HB 1040
https://thinkprogress.org/house-votes-to-deny-climate-science-and-ties-pentagons-hands-on-climate-change-6fb577189fb0
Sea level rise impacting naval bases. Climate change altering natural disaster response. Drought influenced by climate change in the Middle East and Africa leading to conflicts over food and water — as in, for instance, Syria.
The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels.
The U.S. House does not.
With a mostly party-line vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) that seeks to prevent the Department of Defense from using funding to address the national security impacts of climate change.
“You can’t change facts by ignoring them,” said Mike Breen, Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project, and leader of the clean energy campaign, Operation Free. “This is like trying to lose 20 pounds by smashing your bathroom scale.”
The full text of McKinley’s amendment reads:
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
In other words, the House just tried to write climate denial into the Defense Department’s budget. “The McKinley amendment would require the Defense Department to assume that the cost of carbon pollution is zero,” Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) said in a letter to their colleagues before the vote. “That’s science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.”
The amendment forces the Defense Department to ignore the findings and recommendations of the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC’s latest climate assessment, specifically with regard to the national security impacts of climate change. It would also do the same for the Social Cost of Carbon, which provides a framework for rulemakers to take into account the societal, security, and economic costs associated with emitting more carbon dioxide.
If the Pentagon cannot use its funding to implement the recommendations from the NCA and the IPCC reports, the specific impacts on DoD would be vague — and troublesome — because the reports are crystal clear.
Earlier this month with the release of the National Climate Assessment, 300 leading climate scientists and experts told Americans in no uncertain termsthat time is running out to confront the dangerous impacts of climate change.
This week, 16 military experts agreed, telling Americans in a report that climate change is already threatening national security and the economy. The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board authored the report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change.”
The experts that authored the report have well over 500 years of combined military experience (580, according to a Climate Progress tally).
Military expertise like this hasn’t stopped gadflies in the Senate from trying to dismiss the report. “There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer,” said Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). “I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this.”
Despite criticism like this from the Senator from Oklahoma, many in the military understand the very real security threats posed by climate change, and have been taking action to address it. This isn’t idle talk. The steps the Department of Defense has been taking to cut its reliance on carbon-heavy fuels, however, are not just to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (Ret.), and president of CNA Corporation’s Institute for Public Research, said “the American military, the single largest user of oil in the U.S., has recently begun transitioning to renewable and more efficient energy to improve its operational effectiveness and flexibility, with the added benefit of beginning to reduce its fossil fuel dependence and mitigate climate change.”
“Civilian and uniformed leaders of our military know it is increasingly risky to depend on a single fuel source; these leaders are diversifying the military’s sources of power to make our bases more resilient and our forces more effective,” said Vice Admiral Gunn.
The Defense Department is beginning to take action. It recently started work on its largest solar project to date, and has been making progress on its “Net Zero” energy initiative. The goal? For bases to produce as much energy as they consume, and for forward combat operations to not have to rely on oil-heavy supply lines.
The McKinley amendment was added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which later passed, 325–98. Only three Republicans (Garrett, Gibson, LoBiondo) voted against the amendment, and four Democrats (Barrow, Cuellar, McIntyre, Rahall) voted for it.
The Senate held first markup of their version of the bill on Wednesday. The NDAA sets out the budget for the Department of Defense, and details the expenditures it can make, though this is different than the budget that actually awards the appropriations. That will happen later this year.
The NDAA is one of the few pieces of legislation that actually work close to normal — the House passes its version, and the Senate passes its version. It remains to be seen if the Senate will take up and pass a similar amendment, but even if it does not, the final decision will come during conference. The two chambers go to conference to iron out the differences before final passage and the president’s signature.
==
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/113th-congress/house-amendment/1040
H.Amdt.1040 to H.R.4923113th Congress (2013-2014)
... The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. \__. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17281).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair for the good work done
on this piece of legislation, but I offer an amendment that would
prohibit the use of funds to carry out a national media campaign to
promote alternative green technologies.
In 2007, Congress authorized the Department of Energy to create a
national media campaign to convince Americans to buy green technologies
at the tune of $5 million a year. Now, my amendment would simply
prohibit funds from going to this misguided, unnecessary, government\-
run campaign.
As constituents in my Michigan district are struggling to deal with
$4 a gallon gas prices and energy costs brought about by this
administration's harmful energy limitation policies, the last thing we
need, Mr. Chairman, is Washington bureaucrats telling them how to live
their lives.
They are smart enough to know, as are the overwhelming majority of
American citizens in all of our districts, Mr. Chairman, to know what
energy sources work for them, work best for their families, for their
businesses, and especially when our country has emerged and is emerging
still further\--if we would allow it and encourage it as an energy
superpower\--and now leads the world in natural gas and oil production.
Instead of funding unnecessary ad campaigns, let's get to work on
energy policy which takes advantage of our energy abundance and leads
to lower prices, more jobs and greater global security.
Green technologies should be a part of a real all-of-the-above energy
policy, but picking winners and losers is not the role of the Federal
Government, nor is it in the core mission of the Department of Energy.
I was pleased that this amendment was adopted when I offered it last
year, and I encourage my colleagues to once again support it.
Mr. Chairman, having said what I think is necessary, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 508. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the
United States Global Climate Research Program National
Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's Fifth Assessment Report,
the United Nation's Agenda
21 sustainable development plan, the May 2013 Technical
Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, or the July 2014
Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for
Sustainable Development and International Relations' pathways
to deep decarbonization report .
Mr. McKINLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to ones that
have been offered in previous appropriations bills, and all have passed
with strong bipartisan support.
This amendment would prohibit agencies like the Department of Energy
and the Corps of Engineers from being required to spend money on
climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration
and which have been based on biased studies.
In a time of fiscal austerity and prioritization of spending, how can
we justify taking money away from our country's leading scientists,
physicists, and engineers at the National Energy Technology Lab, but at
the same time ask them to research and develop clean coal technologies,
carbon capture and sequestration, increased efficiencies for our
turbines and power plants, and improving our natural gas extraction
techniques from shale?
We should not be reducing funds for rejuvenating our locks and dams
along America's rivers, especially when the American Society for Civil
Engineers have rated our Nation's waterway infrastructure and land
infrastructure a D-plus. Mr. Chairman, a D may be a passing grade for
our President, but it is a failing mark in my book.
Spending precious resources to pursue a dubious climate change agenda
compromises our clean energy research and America's infrastructure.
When similar amendments were adopted previously, some claimed we were
denying agencies the use of science.
That is simply not true, Mr. Chairman. We want them to use science,
but, Mr. Chairman, I want them to use science that doesn't come with a
biased agenda.
For example, the United Nations report says that the Antarctic ice is
shrinking; however, NSA's satellites have confirmed that Antarctic ice
levels have increased\--increased by the size of Greenland, an alltime
record.
Congress should not be spending money pursuing ideologically-driven
experiments when we face real, serious challenges to our country's
infrastructure and its pursuit for energy efficiency. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. It flies in the face of 97 percent of the world's scientists
who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very
likely due to human activities and could impose significant
[[Page H6085]]
human and economic costs on societies, including ours.
This amendment requires the Department of Energy to assume that
carbon pollution isn't harmful and that climate change won't cost a
thing. That is nothing but fantasy.
The Republicans, in general, don't seem to trust the scientists, and
I would hope that they would listen to the economists and business
leaders ringing alarm bells about the potential costs of unmitigated
climate change.
Standard & Poor's rating services recently released a report warning
that climate change will put downward pressure on the sovereign credit
ratings of countries around the world. They wrote:
Climate change is likely to be one of the global megatrends
impacting sovereign creditworthiness, in most cases,
negatively.
For example, Standard & Poor's concludes that:
Extreme weather events, especially floods, can be expected
to increasingly take a toll on a country's infrastructure
and, thus, productivity.
Standard & Poor's also warned that fiscal performance will decline as
government budgets come under increased stress from climate-induced
emergency support and infrastructure reconstruction costs. We have had
a little bit of that in our country already.
Last month, three former Secretaries of Treasury released a report on
the economic costs of inaction on climate change. Henry M. Paulson,
Treasury Secretary under President George Bush said:
Our economy is vulnerable to an overwhelming number of
risks from climate change.
The report identifies numerous economic risks, including large-scale
losses of coastal property and infrastructure, extreme heat across the
Nation that threatens labor productivity, human health and energy
systems, and shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields.
Secretary Paulson wrote that:
These risks include the potential for significant Federal
budget liabilities, since many businesses and property owners
turn to the Federal Government as the insurer of last resort.
The economic impacts of climate change will be felt globally,
particularly by the poorest countries. Last year, the World Economic
Forum released its annual global risks report, which was based on a
survey of 1,000 experts from industry, government, academia, and
nonprofits around the world on the global risks most likely to manifest
over the next 10 years and those that could have the greatest impacts.
The report found that rising greenhouse gas emissions posed one of
the biggest global risks in the coming decade and that failure to adapt
to climate change could have a tremendous socioeconomic impact across
the globe.
This is not just a looming threat. We are suffering, in our country,
the cost of climate change today\--the skyrocketing costs of fighting
wildfires, for example; the mounting costs to farmers of losing their
crops and their livestock to more frequent and severe droughts; the
enormous costs of rebuilding infrastructure swept away by more intense
storms or threatened by steadily rising seas. Ask the people in
Louisiana or New Jersey or New York.
This amendment ignores everything that is already happening and all
of the warnings that it is going to get a lot worse. This amendment
denies economic reality and decrees that climate change imposes no
costs at all. Of course, ignoring the costs won't make them go away.
In fact, all evidence shows that the longer we wait, the more we will
allow the risks to compound and accumulate, the more costly it will be
to solve the problem in the end. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley
...http://votesmart.org/bill/18705/prohibits-implementation-of-certain-climate-assessments#.WPD9h_nyuM8
H Amdt 1040 - Prohibits Implementation of Certain Climate Assessments - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Stages
Family
- H Amdt 1012 - Prohibits Federal Agencies from Contracting with Businesses Chartered in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands
- H Amdt 1040 - Prohibits Implementation of Certain Climate Assessments
Issues
Stage Details
Amendment - Amendment Adopted (House) (229-188) - July 10, 2014(Key vote)
Title: Prohibits Implementation of Certain Climate Assessments
Vote Result
229 Yeas188 Nays
Yea Votes
224
Nay Votes
187
Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to adopt an amendment to HR 4923 that prohibits funds from being used to implement certain climate assessments.
Highlights:
- Prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to design, implement, administer, or carry out certain climate assessments including, but not limited to, the following assessments:
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report;
- The United States Global Climate Research Program National Climate Assessment; or
- The United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan.
Amendment - Introduced (House) - July 10, 2014
Title: Prohibits Implementation of Certain Climate Assessments