WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Tom Udall, D-NM, today gave the following remarks on the Senate floor in opposition to a resolution proposed by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate was expected to vote later today on the resolution.
"Today, America faces an energy crisis. The Senate owes the American people solutions. But this resolution is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality.
"The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is only the most visible aspect of our energy crisis. The true consequences of our energy policy are spread even wider than the spill; and the costs, even more deadly.
"First, our dependence on imported oil is a threat to our national security. Imported oil fuels dictators and terrorists, and the CIA believes that climate change will make the world more unstable.
"If we block the clean energy transition with this resolution, we will be forced to use an addition 450 million barrels of oil, most of which will be imported. Instead, the Senate should reject this resolution and recognize that the transition to clean energy is a national security priority.
"The largest consumer of foreign oil is the U.S. military. Our military men and women are engaged in two major conflicts in the Middle East. This area is of great strategic importance due to its massive oil reserves, and the terrorist attacks funded by those reserves. Americans want our national security out of the quagmire of foreign oil dependency. This resolution puts us in deeper.
"Here at home, this dependence is also a threat to the pocketbooks of American families and businesses. In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion dollars overseas to pay for foreign oil. Last year, we sent over $300 billion overseas. By the end of this year, we will have sent over $1 trillion outside the U.S. for imported oil in the last three years. That is a massive transfer of wealth from families in New Mexico and the other 49 states to the treasuries of foreign nations.
"If this resolution succeeds, we will import millions more barrels of oil and send billions more of our hard earned money overseas. If the Senate fails to act, the Administration must take up the slack. This resolution would paralyze the federal government.
"The Administration is already making progress with new vehicle fuel efficiency rules, which will save 450 million barrels of oil. This resolution would jeopardize that effort, taking us backwards. Further Administration efforts will improve efficiency at power plants and major factories and reduce pollution.
"Small businesses, farmers, and ranchers need not worry. They will not be subject to any EPA regulations on greenhouse gases.
"Our dependence on dirty fossil fuels is also a threat to the global climate system - the air we breathe and the water we drink - in New Mexico and around the world. This resolution specifically rejects the EPA's scientific finding, conducted by non-partisan scientists, that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to public health and the environment.
"There are no climate scientists in the Senate. This body has no business injecting political bias into scientific deliberations. The resolution should be rejected for this reason alone.
"It is revealing that this resolution is supported by dozens of special interests that have worked for years to discredit strong science. The vast majority of the evidence tells us that global warming is real. Strong scientific evidence shows that unless we transition to clean energy sources, our home states will pay a heavy price. Many supporters of this resolution doubt climate science.
"In response, I point to the scientists at the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. The scientists and supercomputers there keep America's nuclear arsenal safe, secure, and reliable. They have no margin for error.
"Los Alamos also runs some of the most sophisticated global climate models used by scientists around the U.S. and the world. These models indicate a serious risk to our landscapes and water supplies. Many scientific studies in the field confirm those risks.
"In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates devastating forest fires, droughts, and invasive species will be worsened by global warming. According to the Nature Conservancy, over 95 percent of New Mexico has seen temperature increases due to global warming. Ninety-three percent of our watersheds have become dried and snowpack has decreased over the past 30 years. Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our atmosphere with toxic compounds like sulfur dioxide, soot, and mercury alongside greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
"Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address the energy and climate crisis.
"New Mexico and many other states across the nation are rich in much cleaner, domestic sources of energy. Sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and natural gas. Last week, a uranium enrichment plant opened in New Mexico to provide emission-free fuel for American nuclear power plants.
"Several years ago, wind energy was unusual, but now it is increasingly common, especially in the American West. Offshore wind has the potential to provide 30 percent of the East Coast's power need as well. The U.S. is now installing over a giga-watt of solar power each year. And there are another 6 giga-watts of concentrated solar power projects planned nationally, particularly in the Southwest.
"U.S. natural gas reserves have also increased by 35 percent in just one year - we now have a century's worth of supply. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is significantly cleaner than either coal or oil. And it's more abundant.
"The clean energy transition does not just mean renewable energy; it also means renewed focus on natural gas and nuclear power. Ironically, this resolution would also eliminate the incentive to invest in carbon capture technologies which are the future of coal.
"Even worse, this resolution undercuts the push for energy efficiency. Without rules to reduce pollution, power plants lack the right incentives to save energy. Both government and industry studies have found that the right efficiency investments could save energy and more than $1 trillion dollars at the same time.
"Energy efficiency does not mean turning down the heater in the winter or the air conditioner in summer. Efficiency means investments in building technologies like advanced windows, insulation, and smart electric grids that don't waste our energy or our money.
"Before I close, I want to answer some of the arguments put forth in favor of this resolution.
"First, some say that Congress should address energy and climate policy, not EPA. I agree that Congress should act and set a comprehensive clean energy incentive policy. Numerous Cabinet secretaries from the Administration have testified that they prefer congressional action to create a path forward on clean energy over executive action alone. But for Congress to block the Administration and fail to act itself would be the height of irresponsibility.
"The Senate has a responsibility to act, and I have devoted much of my time and energy over the years to developing energy and climate legislation that takes those concerns into account. Rural electric cooperatives, energy intensive manufacturers, and other groups would benefit from a congressional approach that is more flexible. I stand ready to work with them to enact legislation that protects their interests.
"Second, supporters of this resolution say the Administration's clean energy transition will raise costs on consumers. I agree that any transition can have temporary costs, and we should protect consumers from price spikes. But this resolution blocks the EPA's vehicle fuel efficiency rules which save consumers money through lower gasoline bills.
"We should not forget that we have already seen energy price spikes, both in 2006 and in 2008, under the status quo. Gasoline prices went through the roof, and electricity prices rose as well, both contributing to the onset of this terrible recession. Those spikes were a result of our current energy policy, which relies on foreign oil and neglects energy efficiency.
"The Administration's clean energy transition will lead to continued growth in homegrown, clean energy industries that can deliver more stable prices over the long run.
"The Administration is moving forwards to improve our fuel efficiency and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We should support this effort, or get out of the way. If this resolution succeeds, and blocks those efforts, foreign dictators and special interests will profit. And American families and the U.S. military will be stuck with the bill. I urge a no vote on the resolution."
