Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702345
label
White House Conference on Global Climate Change (1990) [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702345
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
White House Conference on Global Climate Change (1990) [3]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29150-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702345
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
327ff0982af6054a
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29150
Folder ID Number:
29150-004
Folder Title:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
1
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memo
From Roger Porter to John Sununu
5/2/89
P-5
Re: Global Climate Convention (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By
If
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE house
WASHINGTON
May 2, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
BRENT SCOWCROFT
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
RBP
SUBJECT:
Global Climate Convention
The President's upcoming meetings with Norwegian Prime Minister
Brundtland, Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney, and French
President Mitterrand have created pressure within the
Administration to make a decision on whether to support the
development of an international convention on climate change.
The pressure is attributable to concern that the President risks
losing the initiative on the environment issue if he does not
stake out an early position supporting framework negotiations.
I believe that the risks of entering into framework negotiations
are sufficiently great that the decision should be delayed the
few days it will take to complete a thorough options paper. That
paper is in the final stages of refinement within the Domestic
Policy Council's Working Group on Energy, Environment, and
Natural Resources.
The main problem with agreeing to discuss a framework for a
convention on global climate change is that scientific evidence
does not yet indicate what form such a convention should take.
Entering into discussions on a framework would be a major,
threshold step. No matter how limited, the process could become
uncontrollable and could result in international pressure for the
U.S. to sign a protocol which is not based on sound science and
could have a serious impact on the U.S. economy.
I recognize that we may face considerable pressure to participate
in discussing a framework. However, it is important that the
President have all the analysis before him when he makes a
decision.
I recommend that the issue not be taken to the President until
later this week, when an interagency options paper will be
available. In the meantime, attached are suggested talking
points for the President's meetings with Prime Ministers
Brundtland and Mulroney.
Attachment:
Talking Points on Climate Change
PRESIDENT'S MEETINGS WITH
PRIME MINISTERS BRUNDTLAND AND MULRONEY
Global Climate Change
TALKING POINTS
As you know, I am strongly committed to preserving the
quality of the world's environment.
--
My Administration has already taken several bold steps, on
ozone depletion (CFCs), hazardous waste, and ocean dumping.
My FY1989 budget includes some $200 million to fund research
on global climate change. Many of these research activities
are being conducted cooperatively with other countries.
Other steps will clearly be needed. We are now for
example, preparing legislative proposals on a new clean air
act.
--
But we must not let our actions get ahead of the scientific
analysis of the problems. This could happen on global
climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is now
looking at the scientific evidence, and will report in
November, 1990.
--
My Administration is now studying ways to begin
international discussions on a framework for a convention on
global climate change. But these must be ways that do not
put the cart before the horse. The cost of imposing
unneeded restrictions on the world's economy would be
enormous.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
Re: Proposed Major Presidential Address on the
5/2/89
5
Environment (4 pp.)
Collection:
Open on Expiration of PRA
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
By
If
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile,
May 2, 1989
MEMORANDUM
Re: Proposed Major Presidential Address on the Environment
Administrator Reilly's idea of the President making a major
address on the environment is a good one. However, I disagree
with the idea of a full blown "State of the Environment" speech.
We must learn to manage expectations better. Or, to put it
another way, we must apply the "Sununu Principle" of
overpromising in campaigns and underpromising in government.
I. POLITICAL RATIONALE FOR A SPEECH
The kind of activist stance the Administrator proposes --
and embodies -- is crucial to the success of this
Administration. The argument for a major Presidential address on
the environment is this: we must not rest on our laurels. We
must stay on the offensive by shifting the agenda to those
issues that allow us to seize the constituencies of our
opponents.
The environment is an issue which has, broadly speaking,
been captured by the other side. It is one of a couple of issues
in which the GOP has a chance to take back lost ground and garner
new support.
Theodore Roosevelt knew this when he made the most of the
environment issue. By shifting the agenda to this and other
issues, TR avoided the seemingly inevitable decay that affects
the incumbent President's party, especially after multiple terms
in the White House during times of peace and prosperity.
Reilly is quite right when he emphasizes a pro-active
approach. Traditionally, Republicans drag their feet on
"progress." Thus, when "progress" is finally enacted, the GOP
gets no political credit. Reilly's point about injecting "some
solid Republican environmentalism' is exactly the sort of
agressive stance we need to see in the Cabinet.
(more)
2-2-2
II. DANGERS OF RAISING EXPECTATIONS WITH A "STATE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT" ADDRESS
As noted above, I disagree with Reilly on the idea of
billing an environmental address as a "State of the Environment"
address because of my concern over heightening expectations too
much.
We have the Exxon Valdez incident dragging us down. It will
take us awhile to "get better. " This is not the time to build up
expectations. Quiet action should precede promises of success.
The aim should be to make the speech (es) a pleasant
surprise rather than a flat anticlimax to a big buildup. The
news should read the next day that President Bush unveiled some
"new good ideas" on the environment, rather than some "half-
measures" that did not live up to their advance billing.
We are already seeing the cost of expectations buildup on
the specific issue of Clean Air Act emissions reductions targets.
Leaks from all parties have indicated specific tonnage targets
that we may or may not be able to achieve. We want to avoid a
big letdown.
III. IDEAS FOR PROPER FORUMS FOR THE SPEECH
The forums proposed are good. I especially like the idea of
interjecting what Reilly calls "solid Republican
environmentalism" into one of the two gubernatorial races of
1989, New Jersey. The commencement speeches are a good venue
for broaching the subject.
However, Mitterand's presence at Boston University may
necessitate a foreign policy speech (although, of course there
are a great many international environmental issues that could be
discussed).
We should also consider the Coast Guard Academy in New
London, Ct. It is New England, and the Coast Guard, as we have
seen in Alaska, has an important role in safeguarding the
environment.
(more)
3-3-3
I would even suggest consideration of a sixth commencement
speech, somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Recall that the
President did poorly last November from Santa Barbara to the
Canadian border, with the environment being a chief concern.
IV. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC INITIATIVES FOR THE SPEECH
As regards Reilly's seven specific proposals for initiatives
to broach in a major environmental address, I evaluate them as
follows, and add an additional initiative as a suggestion:
1) Clean Air
I agree that the Clean Air proposal is the sine qua non of
our credibility on the environment issue.
2), 4)
Framework Convention on Climate Change/International
Conference on the Environment
International cooperation on the environment is a good thing
yet I worry about setting up the President for broad
multinational agreements. Roger Porter recalls the unhappy
precedent of the Law of the Sea Conference, as an example of what
can happen when the rest of the world gets to fiddle with our
national sovereignty.
There are so many global conferences that it is not as
necessary to convene one as it is to simply go to one and say
that this is the President's global conference.
3) Debt-for-Nature
This is precisely the kind of "new idea" that would enable
us to take the offensive on the environment.
5) Wetlands
This is a low-cost initiative.
6)
Pollution Prevention
Again, this has the appeal of being an innovative, pace-
setting set of ideas.
(more)
4-4-4
7) Vision
If we have laid out a good track record, then a year or two
now, when we are out from under the gun of Valdez, then we will
have the credibility to step back and take credit for our
achievement. We should also strive to accomodate the President's
interest in citizen involvement. See the President's marginal
note on tree planting on page four of Reilly's speech text.
Until then, better to see Reilly testing the political
climate and playing the expectations game than the President.
Additional Free Suggestion: A New Policy Reflecting the "Lessons
of Exxon Valdez"
The President should take a leadership role in announcing a
plan for sanctions for future oil spills. I personnally suggest
fines and/or criminal liability for future mishaps.
#
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, NORTH DAKOTA, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, NEW YORK
JOHN H. CHAFEE RHODE ISLAND
GEORGE J. MITCHELL, MAINE
ALAN K. SIMPSON, WYOMING
MAX BAUCUS, MONTANA
STEVE SYMMS, IDAHO
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, NEW JERSEY
DAVE DURENBERGER, MINNESOTA
JOHN B. BREAUX, LOUISIANA
JOHN,W. WARNER, VIRGINIA
HARRY REID, NEVADA
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, VERMONT
BOB GRAHAM, FLORIDA
GORDON J. HUMPHREY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States Senate
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT
DAVID M. STRAUSS, STAFF DIRECTOR
ROBERT F. HURLEY, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
5/1/89
MEMORANDUM
TO:
President George Bush
FROM:
Senator John H. Chafee
SUBJECT:
seizing the opportunity to become the world leader on
global climate change caused by the greenhouse effect
The Opportunity
By announcing several bold, new initiatives in the next few days
you can seize the role of international leader on global climate
change issues and bolster your image as an environmental
President.
Not taking this opportunity will leave others to fill that role
and could be cited by the press and others as evidence that your
commitment to the environment is not as strong as we have been
saying it is. Letting this opportunity pass would be especially
troubling in light of the fact that (1) other countries are
preparing to push for negotiation of an international convention
on protection of the global climate and (2) the U.S. will have to
take a position on this issue in the next few days, prior to next
week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
even if you do not decide to take a leadership role at this time.
Timing
The opportunity and the need for quick action are a result
of (1) the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change scheduled to begin May 8 in Geneva and (2) seven other
major international meetings between now and November that will
include discussion of global climate change issues.
In recent months, your counterparts from several countries have
been jockeying for position as "the international leader" on
these issues. For example, just last week, Prime Minister
Thatcher and six Members of her Cabinet attended an extraordinary
6 and 1/2 hour seminar devoted to the greenhouse effect. Press
reports from London stated that the Prime Minister wants to take
the lead in addressing this environmental threat and that a "wait
and see policy" is not acceptable to her.
2
A Plan
I suggest you put together a plan which includes three main
components:
first, announce this week, before next week's meeting of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that you are calling
for the negotiation of an international convention on protection
of the global climate and that you want to see the proposal
discussed at (1) next week's meeting in Geneva, (2) the July 15
G7 economic summit, and (3) all upcoming international
conferences on climate issues, including the May 15 UN
Environment Programme Governing Council meeting, the Japan
Conference on Global Climate scheduled for September, and the
Netherlands Ministerial Conference on Climate set for November;
second, announce the establishment of an interagency task
force to develop and implement a national energy policy that will
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide; and
third, send a clear signal to everyone that you believe we
know enough to act now and that we cannot afford the risk that
comes with a "wait and see policy." The scientists are telling
us that if we wait for scientific proof, it will be too late to
respond. The arguments being made against action at this time
are reminiscent of the early days of the acid rain debate. We
cannot afford a repeat of that process.
The first and second components are discussed more fully below.
Background
The threat of massive, uncontrolled global climate change caused
by the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and methane is receiving ever
increasing international attention.
The predicted environmental impacts of the greenhouse effect
include:
- an increase in the global average temperature of 1.5 to 5.5 c
(2.7 to 9.9 F) over the next 40 to 60 years (to be compared with
an increase of less than 3° F over the last 10,000 years) ;
- the extinction of numerous species of plants and animals and
significant interference with natural evolutionary responses;
- reduced soil moisture content and altered storm patterns that
may seriously disrupt the U.S. agricultural industry; and
- a rise in sea level of 1 to 4 feet over the next 60 years.
The likely socio-economic and political impacts of the greenhouse
effect are expected to be equally severe.
3
Calling for the Negotiation of an International Convention
At next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, one or more countries are expected to argue that there is
a need for negotiation of a convention on protection of the
global climate. The Domestic Policy Council is in the process of
developing a U.S. position for those discussions. Your
intervention at this time is crucial. If the advocates of a "go
slow, wait and see policy" prevail now, a major opportunity to
promote environmental concerns will be lost.
By immediately issuing a call for the negotiation of an
international convention on protection of the global climate,
you will position yourself as a leader in this area. There is
considerable support for development of a global climate
convention. Last year, forty-two Senators wrote to President
Reagan urging him to issue such a call. A copy of that letter
dated March 31, 1988, is attached.
Although President Reagan did not become involved, the issue has
been under review at both EPA and the State Department at least
since March 1988. It is my understanding that experts within
those two agencies are in favor of calling for a convention but
that a recommendation is being held up by those government
officials who feel that an international convention is
"premature."
Those who argue that we should "go slow" should be reminded of
the fact that negotiation of a convention will be a long, slow
process. There is little, if any, risk of quick international
agreement to take precipitious action. On the other hand, we
will never get any agreement unless we start the process of
negotiating a convention.
To the extent the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is
already working towards an international agreement to address the
threat of global climate change, the debate over issuing a call
for a convention is a debate over form rather than substance.
Issuing an immediate call for negotiation of a convention will be
an important symbolic move that will not jeopardize significantly
the position of those who advocate a delay in responding to the
threat of global climate change. For the white House, it is a
win-win situation.
Developing a National Policy to Reduce Emissions of CO2
On April 13, 1989, 24 Senators wrote to you to urge that your
Administration develop and announce, as quickly as possible, a
national policy to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2),
one of the most significant greenhouse gases. A copy of that
letter is attached.
4
The U.S. is one of the most energy inefficient countries in the
world. Without the implementation of a policy to reduce our
emissions of CO2, our ability to convince other nations to act on
the greenhouse effect will be constrained. An aggressive
domestic policy on CO2 emissions will indicate to the rest of the
world first, that we are serious about solving this problem and
second, that the technology exists to reduce emissions of CO2.
As with the call for an international convention, an announcement
in the next few days or weeks of your decision to develop a CO2
reduction policy will have tremendous symbolic value and can
serve as further evidence of your commitment to protecting our
environment.
Conclusion
A package of initiatives should be put together quickly to
establish you as the world leader on global climate issues and to
bolster your image as the environmental President. These
include:
- an immediate call for the negotiation of a convention on
protection of the global climate; and
- announcement of a decision to develop a carbon dioxide
reduction policy.
These two new initiatives could be announced in conjunction with:
- a decision not to relax the corporate automobile fuel economy
standards (CAFE) ; and
- reaffirmation of your decision to phase-out chlorofluorocarbons
based on the fact that, in addition to destroying the ozone
layer, these chemicals are potent greenhouse gases.
QUENTIN N: BURDICK NORTH DAKOTA CHAIRMAN
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, NEW YORK
ROBERT T. STAFFORD, VERMONT
WEORGE J. MITCHELL MAINE
JOHN H. CHAFEE. RHODE ISLAND
MAX BAUCUS: MONTANA.
ALAN K. SIMPSON, WYOMING
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG: NEW JERSEY
STEVE SYMMS. IDAHO
JOHN D. BREAUX. LOUISIANA
DAVE DURENBERGER, MINNESOTA
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI. MARYLAND
JOHN W. WARNER. VIRGINIA
GRRY REID. NEVADA
LARRY PRESSLER. SOUTH DAKOTA
BOB GRAHAM, FLORIDA
United States Senate
PETER D. PROWITT, STAFF DIRECTOR
BAILEY GUARD. MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
March 31, 1988
The Honorable Ronald W. Reagan
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to urge that you continue and expand recent
initiatives on the international environmental problem of the
greenhouse effect and global climate change, such as those
announced at the conclusion of the December 1987 summit meeting
with Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev. Specifically, we urge
that, at the next summit meeting with the General Secretary in
Moscow and at the upcoming economic summit meeting this June in
Toronto, you call upon all nations of the world to begin the
negotiation of a convention to protect our global climate. Such
a convention could be modeled after the historic Vienna
Convention to Protect the Ozone Layer.
You are to be congratulated for including the problem of
global climate change as part of the agenda at the December 1987
summit meeting with General Secretary Gorbachev. It is
encouraging to observe the growing commitment that our two
nations are making to deal with the environmental threat of
global warming. Of particular note was the Joint Summit
Communique which stated that the "two sides will continue to
promote broad international and bilateral cooperation in the
increasingly important area of global climate and environmental
change."
Scientists have warned us that increasing concentrations of
certain pollutants in the atmosphere will increase the earth's
temperature over the coming years to a level which has not
existed for tens of millions of years. There is some urgency to
this matter since scientists predict that, as a result of past
pollution, we are already committed to a significant global
warming. These greenhouse gases will lead to substantial changes
in the climate of our planet with potentially catastrophic
environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The predicted global warming and climate changes are
expected to occur at a rate and in a fashion that will preclude
natural evolutionary responses. The likely effects of the
greenhouse effect include rising sea levels, changes in the
location of deserts, extremely high temperatures in cities during
- 2 -
the summer months, increases in the number and severity of
hurricanes, the death of large portions of forests, and the loss
of adequate moisture in the mid-continent agricultural belt.
The challenge of reducing this threat to the planet's well
being is considerable. One of the most significant greenhouse
gases is carbon dioxide, a by-product of fossil fuels. The
United States and the Soviet Union are the world's two largest
contributors of carbon dioxide. Together, we account for almost
one-half of the global total.
For these reasons, the United States and the Soviet Union
must take positions of global leadership on this matter and call
for a convention on global climate change. Such a convention
could address our scientific understanding of the problem, the
need for and limits of adaptation as a response to future climate
change, as well as strategies to stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels.
Negotiations to achieve a climate convention would have to
take place on a multilateral basis. However, cooperation between
the United States and the Soviet Union is an essential
precondition of a successful international response to the
greenhouse effect. The problems associated with global climate
change provide an historic opportunity for our two countries to
cooperate on a long term basis to insure the habitability of
Earth. These facts were recognized and endorsed in the recently
enacted Global Climate Protection Act (P.L. 100-204, sections
1101-1106).
For these reasons, we urge you and General Secretary
Gorbachev to use the upcoming summit meeting scheduled to be held
in Moscow as a forum to call for the negotiation of a convention
on global climate change and to commit the United States and the
Soviet Union to a leadership role in that process. At the same
time we suggest that you expand and elevate the level of ongoing
bilateral U.S.-U.S.S.R. activity which could enhance our
understanding of the problem. We endorse the establishment of a
high level working group to study potential responses to climate
change, including greenhouse gas emissions reductions and
adaptation to climate change. This expanded bilateral activity
should be recognized and supported as an important priority
within the United States' foreign and environmental policy
agenda.
Similarly, we urge you to use the seven nation economic
summit that is scheduled to be held during the month of June in
Toronto as a forum to urge the negotiation of a global climate
convention. At last year's economic summit, the leaders of the
seven nations stated: "We underline our own responsibility to
- 3 -
encourage efforts to tackle effectively environmental problems of
worldwide impact such as ... climate change " This year's
economic summit is the appropriate opportunity to take the next
step and call for a global climate convention.
Thank you for your attention and commitment to this
important, international environmental issue. We look forward to
working with you and assisting you in our mutual efforts to
protect our fragile planet.
Sincerely,
Honey U.S. John F. Senator 7. Kerry Kerry Mex Max U.S. Baucus Senator Bauces Baucus John John U.S. H. Senator Cheque Chafee
U.S. Dave Durenberger Senator george U.S. George Senator J. Mitchels Mitchell Robert U.S. Senator T. Stafford
allent Albert Gore Dore F. Dale Bumpers Carl Carl Levin Levin
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
Pete Wilson Frank Murkowski Spark M. Matsunaga
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
U.S. Terry Senator Sanford U.S. David Senator Pryor U.S. Wyche Senator Fowler, Joner Jr. Jr.
4 -
Tom U.S. Tom Harkin Senator Hartin U.S. Frank Senator R. Lautenberg Brock Adams adam
U.S.
Senator
Timothy U.S. Timothy Senator E Wirth K.WuH U.S. Donald Dren Senator W. Riegle, Ride Jr. U.S. Alfonse Senator M. D Amato
Bob Graham Lealyman Brick
Patrick J. Leahy
U.S. Senator
Quentin N. Burdick
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
Dennis Dennis DeConcini De Concini Bob Rub Kasten KASEW Arlen are Specter Recta
hes.313
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
Steven
Stave D. Symms Symms left Jeff Singaman Jaman Edward M Kennedy
U.S. Senator
Bob Packwood Packwood Thomas U.S. Senator A Daschle Pete U.S. V. Senator Domenici
Bob
U.S. Senator
U.S.
Senator
U.S. Senator
U.S. Daniel Senator J. Evans Nancy U.S. Senator Lab Landon Kassebaum J U.S. Thad Thad Cocher Senator Cochran
- 5 -
U.S! William Ree Senator Dech U.S. Richard Senator G. Lugar Ongle U.S. Dan Quayle Senator
ClaimPa
Claiborne Pell
Buil U.S. William Senator V. Roth, Ril Jr. U.S John Heinz Senator
U.S. Senator
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, NORTH DAKOTA, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNTHAN, NEW YORK
JOHN H. CHAFEE, RHODE ISLAND
GEORGE J. MITCHELL MAINE
ALAN K. SIMPSON, WYOMING
MAX BAUCUS, MONTANA
STEVE SYMMS, IDAHO
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG. NEW JERSEY
DAVE DURENBERGER, MINNESOTA
JOHN 8. BREAUX, LOUISIANA
JOHN W. WARNER VIRGINIA
HARRY REID, NEVADA
JAMES M. JEFFORDS; VERMONT
BOB GRAHAM, FLORIDA
GORDON 2. NUMPHREY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
JOSEPH 1. LIEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT
United States Senate
DAVID M. STRAUSS, STAFF DIRECTOR
ROBERT F. HURLEY, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
April 13, 1989
The Honorable George Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
It is time for the United States to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. As you stated so well in your campaign, "those who
think we can do nothing about the greenhouse effect are ignoring
the White House effect."
The nations of the world must take action to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide, the most significant of the
greenhouse gases. As a result of past emissions, we are already
committed to a substantial increase in the earth's surface
temperature. Unless we take action today, carbon dioxide
emissions will continue to rise rapidly on a global basis.
Since carbon dioxide is the central greenhouse gas, a policy
to limit its emissions in the United States and globally is
essential if we are to insure habitability of our planet in the
twenty first century.
The United States is the world's largest emitter of carbon
dioxide. Without the implementation of a policy to reduce our
own emissions, our ability to convince others to act on the
greenhouse effect will be constrained. An aggressive domestic
policy on carbon dioxide emissions will indicate to the rest of
the world first, that we are serious about solving this problem
and second, that the technology exists to reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide.
Mr. President, we urge you to take the initiative. The
Administration should, as quickly as possible, develop and
announce a policy to deal with emissions of carbon dioxide.
Specifically, we suggest the following:
first, the United States should immediately commit itself to a
20% reduction in its C02 emissions (based on 1988 emission
levels) by the year 2000;
second, a plan to achieve those reductions in the United States
should be developed and submitted to the Congress by October 1,
1989; and
- 2 -
third, we should use the time between now and the ministerial
level meeting to be held on the global warming problem at the
Hague in early November to convince other industrialized nations
to join us in pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 20% by
the year 2000. Perhaps the next economic summit meeting, held in
Paris, is an appropriate forum to establish a 20% club.
All levels of government, business and the public should be
involved in the effort to control the global climate change
caused by pollution. The American people must know the risks
involved so that they can participate in developing and
supporting solutions to the global warming problem.
A number of bills suggesting several approaches to reducing
carbon dioxide emissions have been introduced in the Congress and
have been cosponsored by a large number of Senators and
Representatives. Therefore, we believe many in Congress are
prepared to work with you to insure the success of a Bush
Administration initiative in this area.
We are aware of on-going international efforts to discuss
the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change is an important focus of activity and we strongly support
such efforts. Nevertheless, we can not afford the long lead
times associated with a comprehensive global agreement. We must
act to reduce emissions while we proceed with the negotiation of
a global convention and protocols on climate change.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of our
proposal. We look forward to working with you on this and
numerous other environmental initiatives.
Sincerely,
gengr Mitchel
George J. Mitchell
John John H. Chafee Choze
Timethy Wuth
Alfonse M. D' Anot Amato
Timothy Wirth
- 3 -
OC John F. Kerry 199
John Heinz Jim Saschie
Juni Jul Jin Jeffords
Harrynkind Harry Reid
Terry TernPenford Sanford
Hich Lugar
Rudy Boschwitz
Richard G. Lugar
Ollin Joseph Liebernan Wyche Dicle Fowler, Joner Jr. J.
Dave Durenberger Jin Sasser Danes
Claiborne Pell
Gordon J. Humphrey
Joseph for R. Biden Biden, Jr.
Dah Been for
Dale Bumpers
4
Paties Lealy
Bol Pachwood
Patrick J. Leahy
Bob Packwood
Brocli Brock Adams Adams Alan Alan Cranston
Cranston
CLOSE HOLD
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 5/3/89
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT: DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL MEETING ON CLEAN AIR ACT ISSUES (ACID RAIN),
THURSDAY, MAY4, 1989, 2:00 PM IN THE CABINET ROOM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
CARD
CICCONI
DEMAREST
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS: There will be a meeting of the Domestic Policy Council, for
principals only, on Thursday, May 4, 1989 at 2:00 PM in the
Cabinet Room on the subject of Acid Rain. The attached materials
are for your information. Please advise Justine D'Andrea at
456-2800 by C.O.B. TODAY, WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, as to your
attendance at the meeting. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
Thursday, May 4, 1989
2:00 P.M.
Cabinet Room
AGENDA
1. Clean Air Act (Acid Rain)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 3, 1989
CLOSE HOLD DOCUMENT ATTACHED
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
FROM:
Executive Secretary
KEN YALE 54
SUBJECT:
Fourth Meeting of the Domestic Policy Council,
Thursday, May 4, 1989
Attached are an agenda and Acid Rain options paper for the
fourth meeting of the Domestic Policy Council which is scheduled
for Thursday, May 4, 1989 at 2:00 PM in the Cabinet Room. It is
requested that principals only attend this meeting.
An initial draft was provided to your representative in the
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Working Group Meeting
on Tuesday, May 2. Since the enclosed options paper is of a
highly sensitive nature, please refrain from xeroxing additional
copies and treat it as a "CLOSE HOLD DOCUMENT".
Administrator Reilly of the Environmental Protection Agency
will give a presentation on the subject of Acid Rain, after which
a discussion will follow.
Please advise Justine D'Andrea at 456-2800 by C.O.B. TODAY,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, as to your attendance at this meeting.
Attachments - 2
CLOSE HOLD DOCUMENT ATTACHED
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER:
ACID RAIN
I. BACKGROUND
"Acid rain" is the common name for a phenomenon which occurs
when sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions undergo
a chemical transformation in the atmosphere and return to the earth as
acidic rain, fog, or particles.
There is continuing debate over the nature and extent of damage
caused by acid rain.
The Science: NAPAP
The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) is
an interagency scientific committee established by Congress in 1980, with
a 10-year mission to study the causes and effects of acid rain. NAPAP
recently (1989) reported that:
"The only benefits generally agreed to be expected from new
acid rain controls will be improvements in acidic and sensitive
lakes and streams..."
and that:
"There is no evidence of widespread forest damage from acid
rain, with the possible exception of mountain-top exposures to
acidic clouds."
With respect to health risks, NAPAP stated:
"Possible health risks associated with the acid rain pollutants
are currently being evaluated."
NAPAP will have spent about $500 million to study acid rain by
the time its final report is released in 1990.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 2
Competing views:
On the other hand, the World Resources Institute (1988) has
reported that:
"acid deposition and ozone are important contributors to the
decline of several tree species in the East."
and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported
in 1984 that:
"Acid deposition may be adversely affecting a significant
fraction of Eastern U.S. forests, [and] Fine particles such
as sulfates reduce visibility and have been linked to increased
human mortality in regions with elevated levels of air pollu-
tion."
Sources of Acid Rain-Causing Emissions:
About 20 million tons of SO2 are emitted annually in the U.S.
This represents a reduction of 25% since peak emissions in 1973,
despite a near doubling of coal consumption during that period.
Roughly three quarters of these emissions result from the burning
of fossil fuels by electric utilities. Another 20% comes from various,
more widely dispersed (and thus more difficult to regulate) industrial
sources, and 5% comes from transportation sources.
New sources of SO2 emissions were regulated by the Clean Air
Act, first passed in 1971 and strengthened in 1977. Because of this, the
source of most emissions -- and thus the focus of most legislative pro-
posals -- is a relatively small number of old plants (pre-1971) not subject
to the Act's "new source performance standards." For example, the 50
largest emitting plants are responsible for 50% of the SO2 emissions in
the country.
NOx emissions are also about 20 million tons per year -- with
transportation sources accounting for about half. The level has been
fairly steady in recent years (only a 2 million ton increase since 1980),
but without further controls, NOx emissions will begin to increase in the
mid-1990s.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 3
Commitments by the President
During the campaign, then Vice President Bush said:
"On the question of acid rain, the time for study alone has
passed. We know enough now to begin taking steps to limit
future damage As President, I will ask for a program to cut
millions of tons of sulfur dioxide emissions by the year 2000,
and to reduce significantly nitrogen oxide emissions as well."
He followed up on that with the following statement in his February
9th statement to the Joint Session of Congress:
"I will send to you shortly legislation for a new, more effective
Clean Air Act. It will include a plan to reduce, by date certain,
the emissions which cause acid rain -- because the time for
study alone has passed, and the time for action is now."
The book, Building a Better America, said:
"The Administration's program will include market-based
approaches, supplementing and modifying the traditional
command-and-control approaches. The goal is to get the
Federal government out of the detailed regulation of industry
decisions and reduce the need for elaborate EPA-approved,
State-prepared emission reduction plans The legislation will
provide flexibility to states and industry to adopt least cost
compliance strategies (and) incentives for the early deployment
of innovative emission reduction techniques."
Costs of Controlling Acid Rain:
Since 1970, the U.S. has spent over $225 billion to control emis-
sions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Current estimates are that
American industry spends about $33 billion per year on air pollution
control -- and EPA estimates that the electric utility industry now spends
about $10 billion a year for such controls under the existing Clean Air
Act.
On the other hand, Americans spend over $160 billion per year
on electricity -- and any of the legislative approaches currently under
consideration would cost less than 5 percent of that.
According to EPA, a "least cost" strategy for reducing SO2 emis-
sions from utilities by 7 million tons from 1980 levels and NOx emis-
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 4
sions by 2 million tons from current levels would be between $2.0 and
2.4 billion per year (in 1988 dollars). Raising the required SO2 emis-
sion reduction to 9 million tons raises the cost to between $3.6 and 4.0
billion annually.
For discussion purposes, these two alternatives translate into
bills which would reduce SO2 emissions by 8 and 10 million
tons respectively, because smelters and other industrial sources
have already reduced emissions by 1 million tons since the
commonly-used 1980 baseline date. At the same time,
electricity demand is expected to grow, causing additional
emissions which will have to be offset with further reductions.
The exact amount of projected growth is open to some ques-
tion, with EPA projecting 1.2 million additional tons of SO2
emissions, and others projecting less.
To the extent that utilities are allowed to decide freely how to
achieve the required reductions, or trade "emissions credits" with other
utilities or industrial emitters, the cost goes down. Further, to the
extent that clean coal technologies prove to be lower cost alternatives to
utilities' generation needs, the costs of SO2 reductions go down.
Contentious issues:
Historically, two major issues of contention have caused a stale-
mate on acid rain control legislation.
First is the impact such legislation might have on high-sulfur coal
producers and coal mining employment. To the extent that utilities
choose to switch to other fuels (natural gas, low-sulfur coal), high-sulfur
coal mining jobs will be lost -- although ICF estimated that under a full
freedom of choice bill introduced in the last session the impact would
be 16,800 high-sulfur coal mining jobs lost. It should be noted that
these losses would be offset by job gains in low-sulfur coal mining (plus
20,000 jobs under the same ICF estimate). It should be noted that
some of the job gains would be in the same states -- albeit in different
regions -- as the job losses. Northern West Virginia, for example, could
be expected to lose 1,200 high-sulfur coal mining jobs, but southern
West Virginia could gain 4,000 low-sulfur coal mining jobs.
EPA feels that under a full freedom of choice bill which requires
a 10 million ton SO2 reduction, the total high sulfur coal mining job
loss (including non-coal mining jobs in high sulfur coal mining com-
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. Draft Paper
Clean Air Act Options Paper: Acid Rain (20 pp.)
5/3/89
P/S
Collection:
Open on Expiration of PRA
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
By
gp
(NLGB)
5/12/05
on
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 5
munities) could be between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs. These would, as
noted, be at least partially offset by gains elsewhere.
In any event, options which are designed to increase the use of
scrubbers or encourage the deployment of clean coal technology will
mitigate the effect of reductions on these high-sulfur coal mining com-
munities. Scrubber technology, however, is quite costly.
The second oft-discussed issue is the impact that any acid rain
control program will have on electricity rates in affected states. In
general, most Congressional proposals to date would raise national
average electricity rates by about 2% after the year 2000. For the
legislative proposal which mandated the most costly approach, scrubbers
on specifically named plants, the rate increases in the two most severely
impacted states (Indiana and Ohio) would be about 7% -- although
without trading it would be higher for individual utilities.
What follows is a brief discussion of the major decisions to be
made in crafting an acid rain reduction bill, with options presented to
resolve each choice. To the extent possible, the costs associated with
choosing these options -- as measured from the two base cases discussed
above -- are identified. Because there is significant variability in pos-
sible true future costs, the cost estimates listed will be the mid-point of
the range provided by EPA estimates.
II. POLICY OPTIONS
AMOUNT AND TIMING OF REDUCTIONS
Amount of Reductions: Second Phase
This is one of the most visible elements of any new Clean Air
bill, and, according to Members of the House and Senate who have
been consulted to date, will perhaps be the key dimension on which the
Administration's proposal will be judged. All tonnage reductions are
from the 1980 baseline.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 6
Amount of Reductions: Second Phase
Option 1: 7 million tons
Cost: $1.8 B per
year
Option 2: 8 million tons
Cost: $2.2 B per
year
Option 3: 10 million tons
Cost: $3.8 B per
year
(Totals under all options incorporate 1 million
tons from smelters and other industrial sour-
ces)
Pros (of higher amount):
Cons:
A broad consensus exists on
Cost curves are not linear: each
Capitol Hill that the Administra-
additional incremental reduction
tion must come forward with a
is more costly than previous
"10 million ton" proposal in
increments.
order to be "credible."
Health and environmental bene-
In general, greater reductions
fits of additional reductions are
afford greater environmental
unclear.
benefits, although the relation-
ship may not be linear.
Canada is on record as favoring
at least a 10 million ton reduc-
tion.
Amount of Reductions: First Phase
Most bills call for a first phase of reductions as a way of guaran-
teeing early reductions and thus maximizing the cumulative reductions
achieved through any control program.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 7
Amount of Reductions: First Phase
Option 1: 5 million tons
Cost: $750 M per year
Option 2: 4 million tons
Cost: $450 M per year
Option 3: No first phase
(Totals for all options incorporate 1 million
tons from smelters and other industrial sour-
ces)
Pros (of higher amount):
Cons:
Higher amount of early reduc-
Higher amounts of early reduc-
tions will be more "credible"
tions drive up cost significantly.
with Hill and environmentalists.
Forcing larger early reductions
Larger early reductions provide
could cause problems in siting
"insurance" against environmental
new low sulfur mines to meet
and potential health effects.
demand and siting and permit-
ting retrofit technologies.
Canadians favor 5 million tons.
Timing of Reductions: Second phase
Option 1: 12/31/2000
Additional cost: EPA believes
that annual cost will not rise
with earlier date, although
cumulative costs may rise.
Option 2: 12/31/2003
DOE disagrees, bacause of
new technology moving down
cost-curve in this time-frame.
CEA points out annual
costs incurred earlier.
Option 3: 12/31/2005
(baseline cost)
Pros (of earlier date):
Cons:
The year 2000, like 10 million
DOE believes annual costs will
tons, is a "magic number" with
be higher for earlier dates,
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 8
Capitol Hill, and is required to
because they could inhibit com-
have "credibility."
mercial deployment of new,
potentially less costly clean coal
EPA does not believe that
technologies (unless extension is
earlier date will significantly
granted for CCT -- see below).
raise costs annual costs; although
CEA notes that billions of
dollars are saved inin the cumul-
ative total for each year during
which costs are deferred.
Canadians favor year 2000 dead-
line.
Timing of Reductions: First Phase
Option 1: by 12/31/94
Additional cost: EPA believes
annual cost will not rise
relative to Option 2, but will
be incurred one year earlier.
Option 2: by 12/31/95
(baseline cost)
Pros (of earlier date):
Cons:
An earlier date will be seen as
Earlier date leaves less time for
more credible by environ-
technology advances to help in
mentalists.
achieving reductions; drives up
cost.
Earlier date maximizes cumula-
tive reductions.
Earlier date leaves less time to
develop trading system (see
below); drives up cost.
Disruption to high sulfur coal
producers will be more dramatic.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 9
Extension for Clean Coal Technology: Second Phase
Should a three-year extension be granted for emission
sources that use repowering clean coal technologies to
achieve required reductions?
Pros:
Cons:
Takes advantage of U.S. gov-
Extending the deadlines may
ernment's planned $2.5 billion
mean somewhat higher pollution
investment in new clean coal
during period of extension.
technologies.
May allow some utilities who
Provides incentive for utilities to
could achieve reductions earlier
accelerate and invest in commer-
to wait until new deadline is
cial deployment of these new
expired.
technologies.
Pros (cont):
Allows high sulfur coal, of which
U.S. has substantial deposits, to
continue to play a major role in
firing electricity generation with-
out requiring scrubbers or explic-
itly subsidizing coal producers
and/or miners.
Extension for Clean Coal Technology: First Phase
Should the bill grant a three year extension from emissions
reduction deadlines to those plants which deploy Clean Coal
Technologies ?
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 10
Pros:
Cons:
Without this, most technology
Extension will not affect avail-
applied to achieve reductions
ability of most repowering clean
will be costly scrubber tech-
coal technologies (e.g. fluidized
nology.
bed, coal gasification), which will
not be available until the late
New retrofit technologies (e.g.,
1990s at the earliest.
sorbent injection) should be
commercially available in the
1994-1998 time period.
CONTROL STRATEGY - TRADING AND EMISSIONS ALLOCATION
Emissions trading and "marketable permits":
One important way of reducing the cost of any required emissions
reductions is to allow utilities to trade allowed emissions -- thereby
allowing whichever source is able to achieve the reductions at least cost
to undertake the actual reductions.
There is consensus among those who favor "least cost" solutions
that a full trading scheme between utilities in all states affected should
apply in Phase II of the bill. However, there is some debate as to
whether to allow trading in the first phase and, if so, how to structure
the trading scheme.
Emissions Trading
Option 1: No trading.
Additional cost: $0.5 - 1 B
(per year, V. full trading)
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 11
Pros:
Cons:
Afford protection to high-sulfur
By far most costly of all alterna-
coal producers by effectively dic-
tives.
tating some minimum amount of
scrubbing.
Dictates scrubbing.
Easiest to implement.
May be difficult to establish
trading scheme in short time of
Phase One because rule-making
procedure could be lengthy.
Emissions Trading
Option 2: Provide State's Governors with authority to make
re-allocations of any reductions allocated in the bill.
Pros:
Cons:
Retains role for the states in
Less fair than trading system,
determining how best to manage
provides arbitrary allocation
the effects of air pollution con-
power to state governments.
trol programs.
Adds additional layer of bur-
Could be easier to implement
eaucracy to trading/allocation
than other trading schemes be-
system.
cause many states already have
acid rain control programs in
Places Governors in difficult sit-
place.
uation vis a vis competing inter-
ests; Governors may prefer Fed-
(cont.)
eral control.
Pros (cont):
Allows Governors to take into
account all economic effects of
acid rain controls and to seek to
mitigate them.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 12
Emissions Trading
Option 3:
Allow trading of permits between all utilities
within a state.
Additional cost:
This is used as the "least
cost" baseline
Pros:
Cons:
Easy to implement, could be
Could allow some of the dirtiest
regulated by state public utility
plants to continue emitting SO2.
commissions.
May not be able to implement
Only slightly more costly than
right away; could require some
full interstate trading.
rule making process.
Emissions Trading
Option 4: Allow trading of permits within a utility franchise
even if some trades are interstate.
Additional cost:
Pros:
Cons:
Individual utility companies res-
Could require coordination
ponsible for given amount of
among states, which may be dif-
emission reduction could allocate
ficult.
it most fairly.
Unfairly favors bigger utilities
which would have more flexi-
bility.
Emissions Trading
Option 5: Full interstate trading
Additional cost:
-$100 million
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 13
Pros:
Cons:
Most flexible and least cost of
Extremely difficult to implement;
all options.
would require lengthy rule-mak-
ing procedure.
Probably not workable in first
phase.
Regulatory Incentives for Deployment
of Innovative Clean Coal Technologies
The use of innovative clean coal technologies can not only result
in lower compliance costs, but can also achieve other benefits in terms
of extending useful plant life, increasing the efficiency of the generation
process and eliminating or reducing other environmental problems (e.g.,
scrubber sludge). However, the risks and uncertainties associated with
the deployment of new technology can conflict with the traditional
emphasis on reliability and dependability in the electric utility sector.
To help overcome this rsk barrier, several groups, including the Presi-
dential Task Force on Regulatory Relieft (chaired by then Vice Presi-
dent Bush), the DOE Innovative Control Technology Advisory Panel
(ICTAP) and the National Coal Council have recommended additional
regulatory incentives for deployment of clean coal technologies. These
incentives would permit more favorable rate regulation of these projects
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and/or State
Public Utility Commissions. Should the bill include provisions for
regulatory incentives?
Pros:
Cons:
Will help overcome risk barriers
Could skew the economics in
to the use of potentially lower
favor of clean coal technologies
cost and environmentally super-
at the expense of other com-
ior clean coal technologies.
pliance options.
The emphasis on clean coal
technology will help mitigate the
If the State PUC incentives are
potential reduction in the use of
mandatory, State Commissions
high sulfur coal.
may strongly object on federal-
ism grounds.
Strongly supported by the coal
and utility industries, and will
help garner additional support
for the overall bill.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 14
Additional deployment incentives
will help mitigate the potential
disincentives to new technologies
posed by tight compliance sched-
ules.
Control Strategy: How to allocate required reductions
Once a trading system is agreed to, it is possible to understand
more fully the implications of any allocation strategy to achieve the
reductions called for in any bill. There are several options for how to
allocate initially the reductions that will be required -- although the ac-
tual execution of the reductions will also be affected by the trading
strategy adopted.
Allocating Required Reductions
Option 1:
Require top 20 polluting plants (in phase one)
to meet a certain average emissions standard
(e.g. enough to achieve 4 million ton reduc-
tion -- approx. 1.1 lbs/million BTU);
Then require all plants to meet average emis-
sions standard in phase two (e.g., enough to
achieve 9 million ton reduction -- estimated to
be about 1.0 lbs. per Million BTU, although
this number is the subject of continuing de-
bate).
Additional cost:
$.1 to $.5 B per year
(without trading)
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 15
Pros:
Cons:
Easy to implement (in 1st
It seems unfair to subject some
phase), because we know who
plants to one standard, other
biggest emitters are.
plants to another, less stringent
standard.
Politically more palatable, be-
cause this regime would only
Could force greater use of
affect 20 plants in 9 states --
scrubbers because of narrow
thus generating less widespread
focus.
opposition.
These plants tend to be in reg-
Concentrates cost effects on nar-
ions whose electric rates are
row geographic sector, increasing
somewhat lower than certain
the political pressure for sub-
other regions.
sidies.
Allocating Required Reductions
Option 2:
Require all plants larger than 100 megawatts
nationwide to meet a standard adequate to
achieve reduction in first phase (4 million ton
reduction would require 2.5 lbs./million BTU);
Then require all plants nationwide to meet
lower standard needed to achieve required
reduction in second phase (9 million tons
might require about 1.0 lbs/million BTU stan-
dard, again subject to continuing debate and
analysis).
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 16
Pros:
Cons:
Fairest of all the options -- re-
More difficult to implement,
quires all plants to meet the
since it requires regulation of
same standards.
many more plants.
Does not force one region or set
Will engender more widespread
of utility companies to meet dis-
political opposition, since 107
proportionate share of burden of
plants in 18 states would be af-
reductions.
fected.
Low cost, since it allows indiv-
idual plants to meet require-
ments in any way they choose.
Allocating Required Reductions
Option 3:
Allocate reductions to states (based on the extent
to which their average emissions exceed the
amounts needed to achieve the required nation-
wide reductions); require states to submit plans
to EPA for how they plan to achieve reductions.
Pros:
Cons:
In line with the traditional EPA
Existing SIP process has not
state planning process (under
worked particularly well.
which states submit State
Implementation Plans, or "SIPS",
Less efficient than allocating re-
detailing how they will meet
ductions directly to those doing
clean air requirements).
the emitting.
Maximizes state role, and, some
Adds unnecessary layer of bur-
might argue, state flexibility.
eaucracy to reduction program --
could impair ability to achieve
Arguably, could be made to be
the reductions.
consistent with "least cost" strat-
egy, but this may be difficult.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 17
Allocating Required Reductions
Option 5:
Allocate equal percentage of reductions to all
sources -- percentage required based on
amount required in bill -- in all states covered
by the bill.
Additional cost:
$100 - 500 million
Pros:
Cons:
Spreads the pain -- required
Unfair to those states and utili-
reductions spread evenly to all
ties which have already taken
states and not focussed on a
steps to reduce emissions -- still
particular region.
requires further costly reductions
in "clean" states, before "dirtier"
states have controlled to a com-
parable level.
Provides incentives for all utili-
Utility rates in high emitting reg-
ties to continue reducing emis-
ions (e.g. the Midwest) are lower
sions.
than those in some with lower
emissions -- so it is fair to con-
centrate required reductions
there.
Not consistent with "least cost"
control strategy.
Trading to encourage early reductions:
EPA has suggested offering 2 for 1 reduction credits for
above-required reductions to sources which achieve greater
than their reduction requirements in phase one.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 18
Pros:
Cons:
This helps achieve early reduc-
Environmental benefits in the
tions.
aggregate are lessened because
total level of emissions reduc-
Mitigates against negative effect
tions is reduced.
of fuel switching on coal mining
producers.
Acid rain damage is occurring at
a slow enough pace that goal
Reduces overall cost of
should be to maximize overall
bill, because it obviates
reductions.
the need for some later
reductions.
Could reduce use of Clean Coal
technologies in later phase by
encouraging use of scrubber
technologies in first phase.
By altering cost-effectiveness cal-
culation with respect to scrub-
bers, reduces the cost-effective-
ness of reductions actually
achieved.
Requiring NOx Emissions Reductions:
The focus of this paper heretofore has been SO2 reductions.
Most legislation on the Hill would also require reductions in emissions
of NOx.
Requiring NOx Reductions
Option 1: Require no NOx reductions below current base-
line. Require no NOx reductions below current
baseline.
Pros:
Cons:
Least cost option.
Likely to be criticized by envir-
onmentalists.
Some NOx reductions are easily
achievable.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 19
Requiring NOx Reductions
Option 2: Require NOx emission reductions of 2 million
tons below current EPA baseline projections.
Additional cost: $.3 to $.5 B
Pros:
Cons:
First 2 million ton reduction can
Merely maintains NOx emissions
be achieved rather easily through
at roughly current levels--
low NOx burners and combus-
could be seen as inadequate.
tion modifications.
Will help US comply with NOx
Protocol.
Requiring NOx Reductions
Option 3: Require NOx emission reductions of 4 million
tons below current EPA baseline projections.
Additional cost: $1.5 Billion
Pros:
Cons:
Affords most environmental
Costs of NOx reductions escalate
protection, since NOx emissions
sharply above 2 million tons.
contain more acidity than do
SO2 emissions.
Will help US comply with NOx
Protocol.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 20
Required NOx Reductions
Option 4: Allow SO2/NOx Trading:
Some have suggested that, in that the goal is to reduce
overall emissions of acid rain precursors, trading between
SO2 and NOx emissions should be allowed -- either at a 1
for 1 ratio, or at a ratio of 2 NOx for each SO2.
Pros:
Cons:
Allows more flexibility in
Depending on amount of S02
achieving overall reductions
reductions required, could be
accused of weakening the bill.
(Alternatively, could require
higher SO2 reductions as well as
trading.)
Old/New Source Emissions Trading:
All of the trading schemes above assume that trading would
be allowed only between "old", or existing sources of SO2
emissions. Some have suggested that trading should be
allowed between "old" and "new" sources.
Additional cost: -$.3 to -$.5 Billion
(relative to least-cost "old-old" trading)
Pros:
Cons:
Least costly of all schemes
Re-opens the debate on new
source performance standards,
Allocates reductions in way
and in particular, percentage re-
deemed most efficient by mar-
duction (as applied to new sour-
ketplace.
ces), which was a major issue in
the 1977 legislation.
Would be criticized by environ-
mentalists.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 21
Non-utility sources:
As discussed above, about 20% of current SO2 emissions come
from plants other than electric utilities.
Non-Utility Sources
Option 1: Allocate some reductions to non-utility sources (e.g.,
require them to meet same emissions standards as utilities.)
Additional cost:
Pros:
Cons:
Since all sources contribute to
These plants are smaller and
the problem, utilities argue that
more dispersed; and thus would
it is fair to require all emitters
be considerably more difficult to
to meet the same standard; utili-
regulate.
ties should not be singled out.
We do not now have adequate
capacity to monitor emissions
from non-utility sources.
Raises control costs and opposi-
tion to legislation from industrial
sources significantly.
Non-Utility Sources
Option 2:
Do not allocate reductions to non-utility sources,
but allow utilities to trade with these sources if
they can achieve SO2 reductions more cheaply
than utilities.
Additional cost:
-$0.2 to -$0.5 billion
(below utility only trading)
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 22
Pros:
Cons:
Increases economic efficiency of
Difficult to establish a baseline
achieving required reductions.
and monitor whether non-utility
sources actually achieve reduc-
tions since infrastructure to do
so is not in place.
True "least cost" alternative.
Creates economic windfall for
non-utility sources, of whom no
reductions are required, but who
can bargain for reductions.
Unfair to target utilities and not
other polluters.
Non-Utility Sources
Option 3: No trading with non-utility sources.
Pros:
Cons:
Simplest to implement.
More costly.
Controlling emissions from oil-fired plants:
Some have suggested that oil-fired utility boilers should be
subject to a 0.8 lb. per million BTU emission requirement.
Additional cost: - $400 M. per year
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 23
Pros:
Cons:
Spreads the pain by requiring
Unfair to subject utilities in one
those regions most likely to ben-
region to a different, lower stan-
efit environmentally from acid
dard.
rain legislation (e.g., the North-
east) to share in the required
Achieves only 300,000 tons in
reductions.
actual reductions.
Can add 1 million tons at low
Not a cost-effective means of
cost to reductions achieved since
achieving reductions -- cost per
1980, since 700,000 ton reduction
ton removed higher than for
has already taken place.
comparable reductions from coal
plants.
Allowing Emission Reduction Credits for Conservation Measures:
Some have suggested that some sort of credit be given to utilities
for measures undertaken to promote conservation.
Emissions Credits for Conservation
Option 1: No credit.
Option 2: Allow credit of 1 ton reduction for each $1,000
spent by a utility on conservation measures.
Pros (of credit):
Cons:
Promoting conservation has other
Conservation initiatives may not
benefits -- such as those on re-
actually contribute to achieving
ducing global warming.
the desired emission reductions.
Easy to monitor -- utilities in
Depending on level at which
many states already report con-
credit is granted, may not be a
servation expenditure programs
cost-effective way of achieving
to state public utility commis-
reductions.
sions.
CLEAN AIR ACT OPTIONS PAPER: ACID RAIN
DRAFT: May 3, 1989
Page 24
Emissions Credits for Conservation
Option 3: Allow credit of 1 ton for those utilities that
make expenditures of $1,000 on conservation
AND engage in least cost energy planning and
load management practices approved by EPA
and state environmental agencies.
Pro:
Cons:
Helps certify that conservation
Could raise Federalism issues.
measures undertaken by utilities
really are effective.
Heavily bureaucratic and poten-
tially inflexible way of achieving
Least cost energy planning is a
conservation.
proven way of ensuring that util-
ities undertake only cost-effective
expenditures.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
04. Memo
From Nancy Maloley to David Bates
5/3/89
P-5
Re: Framework Convention on Global Climate (2 pp.)
Collection:
Open on Expiration of PRA
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
By
P
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 3, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID Q. BATES
ROGER B. PORTER
FROM:
NANCY MALOLEY
nam
KEN YALE Ky
SUBJECT: Framework Convention on Global Climate
A meeting was held today to discuss environmental issues as they
relate to the upcoming economic summit. The discussion quickly
turned to the issue of an international convention. Present were
representatives from State, EPA, OPD and DPC.
There is little support, except from OMB, for a flat refusal to
discuss possible elements of a framework convention. The issue
is whether it should be discussed in the normal RSWG process, or
if a separate group should be formed to focus discussions.
EPA firmly supports creating a separate process in the U.N.
Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG) meeting next week, to
begin discussions. International interest in the concept, and
the concern that the issue would be taken away from the U.S.-
chaired RSWG in other upcoming international environmental
meetings, were mentioned.
State was clearly divided over the issue. The Bureau of Oceans,
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES, in
charge of environmental issues) also stressed growing
international interest and the possibility of other international
organizations taking up the issue. The Office of the Under
Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs (in charge of
Economic Summit preparations) was interested in making sure there
was interagency agreement before we proceed, that the issue is
framed to the advantage of the President, and avoiding dilution
of the issue prior to the Summit.
It was concluded that:
1. No one wants to see premature creation of a convention.
2. There is no consensus on the creation of a separate process
within RSWG to focus attention on discussions of a
framework convention.
3. There already exists a mechanism for discussion of the issue
in RSWG, and that could be used next week.
4. The Secretary of State and other Cabinet members are
interested in seeking interagency consensus on how to
approach a discussion on a framework convention, before
discussions formally begin.
-2-
The best approach may be to delay a decision on the appropriate
process within RSWG for discussions of a framework convention,
until the DPC has thoroughly reviewed the issue. U.S.
participants in RSWG can still discuss options for discussing a
framework convention at the meeting next week, and report back to
the DPC. This will avoid focusing on this issue in RSWG
prematurely and place the focus for this issue on the White House.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
05. Memo with
From Karl Th. Paske, Representative of the Embassy of the
4/3/90
(b)(1)
Attachments
Federal Republic of Germany, to D. Allan Bromley
Re: Position Paper of the FRG for the White House
Conference on Science and Economics Research Related to
Global Change
SENT FOR AGENCY REFERRAL (3 pp.)
Collection:
Document Declassified
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
By
If
(NLGB)
on
8/14/98
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
98-0004-F/1
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
Released in Full
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
8/14/1998
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
P.RM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Botschaft
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Washington, April 3, 1990
Embassy
4645 Reservoir Road, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20007 - 1998
of the Federal Republic of Germany
USA
Tel.: (202) 298 - 4000
The Honorable
Dr. Alan Bromley
Az.:
Assistant to the President
(Bei Antwort bitte angeben)
for Science and Technology
OEOB
Room 358
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20406
Dear Dr. Bromley,
I have the honor to transmit to you the enclosed Position Paper of
the Federal Republic of Germany for the White House Conference on
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change to be held
in Washington, on April 17 and 18, 1990.
Sincerely yours,
Karl Jh. Basdhe
Karl Th. Paschke
Minister
Position Paper of the Federal Republic of Germany
for the White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change, Washington, April 17 and 18, 1990
As the Federal Chancellor stated in his letter of reply to
President Bush, the Federal Government attaches maximum
significance to the practical and political aspects concerning
Global Change. This applies in particular to Global Climate
Change. These challenges cannot be met by national measures alone.
They demand, however, increasingly close international cooperation
and a greater readiness to take action.
Complex environmental problems cannot be effectively tackled
without sufficient knowledge of their causes and consequences.
Large-scale measures require sound fundamental knowledge.
Necessary action must not be deferred or delayed merely because it
has not been possible to clarify conclusively all the complicated
scientific interrelationships associated with an environmental
threat. On the contrary, the precautionary approach demands that
action be taken now, in our own interest and the interest of
future generations.
The increase in the greenhouse effect is caused by a series of
trace gases, particularly CO₂, which are emitted as a consequence
of human activities. The Federal Government implemented a climate
research program as early as 1982. A research program concerning
ozone was submitted as the German contribution to climate and
atmospheric research in 1988. In 1989 the Government decided to
place emphasis on research into the greenhouse effect, and
approved an energy research program in 1990. The Federal
Government has increased its budget for climatic research by 600
percent in the last few years. A further rise is envisaged.
In 1987, the German Bundestag set up a Study Commission entitled
"Preventive Measures To Protect the Earth's Atmosphere", in which
both Members of Parliament and renowned scientists are working
together. This Commission has in the meantime presented a first
report which has also been submitted to Washington in English.
This report contains a comprehensive survey of the possible
developments and effects resulting from ozone disintegrations in
the stratosphere as well as the increased greenhouse effect in the
troposphere. Further reports on the significance of forests in the
climate change and on the possibilities for reducing co₂ emission
levels will soon be available.
The results of the Federal Government research and the work
conducted by the Study Commission have led to sound findings which
largely correspond to investigations carried out by scientists
from other countries.
Based on the first report of the Study Commission, the German
Bundestag reached the unanimous conclusion on 9 March, 1989 that
"the risks threatening the Earth's atmosphere necessitate
immediate and extensive action at national and international
level."
The Federal Government is of the opinion that further climatic
research is necessary. However, the Government is also convinced
that immediate measures must be taken in important areas, such as
the limitation of CO₂ emissions, the conservation of forests, and
the reduction of emissions from agriculture and waste management.
The Federal Government therefore proposes that the White House
Conference also deal with "Response Strategies" and immediate
measures in a plenary discussion. The German Delegation is
prepared to make an introductory contribution within the scope of
this discussion. It therefore requests that the Conference agenda
be adapted accordingly.
TUESDAY 4/10/90
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The White House Conference
on
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change
FOREIGN DELEGATION PARTICIPATION LIST
(Arranged by Countries and Heads of Delegations)
Opening Remarks - Foreign Delegate (1)
*
POLAND - JAN JANOWSKI
Deputy Prime Minister; Head of the Agency for Science and Technological Progress
and Application
Foreign Delegates Panel - Three Delegates Remarks on Three Themes (3)
*
FRANCE - HUBERT CURIEN
Minister of Research and Technology
JAPAN - ISHIMATSU KITAGAWA
Minister of the Environment
*
MEXICO - Lic. PATRICIO CHIRINOS
Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology
Monday
1
April 9, 1990
5:18 am
Foreign Delegates to Lead the Working Groups (9)
AUSTRALIA - NEAL BLEWETT
Minister for Trade Negotiations
BRAZIL - JOSE LUTZENBERGER
Environment Secretary
CANADA - LUCIEN BOUCHARD
Federal Environment Minister
A
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - PROF. DR. KLAUS TOPFER
Federal Minister for the Environment, Natural Protection, and Nuclear Safety
ITALY - Hon. ADOLFO BATTAGLIA
Minister of Industry
NETHERLANDS - HANS ALDERS
Minister for Housing, Physical Planning, and Environment
NIGERIA - Major General MAMMAN KONTAGORA
Minister of Works and Housing
OECD - ROBERT CORNELL
Deputy Secretary General
USSR.
ZAIRE CITOYEN LOBO KANZA KANZA
Secretary of State (Deputy Minister); Ministry of Environment and Conservation of
Nature
Foreign Delegates to Make Presentations in Third Session of W.G's (3)
*
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - LAURENS JAN BRINKHORST
Director-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety, and Civil Protection
INDONESIA - Prof. Dr. Ing. B.J. HABIBIE
Minister of State for Research and Technology; Chairman of the Agency for the
Assessment and Application of Technology
UNITED KINGDOM - DAVID TRIPPIER RD, JP, MP
Minister for the Environment and Countryside
Monday
2
April 9, 1990
5:18 am
Three Foreign Delegates Panel to Make Concluding Remarks at End of WHC (3)
INDIA - Ms. MANEKA GANDHI
Minister of State for Environment and Forests
NORWAY - KRISTIN HILLE VALLA
Minister of Environment
SOVIET UNION - NIKOLAY PAVLOVICH LAVIOROV
Chairman of the U.S.S.R. State Committee on Science and Technology
Total Foreign Delegates Giving Approximately 10 Minute Presentations (19)
LIST OF COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING IN THE CONFERENCE
(All Talks/Presentations are 10 Minutes)
1. Australia
Chairman of Working Group
2. Brazil
Chairman of Working Group
3. Canada
Chairman of Working Group
4. Fed. Republic of Germany
Chairman of Working Group
5. France
Opening Remarks on Conference/Themes
6. India
Concluding Remarks on Conference
7. Indonesia
Working Group/Theme III - Talk
8. Italy
Chairman of Working Group
9. Japan
Opening Remarks on Conference/Themes
10. Mexico
Opening Remarks on Conference/Themes
11. Netherlands
Chairman of Working Group
12. Nigeria
Chairman of Working Group
13. Norway
Concluding Remarks on Conference
14. Poland
Opening Remarks on the Conference
15. Soviet Union
Concluding Remarks on Conference
16. United Kingdom
Working Group/Theme III - Talk
17. Zaire
Chairman of Working Group
18. European Community
Working Group/Theme III - Talk
19. OECD
Chairman of Working Group
File = DELEGATE.410
Monday
3
April 9, 1990
5:18 am
UNITED STATES.
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 30 1990
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
NOTE TO DR. ALLAN BROMLEY
A matter came up at the end of our session today on which I
wanted to get back to you. The conference on New Technologies,
Business Opportunities, and Strategies for Reducing U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, being co-sponsored by EPA, the
University of Maryland, Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, Princeton, and The National Institute for Emerging
Technology. This conference was premised on the view that
irrespective of the results of necessary ongoing research, world
demand is growing for technologies that promote productivity with
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and U.S. firms should not be
impeded in competing for this business. As the brochure states,
other countries are aggressively developing and marketing
technologies and this conference was designed to promote maximum
industry-government communication and to assure "competitive
benefit" to U.S. companies developing such technologies.
It is often EPA regulations that erect "market barriers",
and we want to minimize such problems. Over the last few weeks,
EPA staff has requested staff at the Departments of Energy and
Commerce to participate and to help focus these discussions in
the most productive ways.
I wanted to clarify that this is not a conference designed
to engage any debate on the science issues, which, as we know,
are still unresolved. Again, our objective is to help ensure
U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. It makes sense
to use your working group as a clearinghouse for information on
conferences and developments of this sort and we will commit to
work with you on such a clearinghouse. We think that you are
-2-
developing an effective structure for Administration coordination
on climate change issues and are committed to work closely with
you to make sure that we maximize the prospects for success of
the April conference and, in the long-run, work together to help
the President position himself as a world leader on the science,
environmental and economic dimensions of this issue. Please let
us know how we can help.
Hal Ahba
F. Henry Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
CC: Admiral James Watkins
Roger Porter
David Bates
Robert Grady
Steve Danzansky
FYI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Office of the White House Conference
on
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change
April 5, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO GOVERNOR SUNUNU:
FROM:
William D. Harris
WDD
SUBJECT: The President's White House Conference on Science and
Economics Research Related to Global Change - Delegate
Update
Attached is the delegation list and the delegate attendance summary
as of 5:00 pm Thursday.
I have also attached a copy of a Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)
position paper which was received by our delegate management team
today. I believe that this position paper deserves your attention.
1019 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Suite 615, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 653-5980
PRELIMINARY
DELEGATION LIST
CURRENT AS OF
APRIL 5, 1990; 12:00 NOON
Additions: West German full delegation and confirmation
Norwegian confirmation
Soviet delegation
Final French name
Polish delegation
BRAZIL
(tentative)
Name
Title
Jose Lutzenberger
Environment Secretary
Jose Goldemberg
Science Secretary
CANADA
(tentative)
Name
Title
Lucien Bouchard
Federal Environment
Minister
Derek Burney
Ambassador to the United
States
Dr. Ann White
Director, Canadian Global
Change Program
Dr. Arthur W. Mays
President, the Natural
Science and Engineering
Research Council
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
(tentative)
Name
Title
Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
Director-General for
Environment, Nuclear
Safety and Civil
Protection
Jurgen Henningsen
Director for
Environmental Quality and
Natural Resources
Michael Emerson
Director for Economic
Evaluation of Community
Policies, Directorate-
General for Economic and
Financial Affairs
Philippe Bourdeau
Director for Environment
and Non-Nuclear Energy
Sources, Directorate-
General for Science,
Research and Development
Stanley Johnson
Director for Energy
Policy, Directorate-
General for Energy
David Wright
Central Advisory Group,
Secretariat-General of
the Commission
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
(Confirmed)
Name
Title
Professor Dr. Klaus Topfer
Federal Minister for the
Environment, Nature Protection
and Nuclear Safety
Dr. Gebhard Ziller
State Secretary, Ministry for
Research and Technology
Dr. Wilhelm Knittel
State Secretary, Ministry of
Transportation
Baldur Wagner
Assistant Secretary, Federal
Chancellery
Dr. Mario Graf von Matuschka
Assistant Secretary, Foreign
Ministry
Dr. Horst Glatzel
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Federal Chancellery
Walter Lotz
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Ministry of Economics
Professor Dr. Ansgar Vogel
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Ministry for Environment,
Nature Protection, and Nuclear
Safety
Dietrich Kupfer
Director, Office of
International Cooperation,
Ministry for Environment,
Nature Protection and Nuclear
Safety
Professor Dr. Hartmut Gross
Scientist, Max Planck Society,
Hamburg
FRANCE
(tentative)
Name
Title
Minister Hubert Curien
Minister of Research and
Technology
Minister Brice Lalonde
Secretary of State for the
Environment
Jean Audouze
Science Advisor to the
President
Claude Alegre
Special Advisor to the
Minister of Education
Ambassador Jean Ripert
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(Environment)
Yves Martin
Chairman of the Interministry
Committee on Greenhouse
Madame Borione
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Andre LeBeau
General Director of the
Meteorological Center
M. Nasse
Ministry of Economy and Budget
Sylvie Faucheux
Professor of Economy at
Paris I
INDIA
(tentative)
Name
Title
Ms. Maneka Gandhi
Minister of State for
Environment and Forests
Vasant Gowarikar
Secretary of Department
of Science and Technology
Mahesh Prasad
Secretary of Ministry. of
Environment and Forests
Dr. A.P. Mitra
Director General of
Council for Science and
Industrial Research
INDONESIA
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Prof. Dr. Ing. B.J. Habibie
Minister of State for
Research and Technology;
Chairman of the Agency
for the Assessment and
Application of Technology
Prof. Dr. Samaun Samadikun
Chairman of the
Indonesian Institute of
Science
Prof. Dr. John A. Katili
Deputy Chairman of the
National Research Council
Prof. Dr. Gunawan Satari
Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of State for
Research and Technology
Mr. Poedji Kuntarso, MA
Director General for
Foreign Economic
Relations; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
Prof. Dr. Rustam Didong
Deputy Chairman
(Economics), National
Development Planning
Agency
Prof. Dr. Harsono Wiryosumarto
Deputy Chairman
(Technology Development) ;
Agency for the Assessment
and Application of
Technology
Prof. Dr. S.B. Joedono
Assistant Minister
(Industry, Energy and
Mining), Office of the
Coordinating Minister for
the Economy, Finance,
Industry and Development
Supervision
INDONESIA
(continued)
Name
Title
Dr. M. Alwi Dahlan
Assistant Minister
(Population), Office of
the Minister of State for
Population and the
Environment
His Excellency Abdulrachman Ramly
Ambassador of the
Republic of Indonesia to
the United States of
America
ITALY
(tentative)
Name
Title
Hon. Adolfo Battaglia
Minister of Industry,
Head of Delegation
Prof. Umberto Colombo
Director of the National
Agency for Nuclear and
Renewable Energies
Prof. Giuseppe Biorci
Vice President of the
National Research Council
Prof. Giuseppe Bianchi
Director General for
Energy Sources, Ministry
of Industry
Prof. Antonio Praturlon
President of the CNR
Committee on Geological
Sciences
Prof. Roberto Frassetto
CNR Institute of the
Dynamics of Great Masses
Prof. Emilio Gerelli
Economic Counselor to the
Minister of Environment
Dr. Corrado Clini
Director General for
Pollution Prevention,
Ministry of Environment
Prof. Guido Visconti
Department of Physics,
University of L'Aquila
Dr. Giovanni Sacco
Vice Director General of
Treasury, Ministry of
Treasury
MEXICO
(tentative)
Name
Title
Lic. Patricio Chirinos
Secretary of Urban
Development and Ecology
Dr. Jose Sarukhan
Rector, National
Autonomous University
Dr. Herminio Blanco
Undersecretary for
Foreign Commerce,
Secretariat of Commerce
and Industrial
Development
Ing. Alberto Escofet
Undersecretary for
Energy, Secretariat of
Energy, Mines and
Parastatal Industries
Lic. Jose Angel Gurria
Undersecretary for
International Financial
Affairs, Secretariat of
the Treasury
Fis. Sergio Reyes
Undersecretary for
Ecology
Amb. Alberto Szekely
Legal Counsel,
Secretariat of Foreign
Affairs
Dr. Julian Adem
Director, Center for
Atmospheric Studies,
National Autonomous
University
Dr. Manuel Ortega
Director General,
National Council for
Science and Technology
Hector Santana
Staff Aide to Secretary
Chirinos
THE NETHERLANDS
(tentative)
Name
Title
Hans Alders
Minister for Housing,
Physical Planning and
Environment
Dr. B.C.J. Zoeteman
Deputy Director-General
for Environment
Dr. Pier Vellinga
Coordinator for National
Climate Programs
N.D. Van Egmond
Director for Chemistry
and Physics, State
Institute for Public
Health and Environmental
Hygiene
I.G. Roos
Directorate-General for
European Cooperation,
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Dr. H.M. Fijnaut
Director of the Royal
Dutch Meteorological
Institute
Dr. A.P.M. Baede
Head of the Department
for Dynamical Meteorology
D.F.W.T. Pietermaat
Environmental Coordinator
in the Directorate-
General for Energy,
Ministry of Economic
Affairs
Prof. J.B. Opschoor
Professor of Ecology,
Free University,
Amsterdam
NORWAY
(tentative)
Name
Title
Kristin Hille Valla
Minister of Environment
Einar Steensnaes
Minister of Education and
Science
Ambassador Kjeld Vibe
Norwegian Ambassador to
the United States
Oddmund Graham
Secretary General,
Ministry of Environment
Kaare Bryn
Director General,
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Dr. Tore Olsen
Director General,
Ministry of Education and
Research
Per M. Bakken
Coordinator, Air
Pollution, Ministry of
Environment
Lorents Lorentsen
Director of Research,
Central Bureau of
Statistics
Professor Dr. Ivar Isaksen
University of Oslo
Leif Westegaard
Science Officer,
Norwegian Embassy in
Washington
THE OECD
(tentative)
Name
Title
Robert Cornell
Deputy Secretary-General
William L. Long
Director for Environment
John Ferriter
Deputy Executive
Director, International
Energy Agency
Andrew Dean
Administrator, Department
for Economic Affairs and
Statistics
George Kowalski
Head of the Division of
Economic Analysis,
International Energy
Agency
POLAND
(tentative)
Name
Title
Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister;
Head of the Agency for
Science and Technological
Progress and Application
Andrezejewski
Deputy Minister of the
Environment
Tadeusz Diem
Deputy Minister of
Education
Mr. Rybicki
Central Planning Office
Kazimierz Duchowski
Director, Department of
Economic Cooperation,
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Mr. Wiackowski
Chairman, Parliamentary
Commission on
Environmental Protection
Professor Stakel
Polish Academy of
Sciences
Mr. Sadowski
Institute of Metallurgy
and Water Management
Wlodzimierz Bojarski
Member of the Senate
Jan Kinast
Polish Ambassador to the
United States
SOVIET UNION
(tentative)
Name
Title
Nikolay P. Laverov
Chairman, U.S.S.R. State
Committee on Science and
Technology
Yuriy Izrael
Chairman, State Committee
for Hydrometeorology
V. F. Kostin
Deputy Chairman, State
Committee for Nature
Protection
Aleksander P. Metalnikov
Deputy Chairman, State
Committee for
Hydrometeorology
A. A. Troitsky
Deputy Chairman, State
Planning Committee
V. M. Kotliakov
Director, Institute of
Geography, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences
Yu. L. Golubev
Assistant to the
Chairman, State Committee
for Hydrometeorology
Yu. V. Vakaljuk
Chief, Division of Global
Geophysical Problems,
Climate Change and
Economic Consequences,
State Committee for
Hydrometeorology
B. V. Pikhanov
State Committee for
Hydrometeorology,
Department of
International Cooperation
Mrs. N. Yu. Vail
State Committee for
Hydrometeorology,
Department of
International Cooperation
UNITED KINGDOM
(tentative)
Name
Title
David Trippier RD, JP, MP
Minister for the
Environment and
Countryside
Sir John Fairclough
Chief Scientific Adviser,
the Cabinet Office
Sir Crispin C.C. Tickell, GCMG, KCVO
United Kingdom Permanent
Representative to the
United Nations
Dr. John T. Houghton CBE
Director-General,
Meteorological Office
J.G. odling-Smee
Deputy Chief Economic
Adviser; HM Treasury
Dr. David J. Fisk
Chief Scientist,
Department of Environment
Dr. W. David Evans
Chief Scientist,
Department of Energy
Dr. Eileen Buttle
Secretary, Natural
Environment Research
Council
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Nicholas F. Brady
Secretary of the Treasury
Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Secretary of the Interior
Clayton Yeutter
Secretary of Agriculture
Robert A. Mosbacher
Secretary of Commerce
Admiral James D. Watkins (Ret)
Secretary of Energy
William K. Reilly
Administrator,
Environmental Protection
Agency
Richard H. Truly
Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space
Administration
John A. Knauss
Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere; and Director,
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Erich Bloch
Director, National
Science Foundation
Richard Schmalensee
Member, Council of
Economic Advisers
ZAIRE
(tentative)
Name
Title
Citoyen Lobo Kanza Kanza
Secretary of State
(Deputy Minister) ;
Ministry of
Environment and
Conservation of Nature
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
06. Memo
Redaction of five paragraphs of material related to FRG
4/5/90
(b)(I)
Position Paper on White House Conference on Global
Change (1 pp.)
Collection:
Document Declassified
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
By
Jp
(NLGB)
on
11/23/98
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
98-0004-F/1
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
Released in Full
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
11/23/1998
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
DELEGATE ATTENDANCE SUMMARY
5 April 1990 (Time:1700)
The following is a current status report of countries
II. TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNTRIES
IV. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
attending the White House Conference on Global
SUBMITTING:
Change as of 500 PM on 5 April 1990.
A. FRG: Position Paper. FRG has laid a
I. TOTAL COUNTRIES ATTENDING:
A. Tentative delegation list:
marker by formal letter to Dr. Bromley
by sending a formal position paper:
1. Australia*
o Total: 8
2. Brazil (2)
o "necessary actions must not be deferred
3. Canada (4)
Partial: 5
or delayed, merely because it has been
4. FRG (10) new
possible to clarify conclusively all the
5. France (10)
None: 2
complicated scientific interrelationships
6. India (4)
associated with an environment threat"
7. Indonesia (10)
B. Confirmed delegation list:
8. Italy (10)
o " the risks threatening the earth's atmo
9. Japan (10) new
OECD
phere necessitates immediate and ex
10.Mexico (10)
o
FRG (new)
tensive action at national and interna-
11.Netherlands (10)
Indonesia
tional levels"
12.Nigeria*
o Norway (new)
13.Norway (10) new
o USA (new)
o "..the government is convinced that im
14.OECD (5)
mediate measures must be taken such
15. Poland (10) new
C. Total number of developing
as the limitations of CO2 emissions, the
16.U.K. (8)
countries:
conservation of forests and the reduc
17.USA (10)
tion of emissions from agriculture and
18.USSR (10) new
o
6 LDC's
waste management"
19.Zaire (1)
20.EC (6)
o Poland
o " the federal government therefore pro
poses that WHC also deal with response
Total Countries Attending: 20
strategies and immediate measures in a ple
III. PERSONAL/CONTENT DATA:
- nary discussion. it therefore requests that
Total of number of delegates to-date: 140
the conference agenda be adapted accord-
A. Personal: 0
ingly."
* Bold type no data to date
B. Written Content:
- OECD
- U.K.
- Australia
- FRG Position Paper (new)
C. Oral: Norway
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
07. Memo with
From Karl Th. Paske, Representative of the Embassy of the
4/3/90
(b)(1)
Attachments
Federal Republic of Germany, to D. Allan Bromley
Re: Position Paper of the FRG for the White House
Conference on Science and Economics Research Related to
Global Change
SENT FOR AGENCY REFERRAL (3 pp.)
Collection:
Document Declassified
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
By
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
up
(NLGB)
on
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
98-0004-F/1
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
Released in Full
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
8/14/1998
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
SENT RY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 6-90 ; 11:48 ;
3401485-
2024562397;# 2
&
AC HAS SEEN 4/6/90
Botschaft
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Washington, April 3, 1990
Embassy
4645 Reservoir Road, N.W.
of the Federal Republic of Germany
Washington, D. C. 20007 1998
USA
Tel.: (202) 298 4000
The Honorable
Dr. Alan Bromley
Az.:
Assistant to the President
(Bei Antwort bitte angeben)
for Science and Technology
OEOB
Room 358
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20406
Dear Dr. Bromley,
I have the honor to transmit to you the enclosed Position Paper of
the Federal Republic of Germany for the White House Conference on
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change to be held
in Washington, on April 17 and 18, 1990.
Sincerely yours,
Karl Jh. Bandhe
Karl Th. Paschke
Minister
SENT- BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 6-90 ; 11:48 ;
3401485-
2024562397;# 3
Position Paper of the Federal Republic of Germany
for the White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change, Washington, April 17 and 18, 1990
As the Federal Chancellor stated in his letter of reply to
President Bush, the Federal Government attaches maximum
significance to the practical and political aspects concerning
Global Change. This applies in particular to Global Climate
Change. These challenges cannot be met by national measures alone.
They demand, however, increasingly close international cooperation
and a greater readiness to take action.
Complex environmental problems cannot be effectively tackled
without sufficient knowledge of their causes and consequences.
Large-scale measures require sound fundamental knowledge.
Necessary action must not be deferred or delayed merely because it
has not been possible to clarify conclusively all the complicated
scientific interrelationships associated with an environmental
threat. On the contrary, the precautionary approach demands that
action be taken now, in our own interest and the interest of
future generations.
The increase in the greenhouse effect is caused by a series of
trace gases, particularly CO₂, which are emitted as a consequence
of human activities. The Federal Government implemented a climate
research program as early as 1982. A research program concerning
ozone was submitted as the German contribution to climate and
atmospheric research in 1988. In 1989 the Government decided to
place emphasis on research into the greenhouse effect, and
approved an energy research program in 1990. The Federal
Government has increased its budget for climatic research by 600
percent in the last few years. A further rise is envisaged.
In 1987, the German Bundestag set up a study Commission entitled
"Preventive Measures To Protect the Earth's Atmosphere", in which
both Members of Parliament and renowned scientists are working
together. This Commission has in the meantime presented a first
report which has also been submitted to Washington in English.
This report contains a comprehensive survey of the possible
developments and effects resulting from ozone disintegrations in
the stratosphere as well as the increased greenhouse effect in the
troposphere. Further reports on the significance of forests in the
climate change and on the possibilities for reducing co₂ emission
levels will soon be available.
The results of the Federal Government research and the work
conducted by the Study Commission have led to sound findings which
largely correspond to investigations carried out by scientists
from other countries.
Based on the first report of the Study Commission, the German
Bundestag reached the unanimous conclusion on 9 March, 1989 that
"the risks threatening the Earth's atmosphere necessitate
immediate and extensive action at national and international
level."
SENT- BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 6-90 ; 11:49 ;
3401485-
2024562397;# 4
The Federal Government is of the opinion that further climatic
research is necessary. However, the Government is also convinced
that immediate measures must be taken in important areas, such as
the limitation of CO2 emissions, the conservation of forests, and
the reduction of emissions from agriculture and waste management.
The Federal Government therefore proposes that the White House
Conference also deal with "Response Strategies" and immediate
measures in a plenary discussion. The German Delegation is
prepared to make an introductory contribution within the scope of
this discussion. It therefore requests that the Conference agenda
be adapted accordingly.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08. Report
U.S. Review of the Executive Summary of the Policymakers
4/8/90
P-5
Summary, prepared by Robert T. Watson (4 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
(Document Follows)
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By SP (NLGB) on 5/12/05
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Climate Change, White House Conference on Global (1990) [3]
Date Closed:
12/8/2004
OA/ID Number:
29150-004
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
April 8, 1990
U.S. Review of the Executive Summary of the Policymakers
Summary
Prepared by Robert T. Watson
There is a general concensus (more than half the U.S. reviewers specifically
commented) that the executive summary does not reflect the tone of the main assessment.
While none of the U.S. reviewers disputed that a continued increase in the atmospheric
abundances of radiatively active (greenhouse) gases would lead to an increase in global
mean temperatures, all other forcing functions remaining constant, many felt that the
executive summary, and the Policymakers summary, does not reflect the current state of
scientific uncertainty. In particular, it does not reflect the current state of uncertainty
regarding the ability of General Circulation Models to predict the magnitude and timing of
climate change, either at the global, let alone regional scale.
While it is crucial that the executive summary of the Policymakers summary
provide a clear message of what the current "best guess" of future climate changes may be,
it is equally important to explain our assessment of scientific uncertainties. I believe that it
would be better to increase the length of the executive summary (up to 2 full pages), so that
the uncertainties and scenarios can be adequately discussed.
All references to "man" should be changed to anthropogenic or human.
I will summarize the comments of the U.S. reviewers as well as attaching their
original detailed comments.
I believe that we should go away from the style of this executive summary of "We
are certain of the following", Our best tools predict "Our best judgement is that", "We
calculate with confidence that", "To improve our predictive capability, we need". This
style leads to a disconnect between words like "predict" and "will". In all cases we should
state that these are predictions. We were always very sensitive to this point in all ozone
assessments. The overall effect is that we appear to be more certain about the predictions
than is the case. I will comment (section by section) using the current format.
We are certain of the following:
2 (6/7)
(i)
Two reviewers question the value of 30 C, stating that this number
does not account for the differences in planetry albedo that would
occur without greenhouse gases.
(ii)
Stress, the "natural" greenhouse effect is real
2 (9/11)
Should note that:
(i)
tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas whose concentrations are
controlled by emissions of methane, non-methane hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen;
(ii)
that the main greenhouse gas is water and its abundance is predicted
to change in response to changes in radiative forcing;
(iii)
Modify last sentence to say, "in the absence of other effects"
2 (9/11)
(i)
Should add two or three sentences that discusses the current state of
knowledge about sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and
April 8, 1990
implications for policymaking, e.g., note that (i) the sinks of carbon
dioxide are poorly defined affecting our understanding of it's
lifetime and future airborne fraction, hence the relationship between
emissions and future atmospheric concentrations; (ii) individual
sources of methane and nitrous oxide are inadequately quantified.
(ii)
Should add one or two sentences stating that climate is naturally
variable. Could quantify natural variability, e.g., 5-7 degrees,
globally, between glacial and interglacial periods, and 2 degrees in
historical times.
Our best tools predict that,
2 (17/21)
This section should be changed.
(i)
The scenario(s) must be defined
(ii)
Serious consideration should be given to showing the results of the
other IPCC scenarios unless we can justify why we only use the
"high" scenario. Showing only this scenario is being interpreted that
WG #1 is biased and is trying to exaggerate the likely changes. We
should note that the CFC emissions are likely too high (given the
current renegotiations of the Montreal Protocol) and carbon dioxide
emissions possibly too low (given the "bottoms-up" country
analysis) in the "high scenario".
(iii)
The uncertainties associated with such temperature projections must
be given. Discuss limitations of GCMs, including, ocean dynamics,
and the incorporation of cloud-radiation, ocean-atmosphere, and
land-atmosphere interactions. Mention how these uncertainties
affect our ability to have confidence in predicting the magnitude and
timing of climate change, especially at the regional level, i.e.,
mention that the treatment of clouds affects the magnitude of the
predicted warming, while the treatment of ocean circulation affects
our prediction of the timing of global warming.
(iv)
We need to stress that this is the predicted "realized" warming.
(v)
We need to define where the "probable" range comes from, i.e.,
from the predicted range of "equilibrium" temperature change for an
equivalent doubling of carbon dioxide, and the quantitative effect of
the thermal lag of the ocean.
(vi)
Should discuss why the central value for doubled carbon dioxide is
is 2.5, not 3.0 degrees C (i.e., skewed uncertainties).
(vii)
If we are going to present predictions of precipitation and
evaporation changes then we need to indicate the level of uncertainty
in these predictions. Several U.S. scientists suggest that predictions
of precipitation changes should not be presented as they are so
uncertain.
(viii)
Could note that if the global mean.temperature did increase by 3.5
degrees then the Earth's temperature would be higher than at any
time during the last 100,000 years.
(ix)
Can we separate out the predicted temperature changes from pre-
industrial to now, then now to the years 2020 and 2070 (maybe
more useful to policymakers).
2 (23/26)
(i)
Several U.S. scientists suggested that this summary is inconsistent
with the main document, i.e., our confidence in the accuracy of
predictions of regional climate change are so uncertain that this
April 8, 1990
section should be deleted. I believe that the summary should state
how our confidence in regional climate predictions is much lower
than in global predictions, but note where the models (at the
continental scale) show consistency (not to be confused with
accurate predictability).
(ii)
saying regional changes will be different from global changes needs
some additional explanation. Could note that one robust model
prediction is amplified warming at high latitudes in winter in the
northern hemisphere.
(iii)
A couple of sentences should be added to explain which climatically
important parameters cannot yet be predicted with any accuracy,
e.g., interannual climate variability, changes in the distribution of
rainfall patterns within a season, frequency and severity of severe
storms.
2 (28/32)
(i)
Predicted sea level changes should be given for same dates as
temperature changes. If the results from more than one IPCC
scenario are presented then this section would also have to modified.
Our best judgement is that:
2 (37/38)
(i)
This "observed" temperature increase is qualified in the main
assessment (data quality--e.g., impact of urbanization"). Surely, the
executive summary should also be qualified, and not be stronger
than the main assessment.
2 (40/42)
(i)
A couple of U.S. reviewers suggest that this wording is biased and
that the main text is softer than this statement. As written it suggests
that at least some of the increase is due to greenhouse gases--can we
prove this suggestion? It could have been phrased equally as well,
"the observed increase is consistent with natural variability".
(ii)
We need to point out that the size of the observed warming is at the
lower end of the range of climate predictions and that the shape
of the observed increase is not consistent with "greenhouse forcing"
alone, and that because of internal natural climate variability and
changes in other forcing functions of the system, cause and effect
cannot be established.
2 (44/46)
Can we prove that an increase in the mean temperature will mean that there
will be more hot days. Several U.S. scientists argue that:
(i) because the temperature increase over the last 100 years is
primarily due to an increase in the minimum (night-time)
temperatures, and not an increase (more likely a decrease) in the
maximum daytime temperatures, how can we say that there will be
an increase in the number of days with high temperatures.
(ii) there could be a change in the temperature distribution without
increasing the number of hot days.
2 (48/51)
(i)
Need to be more explicit about the potential positive effects of
carbon dioxide (increased productivity and increased water-use
April 8, 1990
efficiency by plants). Increased water-use efficiency may make
plants more drought resistence.
(ii)
Ecosystems do not migrate, only species.
(iii)
Increased soil temperatures may increase productivity.
We calculate with confidence:
3 (4/8)
(i)
The comments about carbon dioxide should include the past and
present.
(ii)
"changing climate" should be replaced by "changing radiative
forcing".
3 (10/12)
Be specific about what reductions are needed for each gas, don't lump all
the long-lived gases together as it is a little confusing. We must point out
how there are uncertainties in the carbon dioxide numbers because of the
uncertainties in its sinks (hence lifetimes).
3 (14/18)
Need to qualify the comment about "long lag".
(i)
there is no true lag
(ii)
the magnitude of the "lag" is proportional to the lifetime of
the gas. Therefore, the statement, as written, is only true for
long-lived gases, e.g., would not apply to tropospheric
ozone. We should be more specific, and relate the lag to the
lifetime of each gas.
To improve our predictive capability, we need:
3 (23/32)
(i)
This section should be written as a paragraph. There is an implied
order of priority.
(ii)
The section should also be more specific about what types of long-
term observations are needed, what type of process studies, and
what types of modeling. For example: (i) mention that GCMs need
higher spatial resolution, and an interactive ocean GCM; (ii) that we
need an improved understanding of cloud-radiation interactions,
land-surface interactions; ocean-atmosphere interactions, and ocean
circulation; and (iii) the observing systems need to balanced between
in-situ and space-based.
(iiii)
The paragraph should stress that the program needs to study
ecosystem response as well as the physical climate system.
ALLAN
BROMLEY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1990
goo. John Sunume:
Dear John:
Asa consiquence of some foul up
evening that this md mings Senior
m my office Ihad been told last
Father alsonu than Tuday's was
Enclosed We within, fast adrafry
Head my
the short statementon clumate change
Thatyou requested What Idea with
hel from Boh watsm, nan maynard
and eneral others is prepare something
more like what Hink The
Executive Sunvary The IPCC
working group N/1 should we like.
please latine know what changes
on additions you maymish
Also enclased sacapy Ahe
talk sgane yesterdayto The
natural Priss Club. Det appears
received. well
warren Mashington has sentym
acapy his book that describes
his 3D model in detail and is
Dringing with him, an monday 11th,
The I-D middl Phathis prepared
to metal ouyour cm poter
toge Ther with The data listing
Thatyon pequested
Succerly
Dhan
April 11, 1990
Climate Change
The Climate System:
The Earth's climate is controlled by the input energy from the sun, by the radiative
balance of the atmosphere and by internal processes within the climate system. The
radiative balance depends upon the input of solar radiation and the atmospheric
concentrations of radiatively active trace gases (i.e., greenhouse gases), clouds and
aerosols. To predict changes in the climate system requires an understanding of future
changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the
processes that control the response of the climate system to natural and human-influenced
changes in the radiation balance.
Changes in the Forcing of the Climate System:
Natural greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide, and to a
lesser extent, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, keep the Earth much warmer than it would
otherwise be. It is well documented that since the industrial revolution the atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and industrially produced
chlorofluorocarbons (strong greenhouse gases) have been increasing primarily due to
human activities. However, there are many uncertainties concerning the magnitudes of the
sources and sinks of these greenhouse gases, hence their residence time in the atmosphere.
In particular, the magnitude of the uptake and release of carbon dioxide by the oceans and
terrestrial biosphere, and strengths of the individual sources of methane and nitrous oxide
are quite uncertain. These uncertainties limit our ability to understand the quantitative
1
April 11, 1990
consequences of particular emissions control strategies, e.g., it is difficult to relate future
emissions of carbon dioxide to growth in its atmospheric concentration. It should be
noted, however, that the time taken for atmospheric carbon dioxide to adjust to changes in
sources is of order 50-200 years, determined by the slow exchange of carbon between
surface waters and deeper layers of the ocean and the response of the terrestrial biosphere.
Consequently, carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere today will influence the
atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide for centuries into the future, and the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide will only respond slowly to changes in emission rates.
The most reliable information on past atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
concentrations is obtained by the analysis of air trapped in polar ice cores. Analyses of ice
cores from Vostock, Antarctica and Greenland have covered a full glacial - interglacial cycle
and show a strong correlation between changes in temperature and changes in the
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane. However, because of the low
(limited by the rate of occlusion) temporal resolution of the ice cores it is not possible to
establish whether changes in temperature initiated changes in carbon dioxide and methane,
or vice-versa. While there is no rigorous model that can explain the observed carbon
dioxide variations, it has been speculated that they are linked to large-scale changes in the
interplay between biological, chemical and physical processes in the oceans, but the
detailed mechanisms are not understood.
Predictions of Climate Change:
General Circulation Models (GCM's) are currently the best available tools with
which to predict changes in the Earth's climate in response to a change in the atmospheric
concentrations of trace gases or aerosols, solar activity, or surface albedo. However, it
2
April 11, 1990
must be recognized that the current GCM's have substantial limitations. In particular, the
prediction of global climate change is very sensitive to the treatment of cloud-radiation
interactions. Different cloud-radiation parameterizations in GCM models lead to significant
differences, up to a factor of three, in the magnitude of the predicted global warming.
Prediction of regional climate changes are very uncertain, and are particularly sensitive to
the treatment of ocean dynamics and ocean-atmosphere interactions (the exchange of
energy and chemicals between the atmosphere and the surface waters, and between the
surface waters and the deep oceans controls the rate of predicted warming) , and to the
terrestrial vegetation-atmosphere interactions (the transfer of energy and moisture between
land surfaces and the atmosphere). In addition to our current lack of understanding of
several key processes, today's computer capabilities severely limit the spatial resolution of
the GCMs. Consequently, while the current GCMs represent the overall climatology of the
present climate system quite well and all predict that the Earth's climate will warm in
response to an increase in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases, it is clear that
the predictions of the magnitude and timing of climate changes, especially at the regional
level, are considerably uncertain. In particular, accurate regional predictions of changes in
the mean state and variability of climatic parameters needed to assess the impact of climatic
change on agriculture, natural ecosystems, coastal regions, and water resources (such as
temperature, precipitation, evaporation, soil moisture and the occurrence of severe storms
at sub-continental scales) - all of central importance to the modeling of economic impacts of
global warming - are not possible at this time. Other potentially important uncertainties
concern feedbacks between climate change and biogeochemical cycling, and possible non-
linear feedbacks within the climate system itself, i.e., a change in ocean circulation.
A key question is what do the GCM's predict for future climate changes based on
trace gas emission, recognizing that there are significant scientific uncertainties, and
assuming that there will be no long-term changes in solar irradiance or atmospheric aerosol
3
April 11, 1990
concentrations. Rather than discuss a number of complex emission scenarios it has been
traditional in the scientific community to assume that the atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases will continue to increase at a rate such that
there will be a radiative equivalent of a carbon dioxide doubling sometime during the
middle of the next century. If this occurs then the GCM's predictions that are considered to
be most likely are that: (i) the equilibrium increase in global mean surface temperature
should lie between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade (highly sensitive to modeling the
feedback between clouds and climate change; recent models with more sophisticated
treatments of clouds have tended to predict temperature changes at the lower end of this
range); (ii) between 60 and 80% of the equilibrium warming should be realized at the time
of "equivalent doubling" (sensitive to the treatment of ocean circulation); (iii) global mean
precipitation should increase; (iv) sea-ice extent should decrease; and (v) the predicted
warming in the northern polar winter should be greater than the global mean.
There are some consistent GCM predictions of climate change at the continental
scale (but not sub-continental scale) such as, (i) land areas are predicted to warm more
rapidly than oceans, and (ii) mid-latitude land masses in the northern hemisphere will warm
more than the global mean and be accompanied by a decrease in summer precipitation.
These results carry important implications, but must be stated with lower scientific
confidence than those presented above.
Observations of Temperature Changes:
The instrumental record of surface temperatures suggests an increase of between
0.3 and 0.6 degrees centigrade since the mid-nineteenth century, with an undetermined, but
probably small (less than 0.05 degrees centigrade) artificial component due to urbanization.
4
April 11, 1990
The observation of a marked retreat of mountain glaciers in all parts of the world since the
end of the nineteenth century tends to support the notion that temperatures have increased
globally over the last one hundred years. However, temperatures have not increased
smoothly with time, nor uniformly throughout the world. Several points should be noted:
(i) the majority of the temperature increase occurred before 1940, prior to most of the
anthropogenic increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases; (ii) there is
little evidence that the continental U.S. has warmed since 1900; (iii) the northern
hemisphere cooled between 1940 and the early 1970s, while the southern hemisphere
continued to warm, albeit at a very slow rate; (iv) there have been significant differences in
regional changes, especially in the northern hemisphere since 1950; and (v) from 1975 to
1982 a more general warming occurred, followed by little global warming since 1982. It is
important to recognize, however, that coupled ocean-atmosphere GCM's predict a highly
variable global warming signal, moreover, substantial regional variations are expected.
Detection of the "Anthropogenic Greenhouse" Signal:
The Earth's climate is inherently variable on all timescales, both regionally and
globally. Hence, the challenge is to detect an "anthropogenic greenhouse" signal amidst
the natural variability of the system. While it can be stated that the observed global mean
temperature increase over the past 100 years is broadly consistent with theoretical
predictions of climate change, it should be noted that the implied climate sensitivity of the
actual system would then be in the lower one-third to one-half of the range predicted by
GCM's. In addition, natural variability of the climate system may be as large as the
observed changes to date, hence the observed changes could be wholly attributable to
natural variability or possibly natural variability could have masked (due to natural
variability causing a decrease in temperatures) a larger "anthropogenic greenhouse" signal.
5
April 11, 1990
Consequently, the current observations cannot confirm the presence or absence of an
"anthropogenic greenhouse" signal. Detection of an "anthropogenic greenhouse" signal
will require determining trends in both forcing functions and several climatically important
parameters, coupled with a quantified understanding of natural variability, and the use of
time-dependent coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs.
Sea Level:
Although the data are difficult to interpret, the best scientific assessment is that over
the past 100 years, sea level has risen at an average rate of rise of 1.0-2.0 mm/yr. The
uncertainties are large, but the principal causes of this rise are consistent with the expected
thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of mountain glaciers. Regional values
differ considerably from global values and predicting future conditions is even more
uncertain. If the global mean surface temperature increases, then sea level is predicted to
rise, primarily due to to the thermal expansion of the oceans and to a melting of some land-
ice. The current predicted range of sea level increase associated with an increase in carbon
dioxide and the other greenhouse gases, lies between about 10 and 30 cm, at the time of a
radiative equivalent of a carbon dioxide doubling (sometime during the middle of the next
century). Accurate predictions remain difficult, and somewhat controversial, because of the
predicted increased snow accumulation over the Antarctic continent.
Ecological Systems:
Biological Productivity: Where temperature is limiting, warming of soils would increase
nutrient availability to plants with potential for increased productivity. Increased
6
April 11, 1990
temperature will affect respiration more than photosynthesis, possibly reducing carbon
stored in terrestrial ecosystems resulting in a positive feedback on atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can increase
photosynthesis with potential increases in net production, but the duration of "carbon
dioxide fertilization effects" is unknown. However, while there is some knowledge of the
responses of biological production processes to changes in parameters of the physical
environment, how these integrate over the life cycle of even one species interacting in a
complex of other species is unknown.
Ecosystem Composition: Species will respond differently to changes in temperature,
precipitation, and atmospheric carbon dioxide, either singly or in some combination.
However, exactly what these responses will be is not known. Also unknown are the
changes that will occur among species, including plant-animal and plant-microbe
interactions-- both beneficial symbioses as well as insect and fungal pathogens, that affect
the structure of ecosystems. GCM's predict that global mean surface temperatures may
change much more rapidly in response to an increase in greenhouse gases, an order of
magnitude or more, than they did during ice age cycles. If this were to occur, some species
will not be able to migrate or otherwise adapt to the changing climate and become extinct.
Offsetting this will be the possible genetic differentiation and expansion that might occur as
habitat boundaries are altered, with creation of new barriers to reproduction and dissolution
of some old barriers. However, extinction is likely to be more frequent than speciation,
further decreasing biological diversity.
Marine Ecosystems: The historic record leaves little doubt that global warming will have an
impact on marine planktonic organisms. The structure and productivity of marine
ecosystems are strongly influenced by ocean circulation and mixing, physical parameters
tightly linked with climate. In high latitudes, the distribution of sea ice is especially
7
April 11, 1990
important, both for plankton and marine mammals and birds. In sub-polar and temperate
regions, physical, chemical and biological parameters are highly variable and the system
behavior consequently unpredictable. Thus, effects of warming or other changes are
similarly uncertain. Warming affects vertical mixing and in turn nutrient supply, a major
determinant of ocean productivity. Again, while there is considerable knowledge of specific
processes and specific parts of the global oceans, the integration of this knowledge is
incomplete and significant gaps in understanding exist.
Scientific Research Needed to Reduce Scientific Uncertainties:
To improve our current understanding of: (i) the natural and human-influenced
processes that control the Earth's climate, and (ii) the impacts of climate change at the
regional scale, will require an internationally coordinated program of space-based and
ground-based research. This research program will need to: (i) establish an integrated
long-term program of systematic observations of the Earth's system; (ii) improve our
understanding of the physical, chemical, biological, geological, and social processes that
influence the Earth's environment and its responses; and (iii) develop integrated predictive
models. In particular, we need to document the natural variability of the Earth's climate,
and to improve our understanding and modeling of: (i) cloud-radiation feedbacks; (ii) the
exchange of energy between the atmosphere and the surface waters of the ocean, and
between the surface and deep waters of the ocean; (iii) the cycling of carbon and other key
elements between the atmosphere, land and oceans; (iv) the exchange of water and energy
between land surfaces and the atmosphere; and (v) the current structure and functioning of
ecosystems, and their response to environmental changes.
8
April 11, 1990
Summary of Areas of Scientific Uncertainty
a.
Hydrological cycle: primarily cloud-radiation and land surface-atmosphere
interactions. These uncertainties affect the predicted rate (magnitude at a
given time) of "climate change".
b.
Role of the oceans: the exchange of energy between the ocean and the
atmosphere, and between the upper layers of the ocean and the deep ocean.
These uncertainties affect the predicted rate of climate change, especially at
the regional scale.
c.
Trace Gases: quantification of the uptake and release of carbon dioxide by
the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, and quantification of the individual
sources of methane and nitrous oxide. These uncertainties affect our
understanding of how the climate system will be "forced", hence the rate of
predicted climate change. These uncertainties also limit the formation of
control strategies.
d.
Predictions of regional climate change: limitations in computer resources
(spatial resolution and physical sophistication), coupled with an inadequate
understanding of several key processes (e.g., the exchange of water and
energy between vegetative surface and the atmosphere) limit the accuracy of
regional climate change predictions at the scale required for impact
assessments to be performed (sub-continental).
e.
Detection of global change: trends in a number of climatically important
parameters, coupled with a quantified understanding of natural variability; is
9
April 11, 1990
needed to differentiate between human-induced changes in the environment
from those that occur naturally. This will require long-term observations of
climatically important parameters and forcing functions, as well as careful
development of time-dependent coupled ocean-atmosphere GCM's.
10
April 11, 1990
Key Talking Points
1.
The Earths climate is highly variable
2.
Human activities are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases, but uncertainties about their sources and sinks limit the
formulation of effective control strategies.
3.
General Circulation Models are the best tools to predict future changes in
climate. While all GCM's predict the Earth's temperature will increase in
response to an increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases, it must be remembered that there are numerous scientific uncertainties
concerning the prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change,
especially at the regional scale. These are caused by inadequate spatial
resolution in the GCM's and an inadequate understanding of many
important processes. The models have to simplify the role of clouds,
oceans, and terrestrial vegetation.
4.
Observational evidence suggests that the global mean surface temperatures
have increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees centigrade within the last
one hundred years, but because of natural variability is not possible to
ascertain the cause of the observed increase. The observational record
cannot be used to confirm or refute the presence of an "anthropogenic
greenhouse" signal.
5.
If a global warming were to be caused by increasing atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other long-lived gases ( e.g. CFCs
11
April 11, 1990
and nitrous oxide) then even with significant reductions in their emissions it
would take a very long time, decades to centuries, to reverse the
"anthropogenic" warming.
6.
Predictions of changes in agriculture and natural ecosystems are not only
limited by a lack of reliable regional climate change predictions, but also an
inadequate understanding of how biological productivity and ecosystem
composition will respond to environmental change.
12
THE MAKING OF A GREENHOUSE POLICY
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
National Press Club
Washington, D.C.
April 11, 1990
1
When the media describe a scientific advance, they often focus on a particular
individual or event, as if the advance derived entirely from that source. Scientists
working in the field typically know the situation to be much different. Many steps
are needed before a particular advance can occur, and much needs to be done for an
insight to be integrated into an existing body of knowledge.
Similarly, in describing the formation of policy, it is often easy to
overemphasize a particular incident: a clash of personalities, a pivotal document, the
meeting at which everything becomes clear. I wish it were so simple. In fact, I have
often found policymaking to be somewhat similar to scientific research, both in its
rewards and its frustrations. Thomas Jefferson described science this way: "A patient
pursuit of the facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the
drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker if he wishes to attain sure
knowledge." He might as well have been describing how you put together the fifth
draft of a policy statement.
In a somewhat less solemn fashion, the making of policy has also been likened
to the mating of elephants -- it takes place at a high level, it involves substantial
trumpeting and thrashing about, and it takes a long time to produce any tangible
results.
What I would like to do today is describe the process by which the Bush
Administration has been forming a national policy -- and contributing to an
international policy -- on global environmental change. You will be hearing much
about that policy over the next few weeks, largely because of an international White
House Conference on Scientific and Economic Research Related to Global Change
that I will have the pleasure of cochairing next Tuesday and Wednesday. But that
-conference is just one step in the much larger process of trying to understand and
respond to the possible adverse effects of global change. I have spent much of my
time since coming to Washington last summer on this subject. And I believe that the
actions the Bush Administration has taken -- and will be taking -- in this area amply
demonstrate the President's commitment to dealing responsibly with this issue.
2
A POLITICAL AWAKENING
The term "global change" encompasses such diverse but interrelated issues as
ozone depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, sea level changes,
deforestation, levels of biodiversity, and energy demands. But much of the public's
attention has focused on global warming. And I don't think that anyone can look at
the possibility of global warming without being struck by an immediate paradox.
The enhancement of the greenhouse effect is one of the most long-term and
global problems that we face. As such, it will require a long-term and global
response -- not what might be described as slam dunk solutions.
Yet the political atmosphere surrounding global warming resembles nothing so
much as a crisis. A remarkable number of pieces of legislation have been introduced
on Capitol Hill, and the latest research results -- some emphasizing and some
minimizing the potential impacts of global warming -- make the front pages of
newspapers.
There are several quite understandable reasons for this widespread concern,
including the fact that four of the warmest years on record have occurred in the
1980s. But I believe that much of the current ferment still derives from the summer
of 1988. In that single season, a severe drought struck the Midwest, much of the
nation sweltered under unusually high temperatures, forest fires scorched large areas
of the West, and a particularly strong hurricane devastated the Caribbean. The
greenhouse effect made the covers of Time and Newsweek -- even though scientists
cannot yet, in any convincing fashion, connect these events of that summer to the
greenhouse effect.
This political awakening has driven the greenhouse effect toward the top of the
national and international political agendas. It should be remembered, however, that
scientists have been speculating about enhancements of the greenhouse effect for
decades and more. The Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted, in 1896, that
the temperature of the Earth would go up 4 to 6 degrees Celsius if levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled .. a remarkably prescient prediction given that,
until the role of clouds were incorporated more accurately into global circulation
3
models, they estimated temperature increases of only slightly less. As early as 1957,
Roger Revelle and Hans Suess wrote about the "large-scale geophysical experiment"
that we are conducting by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Scientists know much more about the Earth and its components now than they
did when these early predictions were made. General circulation models mimic global
climate reasonably well. And we can observe the Earth from space, which has made a
deep impression not only on our understanding of the Earth but on our sense of the
planet as a unified, somewhat fragile home.
But what we do know about the Earth is still dwarfed by what we do not know.
I know that journalists are expected to answer the four W's in the first paragraphs of
their stories: who, what, where, and when. Suffice it to say that it would be very
difficult to write a first paragraph describing the greenhouse effect.
There is a general consensus among scientists that continued loading of the
atmosphere with greenhouse gases could lead to warming. However, the uncertainty
and controversy center around the magnitude, rate, and timing of a warming.
In addition, there is a general consensus that the planet has warmed up by
about 0.5 C during the past century. But very few scientists would claim that they
are yet able to determine whether any of that warming can be attributed to a
greenhouse effect or whether it represents a natural fluctuation. And although some
climate models predict a warming of between 1 and 2 C from a doubling of
atmospheric carbon dioxide -- although there is still large uncertainty as to whether
this doubling will occur in 2050 or in 2200 -- it is also true that the historical record
shows that the natural background temperature could, over this same period, go up
or down by a similar amount, leaving us with no change or with twice the model
predictions. We simply do not yet know.
We are also only beginning to understand what the impacts of a potential
warming might be on agricultural productivity, sea level changes, biological
productivity in the oceans, shifting vegetation patterns, storm patterns and severity,
droughts, and the like. We are even further from any quantitative understanding of
the corresponding economic impacts, as I shall discuss in a moment.
4
Two of the most severe difficulties involve the treatment of clouds and of
oceans in general circulation models. Until recently, geoscientists did not even know
if clouds warm or cool the Earth. We still do not know for certain whether the
increased cloudiness associated with a warmer Earth will augment or counteract a
greenhouse effect. It will depend on the nature and altitude of the clouds.
Regarding the oceans, we know that only about half of the carbon dioxide
released through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation remains in the atmosphere.
For years, researchers assumed that the rest was being sequestered in the oceans, but
recent studies indicate that no more than a quarter probably ends up there. Where
does the rest go? We still are not sure, although some suggest it is in temperate
latitude biomass.
Uncertainties regarding the behavior of clouds and oceans also contribute to
one of the most vexing difficulties of current atmospheric models: their inability to
make accurate regional predictions. Models still disagree about such fundamental
questions as whether the centers of continents will get wetter or drier if the Earth
warms. Yet these regional predictions are essential to assess the possible impacts of
global change.
Because of the limitations of models, we must remain aware of the potential for
surprises. The development of the ozone hole over Antarctica was such a surprise.
The hole develops through a mechanism that was not included in earlier models of
ozone destruction, and as a result was found almost by accident. We need a careful
program of observing and monitoring the Earth to detect any such surprises caused
by our emission of greenhouse gases.
What the ozone hole has demonstrated beyond question, however, is that,
contrary to long-held assumptions, our atmosphere is not so large, nor its inertia so
great, that human activities cannot affect it on human time scales. Human release of
-chlorofluorocarbons combined with unique meteorological conditions has indeed
created the ozone hole through well understood chemical mechanisms --in only a
few decades at most.
Lewis Thomas, among others, has compared the Earth to a living organism,
and in particular to a single cell. The comparison is certainly apt in this regard: as
5
much as we still have to learn about the nature of life, about how it developed and
where it is going, we have as much to learn about the nature of the Earth.
THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AGENDA
Bertrand Russell once wrote: "The most savage controversies are those about
matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." Global warming comes
dangerously close to falling into this category. As research reveals more about how
human activities can influence climate, we will have a much less controversial basis
on which to take actions.
The U.S. government is now engaged in a large-scale, integrated program to
develop the understanding that will guide future policy decisions. That program is
known as the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and it was established by the
interagency Committee on Earth Sciences chaired by Dallas Peck of the U.S.
Geological Survey, The Committee consists of directors of independent agencies and
of assistant secretaries of cabinet departments doing research on the global
environment. Working groups organized under the committee consist of the senior
program managers working in a particular area. For example, the U.S. Global
Change Research Program was organized by the committee's Working Group on
Global Change, chaired by Robert Corell of the National Science Foundation and
incorporate the programs of seven different agencies.
The FY 1991 budget that President Bush sent to the Hill at the end of January
-- reflecting the compelling case made by the CES for its integrated, national program
-- called for a 57 percent increase in funding for this program, to a total of over $1
billion. The proposed funding would significantly expand research, data gathering,
and modeling activities through a carefully balanced mix of ground-based and space-
based research.
I might say, by the way, that the success of the Committee on Earth Sciences
has acted as a model for similar efforts by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy. We have recently reorganized and revitalized the Federal Coordinating
6
Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology -- the parent body of the Committee
on Earth Sciences -- and have established a number of new interagency committees in
such areas as education, the life sciences, and technology and industry. In this way,
we hope to bring a much greater integration and coordination to a number of
important areas of science and technology.
THE WORKING GROUP ON GLOBAL CHANGE
The Committee on Earth Sciences focuses on the research aspects of global
change. The policy analog to the CES is the Working Group on Global Change,
which President Bush established last fall under the Domestic Policy Council, one of
two senior, Cabinet-level policy councils within the White House. The Working
Group, which I chair, provides Cabinet-level coordination on global change issues and
is an important source of information and advice for the President.
Shortly after it was established, the Working Group called for three specific
studies of global change. The first looked at the economic costs of both global
change and responses to possible change; it also considered the potential costs of
inaction. The second considered private sector concerns and activities. The third
reviewed the legal precedents for international agreements and conventions on the
environment. The Working Group has also been briefed by top experts on the
scientific and economic aspects of global change.
The Working Group on Global Change will continue to be the focal point
within the White House in considering Administration policies toward the global
environment. But at this point I would like to break my promise about sticking to
process and discuss some of the policies themselves. The Bush Administration does
not believe that further research is any substitute for action. It is clear that we are
accelerating our research in the face of uncertainty; but what bears emphasis as being
even more important is decision making in the face of uncertainty.
As such, this Administration has already instituted a number of policies that
will reduce greenhouse emissions while being fully justified for other reasons. The
7
President refers to these as "no regrets" or "all weather" policies, because even if our
concerns about the greenhouse effect turn out to be unfounded, these policies will
have other benefits. I look on them as an insurance policy against possible adverse
effects of global warming.
0
The United States is committed to phasing out the manufacturing and use
of CFC's by the year 2000 to protect the stratospheric ozone layer -- ahead of the
requirements of the Montreal Protocol provided safe substitutes are available. If
not controlled, CFC's would account for as much as 25 percent of the greenhouse
effect's increase in the next century.
0
The Clean Air Act now being debated in Congress will provide for
substantial reductions in the emission of other greenhouse gases by fostering more
efficient use of energy. The Environmental Defense Fund has estimated that the acid
rain provisions of this act alone, if implemented, would have the same effect on our
greenhouse gas emissions as would removing fully one fifth of our current automotive
fleet (22 million cars!) from our highways for a period of 10 years.
0 The Department of Energy is developing a National Energy Strategy that
will focus, in particular, on an aggressive commitment to energy conservation and to
the development of non-fossil-fuel sources of energy.
These initiatives address the source component of the greenhouse gas question;
turning to the sink component, the Administration is again taking concrete steps.
0 The Department of Agriculture is proposing to plant a billion trees on
private land across America, trees that will eventually absorb 13 million tons of
carbon annually.
0 Diplomatic discussions are being conducted aimed at protecting the
remaining tropical forests through such mechanisms as debt-for-nature swaps.
An underlying theme in all of the Administration's global change policies is
that they be based on the best possible science and that they be technically and
8
economically sound. These are criteria that we will continue to apply as we consider
policies in the future.
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Thus far I have been discussing our national research and policymaking with
respect to global change. But the greenhouse effect is no respecter of national or
political boundaries, and its understanding demands information and analyses that
span the globe. International cooperation will therefore be essential to continued
progress.
The primary international forum through which these issues are being
addressed is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been
organized under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program and World
Meteorological Organization. The IPCC involves hundreds of scientists and
government officials from a number of countries who are seeking to establish an
international consensus on the likely causes and consequences of climate change.
The IPCC is conducting its activities through three working groups. The first,
which is chaired by the United Kingdom, is seeking to develop a better scientific
understanding of climate change. The second, chaired by the Soviet Union, is
assessing the possible environmental and socioeconomic effects of climate change.
And the third, chaired by the United States, is seeking to identify potential responses
to global change.
These three working groups will produce reports by the end of the summer.
Policymakers around the globe will then be able to draw upon these reports in
formulating national and international policies. In addition, our conference being
held next week on scientific and economic research relating to global change is
designed to complement and support these IPCC activities.
The three working groups of the IPCC met here in Washington in February,
and President Bush addressed their opening plenary session. He told them, "The
United States is strongly committed to the IPCC process of international cooperation
9
on global climate change. We consider it vital that the community of nations be
drawn together in an orderly, disciplined, rational way to review the history of our
global environment, to assess the potential for future climate change, and to develop
effective programs."
President Bush has also expressed his support for the next logical international
step: a Framework Convention on Global Change to be negotiated among the
countries of the world. At the Malta Summit, President Bush proposed that the
United States host the first negotiating session of the Framework Convention, and he
reiterated that offer to the IPCC.
In thinking about the goals of a Framework Convention, the Vienna Convention
offers a useful analogy. In 1985, the United States and 20 other countries signed the
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which established'a
framework for international scientific and technical cooperation. However, the Vienna
Convention did not set limits on emissions. Rather, it included provisions to
establish protocols as further research developed.
A Framework Convention on Global Change could serve the same function. It
would build cooperation among nations and establish the mechanisms by which future
steps are taken. But the United States believes that a comprehensive approach
should be taken to encompass all greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of a
scientifically determined greenhouse equivalent index and that possible actions should
employ market-oriented approaches.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC
RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
The reports of the IPCC working groups will be an important input to the
Framework Convention, but an important complement to the IPCC will be the White
House Conference being held here in Washington next week. President Bush is
hosting the conference and will open and close the proceedings. I am one of the
10
cochairmen of the conference, along with Michael Deland of the Council on
Environmental Quality and Michael Boskin of the Council of Economic Advisors.
The conference will bring together the three senior officials in science,
economics, and the environment from 17 countries, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and the European Community. The conference is
designed to explore what we do know about the scientific and economic questions
surrounding global change, what we do not know, and when remaining uncertainties
might be reduced. In addition, the conference will examine ways to more fully
integrate the results of scientific and economic research into the policymaking process.
I have already mentioned some of the scientific challenges, so let me focus here
on the economic ones, since in many cases they are even greater than the scientific
ones. For example, one recent analysis was able to conclude only that emissions of
carbon dioxide in the year 2050 are likely to be between 1.5 and 12 times what they
are today.
We need much better measures of the potential costs and benefits of limiting
or adapting to global change. Preliminary studies show that the costs could be very
high, but data and assumptions with which to make such estimates are riddled with
uncertainties.
In general, the social sciences will be as important as the natural sciences in
improving our understanding of global change. Even when the physical and biological
aspects of a problem are understood, all too often agreement is lacking on the
underlying social, behavioral, and economic causes and consequences of an action.
The conference next week will be focused at least as much on these aspects of the
problem as on the purely scientific aspects. We hope in this way to add a new
dimension to the international dialogue on global change.
The Conference is expected to produce a Cochairmen's report, which will set
forth common actions designed to expand research and cooperation among nations.
The United States will also be making a number of concrete proposals during the
conference, such as a proposal for an international global change research program
comparable on the international scene to the U.S. national program described above.
You will be hearing about those next week.
11
CONCLUSION
Let me conclude with a bit of history, which I hope to relate at the conference
next week because I believe that it summarizes our current situation very well.
The year after next we will be celebrating the 500th anniversary of Columbus's
discovery of the new world, an event of unsurpassed importance in the course of
world history. As might be expected, Columbus was an astute observer of the natural
world. While he was anchored off the coast of Jamaica, Columbus noted in his
journal that it rained for about an hour every afternoon. Columbus also pointed out
that the same thing used to occur in the Canary and Azores Islands, but that the
rain had stopped since the trees on those islands were cut down. In other words,
Columbus was one of the first people to observe the effects of human beings on
climate.
I think it very appropriate that Columbus should have done so, because he was
engaged on a great voyage of discovery, and today we find ourselves engaged on a
similar voyage. We are changing the world in ways that it has never been changed
before. And yet human beings, by their very nature, cannot help but change the
world.
We have no reason to fear such changes. But we must keep our eyes open,
and try to understand where we are going, and change course when we have good
reasons to do so. We need not sail blindly into our future. But if must keep moving
forward if we are to achieve the complementary goals of an economically healthy and
environmentally sound world.
P.04
REMARKS OF
DR. RONALD W. ROSKENS
ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AT THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL CHANGE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APRIL 16, 1990
O
(RECOGNIZE U.S. AND FOREIGN DIGNITARIES.)
I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAD TO MAKE A LONG AND SOMEWHAT ARDUOUS
TRIP IN ORDER TO ATTEND THIS SEMINAR.
THE FACT THAT YOU MADE THAT TRIP SHOWS YOUR COMMITMENT TO
ENSURING THAT THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RECEIVES THE
ATTENTION -- AND POSITIVE ACTION -- IT DESERVES.
PRESIDENT BUSH SHARES YOUR COMMITMENT. AND HAS MADE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A CENTRAL THEME OF HIS ADMINISTRATION.
IN FACT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN OUT FRONT IN THE EFFORT TO
MAKE ALL OF US REALIZE WE EACH HAVE A ROLE 10 PLAY IN BEING
PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THESE GLOBAL CONCERNS.
A.I.D IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO WORK WITH DEVELOPING
NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD TO FIND A DEVELOPMENT APPROACH THAT
MAKES POSSIBLE BOTH ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY -- AN ESSENTIAL COMBINATION WHICH BRINGS
PROSPERITY TO PEOPLE
AS IT BRINGS PROTECTION TO THE
ENVIRONMENT.
LET ME MAKE CLEAR WHAT I AM SAYING.
DESPITE OCCASIONAL SHORT-TERM TRADEOFFS LONG-TERM
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT CAN MARCH
FORWARD HAND IN HAND.
AT A.I.D....WE PLAN ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOREMOST IN MIND.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S NOT ENOUGH JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
NOT IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS WHICH DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH
IS WHY WE ARE PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES THAT ACTUALLY
ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT -- SUCH AS THE AGENCY'S PROGRAM ON
CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH WILL EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES -- PARTICULARLY CARBON DIOXIDE --
THROUGH STRATEGIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH CONTINUED ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
A.I.D.'S DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY NOW BEGINS WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS BUILT INTO THE PLANNING FOUNDATION FOR
ULTIMATELY. WITHOUT ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY THERE CAN
BE NO LONG-TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH.
-3-
ONE OF MY PRIMARY GOALS DURING MY TENURE AS ADMINISTRATOR
IS TO HELP DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FIND LOCAL AND NATIONAL
SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. PROBLEMS -- AND SOLUTIONS
-- NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED AT A SCALE APPROPRIATE TO DEVELOPMENT
PLANS.
I WANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR APPROACH IS FOCUSSED AND THAT
THE RESOURCES WE DEVOTE TO THE ENVIRONMENT ARE USED IN THE MOST
EFFECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE.
I KNOW A.I.D. HAS LONG-SUPPORTED ENVIROSMENTALLY-FRIENDLY
PROGRAMS -- IN FORESTRY ENERGY AND AGRICULTURE -- AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO DO so WHATEVER THE OUTCOME OF THE RESEARCH
UNDER REVIEW AT THE CONFERENCE.
WE ARE POISED TO BE OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE IF THE
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND POLICYMAKERS GATHERED HERE DEEM IT
APPROPRIATE.
A.I.D WORKING WITH YOU SIMPLY WANTS ITS ASSISTANCE TO
DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SENSE AS WELL IN TERMS OF OUR GROWING
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
I HOPE THIS MEETING MARKS THE BEGINNING OF A RENEWED EFFORT
AMONG ALL OF US TO CONTINUE TO DISCOVER THOSE DEVELOPMENT
APPROACHES AND THEN MAKE THEM WORK.
IT'S NOT AN EASY CHALLENGE BUT IT'S ONE WHICH WE CAN
ACHIEVE IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER.
NOW...I'VE ASKED MY COLLEAGUES FROM A.I.D. TO TALK WITH YOU
AT GREATER LENGTH ABOUT A.I.D. GLOBAL CHANGE ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITIES.
FIRST DR. RICHARD BISSELL...A.I.D.'S ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
RICH
RICHARD BISSELL
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REMARKS BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL CHANGE
[THANK YOU ADMINISTRATOR ROSKENS)
IN DESIGNING A CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE, A.I.D. HAS CHOSEN TO
PURSUE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
SOUND. OUR "NO REGRETS" POLICY SUPPORTS EFFORTS THAT HAVE ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, BUT THAT ALSO REDUCE THE
THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE DUE TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. AN
EXAMPLE OF THIS IS OUR GLOBAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE, WHICH
PROMOTES COST-EFFECTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
IMPROVEMENTS IN MEETING ENERGY NEEDS. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS WIDELY
RECOGNIZED AS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF ANY CLINATE CHANGE RESPONSE
STRATEGY.
ALTHOUGH THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION HAVE
IMPORTANT GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS, THE CAUSES ARE LOCAL, AS ARE THE
MOST IMMEDIATE EFFECTS. SUBSIDIZED PRICES, CLOSED POLITICAL
SYSTEMS, EXTREME POVERTY, LACK OF SECURE PROPERTY RIGHTS, RAPID
URBANIZATION, AND SHORT-SIGHTED ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
ARE OFTEN AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IS A MORE COMMON AND PERVASIVE PROBLEM
THAN INFLATION, FOREIGN DEBT, AND ECONOMIC STAGNATION.
DEFORESTATION, WATERSHED DESTRUCTION, LOSS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
FUELWOOD AND WATER SHORTAGES, SOIL EROSION AND WATER CONTAMINATION,
OVERGRAZING AND OVERFISHING, URBAN CONGESTION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION ARE COMMON TO THE CENTRALLY-PLANNED ECONOMIES OF EASTERN
EUROPE, TO THE NEWLY-INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES OF ASIA AND SOUTH
AMERICA, AND TO THE UNDERDEVELOPED NATIONS OF AFRICA. WHILE WE
FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WILL OFTEN FOLLOW AS
A CONSEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, EXCESSIVE DEGRADATION CAN REDUCE
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RETURNS WE DERIVE FROM PAST INVESTMENTS,
1
THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS WE CAN EXPECT FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS, AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE QUALITY OF LIFE OUR CHILDREN WILL BE ABLE TO
ENJOY.
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL LESSONS WE HAVE LEARNED AT A.I.D. IS THAT WE
CANNOT BE SATISFIED WITH TREATING THE PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION. WE MUST LOOK BEYOND THEM IN SEARCH OF
THE UNDERLYING ECONOMIC FORCES THAT DEFINE THE TRUE DIMENSIONS OF
THE PROBLEM; THE PROBLEM'S CAUSES, AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
THESE PROBLEMS ARE TO BE FOUND IN INDEPENDENT DECISION MADE
REGARDING SCARCITY AND PRICE, BENEFITS AND COSTS, RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, ACTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES. THIS DISASSOCIATION
EXISTS BECAUSE OF A COMBINATION OF POLICY DISTORTIONS AND MARKET
FAILURES. THE PREVAILING SCOPE OF MARKETS AND POLICIES LEAVES MANY
RESOURCES OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF MARKETS, OFTEN SUBSIDIZING THEIR
EXCESSIVE USE AND DESTRUCTION DESPITE THEIR GROWING SCARCITY AND
RISING SOCIAL COST. THE END RESULT IS AN INCENTIVE STRUCTURE WHICH
INDUCES PEOPLE TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS BY APPROPRIATING OTHER
PEOPLE'S RESOURCES AND NOT INVESTING IN THE ENHANCEMENT OF THEIR
PRODUCTIVITY. THE ULTIMATE COSTS ARE BORNE BY THE POOR, WHO LACK
ALTERNATIVES, AND BY FUTURE GENERATIONS WHOSE INTERESTS ARE
SACRIFICED TO SHORT-TERM POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY.
WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIMITS OF ANY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
AGENCY IN THE FACE OF SUCH COMPLEX AND PERVASIVE PROBLEMS, A.I.D.
IS STRONGLY COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING THESE DIFFICULT ISSUES AND WILL
CONTINUE TO HELP DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CONSERVE AND PROTECT THEIR
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. OUR PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ARE
DESIGNED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOCAL BENEFITS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND
TECHNOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. THEY ARE ALSO INTENDED TO
HELP HOST GOVERNMENTS RECTIFY MARKET DISTORTIONS AND CORRECT MARKET
FAILURES.
2
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. JACK VANDERRYN,
DIRECTOR FOR ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WHO WILL PROVIDE SOME
EXAMPLES OF A.I.D.'S EFFORTS IN GLOBAL CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION.
[INTRODUCE JACK VANDERRYNJ
3
Jack Vanderryn
Director, Energy and Natural Resources
Bureau for Science and Technology
Remarks Before the White House Conference on Global Change
[Thank you Richard Bissell]
I would like to begin by sharing the Administrator's welcome to
our foreign colleagues. Many of you are familiar with our
agency and its work in developing countries. For those of you
who are not, I would like to describe our approach to global
change and environmental degradation. The examples I will
mention are intended to illustrate the breadth of activities
planned or on-going through the various programs of the Agency
for International Development.
A.I.D.'S approach to dealing with environmental issues in the
context of development begins with an effort to understand the
policy and economic underpinnings of environmentally
destructive, non-sustainable behavior. In doing so, we work to
strengthen local analytical capabilities in designing and
implementing policies that harness economic forces to benefit
the environment while promoting development For example, in
Indonesia, A.I.D. is developing a new environmental and natural
resources project which focuses on forest policy including
reform of the forest concession system and field-oriented
activities designed to demonstrate sustainable forest management.
We are enhancing environmental awareness through education and
training efforts with both public and private sector decision
makers. In these efforts, we are increasing our interaction
with U.S. and local non-governmental and private voluntary
organizations that are committed to environmental protection.
For example, A.I.D. provided the seed money to a PVO in the
- 2 -
Dominican Republic to form a cooperative credit system for
buying photovoltaic solar panels. As of the end of 1989, over
800 homes had been electrified. We have supported training
seminars sponsored by the U.S. renewable energy industry which
include visits to operating utility and small-scale systems.
With the U.S. Forest Service, we have sponsored training
programs to demonstrate sustainable forest management techniques.
A.I.D. is promoting environmentally sound energy production and
use through the introduction of renewable energy and cleaner-
burning fossil fuel technologies, as well as energy conservation
and efficiency improvements. We are analyzing the impact energy
efficiency has on reducing carbon dioxide emissions in
developing countries under a variety of scenarios. In India,
A.I.D. is supporting research and rapid commercialization of
energy efficient end-use technologies and renewable energy
systems, and joining Indian financial institutions to implement
a major energy efficiency project in the power sector. In
Central America, we are working with Costa Rican institutions to
demonstrate the benefits of least-cost utility planning and
private power generation from small hydroelectric and biomass
cogeneration systems utilizing agricultural residues and wood
wastes as feedstocks. In Egypt, A.I.D. is supporting energy
efficiency demonstration projects in both the public and private
sectors at industrial plants and commercial Buildings. The
first demonstration is an energy management system in a major
hotel in Cairo.
A.I.D. is helping host countries develop action plans to support
natural forest and buffer zone management, and maintain
biological diversity. This includes increasing research on how
forests can supply local needs on a sustainable basis. We are
taking steps to support the completion and implementation of
management plans for eight priority protected areas in Southern
- 3 -
Mexico. We are implementing buffer zone management projects in
Madagascar, Rwanda and several other African countries. A.I.D.
will join the World Bank and the Nature Conservancy, a
not-for-profit U.S. organization, to protect and maintain
wildlife habitats with the establishment of a nature reserve in
Eastern Paraguay.
We are working with other U.S. agencies and private industry to
reduce urban and industrial pollution and improve environmental
quality. We are collaborating with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to establish a regional Environmental Center in
Budapest, Hungary. The center will be a source of information
on solutions to environmental problems common to Eastern
European countries, as well as increase local awareness through
public education and institutional support. We are drawing on
the expertise of the U.S. private industrial sector to transfer
pollution control technology and experience with emission and
effluent reduction strategies. In Poland, A.I.D. is working
with the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA to demonstrate a
least-cost technology for reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions,
and to install an air monitoring system for the city of Krakow.
A.I.D. is helping implement environmentally sound agricultural
techniques that help to reverse trends toward overgrazing of
rangelands, declining soil fertility, deforestation, pollution,
and declining soil productivity. In order to gain a better
understanding of the impact of climate change on crop
production, such as changes in temperature and rainfall, A.I.D.
and EPA are collecting critical data through A.I.D.'s soils
research network. In Peru, we have demonstrated at one site the
the sustained production of 40 crops over a 17 year period.
This was traditionally a slash and burn area which lead to
deforestation. With our support, researchers at the
International Fertilizer Development Center have been able to
4 -
raise the nitrogen retention efficiency from 40 percent or less
to over 80 percent, thereby reducing fossil fuel requirements
for fertilizer production, thus cutting costs and decreasing
nitrogen loss to ground water and the atmosphere. The program
has been so successful that the Government of Indonesia has
adopted this fertilizer and the technique for its use as part of
their national rice program.
In our climate change related activities, we intend to give
increasing emphasis to those A.I.D.-assisted countries that are,
or may become, globally significant contributors to climate
change through greenhouse gas emissions, and that are interested
in collaborating with us. For example, we are now exploring
with our Brazilian colleagues in the government, private and NGO
sectors support for specific forestry and energy efficiency
projects.
Finally, A.I.D. is enhancing its own ability to address
environmental concerns across the full range of development
programs through staff training and awareness programs.
In summary, A.I.D., through its energy, forestry and agriculture
activities, is helping decision makers in developing countries
balance economic growth and environmental protection. In order
to leverage our limited resources, we are working with other
U.S. government agencies, multi-lateral development banks,
international research centers, and most important, government,
private industry, and NGOs in host countries.
At this point, I would like to open the floor to those of you
from foreign country delegations to discuss your interests. I
will begin by asking Jose Goldemberg, Brazilian Minister for
Science and Technology, to make some comments
[CALL ON JOSE GOLDEMBERG]
REMARKS FOR MR. ANDERSON AT THE RECEPTION IN HONOR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL DELEGATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON
SCIENC AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE -
APRIL 16, 1989
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF
THE DELEGATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERNECE ON SCIENCE AND
ECONOMICS RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE AND OUR CO-
HOST OF THE EVENING, ROBERT MOSBACHER, THE SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. ON BEHALF OF ROBERT
ADAMS, SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, I WOULD LIKE
TO WELCOME YOU TO THE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM. I AM
DEAN ANDERSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN.
HUMANKIND HAS FACED MANY CHALLENGES IN THE COURSE OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT. PERHAPS ONE OF THE GREATEST IS RECOGNIZING THAT
OUR ABILITY TO CHANGE OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT MAY HAVE GLOBAL
CONSEQUENCES. IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF HUMAN
ACTIVITIES ON THE ENVIRONMENT, WE MUST HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF GEOSPHERE,
BIOSPHERE, HYDROSPHERE AND ATMOSPHERE.
GLOBAL CHANGE IS A PRIORITY OF THE SMITHSONIAN. IN FACT, OUR
MUSEUMS AND INSTITUTES HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN A VARIETY OF
RESEARCH PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO EXPLORE THE MANY QUESTIONS
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE. WE SUPPORT A GLOBAL CHANGE
PROGRAM THAT INVOLVES A BROAD SPECTRUM OF RESEARCH.
I APPLAUD YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONFERENCE AND I AM
ENCOURAGED BY YOUR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THIS GLOBAL CHALLENGE.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. MARTIN HARWIT, DIRECTOR OF
THE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM.
REMARKS FOR DR. HARWITT AT THE RECEPTION IN HONOR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL DELEGATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON
SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE -
APRIL 16, 1990
GOOD EVENING, MR. SECRETARY, DELEGATES AND HONORED GUESTS. I
WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE
MUSEUM.. IT IS A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU HERE TONIGHT.
NOTHING INSPIRES ME MORE WITH A SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY OF
HUMANKIND THAN A PICTURE OF THE EARTH FROM SPACE.
GEOGRAPHICAL AND POLITICAL DIVISIONS ARE OBSCURE IN THIS
GLOBAL VIEW, BUT THE FRAGILITY OF THE PLANET IS CLEAR.
THE MUSEUM'S CENTER FOR EARTH AND PLANETARY STUDIES USES
IMAGES AND DATA OBTAINED FROM EARTH-ORBITING SENSORS AND
SPACECRAFT TO STUDY CHANGES TO THE EARTH'S SURFACE.
TONIGHT, WE WILL BE SHOWING YOU UNEDITED FOOTAGE FOR A NEW
IMAX FILM ENTITLED BLUE PLANET, WHICH PREMIERES AT THE MUSEUM
ON NOVEMENBER 2.
OUR HOPE IS THAT BLUE PLANET WILL GIVE ALL THOSE WHO SEE IT AN
APPRECIATION FOR THE BEAUTY OF THE EARTH AND ITS VLNERABILITY
TO CHANGE.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUE OUR CO-HOST FOR THE EVENING, THE
HONORABLE ROBERT MOSBACHER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.
NLAA
DRAFT: BOWERS/SMITH
( Knaws:
,
4/13/90, 8:30 A.M.
BNC
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS
has
peans
RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE, APRIL 16, 1990
4/B/9c
EVENT: SoC ONE OF 15 CO-HOSTING WELCOMING RECEPTION.
PRESIDENT BUSH INVITED 17 HEADS OF STATE AND EC AND
OECD LEADERS TO SEND DELEGATES TO CONFERENCE ON WORLD-
WIDE SCIENTIFIC, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
WELCOME: FIRST WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL
CHANGE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER FOR
?
BNC
WORLD
HEALTH
PROSPERITY
ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY
OF GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP.
Helth I sur plement spraperity f respeple.
- 2 -
doesn't this preempt unveiling Preg.s?
PRESIDENT BUSH DEFINES (GLOBAL GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP AS
PROCESS IN WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES
ARE BROUGHT INTO BALANCE, SERVING HUMAN NEEDS AND
EXPANDING HUMAN PROSPECTS.
- 3 -
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT -- ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, TRADE PROMOTION, ECONOMIC AND
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LARGEST AGENCY, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, CREATED
1970, FOCUS ON RATIONAL USE OF ENVIRONMENT
SERVES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC GOALS THROUGH EXPANDING
KNOWLEDGE ON OCEAN, ATMOSPHERE, SPACE,
SUN o ENVIRONMENT LINKED TO ECONOMIC
GROWTH. EXAMPLE EXAMPLE OCEAN RESOURCES, U.S. COMMERCIAL
2
Check
FISHERMEN CAUGHT RECORD 11 BILLION POUNDS FISH IN
6
1988, VALUE $4 BILLION
Soure
$ I TRILLION
Healthy en ir mment is good Jurison
RESOURCE
CHALLENGE: To SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH AND IMPROVED
STANDARDS OF LIVING THROUGH KNOWLEDGEABLE
MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AT TIME WHEN:
?!
-- FOUR SPECIES PER HOUR ARE BEING EXTINGUISHED BY
Dowe
HUMAN ACTIVITY,
want to ?!
--
COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS WORLDWIDE PRODUCES
5.5 BILLION TONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE ANNUALLY.
--
TROPICAL FORESTS BEING LOST AT RATE OF ONE ACRE
PER SECOND, AND
keep
-- SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENT BEING
CHALLENGED DAILY.
- 5 -
QUESTIONS TO BE RESOLVED: WHAT TO DO ABOUT OZONE
DEPLETION, GREENHOUSE GASES, FOOD SECURITY,
Check
BIODIVERSITY AND ENERGY DEMANDS? How TO MEET NEEDS
Sauth
OF POPULATION EXPECTED TO DOUBLE TO 10 BILLION BY
YEAR 2025?
CONFERENCE GOALS:
(1) ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF GLOBAL CHANGE
PHENOMENA,
(2) ENHANCE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, AND
(3) BUILD BASIS FOR INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND
ECONOMIC RESEARCH INTO POLICY DECISIONS IN
FUTURE.
- 6 -
-- KEY IS FREE AND OPEN ACCESS TO SCIENTIFIC AND
ECONOMIC DATA.
*
PRESIDENT BUSH: "THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES THAT
FACE THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD ARE so
IMPORTANT THAT THEY MUST BE ADDRESSED FROM THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT."
*
CONCLUSION: INTRODUCE MARTIN HARWIT, CO-HOST AND
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM.
APR 12 '90 12:03
Brady
OPENING REMARKS TO
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
Good Morning. I am pleased to welcome this distinguished
assembly of delegates to the inaugural White House conference on
global change.
This is the first international conference to bring together
experts in the disciplines of economics, science and the
environment. Over the next two days we will have the opportunity
to explore and discuss the relationship of these disciplines
to the issue of global change.
We meet here to acknowledge and explore our common interest
in improving and preserving the environment in the face of ever-
increasing demands placed on it by the forces of expanding
populations, economic growth and development and technological
advances. We have gathered here because we recognize that
success in managing global environmental issues will only be
attained when we have developed coherent policies which fully
integrate environmental solutions with economic realities. Only
when we have achieved this integration of science and economics
can we be assured that we are pursuing policies and programs in
the best interest of the peoples of the world.
our challenge is made all the greater by a lack of consensus
among experts as to the true nature, rate and extent of changes
in the global climate coourring now, and projected for the
future. We cannot resolve these issues in the next two days, but
we can advance and clarify the world's understanding of the
relationship between the scientific and economic aspects of the
APR 12 '90 12'03
P.3/6
2
environmental challenges we face.
our work here is the natural extension of work we have
already begun in other forume. our purpose is to complement the
efforts of Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change AS it
strives to identify what is known and what 1s still uncertain in
the science of global climate change.
Here in the United States President Bush has taken the lead
in focusing national attention on global climate change issues--
even before taking office he commanded our attention by his
description of the challenge before us. "We face," he said, "The
prospect of being trapped on a boat that we have irreparably
damaged--not by the cataclysm of war, but by the slow neglect of
a vessel we believed to be impervious to our abuse."
The Bush Administration has formulated general guidel ines on
issues concerning climatic change. First, nations can't afford
to wait for a final resolution of the scientific uncertainties
before they act. Second, while we wait for scientific advances,
nations should take those actions already justified on economic
attached Insert I
and other grounds. Third, any action considered should be
specific, focused on a clear goal, and cost-effective. Fourth,
the most effective actions will be those that both protect the
environment and allow continued economic development.
Here in the United States we are pursuing this policy
framework with concrete actions. The President has asked
Congress for $1 billion in the next fiscal year to study global
climate change. We estimate this represents more than half of
all the money spent on climate change research worldwide. A key
APR 12 '90 12:04
P.4/6
3
element of this research is an ambitious 15-year program to
gather more accurate data, for which we will develop new polar
orbiting satellites to gather more accurate data on oceans,
clouds and land masses.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of
the Department of Commerce also supports a range of work in
international climate monitoring and modeling, under The World
Meteorological Organization=work that holds the potential for
greater accuracy in predictions of climate trends
The United States has also made a commitment to phase out
chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is working with industry to find alternatives
to CFC's and to control emissions of carbon tetrachloride and
methyl chloroform. EPA has also extended its assistance to
several developing countries who are seeking to reduce their CFC
emissions, in conformance with the Montreal Protocol.
BY the year 2050, well over half of greenhouse gas emissions
are expected to come from developing countries. Because
developing countries must be a part of any solution of global
climate problems, the United States has urged their attention to
these issues by requiring attention to environmental
considerations in programs of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
At the September 1989 annual meetings of the World Bank and
IMF, President Bush called for more emphasis on the environment
in national policy making, sepecially in promoting energy
efficiency and conservation and greater protection of tropical
APR 12 '90 12:04
4
forests. In keeping with the President's instructions, U.S.
officials have pursued environmental reforms with the OECD, and
the regional development banks as well. In addition, the U.S.
has stated its intention to support placing environmental issues
on the agenda of the proposed European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development. The United States has also supported World
Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development efforts to
use debt-for-nature swaps to preserve forests and wetlands. In
the recent past, swaps have been signed in Ecuador, Costa Rica,
the Philippines, and Madagascar. A swap recently arranged in
Zambia will help protect two of Africa's most important wetlands.
While the dollar amounts involved in these swaps have been small,
an important principle has been established. Thus I believe
debt-for-nature swaps should play an increasing role in
addressing climate change.
As these initiatives demonstrate, economic issues are
intrinsically and inextricably linked to environmental concerns.
We wish to preserve the environment to improve and sustain a
certain quality of life for all the peoples of the world. But we
must recognize that a great part of that quality of life also
rests on economic development and growth. It is largely through
economic growth that we can bring the nations of the world
freedom from hunger, lower infant mortality, longer life
expectancy and liberation from oppressive poverty. Thus we must
carefully balance and evaluate the relationship between proposals
to address global climate change and economic activities and
policies.
APR 12 '90 12:05
P.6/6
5
our meetings here can make a valuable contribution to
establishing a common understanding and assessment of the issues.
Let us work together to establish a consensus that will allow us
to advance our ability to make the important decisions in the
future. Let us reach agreement on areas of opportunity for
cooperative action in scientific and economic research. Let us
plan to integrate scientific and economics research into the
policy process. Let us begin to build partnerships for pursuing
that research. If we can achieve agreement on these issues we
will have taken an important step towards meeting the challenge
of global climate change.
And as we pursue these goals, let us do so in the spirit of
the words spoken by the Native American chief, "We do not inherit
the earth from our ancestors: rather, we borrow it from our
children."
I welcome you and look forward to what we can achieve
together.
Insert I
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS SERIOUS IN ITS PURSUIT OF
SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH THAT WILL HELP US KNOW THE EXTENT
AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROBLEMS WE FACE. THE FACT IS, WE ARE
DEDICATED TO TAKING ACTION ON THE ISSUES YOU ARE DISCUSSING AT THIS
CONFERENCE, BUT IT MUST BE A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH, BASED ON
INFORMED DELIBERATION.
THE UNITED STATES IS MAKING A MAJOR FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
TOWARD FURTHERING THIS RESEARCH. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE INCREASED
OUR FUNDING FOR THE U. S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM TO OVER
$1 BILLION.
AND
WE BELIEVE MORE RESEARCH IS NECESSARY, BUT WE ARE FULLY
PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION WHEN IT-IS CLEAR SUCH ACTION WILL BE
USEFUL.
IS PRUDENT
IN LIGHT OF THAT
RESEARCH.