Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323150888
label
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2/5/90 [OA 4391] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323150888
contentType
document
title
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2/5/90 [OA 4391] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13519-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323150888
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
79e8f05e6d54aab6
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13519
Folder ID Number:
13519-004
Folder Title:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2/5/90 [OA 4391] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
25
6
7
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 1, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
RBP
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
I recommend one deletion and one addition to the
commendatory speech.
Deletion:
Page one, second paragraph, last sentence. The words "most
ecologically fragile" should be removed.
The term fragile has developed into an advocacy word used by
environmental activists whenever they want something returned to
its primitive state. Anyone who visited the Prince William
Sound quickly realized, contrary to the statements of the day,
that it was not one of the world's more "fragile" places. The
same notion applies to the earth's climate. A historical record
m.f.
of billions of years supports the theory that the world's climate
has an amazing ability to adapt to change and cannot accurately
be described as fragile.
Addition:
Page six, second paragraph, fourth sentence. The sentence
should be changed to read, "Developing a National Energy
Strategy, which includes initiatives to increase energy
M.R.
efficiency and the use of renewable energies."
Last Friday, the Department of Energy announced a series of
initiatives to increase energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy sources. The Department will spend $336 million
on the initiatives over the next 6 years. Energy savings from
mf.
the initiatives through the year 2000 are expected to exceed $32
billion. These initiatives will achieve significant air
pollution reduction.
9 E Id / NAV 06
Document No. 109727SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2/1/90 5:00 PM
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 PM 12: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
10:15 A.M.
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete -- of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
You are called upon to end the environmental cold war.
2
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
luxury.
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
resources. Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
3
1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
at bont
by 25 percent.
?
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
significant, imminent climate change.
Last fall, many clear thinkers -- among them, world leaders
-- were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
drawing the conclusions.
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists --
if not most -- are not ready to claim that the extent of global
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
That may be to their credit.
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
the English poet William Blake wrote, "The best lack all
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
intensity." Here, too, we are called upon for action based on
observation -- not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
what is known about climate change -- and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
expected to predict the future. Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture.
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
lead the world. We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
the science. Because what science now knows with confidence,
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
I believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made here, we're also
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
borrowed, never owned.
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
that devotes a total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
work. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
Planet Earth" -- and will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
We want to stabilize -- and reduce wherever we can -- both
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. thopones Working out a comprehensive
revision of our a National Aweloping Energy Strategy. And launching a major unwable
review new everary and effrering and
which
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a
private land across America.
in every enexing year on lurgy
conclusion
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
initiating
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
are getting intensive study. We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
and challenge other nations to follow suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it.
As we work to create policy to manage CO2 and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries. But we will
break the hold of the environmental cold war only through
dialogue -- through a shared commitment to consensus.
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
environmental cooperation. Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions. And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here -- and a
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
an end to the environmental cold war.
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
###
BARRY McBEE
JCA
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 Fil !2: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
report if this body and
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
the
10:15 A.M.
Organization
M
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
arising
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
from
it
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete -- of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
balance
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
You are called upon to end the environmental :9d cold war I NVC 06
2
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
been
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
Considered
luxury.
has
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
resources. Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
among
est ever freed
and develop appropriate mt
the
sensonal responses
b, mankind
and, if so, when These
whether they will resultin
M.F.
Changes will occur
3
1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
by 25 percent.
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
significant imminent climate change.
Last fall, many clear thinkers -- among them, world leaders
-- were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
see it as
amimminent
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
had
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
issuesible
And
threat to
drawing the conclusions.
mankind
uncomfortable
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger
in
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
question
the
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists 1
likelihorl
if not most - are not ready to claim that the extent of global
of climet
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
ing
Change if
the
That may be to their credit.
world
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
Continues .
I
the English poet William Blake wrote, "The best lack all
Current
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
must
path
Jet
intensity." Here, too, we are called upon for action based on
S
observation -- not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
with
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
Absolute
cestaints
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
defineble 4ml
Ca/<v/Able
inaleguate vnlerstandings
of Science, or
M.F.
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
what is known about climate change -- and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
expected to predict the future. Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture.
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
lead the world. We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
MENTION with
the science. Because what science now knows with confidence,
House surross
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
ECOHOMICS LOMFER
BMOE This Speir
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
conclusively
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
Discuss
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
No
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
Pocioy
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
I believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made hare, we're also
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
borrowed, never owned.
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
that devotes a total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
work. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
Planet Earth" -- and will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
We want to stabilize -- and reduce wherever we can -- both
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. Working out a comprehensive review and
revision of our National Energy Strategy. And launching a major
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a year on
private land across America.
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
are getting intensive study. We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
and challenge other nations to follow suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it.
CFCs, on
As we work to create policy to manage CO2, and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries. But we will
break the hold of the environmental cold war only through
dialogue -- through a shared commitment to consensus.
hchieve results
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
environmental cooperation. Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here -- and a
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
an end to the environmental cold war
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
# # #
)
109727SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
2/1/90 5:00 PM
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 1, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
JIM PINKERTON
D
SUBJECT:
Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change draft
This speech is excellent in parts, but it tries to do too
much and is too long. Specifically, in explaining that we are
taking the middle ground between absolute faith in global warming
and absolute skepticism, we bash both sides too much. We believe
that the speech should aim to accomplish three things:
First, to underscore that the President's very presence at
the conference speaks to his feelings about the issue. He will
be, after all, the very first American President to attend such a
conference.
Second, we should articulate the President's feelings about
his attending, e.g., the President could note that a few days
before he was addressing the issue of reducing American and
Soviet troop levels and that he considers this issue to be on the
same plane of global importance. The President could also expand
on his personal feelings about the environment.
Third, we should emphasize, as the draft in part does, that
we are taking actions and spending large sums to get better
answers on the issue.
Specific comments:
pg. 1, para. 5, line 1 The cold war metaphor is very apt.
3,4,1
"I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to
draw conclusions. But I have noticed something about the
scientists drawing the conclusions."
The first sentence in this pair of sentences is the right
position to take. It is the second sentence that starts a series
of deprecating statements about those who have drawn conclusions
on global warming.
These criticisms culminate in the Blake quote -- it's way
too harsh, and end at 4,2,2 with "Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture" -- a veiled jab at those who have decided to decide.
(more)
2
The point is that we do not need to characterize those who have
made up their minds.
It is entirely sufficient that the President merely state
his willingness to get better answers to this controversy. We do
not need, in other words, to go out of our way in order to be
critical -- thereby causing controversy to rebound onto the
President.
5,2 &3 This is more like it: talking about the importance of
stewardship and the commitment of the U.S. to be a leader on this
and other environmental issues.
6,2,4
Naturally, we applaud the reforestation language. And
the example of the tree-planting in Guatemala at 7,2,1 is the
perfect illustration.
###
February 1, 1990
FROM: Mike Deland
TO: Chriss Winston
RE: IPCC SPEECH
Here is a step-by-step walk-through of my handwritten notes in
the margins of Monday's draft speech.
Page One:
Either delete "logical" and don't qualify "division" OR state it
more clearly by substituting "illogical" -- that, in fact, is
what we mean.
Delete "cold war. " We have been working together for years on
environmental issues with much success. It is an unnecessary and
inaccurate negative assessment of the situation.
Page Two:
no comments
Page Three:
I don't believe there exists a scientific link between polar ice
sheets and sea ice; one is on land, the other on ocean. One
would be "walking on thin ice" to suggest that this comparison
offers evidence either way on the global warming question.
The Blake quote is unnecessarily offensive. Those in the
audience may not be "passionate" but they are dedicated. The
quote is not worth the risk of insulting the group.
"Media-driven emotion" is a bit strong. Something along the
lines of "The politics are outstripping the science" might be
better.
-2-
Page Four:
The function of such models is to help us predict the future.
The point to be made here is that while models can be useful in
making prediction, they are limited in the degree of certainty
they can provide.
The line about the U.S. "continues to lead the world" sounds
arrogant coming from the President. It is something that I and
others say on his behalf all the time.
The language at the bottom of the page about a "reasoned middle
ground" is on target, but is begging for an example. This would
be a good place to insert Secretary Baker's language on global
climate change from his maiden speech one year ago.
Page Five:
Can we re-phrase "more than any other country" while still taking
credit?
Page Six:
Delete "environmental cold war" for same reasons as on page one.
Page Seven:
"Pollution prevention" is a concept that the President supports
and has spoken about before. It could be mentioned as a concrete
example of the "new kind of environmental cooperation" that is
mentioned here.
Document No. 109727SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2/1/90 5:00 PM
SUBJECT:
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 PM 12: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
10:15 A.M.
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete -- of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
illogical
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
You are called upon to end the environmental cold
war. have working N.Tcoll year. been Hogeth
by
2
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
luxury.
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
resources. Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
3
1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
by 25 percent.
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
significant, imminent climate change.
one one's
Last fall, many clear thinkers -- among them, world leaders
were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
sainthing
Sea
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
1 and
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
not
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
Their
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
drawing the conclusions.
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists --
if not most -- are not ready to claim that the extent of global
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
That may be to their credit.
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
differention
the English poet William Blake wrote
"The best lack all
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
auduni quite needed
intensity.
Here, too, we are called upon for action based on
observation -- not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
not
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
may
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
be
indedicated it. want don't to offend
abil politic sting Jan outshiging might
an
be
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
what is known about climate change -- and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
models
capable
of priding
expected to predict A the future. Above all, responsible policy
are
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
to
conjecture
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
lead the world. We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
sounds
the science. Because what science now knows with confidence,
Bree.
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
brown
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
Something 25gm shall
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
his
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
with
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
time
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
I believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made here, we're also
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
Sec. Bahr language for
his maiden one yr. speech ago
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
borrowed, never owned.
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
we are we
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
can
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
SLill credit
that devotes a total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
work. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
Planet Earth" -- and will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
We want to stabilize -- and reduce wherever we can -- both
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. Working out a comprehensive review and
revision of our National Energy Strategy. And launching a major
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a year on
private land across America.
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
are getting intensive study. We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
and challenge other nations to follow suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it.
As we work to create policy to manage CO2 and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries. But we will
break the hold of the environmental cold war only through
dialogue -- through a shared commitment to consensus.
Change Phrase
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
Poblution prevention
environmental cooperation Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions. And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here --- and a
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
an end to the environmental cold war.
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
# # #
109727SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORAND
0833
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2/1/90 5:00 PM
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE: MEMORANDUM FOR CHRISS WINSTON
February 1, 1990
The NSC staff believes the draft Presidential remarks: Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change are needlessly confrontational by invoking the
image of an environmental cold war, which does not accurately reflect the
cooperative nature of the work being done in the IPCC. Additional comments
are noted throughout the text.
James W. Cicconi
A
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Brent Scowcroft
Ext. 2702
TA7
RECEIVED
90 FEB I P I : 44
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 PM 12: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
10:15 A.M.
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete -- of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
You are called upon to end the environmental cold war.
bad symbol
cumental
coldwar doesn't
exist. President
confiontational
2
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
M.J. divided musit "dank dan not. this
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
thet the don't
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
1
?
luxury.
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
advance
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
resources. Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
pick more date a w
3
1800s
the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
by 25 percent.
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
significant, imminent climate change.
Last fall, many clear thinkers -- among them, world leaders
-- were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
scient these or
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
drawing the conclusions.
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists --
if not most -- are not ready to claim that the extent of global
we educt "Ficare
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
to
That may be to their credit.
This was as
the
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
the English poet William Blake wrote, "The best lack all
Imsh yeats Revolution
same
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
Nota 900 quote
intensity. Here, too,
we are called upon for action based
on
for vicas His or
observation -- not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
what is known about climate change -- and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
infusing
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
be the bases of crastic decisions
expected to predict the future Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture.
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
lead the world. We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
the science.
Because what science now knows with confidence,
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
I believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made here, we're also
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
borrowed, never owned.
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
that devotes a total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
work. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
Planet Earth" -- and will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
We want to stabilize -- and reduce wherever we can -- both
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. Working out a comprehensive review and
revision of our National Energy Strategy. And launching a major
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a year on
private land across America.
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
are getting intensive study. We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
and challenge other nations to follow suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it.
As we work to create policy to manage CO2 and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries.
But we will
not
break the hold of the environmental cold war only through
needed
dialogue -- through a shared commitment to consensus.
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
environmental cooperation. Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions. And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here -- and a
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
Emough!
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
an end to the environmental cold war.
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
###
OFFICE OF THE OFFICE MANAGE PRESIDENT o STATES AND OF THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
NOTICE:
Enclosed are comments from staff members of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Such comments do not necessarily
represent the official position of the Director of OMB or of the
Office of Management and Budget. If you wish to have the
Director's personal comments, please let me know -- and contact
me if you have any questions.
David J. Haun
Executive Assistant
to the Director
11 283106
109727SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2/1/90 5:00 PM
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
See comments
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 PM 12: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
10:15 A.M.
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete -- of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
us
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
e
This is
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
strons
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
an
You are called upon to end the environmental cold war.
deyir
your efforts
2
must lay the
Improving our
around work for
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
luxury.
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
and
resources, Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
is strongly committed to
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
We don't
process of international cooperation
want the
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
Ipec
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
do set
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
needs tobe
policy
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
Heyer
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
3
1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
by 25 percent.
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
significant, imminent climate change.
Last fall, many clear thinkers -- among them, world leaders
-- were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
drawing the conclusions.
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists --
if not most -- are not ready to claim that the extent of global
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
That may be to their credit.
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
the English poet William Blake wrote, "The best lack all
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
intensity." Here, too, we are called upon for action based on
observation -- not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
what is known about climate change
and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
expected to predict the future. Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture.
Note: several
is a mony the
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
the
are week doing also.
lead the world. We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
the science. Because what science now knows with confidence,
snady 4844
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
I believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made here, we're also
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
" This part is not very clear, Is The intention to say
So much remains unknown That it is not possible to evaluate the
effict of policy a term was my degree of confidence"
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
borrowed, never owned.
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
1
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
an increase of $2
that devotes X total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
programs work Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
initiate the
Planet Earth" -- and will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
in cooperation with Europe and Japan,
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
increase the efficiency of
We want to stabilize and reduce wherever we can both
use
Thus reduce total
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. Working out a comprehensive review and
revision of our National Energy Strategy. And launching a major
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a year on
private land across America.
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
are getting intensive study. We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
and challenge other nations to follow suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it.
As we work to create policy to on manage CO2 and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries. But we will
Develop effective and acceptable solutions
break the hold of the environmental cold war only through
dialogue -- through a shared commitment to consensus.
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
environmental cooperation. Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions. And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
the emissions of
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here -- and a
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
an end to the environmental cold war.
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
# # #
Document No.
109727SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
2/1/90
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2/1/90 5:00 PM
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
BATES
UNTERMEYER
CARD
ROGERS
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
PINKERTON
FITZWATER
DELAND
GRAY
BROMLEY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm. 122,
x2930, no later than 5:00 PM TODAY, Tuesday, February 1, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Please comments intext
memo
It 9d / NAS 06
James W. Cicconi
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
Director, OSTP
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
GENERAL POINTS
ON THE PRESIDENT'S IPCC REMARKS
1.
This is a unique opportunity for the President to
establish clearly the continuity, direction and
strength of the U.S. program relating to climate
change. the Watkins-Reilly memo emphasized this; the
DPC Working Group endorsed it, but this draft does not
take adequate advantage of this opportunity for the
President to reaffirm U.S. leadership in addressing
climate change on the basis of sound science and sound
economics, as well as concrete actions already taken.
2.
The President should use the occasion of this talk to
build upon his Malta announcement and discussion with
President Gorbachev and now announce that he is
inviting a small but representative cross-section of
the world's most senior science, economics and
environmental officials to participate in a seminar in
Washington April 18-19, where he intends to participate
personally in the discussions and educate himself on
these matters. In hosting this seminar, it is his
intention to improve the quality and understanding of
the analytic tools and data required to address the
problems of climate change; to sensitize the science,
economics and environmental research communities to
each other's activities, uncertainties and problem
areas; and to at least begin developing an
international research plan that would draw upon the
experience, expertise and data of all the participating
countries in addressing the gaps and uncertainties
remaining in our understanding of the science and
economics of global change.
It is his clear intent that this seminar break new
ground in bringing the scientific and economic aspects
of global change into close interaction and that the
results of the seminar would feed into this IPCC
process. We would hope to provide new information
toward the formulation of sound policy in this area.
3.
The President should use this occasion to reinforce his
Malta invitation to host the first negotiating session
on The Framework Convention. Not to do so would imply
a desire to pull back from that invitation and leave
the President open to a whole range of unfair charges.
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
2/1/90
(Lange/Cawley)
February 1, 1989
1990 JAN 32 Fil 12: 04
10:45 A.M.
[IPCC.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
10:15 A.M.
Thank you, Dr. Bolin [Bo-leen]. Professor Obasi. Dr.
Tolba. Delegates of the World Meteorological Congress, and the
United Nations Environment Program. Let me thank and
congratulate all of you, for taking on an issue of such great
importance. The decisions this organization makes will have a
profound effect on the world's environmental and economic policy.
In the post-war era, we've produced the most technologically
advanced creations of man. We've also gained new understanding
-- though still incomplete - of the most ecologically fragile
creations of nature.
But unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we picked up a
bias, that has harmed both man and nature: a mistaken belief
that there is a divergence of interests -- a logical division --
between the natural world and we who inhabit it.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more central
to the work of this Panel. You are called upon to strike an
unprecedented international bargain: a convergence between
global environmental policy, and global economic policy, where
both sides benefit -- and neither is compromised.
You are called upon to end the environmental cold war.
There is no environmental cold war-
internationally, not a good reference
2
This will be possible only if we understand that economic
growth and environmental integrity are not contradictory
priorities. One reinforces and complements the other.
slien is a
A sound environment is the basis for the continuity and
not new in ialla
quality of human life and enterprise. And strong economies allow
nations to fulfill the obligations of environmental stewardship.
Where there is economic strength, such stewardship is considered
a necessity. But where there is poverty, it is too often a
what
Rswbein in
luxury.
already
For that reason, I believe we must usher in a new era of
here
global cooperation: for environmental protection and economic
growth. For intelligent management of industrial and natural
resources. Above all, for sustainable development -- around the
world.
The United States believes the I.P.C.C. is the best forum to
develop policy on global climate change. We're committed to
international cooperation on this issue. And we consider it
vice
vital, that the community of nations is drawn together -- in an
ordered, rational way -- to assess the potential for climate
change.
The state of the science; the social and economic impacts;
and the right response strategies: all are crucial components to
a global resolution. The stakes here are very high.
There is no question that human activities are changing the
atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. Since the mid-
3
1800s, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up
by 25 percent.
What we don't yet understand is the extent of the
alterations we've brought about -- and how they're linked to a
why say any of this Remember, His is a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change
significant, imminent climate change.
For eg.
sea
there good tonefnot in
Last fall, many clear thinkers ", among them, world leaders
ice
were citing a significant thinning of sea ice at the poles as
#
evidence that global warming had arrived. Recent observations
polashmet ice
show that the polar ice sheets are not melting, they're growing
in size.
while both statements are true, they are
2 very different phenomena. hinking them this way is
I'm not prepared -- academically, or otherwise -- to draw
not
quite
conclusions. But I have noticed something about the scientists
correct
+
drawing the conclusions.
can be
Those who see climate change as a clear and present danger misbed
represent one distinct minority. Those who discount it
completely, represent another minority. But many scientists --
if not most -- are not ready to claim that the extent of global
climate change can now be reliably detected -- or predicted.
kind of
That may be to their credit.
insulting,
When he was observing the fervor of the French Revolution,
see
the English poet William Blake wrote, "The best lack all
below
conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate
intensity. Here, too, we are called upon for action based on
not
observation not media-driven emotion, or the politics of
apocalypse. The decisions being made are too important to be
compromised intellectually -- or polarized politically.
the people at this conference are Here because they case
about the issue - many have denated their caseess to
the issue. That does not make them "the worst"
4
Questions remain: about the reflective effects of cloud
cover, the cooling effects and CO2 absorption of oceans, and
group
other sinks and feedback mechanisms we don't yet understand.
Those questions, among others, suggest that we should attend to
the
Knoplis
what is known about climate change -- and work to know more.
Current computer models are marvels of mathematics. Still,
they cannot yet be said to represent reality -- and cannot be
expected to predict the future. Above all, responsible policy
cannot rest on the shifting sands of hypothesis and a chaos of
conjecture.
rephase
In the search for answers, the United States continues to
lead the world We're seeking hard data and new ways to improve
the science. Because what science now knows with confidence,
policy-makers can't use. And what policy-makers need to make
decisions, science doesn't yet know.
In spite of this uncertainty, some suggest we should act
why
now, on the chance that significant climate change becomes
say
certain. Others point to the opposite edge of that sword: any
this
meaningful preemptive policies would bring only the certainty of
this
and
prohibitive expense; conflict with Third World development; and
declining standards of living, worldwide.
$
believe we can do better. There is a reasoned middle
ground, that matches policy to emerging scientific knowledge --
and reconciles environmental protection to economic development.
With every word, with every decision made here, we're also
nice
making a committment that is profoundly personal. I think all of
5
us understand, deep inside, how the actions we take now speak to
the future.
Last week, in my State of the Union address, I spoke of
nice
stewardship. I believe it's something we owe our children and
grandchildren -- because the earth we stand upon is only
Heoughtful
borrowed, never owned.
agressive and (intelligent) action
So the United States remains committed to a leadership role
on environmental issues. In our domestic programs. Our work to
forge international agreements. Our assistance to developing and
East Bloc nations. And here, by leading the Response Strategies
Working Group.
Overall, we're already doing more than any other country to
understand and address global warming -- in terms of financial
and human resources, by more than a factor of ten.
I just proposed a budget to our Congress for fiscal 1991
that devotes a total of over [$70] billion to environment-related
work. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program will
increase by nearly 60 percent, to over $1 billion.
That will allow NASA to move forward with its "Mission to
together with our partners
Planet Earth" -- and the will fund the launch of the first U.S. Earth
Observing System, to advance the state of knowledge about the
planet we share.
du own country,
We've already taken many steps that bring major benefits in
their own right. Steps that make sense on their own merits, and
that will also help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
These should be rephared to be sensitive to the
fact that there will be many very por countries
in the audience.
6
gases now building up in the atmosphere. Let me outline them
very briefly:
We want to stabilize -- and reduce wherever we can -- both
our energy consumption and our total emissions. So we're
pursuing new technology development. Creating a revised Clean
Air Act with incentives for industry to find creative, market-
driven solutions. Working out a comprehensive review and
revision of our National Energy Strategy. And launching a major
reforestation initiative to plant a billion trees a year on
private land across America.
with our colleague consties in action
We're also working through diplomatic channels, and through
innovative measures like debt-for-nature swaps, to do more than
simply reduce global deforestation. We hope to reverse it.
The economics of our response strategies to climate change
in urcomety
are
are getting intensive study We intend to develop real data on
the costs of various response strategies, assess new measures,
look forward and to sharing other our data nations with to studies follow by other nations.
challenge suit. And we will offer
technical support to those who need it our international calleagues
laster frward to sharring
with
As we work to create policy to manage CO2 and other
emissions, we want to encourage the most innovative responses.
Wherever possible, we believe that market mechanisms should be
applied -- and that policy must be consistent with economic
growth and free market principles in all countries. But we will
break dialogue the -- hold through of the a environmental shared commitment cold to war consensus. only through
only
no war
note: we aren't doing flus the
mes
7
If we hope to promote environmental protection and economic
growth around the world, it will be important to work with, not
against industry. That will mean moving beyond the tradition of
good
command, control, and compliance -- toward a new kind of
environmental cooperation. Many industries, in fact, are already
providing crucial research and solutions. And a few are already
ahead of us.
One power-plant management firm, just across the river in
not
Virginia, donated $2 million in 1988 for tree planting in
this
in
Guatemala -- to compensate for a coal-fired plant it was building
speech
in Connecticut. And the company expects to couple tree-planting
programs with all of the new power plants now on its drawing
boards.
Where developing nations are concerned, some suggest we'll
have to abandon the laissez-faire, free-market principles that
allowed the industrial world to prosper. In fact, we think it's
all the more crucial, in the developing countries, to apply the
principles of the free market in the service of the environment.
To the extent we can accelerate the advancement of these
nations, it will take less energy for them to produce wealth: in
modern industrial countries, energy use per unit of G.N.P. has
declined over time -- steadily, and dramatically.
look freward to wales with
So we need to work with the developing nations: Applying
the power of the marketplace, considering technology transfer,
to wnle with
and encouraging industry to assist developing nations in making
quantum leaps in technologies. That will allow developing
8
nations to grow more quickly and easily -- and may help them
avoid making the environmental mistakes we older nations have
made.
As I said a moment ago, I believe we should make use of what
?
we know. We know that the future of the earth cannot be
compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here -- and a
nice
covenant with those most precious to us: our children, and
theirs.
We also know of the efficiency of economic incentive -- and
that free markets yield the most creative solutions. We must now
apply the wisdom of the market, in defense of the environment we
share. It is time to heal this false schism. It is time to put
no
indian
an end to the environmental cold war.
was
Working together, with good faith and earnest dialogue, I
believe it can be done. But more important: We know it must be
done.
Thank you -- and God bless you.
# # #
more here about luck the good unle of IPCC, etc
and wish them well in their entinuing
effects to address this very difficult issue