Senator Cochran expressed opposition to climate change legislation on the U.S. Senate floor in early June.  Remarks of his speech are below.

"Mr. President, My staff members and I hear from Mississippians every day about the crippling effects of high energy prices. We all understand the need for increasing clean energy supplies and I hope that we will continue to work to do that, and to develop other innovative solutions to this great problem. But the bill we are now considering will not accomplish that goal.

Instead, this legislation will have a detrimental effect on our economy. It will contribute to higher overall costs of living, and it will be especially harmful to lower income families.

According to projections by the Energy Information Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, energy costs are projected to rise because of this legislation. Energy prices are already at an all time high. We cannot afford to increase these costs even further. By 2030, increased costs for delivered coal could range between 405 percent and 804 percent. Natural gas prices could rise between 34 percent and 107 percent. And, gasoline prices could go up to between 17 percent and 41 percent. Although the substitute amendment we are considering imposes yearly cost ceilings, these high prices will still be realized unless improbable advancements in alternative energy production such as 70 new nuclear reactors and 68 billion gallons of ethanol are produced.

Various projections of this bill show that not only will prices increase, Americans could lose jobs as industries struggle to keep costs down. I'm proud of the new era of manufacturing that Mississippi is entering. I don’t want Mississippians to lose jobs we have fought so hard to obtain. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration suggest that this bill could reduce the United States' gross domestic product by as much as 7 percent by 2050, and could reduce the United States' manufacturing output by almost 10 percent in 2030. A reduction in output means that industry will need fewer workers in order to keep their costs down. A need for fewer workers will result in job losses, and unemployment rates in my State are already too high.

I believe that the Senate should spend time considering the best use of America's natural resources while being mindful of the environment. However, if we are going to mandate reductions of greenhouse gasses, there are certain principles we need to keep in mind. The Senate must consider the costs we will impose on the consumers we represent. The legislation we have before us goes beyond what is required to reduce emissions and imposes harsh, costly restrictions on the industries and businesses that we will require to comply with these restrictions- businesses we count on to keep our economy healthy.

The bill provides that only 30 percent of annual emissions reduction obligations can be met using credits and offsets. Only half of that amount can be from domestically-generated credits, through a complex formula, and the remainder of the available credits would come from outside the United States.

Many of these credits and offsets will likely come from the agriculture sector. Mississippi farmers are already engaged in better and more efficient practices such as no-till farming, new irrigation efficiencies, and reforestation of marginal lands.

Another troubling aspect of this legislation is the creation of a massive new mandatory spending regime that would direct nearly $3.3 trillion in auction revenues over the next several decades to dozens of specific programs; some that already exist and some that are new. These mandatory programs will not likely receive the proper oversight and control that the annual appropriations process provides. It is unreasonable to think we can know today whether it will be appropriate in 2050 to allocate 3.42 percent of auction revenues for Department of the Interior “adaptation activities”, or to allocate 3.1 percent of auction revenues in 2030 for cellulosic biomass programs. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations, I cannot support this approach.

It is my hope that our government the United States will be able to help restore a strong economy, create an energy infrastructure that provides for low cost electrical and motor fuel prices, and foster a responsible attitude about our natural resources and the environment. However, the legislation we are considering now will not bring Americans lower energy costs or, realistically, a cleaner environment. Unless major changes to this legislation are considered, I cannot support this bill."

-Senator Thad Cochran