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.
Source Description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285411015
label
Binder: Conference on Global Climate Change [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285411015
contentType
document
title
Binder: Conference on Global Climate Change [1]
description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
04822-011
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285411015
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
925ec0b5fc4ee125
ocrText
FOIA Number:
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
2017-0310-F
2017-0310-F
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:
Domestic Policy Council
DPC Files
Series:
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
04822
Folder ID Number:
04822-011
Folder Title:
Binder: Conference on Global Climate Change [1]
Shelf:
Position:
Row:
Section:
Stack:
G
18
20
2
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
BRIEFING
FOR U.S. DELEGATES
TO
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1990
3:00 - 4:00 PM
ROOSEVELT ROOM
THE OF SEAL OF THE UNITED
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
April 17-18, 1990
Washington, D.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
55
the
THE OF SEAL OF THE UNITED
V
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
April 17-18, 1990
Washington, D.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
(*)
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
PRE-CONFERENCE MATERIAL
FOR DELEGATES
Printed on Recycled Paper
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
April 5, 1990
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
Dear Colleague:
On behalf of President Bush, we are honored that you will be coming to the United
States April 16-18 to serve as a delegate to the White House Conference on Science
and Economics Research Related to Global Change.
By contributing your country's expertise in identifying the critical needs in the fields
of science and economics research, you will advance international cooperation and
understanding in dealing with the uncertainties of global change.
The United States welcomes a free and open discussion of the science and economics
research issues related to global change. As co-chairmen of the Conference, we look
forward to joining you in that effort.
Yours Sincerely,
DAman Samley
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Mahal J Brown
Michael J. Boskin
Chairman
Council of Economic Advisers
Michael R. Deland
Chairman
Council on Environmental
Quality
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview of the Conference
Preliminary Delegation List
Conference Co-Chairmen Biographies
U.S. Delegation Biographies
Hotel/Transportation/Logistics
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
$
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
OVERVIEW OF THE CONFERENCE
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE:
President George Bush invited the Heads of State from seventeen nations and the leadership of the
E.C. and the OECD to send ministerial-level delegations to the White House Conference on Science
and Economics Research Related to Global Change. The Conference is designed to bring together
government leaders in science, economics, energy, and the environment concerned with the central
research issues of Global Change. The Conference is designed to advance understanding of Global
Change phenomena, to enhance international cooperation, and to build the basis for future efforts
among nations to integrate more fully science and economics research into the policy process. The
Conference adds a new dimension to the international dialogue on Global Change - the proposition
that economics, both analysis and research on economic policy and economic consequences, is an
essential link between the science of Global Change and policy alternatives. Science and economics
research can also serve to identify and develop technologies and policy instruments that relax the
tension between growth and Global Change, allowing for greater progress on both fronts. To address
these broad goals, the Conference will:
Focus on science and economics research issues relevant to policy on Global Change,
Address important next steps to substantially enhance and broaden international
understanding of science and economics research issues that relate to Global Change,
Highlight the special role that economics plays in integrating the science of Global Change
with the policy process,
Demonstrate linkages between science and economics research and domestic and
international policy processes, and
Seek to take the initial steps to implement joint international science and economics
research efforts.
The Conference is conceived as an integral part of the ongoing international process to understand
the science of and policy options relating to global environmental issues. The need to improve
substantially understanding of both the science and economics of Global Change has been noted by
many world leaders. The Conference, therefore, focuses on science and economics research issues as
a complement to the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other interna-
tional forums that seek to address the issue of Global Change. It is hoped that the results of the Con-
ference will contribute to the IPCC process and other ongoing international debates and actions.
The Conference focuses on "Global Change," an area of research concerned with understanding the
fundamental processes that govern the Earth system functions. Global Change encompasses such
diverse and interrelated issues as ozone depletion, greenhouse gases, climate change, food security,
water supply, sea level changes, wetlands, deforestation, biodiversity, population change, and energy
demand.
1
OVERVIEW
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
The Conference will provide a forum for international leaders to address the complex science and
economics research issues central to the policy process, including:
How well can we predict temperature trends in the decades ahead?
How "good" are our global scale models, such as models to predict temperature changes?
How well can we predict the interconnections between global environmental change and the
resulting social and economic impacts?
What are the economic consequences of adapting to or mitigatinGlobal Change?
How "good" are the models used to assess these economic consequences and their impact on
the well-being of humanity?
By addressing such questions, it is hoped that the nations might pledge to enhance joint international
research efforts that focus on rapid improvement of both scientific and economic knowledge and de-
velopment of the necessary infrastructure to implement such efforts.
To address these complex and interrelated issues, President Bush invited heads of state from a small
group of nations to send delegations led by ministerial-level officials. The Conference was conceived
with the idea that a representative group of countries would be invited to participate. Their selection
was based on the simple criteria that the meeting should include countries or organizations of
countries that have substantial populations, large land masses, industrialized economies, heavy
future energy needs, major research infrastructures, or have provided international leadership on
issues related to climate and Global Change. These countries and organizations were selected:
1.
Australia
2.
Brazil
3.
Canada
4.
Federal Republic of Germany
5.
France
6.
India
7.
Indonesia
8.
Italy
9.
Japan
10.
Mexico
11.
Netherlands
12.
Nigeria
13.
Norway
14.
Poland
15.
Soviet Union
16.
United Kingdom
17.
Zaire
18.
European Community
19.
OECD
The White House Conference
2
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
THE EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE
The Conference will provide an opportunity to address the science and economics research issues
related to Global Change in the context of the policy process. To accomplish these goals, the Confer-
ence will focus on and seek to promote:
A substantially enhanced understanding of science, economics, and environmental research
agenda central to the needs of future Global Change policy development.
A substantive understanding of the uncertainties in both science and economics knowledge of
changes in the global environment of the planet.
Increased mutual understanding of and sensitivity to the substance of science and economics
research between both of those research communities.
Increased sensitivity by the two research communities to the policy needs evolving in such
areas as environmental and energy policy, and vice versa.
A solid and well implemented science and economics research effort as a prerequisite for a
complement to evolving efforts by nations to address the international policy questions of
global environmental changes.
A communication network among national leaders concerned with, and responsible for, the
research and policy agenda related to Global Change. More particularly, this Conference
provides a "first-ever" opportunity to forge a partnership between the science and economics
research communities and the policy-makers.
To provide a vehicle to focus on these vital issues, the Conference will include two Plenary Sessions
and several concurrent Working Groups, which will address the three major themes of the Confer-
ence:
The Science and Economics Research Challenge
Integrating Science and Economics Research in the Policy Process
Building a Partnership for Science and Economics Research
The Conference is expected to produce a Co-Chairmen's Report, which will outline the deliberations
of the Conference and set forth common actions designed to expand research and cooperation among
nations.
As President Bush stated in his invitation letter, "It is my hope that the expertise, experience, and
data available in our respective countries can be brought together in a more integrated and coherent
fashion. By working together, our nations can enhance international cooperation in these vital areas
and contribute to the success of the ongoing IPCC process."
3
OVERVIEW
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
$
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DELEGATION LIST
Current as of April 4, 1990; 12:00 Noon
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 U.S.
Dr. Ann White
Director, Canadian Global Change Program
Dr. Arthur W. May
President, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Professor Dr. Klaus Töpfer
Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear
Safety
Dr. Gebhard Ziller
State Secretary, Ministry for Research and Technology
Dr. Wilhelm Knittel
State Secretary, Ministry for 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 Lötz
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 Grossl
Scientist, Max Planck Society, Hamburg
1
PRELIMINARY DELEGATION LIST
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
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
2
The White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
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
Dr. M. Alwi Dahlan
Assistant Ministery (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 Aquila
Dr. Giovanni Sacco
Vice Director General of Treasury, Ministry of Treasury
3
PRELIMINARY DELEGATION LIST
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
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
The White House Conference
4
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
NORWAY
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Kristin Hille Valla
Minister of Environment
Einar Steensnaes
Minister of Education and Research
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
5
PRELIMINARY DELEGATION LIST
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
POLAND
(tentative)
Name
Title
Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister; Head of the Office of Scientific and
Technological Progress
Andreyewski
Deputy Minister of the Environment
Tadeusz Diem
Deputy Minister of Education
Rybicki
Central Planning Office
Kazimierz Duchowski
Department of Economic Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Wiackowski
Chairman, Parliamentary Commission on Environmental Protection
Stakel
Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences
Sadowski
Institute of Metallurgy and Water Management
Wlodzimierz Bojarski
Senator
Jan Kinast
Polish Ambassador to the United States
SOVIET UNION
(tentative)
Name
Title
Nikolay P. Laverov
Chairman of the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology
Yuriy A. Izrael
Chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology
V.F. Kostin
Deputy Chairman, State Committee for Nature Protection
Aleksander A. Metalnikov
Deputy Chairman, State Committee for Hydrometeorology
A.A. Troitsky
Deputy Chairman, State Planning Committee
V.M. Kotliakov
Director, Institute of Geography, USSR Academy of Sciences
Yu. L. Golubev
Assistant to Chairman, State Committee for Hydrometeorology
Yu. V. Vakajuk
Chief, Division of Global Geophysical Problems, Climate Change
and Economic Consequences, State Committee for Hydrometeorology
Yu. V. Pikhanov
State Committee for Hydrometeorology, Department of International
Cooperation
Mrs. N. Yu. Vail
State Department Committee for Hydrometeorology, Department of
International Cooperation
The White House Conference
6
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
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
7
PRELIMINARY DELEGATION LIST
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRMEN BIOGRAPHIES
MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
MICHAEL R. DELAND
Michael J. Boskin
Chairman
President's Council of
Economic Advisers
Michael J. Boskin is the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. He was appointed
to this post by the President on February 2, 1989, following unanimous confirmation by the Senate. As
Chairman, he provides economic analysis and advice directly to the President and assists in formulating
national economic policies. Dr. Boskin is on leave from Stanford University, where he is the Burnet C.
and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Economics, and was the founder and Director of the Center
for Economic Policy Research. He is also on leave as a Research Associate of the National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Dr. Boskin is the recipient of numerous professional awards and citations, ranging from the
Chancellor's Award and the Department Citation as outstanding undergraduate at the University of
California in 1967 and the first National Tax Association Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award in
1971 to the Abramson Award for Outstanding Research from the National Association of Business
Economists in 1987 and Stanford University's Distinguished Teaching Award in 1988. He is the author
of more than 80 books and articles in the areas of government spending, tax theory and policy, public
debt, Social Security, retirement patterns and behavior, U.S. saving behavior, capital formation, U.S.
economic growth, and the economic status of the elderly.
Dr. Boskin received his B.A. degree with highest honors in 1967 from the University of California at
Berkeley, where he received his M.A. in 1968 and his Ph.D. in 1971.
Previously, Dr. Boskin had served as a consultant and adviser to the White House, Department of
Health and Human Services, Treasury Department, National Science Foundation, and other govern-
ment agencies, and various congressional committees.
Dr. Boskin is a member of the Economic Education Committee of the American Economic Association.
He and his wife Chris moved to Washington, D.C. from California. They both enjoy skiing and tennis.
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
Science and Technology
D. Allan Bromley is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President. He is on leave from his
former position as Henry Ford II Professor of Physics at Yale University, where he was founder and
Director of the A.W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory.
One of the world's leading nuclear physicists, he has carried out pioneering studies on both the struc-
ture and dynamics of nuclei and is considered the father of modern heavy ion science, one of the major
areas of nuclear science. He has also played major roles in the development of accelerators, of detection
systems, and in computer-based data acquisition and analysis systems. An outstanding teacher, over
the past two decades his laboratory at Yale graduated more Ph.D.'s in experimental nuclear physics
than any other institution worldwide. He has published over 450 papers in science and technology as
well as edited eighteen books and has received numerous honors and awards, including the National
Medal of Science.
For more than two decades, Dr. Bromley has been a leader in the national and international science and
science policy communities. As Chairman of the National Academy's Physics Survey in the early 1970s,
he contributed in a central way to charting the future of that science in the subsequent decade. As
President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest scientific
society, and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, the world coordinating body for that
science, he has been one of the leading spokesmen for U.S. science and for international scientific
cooperation.
Prior to his present appointment, Dr. Bromley served as a member of the White House Science Council
throughout the Reagan Administration and as a member of the National Science Board in 1988-1989. As
the U.S. chairman for both the Gandhi-Reagan, Indo/U.S. and the Sarney-Reagan, Brazil/U.S. Science
and Technology Initiatives, he led four Presidential missions to conduct negotiations for bilateral
cooperation in science and technology.
Born in Westmeath, Ontario, Canada, he received the B.Sc. degree with highest honors in 1948 in the
Faculty of Engineering at Queen's University, Ontario, Canada. He received the M.Sc. degree from
Queen's University in 1950 and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Rochester in 1952, both degrees
in nuclear physics. He subsequently has been awarded ten honorary degrees from universities in
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa, and the United States.
Dr. Bromley is married to the Former Patricia J. Brassor, and they have two children, David John and
Karen Lynn.
Michael R. Deland
Chairman
White House Council
on Environmental Quality
Michael R. Deland was appointed by President Bush to be Chairman of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality on August 1, 1989, following unanimous confirmation by the United States
Senate. In this capacity he serves as environmental adviser to the President as well as Director of the
Office of Environmental Quality which oversees the development of environmental policy, interagency
coordination of environmental quality programs and environmental data acquisition and assessment.
In addition, Mr. Deland is responsible for overseeing implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Prior to Mr. Deland's appointment as CEQ Chairman, he was the New England Regional Administrator
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In that capacity, from 1983 to 1989, he admini-
stered the federal government's programs dealing with air and water pollution control, hazardous
waste management, drinking water, toxic substances, radiation, and pesticides.
Mr. Deland was counsel at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., a national firm headquar-
tered in Concord, Massachusetts from 1976 to 1983. While in the private sector, Mr. Deland published
numerous papers and articles, including the Regulatory Focus monthly column in Environment, Science
and Technology. Between 1971 and 1976, Mr. Deland served in EPA's Office of Regional Counsel in New
England (Region I) in several capacities, including Chief of the Agency's Legal Review Section and
Chief of the Enforcement Branch.
Mr. Deland received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard College in 1963 and served as an officer
in the U.S. Navy before obtaining his law degree from Boston College in 1969. He is a member of the
Massachusetts Bar and the American Bar Association and its Natural Resources Committee. Mr.
Deland was President of the Business Associates Club (Boston) from 1981 to 1982 and is a former
Director of the Environmental Lobby of Massachusetts and the Center for Environmental Intern
Programs, a national non-profit organization headquartered in Boston.
Mr. Deland has received numerous awards and citations, including the Massachusetts Audubon Society
Award for his leadership in cleaning up Boston Harbor and the New England Environment Leadership
Award for the New England Environmental Network. In 1987, he was honored as "Environmentalist of
the Year" by the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. In March of 1989, he was
awarded the National Wildlife Federation's Special Achievement Award for his role in prompting the
cleanup of Boston Harbor, for his efforts at protecting valuable fishing areas from off-shore oil drilling,
and for his early endorsement of environmentally-based growth controls on Cape Cod. Mr. Deland
resides in Washington with his wife Jane and three children.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
U.S. Delegation Biographies
As part of the Conference handout materials, we are
preparing an information/reference booklet which will
include:
one-page narrative biography of each delegate
an 8" x 10" photograph of each delegate
the delegate's organization's logo/seal
The biographies, logos and photographs of the U.S.
delegation included in this section are representative of the
materials we are seeking from each foreign delegation
member.
Please provide this information to the White House
Conference as soon as possible.
THE OF THE TREASURY
1789
Nicholas F. Brady
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
Nicholas F. Brady became the 68th Secretary of the Treasury on September 15, 1988.
Secretary Brady served in the United States Senate from April 20, 1982 through December 27, 1982.
During that time he was a member of The Armed Services Committee and the Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs Committee.
In 1984 President Reagan appointed Secretary Brady Chairman of the President's Commission on
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries. He has also served on the President's Commission on
Strategic Forces (1983), the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (1983), the Commis-
sion on Security and Economic Assistance (1983), and the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management (1985). Most recently, Secretary Brady chaired the Presidential Task Force on Market
Mechanisms (1987).
Secretary Brady's career in the banking industry spans 34 years. He joined Dillon, Read & Co., Inc. in
New York in 1954, rising to Chairman of the Board. He has been a Director of the NCR Corporation, the
MITRE Corporation, and the H.J. Heinz Company, among others.
He has also served as a trustee of Rockefeller University and a member of the Board of the Economic
Club of New York. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. He is a former trustee of
the Boys' Club of Newark.
Mr. Brady was born April 11, 1930 in New York City. He was educated at Yale University (B.A., 1952)
and Harvard University (M.B.A., 1954). He and his wife, Katherine, have four children.
OF
THE
DEP
S.
INTERIOR
March
3,
1849
Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Secretary
Department of the Interior
POLITICAL
President George Bush selected Manuel Lujan, Jr., who had just completed a 20-year career in the House of Repre-
sentatives, to be his Secretary of the Interior. He was sworn in on February 3, 1989.
The 46th Secretary of the Interior, Lujan was first elected to the House of Representatives from New Mexico in 1968.
When he left the Congress on January 3, 1989, he ranked 15th in seniority among all Republicans and 52nd in senior-
ity among all House members.
A member of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee since 1969, Lujan was its second ranking Republican.
The Committee has jurisdiction over all activity in the U.S. Department of the Interior as well as the Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission. Lujan was also the senior Republican on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Lujan was the Vice-Chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. As senior Republican,
Lujan was a member of all subcommittees, including Space Science and Applications which has oversight over
NASA.
PERSONAL
Born May 12, 1928 in San Ildefonso, New Mexico. Raised in Santa Fe where Lujan's father, Manuel Lujan, Sr.,
served three elected terms as Mayor.
A graduate of the College of Santa Fe with a B.A. degree, Lujan also attended St. Mary's College in California.
Prior to entering Congress, the Secretary was a partner in a family insurance and real estate business with three
offices in New Mexico. His brother, Edward Lujan, is the managing partner of the business.
Married to the former Jean Couchman of Santa Fe, the Lujans have four children; Terra Everett, Jay, Barbara and Jeff.
Secretary and Mrs. Lujan maintain residences in both Washington, D.C. and Albuquerque.
LEGISLATIVE
Economy in Government: Lujan was a Congressional leader in the battle against wasteful government spending.
"The effort to stop inflation boils down to a fight against needless government intervention and spending," stated Lujan.
Environmental Protection: Lujan has co-sponsored seven major environmental protection bills including the Clean
Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act. More recently, Lujan successfully sponsored legislation setting aside
more than 600,000 acres of New Mexico land as wilderness areas, ensuring its beauty and enjoyment for future
generations.
Education: Lujan strongly supported student loan programs in the public and private sectors. His work led to New
Mexico adopting a student loan program that is a model for other states.
Technology: Lujan believes strongly that scientific research is the key to our future. "Science and technology can help
us meet the challenges of the 21st century," said Lujan.
STATES DEPARTMENTOF as OF
Clayton Yeutter
Secretary
Department of Agriculture
Clayton Yeutter was sworn in as the 23rd United States Secretary of Agriculture on February 8, 1989.
Yeutter's career includes distinguished public and private-sector service in agricultural policy develop-
ment, law, economics, marketing and trade.
From July 1985 until shortly before his new cabinet appointment, Yeutter served as U.S. Trade Repre-
sentative. His previous USDA posts include Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Commod-
ity Programs from March 1974 to June 1975, Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Consumer Service
from January 1973 to March 1974 and Administrator of the Consumer and Marketing Service from
October 1970 to December 1971.
Yeutter's other career highlights: President and Chief Executive officer, Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
July 1978 to June 1985; senior partner, law firm of Nelson, Harding, Yeutter & Leonard, Lincoln,
Nebraska, April 1977 to June 1978; Deputy U.S. Special Trade Representative, June 1975 to February
1977; Director, University of Nebraska Mission in Colombia (a large agricultural technical assistance
program), September 1968 to October 1970; executive assistant to the governor of Nebraska, January
1966 to September 1968; faculty member, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ne-
braska, January 1960 to January 1966; operator of a 2,500 acre farming-ranching-cattle feeding enterprise
in central Nebraska, 1957-1975; and enlistee, later commissioned officer, U.S. Air Force, 1952-1957.
Yeutter was graduated with high distinction from the University of Nebraska in 1952 with a Bachelor of
Science degree in animal husbandry. In 1963, he obtained his law degree from the same university,
graduating cum laude and ranked first in his class. In 1966, he received his Ph.D. in agricultural
economics, again from the University of Nebraska, and was named outstanding graduate student in the
program.
Yeutter is a former member or chairman of many private and public-sector boards of directors, councils
and trusteeships, including: the President's Export Council; the Chicago Association of Commerce and
Industry; the Chicago-Tokyo Bank; the U.S. Meat Export Federation; the Chicago Council on Foreign
Relations; the Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, Illinois; Tri-Valley Growers, San Francisco, California; and
ConAgra, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
Yeutter was born in Eustis, Nebraska, December 10, 1931. He and his wife, Jeanne Vierk Yeutter, have
four children. He retains ownership of his Nebraska farm, which is currently operated by a tenant.
Yeutter's permanent home is in Lincoln, Nebraska, but he currently resides in McLean, Virginia.
DIPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Robert A. Mosbacher
Secretary
Department of Commerce
Nominated Secretary of Commerce by President-Elect George Bush on December 6, 1988. He was
confirmed 100-0 by the United States Senate on January 31, 1989.
Formerly:
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Mosbacher Energy Company
Director of Texas Commerce Bancshares, Houston, Texas
Director, Enron Corporation, Houston, Texas
Director, New York Life Insurance Company, New York
Past Chairman of the National Petroleum Council
Charter member and past Chairman of the All American Wildcatters Association
Member of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the American Petroleum Institute
Past Chairman of the Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association
Twice Past Chairman of the Board of Visitors of the Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Institute
Former member of Board of Trustees of the Texas Heart Institute
Former National Trustee, Boys Clubs of America Southwest Region
Past Active Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
Member of Washington Roundtable and Co-Chair of Houston Roundtable of the Center for Strategic
and International Studies
National Finance Chairman for George Bush for President
National Finance Chairman of the Fund for America's Future
Chairman of Victory 88'
Co-Chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee
Member of the Executive Committee for Reagan-Bush
National Finance Chairman for the President Ford Committee in 1976
Won both the North American and World Sailing Championships in the Olympic classes (Dragon
and Soling)
Won the Southern Ocean Racing Circuit
Won the Gold Cup twice
Born in White Plains, New York, Mosbacher has lived in Houston, Texas since 1948. He graduated from
Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia in 1947.
Mosbacher is married to the former Georgette Paulsin and is the father of four (Diane, Robert Jr.,
Kathryn and Lisa) and grandfather of five. The Mosbachers reside in Washington, D.C.
OF STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT ENERGY OF DETARTMENT
James D. Watkins
Secretary
Department of Energy
James David Watkins was nominated by the President to be the sixth Secretary of Energy on January 20,
1989. Admiral Watkins was confirmed by the United States Senate and sworn into office on March 1,
1989.
Admiral Watkins was born in California on March 7, 1927, and claims the city of Pasadena as his home.
A 1949 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, his tours as flag officer included Chief of Naval Personnel;
Commander of the Sixth Fleet; Vice Chief of Naval Operations; and Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific
Fleet. Admiral Watkins was selected by President Reagan to become the 22nd Chief of Naval Opera-
tions on June 30, 1982. His military decorations include several Distinguished Service and Legion of
Merit medals, the Bronze Star with combat "V" and other medals, campaign and service ribbons, and
decorations from many foreign nations.
Following his retirement on June 30, 1986, Admiral Watkins devoted his time to issues regarding
America's youth, and worked with a number of philanthropic organizations to establish a national
program for personal excellence. He also served as a member of advisory boards in both the education
and energy fields and has received several honorary doctorates and public service awards.
In October 1987, Admiral Watkins was appointed Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (AIDS) Epidemic, submitting the Commission's final report to the
President on June 24, 1988.
Admiral Watkins received his master's degree in mechanical engineering in 1958, and is a graduate of
the reactor engineering course at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He was selected by Admiral
Hyman G. Rickover to enter the Navy's nuclear-powered submarine program in 1959, and was quali-
fied as an Engineering Officer of the Watch at one of the Navy's land-based reactor plants. He served
for three years in the Atomic Energy Commission as Admiral Rickover's assistant for Naval Nuclear
Propulsion and later, in a variety of assignments associated with the management of the nuclear navy.
These assignments included Commanding Officer of a nuclear-powered submarine and Executive
Officer of the world's first nuclear-powered cruiser.
Admiral Watkins married Sheila Jo McKinney of San Diego, California, in 1950. They have six children:
Katherine Watkins Coopersmith, Laura Jo Watkins Kauffmann, Susan, Charles, James Jr., and Edward.
Admiral and Mrs. Watkins have eight grandchildren.
UNITED
STATES.
AGENCY
PROTECTION
William K. Reilly
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
William Kane Reilly was sworn in as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
President Bush on February 8, 1989. The President announced his appointment on December 22, 1988,
and officially nominated him on January 20, 1989. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed his nomina-
tion on February 2, 1989.
Prior to becoming EPA Administrator, Reilly held five environment-related positions during the
previous two decades. He was President of World Wildlife Fund-U.S. (1985-1989) and President of the
Conservation Foundation (1973-1989). Those two organizations joined in a formal affiliation in 1985
and Reilly became President of both organizations. He was Executive Director of the Task Force on
Land Use and Urban Growth from 1972-1973. From 1970 to 1972, he was on the staff of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality and, from 1968 to 1970, was Associate Director, Urban Policy Center
and the National Urban Coalition. He also served as Chairman of the Natural Resources Council of
America, an association of all major conservation groups, from 1981-1983.
During his presidency of World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Reilly intensified his mission, the protection of the
diversity of life on earth. Between 1961 and 1989, the organization supported 1,371 wildlife and
endangered habitat projects in 103 countries. At the Conservation Foundation, he continued its long-
standing interest in land programs and initiated new programs in environmental dispute resolution,
water toxic substances control, and urban conservation and energy. In 1976, Reilly began a program
advocating direct cooperation between business leaders and conservationists in resolving polarizing
issues in resources and environmental policy, which resulted in several major consensus-building
policy dialogues, including the National Groundwater Policy Forum and the National Wetlands Policy
Forum.
Reilly has written and lectured extensively on environmental issues, has served on the boards of various
private and public sector organizations and received the Horace Albright Medal for his contributions to
national parks and the Alfred B. LaGasse Medal for his contributions to environmental progress.
An alumnus of Yale University, Reilly holds a law degree from Harvard University and a master's
degree in urban planning from Columbia University. He was born in Decatur, Illinois on January 26,
1940, grew up in Fall River, Massachusetts, and served as a U.S. Army captain (1966 to 1967).
He is married to Elizabeth "Libbie" Bennet Buxton Reilly. They have two daughters, Katherine Buxton
Reilly, age 19, and Margaret Mahalah Reilly, age 14. The family resides in Alexandria, Virginia.
NASA
Richard H. Truly
Administrator
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Richard H. Truly became the eighth Administrator of NASA on July 1, 1989. One day earlier, he
concluded his naval career of more than 30 years, retiring as a Vice Admiral, United States Navy. He is
the first astronaut to head the nation's civilian space agency.
Truly became NASA's associate administrator for space flight on February 20, 1986. In this position, he
led the painstaking rebuilding of the Space Shuttle program. This was highlighted by NASA's cele-
brated "return to flight" on September 29, 1988, when Discovery lifted off from Kennedy Space Center,
Florida, on the first Shuttle mission in almost three years.
Before returning to NASA, the former Shuttle astronaut served as the first commander of the Naval
Space Command, Dahlgren, Virginia, established October 1, 1983. His career in the U.S. Navy began in
1959, when he was commissioned an ensign. This coincided with his graduation from Georgia Institute
of Technology, which he attended as a Naval R.O.T.C. midshipman and earned a bachelor's degree in
aeronautical engineering.
Following flight school, he was designated a naval aviator in 1960. His initial tour of duty, Fighter
Squadron 33, was aboard USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise, and he made more than 300 carrier land-
ings. From 1963 to 1965, he was a student and then instructor at the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research
Pilot School, Edwards Air Force Base, California.
In 1965, Truly became one of the first military astronauts selected to the Air Force's Manned Orbiting
Laboratory program in Los Angeles, California, and transferred to NASA as an astronaut in August
1969. He served as capsule communicator for all three of the manned Skylab missions in 1973 and the
Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975. As a naval aviator, test pilot, and astronaut, Truly has logged over 7,500
hours in numerous military and civilian jet aircraft.
He was pilot for one of the two-man crews that flew the 747/Space Shuttle Enterprise approach and
landing test flights during 1977. He then served as backup pilot for STS-1, the first orbital test of the
Shuttle. His first flight in space was November 12-14, 1981, as pilot of Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-2),
significant as the first manned spacecraft to be reflown in space. His second flight (STS-9, August
30-September 5, 1983) was as commander of Space Shuttle Challenger, the first night launch and
landing in the Shuttle program.
On January 18, 1989, Truly was awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal by President Reagan. His
NASA awards include two NASA Distinguished Service Medals, the NASA Outstanding Leadership
Medal, two NASA Exceptional Service Medals, and NASA Space Distinguished Service Medal, the
Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legions of Merit, the Navy Distinguished Flying Cross, and the
Meritorious Service Medal.
Truly was born in Fayette, Mississippi, on November 12, 1937 and attended school in Fayette and
Meridian, Mississippi. He is married to the former Colleen (Cody) Hanner of Milledgeville, Georgia.
They have three children: Mike, Dan and Lee, and three grandchildren: Ashley, Courtney and Peter.
DIPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
John A. Knauss
Under Secretary
Department of Commerce
John A. Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the Department's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), took office August 7, 1989.
A noted oceanographer and educator, Knauss was a professor of oceanography at the Graduate School
of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island (URI). He also served as dean of the URI Gradu-
ate School of Oceanography from 1962 to 1987, and as the university's provost for marine affairs from
1969 to 1982.
Knauss has been a member of two presidential commissions on marine affairs: the Commission OR
Marine Science, Resources, and Engineering (the Stratton Commission) in 1967 to 1968 and the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), 1978 to 1985. He served as Chairman of
NACOA from 1981 to 1985. He has been President of the Association of Sea Grant Program Instititions,
Chairman of the Ocean Science Committee of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council, and Chairman of the Marine Division of the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges.
He has served as President of the oceanographic section of the American Geophysical Union (AGU),
Vice President of the Marine Technology Society (MTS), Vice Chairman of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, and a council
member of the American Meteorological Society. He was a co-founder of the Law of the Sea Institute
and served on its governing board from 1965 to 1976 and 1981 to 1987. He has been elected a fellow of
the AAAS, the AGU, and the MTS.
Knauss graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (B.S., 1946), the University of Michigan
(M.S., 1949), and the University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Ph.D., 1959).
nsf
Erich Bloch
Director
National Science Foundation
Erich Bloch was confirmed by the Senate to be Director of the National Science Foundation on August 6,
1984. As Director, he is responsible for an agency charged with strengthening the national scientific and
engineering research potential and with improving science and engineering education at all levels. The
Foundation has an annual budget exceeding $1.7 billion and the annual award of 12,000 to 14,000 grants
for research in all fields of natural, social sciences, and engineering.
Before joining NSF, Mr. Bloch was a corporate Vice President for Technical Personnel Development at
IBM Corporation, which he joined in 1952 as an electrical engineer. During his career at IBM, Mr. Bloch
was the engineering manager of IBM's STRETCH supercomputer system in the late 1950's and early
1960's. In 1962, he headed development of the Solid Logic Technology program, which provided IBM
with microelectronic technology for its System/360 computer. Subsequently, Mr. Bloch was appointed
a vice president of the company's Data Systems Division and general manager of the East Fishkill
facility, which is responsible for the development and manufacture of semiconductor components used
in IBM's product line. He was elected an IBM vice president in 1981.
From 1981 to 1984, Mr. Bloch served as Chairman of the Semi-conductor Research Cooperative, a group
of leading computer and electronics firms that fund advanced research in universities and shares in the
results, and was the IBM representative on the board of the Semiconductor Industry Association.
In February 1985, Mr. Bloch was awarded the National Medal of Technology by President Reagan. The
award was made for his part in pioneering developments related to the IBM/360 computer that
revolutionized the computer industry. In 1989, Mr. Bloch was the recipient of the IEEE United States
Activities Board Award for Distinguished Public Service and the IEEE 1990 Founders Medal. He also
received honorary Doctorate of Engineering degrees from the Colorado School of Mines, the University
of Notre Dame, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; honorary Doctorate of Science degrees from the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, George Washington University, State University of New York
at Buffalo, the University of Rochester, Oberlin College, and Washington College; and an honorary
Doctorate of Science and Engineering degree from the Ohio State University.
He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and is a Fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and a
member of its Computer Society. He received his education in electrical engineering at the Federal
Polytechnic Institute of Zurich, Switzerland, and a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering
from the University of Buffalo in 1952.
Richard Schmalensee
Council of Economic Advisers
Office of the President
Richard Schmalensee is a Member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He has primary responsibility
for the analysis of microeconomic and regulatory policy. Dr. Schmalensee is on leave from the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is the Gordon Y. Billard Professor of Economics and
Management.
Dr. Schmalensee's research and teaching have focused on industrial organization and on anti-trust and
regulatory policy. He has written numerous articles in professional journals and is the author of three
books and co-author of three others. He has extensive consulting experience on anti-trust and regula-
tory matters. He has served on the editorial boards of several economics journals, is co-editor of the
Handbook of Industrial Organization, and is founding editor of the MIT Press Regulation of Economic
Activity monograph series. Dr. Schmalensee has also served on various committees of the American
Economic Association and the Econometric Society, of which he is a Fellow.
Dr. Schmalensee attended the public schools of Belleville, Illinois and received his B.S. (Economics,
Politics and Science; 1965) and Ph.D. ( Economics; 1970) degrees from MIT. Prior to joining the MIT
faculty in 1977, he taught at the University of California, San Diego. He is married to the former Diane
Hawk; they have two sons.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
HOTEL/TRANSPORTATION/LOGISTICS
Dr. Franmarie Keel
White House Conference on Global Change
Suite 615
1019 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 653-5980
Fax: (202) 653-2034
Telex: 249118SDAVISUR
Telemail (OMNET): GLOBAL.CHANGE
HOTEL
The White House Conference is being held at:
The J.W. Marriott Hotel
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: 202-393-2000
The White House Conference has reserved rooms for each official delegation member.
Charges for the hotel room April 16th and 17th, 1990 and for Conference meals served
April 17 and 18, 1990, will be paid for by the White House Conference.
Hotel room check-in is 3:00 p.m. Conference registration begins at 12:00 noon, Sunday, April
15, for delegates arriving in Washington early. Registration will continue Monday all day
and until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 17. Special arrangements should be made with White
House Conference coordinators for early or late arrivals/departures and check-in.
To cover any personal incidental expenditures (such as telephone calls, charges at the hotel
restaurants and gift shops, and additional room service), each delegation member must
present one of the following upon registration at the hotel to guarantee incidentals:
credit card (American Express, VISA, Master Card, Diners Club, JCV)
a letter received by April 14th, 1990 from the delegation's embassy
stating embassy will cover its delegation's incidentals prior to
delegation's departure from the hotel
TRANSPORTATION
Delegations will be met by White House Conference personnel at Washington National
Airport, Washington Dulles Airport, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and
Andrews Air Force Base and will be escorted to the hotel beginning Sunday, April 15.
White House Conference personnel meeting flights can be identified by a White House
Conference sign. Delegations arriving in Washington domestically will be met at the gate.
International arrivals will be met at the exit of the mobil lounge at the entrance to U.S.
Immigration and Customs.
Procedures have been established by the Conference to assist in the facilitation of U.S.
Customs.
1
HOTEL/TRANSPORTATION/LOGISTICS
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
Transportation will be provided for delegations' return to those designated airports after the
close of the Conference Wednesday, April 18, through Thursday evening, April 19.
All transportation for official Conference events held outside of the J.W. Marriott Hotel will
be provided by the White House Conference.
All airline arrival and departure times must be confirmed as soon as possible with the
White House Conference at 202/653-5980.
Please inform the White House Conference immediately if flight plans change at
departure (i.e. cancelled flight, family emergency, etc.)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Any special room, bed, dietary, or medical requirements should be forwarded to White
House Conference coordinators as soon as possible.
MISCELLANEOUS
Simultaneous interpretation in Russian, Spanish, and French will be provided during the
Conference meetings.
Please note the dinner at the State Department, on Tuesday, April 17, is business attire.
The White House Conference
2
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS
RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
Delegate Travel Accommodation Registration
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Name:
Title:
Country Delegation:
HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS:
In order to facilitate your registration upon arrival at the Conference site at the J.W. Marri-
ott Hotel, it will be necessary to provide the information requested in this form. The White
House Conference provides each delegate with a hotel room from check-in April 16th to
check-out on April 18th. The J.W. Marriott Hotel requires guarantee of payment for inci-
dentals, such as telephone, room service, gift shop, laundry, restaurants, etc., with cash, a
credit card or a Letter of Guarantee from your Embassy. A Letter of Guarantee should in-
clude delegate's name, check-in date, Embassy Financial Officer, and any stipulations, and
must be received by April 14, 1990.
Credit Card #
Expiration Date:
Type (American Express, Visa, Master Card, Diners Club, JCV):
Name as it appears on card:
Signature:
Date:
This should be completed and sent by fax (202-653-2034) to Susan Thoren at the White
House Conference in Washington, D.C., or delivered by April 12th to 1019 19th Street NW,
Suite 615, Washington D.C. 20036
8
7
9
6
10
3
11
5
12
1
4
13
14
2
Rendering by S. Finkenberg, New York.
1. JW Marriott Hotel
8. United States Capitol
2. The White House
9. Air and Space Museum
3. Convention Center
10. Hirshhorn Museum
4. Museum of American History
11. Smithsonian "Castle"
5. Natural History Museum
12. Freer Gallery
6. National Gallery of Art
13. Department of Agriculture
7. National Gallery of Art East Wing
14. Washington Monument
Printed on Recycled Paper
PA
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
Briefing for U.S. Delegates
to
The White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Wednesday, April 11, 1990
3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Roosevelt Room
Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Co-chairman
Mr. Michael R. Deland, Co-chairman
Dr. Robert W. Corell, Conference Director
Dr. Franmarie Keel, Conference Coordinator
Dr. Nancy Maynard, OSTP
Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, CEA
Mr. David Struhs, CEQ
William D. Harris, William Harris Company (DOB: 6/25/47)
Rick (Richard) Davis, Black, Manafort Stone & Kelly (DOB 8/9/57)
Dr. Fred Bernthal, NSF
John Weiss, Senior Analyst, CIA (DOB: 3/21/58)
Richard Stakem, Dir. of Global Issues, CIA (DOB: 6/16/48)
Ahmed Meer, White House Conference Office (DOB: 1-5-39)
Delegates and/or their representatives
Secretary Clayton Yeutter
Administrator William K. Reilly
John Knauss, NOAA
Erich Bloch, National Science Foundation
Richard Schmalensee, Council of Economic Advisers
Fred Bernthal, National Science Foundation
J. Clarence Davies, EPA
Len Fisk, NASA
Colleen Getz
Charles Hess, Department of Agriculture
Richard Porter, Department of the Treasury
John Schrote, Department of the Interior
J. R. Spradley, Department of Commerce
1019 Nineteenth Street, NW
Suite 615
Washington, DC 20036
202-653-5980
Fax: 202-653-2034
AGENDA
Briefing for U.S. Delegates
to
The White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Wednesday, April 11, 1990
3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Roosevelt Room
1. Strategy and U.S. Participation in the Conference
-- Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
2. Review of the U.S. Position on Policy Matters Concerning Global
Change
-- Dr. Frederick M. Bernthal, Deputy Director, National
Science Foundation
3. The White House Conference in the Context of International
Meetings on Global Change -- Past, Present, and Future
-- Dr. Bernthal
4. Review of Conference Agenda and Logistics
-- Dr. Robert W. Corell, Conference Director and Assistant
Director for Geosciences, National Science Foundation
-- Dr. Franmarie Keel, Conference Coordinator
5. Delegate Affairs
-- Ahmed Meer, Conference Coordinator for Foreign
Delegations and Senior Science Adviser, Department of
State
-- Country Briefings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Conference Agenda
2.
Conference Overview
3.
Science and Economics Research for Global Stewardship
4.
Draft of Co-Chairmen's Conference Report
5.
Heads of Delegation List
6.
Preliminary Delegation List
7.
For Future Insert Booklet of Plenary Presentations-- 2 POTUS Speeches)
8.
For Future Insert (Test of Pres. Ltr to Delegates)
9.
Media Questions and Answers
10. Schematics of Conference Plenaries and Breakouts
11. U.S. Response to Conference Questionnaire
12. Climate Change Paper
13. For Future Insert (Info Packett to Foreign Embassies)
14. For Future Insert (Brochure on Global Stewardship)
15. For Future Insert (Charter for Conference)
16. For Future Insert (Statement of Principles)
17. Secretary Baker's Speech to the IPCC, January 30, 1989
18. IPCC Executive Summary
19. IPCC Policymakers' Summary
20. Draft Report of CEA Task Force on Economic Costs
21. Environmental Portion of the Economic Declaration of the Paris
Summit, July 16, 1989
22. Fact Sheet on the President's Initiatives, U.S.-U.S.S.R.
Summit at Malta, December 4, 1989
23. "The Economy and the Environment," Chapter 6, Economic Report
of the President
24. For Future Insert (Reilly Article)
25. For Future Insert
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
FOR
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON
SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH RELATED
TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
April 17-18, 1990
Washington, D.C.
MONDAY - APRIL 16, 1990
12:00 pm Early Registration
J.W. Marriott Hotel
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
1:00 pm Pre-Conference Luncheon
Hosted by Ronald Roskens, Administrator
Agency for International Development
7:00 pm Reception
National Air and Space Museum
Independence Ave., Washington, D.C.
Hosts:
Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce
Richard H. Truly, Administrator of NASA
Martin Harwit, Director, National Air
and Space Museum
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990
8:00 am Continental Breakfast
9:30 am PLENARY SESSION I (Moderator: Michael J. Boskin)
Welcoming Remarks:
Nicholas F. Brady - Secretary of the Treasury
Welcome: President George Bush
Goals and Expectations for the Conference -
D. Allan Bromley
1
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990 (Continued)
Opening Remarks by Visiting Delegate -
J. Janowski, Deputy Prime Minister of Poland
11:00 am PLENARY SESSION II (Moderator: Michael R. Deland)
Theme I Presentation:
"The Science and Economics Research
Challenge" - D. Allan Bromley
Theme II Presentation:
"Integrating Science and Economics Research
in the Policy Process" - Michael J. Boskin
Theme III Presentation:
"Building Partnerships for Science and
Economics Research" - Michael R. Deland
12:00 pm Luncheon
Speaker: William Reilly, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
1:45 pm WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
Working Group Session I:
Two Visiting Delegates serve as Co-Chairmen
of each of the A, B, and C Working Groups
Working Group Session II:
Two Visiting Delegates serve as Co-Chairmen
of each of the A, B, and C Working Groups
5:30 pm Working Group Sessions End
6:00 pm Reception at the National Academy of Sciences
Building, hosted by Frank Press, President of the
National Academy of Sciences and Robert White,
President of the National Academy of Engineering
8:00 pm Dinner in the Diplomatic Suite of the State
Department
IPCC Address Bert Bolin, Chairman, IPCC
2
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1990
8:00 am Continental Breakfast
9:00 am WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
Working Group Session III:
Two visiting Delegates serve as Co-Chairmen
of each of the A, B, and C Working Groups
11:00 am Working Group Session IV:
Three United States Delegates serve as
Chairmen of the A, B, and C Working Groups
12:00 pm Luncheon
Speaker: Admiral James D. Watkins, Secretary
Department of Energy
1:45 pm CONCLUDING SESSION (Moderator: D. Allan Bromley)
Review of Co-Chairmen's Report
Michael R. Deland for
the Conference Co-Chairmen
Closing Remarks President George Bush
3:00 pm Conference Ends
3
OVERVIEW OF THE CONFERENCE
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE:
President George Bush invited the Heads of State from seventeen nations and the leadership of the
E.C. and the OECD to send ministerial-level delegations to the White House Conference on Science
and Economics Research Related to Global Change. The Conference is designed to bring together
government leaders in science, economics, energy, and the environment concerned with the central
research issues of Global Change. The Conference is designed to advance understanding of Global
Change phenomena, to enhance international cooperation, and to build the basis for future efforts
among nations to integrate more fully science and economics research into the policy process. The
Conference adds a new dimension to the international dialogue on Global Change - - the proposition
that economics, both analysis and research on economic policy and economic consequences, is an
essential link between the science of Global Change and policy alternatives. Science and economics
research can also serve to identify and develop technologies and policy instruments that relax the
tension between growth and Global Change, allowing for greater progress on both fronts. To address
these broad goals, the Conference will:
Focus on science and economics research issues relevant to policy on Global Change,
Address important next steps to substantially enhance and broaden international
understanding of science and economics research issues that relate to Global Change,
Highlight the special role that economics plays in integrating the science of Global Change
with the policy process,
Demonstrate linkages between science and economics research and domestic and
international policy processes, and
Seek to take the initial steps to implement joint international science and economics
research efforts.
The Conference is conceived as an integral part of the ongoing international process to understand
the science of and policy options relating to global environmental issues. The need to improve
substantially understanding of both the science and economics of Global Change has been noted by
many world leaders. The Conference, therefore, focuses on science and economics research issues as
a complement to the ongoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other interna-
tional forums that seek to address the issue of Global Change. It is hoped that the results of the Con-
ference will contribute to the IPCC process and other ongoing international debates and actions.
The Conference focuses on "Global Change," an area of research concerned with understanding the
fundamental processes that govern the Earth system functions. Global Change encompasses such
diverse and interrelated issues as ozone depletion, greenhouse gases, climate change, food security,
water supply, sea level changes, wetlands, deforestation, biodiversity, population change, and energy
demand.
OVERVIEW
1
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
The Conference will provide a forum for international leaders to address the complex science and
economics research issues central to the policy process, including:
How well can we predict temperature trends in the decades ahead?
How "good" are our global scale models, such as models to predict temperature changes?
How well can we predict the interconnections between global environmental change and the
resulting social and economic impacts?
What are the economic consequences of adapting to or mitigatinGlobal Change?
How "good" are the models used to assess these economic consequences and their impact on
the well-being of humanity?
By addressing such questions, it is hoped that the nations might pledge to enhance joint international
research efforts that focus on rapid improvement of both scientific and economic knowledge and de-
velopment of the necessary infrastructure to implement such efforts.
To address these complex and interrelated issues, President Bush invited heads of state from a small
group of nations to send delegations led by ministerial-level officials. The Conference was conceived
with the idea that a representative group of countries would be invited to participate. Their selection
was based on the simple criteria that the meeting should include countries or organizations of
countries that have substantial populations, large land masses, industrialized economies, heavy
future energy needs, major research infrastructures, or have provided international leadership on
issues related to climate and Global Change. These countries and organizations were selected:
1.
Australia
2.
Brazil
3.
Canada
4.
Federal Republic of Germany
5.
France
6.
India
7.
Indonesia
8.
Italy
9.
Japan
10.
Mexico
11.
Netherlands
12.
Nigeria
13.
Norway
14.
Poland
15.
Soviet Union
16.
United Kingdom
17.
Zaire
18.
European Community
19.
OECD
2
The White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
THE EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE
The Conference will provide an opportunity to address the science and economics research issues
related to Global Change in the context of the policy process. To accomplish these goals, the Confer-
ence will focus on and seek to promote:
A substantially enhanced understanding of science, economics, and environmental research
agenda central to the needs of future Global Change policy development.
A substantive understanding of the uncertainties in both science and economics knowledge of
changes in the global environment of the planet.
Increased mutual understanding of and sensitivity to the substance of science and economics
research between both of those research communities.
Increased sensitivity by the two research communities to the policy needs evolving in such
areas as environmental and energy policy, and vice versa.
A solid and well implemented science and economics research effort as a prerequisite for a
complement to evolving efforts by nations to address the international policy questions of
global environmental changes.
A communication network among national leaders concerned with, and responsible for, the
research and policy agenda related to Global Change. More particularly, this Conference
provides a "first-ever" opportunity to forge a partnership between the science and economics
research communities and the policy-makers.
To provide a vehicle to focus on these vital issues, the Conference will include two Plenary Sessions
and several concurrent Working Groups, which will address the three major themes of the Confer-
ence:
The Science and Economics Research Challenge
Integrating Science and Economics Research in the Policy Process
Building a Partnership for Science and Economics Research
The Conference is expected to produce a Co-Chairmen's Report, which will outline the deliberations
of the Conference and set forth common actions designed to expand research and cooperation among
nations.
As President Bush stated in his invitation letter, "It is my hope that the expertise, experience, and
data available in our respective countries can be brought together in a more integrated and coherent
fashion. By working together, our nations can enhance international cooperation in these vital areas
and contribute to the success of the ongoing IPCC process."
OVERVIEW
3
Pre-Conference Material
for Delegates
A Statement of The
Context and Challenges Facing the
White House Conference
a Science & Economics Research
Related To
SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
Global Change
FOR GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP
Global stewardship is our shared responsibility and our shared
opportunity. We must manage the Earth's natural resources in
ways that assure the sustainability of humanity on this planet
and in ways that maximize our potential for growth and
opportunity for all. Global stewardship is a continuing process
of political, economic and social decision-making that meets the
needs of the present generation while expanding the
opportunities of future generations.
Global stewardship will become a dominant scientific, economic
and environmental issue of the 21st century. The experience of
the past 45 years has shown that growth can be achieved only
through the synergy of democratic political institutions and
market economic systems. But just as democratic institutions
are expanding, our ability to grow could be limited by changes
in our already stressed environment. Solutions must be found
which will protect the quality of our natural environment while
allowing for the economic growth necessary to sustain and
improve the living standards of a growing world population.
For perhaps the first time in human history, we now understand
that our progress depends on accounting for our environmental
resources and using them wisely. A new understanding of
complex environmental systems is emerging. This
understanding means that we are now called upon to create
new directions for our creative energies and technologies.
Global stewardship is the key.
To exercise effective stewardship, we must advance our
knowledge of natural and human systems. We must create
solutions that join economic growth with sound management of
our environment. Meeting this challenge will require an
integration of scientific, economic, and environmental
concerns-an integration which moves global stewardship and
human sustainability to center stage.
We need new tools to effectively evaluate how to respond to global
environmental changes. Science and economics research can
provide some of the tools needed to understand and properly
manage our changing planet. Global change is concerned with
such diverse but interrelated issues as ozone depletion,
greenhouse gases, climate change, food security, water supply, sea
level changes, wetlands, deforestation, biodiversity, population
changes, and energy demands. A common ingredient in each of
these issues is the level of uncertainty about the scale at which
these changes are occurring and humanity's relative contribution
to the change. There is also uncertainty regarding the social and
economic consequences of change itself and of policy measures
which might be taken to address it. As global stewards we must
address these uncertainties by increasing our scientific and
economic knowledge and take justifiable actions to manage global
change with due consideration given to the uncertainties which
exist.
Therefore, the challenges of global stewardship require agreement
in these three areas:
Science and economics uncertainties-research challenges;
Strategies for and challenges to integrating economics and
science research; and
Building better international partnerships for economics and
science research.
Our existence depends on our ability to draw sustenance from the
natural world while supporting the systems that regenerate that
world. Building an integrated program of economics and science
research is the step we must take today. Global stewardship is not
a fixed state but a process of change in which environmental and
economic values are brought into balance to meet human needs
and to expand human prospects. Let us join together and accept
the challenge of Global Stewardship.
George Bush
90
02
357 9829
OFFICIAL 10/05 USE
ONLY
DRAFT
REPORT.410
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The White House Conference
on
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change
DRAFT OF CO-CHAIRMEN'S CONFERENCE REPORT
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE:
A White House Conference, initiated by President George Bush on Science and Economics Research Related
is Global Change was held in Washington, D.C. April 16-18, 1990. Conference Co-Chairmen were, the
Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Michael J. Boskin, the Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, and the Chairman of the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, Mr. Michael R Deland. Seventeen nations and the leadership of the E.C. and the
OECD sent ministerial-level delegations to the Conference (See Appendix I for a List of Delegates). The
Conference sought to add a integrating focus for international thought on Global Change, by introducing the
concept of "Global Stewardship", and by adding a new dimension 5 the international dialogue on Global
Change - the proposition that economics, both analysis and research on broad economic policy and on
economic consequences of policy options, is an essential link between the science or Global Change and policy
alternatives.
GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP
(INSERT GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP TEXT HERE)
THE CONFERENCE AGENDA
TO address the substantive Conference goals, the agenda focussed the presentations and discussions on:
Science and economics research issues relevant to policy on giobal change,
Important next steps that substantially enhance and broaden international understanding of
science and economic research issues that relate to global change,
The special role that economics plays in integrating the science of Global Change with the
policy process,
Demonstrating linkages between science and economics research results and both domestic
and international policy processes, and
Framing the initial steps towards stratagies for implementing joint international science and
economics research efforts
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:15 pm
1
10/08 80 02
. 367 ****
The Conference focussed on "Global Change,' a scope of research interests that evolved out of the sciences
that are concerned with understanding the fundamental processes that govern the way the global Earth system
functions. Global Change encompasses such diverse and interrelated issues as ozone depletion, greenhouse
gases, climate change. food security, water supply, $00 level changes, wetlands, deforestation, biodiversiry,
population changes, and energy demands.
The Conference was conceived as an integral part of the on-going international process to understand the
science of and policy options relating to global environment issues. The need to substantially improve
understanding of both the science and economics of global change has been noted by virtually an world
leaders. The Conference, therefore, focused on scientific and economic research issues as a complement to
the on-going Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international forums that seek
to address the research agenda for Global Change.
The Conference provided a forum of internadonal leaders 9 address a variety of complex science and
economics research issues central 5 the policy process, for example:
How well can we predict temperature trends in the decades ahead?
How "good" are our global-scale models, such as models to predict temperature changes?
How well can we predict the interconnections between global environmental change and the
resulting social and economic impacts?
What are the economic costs of adapting to or mitigating global change?
How "good" are the economic models used to compute these costs?
By having ministerial-level discussions of such questions, it was hoped that nations might join together to
enhance cooperative international research programs that focus on rapid improvement of both scientific and
economic knowledge.
To address these complex and interrelated issues. ministerial-level delegations were invited to the Conference
from a representative group of nations. The Conference was conceived with the idea that a small representative should
of countries would participate. Their selection was based on the simple criteria that the meeting
be group modest in size and include countries or organizations of countries that have substantial populations, large have
land industrialized economies or heavy future energy needs, major research infestructures, or of
provided masses. international leadership on issues related to climate and global change A representative group
countries was selected. including:
1 Australia
2 Brazil
3. Canada
4. Federal Republic of Germany
5. France
6. India
7. Indonesia
& Italy
9. Japan
10. Mexico
11. Netherlands
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:55 FEE
2
12 Nigeria
13. Norway
14. Poland
15. Soviet Union
16. United Kingdom
17. Zaire
18. European Community
19. OECD
CONFERENCE PLENARY AND WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
The Conference Plenary and Working Group Sessions provided an opportunity for delegates to address the
critical science and economics research issues related to Global Change. The agenda was designed to provide
a forum to:
Substantially increase collective understanding of the critical scientific, economic. and environmental
research agenda central to the needs of future global change policy development
Identify the uncertainties in both scientific and economics knowledge critical understanding changes
in the global environment of the planet,
Increase mutual understanding of and sensitivity to scientific and economic research efforts between
both of those research communities.
Increase sensitivity by the two research communities to the policy needs in the environmental and
energy arena, and visa versa.
Foster the concept of the importance of a solid and well implemented scientific and economics
research effort as a pre-requisite for and parallel complement to, the evolving efforts by nations to
address the international policy questions of global environmental changes.
Enhance communications and establish a broader "network" of among nadonal leaders, concerned with
and responsible for, the research and policy agends related to global change. The Conference communities sought
to provide a forum to forge partnerships between the scientific and technical research
and the policy-makers.
To provide a vehicle to focus on these vital issues, the Conference Program was designed around themes: a balance
between several Plenary Sessions and concurrent Working Groups that addressed three major
Theme L: The Science and Economics Research Challenge
Theme II: Integrating Science and Economics Research in the Policy Process
Theme III: Building Partnerships for Science and Economics Research
PLENARY SESSIONS
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:35 R.
3
10/05 80 02
. JST 8829
The program for the Conference was divided into three broad components. (1) Cose half day of Opening
Plenary Sessions, (ii) two half days of Working Groups Sessions, and (iii) 2 half day of integrating and
Summary Plenary Sessions
OPENING PLENARY SESSIONS
Opening: The Conference was opened with a presentation by Secretary of the Treasury, Nicholas F.
Brady. The welcome addressed focussed on Include Summary of Brady's Remarks.
Address by President George Bushs The President of the United States, George Bush spoke to the
Conference and his central messages was
Include a Summary of President Bush's
Speech Full Text of the President's Speech is appended in Appendix A.
, Delegate from
. The Honorable
, from
Remarks by
,
provided the Conference with a visiting delegation perspective on the Conference, during
which
Include a Summary of his remarks. Include full ICXI if available in the Appendices.
Central Themes of the Conference The Three Conference Co-Chairmen gave major addresses on the
three Conference Themes, the purpose of which was to outline the central issues of the Conference
and to provide a focus on each Theme for the Working Group Sessions. The full text of these three
speeches is appended to Appendix B.
Theme I: The Science and Economics Research Challenge. Dr. D. Allan Bromley -
- Include a Summary of Bromley's Speech_
Theme II: Integrating Science and Economics Research in the Policy Process.
Dr. Michael J. Boskin - Include a Summary of Boskin's Speech
Theme III: Building Partnerships for Science and Economics Research.
Mr. Michael R Deland - Include a Summary of Deland Speech.
Visiting Delegations Perspectives on the Themes. Three delegates formed a Panel to discuss
the Themes and to give several visiting delegations views on the Themes of the
Conference
Foreign Delegate - Include Short Summary Here
Foreign Delegate - Include Short Summary Here
Foreign Delegate - Include Short Summary Here
(Include full text if available in Appendices)
MAJOR ADDRESSES
There were two major addresses given during the Conference Luncheons.
o
Admin William Reflly - Include a Summary of that Address
Sec. James D. Watkins - Include s Summary of that Address
Tuesday
April 10. 1990
1:35 pm.
4
The full taxt of both of these address is included in Appendix C
WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
The Conference agenda was organized so that delegates were divided into three Working Groups (Working
Groups A. B, and of each of which consisted of a mix of ministerial-level delegates from science, economics,
and the environment agencies or government, and in some cases from energy agencies. All countries were
represented to each Working Group. The list of Working Groups is contained in Appendix D. Four Working
Group Sessions met sequentially, two on Tuesday afternoon of April 17 and two on Wednesday morning of
April 18. The first sessions were devoted to the three Conference Themes and the fourth was designed as 1
session to integrate the discussions and 5 prepare a written summary of the Working Group deliberations as
a contribution to the Co-Chairmen's Conference Report Those reports are summarized herein.
Working Group A: Summary Report of Working Group "A"
Working Group B: Summary Report of Working Group "B"
Working Group C: Summary Report of Working Group °C
SUMMARY PLENARY SESSIONS
SUMMARIES OF CONCLUDING ADDRESSES AND PRESENTATIONS
1.)
Foreign Delegations Summary of Conference: Three visiting delegates reviewed the results
of the Conference from their perspective, a summary of those remarks follow. Include the
comments here. (Include full LEXI if available in Appendices)
2)
Working Group Leader Summaries of the Conference: The three Working Groups gave
summaries of their deliberations, 2 summary of which follows.
Include it here
(Include full text if available in Appendices)
3.)
Conference Co-Chairmen Summaries of the Conferences The three Conference Co-Chairmen
outlined their summary views on the Conference, a summary of those comments follow
Include those here. (Include full text if svailable in Appendices)
4.)
Closing Remarks by President George Bush: The President of the United States, George
Bush presented his closing remarks to the Conference. Include a Summary of President
Bush's Speech Full Text of the President's Remarks is appeaded in Appendix A with the
Opening Address.
SUMMARIES OF PROPOSALS FOR ACTION OFFERED DURING THE CONFERENCE
The delegates of the Conference concluded that several specific actions. developed during the
Conference should be addressed in the period immediately after the Conference. These include:
1.)
The Working Groups considered a proposal by the U.S. to endorse the principles contained
in a "Charter for Cooperation in Science and Economics Research Related to Global
Change', the draft of which is contained in Appendix E. The general consensus of the
Conference was
Include the specific results of discussions on this topic here.
Tuesday
April 10. 1990
1.35 R
5
including any recommended action steps.
2)
The U.S. proposed an initiative designed to initiate international and jointly sponsored
research "centers" that focus research on the science and economics of global change. The
purpose of these centers. which might be called International Institutes for Research on the
Science and Economics of Global Change, is to develop internationally recognized "Center
of Excellence" where both tesident and visiting scholars address key research topics that
contribute research results to the international policy process. A draft of the U.S. proposal
is contained in Appendix F. The Working Groups discussed this proposal and concluded
Include the results of those discussions here
3.)
The U.S. proposed an initiative to increase communications among nations engaged in
research on global change. The U.S. proposal suggested that nations join together in what
might be called a 'Global Change Communications Network". The proposal suggested that
a joint offort be undertaken that builds on the svailable technology for data and information
transfer, electronic mail, and other telecommunications technologies. A draft of the concept
is enclosed in Appendix G. The Working Groups discussed this matter and concluded
that
Include the results of those discussions here.
4.)
The U.S. proposed that the Conference consider endorsing a Statement of Principle' for
developing SEI international Strategy for Cooperation in Scientific and Economic Research
in Global Change The draft "Statement" is attached in Appendix H. The 'Statement or
Principles outlines the basts for developing a strategy among nations for 1 cooperative
international effor LO implement jotnt scientific and economics research programs, including
sharing of scientific and economic data, coordinating the development of international global
observing systems, and factificating joint research efforts to substantially
improve the capabilities of models to predict controlling global and regional environmental
process (Le GCM'S). The "Statement" outlines the essential ingredients for an overall
strategy to implement cooperative research internationally. The focus would be on research
efforts that can be substantially enhanced by joint efforts that build on the expertise,
experience, and data available of each participating country. The U.S. suggested that if the
"Statement of Principles" is endorsed by the Conference, then a Task Team of interested
nations would prepare a Draft Strategy, within a few months, for consideration by
government agencies responsible for implementing Global Change research programs and
projects. The proposal suggested that such a Strategy then could lead to what might be
called, an International Global Change Research Program". The proposal suggested that
such a more fully coordinated international research effort could substantially assist the on-
going policy debate and could support other up-coming international meetings, such as the
IPCC and the Second World Climate Conference. The proposal builds upon existing
discussions initiated by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) during its
recent Annual Meeting in Lisbon. in October. 1989. The proposal is intended to fully
facilitate the implementation of the research programs of the World Climate Research
Program (WCRP). the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), and others The
Working Groups considered the proposal and concluded
Include the results of the
Working Group discussions here
5.)
Other proposals . include here.
File I REPORT.410
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
6
1:33 R.
GEO
10/06 90 02.18 0. . 167 9629
APPENDIX A
PRESIDENTS TWO SPEECHES
(To be Added ai conference)
Tuesday
April 10. 1990
1:35 B.
7
APPENDIX C
LUNCHEON SPEECHES
(By Wm Reflly and James Watkins)
(To be Added at Conference)
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
145 H.
9
APPENDIX D
WORKING GROUPS MEMBERSHIP LISTS
(To be Added at Conference)
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:55 B
10
APPENDIX E
CHARTER FOR COOPERATION
to the
Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change'
Government officials of Science. Economics, and the Environment from eighteen nations, the European
Community (EC), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) gathered in
Washington, D.C. on April 16-18, 1990, 9 artend a White House Conference on Science and Economics
Research Related to Global Change The Conference was designed to address important next steps for
substantially enhancing and broadening international understanding of science and economic research related
to Global Change. The delegates to the Conference noted that;
WHEREAS:
Scientific evidence demonstrates that the Earth and its environment are changing on time
and spacial scales unknown to humankind,
Scientific uncertainty remains as to the contributions made by natural variability in Earth
system processes and those made by impacts from anthropogenic sources. hence limiting the
ability of science to predict. with acceptable accuracy. the future behavior of the Earth system
Gaps in scientific understanding substantially limit the abilities of nations to determine the
economic and societal impacts of global changes in the environment,
World leaders are considering unprecedented postures and actions to address the potential
economic and social implications of these changes, and
These national and international developments, taken in total, have placed global
environmental issues central on the agenda of international affairs.
THEREFORE
The nations gathered at the White House Conference on Science and Economics Research Related to Global
Change will seek to:
Increase and coordinate their science and economics research programs with internationally
planned research efforts,
Work together to develop national science and economic research programs that complement
and contribute to a coherent internarional errort,
Work to enhance existing international mechanisms for planning and implementing science
and economics research programs, and to foster, when necessary and appropriate new
mechanisms to foster cooperation among the world's governments and international agencies,
Work toward full participation of all nations in the formulation. refining and implementation
of the science and economics research agenda,
Encourage the nations of the world to contribute resources and personnel to the research
agenda in measure and kind reflecting national capabilities,
Tuenday
April 10, 1990
1:55 B.
11
10.05 80 02.21 JS, 8020
o
Collaborate with other nations in support of education, training and human resources
development that is focussed on the research agenda and that supports full participation by
developing countries, and
o
Work toward developing cooperative access to pertinent research facilities and research data
and information by all nations and toward developing indigenous research activities relevant
to the global environment change research program in all participating nations.
FILE R CHARTER.410
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:55 P.
12
10,05 90 02.22 or . 367 ****
APPENDIX G
GLOBAL CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK CONCEPT PAPER
Tuesday
Appll 10, 1990
155 pm
14
AD GEO
...
acc.
10/05 90 02:22 8 357 8628
APPENDIX H
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Tuesday
April 10, 1990
1:55 pm
15
10/05 90 02.22 @ JUT 9828
aD GEO
... ACCL
APPENDIXI
LIST OF DELEGATIONS
(To be Added at Conference)
Tuesday
April 10. 1990
1:55 B.
16
As of 4/9; Noon
HEADS
OF DELEGATIONS
COUNTRY
NAME OF DELEGATE
TITLE
Australia
Neal Blewett
Minister for Trade Negotiations
Brazil
Jose Lutzenberger (Tentative)
Secretary of Environment
Canada
Lucien Bouchard
Federal Environment Minister
Federal Republic of Germany
Klaus Toepfer
Federal Environment Minister
France
Hubert Curien
Minister of Research & Technology
India
Maneka Gandhi
Min. of State for Environment
Indonesia
B.J. Habibie
Min. of State for Res. & Tech.
Italy
Adolfo Battaglia
Minister of Industry
Japan
Ishimatsu Kitagawa
Minister of Environment
Mexico
Patricio Chirinos
Sec. of Urban Dev. & Ecology
Netherlands
Hans Alders
Minister of Environment
Nigeria
Maj. Genl. Mamman Kontagora
Minister of Works and Housing
Norway
Kristin Hille Valla
Minister of Environment
(also Head of S&T Cooperation)
Poland
Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister
Soviet Union
Nikolay Laverov
Chmn. St. Cmte. Sci. & Tech.
United Kingdom
David Trippier
Minister for Environment
United States
Nicholas Brady
Secretary of Treasury
Zaire
Citoyen Lobo Kanza Kanza
Depty. Minister of Environment
European Community (EC)
**Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
Director-General for Environment
OECD
Robert Cornell
Deputy Secretary-General
**Some confusion between EC and Irish. We now have 14 names;
also indications that delegation head might be Filippo Maria
Pandolfi, Commissioner (Vice President) in charge of Science,
Research and Development.
Heads of Delegation/Minister-level
Reception/Photo-up
Australia
Neal Blewett
Member of Parliment, Minister
for Trade Negotiations
Brazil
Jose Lutzenberger
Environment Secretary
Jose Goldemberg
Science Secretary
Lucien Bouchard
Federal Environment Minister
Canada
Federal Energy Minister
Jak Epp
France
Hubert Curien
Minister of Research and
Technology
Brice Lalonde
Secretary of State for the
Environment
Germany
Professor Dr. Klaus Topfer
Federal Minister for the
Environment, Nature Protection
and Nuclear Safety
Ms. Maneka Gandhi
Minister of State for
India
Environment and Forests
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
Italy
Hon. Adolfo Battaglia
Minister of Industry, Head of
Delegation
Japan
Ishimatsu Kitagawa
Minister of State, Director
General of Environment Agency
Shigeto Nagano
Parliamentary Vice Minister of
Science and Technology
Mexico
Lic. Patricio Chirinos
Secretary of Urban Development
and Ecology
J.G.M. Alders
Minister, Ministry of Housing,
Netherlands
Physical Planning and
Environment
Nigeria
Major General Mamman Kontagora
Minister of Works and Housing
Minister of Science and
Gordian Ezekwe
Technology
Kristin Hille Valla
Minister of Environment
Norway
Minister of Education and
Einar Steensnaes
Science
Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister; Head of
Poland
the Agency for Science and
Technological Progress and
Application
Nikolay Pavlovich Laviorov
Chairman of the U.S.S.R. State
U.S.S.R.
Committee on Science and
Technology
Chairman of the U.S.S.R. State
Juriy Antonievich Israel
Committee on Hydrometeorology
United Kingdom
David Trippier RD, JP, MP
Minister for the Environment
and Countryside
Zaire
Citoyen Lobo Kanza Kanza
Secretary of State (Deputy
Minister) ; Ministry of
Environment and Conservation
of Nature
EC
Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
Director-General for
Environment, Nuclear Safety
and Civil Protection
Padraig Flynn
Irish Minister for
Environmnent
OECD
Robert Cornell
Deputy Secretary-General
PRELIMINARY
DELEGATION LIST
CURRENT AS OF
APRIL 10, 1990; 3:00 P.M.
Additions: Netherlands confirmed
Revised Japanese names
India confirmed/additional names
Zaire final names
Brazil additional name
OECD additional name
Poland confirmation
FRG name change
AUSTRALIA
(tentative)
Name
Title
Neal Blewett
Member of Parliment,
Minister for Trade
Negotiations
Professor Ralph Slatyer
Chief Scientist,
Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet
Dr. McGregor Tegart
Secretary, Australian
Science and Technology
Council
Alan Brown
First Assistant
Secretary, Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Nelson Quinn
First Assistant
Secretary, Department of
Arts, Sport, Environment,
Tourism and Territories
Dr. John Zillman
Director, Bureau of
Meteorology
Rod Shogren
Assistant Secretary,
Treasury
Robert Allan
Acting Assistant
Secretary, Department of
Primary Industries and
Energy
(Official from Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce)
Michael Lumb
Victorian State
Government
April 10, 1990
BRAZIL
(tentative)
Name
Title
Jose Lutzenberger
Environment Secretary
Jose Goldemberg
Science Secretary
Marcos Gianetti
Fonseca, National
Secretary of Planning,
Ministry of Economics
April 10, 1990
CANADA
(tentative)
Name
Title
Lucien Bouchard
Federal Environment
Minister
Jak Epp
Federal Energy Minister
Dr. Geraldine Kenney Wallace
Chair, Science Council of
Canada
Dr. Arthur W. May
President, Natural
Sciences and Engineering
Research Council
Dr. Anne White
Chair, Canadian IGBP
Committee
Liz Dowdswell
Assistant Deputy
Minister, Atmospheric
Environment Service,
Environment Canada
Judith Maxwell
Chair, Economic Council
of Canada
Mr. Olton
Assistant Deputy
Minister, Energy Policy
Department of Energy
Mines and Resources
George Anderson
Assistant Deputy
Minister, Department of
Finance
His Excellency Derek Burney
Ambassador to the United
States
April 10, 1990
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
April 10, 1990
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. Heinz Sandhager
Director General, Federal
Ministry of Transport
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
April 10, 1990
FRANCE
(tentative)
Name
Title
Hubert Curien
Minister of Research and
Technology
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
Delphine Borione
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Andre LeBeau
General Director of the
Meteorological Center
Philippe Nasse
Ministry of Economy and Budget
Sylvie Faucheux
Professor of Economy at
Paris I
April 10, 1990
INDIA
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi
Minister of State for
Environment and Forests
Mahesh Prasad
Secretary of Ministry of
Environment and Forests
Dr. A.P. Mitra
Director-General, Council
for Science and
Industrial Research
Prabhakar Menon
Deputy Permanent
Representative to the
United Nations
Lalit Man Singh
Deputy Chief of Mission,
Indian Embassy in
Washington
Anil Kumar
Economics Minister,
Indian Embassy in
Washington
J.P. Gupta
Science Counselor, Indian
Embassy in Washington
April 10, 1990
INDONESIA
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Professor Dr. Ing. B.J. Habibie
Minister of State for
Research and Technology;
Chairman of the Agency
for the Assessment and
Application of Technology
Professor Dr. Samaun Samadikun
Chairman of the
Indonesian Institute of
Sciences
Professor Dr. John A. Katili
Vice Chairman of the
National Research Council
Professor Dr. Gunawan Satari
Permanent Secretary,
Office of the Minister of
State for Research and
Technology
Mr. Poedji Kuntarso, MA
Director General for
Foreign Economic
Relations; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
Professor Dr. Rustam Didong
Deputy Chairman for
Economic Affairs,
National Development
Planning Agency
Professor Dr. Harsono Wiryosumarto
Deputy Chairman for
Technology Development;
Agency for the Assessment
and Application of
Technology
Professor Dr. S.B. Joedono
Assistant Minister IV
(Industry, Energy and
Mining), Office of the
Coordinating Minister for
the Economy, Finance,
Industry and Development
Supervision
April 10, 1990
INDONESIA
(continued)
Name
Title
Dr. M. Alwi Dahlan
Assistant Minister I
(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
April 10, 1990
ITALY
(tentative)
Name
Title
Hon. Adolfo Battaglia
Minister of Industry,
Head of Delegation
Professor Umberto Colombo
Director of the National
Agency for Nuclear and
Renewable Energies
Professor Giuseppe Biorci
Vice President of the
National Research Council
Professor Giuseppe Bianchi
Director General for
Energy Sources, Ministry
of Industry
Professor Antonio Praturlon
President of the CNR
Committee on Geological
Sciences
Professor Roberto Frassetto
CNR Institute of the
Dynamics of Great Masses
Professor Emilio Gerelli
Economic Counselor to the
Minister of Environment
Dr. Corrado Clini
Director General for
Pollution Prevention,
Ministry of Environment
Professor Guido Visconti
Department of Physics,
University of L'Aquila
Dr. Giovanni Sacco
Vice Director General of
Treasury, Ministry of
Treasury
April 10, 1990
JAPAN
(tentative)
Name
Title
Ishimatsu Kitagawa
Minister of State,
Director General of
Environment Agency
Shigeto Nagano
Parliamentary Vice
Minister of Science and
Technology
Koji Watanabe
Deputy Minister, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs
Tadashi Yasuhara
Director General,
Planning and Coordination
Bureau, Environment
Agency
Sousaburo Okamatsu
Director General,
Industrial Location and
Environmental Protection
Bureau, Ministry of
International Trade and
Industry
Jun Yoshikawa
Deputy Director General,
Coordination Bureau,
Economic Planning Agency
Yuji Ikeda
Deputy Director General,
United Nations Bureau,
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Keiichi Yokobori
Executive Director,
Research Institute of
International Trade and
Industry, Ministry of
International Trade and
Industry
Hiroto Ishida
Deputy Director General,
Director General's
Secretariat, Science and
Technology Agency
Dr. Michio Hashimoto
Special Advisor to the
Minister, Environment
Agency
April 10, 1990
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
April 10, 1990
THE NETHERLANDS
(confirmed)
Name
Title
J.G.M. Alders
Minister, Ministry of
Housing, Physical
Planning and Environment
Dr. B.C.J. Zoeteman
Deputy Director-General,
Directorate-General for
Environment, Ministry of
Housing, Physical
Planning and Environment
Dr. H.M. Fijnaut
Director-in-Chief, Royal
Netherlands
Meteorological Institute,
Ministry of Transport and
Public Works
Dr. Pier Vellinga
Director, National
Climate Change Programme,
Directorate-General for
Environment, Ministry of
Housing, Physical
Planning and Environment
N.D. van Egmond
Director, Environment,
National Institute for
Public Health and
Environmental Protection
Dr. P.A.J. Tindemans
Director, Analysis and
Evaluation, Directorate-
General for Science
Policy, Ministry of
Education and Science
Professor Hans Opschoor
Chairman, Advisory
Council for Research on
Nature and Environment
Dr. P. Winsemius
Director, McKinsey and
Company
April 10, 1990
NETHERLANDS
(continued)
D. Pietermaat
Environmental
Coordinator, Directorate-
General of Energy,
Ministry of Economic
Affairs
I.G. Roos
Principal Assistant of
Director, Economic
Cooperation Department,
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
April 10, 1990
NIGERIA
(tentative)
NAME
TITLE
Major General Mamman Kontagora
Minister of Works and
Housing
Gordian Ezekwe
Minister of Science and
Technology
Dr. Bukar Shais
Chairman of Federal
Environmental Protection
Agency
Dr. E. O. Aina
Director and Chief
Executive of Federal
Environmental Protection
Agency
Dr. J. A. Adejokun
Director, Department of
Meteorological Services,
Ministry of Aviation
Professor Tudor
Director of Nigerian
Institute of
Oceanographic and Marine
Research
(one unnamed official from Ministry of Justice)
Alhaj i Ahmed Abubakar
Director General, Federal
Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development
April 10, 1990
NORWAY
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Kristin Hille Valla
Minister of Environment
Einar Steensnaes
Minister of Education and
Science
His Excellency 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
April 10, 1990
THE OECD
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Robert Cornell
Deputy Secretary-General
John Ferriter
Deputy Executive
Director, International
Energy Agency
Bill L. Long
Director for Environment
George Kowalski
Senior Advisor for Energy
Economics and Head of the
Economic Analysis Staff,
International Energy
Agency
Andrew Dean
Head, General Economic
Division, Economic and
Statistics Department
Michael W. Moynihan
Head of the Washington
Publications and
Information Center
April 10, 1990
POLAND*
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Professor Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister,
Head of the Office of
Scientific and
Technological Progress
and Application
Professor Dr. Roman Andrzejewski
Deputy Minister of the
Environment
Dr. Tadeusz Diem
Deputy Minister of
National Education
Dr. Marcin Rybicki
Deputy Minister, Central
Planning Office
Kazimierz Duchowski
Director of the Office
III, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Professor Stanislaw Wiackowski
Chairman, Parliamentary
Commission on
Environmental Protection
Dr. Wlodzimierz Bojarski
Member of the Senate
Commission on National
Economy
Professor Maciej Sadowski
Institute of Meteorology
and Water Management
Professor Leszek Starkel
Polish Academy of
Sciences
His Excellency Jan Kinast
Polish Ambassador to the
United States
* All English speaking
April 10, 1990
SOVIET UNION
(confirmed)
Name
Title
Nikolay Pavlovich Laviorov
Chairman of the U.S.S.R.
State Committee on
Science and Technology
Juriy Antonievich Israel
Chairman of the U.S.S.R.
State Committee on
Hydrometeorology
Artem Andreevich Troizkiy
Deputy Chairman of the
U.S.S.R. State Planning
Committee
Victor Fedorovich Kostin
Deputy Chairman of the
U.S.S.R. State Committee
on Nature Protection
Alexandr Petrovich Metalnikov
Deputy Chairman of the
U.S.S.R. State Committee
on Hydrometeorology
Vladimir Mihailovich Kotliakov
Director of the Institute
of Geography, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences
Juriy Vladimirovich Vakaluyk
Chief, Division of Global
Geophysical Problems,
Climate Change and
Economic Consequences,
State Committee on
Hydrometeorology
Juriy Leonidovich Golubev
Assistant to the
Chairman, State Committee
on Hydrometeorology
Boris Vladimirovich Pihanov
State Committee on
Hydrometeorology,
Department of
International Cooperation
Nataliy Jur'yevna Vail
State Committee on
Hydrometeorology,
Department of
International Cooperation
April 10, 1990
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
April 10, 1990
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
April 10, 1990
ZAIRE
(tentative)
Name
Title
Professor Lobo Kanza-Kanza
Secretary of State,
Department of the
Environment and
Conservation of Nature
Professor Ilashi Ushwengo
Economic Counselor,
Bureau of the President
of the Republic
Citizen Mankota Ma Mbaele
President-Delegue General
Chief Executive Officer,
Zairian Institute for the
Conservation of Nature,
Department of the
Environment and
Conservation of Nature
Citizen Logo Yvara Loy
Special Secretary to the
Secretary of State,
Department of the
Environment and
Conservation of Nature
April 10, 1990
President's two
Raily speech
speeches are
in this book
is in here,
too.
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
OF
PRESIDERF THE OF SEAL THE STATES THE UNITEDS UNITED
V
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
April 17-18, 1990
Washington, D.C.
PLENARY PRESENTATIONS
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO
GLOBAL CHANGE
The following is a compilation of plenary session and
luncheon speeches delivered at The White House Conference
on Global Change April 17-18, 1990:
Welcoming Remarks - Nicholas F. Brady, Secretary
of the Treasury
Introductory Remarks - President George Bush
Goals and Expectations for the Conference - D. Allan
Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology
Remarks by Visiting Delegate - Jan Janowski, Deputy
Prime Minister of Poland, Director of the State
Office for Science and Technology Development
Uncertain Change: The Scientific and Economic
Research Challenge - D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to
the President for Science and Technology
Economics and Global Change: Links to the Policy
Process and Science Research - Michael J. Boskin,
Chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisers
Breaking Down the Barriers: Building Partnerships
for a Better Future - Michael R. Deland, Chairman,
President's Council on Environmental Quality
Global Change: A Commitment to Action - William
K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Luncheon Speech of Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S.
Navy (Retired), U.S. Secretary of Energy
Review of the Co-Chairmen's Report - presented by
Michael R. Deland on behalf of the Conference Co-
chairmen
Closing Remarks by President George Bush
1019 Nineteenth Street, NW
Suite 615
Washington, DC 20036
202-653-5980
Fax: 202-653-2034
TREASURY NEWS
DEPARTMENT OF The
THE TRAVALER
1789
Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.
Telephone 566-2041
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
EXPECTED AT 9:30 A.M.
OPENING REMARKS TO
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS
RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990
Good Morning. I am pleased to welcome this distinguished
assembly of delegates to the 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 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 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 environmental challenges
we face.
2
Our work here is the natural extension of work we have
already begun in other forums. Our purpose is to complement the
efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as it
strives to identify what is known and what is still uncertain in
the science of global change.
Here in the United States President Bush has taken the lead
in focusing national attention on global climate change issues--
"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 guidelines on
issues concerning global 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
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
change. We estimate this represents more than half of all the
money spent on global change research worldwide. A key element
of this research is an ambitious 15-year program to gather more
accurate data. This includes plans to develop new polar
orbiting satellites that will improve our understanding of
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 is committed to phasing 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.
3
By the year 2050, well over half of greenhouse gas emissions
are expected to come from developing countries. It is clear that
these countries must be a part of any solution to global climate
problems. The United States has urged their attention to these
issues -- and we welcome developing countries to this
conference. We have sought to promote the integration of
environmental considerations into the lending programs of the
World Bank and the regional development banks. We have
encouraged the completion of environmental impact assessments for
projects financed by the banks.
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, especially in promoting energy
forests. efficiency and conservation and greater protection of tropical
In keeping with the President's instructions, U.S. officials
have pursued environmental reforms with the OECD, World Bank, the
regional development banks, the UNEP and UNDP. In addition, the
U.S. has strongly advocated an environmental emphasis for the
programs of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The United States has also supported the use of debt-for-nature
swaps to preserve forests and wetlands. In the recent past, such
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. We have encouraged the
World Bank to play a more active role in facilitating these
swaps. We hope the Bank will do so. We believe debt-for-nature
swaps can be used more innovatively to help address climate
change issues.
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 recogniže 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
policies. to address global climate change and economic activities and
4
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 economic 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 an American Indian chief, "We do not inherit
the children." earth from our ancestors; rather, we borrow it from our
I welcome you and look forward to what we can achieve
together.
o0o
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 17, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN THE OPENING ADDRESS
TO THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE
AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
The Grand Ballroom
The J.W. Marriott Hotel
Washington, D.C.
10:06 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please be seated,
and welcome. Thank you very much for the welcome. I apologize for
the slight delay in there. Thank you, Secretary Brady, and members
of the U.S. delegation, members of my Cabinet and the cochairmen of
this conference, Michael Boskin and Allan Bromley; Michael Deland.
And I'm pleased to welcome this international field of distinguished
high-level officials -- experts all on the environment, economics,
Change. science and energy. Welcome to the White House Conference on Global
Two months ago I had the honor of addressing the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And let me recognize Bert
Bolin who is here, IPCC Chairman, here with us this morning. I see
this conference helping to accelerate the IPCC's agenda as it
searches for understanding of some very critical questions,
broadening the dialogue by exploring the link between scientific
research and economic analysis in the study of global change.
the growing importance of the environment on the international
And of course, this conference is itself another sign of
agenda. Here in the United States we've moved one step closer to a
great victory for the environment, strengthening our own clean air
of new clean air initiatives.
statutes, already the world's toughest, with a comprehensive package
Ten months ago we renewed momentum lost in legislative
stalemate for 12 years. Just this month, a clean air package cleared
the United States Senate with House action hopefully possible in May.
We're moving forward on clean air legislation because it is in
America's interest. But like so many of the environmental issues
environment. that concern us, we aren't the only beneficiary of a better
When it comes to the environment, we are learning that
local actions can have global consequences. Understanding the
effects of our actions on our Earth system is the first step to a
here is just exactly that.
sound environment. And the subject that led me to invite all of you
I want to speak just briefly this morning so you can get
on about your work. But I want to speak about what we can do over
the course of the next couple of days to advance our understanding of
global change. This conference will help in three ways. First, it
provides an opportunity to help sort out the science on this complex
issue, to start with what we know about the Earth, and this home we
share. About the factors, natural as well as man-made, that cause
our environment to change, and to work from what we know toward
answers to the many uncertainties that abound.
Perhaps it's not surprising when the subject is global
MORE
- 2 -
change that the debate often generates more heat than light. Some of
you may have seen two sides -- on one of our talk shows on Sunday
respected men debating global change. One scientist argued that if
we keep burning fossil fuels at today's rate, and I quote, "By the
end of the next century, Earth could be nine degrees Fahrenheit
change and warned against a drastic reordering of our economy that
warmer than today." And the other scientist saw no evidence of rapid
could cause us, in his words, "to end up the impoverished nation
awaiting a warming that never comes." Two scientists, two
diametrically opposed points of view. Now, where does that leave us?
What we need are facts, the stuff that science is made
of. A better understanding of the basic processes at work in
whole world -- better Earth system models that enable us to calculate our
the complex interaction between man and our environment. And that's
why I've asked Congress, our Congress, to approve a 60 percent
increase in our budget for the global change research program -- an
aggressive research program for which we budgeted more than $1
billion in 1991 to reduce the uncertainties surrounding global
change. To advance the scientific understanding we need if we are to
make decisions to maximize benefits and minimize the unintended
consequences.
The second way this gathering can advance our
understanding is to address the economic factor and environmental
questions. We know that cleaning up our environment costs money -- a
lot of money -- and we know it means changes in the way we work and
live. Here, in the United States, we're already making those
changes, moving forward on clean air, planting trees through our
"America the Beautiful" initiative, and working with other nations to
find ways to halt deforestation, phasing out the use of CFCs,
encouraging conservation, exploring alternative sources of fuel and
energy, and market-based incentives for pollution control.
And yet, as we move forward, all of us must make certain
we preserve our environmental well-being and our economic welfare.
We know that these are not separate concerns. They are two sides of
the same coin. Recognizing this fact is in the interest of every
nation here today. It's in the interest of the developed world, and
the developing world alike.
Let me focus for just a moment on the developing world.
In a climate of poverty or persistent economic struggle, protecting
the environment becomes a far more difficult challenge. Cold
statistics don't begin to capture the harsh realities that are at
stake. Development doesn't mean just another point in the gross
national product, the GNP; it's measured in human lives, an end to
hunger, lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy. Not just
quality of life, but life itself.
Environmental policies that ignore the economic factor,
the human factor, are destined to fail. But there's another reason
to consider the economic factor when the issue is the environment.
There is no better ally in service of our environment than strong
economies. Economies that make possible the increased efficiencies
that enable us to make environmental gains. Economies that generate
the new technologies that help us arrest and reverse the damage that
we've done to our environment. We need new economies that allow us
to make vital investments in our common future.
And that brings me to the third way this conference
contributes to a net gain in knowledge. The fact that it provides us
the opportunity to form a partnership between nations and across the
many disciplines represented here. Few subjects offer a greater
challenge to the understanding of man than global change. And yet,
too often the different disciplines focusing on this question have
worked information. in isolation with little interchange of ideas, analysis,
This conference is a new departure because it brings
MORE
- 3 -
together environmentalists and economists, experts on energy and
science to search for common ground. To search the expertise each
discipline can bring to this difficult and demanding concern. And
this new partnership must bind nations as well. The fact of the
matter is, no one nation acting alone can safeguard our Earth
environment. Success requires a sense of global stewardship, an
understanding that it is the Earth that endures, and that all of us
are no more than tenants in temporary possession of a sacred trust.
with the questions, the fundamental questions of global stewardship;
For the next two days, you, in essence, will be grappling
questions of global consequence. I know there's a debate raging out
there, but I am confident that this approach that brings all of you
experts together is the way to go.
I thank you very much for joining us here. I will be
over after digesting the product of your work tomorrow, to have a few
more words to say. But from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for
coming. There have been a lot of these environmenal conferences
around the world, but this one, I think, approaches the fundamentals.
And we are fortunate to have here in America you experts from all
around the world.
Thank you for coming. I look forward to hearing the
results (Applause.) of your work. God bless you all. Thank you very much.
END
10:17 A.M. EDT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Washington, D.C.
April 17, 1990
1
I would like to add my welcome to those of Secretary Brady and President
Bush. Working together with you, we look forward to very real accomplishments over
the next two days. In a moment, I will describe what the President views as some of
the objectives of the conference.
GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP
But first let me elaborate briefly upon the conferences's theme, that of Global
Stewardship. As President Bush has stated, Global Stewardship is not a fixed state.
It is a process of continual change that balances environmental and economic values
to meet human needs and expand human prospects.
Global Stewardship is a complex, multifaceted concept, yet I believe that it can
be summed up in remarkably succinct fashion. On December 22, 1968, as the crew of
Apollo 8 became the first humans to leave Earth orbit and head toward the Moon,
they turned their frail spacecraft back toward the Earth and took the first
photographs of our planet from deep space. I firmly believe that thousands of years
in the future perhaps the one most lasting thing for which our age will be
remembered will be those photographs. They show the Earth as a beautiful blue and
white sphere floating quietly in the immense blackness of space. They emphasize that
this planet is mankind's common heritage. It is ours to cherish; it is ours to destroy.
We are all truly in this together.
We will achieve Global Stewardship in the same way that we achieve scientific
knowledge - through careful study of the environment and of ourselves, coupled with
effective and timely action. We must come to understand the extent and limits of the
resources available to us on this planet. And we must come to understand how
humans can use those resources in a sustainable fashion to achieve a more
prosperous and productive future.
We are not here to make a global warming policy. That will emerge from the
broad array of research and policy reviews now ongoing. Rather, we are here to try
to determine what will be required in order that such policies be based on sound
feasible. scientific understanding and that they be both technologically and economically
THE LINK BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLICY
Much has been written and said during the past few months about the
scientific understanding of global change and about policy responses to global
environmental concerns. But conspicuous by its absence in almost all of these
discussions has been a careful and detailed analysis of the economic causes or
consequences of global change. For example, we will talk at length over the next two
days about various ways of taking out insurance policies against possible adverse
2
effects of global warming. But there are good insurance policies and bad ones, and
we very much need the input and expertise of economists to discriminate between
them.
In a very real sense, we should perhaps look on economics as the glue that
binds scientific understanding of global change phenomena to the policies both
national and international - that we adopt to address this issue.
In general, the social sciences - economics, psychology, sociology - must be an
integral part of any approach to the 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. This conference will focus as much on these aspects of global change as
on the purely scientific aspects. In this way, we hope to add a new dimension to the
international dialogue on global change.
GOALS OF THE CONFERENCE
As President Bush noted, the foundation of this conference is what we do know
and what we do not know about the science and economics of global change. At a
more detailed level, we seek to determine which uncertainties might be reducible in
the foreseeable future and which are not, and to understand how scientific
uncertainties affect our economic modeling and vice versa.
The conference is designed to achieve several other objectives. Among them are
the following:
0
To increase the mutual understanding and sensitivity of the scientific
and economic research communities to each other's needs and to the
needs of the policy makers who look to them for guidance.
0
To foster a solid and well-implemented international research effort that
can address the scientific, economic, and policy questions of global
change, drawing on the expertise, experience, and data of all the world's
nations.
0
To forge a worldwide communications network among the researchers
and policymakers concerned with global change.
REVIEW OF THE AGENDA
To achieve these objectives, the conference is organized around three themes.
o
The science and economics research challenge.
0
Integrating science and economics research in the policy process.
3
0
Building a partnership for science and economics research.
Later this morning, I shall speak on the first of these themes. My cochairmen
Michael Boskin and Michael Deland will speak on the second and third.
Following those presentations, the agenda calls for us to divide into three
Working Groups that will then meet in four sequential sessions. Each of the Working
Groups will have about 25 members, with roughly equal representation from the three
disciplines of science, economics, and the environment.
The first three Working Group sessions will be devoted to the three themes of
the conference. The fourth will be devoted to integration of the discussions and
preparation of a summary report of each Working Group's deliberations.
These summaries will form part of a Cochairmen's report, which we would
suggest as the primary product of the conference. In this report, we would expect to
outline the deliberations of the conference and set forth agreed-upon common actions
designed to expand research and cooperation among nations.
CONCLUSION
This conference is only one of many national and international actions being
taken to address issues of global change. We must therefore seek to integrate the
accomplishments of the next two days into these ongoing efforts -- and, in particular,
into the deliberations of the IPCC, the international research programs of the World
Meteorological Organization and International Council of Scientific Unions, and the
programs of individual countries focused on the global environment. At the same
time, we will work to coordinate the many activities now going on in the United States
and abroad. They will all be stronger if carried forward in a unified, coherent
fashion.
We want to emphasize that the President has instructed us from the outset of
our planning to design this conference with a primary goal of complementing,
strengthening, and supporting the entire IPCC process, which he considers to be the
central and appropriate forum for our joint efforts toward understanding of, and
responding to, the questions of Global Stewardship.
Louis Pasteur wrote that, "Science knows no country because knowledge belongs
to humanity and is the torch which illuminates the world." We will be the carriers of
that torch for the next two days. And we must keep it burning as we leave to face
the great challenges that lie ahead.
Remarks by Visiting Delegate: Jan Janowski
Deputy Prime Minister of Poland,
Director of the State Office for Science and Technology Development
WHC 4.17.90
DRAFT COPY CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Mr. President & Ladies Gentlemen:
Allow me to begin by expressing, on behalf of the government of the Republic of Poland, our sin-
cere appreciaton for inviting Polish delegation to participate in this importance conference, for
hospitality of the American government and the American people.
I think that our feelings in this respect are shared by other participants. Poles perceive ties between
us and the American people to be particularly close. A monument in front of our hotel, dedicated to
the hero of both nations, Kazimierz Pulaski, a Pole who gave his life for independence for independ-
ence of this great country, is but one example of that. Almost every Polish family has got relatives
living in America.
Today, when Poland and other countries of East and Central Europe rejoin the commonwealth of
free nations, we look to America with trust and hope.
Recent experiences have confirmed our belief that America was right in her attachment to the ideas
of freedom, democracy and human rights and in her conviction that there was a co-dependence
between democracy and effective marketi economy.
Moreover, these experiences proved that democracy and healthy economy were of crucial impor-
tance for the protection of the environment.
In not SO distant past, previous Polish governments have not encouraged concern for the natural
environment. The attitude of our society, which demanded more information and direct participation
in the economic decision making, has stimualted our democractic revolution.
The so-called command economy, with its one-sided concept of industrialization, has proven to be
damaging, both from the point of view of increasing living standards as well in guaranteeing the
quality of life. In the planning process, it did envisage possibilities to provide adequate financial
resources for environmental protection and repair of already existing damages. The degradation of
our environment and public health is as a sad legacy of that policy.
The disintegration of totalitarian systems creates conditions for international cooperation in a new,
unprecedented dimension.
It also depends on Western Civilizations, whether they decide to make available new technologies to
overcome the negative affects of global change. To this end, we deem it imperative to build new
international alliances in order to jointly adjust to new circumstances.
DRAFT COPY CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
In our opinion, the fact that this conference has been convened demonstrates that America feels
particularly responsible for the future of the world. This future clearly has to be our common con-
cern and responsibility.
Mr. President,
I think that your initiative to stage today's conference and ponder upon a question: "How are we to
achieve necessary economic development without damaging the earth and life, which are a gift of
God to us?", has come at the right moment.
You have kindly invited us to reflect jointly on scientific and economic research connected to the
Global Change.
Th e implications of the Green House Effect are clear to everybody. It is also evident that there is a
need to protect the ozone layer. Attempts to lower environmentally harmful emissions, however,
have encountered certain barriers. One of them are the costs involved.
Allow me to use the example from my own area of research as a scientist and engineer. It is possible
nowadays to dramatically reduce the negative ecological effects of steel production. It is feasible but
very costly. The cost of special equipment to protect environment constititutes approximately 25%
of the total costs involved in the technological process of steel production. Similar dilemmas exist in
other areas.
I think that we should consider how to better utilize the results of basic scientific research for the
purposes of enviromental protection engineering. It is possible that such results already exist or will
become available in the foreseeable future.
When W.H. Carothers conducted research on molecular structures he had clearly not thought of the
invention of nylon. When C. Shannon, working at the Bell Laboratories, advanced his theory of
communications, numerous pracitical applications of his abstract ideas were not yet recognized.
Therefore, I think that it would be advisable to carefully examine the results of basic scientific
research to determine possibilities of their practical use in constructing totally new equipment and
obtaining new technologies, which would serve the purposes of environmental protection at a greatly
reduced cost. This is a problem which pervades me and my Polish colleagues since in our country
technological innovation advances much slower than elsewhere.
As far as I know, also in other countries of East and Central Europe, there exist a disturbing discrep-
ancies between the results of basic scientific research and the pace and scope of their practical
technical implementation.
DRAFT COPY CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Due to a difficult economic situation in Poland, a country which has implemented drastic measures
aimed at curbing inflation, we are not able at this moment to take up obligations to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions, as suggested during the ministerial conference in Noordiwijk in November of last
year. CO2 emissions reduction remains, however, one of our major goals and it will be taken into
consideration the process of implementing restructurization of our economy. In the current situation
US help through debt-to-environmental protection investment swap would be of significant impor-
tance. I believe that the American administration would consider this issue in a favorable way.
Mr. President,
International cooperation is of fundamental importance for effective response to Global Change.
Therefore, we welcome by lateral efforts in this area, such as Polish/American project to improve
environmental conditions in Krakow and other projects in which countries like Sweden, United
Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany, as well as EEC and other partners participate.
The Polish side can provide significant contribution to the research conducted on the international
scale, by the: (1) International Institute for Applied System Analysis, (2) The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climatic Change and (3) IGBP - Global Change Program and others.
Bearing in mind Polish experiences, I would like to advance the following message to other coun-
tries, which find themselves at the comparable level of development:
- Wherever there is economic growth, environmental protection is possible
- Wherever there is poverty, competititon for resources is much greater
- We cannot reduce our options to a misguided choice between
-
economical growth and environmental protection
Our country, despite great economic difficulties, sees a necessity of sustainable development
as a basic aim of our economy.
- Leaders of developing countries should promote economic growth through most effective
means, and should include ecological considerations in their economic policy decisions.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I think that we can expect this conference to promote our common interest in economic develop-
ment, so that we can:
- further the growth of welfare of all nations,
- provide the protection of our global resources,
- lay down a common program of research that would serve the purposes of the
previously stated goals,
Thank you for your attention,
UNCERTAIN CHANGE:
THE SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Washington, D.C.
April 17, 1990
1
The global environment has been changing throughout human history, and
indeed throughout the entire history of our planet. At the peak of the last ice age
18,000 years ago just a few thousand years before the first substantial human
civilizations came together in the river valleys of the Middle and Far East -- a glacier
over two kilometers high covered much of the northern United States and Europe.
Sea level was 100 meters lower than at present, so that the future sites of many of
today's port cities were perched on the edges of deep ravines. Then, rather abruptly
about 10,000 years ago, the world warmed, the ice retreated, and sea level rose to
about its present level. These natural changes in the Earth's climate have occurred
throughout its history, and they will continue to occur in the future.
During the past century, human society has entered into a new and momentous
relationship with the global environment. For the first time in history, we have
become a geological agent capable of influencing our entire planet. We have altered
the face of the Earth by clearing forests, building cities, and converting wild lands to
agriculture. We have changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere by burning
fossil fuels, expanding agriculture, and producing and releasing industrial compounds.
We have embarked on an enormous, virtually unplanned, planetary experiment that
poses unprecedented challenges to our wisdom, our foresight, and our scientific
capability.
The first theme of this White House Conference is the scientific and economic
research challenge related to global change. Properly speaking, global change
encompasses not only global warming but such issues as ozone depletion, the
adequacy of food and water supplies, changes in sea level, deforestation, levels of
biodiversity, and population change. Indeed, any of these issues could turn out to be
more serious in terms of human impact than global warming. Yet much of the
world's attention has focused on the possibility of increased global temperatures, and
that will inevitably be the main topic of discussion at this conference.
SCIENTIFIC KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS
In light of the Earth's daunting complexity, it is easy to be overwhelmed by
how much we do not know about the Earth's components and how they interact. But
it is always important to keep in mind how much we do know about the Earth and
our influence on it.
We know, based on a sophisticated set of chemical measurements, that humans
have raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 25 percent since
preindustrial times. This is the single largest impact that our species has had on the
planet. We know that atmospheric levels of methane have doubled over the same
period. We know that chlorofluorocarbons produced by human beings are
catalytically destroying ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica and possibly
elsewhere around the globe.
2
By analyzing sediments and ice cores, geoscientists have traced levels of
atmospheric gases and temperatures many thousands of years into the past. Using
large computers, researchers have modeled the complex eddies and flows of the global
atmosphere with considerable accuracy. These are all remarkable accomplishments.
Based on this work, scientists now generally agree that continued loading of the
atmosphere with greenhouse gases could lead to global warming. However, neither
computer models nor paleoclimatic data have been able to specify with any certainty
the magnitude, rate, or timing of any future warming.
General circulation models will continue to improve in the future as computer
power increases, as the modeling of the Earth system becomes more sophisticated, and
as more complete data inputs become available. For example, coupled ocean-
atmosphere models will shed more light on the possible regional effects of climate
change. Also, an important example of better data inputs is the very recent
demonstration that satellite measurements are capable of providing precise
temperature data over the entire globe at various levels in the atmosphere.
We will also learn more about Earth's past climates by continuing to study the
geological and paleoecological record. But in general we should probably expect
incremental rather than revolutionary advances in our understanding of global change
over the next 10 years.
Another area of consensus concerns global temperatures: scientists now
generally agree 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 an enhanced greenhouse effect or
whether it represents a natural fluctuation. 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.
Furthermore, we are totally unable, with present models, to make reliable
climate predictions on the regional and local bases that are essential to improved
understanding of these impacts. This difficulty arises partly from the fact that we
have, at present, neither the computer capacity and speed, nor the resources,
necessary to reduce the grid size and increase the number of model levels in the
atmosphere, both of which are essential to regional predictions. Current grid sizes
inevitably average over the climatic effects of mountain ranges and of such oceanic
features as the Gulf Stream.
THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
There are several other outstanding difficulties in understanding and modeling
the Earth's climate. Perhaps the most notable involve the Earth's clouds, oceans, and
ice. Until recently, geoscientists did not even know whether clouds warm or cool the
3
Earth. It is still uncertain whether the increased cloudiness associated with a warmer
Earth would augment or counteract a greenhouse effect. It depends 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 many years, essentially all 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 appear to have lost 25 percent
of our anthropogenic carbon emissions. We still have not located this missing carbon,
although some suggest that it is in temperate latitude biomass.
Finally, we still do not fully understand how the world's ice caps and other
major bodies of ice would respond to greenhouse forcing. Present models predict that
warming should be intensified at high latitudes, leading to some melting of ice and a
higher sea level. But recent observations indicate instead an increase in ice
accumulations.
It has not escaped notice that six of the hottest years in the last century in the
United States occurred in the 1980s, and some have associated this with the
greenhouse effect. But over this same decade, precise satellite temperature
measurements have shown that away from the actual surface, where a number of
perturbations are expected, there was no change whatsoever in global average
temperatures. While the northern hemisphere showed a slight increase in
temperature, the southern one showed a corresponding decrease, and the major
fluctuations globally were associated with the El Nino phenomenon in the Southern
Pacific. We need to understand these surface temperature perturbations much better
than we do at present.
There is growing suspicion from the paleoecological data - but as yet no more
than that that the atmosphere-ocean interface may harbor the possibility of
surprises. It bears emphasis that the top 3 meters of the ocean surface contains the
same thermal energy as the entire atmosphere. If it should turn out that relatively
small, and not as yet understood, mechanisms could trigger ocean circulation patterns
from one stable configuration to another, the potential impacts could be large. We
need a careful program of observing and monitoring the Earth to detect any such
surprises caused by our emission of greenhouse gases.
In general, 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,
although scientists quickly came to understand how it formed and have incorporated
that understanding into their models.
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
4
chlorofluorocarbons, combined with unique meteorological conditions, has indeed
created the ozone hole in only a few decades at most.
In recent years, a number of scientists have compared the Earth, in its
complexity, to a living organism. The comparison is certainly apt in this regard: as
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 ECONOMIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
The comparison is apt in another sense. The behavior of human beings,
economically and politically, will be a major determinant of future changes in the
global environment. My cochairmen will be speaking in a moment about some of the
work that has been done on the economics of global change and about the many
economic questions that remain to be answered.
But I would emphasize that in many cases these economic questions are of
even greater importance and much farther from resolution than the scientific
questions. Science-based models of global change need economic trends as inputs.
Yet these economic inputs are often so uncertain that they hamstring the model
results. 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 must find ways to reduce such uncertainties or, if they are
unavoidable, to accommodate them in our projections.
A major influence on future economic trends is the state of technology. To
take the case of emissions, for example, the development of more efficient power
plants, biomass and solar energy, inherently safe nuclear reactors - even something
as mundane as lower cost and more efficient insulation -- could both reduce
emissions and increase our flexibility when deciding on policies related to global
change. In essence, we can hedge our bets on the possibility of future global warming
by investing in these technologies today.
Technology development is also crucial if we are to be fully prepared for the
possibility of global change. Basic and applied research on ecosystems, agriculture,
water supplies, and other important environmental and societal systems can
demonstrate both the ability of society to adapt to different climates and the pressure
points where adaptation becomes prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, the
technologies that emerge from such research -- such as plants that grow under a
wider variety of climatic conditions -- will have great benefits even if the climate does
not change.
The future of technology is as difficult to forecast as economic trends. Yet new
technologies will inevitably reshape our world in the coming decades . just as they
have throughout the twentieth century and we must explore the possible ways in
which this will affect the global environment.
5
One way to increase the reliability of economic and technological forecasts --
and I see this as a major goal of this conference -- is to increase the sensitivity of
both scientists and economists to each other's data needs. We must agree upon the
uncertainties in our scientific understanding that cause the greatest uncertainties in
our economic models, and vice versa. In this way, resources can be focused on
reducing the uncertainties of greatest importance.
By working together to understand both the scientific and economic aspects of
global change, we will be better able to assess the costs not only of action but of
inaction. We will enable all nations to respond sooner and more effectively to the
possibility of different climates. And we will build a flexibility into our environmental
stewardship that will serve us well no matter how climate changes.
U.S. RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Returning for a moment to our scientific understanding, the U.S. government is
now engaged in a large-scale, integrated program to develop the scientific knowledge
that will guide our future policy decisions and contribute to those of all nations.
That program is known as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and was
established through a working group of our interagency Committee on Earth Sciences.
As the President noted earlier, his Administration has requested over $1 billion
in funding for this program during our next fiscal year. Such a request for what is
admittedly a long-term and complex research program demonstrates the President's
very real commitment to dealing decisively with the possibility of global change.
CURRENT ACTIONS
It is clear that we and other nations are accelerating research in the face of
uncertainty. But what bears emphasis as being even more important is decision
making in the face of uncertainty. We are not -- despite our best efforts -- going to
achieve scientific certainty about global change in the near future. Yet we must move
forward on the basis of the information available to us.
The Bush Administration has already instituted a number of policies that will
reduce greenhouse emissions while being fully justified for other reasons. I think of
them as an "insurance policy" against possible adverse effects of global warming.
Among these policies are the following:
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 enhanced greenhouse forcing over the next
century.
6
0
The Clean Air Act now being debated in Congress will provide for
substantial reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases by fostering
more efficient use of energy. It has been estimated that the acid rain
provisions of this legislation alone will have an effect comparable to that
of removing fully one fifth of the U.S. automotive fleet (22 million
automobiles) from our highways for a period of 10 years.
0
The U.S. Department of Energy is developing a National Energy Strategy
that will focus, in particular, on an aggressive commitment to energy
conservation and on 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, this country is again taking concrete steps.
0
The U.S. 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.
o
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 United States' policies related to global
change is that they be based on the best possible science and that they be technically
and economically sound. These are criteria that we will continue to apply as we
consider policies in the future. We will do ourselves a great disservice if we adopt
premature policies that later prove to be unnecessary or counterproductive.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the President has instructed us to
design this conference to complement and support the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change by emphasizing the importance of economic as well as scientific
considerations in the development of global change policies. The United States
supports the IPCC process as an appropriate international approach to the global
understanding and response to a question that knows neither national nor political
boundaries.
At the same time, we would like this conference to be a contributing factor to
the development of an international research program that can provide us with the
knowledge, both scientific and economic, needed to understand and respond to global
change. The first of the three Working Group sessions will give us an opportunity to
explore the dimensions of the scientific and economic research challenge and sketch
the outlines of an international program of science and economic research related to
global change.
7
CONCLUSION
We face a great challenge in the next two days. We must merge science and
economics with policy to a degree that has not been done before. The uncertainties
that surround us are daunting. But humans have never been hindered -- at least not
for long -- by uncertainties. The explorers who we know from history did not let
uncertainties stand in their way. Rather, they saw uncertainties as opportunities, and
in following those opportunities they opened new worlds.
Let me close with a brief vignette about one of those explorers. 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 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
world. before. And yet human beings, by their very nature, cannot help but change the
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 we must keep
moving forward if we are to achieve the complementary goals of an economically
healthy and environmentally sound world.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON
Economics and Global Change:
Links to the Policy Process and Science Research
Michael J. Boskin
Chairman
President's Council of Economic Advisers
April 17, 1990
Good morning. Let me add my own welcome to those you
have already received. In my role as Chairman of the
President's Council of Economic Advisers, I regularly
confront a diverse set of economic issues involving monetary,
budget, regulatory, and trade policies. While all of these
are important, global change and our response to it may be
just as economically significant in the long run. Beginning
an international effort to coordinate and enhance science and
economics research related to global change, as we hope to do
here today, is an essential step toward making the idea of
global stewardship a reality. In this area, as in the others
each of us confront every day, knowledge and understanding
are critical to sound decision-making.
The United States comes to this conference as a leader
in environmental action in both the domestic and global
arenas. The President's recent Clean Air proposal, which
broke a logjam that blocked Congressional action in this
critical area for more than a decade, his tree planting
initiative, and his support of solar and conservation
research and development are examples of his strong
commitment to the environment -- a commitment that is shared
by the American people. The President is looking forward to
signing a sound Clean Air bill that meets his key
environmental objectives -- even though such a bill would
impose costs of about $20 billion annually on the U.S.
economy when its provisions are fully phased in.
We have a similar strong commitment to protect the
global environment. The United States was the first nation
to ban the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants -- over a
decade ago -- and we have since been in the vanguard of
efforts to implement and strengthen the Montreal Protocol on
ozone-depleting substances. We strongly support the
integration of environmental concerns into the programs of
the international institutions -- including the World Bank.
2
Many countries have yet to adopt or are only now
adopting the stringent environmental controls on automobile
and industrial emissions that have been in place in the
United States for many years. The President is continuing
this leadership. For example, his Clean Air proposals will
dramatically reduce acid rain, even though our most recent
scientific studies show much less severe impacts on U.S.
forests and lakes than those apparent in other parts of the
world.
This conference reflects our interest in resolving the
major scientific and economic uncertainties that surround
debates about global change policy and our concern with the
economic and human consequences of proposed mitigation
measures. In light of U.S. leadership in environomental
policy, attempts to portray expressions of this interest and
concern as a delaying tactic are clearly misplaced. Rather,
these interests and concerns reflect view that realistic and
responisble leadership means seeking out and adopting
sensible policies -- policies that recognize that both
economic growth and environmental quality are important to
human well-being.
The extensive U.S. experience with environmental
regulation has shown clearly -- and sometimes painfully --
that one cannot design policies that will produce both a
healthy environment and a sound economy without careful,
integrated use of science and economics research. Careful
use of all available information is nowhere more important
than in the context of possible global warming induced by
human activities. The development and evaluation of climate
models, an area where much progress has been made but many
uncertainties remain, falls clearly within the purview of the
physical sciences. But it is important to recognize that
economics plays a critical role in determining the inputs and
interpreting the outputs of these climate models, as well as
in evaluating the consequences of alternative policy
responses.
On the input side, we all know that no model can produce
results that are better than the data and assumptions on
which they rest. Emissions of the multiple greenhouse gases
associated with human activities depend on the overall level
of economic activity, its division across sectors of the
economy, and on the choice of technology within each sector.
Global emissions forecasts on the time-scale needed here --
several decades -- thus require extraordinarily detailed,
long-term economic forecasts for many nations. I know well
how hard it is to forecast the GNP of a single nation a year
3
or two ahead, and I share with all economists in the audience
the knowledge of how much harder it is to make sector-by-
sector forecasts for many nations decades in the future. As
a humbling exercise, think back to the early 1970s and ask
yourselves whether any forecaster -- economist or not --
predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide by the OECD
countries would be stable from 1973 to 1985. Reliable
forecasts of future climates certainly require advances in
the earth sciences, but they also require advances in our
ability to forecast emissions of greenhouse gases.
Economics also plays a critical role in evaluating the
consequences of the output of climate models -- that is, in
assessing the costs of adapting to any possible future
warming. We know that most of the world's economic activity,
certainly well over 90 percent, would not be directly
affected by any widely-discussed climate change scenarios.
Automobiles can be produced as efficiently in warm weather as
in cold weather, after all. Detailed analysis of those
sectors that could be affected is necessary for estimation of
adaptation costs, but little of this has been done.
Preliminary U.S. studies show surprisingly small agricultural
impacts of widely-discussed climate change scenarios -- plus
or minus a few billion dollars as of the middle of the next
century. We are aware of very little systematic work on the
impacts of sea level change, human health effects (if any),
or the effects of possible climate change on forestry,
fisheries, water resources, or biodiversity. Technological
progress will likely have a strong effect on the costs of any
necessary adaptation, but forecasting the rate and direction
of technical change over a half-century or more is extremely
difficult.
Finally, economic analysis is essential to the
evaluation of the economic costs and human consequences of
taking actions to curb net emissions of the main greenhouse
gases. Detailed studies support the conclusion that CFCs can
be phased out at relatively low cost. At the other end of
the analytical spectrum, almost nothing appears to be known
about the costs of reducing methane or nitrous oxide
emissions from agriculture -- or even about how such
reductions might efficiently be obtained. Preliminary
studies of the costs of large-scale forestation and its
impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide have produced a wide
range of estimates.
Perhaps the most-studied aspect of the economics of
global change -- at least in the U.S. -- is the economic cost
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The oil shocks of the
4
1970s have shown us that these emissions can be stabilized,
as they were in the U.S. and the OECD as a whole between 1973
and 1985, or even reduced. But this history also makes plain
the cost: slower economic growth and rising unemployment.
Maintaining a constant or declining emissions profile on a
more permanent basis may well require correspondingly greater
economic dislocation. Available studies suggest that it
would cost at least 1 percent of annual U.S. GNP, or perhaps
several times that amount, to meet widely-discussed CO2
reduction targets and that economic growth could slow
significantly. Much more work needs to be done to develop
and refine national and global economic models that can
assess these costs and to analyze more carefully the possible
contributions of new energy technologies. However, the cost
estimates obtained so far make clear the importance of doing
that work, for other nations as well as ours, so that
potentially important economic and human consequences can be
adequately considered in decision-making.
It is worth a few minutes, I think, to discuss the
importance of costs and economic growth. Those who are most
fearful of possible future global warming are often impatient
with discussions of mitigation costs. They sometimes contend
that no price is too high to pay for actions that might
prevent even the slightest warming. With respect, my view of
the concept of global stewardship is much broader -- and does
not allow me to agree.
When the costs of a policy are small relative to the
size of the overall economy, as a CFC phaseout by the
industrialized nations would likely be, it may be adequate to
think about those costs in purely monetary terms. But when
costs are large enough to be measured in percentages of GNP
or in significantly slower economic growth, that simply will
not do. Let us remember that half the world's people today
still have a life expectancy of less than 60 years. In much
of the world, the reality of infant mortality is grim: ten of
every 100 babies born die before they reach their first
birthday. In the poorest nations of Africa and parts of
Southeast Asia, a healthy life cannot be taken for granted --
not when there is only one physician for nearly 18,000
people.
Current emissions projections suggest that India, China,
and other developing countries will become increasingly
dominant sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions over the coming decades. For developing countries,
slower economic growth does not mean making do with last
year's model car -- rather, it is a goal worth life itself to
5
many. Those of us who have made it to the top of the
economic mountain must be careful not to create obstacles
that would prevent others from making the same climb. Global
stewardship requires us to consider the health and nutrition
of the earth's children, not just the temperature of their
environment. We must find policies that will bequeath to
them both a healthy environment and a sound world economy
capable of sustained growth. And we must recognize that
these goals are not inevitably in conflict: rising incomes
both increase concern for the environment and provide
resources that can be used to protect it.
It is also important to recognize that the world economy
has grown increasingly integrated. Economic progress in the
developing countries depends to a significant extent on the
performance of the industrialized economies. The IMF has
estimated that a 1 percentage point reduction in the growth
rate of the industrialized nations results in a 1/2
percentage point reduction in the growth rate in the
developing world. Therefore, emissions curbs that slow
growth in industrialized nations can damage developing
economies even if the developing world is not immediately
asked to curb its own greenhouse emissions. International
economic linkages and the reality of a changing distribution
of emissions must both be carefully considered to insure that
we do not inadvertently drift in directions that have little
impact on the composition of the world's atmosphere but cause
real, human suffering in the developing world.
Please understand -- I am not arguing that we should be
unconcerned about possible global warming, or that no actions
to limit greenhouse emissions make sense. My point is simply
that the stakes are high in terms of the well-being of real
human beings, as well as in terms of the global environment.
We face complex decisions with potentially huge consequences.
It would be irresponsible to pretend that the huge
uncertainties we face do not exist. It would be equally
irresponsible not to invest in research that can reduce those
uncertainties.
To this point, I have emphasized a division of labor
between science and economics. There is also a clear need
for cross-fertilization between the disciplines in the
setting of research priorities for each of them. Thus, for
instance, in order for economists to set research priorities
for improving emissions forecasting, they must learn from
scientists what components of those forecasts have the
greatest impact on climate model predictions. Conversely,
6
economists can suggest which components of climate change
predictions have the greatest potential human importance.
Technology is another key intersection between science
and economics research. New technologies hold the prospect
of lowering the costs of both human adaptation to global
change and of emissions reductions. Technologies with strong
economic potential, such as recent advances in gas turbine
technology that significantly increase the efficiency of the
conversion from fossil energy to electrical energy are
particularly valuable. The world wants real answers, not
symbolic commitments. Technology research in science and
economics holds the potential to provide such answers.
Science alone can serve to identify technical
possibilities, but economics plays a key role in assessing
the prospects of individual technologies in the marketplace
and their speed of adoption. Both science and economics
have a role to play in assigning research priorities among
potential technologies that may lower the costs of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and of coping with possible warming
-- as well as in forecasting the likely cost and availability
of promising future technologies.
Almost 200 years ago, Thomas Malthus argued that the
industrialized nations would be unable to feed a
geometrically growing population with a fixed supply of land.
Only twenty years ago, the neo-Malthusian notion that
worldwide shortages of fuels and materials posed imminent and
insurmountable limits to growth was widely discussed. Time
has proven both these forecasts to be hollow. New
technologies and progress have circumvented what had appeared
to be impenetrable barriers to human progress. I am
optimistic and confident that human progress will not be
halted by global change, or by the sensible policy actions
that we take to address it. Instead, I believe we can and
will meet this new challenge and that we will give our
children a better world than our parents gave us.
But this will not happen automatically. We have much
work to do to understand better the choices we face and to
develop new technologies to improve those choices. We can do
this work most effectively and expeditiously if we work
together. There are many challenges awaiting us. There is a
wide variance of opinion surrounding the costs and future
availability of particular nuclear, solar, and biomass
alternatives to fossil fuels. The extent of possibilities
for cost-effective conservation are also controversial.
Possible adaptation technologies have barely been explored,
7
even though many believe that some degree of global change is
inevitable. We can all lament the crudity of current world-
scale long run economic forecasts, and the limited depth of
our understanding of linkages between the developed and
developing economies. And I have not even mentioned the
science uncertainties outlined by Dr. Bromley.
Doesn't it make sense to get the research community
together to discuss these matters? of course, consensus
will not be immediate. We can start by identifying the key
reasons that researchers differs, and then concentrate
resources on these areas. In this regard, the establishment
of one or more international institutes devoted to a program
of science and economics research on global change might
serve to enhance our efforts significantly.
I look forward to attending future meetings of
scientists, economists, and environmentalists, not only to
marvel at how much we have all learned, but also to hear
scientists, economists, and environmentalists say that our
generation met the challenge of global change wisely and that
economic growth continued in all the nations of the world.
"BREAKING DOWN THE BARRIERS:
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS FOR A BETTER FUTURE"
REMARKS OF MICHAEL R. DELAND, CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OPENING THE
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
APRIL 17, 1990
GOOD MORNING AND AGAIN WELCOME TO THE WHITE HOUSE
CONFERENCE.
WE ARE MEETING HERE TODAY ON VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. THE
POPULAR PRESS OFTEN CHARACTERIZES THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL
CHANGE IN THE MOST DIRE TERMS: RISING SEA LEVELS, ADVANCING
DESERTS, EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL SOLAR RAYS, FOOD AND ENERGY
SHORTAGES, THE LOSS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. MAN'S IMPACT ON THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN LIKENED TO AN ENORMOUS "EXPERIMENT,"
OF UNCERTAIN OUTCOME. MY TWO COCHAIRMEN HAVE AMPLIFIED ON THE
SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES AND THE ECONOMIC DOUBTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT EXPERIMENT. WITH A LITANY LIKE THAT, ONE IS REMINDED OF THE
OBSERVATION OF THE AMERICAN FILM DIRECTOR, WOODY ALLEN, WHO
SAID. "MORE THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY, MANKIND TODAY FACES A
CROSSROADS. ONE PATH LEADS TO DESPAIR AND UTTER HOPELESSNESS,
THE OTHER TO TOTAL EXTINCTION. LET US PRAY THAT WE HAVE THE
WISDOM TO CHOOSE CORRECTLY... " BUT SERIOUSLY, THE PUBLIC IS
WORRIED AND THE PUBLIC'S WORRIES MUST BE OUR OWN.
FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, AS THE PRESIDENT'S WHITE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR, THE CHALLENGES CONFRONTING US ARE INDEED
DAUNTING; BUT OUR RESULTING CONCERN IS TEMPERED BY A FULL MEASURE
OF GOOD NEWS.
THE FACTS ARE PLAIN: WHILE TODAY'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
ARE UNSURPASSED, NEVER BEFORE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAVE WE BEEN SO
CAPABLE OF ANTICIPATING AND RESPONDING TO THOSE CHALLENGES.
2
AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, THIS SUNDAY, APRIL 22, IS THE
TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF "EARTH DAY," A DAY OF NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL REFLECTION ON GOD'S GIFT OF NATURE, AND OUR PLACE
IN IT. MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE EARTH DAY 1970, AND IN THESE
CHANGES I SEE GREAT HOPE FOR THE FUTURE:
O
WE HAVE SEEN THE GROWTH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ETHIC, A SENSITIVITY REACHING FROM THE HEARTS
OF INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE TO THE VERY HIGHEST
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
O
WE HAVE PROVEN THAT THE LINKAGE BETWEEN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION CAN BE BROKEN. IT IS POSSIBLE TO
GROW ECONOMICALLY AND REDUCE POLLUTION AT THE
SAME TIME.
O
FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANT, WE HAVE BEGUN TO REDEEM
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BY REJECTING THE NARROW VIEWS OF
NATION-STATES, IN FAVOR OF MORE UNIVERSAL VALUES. WE
ARE SEEING THE BEGINNINGS OF A GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP
FOR GLOBAL QUALITY OF LIFE.
TWENTY YEARS AGO, WE WERE DIVIDED AND LIMITED IN so MANY
WAYS. YET, AS OUR VIEW OF THE WORLD HAS GROWN AND MATURED, so
3
HAS OUR ABILITY TO BRUSH AWAY OBSTACLES THAT DIVIDE US FROM EACH
OTHER.
AS OUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER HAS GROWN, SO TOO HAS
OUR ABILITY TO ACT. FROM COMPUTERS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO
SATELLITES CAPABLE OF MEASURING THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ENTIRE
GLOBE, WE HAVE VASTLY IMPROVED OUR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE,
INTEGRATE AND UNDERSTAND. TECHNOLOGY ALONE CANNOT SOLVE OUR
PROBLEMS BUT, MARRIED WITH IMAGINATION AND WILL, TECHNOLOGY WILL
BE A MAJOR PORT OF OUR SOLUTIONS.
LET ME BE CANDID. THIS CONFERENCE WILL NOT LEAD TO
UNANIMITY. WE HAVE DISAGREED ON THE QUESTION OF GLOBAL CHANGE,
AND WE WILL DISAGREE AGAIN. BUT ON ONE POINT WE DO AGREE: THE
NEED TO WORK TOGETHER -- OPENLY, DILIGENTLY, RESPECTFULLY -- IN
OUR COMMON CAUSE. WE MUST INCREASE OUR UNDERSTANDING -- BOTH OF
EACH OTHER AND OF OUR SHARED PROBLEMS. AND WE MUST ACT.
THERE ARE MANY COMMON-SENSE ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE -- IN FACT
WE ARE TAKING ACTIONS -- WHICH WILL PERFORM "DOUBLE DUTY" --
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE NEAR TERM, WHILE REDUCING
THE EMISSIONS THAT MIGHT CAUSE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE
FUTURE. THE KINDS OF STEPS I HAVE IN MIND INCLUDE POLLUTION
PREVENTION, PLANTING TREES, CLEANING UP OUR AIR, AND OFFERING
ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING NATIONS.
4
FORGING AHEAD REQUIRES PARTNERSHIPS. FOR US, BUILDING
PARTNERSHIPS SHOULD BE THE EASY PART. IT IS OUR BUSINESS. WE
ALL KNOW FULL WELL THAT WE MUST BUILD COALITIONS TO ACHIEVE OUR
GOALS.
CLEARLY, NO NATION, INSTITUTION OR WAY OF THINKING CAN
ADDRESS SINGLE-HANDEDLY GLOBAL CHANGE. TO UNDERSTAND AND REACT
TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE WE MUST REACH ACROSS INTELLECTUAL
DISCIPLINES, AND ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS.
JUST AS WE ARE BREAKING DOWN THE PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL BARRIERS BETWEEN OUR NATIONS, MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF
GLOBAL CHANGE WILL REQUIRE BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS BETWEEN ENERGY,
ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES. AS THE PRESIDENT HAS
STATED, "GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP IS NOT A FIXED STATE BUT A PROCESS OF
CHANGE." ACCELERATING THAT PROCESS OF CHANGE IS THE PURPOSE OF
THIS CONFERENCE.
WE ALREADY HAVE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING AND
USING EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS. FOR EXAMPLE, DR. BROMLEY DESCRIBED
THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, OUR COUNTRY'S EFFORT TO
INCREASE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION IN GLOBAL
CHANGE RESEARCH.
ANOTHER EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIP IS THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
ON CLIMATE CHANGE. DR. BERT BOLIN HAS HELPED TO MAKE THE IPCC
5
THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR ASSESSING THE NATURE, EXTENT AND
POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. THE IPCC INVOLVES
SCIENTISTS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD,
SUPPORTED BY THE FINANCIAL AND DATA MANAGEMENT RESOURCES OF THE
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL
ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION.
OUR WORK AT THIS CONFERENCE WILL ACCELERATE THE IPCC PROCESS, BY
FOCUSING THE RESEARCH AGENDA AND BUILDING MECHANISMS FOR WORKING
TOGETHER MORE EFFECTIVELY.
THIS CONFERENCE ALSO WILL EMPHASIZE A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE FOR
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIPS INVOLVING GOVERNMENTS AND PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE.
FOR EXAMPLE, BY HARMONIZING INTERNATIONAL TRADE RULES, THE
96-NATION GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE AND TARIFFS (GATT) HAS
CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO A RISE IN THE GLOBAL STANDARD OF
LIVING. THE WORLD BANK IS A MAJOR FORCE IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. ECONOMIC CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION HAS REACHED
NEW HEIGHTS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND AMONG THE "G-7"
NATIONS. WE MUST FIND NEW WAYS OF USING SUCH ECONOMIC
PARTNERSHIPS TO PROTECT THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND, CONSIDER THE EXTENT AND GROWTH OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL,
PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
GROWN IN NUMBER AND IN SIZE AND ARE NOW REACHING AROUND THE GLOBE
6
TO SHARE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN CREATIVE WAYS. THE
VERY EXISTENCE OF DEBT FOR NATURE SWAPS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT
CREATIVITY.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN BUSINESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE
CHANGING AS WELL. IN OUR COUNTRY AND ABROAD, BUSINESSES ARE
RETOOLING TO CAPITALIZE ON ENVIRONMENTALLY-INDUCED ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES. JAPAN'S MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND
INDUSTRY HAS ESTABLISHED A PROGRAM FUNDED AT $60 MILLION IN 1990
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTALLY-SUSTAINABLE
TECHNOLOGIES. AMERICAN, JAPANESE AND EUROPEAN CORPORATIONS ARE
SCRAMBLING TO ASSIST EASTERN EUROPEANS WITH THEIR MONUMENTAL
CLEAN-UP CHALLENGE. PARTNERSHIPS AMONG GOVERNMENTS, SCIENTISTS
AND INDUSTRY MADE IT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE AGREEMENT ON THE PHASE-
OUT OF CFC PRODUCTION. ALL THIS MAY BE DRIVEN BY THE PROFIT
MOTIVE, BUT CAPITALISTS BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE PROFIT CAN BE A TOOL
FOR PUBLIC GOOD.
PARTNERSHIPS IN THE SHARING OF TECHNOLOGY ARE ESPECIALLY
CRUCIAL. NATIONS WITH TECHNOLOGICAL AND ACADEMIC RESOURCES MUST
FIND WAYS TO SHARE THOSE RESOURCES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED
STATES IS WORKING WITH MEXICO TO FIND ALTERNATIVES -- COST
EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES -- TO CFCS AND HALONS THAT MEET THE NEEDS
OF MEXICAN INDUSTRY AND CONSUMERS. IN POLAND, WE ARE WORKING TO
ENSURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY TO BURN COAL MORE CLEANLY IS MADE
AVAILABLE. AND IN HUNGARY, WE HAVE BEGUN WORK ON A REGIONAL
7
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER THAT WILL SHARE KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY
WITH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS.
IN ANY ENDEAVOR, IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO CONFUSE MOTION WITH
PROGRESS. MAKE NO MISTAKE: THE CREATION OF NEW PARTNERSHIPS IS
NOT JUST AIMLESS MOTION. RATHER, IT REFLECTS A MORE MATURE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF OUR PROBLEMS AND HOW THEY MUST BE
SOLVED.
IN THE EARLY DAYS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, WE DISCOVERED
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN SPECIFIC PLACES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE SAW SMOKE
COMING OUT OF A STACK, AND WE CONTROLLED THAT STACK. THEN WE
DISCOVERED THAT POINT-SOURCE SOLUTIONS MAY DISPERSE POLLUTION
FROM A SPECIFIC LOCALE TO THE BROADER REGION, OR EVEN MANY
HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY. AND POINT-SOURCE SOLUTIONS MAY CREATE
UNWANTED BYPRODUCTS AND SHIFT THE PROBLEM FROM AIR TO LAND.
RECOGNIZING THIS, WE SAW THE NEED TO ADDRESS POLLUTION
AFFECTING ALL MEDIA -- AIR, WATER AND LAND. WE RECOGNIZED THE
VALUE OF PREVENTING POLLUTION, RATHER THAN RESPONDING TO IT. WE
DISCOVERED THE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE INTERACTION OF MANMADE
CHEMICALS WITH LARGE-SCALE CLIMATIC PROCESSES. WE BEGAN TO THINK
ABOUT HOW MACRO-ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AFFECTS THESE LARGE SYSTEMS.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE BEGAN TO DEVELOP DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO
DEAL WITH TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS. IN SHORT, OUR POLICIES EVOLVED
AS OUR PERSPECTIVES BROADENED.
8
OUR WORK OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS MUST INCORPORATE AN EVEN
BROADER PERSPECTIVE. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND
THE COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, AND MAY SHOW US THAT ADAPTING
TO CHANGE COULD COST MORE THAN PREVENTING THAT CHANGE.
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES CAN HELP US SEE WHETHER AND HOW FAST OUR
TECHNOLOGY MAY EVOLVE -- OR WHERE WE MUST FOCUS OUR EFFORTS TO
ENSURE THAT IT DOES EVOLVE. DEALING WITH GLOBAL CHANGE MAY
REQUIRE BROADER VISION AND GREATER INTEGRATION THAN ANY OTHER
PROBLEM IN HUMAN HISTORY.
BUT WE HAVE A MODEL FOR THAT KIND OF VISION AND INTEGRATION
AND WE SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF IT. THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL,
SIGNED IN SEPTEMBER 1987, IS THE FIRST MULTI-LATERAL AGREEMENT TO
CONTROL GLOBAL POLLUTION IN ANTICIPATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEM. IT WAS THE OUTCOME OF CAREFUL, COMPLEX DISCUSSIONS, IN
WHICH WE FIRST ACHIEVED AGREEMENT ON THE SCIENTIFIC AGENDA, AND
THEN FORMED CROSS-CUTTING PARTNERSHIPS TO PERFORM AND REVIEW THE
SCIENCE. THE SCALE OF UNCERTAINTY WAS GRADUALLY REDUCED.
PARTNERSHIPS SPRANG UP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT BODIES, PRIVATE
COMPANIES, SCIENTISTS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS. A FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION WAS NEGOTIATED AT VIENNA TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURE FOR
POLICY ACTIONS, AND WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC REALITIES
EMERGED, A PROTOCOL WAS NEGOTIATED WITH SPECIFIC TARGETS AND
PROVISION FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS.
9
THAT PROCESS WORKED VERY WELL. WE WOULD BE FOOLISH TO
DISREGARD IT.
IN THE LONG RUN, ALL OF US MUST UNDERSTAND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF A CHANGING WORLD, AND
WE MUST UNDERSTAND HOW BEST TO RESPOND. IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS, WE
CAN FORGE THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WILL ENHANCE THAT UNDERSTANDING.
WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR AGREEMENT ON OVERALL GOALS, FOR TO BE
EFFECTIVE, OUR EFFORTS MUST HAVE A COMMON DIRECTION. WE NEED TO
REINFORCE OUR COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS BECAUSE SHARED
PERSPECTIVES AND KNOWLEDGE OFFER HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. WE NEED TO
LOOK BEYOND THE BORDERS OF OUR DISCIPLINES, FOR IF ECONOMISTS DO
NOT UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS OF SCIENTISTS, AND SCIENTISTS DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVES OF ECONOMISTS, AND IF POLICYMAKERS DO
NOT LISTEN CAREFULLY TO BOTH, OUR SOLUTIONS CANNOT BE COMPLETE.
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS PROGRESS THAT COUNTS. THE
PROGRESS OF RESEARCH, THE PROGRESS OF DIPLOMACY, AND THE PROGRESS
OF ACTION. PROGRESS THAT CAN ONLY EMERGE FROM THE PARTNERSHIPS
THAT WE CAN BUILD OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS. THAT IS OUR COMMON
CHALLENGE.
THANK YOU.
PROTECTION TRINK Aut ! NCY UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
THE ADMINISTRATOR
GLOBAL CHANGE: A COMMITMENT TO ACTION
Remarks by
WILLIAM K. REILLY
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
J.W. Mariott Hotel
Washington, DC
April 17, 1990
O
YOU HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING ABOUT RESEARCH NEEDS --
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE
I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT ACTION: ACTION IN THE FACE OF
INCONCLUSIVE INFORMATION; POLICY-MAKING IN THE FACE OF
UNCERTAINTY
NEITHER WE IN THE UNITED STATES NOR THOSE OF YOU FROM
OTHER COUNTRIES WILL BE ABLE TO WAIT FOR TOTAL
ENLIGHTENMENT TO INFORM OUR POLICY DECISIONS
SO LET ME DESCRIBE SOME OF THE IMPORTANT ACTIONS WE CAN
TAKE -- WE ARE TAKING -- RIGHT NOW, EVEN AS WE
AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS TO CLIMATE
QUESTIONS
O
FIRST, IT'S CLEAR THAT WE MUST WORK TOGETHER; NO ONE OF
OUR COUNTRIES IS ALONE, AND NONE CAN EFFECTIVELY
ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE PROBLEMS APART FROM THE OTHERS
ACCORDINGLY, WE ATTACH GREAT VALUE TO OUR
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
THE VEHICLE FOR THAT COLLABORATION IS THE IPCC -- THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THE IPCC IS ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, IT IS PULLING
TOGETHER A GREAT DEAL OF RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND WE
IN THE UNITED STATES ARE PLAYING A KEY ROLE AS CHAIR OF
THE RESPONSE STRATEGIES WORKING GROUP
AMONG THE U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IPCC PROCESS HAVE
BEEN TWO IMPORTANT REPORTS TO CONGRESS BY THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MY OWN AGENCY: ONE
ON EFFECTS, AND ANOTHER, STILL IN DRAFT, ON THE POLICY
OPTIONS FOR STABILIZING CLIMATE CHANGE
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS KIND OF TECHNICAL WORK AND
ANALYSIS TO HELP LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE NEXT
PHASE OF THE IPCC PROCESS -- TREATY NEGOTIATIONS ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
- 2 -
--
AND WE ENCOURAGE OTHER COUNTRIES, AS WELL, TO CONTINUE
TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND
INFORMATION
--
THE UNITES STATES HAS ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE FULL
RANGE OF DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THIS ISSUE,
INCLUDING THE CONFERENCES IN CANADA, THE NETHERLANDS
AND EGYPT
O
SECOND, WE MUST DEVOTE SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES TO
STRENGTHENING THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND TO
BROADENING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
--
SOUND SCIENCE IS CRITICAL TO CONSENSUS-BUILDING; WITHOUT
IT, WE WILL HAVE ONLY CONTROVERSY AND CONFUSION
--
PRESIDENT BUSH HAS PROPOSED A 57 PERCENT INCREASE IN
FUNDING FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH FOR THE NEXT
FISCAL YEAR
--
THIS INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIAL BOOST IN THE FUNDING FOR
ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING BY THE SATELLITES OF NASA
--
U.S. SCIENCE IS MAKING A CRITICAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE
DEBATE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
--
NOAA, NASA, NCAR, NAS, EPA, TO NAME A FEW, ARE FULLY
ENGAGED IN ADVANCING OUR KNOWLEDGE AND IN CLOSING THE
CIRCLE OF UNCERTAINTY
--
A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CAN BRING DOWN THE COST OF EXISTING OPTIONS, AND
DEVELOP NEW OPTIONS AS WELL
--
AND DOING OUR HOMEWORK ON THE RANGE OF RESPONSE
STRATEGIES AVAILABLE - AND THE COST OF THESE OPTIONS - IS
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL AT THIS JUNCTURE OF OUR
DELIBERATIONS
--
ECONOMICS HAVE NOT RECEIVED MUCH ATTENTION AT
PREVIOUS MEETINGS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
- 3 -
--
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT THE
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS WHICH WE HOPE WILL
BEGIN AT THE END OF THE YEAR ARE PURPOSEFUL AND TO THE
POINT
--
IT IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT THE MANY CONSEQUENCES
ASSOCIATED WITH GLOBAL CHANGE ARE FULLY UNDERSTOOD
AND ACCOUNTED FOR
IT IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT THE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
WHICH MAY ULTIMATELY BE DEEMED NECESSARY -- ESPECIALLY
IF THEY ENTAIL SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DISRUPTIONS - WILL BE
POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE
--
IN SHORT, LAYING PROPER GROUNDWORK, DOING OUR
HOMEWORK, BUILDING CONSENSUS, REDUCING CONFUSION AND
CONTROVERSY TODAY, WILL SAVE TIME IN THE LONG RUN
O
THIRD, WE HAVE LEARNED MANY VALUABLE LESSONS ABOUT
HOW TO PUT TOGETHER AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO A
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THROUGH OUR EFFORTS TO
PROTECT THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE LAYER, AND WE SHOULD
PAY ATTENTION TO THESE LESSONS
--
THE UNITED STATES FIRST ACTED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS OF
OZONE-DEPLETING CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS IN 1978
--
NINE YEARS LATER, THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ESTABLISHED AN
INTERNATIONAL REGIME REQUIRING A 50 PERCENT REDUCTION
IN CFC PRODUCTION AND USE BY 1998
--
MEANWHILE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTITUTES IS
PROCEEDING MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED
--
ALL OF THIS HAS COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF UNPRECEDENTED
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, AND BUSINESS-GOVERNMENT
COOPERATION, TO ADDRESS WHAT SCIENCE TELLS US IS A CLEAR
AND PRESENT THREAT TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR PLANET
--
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSECTORAL
COOPERATION IS ONLY ONE OF THE LESSONS WE ARE LEARNING
FROM THE OZONE DEPLETION MODEL. HERE ARE SOME OTHERS:
- 4
--
PERIODIC ASSESSMENT AND REVISION IS IMPORTANT WHEN
DEALING WITH ISSUES ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF SCIENCE
--
SINCE THE PROTOCOL WAS SIGNED, THE LINK BETWEEN
CFCS AND THE OZONE HOLE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED; AND
NEW EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT OZONE DEPLETION IS
MORE SEVERE AND OCCURRING AT A FASTER RATE THAN
WAS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT
--
AS A RESULT, WHEN THE PROTOCOL IS RENEGOTIATED THIS
JUNE, WE HOPE AND EXPECT IT WILL BE STRENGTHENED
TO REQUIRE A FULL PHASE-OUT OF CFCS BY THE END OF
THE CENTURY
--
NOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE
INVOLVES EMISSIONS THAT ARE MORE FUNDAMENTAL TO
THE BASIC OPERATION OF THE ECONOMY THAN CFC'S
--
LESSON TWO: IT'S WISE TO TAKE WHAT SCIENCE GIVES YOU:
A RESPONSE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY EXISTING KNOWLEDGE.
AND THUS ABLE TO GENERATE CONSENSUS, IS PREFERABLE
TO ONE THAT GOES BEYOND ACCEPTED SCIENCE AND
GAINS ONLY LIMITED PARTICIPATION
--
BY ADOPTING AN APPROACH BASED ON PERIODIC
ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL HAS
GATHERED WIDE INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION AND
SUPPORT - NOT ONLY FOR THE ORIGINAL PROTOCOL BUT
ALSO FOR CURRENT EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE TERMS
OF THE AGREEMENT
--
LESSON THREE: THE CONCERNS OF THE DEVELOPING
NATIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED: INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS CANNOT BE SOLVED WITHOUT
THEIR PARTICIPATION
--
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TODAY ACCOUNT FOR LESS THAN
15 PERCENT OF TOTAL CFC CONSUMPTION
--
YET THEIR CONTINUED USE OF THESE CHEMICALS WOULD
OFFSET EVEN A COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF OZONE-
DEPLETING CHEMICALS IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD
- 5 -
--
ALTHOUGH 23 DEVELOPING NATIONS HAVE SIGNED THE
MONTREAL PROTOCOL, MANY OTHERS HAVE NOT,
INCLUDING CHINA AND INDIA
--
WAYS MUST BE FOUND TO ENSURE THAT THE ECONOMIC
ASPIRATIONS OF THE WORLD'S POOREST PEOPLE ARE
REALIZED, EVEN WHILE NATURE IS KEPT HEALTHFUL AND
PRODUCTIVE
--
THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS
BY GIVING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES A TEN-YEAR GRACE
PERIOD BEFORE THEY MUST BEGIN REDUCING CFC USE;
AND BY COMMITTING THE DEVELOPED WORLD TO
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING NATIONS THAT
JOIN THE PROTOCOL
--
I SHOULD NOTE THAT ALONG WITH PROVIDING USEFUL LESSONS
FOR ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHANGE, THE ELIMINATION OF CFCS
WILL, OF COURSE, ALSO HELP TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, FOR
CFC'S ARE A SIGNIFICANT GREENHOUSE GAS
O
THE FOURTH ACTION I WANT TO MENTION IS PRESIDENT BUSH'S
PROPOSAL FOR A MAJOR REFORESTATION INITIATIVE CALLED
"AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL," WHICH ANTICIPATES THE PLANTING
OF ONE BILLION TREES A YEAR OVER THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS
--
THAT'S FOUR TREES PER PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY EACH YEAR
--
WE ESTIMATE THAT THE TREES PLANTED UNDER THIS PROGRAM
WILL ABSORB TWO TO FOUR PERCENT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE
NOW BEING EMITTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE BY THE UNITED
STATES
O
FIFTH, THE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED - AND OUR CONGRESS IS
ON THE VERGE OF ADOPTING -- A SIGNIFICANT STRENGTHENING
OF OUR CLEAN AIR ACT
--
THESE AMENDMENTS WILL REDUCE THIS NATION'S SULFUR
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM UTILITIES BY ABOUT HALF AND
STABILIZE THEM AT THAT LEVEL; ALL FUTURE GROWTH OF
ENERGY WILL HAVE TO OCCUR WITHIN THE CEILING OF THIS
REDUCED SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION LIMIT
- 6 -
--
THE NEW CLEAN AIR ACT WILL REDUCE NITROGEN OXIDE
EMISSIONS BY AT LEAST TWO MILLION TONS A YEAR AND
REDUCE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES BY 40
PERCENT
--
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS FROM INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
WILL DROP BY MORE THAN 30 PERCENT; AND TOXIC AIR
EMISSIONS WILL BE REDUCED BY 75 TO 90 PERCENT
--
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS ALSO ENCOURAGE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LESS-POLLUTING FUELS, SUCH AS COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS IN AUTOMOBILE FLEETS AND ETHANOL AND
METHANOL FUELS IN PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES
--
MANY OF THESE PROVISIONS WILL BRING ABOUT REDUCTIONS IN
CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GASES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
--
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROPOSED CAP ON TOTAL SULFUR DIOXIDE
EMISSIONS ENCOURAGES UTILITIES TO UNDERTAKE MORE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY; IT ALSO CREATES INCENTIVES FOR
INDUSTRY TO BE MORE EFFICIENT
--
THE PROPOSED CHANGES REDUCE CARBON MONOXIDE
EMISSIONS, WHICH DECREASES THE LIFETIME OF METHANE;
--
AND REDUCTIONS IN NITROGEN OXIDE AND VOLATILE ORGANICS
GENERALLY REDUCE TROPOSPHERIC OZONE, ANOTHER CLIMATE-
ALTERING GAS
O
SIXTH ON OUR ACTION AGENDA, WE ARE PURSUING A VARIETY
OF ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVES, ALL OF WHICH ARE
IMPORTANT IN COMBATTING CLIMATE CHANGE:
--
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS IMPLEMENTING EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS FOR MAJOR HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES, SUCH AS
DISHWASHERS, CLOTHES WASHERS AND CLOTHES DRYERS
--
OUR STATES ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO GIVE UTILITIES
INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, BY ALLOWING
THEM TO PROFIT FROM CONSERVING ENERGY AS WELL AS
SELLING ENERGY
- 7 -
--
THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE ESTIMATES THAT
THESE PROGRAMS COULD CUT OUR NATION'S ELECTRICITY
NEEDS BY 20 PERCENT IN THE YEAR 2010
--
SOME STATES, SUCH AS CALIFORNIA, ARE ALSO CHANGING THEIR
BUILDING CODES TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN NEW
CONSTRUCTION; THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
ESTIMATES THAT ITS BUILDING STANDARDS WILL REDUCE
ELECTRICITY USE BY SIX PERCENT IN THE YEAR 2007
--
WE'RE ALSO VIGOROUSLY PURSUING AUTOMOBILE FUEL
EFFICIENCY: THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT OF
1976 HAS INCREASED FUEL EFFICIENCY FOR OUR NEW CARS BY
ABOUT 80 PERCENT IN THE LAST 13 YEARS
FINALLY, WE ARE CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VARIOUS FORMS
OF NONFOSSIL ENERGY, INCLUDING RENEWABLES AND NUCLEAR;
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REQUESTED A 27 PERCENT INCREASE
IN THE 1991 BUDGET FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
--
WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO ON ENERGY CONSERVATION:
AND WE WILL GO A LONG WAY
--
I WANT TO MAKE SPECIAL MENTION OF JAPAN'S NEW CONCEPT
FOR A PLAN OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON NEW
TECHNOLOGIES; THIS PLAN LOOKS 100 YEARS AHEAD AND MAKES
AMBITIOUS AND IMAGINATIVE COMMITMENTS
--
THAT IS THE KIND OF INITIATIVE THIS CONFERENCE IS INTENDED
TO ADDRESS AND CONSIDER
O
OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, WE HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL
FROM OUR EXPERIENCE SINCE THE FIRST EARTH DAY IN 1970
USHERED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVOLUTION
MANY OF THESE LESSONS CAN BE APPLIED NOW TO ISSUES OF
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
--
FOR ONE THING, WE HAVE LEARNED THAT GREAT
IMPROVEMENTS ARE POSSIBLE WITH COMMITMENT AND
SUSTAINED INVESTMENT
- 8 -
--
THE GAINS WE HAVE MADE IN REDUCING AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY ARE MEASURABLE, THEY ARE
SIGNIFICANT, AND THEY ARE INDISPUTABLE
--
IN EVERY MAJOR CATEGORY OF AIR POLLUTION EXCEPT
NITROGEN OXIDES, EMISSIONS ON A NATIONAL BASIS HAVE
EITHER LEVELED OFF OR DECLINED SINCE 1970
--
EMISSIONS OF PARTICULATES ARE DOWN 64 PERCENT; SULFUR
OXIDES, DOWN 25 PERCENT; VOLATILE ORGANICS, DOWN 29
PERCENT; CARBON MONOXIDE, DOWN 38 PERCENT; AND LEAD, A
MAJOR SUCCESS STORY THANKS TO OUR SWITCH TO UNLEADED
GASOLINE, DOWN 96 PERCENT
--
WE BEGAN TO CONTROL AUTOMOBILE TAILPIPE EMISSIONS IN
1970. BACK THEN, I DON'T RECALL ANYONE WHO ADVOCATED
ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE 96 PERCENT REDUCTION WE HAVE
SINCE ACHIEVED
--
AND THE PENDING CLEAN AIR ACT WILL BRING THE REDUCTIONS
TO 98 PERCENT HYDROCARBON REMOVAL
--
OVERALL WATER POLLUTION TRENDS ARE MORE MIXED
BECAUSE OF POPULATION AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH; BUT WE
HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL SUCCESS IN REDUCING POLLUTANTS IN
MANY SPECIFIC AREAS
--
IN THE GREAT LAKES, FOR EXAMPLE, FECAL COLIFORM IS DOWN,
NUTRIENTS ARE DOWN, ALGAE ARE DOWN, BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND IS DOWN
--
TWENTY YEARS AGO IT LOOKED DOUBTFUL THERE WOULD BE
ANY FISH AT ALL IN LAKE ERIE; NOW THERE ARE PLENTY. OUR
OWN POTOMAC RIVER WAS ONCE SO POLLUTED THAT PEOPLE
WHO CAME INTO CONTACT WITH IT WERE ADVISED TO GET AN
INOCULATION FOR TETANUS
--
NOW ON A WARM DAY, IT BELONGS TO THE WINDSURFERS
--
IF WE WORK TOGETHER, I AM CONFIDENT THAT OUR REMAINING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, WHETHER LOCAL, NATIONAL, OR
GLOBAL, CAN ALSO BE BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL
- 9 -
TWENTY YEARS AGO ENVIRONMENTALISTS BELIEVED THAT THE
ECONOMICS WOULD ALWAYS BE AGAINST US; ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORS BELIEVED THAT, TOO
--
SINCE THEN, WE HAVE LEARNED THAT WE NEED TO ARRANGE A
MARRIAGE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS
--
WE NEED TO INTEGRATE ECONOMIC POLICY WITH ENERGY
POLICY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
AND WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
--
THE SAME FLEXIBLE, MARKET-BASED SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
PROVED EFFECTIVE IN PRODUCING GOODS AND SERVICES CAN
ALSO HELP PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
:
THE ACID RAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S CLEAN AIR ACT
PROPOSALS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF THE USE OF MARKET
INCENTIVES TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS AT THE
LOWEST COST
--
THE PRESCRIPTIVE, COMMAND-AND-CONTROL APPROACH OF THE
ORIGINAL CLEAN AIR ACT WAS SUCCESSFUL UP TO A POINT -- AS
INDICATED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR QUALITY I JUST
MENTIONED
--
BUT THIS APPROACH IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO APPLY TO
DIFFUSE, DIVERSE SOURCES OF POLLUTION - SUCH AS MANY OF
THOSE THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
--
TO GET AT THESE SOURCES, WE SEE THE NEED TO INCORPORATE
MARKET INCENTIVES INTO THE NEW CLEAN AIR LAW -- TO SEND
A SIGNAL TO THE MARKETPLACE THAT "THE ENVIRONMENT IS AN
ISSUE THAT WON'T GO AWAY; YOU'D BE WISE TO ADDRESS IT"
- 10 -
--
UNDER THE NEW LAW, ELECTRIC UTILITIES EMITTING HIGH
AMOUNTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDES WILL BE GIVEN ALLOWANCES
DESIGNED TO REDUCE THEIR SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY
ABOUT HALF; THEY WILL BE FREE TO BUY EMISSION
ALLOWANCES FROM OTHERS IF CUTTING BACK ON EMISSIONS
WOULD COST MORE THAN THE ALLOWANCES DO
--
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMPANIES COULD REDUCE
EMISSIONS SO FAR THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BANK OR
SELL THEIR EXTRA ALLOWANCES; AND THEY'LL BE FREE TO
PURSUE THE CHEAPEST METHOD OF POLLUTION CONTROL - --
ENERGY CONSERVATION, DIFFERENT FUELS, NEW TECHNOLOGY,
LITTLE MEN IN THEIR SMOKESTACKS WEARING MITTENS --
PROVIDED ONLY THAT THEY GET THE POLLUTION REDUCTIONS
THE COUNTRY NEEDS
--
EPA WILL SIMPLY MONITOR EMISSIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT
FOR EVERY TON OF SULFUR DIOXIDE EMITTED, A POLLUTER HAS
THE REQUIRED ALLOWANCE
--
AND OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, WE ALSO HAVE LEARNED THAT
THERE IS A POTENTIALLY CRITICAL ROLE FOR TAX POLICY IN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
--
MANY NATIONS HAVE BEEN EXPERIMENTING WITH TAX
INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS RELATED
TO CLIMATE CHANGE
--
IN THIS COUNTRY, WE ARE TAXING CFC'S, AND WE WILL TAKE IN
$400 MILLION FROM THIS TAX THIS YEAR, $5 BILLION OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS
--
(I SUSPECT THAT THIS IS THE HIGHEST TAX IMPOSED ON ANY
GREENHOUSE GAS, ANYWHERE)
--
WE ALSO HAVE LEARNED OVER TWO DECADES OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, AS I MENTIONED WITH RESPECT TO
CFCS, THAT THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
MUST BE ADDRESSED
--
WE IN THE UNITED STATES WILL HELP TO DO THIS, AND SO MUST
THE MULTILATERAL AID AND LENDING INSTITUTIONS
- 11 -
--
WE WILL CONTINUE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PROGRAMS OF
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, AND WE WILL STRONGLY EMPHASIZE
THE WORK OF OUR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNICAL TRANSFER ADVISORY BOARD, SET UP TO ADVISE EPA
ON THESE VERY TIMELY ISSUES
--
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE IMPORTANT OPTIONS FOR
ENCOURAGING THE ADOPTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
--
BUT THE DEVELOPING NATIONS THEMSELVES MUST BE WILLING
TO PARTICIPATE; THEY CANNOT HAVE A PASS -- THEY MUST BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION
--
THEIR FOREST POLICIES AND THEIR ENERGY POLICIES MUST
CHANGE; THEY MUST BE WILLING TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS SUSTAINABLE, DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
--
AND FINALLY, FROM 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WE HAVE
LEARNED THAT WE MUST BE FLEXIBLE IN OUR SEARCH FOR
SOLUTIONS
--
RATHER THAN INSISTING ON TIGHTLY PRESCRIBED, "QUICK-FIX"
REMEDIES, WE MUST SET LONG-TERM GOALS AND ALLOW
NATIONS AND INDUSTRIES THE SPACE TO WORK OUT SOLUTIONS
BEST SUITED TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION
:
THE IPCC PROCESS WILL LET US TAKE A LONGER-TERM
PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THROUGH ITS EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION ON THE SCIENCE, THE ECONOMICS AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
O
IN SUMMARY, THEN, MY CENTRAL MESSAGE TO YOU TODAY IS
THIS:
--
WHILE THE IPCC PROCESS IS DOING ITS WORK, MANY OTHER
THINGS CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS RELATED TO
CLIMATE CHANGE THAT ARE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY REGARDLESS
OF ANY ASSUMPTIONS WE MIGHT MAKE ABOUT THE DEGREE OR
TIMING OR CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
- 11 -
--
WE WILL CONTINUE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PROGRAMS OF
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, AND WE WILL STRONGLY EMPHASIZE
THE WORK OF OUR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNICAL TRANSFER ADVISORY BOARD, SET UP TO ADVISE EPA
ON THESE VERY TIMELY ISSUES
--
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE IMPORTANT OPTIONS FOR
ENCOURAGING THE ADOPTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
--
BUT THE DEVELOPING NATIONS THEMSELVES MUST BE WILLING
TO PARTICIPATE; THEY CANNOT HAVE A PASS -- THEY MUST BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION
--
THEIR FOREST POLICIES AND THEIR ENERGY POLICIES MUST
CHANGE; THEY MUST BE WILLING TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS SUSTAINABLE, DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
--
AND FINALLY, FROM 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WE HAVE
LEARNED THAT WE MUST BE FLEXIBLE IN OUR SEARCH FOR
SOLUTIONS
--
RATHER THAN INSISTING ON TIGHTLY PRESCRIBED, "QUICK-FIX"
REMEDIES, WE MUST SET LONG-TERM GOALS AND ALLOW
NATIONS AND INDUSTRIES THE SPACE TO WORK OUT SOLUTIONS
BEST SUITED TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION
--
THE IPCC PROCESS WILL LET US TAKE A LONGER-TERM
PERSPECTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THROUGH ITS EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION ON THE SCIENCE, THE ECONOMICS AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
O
IN SUMMARY, THEN, MY CENTRAL MESSAGE TO YOU TODAY IS
THIS:
--
WHILE THE IPCC PROCESS IS DOING ITS WORK, MANY OTHER
THINGS CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS RELATED TO
CLIMATE CHANGE THAT ARE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY REGARDLESS
OF ANY ASSUMPTIONS WE MIGHT MAKE ABOUT THE DEGREE OR
TIMING OR CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
- 12 -
--
THE UNITED STATES IS TAKING MANY SUCH "CLIMATE
CONSCIOUS" STEPS; I'VE SUMMARIZED THEM
--
THE MEASURES ALREADY UNDERWAY, INCLUDING THE
PHASEOUT OF CFCS, REFORESTATION AND CONSERVATION, WILL
REDUCE THE U.S. CONTRIBUTION OF CLIMATE-ALTERING GASES
BY MORE THAN 15 PERCENT BELOW WHAT THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE BEEN BY THE YEAR 2000
-- MEANWHILE RESEARCH ON GLOBAL CHANGE, ON THE LIKELY
EFFECTS OF SUCH CHANGE, AND ON THE COSTS AND
CONSEQUENCES OF POLICY MEASURES IS NECESSARY TO GUIDE
FUTURE ACTIONS; WE ARE INTENSELY PURSUING SUCH
RESEARCH AND ENCOURAGE OTHER NATIONS TO JOIN US
--
THE IPCC HAS SET A MODEL FOR SUCH COOPERATION; LET'S GIVE
IT A CHANCE TO COMPLETE ITS WORK
O
CLEARLY, THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IS A MATTER OF PROFOUND
IMPORTANCE
--
THE ENVELOPE THAT SUSTAINS LIFE IS VERY THIN; THOSE OF
YOU WHO CAME TO THIS CONFERENCE BY AIRPLANE FLEW
ABOVE 90 PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE
--
AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE ANTARCTIC OZONE HOLE, THE
ATMOSPHERE IS FRAGILE AND VULNERABLE TO DESTABILIZATION
BY HUMAN ACTIVITY
--
MORE THAN AT ANY PREVIOUS MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY,
NATURE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE IN HUMAN HANDS,
DEPENDENT ON HUMAN EFFORTS
--
OUR SITUATION TODAY GIVES A NEW MEANING TO
STEWARDSHIP, AND A NEW SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CONCEPT OF
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION
:
WE ARE COMMITTED TO ACTION TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
- 13
--
FOR 20 YEARS, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN A LEADER ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - AND WE INTEND TO CONTINUE THIS
LEADERSHIP
--
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU -- AND THE
ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY - ON THE CHALLENGES
THAT LIE AHEAD
--
THANK YOU
DOE
NEWS
Speech of Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired)
U.S. Secretary of Energy
before
The White House Conference
on
Science and Economics Research Related
to Global Change
Wednesday, April 18, 1990
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to
have the opportunity to speak to you on energy policy as it
relates to the theme of this conference, including scientific and
economic research, decision-making strategies, energy
technologies, and future partnerships.
The production and consumption of energy is obviously a
primary contributor to carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, and is
at the focus of a number of other environmental concerns. Yet
energy is also the primary contributor to worldwide economic
growth and development. If we are to achieve economic growth in
an environmentally sound fashion, we must develop and deploy
energy technologies that contribute to the global stewardship
that President Bush has eloquently called for.
Over the past day and a half, you have had the-opportunity
to hear from many of the leading figures in the U.S. government,
from the President on down. Dr. Allan Bromley has described the
scientific knowns and unknowns in the science of climate change,
and the research challenges that lie before us. Secretary Brady
and Michael Boskin have described our efforts to integrate
scientific and environmental considerations with economic
programs. Michael Deland has described the partnerships the
United States and other countries are forging to protect our
global environment. Yesterday at lunch, Bill Reilly of our
Environmental Protection Agency detailed specific steps already
being taken by the United States that will help ameliorate the
threat of global climate change.
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of the Press Secretary
Washington, DC 20585
We have also heard a number of impressive presentations from
other delegations to this Conference.
I found the Japanese vision of "New Earth 21" particularly
compelling. Their action program for the 21st century is
truly progressive and comprehensive, with stages of
environmental responses keyed to increases in basic
understanding and the development of improved energy
technologies.
I think we can all also agree with the call for stronger
efforts and cooperation in scientific and economic research,
coupled with investments in technology development and
international technology transfer.
And the working group that I participated in yesterday
afternoon was very impressed with OECD efforts to develop
economic simulation models that will provide more
sophisticated cost estimates of various emission control
alternatives. This latter program of cooperative economic
research is a very positive step towards new and necessary
analytical tools. I think it deserves the wholehearted
support of this Conference.
All these themes find strong resonances with the underlying
intellectual framework that we are developing for future U.S.
energy policy. The development of this framework--our first
comprehensive National Energy Strategy--is an effort of the
entire U.S. government that is being coordinated by the
Department of Energy which I head. We have provided each
delegation here with a copy of an Interim Report on the
development of this Strategy, and your embassies here in
Washington were briefed on that Interim Report earlier this
month.
Our new National Energy Strategy represents a real departure
from past efforts, both in its scope and in its execution. Like
2
the IPCC process, the National Energy Strategy is based on the
following key elements:
Broad participation by interested parties as a basis
for building public understanding of the issue and
consensus on the outcome;
Careful assessment of the underlying science and
technology and the costs of response options;
Robust analysis of the impacts of our policies on our
domestic economy and on international economic, trade,
and development goals.
Success in integrating these components into a consolidated
framework is crucial to both efforts. In the case of the IPCC,
we need to lay a comprehensive foundation for continued future
action, action to which the United States is fully committed.
And our success in developing a comprehensive National Energy
Strategy will be crucial to the U.S. ability to address global
climate change issues.
One of the principal differences in scope between our
developing National Energy Strategy and previous energy planning
exercises is the integration of environmental and economic policy
with energy policy. For many years, the energy-environmental
policy debate in the United States has been polarized and
unproductive. We have attempted to resolve perceived conflicts
between energy and environment in a piecemeal manner--leaving the
field open for narrow interests to dominate the agenda. The
United States has not been uniquely afflicted by such a lack of
connection between energy and environment. Yesterday, Deputy
Prime Minister Janowski gave a moving description of the sad
legacy left behind in Eastern Europe from a one-dimensional
approach to energy production.
The National Energy Strategy we are building will provide a
frame of reference for the United States to examine its policy
options, taking into full account their potential effects of our
choices on the environment, on energy supplies, and on the
3
economy. The integration of these elements into a unified
strategy may give us the foresight to avoid past mistakes in
energy and industrial planning.
At the core of our National Energy Strategy is a process of
public consultation that is without precedent in U. S. energy
planning. The public record established by this process SO far
is the result of 15 public hearings, nearly 400 invited
presentations, and over 1000 written submissions. More public
hearings and much more public comment will take place before we
conclude this process at the end of this year. This approach to
the National Energy Strategy has served a number of purposes.
o
The first purpose served has been public education. By
the time we are through, there should be a fresh
appreciation of the fact that there are no easy answers
or quick fixes to the problems we face in the energy
and environmental arenas.
The second purpose has been to define the major issues
with clarity. Already a range of views--frequently
contradictory but often surprisingly convergent--has
been offered concerning possible solutions.
Finally, we believe that our approach to the National
Energy Strategy is laying the foundation of public
consensus necessary to make the Strategy an action
plan.
Let me share with you four key points that we have learned
SO far in assessing the public record. They are: respecting the
environment, improving energy efficiency, securing future energy
supplies, and building strong foundations in science, technology,
and education.
0
There is a clear public consensus in the United States
that energy and environmental policies must be mutually
sustaining. Our economic well-being cannot be
sustained if the environment is in ruins. And only a
vibrant economy will make available the investment
4
needed to achieve the environmental quality that
Americans are demanding.
The desirability of energy efficiency from both an
environmental and economic point of view is clear. The
key questions in improving energy efficiency are:
-- What is achievable and at what cost?
-- Who needs to be involved?
-- How can the federal government facilitate progress?
I believe that greater energy efficiency will be achieved
only if a large number of players act in concert. The U.S.
government has already begun to move aggressively to pursue
energy efficiency improvements, and I think it is fair to
characterize our efforts in this area as some of the first
concrete results from our National Energy Strategy process.
Our accomplishments to date include:
-- Announcement of a new set of energy efficiency and
renewables initiatives in January of this year. These
initiatives, if fully implemented, will reduce expected U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions by the end of this decade.
-- Strong encouragement for State governments to create
incentives for utilities to treat energy conservation on an
equal par with energy supply. Our private Electric Power
Research Institute estimates that such incentives could cut
U.S. electricity needs by 20 percent before the year 2010.
-- Increases in automobile efficiency standards that will be
in addition to the 80 percent gain in fuel efficiency for
new cars that we have achieved over the last 13 years.
-- Significantly increased refrigerator efficiency standards
promulgated last December and improvements in other
appliance efficiency standards that are now under review.
In addition to improved energy efficiency, ensuring
future supplies of energy for our U.S. economy are a
major source of public concern. There are some very
5
difficult decisions ahead for the United States
regarding energy supply--decisions that cannot be
postponed much longer. As one example, electricity
demand in the United States--which has consistently
tracked economic growth--will likely grow by about 100
billion watts within the next decade. At this point in
time, only 40 percent of the needed capacity to meet
this demand is either under construction or the object
of firm plans. How will the remaining 60 percent be
supplied? No one knows yet.
Finally, maintaining U.S. vitality in fundamental
science and engineering research, strengthening U.S.
education, and building new capabilities in technology
transfer are perceived by a wide swath of the U.S.
public as key for assuring both our energy future and
our broader future as a leading nation in the world.
I would like to focus for a minute on the critical role of
scientific and engineering research in responding to global
change.
Dr. Bromley mentioned yesterday an interagency committee in
the U.S. government called the Committee on Earth Sciences, or
CES. CES has become a paradigm of national and international
cooperation in dealing with both scientific certainties and
uncertainties of global change. Every agency of the U.S. federal
government has joined forces to put in place comprehensive and
multidisciplinary research programs addressing global change. As
the President told you yesterday, he has pledged more than one
billion dollars to this program for the next year. These funds
will support international research activities including the
study of global ocean circulations and the launching of
satellites to observe and analyze the earth system. Just last
week I visited the NASA scientists in Alabama who have developed
a promising new method to accurately record atmospheric
temperatures from satellite-based instruments. If verified, the
method may give us an excellent global thermometer of the earth's
atmosphere and remove the guesswork out of whether we are
entering a warming or a cooling trend.
6
The CES Program has highlighted the importance of clouds in
a changing climate. Clouds may accelerate the rate of a possible
warming or act to retard the process. My Department has joined
other CES partners in starting a major research study to quantify
the feedbacks of clouds in the climate system. Yesterday, you
heard the President call for better Earth system models that
enable us to calculate the complex interaction between man and
our environment. The Department of Energy is rising to this
challenge by placing our arsenal of sophisticated supercomputers
at the service of global change research. We have just placed
on-line the most powerful Cray-2 supercomputer in the world and
are making it available to the scientific community for climate
modeling. We are forcing the pace of climate change prediction
with a program to increase computing speeds by a factor of ten
thousand. And we are building the data management systems to
handle the vast amounts of data from satellites, research ships
and ground-based instruments.
Of course, research simply to study the problems of global
climate change is not enough. At the heart of any regime of
cost-effective actions to address the threat of global warming
will be a panoply of new technologies--technologies both to
provide the services we demand and to supply energy to end-use
technologies more efficiently than in the past. Focusing efforts
at scientific discovery on areas of potentially high, if long-
range, economic payoff is a principal mission of my department.
For example, it is clear that finding ways to more
efficiently use our fossil fuels, especially in the near-term,
will be an essential ingredient of any strategy to attenuate
carbon dioxide emissions. Substituting natural gas for other
fossil fuels is one approach to achieving such emission
reductions. Another crucial resource on which we must focus is
coal. In the United States we have set our national will and our
technology expertise to the task of improving the efficiency and
environmental acceptability of our coal use. We have done that
through a $5 billion commitment to demonstrating new clean coal
technologies. Many of these technologies improve efficiencies by
20 to 40 percent compared to conventional ones and have the added
benefits of reducing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emissions.
7
Nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. However, in many
countries, including the United States, nuclear energy is beset
with problems of public acceptance. I believe that every
government has a major responsibility to address legitimate
public concerns about nuclear energy. In the United States, we
are working hard to develop safer, more cost-effective reactor
designs and to resolve waste disposal issues.
Renewables also offer considerable promise of
environmentally safe and secure energy. Indeed, renewables have
already served us well in the past in the form of biomass and
hydroelectric energy. We can expect its role to expand,
especially in key sectors such as transportation, residential,
and commercial energy use. For example, alternative fuels--
based in part on agricultural crops--will play an increasing role
in protecting our urban air quality in a manner that also
promotes energy security. In 1988, the renewables share of U.S.
energy production was 5 percent. In the longer run, solar, wind,
and additional hydroelectric resources will provide additional
inexpensive, sustainable energy needed to meet the demands of
economic growth.
In our search for new technologies, we must look at
opportunities in all sectors and in all nations. The sources of
greenhouse gas emissions are many and diverse--as diverse as our
national economies. Virtually no major economic sector can be
omitted from the list of contributors to greenhouse has
emissions, or the list of potential opportunity targets for
technology development. Agriculture, energy production,
petrochemicals, ferrous and nonferrous metals, pulp and paper,
transportation and even electronics--all these areas have
openings for sound and cost-effective emission reduction
technologies.
I have described our domestic actions to maximize the
opportunities available to us to deploy sound science and
advanced technology in the effort to respond to global climate
change. Many of you have similar actions underway in your
nations. We are fortunate to have the opportunity during this
Conference to share our experiences. If there is one underlying
8
theme which is common to all our discussions here, it has been
that no one country alone can significantly impact global
concentrations of greenhouse gases. For that matter, no one
country alone can resolve the scientific uncertainties, monitor
the global climate, or ensure the worldwide deployment of the
technical expertise and technology needed to ensure global
stewardship. Moving us closer to global stewardship will require
intensified international cooperation--cooperation in our science
and economic research programs, cooperation in providing
technical information and training to the developing countries,
and cooperation in assessing and implementing environmentally
sound technologies.
As our discussions at this conference indicate, the time is
ripe for the world community to commit its scientific and
economic resources both to resolve the uncertainties and to
develop the technologies needed to meet the challenge of global
climate change. Several nations have proposed hemispheric or
international research institutes that would focus on reducing
scientific uncertainties about global climate. I think these are
promising proposals.
Another theme that has come out is the need to develop an
international strategy for forming a global partnership on
climate issues. The IPCC is the starting point for developing
that strategy, and I believe this conference has helped identify
some key issues. Our discussions here have brought out the need
to help developing and other countries achieve their rightful
economic prosperity, while also ensuring that our common
responsibilities for global stewardship are not compromised.
Technology transfer will be essential to any global consensus
addressing climate change.
Finally, our discussions have manifested the broad range of
possible approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some
countries have indicated a commitment to taking certain response
actions now, even in the face of the uncertainties. As
Administrator Reilly indicated in his speech yesterday, the
United States strongly supports taking action now in areas that
make sense both for potential mitigation of greenhouse gases and
9
for promoting the sound economy needed to make progress on other
environmental and social imperatives.
The President's Science Advisor, Dr. Allan Bromley, told us
yesterday that one of the primary objectives of this conference
was to increase mutual understanding and sensitivity of the
international scientific and economic research communities to
each other's needs and those of the policy makers who seek
guidance from them. In this light, I think this conference has
been a success. I am optimistic that a global consensus on
responses--scientific, technological and economic--will result
from the IPCC process. The remaining challenges facing us are
significant. But the spirit of this Conference--forging ahead
together to achieve the common goals of economic growth,
environmental protection, and global stewardship--augurs well for
the final success of the IPCC process.
Thank you.
10
REVIEW OF THE CO-CHAIRMEN'S REPORT
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
Washington, DC -- April 18, 1990
presented by
MICHAEL R. DELAND, CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRMEN:
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Michael J. Boskin
Chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisers
Michael R. Deland
Chairman, President's Council on Environmental Quality
Colleagues and guests, good afternoon. I have been given an
enormous privilege-- and an enormous challenge.
The privilege of presenting a summary report is enhanced by
the fact that I represent not only myself, but also my two
distinguished colleagues and Co-Chairs, Drs. Bromley and Boskin.
We commend you for your unique talents and deep commitment to
global stewardship, which have been so evident here this week.
We have been honored and enriched by your attendance, and on
behalf of the Co-Chairs, I am privileged to extend our thanks.
My enormous challenge this afternoon is no less than
presenting our summary of the events of the past two-and-a-half
days. Such a summary would be a challenge at any conference, but
it is especially daunting in this instance, where the free, open
and candid exchange of ideas goes on. No doubt the give-and-take
continues even now, and will continue as you wend your way home.
As you should know by now, draft summaries of our working
sessions have been circulated to every delegation, and will be
provided to the press. We welcome your comments and suggestions
to ensure that those summaries are faithful representations of
our discussions.
2
The challenge of presenting the Co-Chairs' summary is also
made difficult by the depth and breadth of your contributions,
and the practical limits of time and space. We Co-Chairs have
spoken a great deal about "integrating," "cross-fertilizing," or
"coordinating" the very best thinking from a variety of
disciplines: science, economics, energy and the environment. But
we Co-Chairs are likely the first to do just that-- and under
demanding time constraints as well. So I hope we have done
justice to you; your comments on the Co-Chairs' report are as
welcome as your other comments on the working group summaries.
Our agenda set several objectives. For example, we sought
to focus more sharply the science and economic research issues
relevant to policy on global change. We discussed what is known
and the urgent challenge of what is unknown. Second, as Dr.
Boskin and others outlined, we sought to highlight economic
analysis as a tool to understand human inputs to global change
from economic activity, the environmental impacts of global
change, and the implications of potential responses. It has been
said many times, but bears repeating, that this conference
brought scientists and economists together for the first time for
"cross-fertilization." Dr. Bromley described economics as "the
glue" that binds scientific analysis to policy decisions, and
indeed many delegates agreed on the need for better linkages
between the science and economic disciplines and policy-makers.
3
Finally, and perhaps most important, we sought to frame the
next steps for implementing joint international efforts to
understand and respond to global change.
Those were our objectives. The Co-Chairs submit to you our
belief that the conference successfully met those objectives. In
addition, we were pleasantly surprised by the degree of consensus
in the delegates' responses to the conference objectives.
As the delegates exchanged thoughts over the last two days,
the area of greatest agreement was on the need for global
stewardship. We speak with one voice that human actions can have
a profound impact on our fragile. and beautiful planet. Each of
us has a special responsibility to ensure that those actions are
wise and gentle. As I alluded in my remarks yesterday, we have
begun to redeem the harmful legacy of the Twentieth Century by
embracing more universal values: a global stewardship for global
quality of life.
In this regard, we were most pleased to listen to the
perspective of Dr. Jan Janowski, Deputy Prime Minister of the
Republic of Poland, who very frankly evaluated his nation's
present environmental and economic imperatives. Dr. Janowski
urged us not to reduce our options to what he called a false
choice between environmental protection and economic development.
4
There was a second area of unanimity, which in my opinion
was one of the most useful accomplishments of the conference. In
short, delegates from the United States and all nations
reiterated in the strongest terms a commitment to continuing and
accelerating those actions which make common sense now: that is,
there are certain actions which offer known environmental
benefits, which are known to have low or modest costs, and which
we know will help stabilize or reduce the emissions of greenhouse
gases. As representatives of our respective countries, we sell
ourselves short if we do not recognize the pro-active
contribution that we are already making.
In areas where there was less than total unanimity, there
was nonetheless a stimulating and useful exchange of ideas. Dr.
Bromley, Dr. Bolin and the scientists who assisted us in the
working sessions provided an excellent review of what is known at
this point, which can only be described as "the fundamentals." "
Last evening we heard remarks by the distinguished Dr. Bert
Bolin, chairman of the IPCC, who previewed the initial assessment
of what will be a decades-long international research effort on
global climate change. Dr. Bolin stressed the critical balancing
act of policy-making in the face of uncertainty, and offered
provocative comments on making decisions with the information
provided to us by the current IPCC process.
5
In my remarks yesterday, I said that for our solutions to
environmental challenges to be complete, scientists must listen
carefully to the concerns and priorities of economists, and
economists must to likewise with their scientific colleagues. In
that context, the conference discussion identified remaining
unresolved questions.
These begin with uncertainties about the phenomenon itself:
for example, the role of clouds as an agent of warming or
cooling, or the ocean-atmosphere interface. We agreed on the
need to reduce uncertainties about the impact of global change on
specific regions. We need better predictions of the rate of
change -- especially for the southern hemisphere -- and to
estimate the potential for sudden surprises. There is
considerable uncertainty over the role of man-made sources of
change versus ongoing natural sources of change and many
questions about carbon dioxide "sinks."
Even if by waving some magic wand, we were to answer all of
our questions about Earth systems, we still would have many
questions about the impact of change on other systems-- both
human and natural. How much change can our agricultural system
adapt to, and at what rate? How will changes in solar radiation
affect the productivity of the oceans? How will rapid climatic
6
changes affect biodiversity? So many scientific questions remain
unanswered.
From our economist colleagues, we heard comments on the many
uncertainties about human inputs, impacts and responses to global
change. We do not fully comprehend either costs of action or the
costs of inaction. We have no clear measures of the cost-
effectiveness of competing options; we are unsure whether it will
be cheaper to adapt to or prevent change. We heard that there
are considerable differences among economists in different
nations over how to model relationships between environmental and
economic factors. The developing countries spoke about the human
dimension of economic growth as a means of fulfilling the basic
human needs of growing populations. I appreciated Dr. Boskin's
reminder that we have difficulty predicting national GNP one year
in advance, much less modeling global economic systems on the
time scale of many decades. Economists need to develop ways to
value things that do not have monetary value but which are
precious to us all. We need to resolve uncertainty about
economic factors in the evolution of technology.
Given our need for more knowledge, I believe there was
genuine consensus on the need to accelerate scientific and
economic research efforts to reduce these uncertainties.
7
There is also a need to coordinate better our ongoing
scientific and economic research efforts at the national,
regional and global levels. One concrete proposal which emerged
from our discussions was that of enhancing the very mechanisms
for communication among scientists and researchers -- a global
change communications network, if you will. There is an enormous
array of technology for sharing information and communicating
around the globe. Let us use this technology it to its fullest
extent. The benefits to all nations of improving access to the
fruits of our research argues strongly for integrating existing
networks, adding new networks and technologies such as voice
mail, and extending access to many more nations and individuals.
From sharing our thoughts and insights about specific
questions, our discussions turned to the need for integration
across disciplines and across national boundaries. From the
economics perspective, standard approaches exist for balancing
benefits and costs of proposed actions, such as managing risk
through insurance and diversification, flexibility in
commitments, prudent decision-making and continuing research. It
is crucial to integrate these approaches into the decision making
process.
There is a need to establish research and other cooperative
networks across national boundaries, between industrialized and
developing nations, and across disciplines. No nation,
8
institution or discipline can address single-handedly the issue
of global change, nor the challenge of harmonizing environmental
and economic imperatives. We must not forget that developing
nations can ill afford to devote scarce resources to addressing
global climate change, when the press of poverty creates more
urgent agendas. That fact creates a profound responsibility on
the part of those nations which have climbed higher on the
economic ladder to lend a helping hand.
Developing countries are under-represented in world
scientific research efforts. That must change. New systems are
needed for developing and sharing both basic science and emerging
clean technologies, for if these new technologies are not created
and shared, it is estimated that 80% of the world's population
will continue to rely upon outdated and inefficient technology.
Other delegates stressed the need for and value of public
education, including curriculum in both lower schools and in
higher education. There is clearly a need for networking among
similar organizations in different regions and among neighbors
for managing shared resources. The Zairean example of regional
efforts to protect and wisely manage African tropical forests
should be replicated for other common resources. Finally,
international monitoring and measurement of both environmental
and economic parameters is necessary to establish baselines and
to complement global modeling. For example, the development and
9
use of economic and environmental indicators is essential. The
OECD was held out as an example of an organization which has
undertaken important work in the assignment of values to natural
resources.
While the IPCC is the forum for policy development, several
countries suggested establishing regional or international
cooperative research centers to provide bridges between
researchers, between disciplines, and between academics and
policymakers. Such centers would also reflect that global
change, the subject of this conference, is broader than climate
change and includes additional issues such as population growth,
land degradation, wetlands, sea level rise, loss of biodiversity
and changes in energy demand and use.
Research on these matters must be integrated to create
models allowing us to understand and predict the effects of our
actions. The USA proposed creation of international institutes
for research in order to focus cross-national, cross-disciplinary
efforts and resolve the uncertainties policy-makers face.
But there must be more to our deliberations than agreeing on
a set of research questions and providing a vehicle for policy-
makers to hear the answers to those questions. The challenge of
global stewardship in the face of global change demands that we
do more.
10
As President Bush stated in his opening remarks and on
several occasions, research is no substitute for action. We find
this to be a sentiment shared by almost all participants at this
conference. We have provided during this conference a
substantial number of suggested action items which require
further elaboration. We have also been told of the actions many
of your nations are taking, just as you have heard from us the
many steps the United States is taking.
We spoke among ourselves, in our working sessions and in our
many informal conversations, of the need for new partnerships to
help us advance toward our common goals.
I spoke a few moments ago on our support for the concept of
global stewardship. But we have no fundamental statement of what
that concept means. I believe that it would serve all of our
interests to consider the creation of a statement of principles
on the meaning and focus of Global Stewardship. And while we
have agreed on the existence of gaps in our understanding of
global change, we have no overall plan for filling those gaps and
answering those questions.
The Japanese delegation made a proposal, which stimulated
much thought, on the creation of long-term over-arching plans to
guide our efforts. The USA proposal, while somewhat more modest
11
by comparison, is still quite ambitious. A common research
agenda, and international agreement on a plan of action for
implementing that agenda would be a major step forward. We must
provide a forum for developing such an agenda, for integrating
the required research efforts into existing national and
international programs. Our proposal is for development of a
charter for cooperation in science and economics research related
to global change. Such a charter could provide a blueprint for
concerted action on every aspect of global change. The US has
also offered to provide a venue -- later this year -- the first
negotiating session of a framework convention on climate change.
Our colleagues from the Federal Republic of Germany built upon
this initiative by suggesting that the 1992 Brazil conference be
used as the forum for the signing of a world climate convention.
That concludes the substance of my presentation. I only
hope that I have done justice to the diversity and sophistication
of the comments we have heard. This was an exceptional challenge
and we look forward to your comments on this summary.
Let me reiterate on behalf of the Co-Chairs our thanks for
your active and constructive participation in making this
conference a success. We hope that in these working sessions, we
have broken down some of the barriers that divide and limit us.
Because in the final analysis, it is action that counts. Active
12
research, active diplomacy, and pro-active policies which blend
scientific and economic realities.
Progress toward a better quality of life for all people is
our goal. If we have any faith in the partnerships and
integration which have been stimulated here this week, and we do,
then I believe that progress is our mission and indeed our
destiny.
Thank you.
13
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 18, 1990
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN THE CLOSING ADDRESS
TO THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE
ON SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH
RELATED TO GLOBAL CHANGE
The J.W. Marriott
2:32 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank
you, Dr. Bromley, very much. Dr. Boskin, Mr. Deland and Secretaries
Watkins and Lujan of our Cabinet. Dr. Bolin, and distinguished
delegates to this truly unprecedented conference.
After all of the hard work that's taken place here -- in
what I know was an atmosphere of lively debate -- I would begin with
thanks, and a moment of perspective: for your purpose here is
profoundly important to the state of nature, and the fate of mankind.
Your presence has offered hope for a new era of environmental
cooperation around the world and the promise of a quieter, more
thoughtful, more careful tenancy of nature's legacy to humanity.
You know, during these last two days we've listened and
learned -- and I've been briefed thoroughly on some of the
committee's works -- learned about Brazil's new initiatives to
protect the Amazon rain forest, about Nigeria's plans to remove lead
from gasoline, about Mexico's promising efforts to reduce the Mexico
City air pollution.
A year ago I participated in an American education
summit, and found the most productive sessions were those working
groups. This conference was structured with that lesson in mind. So
my thanks go to all the delegates who played such an integral role in
those working groups -- particularly the foreign delegates who served
as co-chairmen.
A growing sense of global stewardship prompted us to host
this conference. It's a sense of stewardship shared by all of you
and by the nations you represent. And it arises out of a natural
sense of obligation. An understanding that we owe our existence, all
that we know and are, to this miraculous sphere that sustains us.
Somebody told me that the evening you had over at the museum brought
this into very, very clear perspective when you heard from some of
the NASA people.
Such stewardship finds expression in many ways -- from
public demonstration to landmark legislation. But it is also
rewarded in many ways, in moments unexpected and unforgettable.
Nature's beauty has a special power -- a resonance that at once
elevates the mind's eye, and yet humbles us as well.
- 2 -
Before nature, the works of humanity seem somehow small.
We may build cathedrals, temples, mosques, monuments and mausoleums
to great men and women and high ideals. And still we know we can
build no monuments to compare with nature. Our greatest creations
really can't equal God's smallest.
Yet as our tools and intellect advance, we've learned of
our power to alter the Earth. We understand that small actions,
taken together, can have profound global consequences for the
environment we share and the humanity we share it with. The
importance of global stewardship can be best understood in human
terms.
We also recognize that ours is an increasingly prosperous
planet with greater hopes now than ever before that more of our
people, in every nation, may come to know an enduring peace and an
unprecedented quality of life.
so we're called upon to ensure that the Earth's integrity
is preserved and that mankind's prospects for prosperity, peace, and
in some regions, even survival, are not put at risk by the unintended
consequences of noble intentions.
That's the reason we've held this conference.
The minds at work here are among the very best we have
and they are the best insurance that our actions are sound. We've
gathered talent from around the world -- scientists, economists,
environmentalists, energy ministers, policymakers -- to address the
environmental and developmental future of the planet. An
unprecedented cross-fertilization of disciplines and of nations.
That alone, I think, is reason for hope.
But if diversity of perspective is expected, unity of
purpose is crucial. In an atmosphere of uncertainty, we must foster
a climate of goodwill and a stubborn hope that we might forge
solutions without the excessive heat of politics.
Among all the challenges in our tenancy of this planet,
climate change is, of course, foremost in your minds. We're leading
the search for response strategies and working through the
uncertainty of both the science and the economics of climate change.
But there is one area where we will allow for no uncertainty -- and
that is our commitment to action -- to sound analyses and sound
policies.
To those who suggest we're only trying to balance
economic growth and environmental protection, I say they miss the
point. We are calling for an early new way of thinking to achieve the
both while compromising neither. By applying the power of
marketplace in the service of the environment.
And we cannot allow a question like climate change to be
characterized as a debate between economists versus
environmentalists. To say that this issue has sides is about as
productive as saying that the Earth is flat. It may simplify things, The
but it just doesn't do justice to the facts or to our future.
truth is, strong economies allow nations to fulfill the obligations to
of stewardship. And environmental stewardship is crucial
sustaining strong economies. If we lose sight of the forest for the
trees we risk losing both.
- 3 -
But above all, the climate change debate is not about
research versus action, for we've never considered research a
substitute for action. Over the last two days, you've heard,
formally and informally, that the United States is already taking
action to stabilize and reduce emissions through our clean air
legislation, our use of market-based incentives to control pollution,
our search for alternative energy sources, our emphasis on energy
efficiency, our reforestation initiatives, and our technical
assistance programs to developing nations.
These policies were developed to address a broad range of
environmental concerns, in particular our phaseout of CFCs, the
impact of our Clean Air Act on emissions, our tree-planting
initiative, and other strategies will produce reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions that will reach 15 percent in 10 years --
and considerably more later on.
We're also making a leading investment in climate change
research absolutely essential because it will tell us what to do
-
next. But what bears emphasis is that we are committed to domestic
and international policies that are environmentally aggressive,
effective, and efficient.
And we are deeply committed to an international
partnership, through the IPCC process. We look forward to its
interim assessment. And we would encourage a framework convention as
a part of a comprehensive approach to address the system, sources,
and sinks as a whole if a decision is made that environmental action
is needed to reduce net emissions. We hope to provide a venue for
the first negotiating sessions here in the United States.
And finally, here in conference working groups, we've
offered four new ideas -- a charter for cooperation in science and
economic research related to global change; possible creation of
international institutes for research on the science and economics of
global change; data and information transfers through a global change
communications network; and a statement of principles for
implementing international cooperation in scientific and economic
research related to global change.
I call on you to support these suggestions. All of you
here today understand climate change as one of many challenges in the
call to global stewardship. Ozone depletion, water supply, ocean
pollution, wetlands, deforestation, biological diversity, population
change, hunger, energy demand -- in short, all the interrelated
issues of the global environment. Each demands our attention. Each
will have great impact.
And some we can predict, and regrettably and frankly,
some can't be easily anticipated. But each has a human dimension we
must never forget. Understand the choices we are making. They
affect us all, but in profoundly different ways. We have many paths
to choose from, and some of them are fraught with risk to precious
and life-giving resources. Risk to geopolitical stability. And
certainly, man-made limits to prosperity -- most painfully reflected
in the hollow eyes of hungry children and their prospects for
survival.
If developed nations ignore the growth needs of
developing nations it will imperil us all. We know that even small
changes in GNP growth rate often threaten adequate shelter, food, and
health care for millions and millions of people. And to bear this in
mind is no barrier to action. Those who have ascended the economic
hill must break down the barriers to progress and assist others now
making the climb. But this will only be possible if the nations of
the world are linked in partnerships of every kind: scientific,
economic, technical, agricultural, environmental.
Pollution is not, as we once believed, the inevitable
by-product of progress. True global stewardship will be achieved not
by seeking limits to growth, which are contrary to human nature, but
by achieving environmental protection through more informed, more
efficient, and cleaner growth.
Those who value environmental quality the most, should be
the most ardent supporters of strategies that tap the power of free
wills and free markets; strategies that turn human nature to
environmental advantage. Equally, those who value economic
development most highly should be the most ardent defenders of the
environment, which provides the basis for a healthy economy.
Efficient strategies are the only realistic hope for developing
nations to save themselves from the mistakes that developed nations
have already made.
And we have made mistakes. But over the past century,
we've made tremendous progress in this country, especially in the
last 20 years. In the United States, automotive emission controls
have brought about a new generation of cars that emit only four
percent as much pollution as the typical 1970 model. We've cut
airborne particulates by 60 percent, carbon monoxide by about 40
percent, cut sulfur emissions, and virtually eliminated lead from the
air -- all during a period of population growth and economic
expansion. And now we want to share that knowledge -- our
technologies, new processes, and pollution prevention techniques --
with the developing world.
Two decades ago, America -- holding to its birthright of
free expression -- was home to a movement symbolized by Earth Day.
It motivated President Nixon to sign into law a national policy to
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and the
environment. And it set in motion a new sense of conscience that a
few idealists hoped would change the world.
And it did. What began as an isolated American movement
20 years ago is now shared by over 130 countries on seven continents.
And while many thought this experiment in environmental protection
would prove impossible, that you couldn't maintain both a productive
economy and a healthy environment, we've learned that economic
prosperity and environmental protection go hand in hand. And we've
learned that worldwide, united action is essential and possible, as
the Montreal Protocol proved.
America and other nations must now extend an offered hand
to emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and to developing societies
around the world. In some, the raging fires of forests and
grasslands burned for compelling but devastating economic reasons
have been visible to astronauts in space. Other nations, in the
struggle to support life, have been virtually stripped of the
resources that sustain life.
- ;
And in Eastern Europe, whether through the tyranny of
neglect or the neglect of tyrants, pollution has been unveiled as one
of the Old World's cruelest dictators; an oppressor. Not man, but
man-made.
In the majestic city of Krakow, that I visited a couple
of years ago, monuments to great men, statues that survived countless
invasions by kings and emperors, by Hitler and by Stalin, have been
defaced by pollution; their medieval majesty reduced to shapeloss
lumps of stone.
If mankind's greatest creations cannot equal God's
smallest, some may grieve that our greatest destruction is turned at
times upon ourselves.
Let us neither grieve nor quarrel, but act on what we
know can help, and act in good faith. Our challenge is global
stewardship. To work together to find long-term strategies that will
meet the needs of the entire world, and all therein.
Our convictions, and my sincere belief, is that
environmental protection and economic growth, well-managed,
complement one another. And that we can serve this generation while
preserving the Earth for the next and all that follow. It is an
uncommon opportunity we share. And so let us seize the moment. And
together, we will succeed.
Thank you for what, I believe, is a significant
contribution to environmental progress in the world. Thank you for
coming our way. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
2:50 P.M. EDT
April 16, 1990
Dear Delegate :
I am pleased to welcome you- as a delegate to the White
House Conference on Science and Economics Research Related
to Global Change. Many members of my Cabinet will be
participating with you during this important meeting,
and I have asked the principal White House advisers for
science, economics, and the environment to serve as the
co-chairs of the Conference. This unique integration
of the major elements of my Administration is evidence
of the U.S. desire to encourage the international dialogue
on global change research. I am happy that you have
accepted my invitation to join us.
I believe in the importance of exploring more fully the
relationship that exists between the science and economic
disciplines as they relate to the environment. Our hope
is that this Conference will lead to increased
international cooperation and partnership in global change
research. In addition, we hope the Conference will
complement ongoing international efforts, such as those
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in
developing an agenda for the future.
Because global change research is an important area of
focus for my Administration, I have committed to a budget
of over one billion dollars for a program of global change
research for fiscal year 1991. I anticipate that you
will receive an overview of our program during the
Conference.
I hope your distinguished delegation will find this meeting
to be an important step toward global stewardship of our
earth's natural resources. The co-chairs and I look
forward to a successful Conference.
Sincerely,
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. WHY HAS CHINA NOT BEEN INVITED TO THE GLOBAL CHANGE CONFERENCE?
WE HAVE SEEN A CABLE SENT OUT BY THE U.S. TO ITS EMBASSIES
INDICATING "DELETE CHINA." WHY WAS THIS DONE?
A. We are still in a sensitive period in our relations with China.
The internal situation there remains unsatisfactory, but we are
seeing signs that the President's policy is working. Invitations
to the Global Change conference were made in light of that policy.
The cable language reflects a clerical error.
Q. IS THERE A RIFT WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE GLOBAL CHANGE
ISSUE? DIDN'T WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF SUNUNU CHANGE THE
PRESIDENT'S RECENT SPEECH ON THE ENVIRONMENT TO "WATER DOWN"
POSITIONS PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION?
A. There is no rift within the Administration. The Chief of Staff
and involved agency and departmental heads, including William
Reilly of EPA and Admiral James Watkins of DOE participated in the
development of the strong environmental position reflected in the
President's speech before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. This involved significant discussions on the staff level
where one should expect varying viewpoints to be aired. The
Administration stands solidly behind the policies and perspectives
outlined in the President's remarks.
Q. DOES THE WHITE HOUSE CONSIDER THIS CONFERENCE IMPORTANT? IF so,
WHY IS THERE SO LITTLE ADVANCE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE AGENDA
AND SPECIAL SESSIONS? ARE YOU ENCOURAGING MEDIA COVERAGE?
A. Yes, this conference is very important to the Administration.
The President formalized his idea for this conference during his
Summit meetings with President Gorbachev on December 4, 1989, and
later, on Monday, February 5, 1990, during his speech to the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The agenda is
receiving priority attention within the Administration to assure
that the proceedings reflect our most current understandings
regarding the climate change issue. Information on the agenda,
working group sessions, and opportunities for news media coverage
will be provided shortly.
Q.
WILL THIS CONFERENCE RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION FOR LONG-TERM
GOALS TO MEET CHALLENGES SUCH AS HOW THE MAJOR SECTORS OF THE U.S.
ECONOMY--MANUFACTURING AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND
ENERGY CAN BE REDESIGNED IN THE FUTURE SO THAT ECONOMIC CONCERNS
DO NOT DESTROY NATIONAL AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTS?
A. The results of the conference will help the U.S. and
representatives to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and other international global change meetings and forums,
by providing information on issues relating to global change that
have never been addressed. The topics will include: uncertain
change, the research challenges of science and economics;
integrating science and economic research in the policy process;
and building international partnerships for science and economic
research.
Q. WILL THIS CONFERENCE SERVE TO PROVIDE THE GROUNDWORK FOR NEW,
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CONTAIN THE FINDINGS OF THE
CONFERENCE REGARDING THE NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS?
A. No, the conference was designed to bring together, for the
first time, the disciplines of science and economic research
related to global change. While this debate will lay the
groundwork for future discussions, it is not intended to draft
legislative proposals.
Q. DOES THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE A POSITION ON SEN. LEAHY'S
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN USDA TO
COORDINATE EFFORTS, SHARE INFORMATION AND HELP RESEARCH THE
VIABILITY OF TEMPERATURE AND DROUGHT-RESISTANT PLANT STRAINS?
A. Not at this time. The President has just submitted a budget
for Fiscal Year 1991. It includes over $2 billion in new spending
to protect the environment. Further, fund ing for the U.S. Global
Change Research Program will increase by nearly 60 percent, to over
$1 billion. The President's commitment, by far the largest ever
made by any nation, reflects the administration's determination to
increase our understanding of the science of climate change. We
do not believe this is the time to establish a new federal office.
Q. WILL THIS CONFERENCE ALLOW THE UNITED STATES TO LAUNCH A
MULTI-PRONGED EFFORT TO MAKE EXPERTISE, TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO HELP REVERSE THE RESOURCE DETERIORATION THAT IS
UNDERMINING DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS IN THE THIRD WORLD?
A. Yes, this conference will reinforce and complement the
important work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The President strongly believes the U.S. must do
everything in our power to promote global cooperation, for
environmental protection, economic growth, and for sustainable and
environmentally sensitive development around the world. Economic
growth and environmental integrity need not be contradictory
priorities.
Q. NOW THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS RECOGNIZED THE GLOBAL
CHANGE PROBLEM, IS THE ADMINISTRATION WILLING TO REVIEW ALL U.S.
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, TRADE AND TAX POLICY, AND THIRD WORLD DEBT
WITH AN EYE ON HOW THEY CAN STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD'S
REMAINING TROPICAL FORESTS AND THE EXTINCTION OF COUNTLESS PLANT
AND ANIMAL SPECIES?
A. Yes, for example, the Administration is constantly working
through diplomatic channels for innovative measures like debt-for-
nature swaps, to not only reduce global deforestation, but to
reverse it. President Bush is looking toward options from a more
scientific-oriented approach rather than an approach that could
lead to an economic disaster. The President has said where there
is economic strength, environmental protection is possible. But
where there is poverty, the competition for resources gets much
tougher. Therefore, President Bush strongly encourages an orderly,
disciplined and rational approach to reconcile environmental
protection with economic development without compromising either.
Q. WHEN WILL THE ADMINISTRATION PROVIDE A CLEAR MANDATE TO ALL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ASSURE THAT ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS GIVE
PRIORITY ATTENTION TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS?
A. President Bush believes that we should make use of what we
know. But in many cases we don't know what the economic
ramifications are, nor do we know whether the science is there to
support it. The Administration wants to do it right, and to be
aggressive, but we do not want to encourage actions that are more
politically driven than those derived from logical debate. The
President's budget commitment is the largest ever made by any
nation and reflects our determination to improve our understanding
of the science of climate change.
Q. SINCE THIS CONFERENCE WILL COMBINE THE SCIENTIFIC, ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, IS THE ADMINISTRATION LOOKING FOR NEW
WAYS TO ALLOW FREE MARKET INCENTIVES TO HELP REDUCE POLLUTION THAT
AFFECTS THE GLOBAL CLIMATE, SUCH AS EMISSIONS TRADING AND POLLUTION
TAXES?
A. The President has said his goal is to create policy and
agreements on action with the most creative and effective
approaches. Whenever possible, we believe that market mechanisms
should be applied and that our policies must be consistent with
economic growth and free market principles in all countries. But
measures such as the taxes tend to raise a lot of expectation
without an proper analysis or preparation. Further, we believe it
would be extremely expensive for the country, on top of all the
things we're trying to do with child care and clean air.
Q. IN THAT SAME VEIN, THE VARIOUS FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TEND TO
RESULT IN GROSS UNDER-INVESTMENT IN LOWER COST EFFICIENCY OPTIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE MORE THAN $40 BILLION IN FEDERAL ENERGY
SUBSIDIES, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT GOES TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY. WILL
PRESIDENT BUSH CALL UPON THE CHAIRS OF THE CONFERENCE TO REVIEW
SUCH SUBSIDIES?
A. No, however, we continue to work on a new comprehensive review
and revision of our National Energy Strategy, with initiatives to
increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources. These
efforts are at the heart of a $336 million Department of Energy
program and are expected to produce energy savings through the year
2000 of over $30 billion - while achieving significant pollution
reduction.
Q. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS OSCILLATED BETWEEN A STRONGLY
ENVIRONMENTALIST POSITION AND A MORE TRADITIONAL BUSINESS-ORIENTED
VIEW. SINCE MOST OBSERVERS BELIEVE THAT THE BUSINESS AND CORPORATE
COMMUNITY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE GLOBAL IN NATURE, SHOULD THEY
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CONFERENCE?
A. This conference was designed to help the U.S. and other
nations by providing information on research issues relating to
global change that have not received such high level international
focus.
However, with regard to industry, the President knows that it
is important not to work in conflict but with our industrial
sectors. That means moving beyond the practice of command, control
and compliance and toward a new kind of environmental cooperation -
- toward an emphasis on pollution prevention, rather than mere
mitigation and litigation.
Q. DOES THE TIMING OF THE CONFERENCE COINCIDE WITH BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATION REQUESTS IN CONGRESS FOR PERTINENT AGENCIES SUCH AS
NOAA, NASA AND EPA?
A. No, the President submitted his budget in late January. It
includes over $2 billion in new spending to protect the
environment. The program will allow NASA and her sister agencies
and all our international partners to move forward with the
"Mission to Planet Earth". That will initiate the U.S. Earth
Observing System in cooperation with Europe and Japan, to advance
the state of knowledge about the planet we share.
Q. WORKING GROUP I OF THE IPCC ISSUED A DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FOLLOWING ITS MARCH MEETING, WHICH MADE SOME CONSENSUS SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING PREDICTIONS OF FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL GREENHOUSE
WARMING BY THE YEAR 2020, ALONG WITH GLOBAL PRECIPITATION AND
EVAPORATION INCREASES OF 3 PERCENT. THE IPCC SUMMARY ESTIMATES
THAT BY 2070, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WILL BE A "BEST ESTIMATE"
OF 3.5 DEGREES C HIGHER AND PRECIPITATION WILL BE 7% GREATER. THE
SUMMARY ALSO PREDICTS THAT AREAS OF SNOW AND SEA ICE COVER WILL BE
SMALLER. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THE IPCC SUMMARY STATEMENT?
A. The conclusions are preliminary and are contained in a draft
executive summary. They are currently being reviewed by hundreds
of scientists around the world. The IPCC plans to adopt a
consensus assessment report in late August of this year that will
be presented to the United Nations Environment Program and the
World Meteorological Organization in the Fall.
The White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change seeks to explore in more depth the
integration of science and economic research in the policy process
while attempting to build international partnerships for science
and economic research.
Plenary Tuesday
The President's
White House Conference
On
Science & Economics Research
Salon 2
Salon 3
Salon 4
Related to Global Change
Salon 1
*****
T- Screen
April 17-18, 1990
Reporter
&
X
Butter
White House Staff
JW Marriott Hotel
Microphone
Washington, DC
0
II
Projection
irs
Setup for Plenary
Tuesday
by: Robert Yates
& Associates, Inc
Scale: 1/8"=1"
Interpreter's Booths
Interpreter's Booths
April 10, 1990
hterpreter's Booths
Active Booths
Sound Board
for Plenary Sessions
0
10'
20'
30'
Plenary Wednesday
The President's
White House Conference
On
Science & Economics Research
Salon 1
Salon 2
Salon 3
Salon 4
Related to Global Change
XXXXX
Tx7 Screen
Reporter
AND
X
A
April 17-18, 1990
Butter
White House Staff
JW Marriott I totel
Morophones
Washington, DC
Φ
Projection
irs
Setup for Plenary
Wednesday
by: Robert Yates
& Associates, Inc
Frain
Scale: 1/8"=1'
hterpreter's Booths
Interpreter's Booths
Interpreter's Booths
April 10, 1990
Active Booths
Sound Board
for Plenary Sessions
0
10
20
30'
Break outs
The President's
White House Conference
On
Science & Economics Research
Salon 1
Salon 2
Salon 3
Salon 4
Related to Global Change
******
@@@@
XXXXX
Tx Screen
TxT Screen
7x Screen
Morophone
&
Microphone
HOW
Microphone
April 17-18, 1990
Peporter
Reporter
Haporter
(D
0
-
0
Butter
JW Marriott Hotel
Washington, DC
Projection
Projection
Projection
Setup for Breakouts
by Robert Yates
& Associates, Inc
Press Platform
Scale 1/8"=1'
24°
hterpreter's Booths
Interpreter's Booths
Interpreter's Booths
April 10, 1990
0
10'
20'
30'