Dole discusses Climate Security Act (the heck with NC jobs)

Dole discusses Climate Security Act Written by Lauren K. Ohnesorge Thursday, June 05 2008 Senator Elizabeth Dole discussed national and economic security issues Tuesday evening on the Senate floor. The remarks, available below, were presented during the debate of America’s Climate Security Act.

A release from Dole’s office labels the Senator as an original cosponsor of the legislation to address climate change “using a market-driven approach that will strengthen our economy and national security and make America more energy independent.” In her lengthy statement, Dole says nuclear energy is a “safe, reliable, low-cost” energy alternative. She also talks about the need to explore drilling operations in Alaska to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The following remarks were distributed by Dole's Office and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Aisling Broadcasting or its advertisers.

"Mr. President, nearly a year ago, I began working on the Climate Security Act with two Senators, both of whom I also serve with on the Armed Services Committee. As members of that Committee, we have worked together to write and pass defense authorization bills to strengthen our national security and support our military. Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner have moved the issue of climate security forward in the American dialogue, and I join them in that effort. I understand this bill is viewed by most as an environmental bill - which it is - but it is also essential to our national security. Just a few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked about the threats our nation faces. He said, "Rather than one, single entity - the Soviet Union - and one, single animating ideology - communism - we are instead facing challenges from multiple sources: a new, more malignant form of terrorism inspired by jihadist extremism, ethnic strife, disease, poverty, climate change, failed and failing states, resurgent powers, and so on." Of the threats Secretary Gates articulated, we know the predicted negative ramifications of climate change could initiate a chain-reaction of events such as severe drought or floods that diminish food supply and displace millions of people. Additionally, last year 11 retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals issued a report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. They had four primary findings: (1) Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security; (2) Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world; (3) Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world; and (4) Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. At the release of this report, retired General and former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said, "People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections, but speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield." Adding to this concern, a joint report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Center for a New American Security, has made clear that we are now in the age of consequences regarding the foreign policy and national security implications of global climate change. The consequences range from expected to catastrophic, and a key finding is that the United States must come to terms with climate change. According to the report, we can expect strengthened geopolitical influence by fuel exporting countries, and a correlating weakened strategic and economic influence by importers of all fuels. We can expect many more consequences, but in short, the intersection of climate change and the security of nations will become a defining reality in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the costs of inaction and we cannot leave these massive security concerns to the next generation. This is not a perfect bill, and a perfect bill likely does not exist. However, the fundamental approach of this bill - providing a market driven system - is the right way to address climate change. I am disappointed that this bill fails to consider the need for more nuclear energy in the United States. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace made the need for nuclear energy clear when he wrote, "...my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change." In order to meet all of the projected models for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we need a nuclear renaissance in this country, and this bill must be the vehicle by which we advance that renaissance. Nuclear energy, after decades of dormancy, must be given an opportunity to be an affordable and reliable energy choice for consumers. Wind and solar will play a role in our low-carbon energy needs, but as of now they are not reliable, and cannot provide the base load electricity generation that is needed, and that which nuclear energy, can provide. Nuclear is safe, reliable, low-cost energy and those who oppose it will find themselves in the precarious position of being unable to seriously confront climate change. We have a solution to low-cost electricity generation in nuclear energy, and we also have a solution to high fuel costs - the answer is more domestic exploration here at home. Americans are clearly aware that our dependence on foreign oil is far too dangerous and much too costly. A significant amount of our oil comes from the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela - three parts of the world that do not have U.S. interests in mind in their oil production. As former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey noted, "we're paying for both sides in the war on terror." At approximately $130 per barrel of oil, we are enriching, by billions of dollars, the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad, Russia's Putin, and Venezuela's Chavez. They are flush with oil cash and are leveraging their influence against ours with Beijing and New Delhi in a geopolitical chess match. We must shift away from our dependence on foreign oil, and this bill, probably more than any other the Congress has ever considered, provides the resources and framework to do just that. Under this bill, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates oil imports to drop to 35 percent of total U.S. oil supply by 2030, compared to the approximately 60 percent of foreign oil imports we rely on today. In fact, by 2025 oil imports are expected to drop to around 6 million barrels per day, the lowest point since 1986. That is a savings of more than 8 million barrels a day - more oil than the United States currently imports from OPEC. We achieve these reductions through an overall reduction in demand, and increased domestic oil production due to increased use of Enhanced Oil Recovery - a process by which we sequester carbon from power plants to derive more oil from the ground. What all this means for families is that under this bill, the average household will pay 13 to 17 percent less for transportation fuels in 2020 than they did in 2007. This is a savings of up to $530 a year at the pump for Americans. The long-term outlook is positive for weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, but there is a major flaw in this bill in that it does not address our near-term energy needs for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production. Increased oil and natural gas access here at home is essential to lowering the high fuel costs consumers are feeling today and for keeping them low in the early years of this bill. Lower fuel costs will get our economy back on track and increase our energy security. Unfortunately efforts to allow that access to our American resources have been blocked for years by our friends across the aisle. The high cost of fuel is unsustainable, and we must take action to increase our domestic energy supply - this means we must explore and produce here at home. At a time when Americans are experiencing record high oil prices, we must begin exploration in areas such as the Gulf of Mexico and in remote areas of Alaska where the local population supports it. There is no silver bullet, but there are common-sense solutions that we must move forward, in the wake of $4 per gallon gasoline. It is time to put more dollars back in the hands of Americans instead of foreign dictators. Our energy independence will drive our economic success. In keeping our economy the envy of the world, it is important to note that not addressing climate change is a costly course of action. The Stern Review, the leading analysis of the economic aspects of climate change conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, estimates that the monetary cost of inaction is equivalent to losing at least 5 percent, or $2.4 trillion, of global gross domestic product each year. Indeed, delaying action comes at a cost! Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman under President Ronald Reagan stated, "If we don't take action on climate change, you can be sure that our economies will go down the drain in the next 30 years." The National Academy of Sciences stated this year that "Global Warming threatens roads, rail lines, ports, and airports." America's global competitiveness, Mr. President, is also at stake on this issue. We used to be the leader in wind, solar, nuclear and other low-carbon energy. Acting on climate change first puts the United States in a position to develop and own new technologies and all the jobs that come with them. We have never ceded ground on American competitiveness to China, India and other developing countries - nor should we, on this issue. We do not address climate change without the entire world playing a role, but we also do not address it by waiting for others to act. And we can take action in a way that continues to grow our economy. With the right policy that spurs investment and innovation, we can deploy new technologies that will cut our emissions and not change our lifestyles. We have an opportunity to seize these new technologies, or we can wait, and cede ground to others. The status quo just won't work, not this time and not on this issue. The current path is untenable. It leaves the future of our economy in the hands of volatile and unfriendly nations from which we import oil. It allows the quiet growth of the predicted negative ramifications of climate change that national security experts have cautioned us about. And it leaves us less competitive in new and green technologies. Cap and trade, first adopted for acid rain under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments is an American environmental and economic success story. There is no doubt that this is a much greater challenge and one that affects every sector of the economy, but we have the ability to repeat that success. Our constituents do not send us to Washington to sit back and do the easy things; rather, they send us here to have the courage to tackle the challenges. This may be one of the hardest things we do, but as American leaders we have responsibility to lead. We have a responsibility to find common-sense solutions to the hard problems and not be afraid of carrying out those solutions. A clean environment and economic and national security should not be Republican or Democrat issues - these are American issues. We have the opportunity to lead, and to change the entire landscape of this dialogue."

It is time to put more dollars back in the hands of Americans instead of foreign dictators.

Raise taxes $100s of billions to put dallars into the hands of Americans. Insane rantings.

Have fun handing your seat to a Rat, Liddy. Because you’re running off your base here in NC at warp speed.

}:-)4

That was of the biggest loads of bologna I have read in a long time. The government inventing a non product (carbon credits) for the sole purpose of enriching the favored off the work of the unfavored may be many things but “market oriented” it is not. What a crock.

The number one challenge in the world today is Climate Insecurity; until that is addressed, all the rest is nothing.

Remember, you read it here first.

Dole is in a re-election dogfight with a Democratic candidate down here, and instead of running to her base in a conservative state, she’s trying to be liberal-lite. It won’t work, Liddy.

If the GOP wakes up on the day after Election Day and sees a Democratic supermajority in the Senate...crap like this will be the reason why.

}:-)4

My e-mail to Sen. Dole earlier today:

Senator Dole,

Why would someone as intelligent as you fall for the hoax that is man-made climate change? There are an abundance of facts available that disprove any suggestion that humans can affect the weather. I know this information has been available to you but you apparently have chosen to ignore it. Why? To make nice with Democrats and other freedom suppressing entities? That’s not why I voted for you.

Be advised that my support of you will not continue if you insist on pushing the cap and trade tax. And yes...it is a tax, regardless of how you and other elected officials attempt to mischaracterize it. America needs defenders of individual rights and the capitalist system. Your vote on this issue disqualifies you for this role.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXX

we must begin exploration in areas such as the Gulf of Mexico and in remote areas of Alaska

So why did Dole vote with the Dems last month to block exploration in ANWR and the Gulf?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

.The next senator from the state of NC in 2009 will be a RAT named Kay Hagen...Take it to the house, RINO...