[Pages S2911-S2913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for giving me
this time at the end of the day and congratulate her on the progress
that has been made with my senior Senator, Jack Reed, on this bill.
This is the 137th time that I have addressed this body, asking us to
wake up to the threat of climate change. While we sleepwalk, our
atmosphere and oceans continue to suffer the damage caused by carbon
pollution. As we do nothing, more and more Americans demand action.
Look at the new findings from Yale and George Mason Universities.
Despite years of industry climate denial propaganda, 75 percent of all
registered voters--88 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents,
and 61 percent of Republicans--support regulating carbon dioxide as a
pollutant; 74 percent of registered voters--88 percent of Democrats, 74
percent of Independents, and 56 percent of Republicans--say
corporations and industry should do more to address global warming, and
68 percent of all registered voters--86 percent of Democrats, 66
percent of Independents, and 47 percent even of Republicans--believe
fossil fuel companies should be required to pay a carbon tax and the
money should be used to reduce other taxes, such as income taxes, by an
equal amount.
So why does this Chamber sit idly by and not even have that
conversation? Take the fossil fuel industry. For years Big Oil and its
allies funded outright denial of man-made climate change. Now they have
shifted strategies, from denial to dissembling--saying one thing but
doing another.
Take ExxonMobil. In 2007, the oil giant committed to stop funding the
front groups that promote science denial. Here is what they said: ``In
2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy
research groups whose positions on climate change could divert
attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure
the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally
responsible manner.''
This sounds like a step toward responsible corporate behavior. A
casual reader might believe that ExxonMobil would in fact stop funding
groups with anti-scientific climate positions. One might think that,
but one would be wrong.
According to publicly available company documents, in 2014,
ExxonMobil funded several organizations that promote climate science
disinformation, including the American Legislative Exchange Council,
which peddled legislation to State legislatures that include a finding
that human-induced global warming ``may lead to . . . possibly
beneficial climactic changes''; the Hoover Institution, whose senior
fellow is not a climate scientist, argued that climate data since 1880
supports a conclusion that it would take as long as long as 500 years
to reach 4 degrees centigrade of global warming; the Manhattan
Institute of Policy Research, where a senior fellow writing about
climate change said: ``The science is not settled, not by a long shot.
. . . Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it's
not clear exactly what we should do about it''; the so-called National
Black Chamber of Commerce, whose President and CEO, Harry Alford,
played the debunked denier card, that ``there has been no global
warming detected for the last 18 years. That is over 216 months in a
row that there has been no detected global warming.'' By the way, NASA
just reported that April was the hottest April ever recorded, just like
every one of the past 7 months was the hottest ever recorded for that
month. Let's not forget our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation,
whose senior attorney attacked EPA's authority to even regulate
CO<inf>2</inf>, in part, because it is a ``ubiquitous natural substance
essential to life on Earth.''
Saying one thing and doing another--ExxonMobil is publicly saying it
is separated from the climate denial outfits, but it is still
subsidizing their work to undermine public understanding of climate
change. This doesn't even count whatever they may be doing behind the
dark money curtain that wretched Citizens United decision gave them.
The hypocrisy turns even worse in fossil fuel industry lobbying. An
ExxonMobil executive recently stated: ``When governments are
considering policy options, ExxonMobil believes a revenue-neutral
carbon tax is the most effective way to manage carbon emissions.''
I have a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill, along with Senator Schatz,
and I can assure this body that ExxonMobil is not lobbying in support
of it. Every Member of Congress knows that all the massive political
infrastructure of the fossil fuel industry is adamantly opposed to any
meaningful action.
Shell Oil issued a report just last week that states: ``Economy-wide
carbon pricing--whether through carbon trading, carbon taxes or
mandated carbon-emissions standards--provides an efficient and cost-
effective way of aligning incentives and motivating action across the
economy to reduce carbon emissions.''
Top executives of six large European oil and gas companies, including
Shell, BP and Statoil, issued a joint letter calling on governments
``to introduce carbon pricing systems where they do not yet exist at
the national or regional levels. . . . [W]e and our senior staff will
seek to engage and share our companies' perspectives on the role of
carbon pricing in several important settings,'' which includes ``in our
meetings with Ministers and government representatives.''

[[Page S2912]]

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The question is, Has any Member of the Senate ever seen Shell or BP
or Statoil or any other oil and gas company or any of their lobbying
entities even once lobby Members of Congress on carbon pricing--other
than, of course, to say, hell, no.
My bill with Senator Schatz, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act,
provides a market-based, revenue-neutral carbon fee--just like these
companies say they support. It is built on principles espoused by
leading Republican economists and by Republican former officeholders.
Despite the industry's claims, I have seen exactly zero evidence that
any of these companies--or their sizable trade associations--are using
any of their lobbying muscle to advance carbon pricing legislation.
Instead, ExxonMobil and Shell and the trade associations that represent
them continue to pump millions of dollars into political machinery
designed to lobby against any action on climate change. They say one
thing, but they do another.
This chart from the nonprofit research organization InfluenceMap
shows the streams of money flowing from ExxonMobil and from Shell, as
well as from the American Petroleum Institute, the Western States
Petroleum Association, and even the Australian Petroleum Production and
Exploration Association. In 2015 alone, ExxonMobil spent $27 million,
Shell spent $22 million, and the American Petroleum Institute spent $65
million on obstructive climate lobbying. This money deluge includes
advertising and public relations, direct lobbying in Congress and at
statehouses, and political contributions and electioneering. They say
one thing but do another--to the tune of $100 million a year.
As late as 2014, ExxonMobil gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $1
million for the chamber to propagate its climate message, delivered
loud and clear not only here in Congress but in the courts, of absolute
intransigence against any serious climate action. The U.S. Chamber is
powerful, and in Congress we all see everywhere around us its
implacable hostility against serious climate legislation.
The gap between ExxonMobil's stated support for a revenue-neutral
carbon tax and its lobbying activities in Congress against any such
thing is why Representative Ted Lieu of California and I recently asked
the American Geophysical Union, a topnotch scientific society, to
reexamine its financial support from ExxonMobil. The American
Geophysical Union is made up of honest scientists. In their world, they
likely expect that when people say something, it is true. Sadly, in
Congress we don't enjoy the same experience. The good-hearted folks at
the American Geophysical Union appear to have been taken in by
ExxonMobil's false claims of support for a carbon price. Since we
actually see the fossil fuel industry's lobbying presence, we wanted to
correct any false impression.

What we see in Congress is that their lobbying efforts are
100 percent opposed to any action on Climate. . . . Whatever
position AGU chooses to take, you should not take it based on
self-serving representations by ExxonMobil.

POLITICO reported that in November ExxonMobil sent executives to
Capitol Hill to try and convince congressional critics that ExxonMobil
is a conscientious corporation that supports ``sound climate policy.''
Who did they think they were kidding? Do they think we don't know how
they lobby? We are the targets of their lobbying. We know how they
lobby. Unsurprisingly, the ExxonMobil executives left DC ``empty-handed
. . . after refusing to directly answer questions about whether
[ExxonMobil] had suppressed internal research that underscored the
threat of climate change while publicly sowing doubt about climate
science.''
Given the fossil fuel industry's massive conflict of interest on
carbon pollution, there is every reason for them to play a double game:
trying to buy a little credibility for themselves with their public
comments, while at the same time using all their lobbying muscle to
crush any threat of bipartisan action on the carbon pricing they claim
to espouse.
Sadly, in this double game they play, the fossil fuel industry has
essentially no corporate opposition in Congress. Across the private
sector, there are great corporate leaders on climate change, but from
what I see, corporate climate lobbying from the good guys nets to zero.
The good guys have given up the field and let the fossil fuel industry
to have its way with Congress unopposed, and the result is predictable:
Many good Members of Congress are frozen in place, often against their
better judgment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article I
recently wrote for Harvard Business Review explaining this reality.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Harvard Business Review, Feb. 25, 2016]

The Climate Movement Needs More Corporate Lobbyists

(By Sheldon Whitehouse)

Across corporate America, there is broad support for action
on climate change. Leading businesses and executives vocally
supported President Obama on the Paris Agreement. Many
companies have committed themselves to getting onto a
sustainable path, and many are pushing their commitment out
through their supply chains. This is good, and it's
important.
But it makes us in Congress feel a little left out. The
corporate lobbying presence in Congress is immense. But in my
experience, exactly zero of it is dedicated to lobbying for a
good, bipartisan climate bill.
Dante wrote that above the Inferno was a sign: ``Abandon
hope all ye who enter here.'' But there is hope in Congress.
Many of my Republican colleagues are eager for some political
support, to counter the fossil fuel industry's relentless
onslaught.
Despite the statements emitted from oil companies'
executive suites about taking climate change seriously and
supporting a price on carbon, their lobbying presence in
Congress is 100% opposed to any action. In particular, the
American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade
association, is an implacable foe. Given the industry's
massive conflict of interest, there is every reason to
believe they are playing a double game: trying to buy a
little credibility with these public comments while using all
their quiet lobbying muscle to crush any threat of bipartisan
action on the carbon pricing they claim to espouse.
I am a sponsor of a Senate carbon fee bill, so I know this
firsthand. I see their destructive handiwork all around me--
and they have no corporate opposition.
Let me use the example of two good guys: Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo. I believe they care about climate change. They have
no conflict of interest like fossil fuel companies do. Both
signed a public letter urging strong action on climate in
Paris. Pepsi signed two major business climate action
pledges, the Ceres BICEP Climate Declaration in the United
States and the Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group
Trillion Tonne Communique in the UK.
Coca-Cola's website says it will reduce CO<inf>2</inf>
emissions by 25% by ``making comprehensive carbon footprint
reductions across its manufacturing processes, packaging
formats, delivery fleet, refrigeration equipment, and
ingredient sourcing.'' Coca-Cola says, ``We . . . encourag[e]
progress in response to climate change.'' Indra Nooyi, chair
and CEO of PepsiCo says: ``Combating climate change is
absolutely critical to the future of our company, customers,
consumers--and our world. I believe all of us need to take
action now.''
And they are taking action. Their effort puts Coke and
Pepsi at the forefront of corporate climate responsibility.
But they lobby Congress through a trade association, the
American Beverage Association, and through the business
lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The American
Beverage Association sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and contributes a lot of money to it.
The American Beverage Association, as far as I can tell,
has never lobbied on climate change. When the Association
thought Congress might impose a soda tax to fund health care,
they lobbied like crazy--nearly $30 million dollars' worth.
They know how to lobby, when they want to. But on climate,
I've never seen it.
Everyone in Congress knows that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce is dead set against Congress doing anything serious
about climate change. The U.S. Chamber is very powerful, and
its power in Congress is fully dedicated to stopping any
serious climate legislation. We see their hostility
everywhere.
The result is that Coke and Pepsi take great positions on
climate change in their public materials and private actions,
but here in Congress their lobbying agencies don't support
their position.
No corporate lobbying force is exerted for good on climate
change. Mars, maker of the iconic M&M, is going fully carbon
neutral. Its climate performance is spectacular. No lobbying.
WalMart, America's biggest retailer, is spending tens of
millions of dollars to become sustainable. No lobbying. Apple
and Google and Facebook are forward-looking, cutting-edge
companies of the future, and they lead in sustainability. No
lobbying.
The reasoning I am given is always the same. People fear
retribution, so embedded is the fossil fuel industry in
Congress. The

[[Page S2913]]

result is the good guys abandoning the field to the worst
climate actors in America: the fossil fuel industry and its
array of front groups. They don't just lobby. The roughest of
these, Americans for Prosperity, boasts loudly that it will
spend $750 million in this election (it's already through
$400 million and climbing) and that any effort to address
climate change will put candidates in ``political peril,''
that they'll be ``at a severe disadvantage.'' Subtle like a
brick.
My response is twofold.
Climate change is not just any other issue. It's so big an
issue that the world's leaders just gathered in Paris to
address it. It's so big an issue that it has its own page on
most corporate websites. It's so big an issue that our former
Pacific commander, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, said it was
the biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific
Theater. To use his words, climate change ``is probably the
most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will
cripple the security environment, probably more likely than
the other scenarios we all often talk about.'' So it's big
enough for corporations to treat it as more than just another
issue in Congress.
Second, they can't hurt you if you organize. An antelope
alone may fall to the hyenas, but the herd will protect
itself. The fossil fuel industry can't punish Coke and Pepsi
and WalMart and Apple and Google and Mars and all the other
100-plus companies who rallied publicly around a strong Paris
agreement. You have to stand together.
Around Congress, the bullying menace of the fossil fuel
industry is a constant. If the good guys cede the field to
them, the result is predictable: members of Congress frozen
in place, often against their better judgment. It doesn't
have to be this way. I'm in Congress, and I'm writing here to
say: we need you guys to show up.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is time not just for us to wake up
but for the good guys to show up. Fossil fuel folks for years outright
denied climate change and happily funded their array of denial front
groups. That failed the tests of truth and decency, but at least it was
consistent. This new hypocrisy, to say one thing and do another, is
playing with fire. First, it poses a legal risk. It is never good to
say things you can't truthfully say under oath, which may be one reason
we see such histrionics from the climate denial front groups about
investigations where fossil fuel executives may have to tell the truth
under oath. Second, it is a real reputation risk, especially among
younger consumers who aren't going to love an industry that lies. It is
hard to say that you are not lying when what you are saying and what
you are doing are opposite.
It is time for the fossil fuel industry to end this new double game.
Either put your money where your mouth is and start working with
Congress to enact a price on carbon, as you say you wish, or go back to
your climate denial and your creepy front groups and see how that works
out for you, but saying one thing while you are doing the exact
opposite is just not sustainable.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
May 29, 2015.
Her Excellency, Ms. Christiana Figueres,
Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC,
Bonn, Germany.
His Excellency, Mr. Laurent Fabius President of COP21,
Paris, France.
Dear Excellencies: Climate change is a critical challenge
for our world. As major companies from the oil & gas sector,
we recognize both the importance of the climate challenge and
the importance of energy to human life and well-being. We
acknowledge that the current trend of greenhouse gas
emissions is in excess of what the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) says is needed to limit the temperature
rise to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less
CO<inf>2</inf>. We stand ready to play our part.
Our companies are already taking a number of actions to
help limit emissions, such as growing the share of gas in our
production, making energy efficiency improvements in our
operations and products, providing renewable energy,
investing in carbon capture and storage, and exploring new
low-carbon technologies and business models. These actions
are a key part of our mission to provide the greatest number
of people with access to sustainable and secure energy.
For us to do more, we need governments across the world to
provide us with clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy
frameworks. This would reduce uncertainty and help stimulate
investments in the right low carbon technologies and the
right resources at the right pace.
We believe that a price on carbon should be a key element
of these frameworks. If governments act to price carbon, this
discourages high carbon options and encourages the most
efficient ways of reducing emissions widely, including
reduced demand for the most carbon intensive fossil fuels,
greater energy efficiency, the use of natural gas in place of
coal, increased investment in carbon capture and storage,
renewable energy, smart buildings and grids, off-grid access
to energy, cleaner cars and new mobility business models and
behaviors.
Our companies are already exposed to a price on carbon
emissions by participating in existing carbon markets and
applying `shadow' carbon prices in our own businesses to test
whether investments will be viable in a world where carbon
has a higher price.
Yet, whatever we do to implement carbon pricing ourselves
will not be sufficient or commercially sustainable unless
national governments introduce carbon pricing even-handedly
and eventually enable global linkage between national
systems. Some economies have not yet taken this step, and
this could create uncertainty about investment and
disparities in the impact of policy on businesses.
Therefore, we call on governments, including at the UNFCCC
negotiations in Paris and beyond--to:
Introduce carbon pricing systems where they do not yet
exist at the national or regional levels.
Create an international framework that could eventually
connect national systems.
To support progress towards these outcomes, our companies
would like to open direct dialogue with the UN and willing
governments. We have important areas of interest in and
contributions to make to creating and implementing a workable
approach to carbon pricing, including:
1. Experience. For more than a century we have provided
energy to the world. We are global in reach, closely familiar
with managing major projects and risks of many kinds, and
well-versed in trading and logistics. As we are already users
of carbon pricing systems across the world, exchange of
information at international scale could help to identify the
best solutions.
2. Motivation. We want to be a part of the solution and
deliver energy to society sustainably for many decades to
come. Like our counterparts in other industry sectors we will
play a key role in implementing the measures and deploying
the technologies that will lead to a lower carbon future. Low
carbon business models and solutions are fragile until they
reach critical size, but with linked carbon pricing systems
worldwide, uncertainty would be reduced and such solutions
will start to create value for business more rapidly.
3. Pragmatism. We believe our presence at the table could
be helpful in designing an approach to carbon pricing that
would be both practical and deliverable, as well as
ambitious, efficient and effective.
4. A forum for discussion. Our companies and others have
come together under the auspices of the World Economic Forum
to form the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative, or are members of
the International Emissions Trading Association, the World
Bank or the UN Global Compact Carbon Pricing initiatives. We
believe these forums may offer an appropriate ground for
public-private dialogue on how to price carbon into energy.
Practically, we and our senior staff will seek to engage
and share our companies' perspectives on the role of carbon
pricing in several important settings:
In our meetings with Ministers and Government
representatives.
As we attend and address conferences.
As we hold engagements with our investors.
As we conduct meetings with other stakeholders including
partners, suppliers, academics and researchers.
As we hold meetings for management and staff within our
businesses.
Pricing carbon obviously adds a cost to our production and
our products--but carbon pricing policy frameworks will
contribute to provide our businesses and their many
stakeholders with a clear roadmap for future investment, a
level playing field for all energy sources across geographies
and a clear role in securing a more sustainable future.
We acknowledge the long-term challenge and appreciate that
this will be transformative across the energy sector. Over
many decades, our industry has been innovative and has been
at the forefront of change. We are confident that we can
build on our trajectory of innovation to meet the challenges
of the future.
Each of us will copy this letter personally to key contacts
among investors, governments, civil society and our staff.
Yours sincerely,
Helge Lund,
BG Group.
Bob Dudley,
BP.
Claudio Descalzi,
Eni S.p.A.
Ben van Beurden,
Royal Dutch Shell.
Eldar Saetre,
Statoil ASA.
Patrick Pouyanne,
Total S.A.

____________________