Senate Committee Hears Agreement on Climate Change From Experts on Business, National Security and War

GREEN IS GOOD
by Margaret Smith

Hearings began yesterday on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. As the second day got under way, witnesses put their best foot forward and passionately spoke on job creation, national security issues and America's role on an international scale.

Today's key witnesses included Dan Reicher, Google's director of climate and energy initiatives, and former Sen. John Warner (R-VA).

Reicher took the time to applaud both the Senate and the House for the initiatives they have taken so far, such as putting a price on carbon emissions. At the same time, however, he urged Congress to do more, and asked for larger renewable energy and energy efficiency mandates as well as an additional $15 billion to be put toward federal energy research and development. He also mentioned that congressional energy and climate efforts could increase jobs, a point that other witnesses who spoke in support of the bill also made.

"The job creation potential in energy efficiency is extraordinary," Reicher said.

Former Sen. Warner, on the other hand, took the debate in a slightly different direction. Warner, who was a member of the Committee for Environment and Public Works when he was in office, addressed how environmental work could effect America's military strategy and efforts. Warner, who served as Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974, was sitting alongside on a panel with other military professionals and experts such as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy Plans and Forces Kathleen Hicks; retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, a former U.S. Navy officer; and retired Major General Robert H. Scales.

At the core of Warner's statement was the message that while safety is always the most important factor, the country as a whole needs to focus on finding alternative energy sources and lessening its dependency on foreign oil -- a concept that everyone with him on the panel agreed on.

Finding out how to put that idea into action within the spectrum of environmental politics and national security is what's still left to do. According to Warner, this is where the United States should take the lead, keeping in mind that we are living in a very competitive world.

"We would not want to put forward legislation that would put us at a disadvantage in this competitive world," he said.

Speaking on behalf of the Military Advisory Board, a group of senior retired admirals and generals, McGinn made many of the same arguments in his statements. Taking it a step further, though, McGinn appealed to the sense of urgency for environmental action by citing the different ways in which climate change has the ability to threaten our security, noting that they are inextricably linked.

"America's current energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security -- militarily, diplomatically and economically," he said, adding that "those that say that now is not the time to act fail to recognize the gravity... of climate change."

But Major General Robert H. Scales pointed out that as far as national security goes, the country still needs fossil fuels and other resources that have been deemed as harmful to the environment in order to fight wars. Steel, petroleum, titanium, rubber, aluminum -- all of these are still necessary in order to create and fuel the machinery that keeps our country safe.

"I don't see any evidence right now... that some other form of fuel will propel our war-making machinery," he said.

Those in favor of the full bill also made the argument that if climate change is not acted upon now, it could result in large environmental disasters which could lead to war. Scales took the opposite side on that argument, saying that from what he's seen in his military career, environmental pandemics such as climate change "rarely, if ever, result in large scale wars." According to him, when such disasters occur they are not the cause of serious wars, and usually nation-states and populations mitigate the problems themselves through things like migration.

Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), argued with his assumption, however, insisting that from the last two wars we've seen America involved in, war is not necessarily so strictly defined as two countries fighting against each other anymore.

"They had to do with terrorism and instability," she said. "And isn't it true that's exactly what we're worrying about here?"

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, which was introduced in the Senate late this September, is a revision of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 that was passed by the House this June. The bill aims to fight climate change in America and promote the country's energy independence while creating more jobs. Some of its key points included a required reduction in United States emissions of 20 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020, an 80 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050 and increased incentives and support for renewable energy sources.

GREEN IS GOOD