts joining this regional effort two weeks ago.
B Also two weeks ago, an alliance of prominent U.S. scientists and members of
the faith community agreed to work together to push for a reduction in the
Nation=s greenhouse gas emissions. In their joint statement, the group said
that Earth is "seriously imperiled by human behavior" and called on
Americans to "steward the natural world in order to preserve [the planet] for
ourselves and future generations@.
B And, the U.S. mayors have also agreed to take action. Over 375 U.S. mayors,
representing over 55 million people, have signed an agreement calling for
emission reductions of 7 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2012.
Madam Chairman, we will continue to learn more about the science of
climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental
problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed.
Later this week, we expect to receive from the United Nation=s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a summary of their Fourth
Assessment Report. Some well respected scientists are already calling it the
Asmoking gun@ and the Aiconic statement@ on the issue of global warming.
We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are costs
to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas
emissions in the near term will yield only more climate change and a much harder
job in the future. Simply stated, inaction is unsustainable.
As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of
legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, and are continuing our
efforts to further improve upon our legislation with the goal of producing the most
innovative, meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced
by the Senate, it has become clear to us that any responsible climate change
measure must contain five essential components:
First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and
timetables. It must be goal oriented, and have both environmental and economic
integrity. Let us realize that the climate system reacts not to emission intensity but
to atmospheric concentration levels. We need policy that will produce necessary
reductions, not merely check political boxes. The reductions must be feasible and
based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in our bill. We realized
that this problem is an environmental problem with significant economic
implications and not an economic problem with significant environmental
implications.
Second, it must utilize a market-based, economy wide Acap and trade@
system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow the trading of emission
credits across the economy to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is
the central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the
status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than
regulators in effecting sustainable change.
Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively
with other markets. The Atrade@ part of Acap and trade@ is such a mechanism, but
it=s clear it must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I
am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated with any
climate change legislation. I know that many economists are developing
increasingly sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we
have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn more from
these models about additional action items to further reduce costs, we intend to
incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have added
Aoffsets@ provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the
creation of new markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new
and innovative ways to further minimize costs. Let me again mention what the
coalition of CEO=s of major US-based companies and environmental groups said
last week, AIn our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic
opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.@
Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced
technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the
equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop and bring to
market the technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental and
economic policy. There will be a growing global market for these technologies and
the U.S. will benefit greatly from being competitive and capturing its share of these
markets. Our legislation includes a comprehensive technology title that would go a
long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded
using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits, rather than
from the use of taxpayers= funds or appropriations that will never materialize.
And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the problem. Global
warming is an international problem requiring an international effort. The United
States has an obligation to lead. If we don=t lead proactively, we will find ourselves
following. There is no in between. However, our leadership cannot replace the
need for action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and facilitate
it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into
partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to
achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the international
market.
These five components represent a serious challenge that will require a great
deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual power, and the
continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the environmental, industrial,
economic, and national security communities. I look forward to collaborating with
the Committee in this effort as we continue to shape our legislation into its most
effective form.
Madame Chairman, I believe that Senator Lieberman has already provided
the Committee with a thorough description of our bill, S. 280, the Climate
Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. I won=t seek to repeat it. However, I
would like to address one issue that I know has been of concern for some on the
Committee, and that is the topic of nuclear energy.
I know that some here maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even
though today it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S.
and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and
Switzerland B countries that are not exactly known for their environmental
disregard. The fact is, nuclear energy is CLEAN. It produces ZERO emissions in
operations. It has the lowest carbon footprint, and is, therefore, undeniably a
valuable tool for reigning in greenhouse gas emissions both quickly and
economically.
Nuclear energy is growing, and it will continue to grow substantially in the
coming decades given the growing electricity needs around the world. Not only
should we promote U.S. companies in their efforts to compete for important roles
in this growing market throughout the world, we should be helping them in
promoting nuclear in a safe and efficient manner here in the United States. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is under this Committee=s
jurisdiction, is already preparing for a substantial number of license applications
for new plants. I am confident that this committee, under the Chairman=s and
Ranking Member=s leadership, will work to ensure that safety remains first and
foremost among the NRC=s responsibilities, as it must.
Finally, I, too recognize and share the concerns of what to do with nuclear
waste. I am confident that given political will and time for technology development
and deployment, we can solve that problem. It is important to recognize the
responsible waste management that occurs in the nuclear industry today. Yet, while
there is a great concern over comparatively small quantities of responsibly
managed nuclear waste, there is an even more dangerous event occurring under
our noses. And that is 900 tons of carbon dioxide per second being dumped in the
atmosphere from fossil fuel use. Now that is a an urgent waste problem that
should be concerning us most.
Therefore, I hope we can have a thorough debate about the importance of
nuclear energy and its future as we grapple with how best to address global
warming. We need to better understand what is necessary to bring new, safe and
reliable nuclear power plants on line. I hope that we can work together, Madame
Chairman, to ensure we put all options on the table so that the Senate can pass the
most innovative, effective, and economically feasible climate change legislation
possible.
The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and institutions are
averse to change, even when that change is critical for their own well-being, and
that of their children and grandchildren. If the scientists are right and
temperatures continue to rise, we could face environmental, economic, and
national security consequences far beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong
and the Earth finds a way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air;
greater energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S.
leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt; failure to act is the
far greater risk.
10/11/2006
"The scientists have become more and more definitive. ... Sooner or later we will recognize that climate change is taking place and it's serious and it's generated by human activity causing greenhouse gas emissions."-"Senator fights the tide, calls warming by humans a hoax." San Francisco Chronicle.
Comments (0)
by Peter
Comments (0)
