On the recordJuly 12, 2016
Mr. Chairman, this is ironic because we hear from Republicans all the time about the importance of cost-benefit analyses before this regulation, before that regulation. Well, of course, we acknowledge and I acknowledge that there are costs to regulation with regard to emissions, there is no doubt. There are also benefits. I have a tourism-dependent district. We have great ski areas like Vail, Breckenridge. Well, guess what. That is climate dependent. We have agriculture in my district--climate dependent. You know what? I would also acknowledge, of course, all the costs, all the benefits, those are estimates. You know, what? No model is perfect, but I guarantee you that the model is far superior to just throwing it out altogether and having no model. There are real costs to carbon emissions, and it is completely appropriate to use the best science-driven data to estimate those in any type of regulation. It is important to look at costs as benefits, and I feel we are making the argument our Republican friends usually make. But here, in this case, they don't happen to like these particular costs. Maybe they don't think they are real. Maybe they don't believe in them. But we let science guide us. The fact that I have a weather-dependent district and we have a climate-dependent economy across our country is powerful testimony towards including the social cost of carbon. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.





