Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I would like to congratulate the sponsors of the amendment that was just passed. They did a good job on the amendment. I appreciate it because it is very indicative of where this debate has gone.
My dear friend from Connecticut and I, last October of 2003, forced a vote--or we had a vote on, basically, this issue, although we have changed this somewhat with the inclusion of the incentives for technological advances, as well as some nuclear power provisions which have proven somewhat controversial with some of our environmental friends.
At that time the debate on the amendment was: there is no such thing, it is a myth, this simply bears no relation to reality--on and on. There were some fascinating statements made about what a myth climate change was.
Now, obviously, we have, by passage of the Hagel amendment, recognized--at least by a majority of the Senate--that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. So I believe we have made significant progress since October 2003. At the same time, I have noticed on other reform issues that I have been involved in over the years, once the opponents of reform see reality, then they try to put up some kind of legislation which appears to address the issue but actually does not. Unfortunately, the amendment by my good friend from Nebraska that was just approved by the Senate simply has no bearing on the requirement that we act.
The Senator from Connecticut and I are going to present, not our opinions but evidence, scientific evidence, that climate change is real, it is happening, and as we speak we will see things happening to our environment which will have long-term devastating effects on this globe on which we reside. When we talk about scientific evidence and opinion, with the exception of those who may somehow be financially related to certain opponents of this legislation, there is very little doubt as to the scientific evidence of every objective observer, not to mention our European friends who have so concluded and are acting to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
By the way, they have not faced Armageddon to their economies, as predicted by some of the speakers who have already addressed this issue. I found them entertaining. Do you know why I found them entertaining? Because every time I have been in a reform issue--whether it be installation of safety belts in automobiles, or airbags, or campaign finance reform--the Apocalypse was upon us.
In this amendment we encourage technology in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make energy use more efficient, and we are trying at the expense of some support to recognize that nuclear power is a very important contributor to our energy needs in the coming years, particularly since 20 percent of our energy supply is already supplied by nuclear power and those powerplants are going out of business fairly soon. We have a proposal that is balanced and fair and not only tries to minimize and, over time, reduce the damage that has already been inflicted by greenhouse gas emissions, but also will provide for energy that this world--our country as well as others--needs.
Is this Kyoto that Senator Lieberman and I are proposing? No. Sometimes I wish that it were, but it is
not. It is far less stringent in its requirements to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It is something that we believe is not only affordable but doable.
Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? Yes. I have to tell you, every time I talk to young Americans and say, Are you willing to make some sacrifice to prevent the occurrences that we see are happening now, these young Americans are more than willing to do so.
When we talk about jobs, these Draconian estimates of lost jobs that they have hired some think tank to come up with, what about the jobs and the economic effect on the United States of America that is already taking place when we have four hurricanes in one season in Florida; when we have greater and more extreme climatic effects generated by greenhouse gas emissions? How much is it going to cost when the great barrier reef dies? The Australian Government has said that the great barrier reef will die by--I think the year is 2040. What happens then to the food chain? What is the cost then?
What is the cost to the Alaskan Inuit Tribe when, as we speak, their villages are falling into the ocean because of the melting of the permafrost? What are those costs?
I will tell you what they are; they are astronomical. They may hire a lot of people, in the form of emergency workers and FEMA and all of that.
I have a very long statement. I am not going to take too long because I want my friend, Senator Lieberman, to talk. But why is it that our best partner in Europe, Tony Blair, is so dedicated to the proposition that we need to act on this issue? I do not find him to be an irrational individual. What does Prime Minister Tony Blair say? I think he puts it better than anyone.
The opponents, particularly my friend from Oklahoma, will come down and say all this climate change is just a myth, the Earth is not warmer, there is no real basis for this whatsoever. And he will find some obscure scientist who will say, yes, it is a myth--despite the overwhelming body of evidence that dictates that climate change is real and its effects are already being felt in a variety of ways.
Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I, and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, and Tony Blair, and all the Europeans, and all the signatories to the Kyoto treaty, they are all wrong and we went ahead and made these modest proposals. What would we have? We would have a cleaner Earth. We would have an Earth with a less polluted atmosphere. We [Page: S6893] would have cleaner technologies. We would have found a way to again utilize nuclear power in a safe and efficient fashion.
But suppose that we are right. Let's suppose the National Academy of Sciences is right when they say:
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate, however there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.
This comes from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academies from the G8 countries along with those from Brazil, China, and India.
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
Remember, this is from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies from other G8 countries along with other countries:
We urge all nations to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impact, and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.
Suppose they are right. Suppose they are right and we, as stewards of our environment, have failed to act. The consequences are clear. The effects are devastating. They are extremely difficult to reverse, as any scientist will tell you. And we will have done such a terrible thing to future generations not only in America but in the world because of our enormous contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions which are causing such devastating effects already as we speak.
I am going to yield to my friend from Connecticut. But I hope my colleagues make no mistake about what we just did, which is nothing--which is nothing. There is nothing in the last amendment that has any requirements whatsoever--except perhaps some more reporting. I believe the time for reports is past. I think we have a sufficient number of reports and assessments. It has done nothing.
This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth. The problem is how late will it be when we win? How devastating will be the effects of climate change on this Earth on which we live? I am very much afraid that every day that goes by our challenge becomes greater and greater.
That is what this debate is all about. I know the chances of our passing this amendment are probably not as good as we would like. But I hope my colleagues and the American people will pay attention to this debate because it may be the most important single issue that is addressed by this Senate in all the time that I have been here.
