Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:


A recent study published in the Journal of Glaciology found that gains in the Antarctic ice sheet are much greater than the estimated losses. This runs counter to the IPCC 2013 report that suggested there was a net loss of ice on the continent.

Since the 1970s, IPCC climate models historically predicted a significant increase in global temperatures that we frankly have not seen.

The frequent statements held up by the media showing each month that passes is the “hottest month on record” willfully ignores the margin of error contained within these datasets.

Simply put, the 18-year hiatus in global warming is continuing on.

Despite the clear evidence that the science on global warming is not settled, environmental alarmists are pushing ahead with an economically devastating agenda that is more about ideological outcomes than combatting global warming.

These efforts will come to a head at the end of this year when the UN hosts the 21st Conference of the Parties session in Paris.

With this upcoming international spectacle, we should not only be questioning the science but also the intentions and promises each country is making.

Just last week, China was exposed for underreporting the amount of coal it burns by about 1 billion tons a year for the last 15 years. As the Times stated, “Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense … [and] the increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.”

Then there is India, a country whose climate pledge is based on the premise that developed countries – like the United States – will pick up these costs to the tune of $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years – just over $160 billion a year. India stands to gain from American taxpayer dollars.

Even UN bureaucrats have been very candid about what they hope to achieve through international climate negations, which has nothing to do with “saving the environment”:

French President Jacques Chirac, when discussing the Kyoto Protocol, described it as the “first component of authentic global governance.”

Margo Wallstrom, former EU Minister stated international agreements are about the economy and “leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.”

Most recently,  Christina Figueres, the UN’s top climate official when talking about the Paris climate conference said, "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

Even the United States’ global warming commitment to the international community is questionable.

President Obama is committing the United States to cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. This promise is also just as questionable and hollow as what we are hearing from the countries I just mentioned.

Not only does the president not have the backing of the U.S. Senate and the American people, but outside groups are finding that the president’s method to achieve these reductions through climate regulations – primarily the Clean Power Plan – is faulty.

According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the president’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) is about 33 percent short of meeting the stated target.

On July 8, a former Sierra Club chief climate counsel, testified before my committee about his own analysis that has found an even greater gap.

His Clean Power Plan lacks credibility. The EPA did not even bother to assess the miniscule environmental benefits associated with the Clean Power Plan, yet the administration is moving full steam ahead in finalizing these rules that will cost our economy upwards up to $292 billion over 15 years and result in double-digit electricity price increase in 40 states.

The president is setting the American economy up to suffer great pain for no gain.

The rise in cost of energy will not only restrict access to affordable and reliable energy, but will also undermine our businesses’ ability to compete on a global scale. Ultimately American jobs will be shipped overseas countries who will be increasing emissions for the next decade.

The outcome sounds a lot like these U.N. bureaucrats’ hope for “leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.”

It’s no wonder the president is working so hard to circumvent Congress’ role in committing the United States to an international agreement on climate change.

He is playing to the wishes of the international community, to include French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who, when talking about the forthcoming international climate summit, said that an agreement needed to be reached that would allow the president to make a commitment “without going to the Congress.” 

Clearly, the president’s agreement is more about legacy than promoting policy that is in the best interests of the American people. Americans’ need to not only question a science that is not settled, but a policy that is being used to appease internationalists at the cost of America’s future prosperity.