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
225358397
label
POTUS on GCC [Global Climate Change]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
225358397
contentType
document
title
POTUS on GCC [Global Climate Change]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council of Economic Advisers (Clinton Administration)
Jeffrey Frankel's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
225358397
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4739346-20171095F-008-004-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
eebb3903cbcdc512
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1095-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council of Economic Advisers
Series/Staff Member:
Jeffrey Frankel
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13727
FolderID:
Folder Title:
POTUS on GCC [Global Climate Change]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
20
5
1
2
Michele Jolin
09/22/98 08:58:02 AM
Record Type: Record
To:
All CEA Users
cc:
Subject: POTUS opening statement and excerpts NYU
Forwarded by Michele Jolin/CEA/EOP on 09/22/98 08:57 AM
OLCOTT_E @ A1
09/21/98 07:03:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: 1998-09/21 POTUS opening statement and excerpts NYU
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 21, 1998
OPENING REMARKS AND EXCERPTS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: AN OPENING DIALOGUE
New York University School of Law
New York, New York
4:42 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, John. I would like to
thank you and the NYU School of Law, the Progressive Policy Institute, the
World Policy Institute and the New School University -- -- all of you -- for your
Then there are national problems which have global
impacts because they're so big. And they prevent countries from
becoming what they ought to -- air pollution, water pollution,
soil erosion, food supply pollution, those kinds of things. Then
there's a huge problem we've got that's sort of in the middle
--it's partly the result of global warming and partly the results
of national pollution, and that is the degredation of the oceans,
which is a breathtaking environmental problem that if unaddressed
we will pay a huge price for.
Now, from my point of view, there are two big issues
here -- and I agree with Tony, I think Kyoto is a big step
forward. So I go to my Congress that's supposed to be
Republican, free market oriented and I say, okay, guys, no
regulations and no taxes, tax cuts and increases for research and
development. And they say, it's a Communist plot and they hold
hearings -- (laughter) -- about how, you know, this is just some
deep, dark conspiracy to undermine the strength of the United
States.
Now, wait a minute. You're laughing abuot this but
actually behind this as opposed to some other things there is the
core of an idea they have. (Laughter.) This idea, widely shared
in the developing world and held onto in America more than any
other developed country is -- it goes right against what Tony
said -- this is very serious, we're having fun, but this is a
serious conversation -- their idea is that there is an inevitable
iron connection between the production of greenhouse gases
through the burning of fossil fuel and economic growth; and if
you reduce greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere there is no
way on Earth that you will not reduce economic growth.
There's all this businesss about technology and
conservation and its' all a big plot designed to bring down the
growth machine of America. Now, you laugh -- we've had hearings
on it, we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars complying
with subpoena requests and document requests and sending
witnesses up to the Hill to basically say this is not a
conspiracy to destroy the future of America.
But the serious idea here is, if you want something
done about climate change, you must prevail in every developing
country with evidence -- evidence that there is no longer an iron
connection between the burning of fossil fuels and economic
growth.
The second point I want to make goes to the second
question they ask about: how come we spend so little on foreign
aid on the poor now? Because they don't have any votes in our
country and because we don't think enough about it. I mean,
every year my foreign aid budget is cut back.
But one thing we can do is to participate jointly
with other countries in environmental projects in developing
countries in ways that help reduce climate global warming and
create lots of jobs in areas where there are lots of poor people.
I believe if there is a serious global effort to deal with these
environmental challenges, we would be investing all over the
world the way the United States did, for example, in a massive
reforestation project in Haiti. And when you do that kind of
work, a lot of this work is very basic work that needs to be
done, you can create huge numbers of jobs for poor people who
would otherwise not have them.
So I would say to all of you, I think this is a big
opportunity -- I tried to say some provocative things to make you
laugh so you'd listen, because it's late in the day and you're
all tired. But I'm telling you, the biggest environmental -- the
obstacle to our having responsible environmental policy in the
whole world, including in the United States, is the belief of too
many policymakers in 1998 that there is still an iron law between
how much junk you put in the atmosphere and how much your economy
grows.
And until we break that in the minds of
decision-makers, we will not do what we should do on the climate
change challenge, and until we do it, we are playing Russian
roulette with our children's future and running an increased risk
that this will be the national security issue of the 21st
century. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: John, I would like to thank you, the
law school, and NYU and the other sponsors of the event. Again,
let me thank all of you who participated. And I want to thank
Hillary and Sid Blumenthal and the others who conceived of this,
and Mr. Blair's folks in Great Britain, who worked so closely on
this.
I would like to close with -- ask for just a brief
reprise of two things we talked about. One is, can this whole
third way approach be applied successfully to long-term problems
that have big consequences before they have them, i.e., in
American terms, Social Security, Medicare, climate change.
Two is, can we not only develop a global
consciousness and global policies within our respective country,
but actually band together to deal with this present global
financial challenge in a way that gives us a trading system, a
labor rights system, an environmental system and a financial
system that, in effect, recreates what works on the national
level, globally; that, in effect, takes these great 50-year-old
institutions and does whatever has to be done to make sure that
they see us through for the next 50 years.
Poly
(record has
10/21/97
M
from 14 ?))
2008-2012 average
will = 1990
No 880 Tnyl period.
Permit system into efflct
EC. reviews
R & D
$ 55 over 5 yrs
Tax breaks
voluntary pgms. with industry
Pous
10
GS You should know 14+L5 are committed to Grolding [veinatens [vi at end
LS
3
pager
L.S.
:
mesi 1990hy 2010 15 S-Labs : $50/ton"
Ireas.
JY 5/100 dilt in 2100 it LDC behava doesv'r C have
Bowles way's diff in eron?
POLUS massive
Cocus coulroll i> the ideal evergybass on whis
econ.welph is based
Our ther me P.779 panerplant at 2F business.
3
JY do it far swart N domb.
would regard 1998 by 2010 as dont
Putus 24 we did 4 "yas Tax
KiMCC
other studies Golder stand <$ 50 812,
Escape Escape clause clause
pocus: Can we 7ᵉᵗ away with it ? will hers 90
alory
U.S.
LSAJY conveyed 117 fairly
iny. Molq system
won't gil any
without being either flahy w another hand
occunaleda even little by of TRIV
ins invelite
K7 Europans are in 11 because of bubble
Polus En exiansion
Me Yes. incerille to exland But even with bessen lawary Euis/
GCC
9/15/47
BUTUS T enviros cabinet rm
15
POLUS. Personally committes b lorg so.verhing
Science () clear
My me nepoto asuces. us has A agree is buty lavyets, bet has
to be achieved
Engage Awer people. Haven't love to grip
Byrd Amendmit,
1
LDCs orght do something.
[$13 m. all campaign
Karpinski
support Elex.
Brd Ris (ucs) Earn actn
5 A eauly
Reducts below 1990 levels & by
2005
us & asu) must kot The way
Fred Kniff (EDR) cap like SO₂, We're 40% ahead of schedule, 04 L/10
The COST.
Support flex. But Strong & early
Concerns.
Techn. initiative five, bit need Tames
fostponed Later Than 2005 a onblem,
Juhn Addams? "Public understds. this issue." have scorn For those
tryg.To mislead."
Elear. devey cops on
Rather have a STrong Treaty, even it IT atified night away.
Carl Pope Sievra club
Calif. humicane
(i) Need a bold treaty (2) whole govt. needs TO show this is serious, cabines
(3) get everyone involved: schools, chunles, farmers
nathryr Fuler. Melman polling. 3/4 said GCI willbe a publess
2/3 night now. Majorty Said reductrs by 2005, Respirations disease resonates.
RUTUS malania
.
Lash
(an be beneficial economically
POLUS A patardigm To into Mchn, could increase wealth, Centainly the
qualiM of life
N
6cc & POTUS
Lash Models prodict pds. dependyon Policy flex, JL, proceeds
P2t back Muec, other beaction (health), effict. responses
Name
Ecologists. Limit varing 1 1°C. Early STart 2005
type correrate CEOS?
Rous
oil gas people negative. oThers less neq., to pus,
SO2 ended in lower LOSTS ! better results. My quess is 6cc wold be
The same. Bus. athtude:rop down reg. US. mht onented ok
BUS guys na parthilade offered & fuel MV, But Congr. zew chance,
Adull,
New your of tax reform. Date surtchtax/stic from favorly bel chergy rogood.
how how can can
we help?
fueltax, revenue neetal offselly redisis, if you want rold That,
could push for it.
It Repls. make Tax The issue
in 98, cold seize That.
VP : Publics aget realy to give fermssn. for tho son of actas.
necessary.
Long before consensus for Montral Protocol,
was thought politically impossible.
-
Bolus Howevany Sevators have read/listened a revirus presents.
on GCC? we agreep,
PUTUS OnlyQ: How much can wedo 7 howave 9019
Duarts every other envino. topic.
- Babbit net convinced That sxroug treaty is 1007, definitely best way
N To go ngarless of politics, Pres. has a move balanced nuav(ed leasn to make,
- 10cus now penuals 1990/lvels nowher enough for abeve
we need to 90 aer next So yrs.
- vare MCG banlg madels. Med validators. Like John Browne
has
RR.
Draft 1/30/98 11:40am
JAN
30
AM11:
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
RADIO ADDRESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
January 30, 1998
Good morning. Today I'd like to talk to you about one of the ways we are strengthening the
nation for the 21st century: our bold new efforts to help head off the threat of global climate change
through the power of the market and the force of American innovation.
The world's leading climate scientists have concluded, unequivocally, that if we do not
reduce the emissions of greenhouses into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up, the seas will rise,
and severe storms will threaten property and life. Fortunately, we can avert these dangers and we
can do it while maintaining our strong economy.
This past December, America led the world to reach a historic agreement committing
nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through market forces, new technology, and energy
efficiency. We have it in our power to act right here, right now. In my State of the Union address,
I called for an unprecedented commitment of $6 billion for research and tax incentives to mobilize
cutting-edge technology in the fight against global warming. Now I'd like to explain just what that
means for you.
First, we will bring down the price of high-efficiency cars for every American. Last month,
Ford, GM, and Chrysler unveiled prototypes of advanced-technology cars that get more than twice
the mileage as today's models -- with no sacrifice in comfort, safety, or performance. When cars
like these begin to fill the showrooms in the year 2000, we'll give everyone who buys one a $3,000
tax credit -- and it will apply to every size car. When these cars become even more efficient, we'll
increase the tax credit to $4,000. We are committed to making it not only wiser but cheaper to buy
highly efficient cars.
Second, we will help you turn your home into a model of energy efficiency. We'll offer tax
credits that will give you a discount of 20% off the cost of energy-saving water heaters and air
conditioners. And, as Vice President Gore announced in California yesterday, we will also offer a
tax credit -- worth up to $2,000 to help you put solar panels on your roof.
Third, we will step up research on clean, renewable energy and energy-efficient technology.
We'll help develop energy-saving lighting, refrigerators, and other appliances that will mean lower
monthly bills for you. And we will work with industry to cut their energy use so they can protect
the environment while enhancing their bottom line.
Whenever we act to heal our environment, the pessimists say it will hurt our economy. But
today our economy is the strongest in a generation and our environment is the cleanest in a
generation. Whether the problem was acid rain, deadly pesticides, polluted rivers, or the ozone
hole, the ingenuity of the American people has always proved the pessimists wrong. And we will
do it once again. Working together, we will overcome the challenge of global climate change. We
will create new avenues of economic growth. And most important, we will honor our deepest
responsibility to pass on this home, without harm, to our children, our grandchildren, and
generations yet to come. Thanks for listening.
State ofthe Union excertp on GCC
Our overriding environmental challenge tonight is the
worldwide problem of climate change, global warming, the gathering
crisis that requires worldwide action. The vast majority of
scientists have concluded unequivocally that if we don't reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases, at some point in the next century we'll
disrupt our climate and put our children and grandchildren at risk.
This past December, America led the world to reach a historic
agreement committing our nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through market forces, new technologies, energy efficiency. We have
it in our power to act right here, right now. I propose $6 billion
in tax cuts and research and development to encourage innovation,
renewable energy, fuel-efficient cars, energy-efficient homes.
Every time we have acted to heal our environment,
pessimists have told us it would hurt the economy. Well, today our
economy is the strongest in a generation, and our environment is the
cleanest in a generation. We have always found a way to clean the
environment and grow the economy at the same time. And when it comes
to global warming, we'll do it again. (Applause.)
n
Michele Jolin 10/22/97 04:05:58 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: FYI - -- Briefing on climate change
Forwarded by Michele Jolin/CEA/EOP on 10/22/97 04:04 PM
SUNTUM_M @ A1
10/22/97 03:50:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: 1997-10/22 briefing on climate change
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 22, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL GENE SPERLING,
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY
DAN TARULLO,
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JIM
STEINBERG,
STAFF SECRETARY TODD STERN,
CHAIR OF COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENT QUALITY KATIE MCGINTY,
AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TREASURY LARRY SUMMERS
The Briefing Room
1:15 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: We are bringing before you a parade of
administration officials, harmoniously and vigorously united together
-- brown and green alike, they march out, and all colors in between.
The President's global climate change team is here with
you, including all of the following and more: Gene Sperling,
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Chair of the National
Economic Council; Dan Tarullo, Assistant to the President for
International Economic Policy; Jim Steinberg, Deputy Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs; Todd Stern, Assistant to the
President and Staff Secretary and really the shepherd of all of our
global climate folks at the White House; Katie McGinty, the Chair of
the Council on Environmental Quality; and Larry Summers, Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury.
They are here at your disposal, but we are going to do
the following. We'll start with Gene giving a little overview of the
policy directions the President has now put in place as we head to
Kyoto. Katie will tell you a little bit, expand a little bit on the
specifics of the policy. And I guess Jim and Todd can talk about the
negotiating process that we foresee looking ahead to Kyoto.
Mr. Sperling.
MR. SPERLING: The President, the Vice President and
everyone in the administration who has worked on this issue feels
very strongly that this is perhaps the major environmental challenge
of our generation. All of us believe strongly that the science
compels action; that the science, based on the scientists that came
together from over 150 countries, makes clear that there has been a
discernable human influence on the climate with potentially
disruptive effects for our future; and that the United States must
play a leadership role in addressing this environmental challenge.
The President today puts forward an ambitious, but
sensible and sound approach for addressing this. He sets timetable
and targets of reaching 1990 levels by the period of 2008 to 2012.
Our policies will be based on five fundamental principles, that we
be, one, guided by the science; two, that our approach be
market-based and common sense; three, that we should first look for
the win-win, positive solutions that exist before us; fourth, that
there must
be global participation, that this is a global problem that requires
a global solution; and, fifth, recognizing the uncertainty in
engaging on a long-term we need to have common sense, economic and
scientific review periodically.
The President puts forward a proposal today that one can
see in three stages. The first stage is where the President says,
here are the things America can do without waiting, without, we
think, conflict in addressing this problem. And if you look on the
materials we've handed out, on the third page, it runs through the
specific items from the tax incentives to the industry action to the
early credit. These are the things this President is committed to
doing as soon as possible. This is what we can do without waiting.
This is what we can do right now to utilize the opportunities that
are before us. And it very much fits the principle that to the
degree there are under-utilized energy efficiencies that exist right
now, it would be irresponsible for us to not first do everything
within our power to make sure that our industries and our people
utilize those efficiencies and get the gains that are before us.
The second period would be, in having a five-year
review, would be to look at 2004, to evaluate what has worked; to do
more of what is being effective; to take account of what new things
we have learned on the science, the environment and the economics;
and to go forward and to start planning for the third stage, the
binding stage, between 2008 and 2012. It is at this stage we would
call for a broad-based emissions trading system, both domestically
and internationally, that we believe would ensure that we hit the
binding targets that the President has set out.
I should stress that by the time a President and the
Congress would have to implement this, we would have under our belt a
decade of experience, a decade of innovation, a decade of technology,
a decade of science and economic review. So this is a strong
approach, but it is handled in a sound and sensible way that
recognizes both the uncertainties we face, but both -- that we have
an imperative to reach the binding target that the President is
setting forward.
If you look in the materials we have, we try to give
some examples as you go through on some of the places where the
President feels very strongly in the area of electricity, in the area
of cogeneration, others where there is, we think, significant waste
and, therefore, significant opportunities using existing technologies
and energy efficiency, and our hopes for where there can be
innovation and breakthroughs, the type that you heard Secretary Pena
talk about yesterday, that can put us on a path.
There will be many people who will suggest that down the
road, in 2008, that this would be difficult to implement. But as
with so many other issues -- entitlement reform and others -- the
thing we know for sure is that if we act early we make it easier to
deal with a long-term problem. It is only when we wait too long and
too late that the choices become too difficult. We have before us
the opportunity to deal with these things in a way that this country
is best at -- through innovation, through technology, through
mobilizing this country, through using the powers of the market. And
this President is committed, that without waiting, he is going to try
to mobilize those forces to go forward and do our part in dealing
with our generational responsibility in addressing this environmental
issue.
MS. MCGINTY: Thanks to my partner, Gene. Good
afternoon. I just want to underscore a few of the points that Gene
made, maybe elaborate briefly.
First of all, today President Clinton is exercising
strong leadership in putting forth a bold plan to take on the
challenge of global climate change. Four points that I think are
worth underscoring and emphasizing: The President's exercise of
leadership today will, first and foremost, get this country moving
today to begin to secure the opportunities we have before us to
reduce emissions, to improve the environment and to seize economic
opportunity in doing that.
How? One, through a very innovative new initiative on
tax incentives to encourage investments in energy-efficiency,
renewable energy, in encouraging the turnover of older, less
efficient capital stock -- things like that. Second, through a
program of designing and affording credit to industries who are
willing to step up to the plate and take action early -- earlier than
any of the periods that are being discussed in the international
arena. The President will want to work in partnership with industry,
affording them credit for taking early action to reduce emissions,
through new investments in the important technologies that the United
States can develop and has the opportunity to lead the world in
developing.
And, fourth, and importantly, by unleashing the forces
of competition in the electricity markets. Today, electricity
generation and transmission is governed by rules that in some
instances are 70 years old. That antiquated system has stifled some
of the most efficient and effective technologies we have that can
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity
sector. The President is putting that forward today, something we
can begin to move forward on that can help us to reduce emissions and
seize tremendous economic opportunity.
The President has underscored in previous statements on
this issue that today we throw out two-thirds of the energy we
generate. These policies are about capturing those inefficiencies,
enhancing the economy and the environment at the same time. So the
first principle, through the President's leadership, we are getting
to work today.
Second, the President's leadership increases our ability
to bring the entire world to a binding, but realistic and achievable
set of goals in reducing greenhouse gas emission -- binding first.
Why? Because our experience since 1992, the Rio Earth Summit, shows
us that simply voluntary actions aren't sufficient to meeting this
challenge. The voluntary actions have achieved some reductions, but
not enough, and we have continued to see emissions grow.
So the President is saying it's time to give the issue
the seriousness it merits; binding reductions are very important.
But those reductions should be realistic and achievable. What the
issue really demands is action, not the pie in the sky kind of
rhetoric we've heard, nor the doomsday scenarios we've heard, either
-- 1990 levels by the year 2008 to 2012 is significant, first; it
represents a reduction in U.S. emissions on the order of 28 percent
from where we would otherwise be in the year 2010. But it's
realistic and achievable. As Gene underscored, the President is
seizing on this decade of opportunity we have from 1998 to 2008 to
find those ways to harness market forces to help us get this job
done.
That leads to the third principle. The President's
leadership here is about harnessing market forces to help us to
achieve environmental objectives in a cost-effective way and in a way
that helps us build new industries. We have great experience in this
country in using market forces to reduce the costs of achieving
environmental goals.
The Clean Air Act has provided us with a wonderful
example. We've reduced the emissions that cause acid rain by more
than 40 percent of what was required under the law for less than a
tenth of the price that was predicted. How? Because we used
innovative means, a marketable permit scheme, where firms can trade
among themselves the right and the obligations to reduce emissions.
We've reached targets that way, but in a much more cost-effective
manner. So the President is exerting leadership here by saying we
will put those market forces to work to help us take on this
objective.
Fourth and finally, the President's leadership is also
about recognizing that climate change is a global challenge and it,
therefore, requires a global solution. The United States has put
proposals on the table that can help encourage the participation of
developing countries -- our initiative on joint implementation, for
example, where U.S. businesses can act in partnership with developing
countries jointly to reduce emissions.
And today the President will emphasize this important
principle again and underscore that for the U.S. to undertake binding
obligations, we will secure the participation of developing countries
in this effort as well. And as you saw last week, the President has
made this a priority as he has spoken to leaders around the world,
and was joined last weekend by President Menem as President Menem
recognized also that developing countries have to be part of the
solution as well.
So with these four principles, the President is putting
us on the road today to take on this challenge in a way that will
significantly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, that offers us
the promise of seeking and achieving a global agreement on this
issue, and that will unleash market forces so that we can secure new
and important economic opportunities as we pursue our goals.
Thank you.
MR. STERN: Let me say just a couple of things briefly
on the international context. Gene and Katie have already alluded to
a number of the more salient factors involved in the negotiation. As
you know, international attention to climate change did not begin
last month, and it won't end at Kyoto. As important as Kyoto is,
this is part of an ongoing process that the world community is going
to have to engage in over the course of the coming decades.
I think what has changed in the relatively recent past
is the attention that the leaders of the world themselves are paying
to this issue. It has, over the course of the last six months, been
a topic of conversation in numerous presidential meetings, of our
President with his counterparts from around the world. As Katie
alluded, in just the last few days, the President has been on the
phone with a number of his colleagues from other industrialized
countries talking about Kyoto, about the approach that we are all
taking. He has also, I might add, been consulting in follow-ups to
the climate change conference with industry leaders,
environmentalists, and others to discuss how we move forward in a
realistic fashion.
The second point I would make is factual. As you
probably are aware, our negotiators are in Bonn this week and will be
there next week in the final set of formal discussions before the
Kyoto Conference itself. The positions that the President announces
this afternoon will be tabled by our negotiators and they will pursue
those positions over the course of the next week and a half.
Third, I just wanted to re-emphasize some of the key
negotiating instructions, position, what we have laid out as our
position this afternoon, which are relevant for the international
negotiations.
First, Gene mentioned the target and timetable itself,
the 2008 to 2012 period returning to 1990 levels of emissions.
Secondly, as I think Katie mentioned, flexibility is of
key importance. It is an essential component of the President's
domestic agenda on climate change; it must be an essential component
of the international agenda on climate change. That means
international emissions trading; it means international joint
implementation proposals and mechanisms so that the most
cost-effective means of reducing emissions are available to all the
countries of the world to seize.
Third, the President will say this afternoon, as I think
both my colleagues have mentioned, that the United States cannot
assume binding obligations in this area without developing country
participation. The developing countries of the world will, over the
course of the next couple of decades, become the most significant, in
quantitative terms, emitters of greenhouse gases. That is
notwithstanding the fact that, to date, the developed countries have
been. Thus, as a matter of science as well as policy, we simply
cannot solve this problem without the participation of developing
countries.
Now, in pursuit of that, we have made quite clear, Katie
alluded to the President's discussions with President Menem -- this
has been the subject of numerous consultations at a staff and
ministerial level as well, and this will be an important component of
our negotiators' positions taken in Bonn and all the way to Kyoto.
I think I'll stop there. Who is running the questions
here?
Q The word "bold" isn't very -- the environmentalists
don't think this is very bold. You haven't mentioned -- emissions.
It's a real retreat, is it not?
MS. MCGINTY: Let me say, first of all, that many in the
environmental community have spoken very favorably, especially to the
President's insistence that we are going to get to work now. The
President's idea that we will offer incentives to industry to step up
to the plate and take early actions to reduce emissions is a proposal
that is very important to the environmental groups and that they
support wholeheartedly.
Would they like to see additional reductions, reductions
on the order of what the European countries and others have been
talking about? Certainly. Would some in the business community like
to have seen less reductions? Certainly. But what the President has
put together here is an ambitious plan that will reduce U.S.
emissions by 28 percent in the year 2010. It's an aggressive plan to
move us forward.
Q -- on developing countries -- you talk in terms of
assuring that developing countries must participate in whatever
regime results. But I don't hear you saying that there would have to
be some point at which they accept binding obligations. Would there
be, perhaps at a later date, perhaps on a case-by-case basis
different standards, but are you going to propose in Kyoto that there
be binding totals and limits on the developing nations?
MR. STERN: As I said a moment ago, our position is one
of the indispensability of participation. The nature of that
participation is to be defined obviously in the course of
negotiations. I think it is useful, however, to refer to President
Menem's own observations on the subject last week where he did make
reference to the need for developing countries to take on obligations
on emissions as well.
Q
How is this package tailored to meet the
requirements on the Hill and to win the ratification you'll need for
anything coming out of Kyoto?
MR. STERN: That's the next briefing. (Laughter.)
MR. SPERLING: Well, I think that there is no question
that, despite what some, for honorable reasons in the environmental
community might have preferred, I think in what was considered the
range of potential options the President did pick will probably be
perceived on the Hill as the most ambitious within that range.
But the President is also I think providing people
assurance that what he is going to be presenting to Congress -- what
we will present in our budget in detail further -- is the type of
things that we think the country should be able to rally behind,
which is the focus on R&D and technology, tax incentives to encourage
more use of renewable energy sources. I think that this is the type
of mobilization that I think many people would consider win-win,
market-based solutions. And the fact that there is review in
different stages I think reflects the concern that people would have
that we would, in the year 1997, seek to say that we knew exactly how
a decade from now exactly what would be the right -- what energy
prices would be, where the technology would have been. I mean, most
people, if we were to look back 13 years wouldn't look very good at
predicting the Internet and other things.
So I think when you're trying to deal with something
like this and have binding targets, it is a sensible approach to
assure people that you are going to try to do all of the positive
things that people can rally around first, and see how far you can
get there and assure people that you are going to be reviewing the
science and the economics periodically, so that when the time comes
that you do put forward an emissions training program you do have a
decade of experience and review behind us.
And, ultimately, Congress and the President, at a later
time, will ultimately have to pass things and have that judgement.
So I think the President has put a sensible path that I think should
also be reassuring to people on the Hill that we are taking a
sensible path. I don't know what the specifics the President has put
forward, people should find particularly objectionable.
Q Gene, you make it sound as if this plan, 30 percent
reductions, is almost entirely painless.
MR. SPERLING: Well, let me go back five years on our
budget. There were people who said at that point that if we did not
do something dramatic -- dramatic reduction on Medicaid or Medicare,
dramatic increase on discretionary budget -- if we didn't do those
things we would never get near balance.
Now, we put forward what we thought at the time was a
prudent plan to go forward, under the notion that it would not make
sense to rush to do things that may not be necessary, that you should
try to do things in a prudent, sensible, market-based way. As it's
turned out, that plan and the subsequent growth of the economy has
led us to arrive at a goal. Looking back five years, having done
more controversial, more painful things would not have made sense
when we were able to reach that goal.
The President takes the approach here that there is
tremendous -- as Katie described, tremendous inefficiencies out
there. There is tremendous potential to alert the American public
and to work with industry to capitalize on the inefficiencies that
are out there. And by alerting the public and making the public more
conscious, you do start to create the market for more people to think
that there is profit to be made and reason to research and to do
more. And to give you a chance to have a positive cycles.
Now, in the years 2008-2012, when you're in that binding
period and you have emissions trading, that is the period where there
could be arguments as to what the possible impacts would be on
energy. But the truth is, it's pretty hard for any of us to know.
And so I think the President, in providing a sensible path, in going
forward and making sure that we are doing all of the win-win,
positive things first, that down the road Congress and the President
will have to evaluate whether those have been enough and whether we
have to take more strenuous steps.
Q
So no increase in energy prices?
MR. SPERLING: The plan that we have as you look forward
does not include increased energy prices. I think that one has to
acknowledge that one you enter the emissions trading period in 2008,
that there will probably be costs, those emissions. But how much and
what the price of energy will be and what kind of success we've had
at having other efficiencies by then is, again, very hard to predict.
I doubt people would have predicted the tremendous real decrease in
gasoline oil prices we've had.
Q
Do you have a target for the five-year period after
2012 for those reductions?
MS. MCGINTY: The President will indicate that the
United States proposal includes both a binding target of reaching
1990 levels emissions between the year 2008 and 2012; and that then
in the next five-year period of years, that emissions should be
reduced below 1990 levels. And the extent to which they should be
reduced is an issue that we will take up in the international arena
and have discussions there.
MR. SPERLING: I'm just going to let Larry follow up on
mine, and then we'll take the next question.
DEPUTY SECRETARY SUMMERS: Thank you, Gene.
If I could just add, this is a helping-hand approach,
rather than a heavy-handed approach to working to reduce energy
consumption. It doesn't provide for mandated increases in prices on
energy over the next decade. And it does contain a number of
provisions that are likely to work to reduce energy costs.
Those provisions include measures that will support the
introduction of technologies that will increase fuel efficiency, such
as vehicles that have more miles per gallon. Those provisions
include measures that by encouraging energy conservation will reduce
demand for energy, which will tend to reduce its price worldwide.
And those provisions include electricity restructuring, which by
harnessing competition in an important network industry has the
potential to bring down the costs of energy to consumers, just as
we've seen in telecommunications and in airlines, and that on fairly
conservative estimates could mean as much as $20 billion to
households.
So this is an approach that is, as Gene has emphasized,
one that is very much focused on doing all we can over the next
decade to exploit win-win solutions that can come from harnessing
market forces to do things that are both good for the economy and
good for the environment.
Q
Can I stay on this question of cost for a second?
What you guys are saying is we're kind of hazy in this 2008 to 2012
period, we can't know for sure. But I seriously doubt that the
administration's economic team would have signed off on these 1990
levels without doing a hard analysis that said, based upon our
knowledge now we predict that this scheme would mean energy cost of X
by the year 2008 or 2010 or 2012. Are you saying you don't and
haven't done that? Or if you have, what are the numbers?
MR. SPERLING: First of all, I think we were pretty
clear that, as Larry said, there is not a mandated energy price
increase between the year 1998 and 2008. We're acknowledging that in
the binding -- in the emissions trading period that it can't be ruled
out that there could be some effect on energy prices. We're saying
that part of that is going to depend on what the success of the
variety of different efforts, many of the nine steps that the
President has had there.
Q
Well, what I'm saying is, haven't you guys done an
analysis that say best case scenario it's X, worst case scenario it's
Y. And if you have, won't you share that with us?
MR. SPERLING: I think I'll let Larry speak. First of
all, there is -- you know, I've been around here five years. If you
want an econometric model to show you something 13 years out, you can
do anything you want. You can show anything that you want. What
we're trying to do is'--
Q
We'll keep that in mind the next time you --
(laughter.)
MR. SPERLING: What's that? The next time that we
predict what a particular policy right now will be 13 from now with
an econometric model, you can be free to show that to me, and I would
say you'd have a hard time showing a time in the past that we've
tried to predict 13 years out in that sense. But we have certainly
been locked in doing a tremendous amount of economic analysis. When
you look at the things there, you will see, for example in the
five-lab study, that there is, from the Energy Department, there is
very careful analysis on what the potential is for reducing metric
million tons of carbon through the efficiencies in the three main
sectors --the building, the transportation, and the industrial
sectors.
As Larry said, and this really is the first time today
that the President will be and is announcing that he will be
supporting an electricity restructuring proposal, there is certainly
in that area a tremendous amount of waste because there is not
incentives to capture the full amount of energy that is used.
We have gone through all of this analysis, but I think
that what we have tried to do, and I think what the economic team has
worked to stress, was to recognize where there is really is
uncertainty, that rather than to try to pretend that you can draw a
road map from here to Los Angeles with every street and turn in it
over the next 13 years, is to try to have a process where we have the
ability to incorporate what we are learning, what we are seeing, what
works. That is, I think, the soundest and most realistic approach
for us going forward.
We clearly think that if things -- if this country
mobilizes the right way, that we can get there without having a
significant price increase, even after the year 2008. One of the
things that will be a key element, and I can let Larry speak to that,
is the success of having a truly international system with
international trading. Where you allow for the most market
efficiencies, where people have the ability to seek out the places
where there is the greatest capacity to reduce carbon greenhouse gas
emissions at the lowest price, that will be one of the most key
elements in determining how much we can do this in a cost-effective
way.
And that's one of the points one has to understand in
climate change. When you reduce a million metric tons of carbon,
when you reduce carbon emissions anywhere in the globe, it has the
same impact. And so having a system develop over time that allows
that to happen will be absolutely critical and vital to what the
costs are. If you assume that that will work very well, extremely
well, then you can have very, very, very, very low cost impacts. If
you assume that it won't, then it would be more difficult.
And I think, again, what we've tried to do is
incorporate a process where we can constantly review that and where
the country can make adjustments accordingly.
Q I just want to get back to something you didn't
finish. Do you have a targeted number, or any range --
MS. MCGINTY: We're not specifying a number at this
time.
Q
At what point would you get around to specifying a
number?
MS. MCGINTY: To hearken back to what Gene has outlined,
at this point the President is outlining a very clear plan that takes
us, not from today to tomorrow, but a clear plan for the next decade,
for the five years that follow that decade, in that five years to hit
1990 levels on average between 2008 and 2012, and beyond, to say we
need then to move to reduce emissions below 1990 levels. We're not
going to specify that specific target today.
Q
When will the period come when you begin to
specify?
MS. MCGINTY: It's still under discussion.
Q
Is it within the next year or is it --
MR. STERN: The point I think that Katie just made is
we're not going to start negotiating in public. That's why we have
negotiators who go to Bonn and then to Kyoto.
Q
How does the $5 billion in tax cuts on R&D break
down? And over what period of time would that be? And when you
might get something like that before Congress?
MR. SPERLING: That will be in our fiscal year 1999
budget. We met, the team working on this, with the budget team,
including Frank Raines, and we tried to almost do an early budget
review so that we could make sure that we have room in our budget for
a significant initiative. And so what we are comfortable doing this
time is announcing that there will be a $5 billion, or at least a $5
billion in R&D and tax incentives. What the exact composition is of
those will be announced with the rest of our budget.
Q
Over what period of time will that $5 billion --
MR. SPERLING: That's $5 billion over five years. So at
least $1 billion a year of additional funds beyond -- or tax
incentives beyond what we have currently.
Q
If I could follow up, Gene, you said that most of
those ideas, or many of them, will come from this report from the
President's committee on science and technology. So could you at
least outline a few or highlight a few from that report that are
likely to be in your package?
MR. SPERLING: We are announcing almost, as you see,
almost every element we have now. It is not our intention to
announce the specifics of every single thing we're going to do now,
quite honestly. This is something the President cares very deeply
about. He wants to return to this, and we will roll out the details
of our plan periodically. But also, you have to understand, we do
our budget review in the first two weeks of December, and so we will
have time and opportunity to spell out in detail as we present our
budget the exact specifics. Certainly, the -- recommendations will
be highly considered and certainly many of those will make it into
our budget.
Q How flexible, Gene, are you going to be in the
negotiations this week, next week, up to Kyoto, with regard to your
binding target proposal for the industrialized world? Is this a take
it or leave it proposal from the United States, or are you flexible
enough in these pending negotiations to perhaps strengthen the
binding targets the President outlined today?
MR. SPERLING: This is our position; this is a position
that the President has worked on himself. He has developed this plan
himself He took this from a variety of different recommendations,
all of this, gave him -- he pulled different pieces and put together
a strategy that he feels comfortable with. This is our position.
And when I say that we're not seeing anymore, I'm not commenting one
way or the other on what would happen in negotiations. This is our
position and this is where we stand.
Q Gene, what has happened since the time the
President set the year 2000 as the goal? What's changed since then?
MS. MCGINTY: I think this is an important point. We
have a lot of attention to this issue now because Kyoto is on the
horizon, but the fact is that the President has been hard at work on
this issue since 1993. First, he reversed the position of the
previous administration and signed the United
States up to the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the
year 2000. He followed that immediately with a 50-point plan to help
us to achieve that goal.
Now, that plan has delivered very significant reductions
in emissions from where they otherwise would have been. Did it get
us or are we on track to get to the year 2000? As we articulated
more than a year and a half ago, we are not on track to do that.
Why? One, economic growth has been quite robust and more robust than
even we had anticipated in the beginning of 1993. Two, oil prices
have proven to be lower than were anticipated in early 1993. But,
three, and most compellingly and importantly, is that the Congress
had as part of its anti-environmental agenda, had not funded the
President's initiatives in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Now, despite those three factors, the President's efforts have
delivered significant emissions reductions from where we otherwise
would have been, on the order of about -- for the jargon -- on the
order of about 40 million metric tons of carbon emissions.
You will see today major utilities in the United States
standing up and saying that the President has outlined today a very
sensible and very strong policy to move forward on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those utilities have been working
in partnership with us since 1993, with the President's leadership.
They have signed up voluntarily and have voluntarily reduced their
emissions significantly.
So we have been at this consistently since 1993. Kyoto
presents us an opportunity with taking this issue now to the next
steps where we can join together with the world community, looking
beyond the year 2000 and the steps that have to be taken then.
Q
Are the utilities that began participating in '93
going to get credit for those reductions?
MS. MCGINTY: One of the points that the President wants
to emphasize today is that we will build a program to provide credit
for those who will take early action. As part of our effort to do
this, to undertake this effort in partnership with industry, we will
work with them, we will work with members of the environmental
community to put the details of that initiative together.
But the idea is simple: We want to incentivize industry
to take action now to reduce emissions -- not to wait until the year
2008 to begin. If we have a marketable permit scheme in the year
2008, for example, then what we would be talking about here is
working with industries so that they could get credits to play in
that tradeable permit scheme that would be set up in the year 2008
for the actions that they take to reduce emissions now. That's one
of the ideas we would pursue.
Q
Does that have budgetary impact, the provision of
credits --
MS. MCGINTY: Budgetary in what sense?
Q
Does it cost any money off the budget? Is it a tax
incentive? I don't understand your credit.
MS. MCGINTY: No. The notion of a marketable permit
system is that you provide permits to various actors in the economy
and they have a choice: They can reduce their emissions to the level
required, or if it's more cost effective for them, they can purchase
permits from other players in the economy who have not only met their
target, but gone over and above it. And the idea is simply that
those who take actions now won't be penalized for having taken action
early, and that those reductions in emissions that they achieve will
be recognized when the binding period comes into play.
Q
-- this document, it does indicate here, we reject
the European proposal for more stringent early reductions. Would you
remind us of the reasons for that rejection?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, I'll first of all remind you of what
the European policy is. Overall, the European Union has called for a
15 percent reduction from 1990 levels by the year 2010. Now, the
reasons that that approach is not appropriate for the United States,
that we feel is not realistic or achievable, is also related to why
we believe our plan is significant, but realistic and achievable.
The President's plan will reduce U.S. emissions by 30
percent from where they otherwise would be in the year 2010. That's
an ambitious undertaking. To go further and add to it 10 or 15
percent additional reductions, we don't believe is realistic or
achievable in the time period that we are looking at. It just
underscores the fact that what we've tried to do here is a very
significant and ambitious plan, but one that is built on the
opportunities that we know that are out there, that can enable us to
get started now and seize some economic opportunities; that's what
the President's target represents.
Q
What's the number now, from this point to back to
1990 levels? I've heard between 15 percent and 20 percent. What is
it from today's date?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, in the year 2000, business as usual,
it would be 13 percent. But do we know today -- I think it's about
7.5 percent -- 7.5 percent. Today I think we are on the order of
about 7.5 percent above 1990 levels of emissions.
Q
-- you expect emissions in the United States to
start --
Q
What's the point of having an economic review of
how we're doing five years out if we're committing to binding
targets? I mean, if you're saying we absolutely will meet these by
this date, and your economic review says, geez, you know what, it's
going to cost a lot more money than we thought it would? There's no
opt out, is there?
MS. MCGINTY: The notion of economic reviews as
scientific reviews is just common sense. We are putting forward here
some very ambitious ideas that we think can deliver both
environmental and economic results. But we want to make sure we are
seizing all the best opportunities that are out there, and the point
of that review is to make sure that all the best ideas are ideas that
we are implementing.
Q
If you don't envision a clause that lets you out --
is what I'm asking, is there any clause that lets you out of this?
If it says this is going to cost a lot more than we thought and we
can opt out or not, is it really binding?
MS. MCGINTY: It is a binding treaty and it's very
important to the President and a principle that he has consistently
put forward is that we are now moving into a period where binding
emissions reductions are absolutely required, certainly.
Q
So there's no -- if five years from now we say it's
going to cost a lot more money --
MS. MCGINTY: Look, there's no treaty in the world that
would require a country to bankrupt itself. And this treaty is no
different than any other treaty in the world in that respect.
Q
When does the United States expect to stop
increasing its greenhouse gas emissions and start decreasing them?
How will we know if we're not performing, because the track record so
far is one of saying you are going to meet targets and then missing
them, saying you were going to review them and then postponing them.
When are we going to actually turn the corner and start cutting down?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, let me just say that the whole point
of the series of efforts that we have announced today is to enable us
not to wait until the year 2008, but to move forward now. We are
going to do our level best through providing the tax incentives we've
spoken about, by designing a program that affords credit to
industries for taking early action, by investing in new technologies
to begin to turn those curves just as soon as we can. But we are
moving as ambitiously and as aggressively as we can toward that
target period.
Q
When do you expect U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to
start going down?
MS. MCGINTY: From where they would otherwise be, we
would hope --
Q
To stop going up. They're going up. It's a very
simple question.
MS. MCGINTY: You may be on a level of technical detail
that I can't provide.
Q
Can anybody say when the emissions are going to
start going down?
Q
The EU has put forward a much stricter proposal and
the developing countries in Bonn just signed a statement saying they
support the EU proposals. So how good do you think the chances are
of getting a treaty out of Kyoto?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, let me underscore, this is a very
difficult undertaking, and the President is addressing it with
tremendous seriousness of purpose, as was referred to here before.
He has worked this issue very hard with leaders from around the
world. Now, I just say and underscore that U.N. processes operate
often, and this one does, on the basis of consensus proposals and
moving forward on a consensus basis.
What we are trying to do here is not only hear the
voices who want to go much quicker, much further, much faster, but
recall that there are many voices out there, too, many countries who
are saying much less, much slower, if not, nothing at all. And what
we are trying to do is provide that leadership that can hopefully
take those two extremes of the debate and find that common ground
that would enable the world to move forward in a reasonable and
effective way in the years post-2000.
Q I don't understand the global thing. Could I just
ask for clarification on what the President today envisages in the
treaty with regard to global obligations from the developing
countries? Would it necessarily be binding targets and timetables,
or could it take another form?
MR. MCCURRY: That's been asked and answered.
Q That's not been answered.
MR. MCCURRY: It's been answered as well as it's going
to be answered.
Q The previous proposals on developing countries, do
they still stick? That is, some may -- that the large developing
countries should graduate into commitment, into binding targets?
What's been going on the last six months, does that still hold?
MR. STERN: Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're
referring to, but what I think you are bringing up is the nature of
the problem, which as I said earlier, there is general agreement that
the problem of global warming, of global climate change, is not going
to be resolved without the participation of developing countries.
What, when and exactly what participation will mean is obviously what
our guys are going to be doing in Kyoto, and therefore, it is
premature to indicate exactly what that means.
What we can say, and what the President will say this
afternoon is we will not assume binding emission reduction
obligations without the participation of the developing countries.
Q On the post-2012 role, you all are saying you are
not taking a specific target. But yesterday environmental groups say
that they were told there would be a five percent reduction as a goal
and then that was abandoned last night. Can you say why that -- the
President backed off that as a specific target?
MS. MCGINTY: That is a number that some of the
environmental community have suggested. We just have not arrived at
a number and are not prepared to discuss one right now.
Q They said the administration told them that.
That's not true?
MS. MCGINTY: It's a number that I've heard them
discuss.
Q
But you all never told them that?
MS. MCGINTY: No.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
2:04 P.M. EDT
Message Sent To:
'97 OCT 22 AM9:10
at
Draft 10/22/97 3:15am
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
REMARKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
October 22, 1997
Six years ago tomorrow, shortly after I announced my intention to run for President, I
returned to my alma mater, Georgetown, and challenged America to envision a bold course for our
country in the 21st Century -- to make the American Dream come alive for every person responsible
enough to work for it, to keep our country the world's strongest force for peace and freedom and
prosperity, to bring our people together across all the lines that divide us, into one America.
Together, we have made real progress. America stands at the threshold of that new century
stronger than we have been in many years. Our economy is thriving, our social fabric is mending,
and we have helped lead the world to an era of growing peace and cooperation. We must now use
our momentum to propel us forward to meet new challenges to rise to our obligation to the future
and to pass on to our children the home that God gave us restored and flourishing.
Today, we have a golden opportunity to conquer one of the most important challenges of the
21st Century the challenge of global climate change. In a few moments, I will present an
environmentally strong and economically sound strategy to reach a goal that everyone can share:
achieving meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions here in the United States and
throughout the industrialized and developing world. It is a strategy that will create a wealth of new
opportunities for entrepreneurs at home, uphold our leadership abroad, and harness the power of
free markets to free our planet from an environmental risk.
It is time to reject the false choices posed by those who doubt America. America can stand
up for our national interest - and stand up for the common interest of the citizens of the world.
America can improve the health of our environment -- and expand the vibrant growth of our
economy. Most important, America can build on our prosperity today -- and ensure a healthy planet
for our children tomorrow.
America has earned its exceptional place in history not only because of the power of our
ideals, but also because we have always risen to overcome challenges that time and chance have
placed before us. Global warming is one of the greatest challenges of our time. And in so many
ways, it encompasses the new realities of the new century. Many previous threats could be met
within our own borders; global warming requires a global solution. Many previous threats came
from single enemies; global warming derives from millions of sources. Many previous threats
posed clear and present dangers; global warming is far more subtle, warning us not with roaring
tanks or burning rivers, but with invisible gases and climatic disruptions that, thank God, have not
yet hit home for most Americans.
But make no mistake: If we do not change course now, global climate change will be a
disturbing -- and, at times, dangerous -- reality for all of us. The vast majority of the world's
- 1 -
climate scientists have concluded that if the countries of the world do not work together to cut the
emission of greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise and will disrupt the global climate. In fact,
most scientists say this process has already begun. They don't yet know what the precise
consequences will be for example, how much global warming will speed the spread of disease or
how much more often our cities will suffer severe heat waves. But given what they do know, it
would be a grave mistake for us to avert our gaze, hoping that by ignoring reality we will never have
to deal with it. The time is now for America to act. The time is now for America to lead.
We know what we must do. And we now know how we must do it. America's growing
economy is the wellspring of opportunity for our families. We will not apologize for our prosperity;
we will not jeopardize our prosperity. We will capitalize on our prosperity to meet and master this
global challenge.
With that principle in mind, I am announcing the instructions I am giving our negotiators as
they pursue a realistic and effective international climate change treaty. And I am announcing a far-
reaching proposal that provides flexible, market-based, and cost-effective ways to achieve
meaningful emissions reductions here in America.
In the international climate negotiations, the United States will pursue a
comprehensive framework that includes three elements, which, taken together, will enable us
to build a strong and robust global agreement. First, the United States proposes that at Kyoto we
commit to the binding and realistic target of returning emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and
2012. And we should not stop there. We should commit to reduce emissions below 1990 levels in
the years that follow. The nations of the world tried to reduce emissions to 1990 levels once before
with a voluntary approach, but regrettably most of us fell short. We need to find new resolve to
achieve these reductions, and to do that we simply must commit to binding limits.
Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms for meeting these limits. We propose an
innovative "joint implementation" system that allows a firm in one country to invest in a project that
reduces emissions in another country and receive credit for those reductions at home. And we
propose an international system of emissions trading. These innovations will cut worldwide
pollution, keep costs low, and help developing countries protect their environment, too.
Third, all countries must participate in meeting the challenge of climate change. The United
States will not assume binding obligations unless key developing nations meaningfully participate
in this effort. As President Carlos Menem stated forcefully last week when I visited Argentina, "a
global problem such as climate change requires a global answer" -- and I commend him for his
leadership. We both recognize that if the entire industrialized world reduces emissions over the next
several decades but emissions from the developing world continue to grow at their current pace,
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to climb. I believe that
developing countries have an opportunity to chart a different energy future -- one based on clean
and cheap technologies. We can and must work together on this problem in ways that benefit us all.
Here at home, we must move forward by unleashing the full power of free markets and
technological ingenuity to meet the challenge of climate change. I propose a sweeping plan
that will provide incentives and lift roadblocks to help our companies to find new and creative
2 -
ways of reducing greenhouse emissions.
First, we must enact tax cuts and research and development investments worth up to $5
Billion over the next 5 years targeted incentives that will encourage energy efficiency and the use
of cleaner energy sources.
Second, we must urge companies to take early actions to reduce emissions by ensuring that
they receive appropriate credit for showing the way.
Third, we must create a market system for reducing emissions wherever they can be
achieved most inexpensively, here or abroad -- a system that will draw on our successful experience
with acid rain permit trading.
Fourth, we must reinvent how the federal government, the nation's largest energy consumer,
buys and uses energy. Through new technology, renewable energy sources, innovative partnerships
with private firms, and assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from major federal projects, the
federal government will play an important role in helping the nation meet its goals.
Fifth, we must unleash competition in the electricity industry, to remove outdated
regulations and save Americans Billions of dollars. We will do it in a way that leads to even greater
progress in cleaning our air and delivers a significant down payment in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
Sixth, we must encourage key industry sectors to prepare their own greenhouse gas
reduction plans. If there are ways the federal government can help industry achieve meaningful
reductions voluntarily, we want to know how.
This plan is sensible and sound. Since this is a long-term problem requiring a long-term
solution, my plan will be phased in over time. But we want to get moving now. We will start with
our package of strong market incentives, tax cuts, and cooperative efforts with industry. We want to
stimulate early action and encourage leadership.
And as we reduce our emissions over the next decade with these efforts, we will perform
regular reviews to see what works best for the environment, the economy, and our national security.
After we have accumulated a decade of experience, a decade of data, a decade of technological
innovation, we will launch a broad emissions trading initiative to ensure that we hit our binding
targets. Some might say that a decade from now we won't be ready. I think they're wrong. But one
thing that is clear is that if we don't get started now, our challenge will be much greater and our
choices much more difficult.
And remember, the plan plays to our strengths innovation and creativity. In the past few
months, I have been overwhelmed by the tremendous environmental technologies our companies
are developing and the kind of common-sense solutions our people are putting to use. Just
yesterday, Secretary Pena announced a dramatic breakthrough in fuel cell technology that will clear
the way toward developing cars that are twice as efficient as today's models and reduce pollution by
90%. This breakthrough was made possible by our pathbreaking partnership with the auto industry
- 3 -
to create a new generation of vehicles.
And I must stress that it doesn't take advanced science to achieve dramatic energy benefits.
We simply have to take advantage of what's already available. In the town of West Branch, Iowa, a
science teacher named Hector Ibarra challenged sixth graders to apply their classroom experiments
to making their school more energy-efficient. The class obtained a $14,000 loan from a local bank
and put in place easily available solutions. These students cut energy use by nearly 70%. Their
savings were so impressive that the bank decided to upgrade its own energy efficiency.
Our industries have produced a large group of efficient new refrigerators, computers,
washer/dryers, and other appliances that use far less energy, save money, and cut pollution. If over
the next 15 years everyone were to buy only those energy-efficient products marked in stores with
EPA's distinctive "Energy Star" label, we could shrink our energy bills by a total of about $100
Billion over the next 15 years and drastically cut our greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite these win-win innovations and commitments that are emerging literally every day, I
know full well that some will criticize our targets and timetables as too ambitious. And, of course,
some will claim we have not gone far enough. But before this debate begins in earnest, let us
remember that over the past generation, we have produced tremendous environmental progress -- at
far less expense than anyone could have imagined and built whole new industries in the process.
In the past three decades, while our economy has grown, we have raised, not lowered, the
standards for the water our children drink. While our factories have been expanding, we have
required them to clean up their toxic waste. And while we have record numbers of new homes, our
refrigerators save more energy and money for our consumers.
In 1970, when smog was choking our cities, the federal government proposed new standards
for tailpipe emissions. Many environmental leaders claimed that the standards would do little to
head off catastrophe. Industry experts predicted that the cost of compliance would devastate the
industry. Both sides were wrong. Both underestimated the ingenuity of the American people.
Automakers comply with today's much stricter emissions standards for far less than half the cost
they predicted and new cars emit, on average, only 5% of the pollutants of the cars built in 1970.
We have seen this pattern over and over again. We saw it when we joined together in the
1970s to restrict the use of the carcinogen vinyl chloride. Some in the plastics industry predicted
massive bankruptcies, but chemists discovered more cost-effective substitutes and the industry
thrived. We saw this when we phased out lead in gasoline. And we see it with our acid rain trading
program now well ahead of schedule and well below even the most optimistic cost projections.
The lesson here is simple: Environmental initiatives, when designed sensibly, when
implemented flexibly, cost less than expected and provide unforeseen economic opportunity. So
while we recognize that the challenge we take on today is larger than any environmental mission we
have accepted in the past, we know that when Americans work together we can solve problems that
seem utterly intractable. We have heard the dire predictions of pessimists before. In every age,
America has proved them wrong -- and we will do so again here. I have great faith in America.
4
And let us remember that our challenge today is not just about targets and timetables. It is
also about our most fundamental values and our deepest obligations. Later today, I will have the
honor of meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 300 million
Orthodox Christians and a man who has always stressed the deep obligations inherent in God's gift
of the natural world. He reminds us that the first part of the word "ecology" derives from the Greek
word for "house." In his words, "In order to change our behavior toward the house we all share, we
must rediscover spiritual linkages that may have been lost and reassert human values." He is
absolutely right. It is our solemn obligation to move forward, with courage and foresight, to pass on
this beautiful home to our children and future generations.
###
- 5
10/02/97 THU 13:26 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
CEA
001
JLY
JAF
THE WHITE HOUSE
MJ
OFFICE OF CABINET AFFAIRS
RL
AM
JA
Date:
10/2
To:
Climate Change Representative
From:
Kris Ba Iderston
Facsimile:
Telephone:
Subject:
Pages:
13
(Including this cover sheet)
Comments:
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING + ROOM 160 *$ WASHINGTON, DC 205
TELEPHONE (202) 456-2572 is FACSIMILE (202) 456-6704
10/02/97 THU 13:26 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
5.
002
Climate Change Message
Climate change is a serious problem for us, our children and our grandchildren. The President i;
committed to taking responsible action to confront this threat. The United States will support
international agreements that establish realistic commitments and that require participation by all
countries -- industrial and developing. At home, we support flexible, market-based policies based
on the principle that vigorous economic growth and environmental protection must go hand in
)
hand. It is up to us not only to prepare our children for the world of the 21st century, but to
protect that world for them.
10/02/97 THU 13:27 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
CEA
1.
003
Climate Change Talking Points
The Need for Action
The scientific consensus is clear that (1) greenhouse gases are rapidly building up in the
atmosphere as a result of human actions; (2) that these increased concentrations will
change our climate; and (3) that these changes could have serious adverse and disruptive
consequences. Even those who would question whether climate change is already
occurring recognize the truth of this fundamental proposition.
In addition, compelling scientific evidence indicates that the human effect on climate is
apparent today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
authoritative scientific source on the subject, has concluded that, "the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." More than 2,600 leading
scientists have endorsed this conclusion and argued that continued increases in emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases "commits the earth irreversibly to further
global climatic change and consequent ecological, economic and social disruption."
Scientists agree that global warming and resulting climate disruptions could seriously haum
human health (projections include 50 million more cases of malaria per year); increase the
incidence and intensity of floods and droughts; raise sea levels enough to inundate up to
7,000 square miles of U.S. coastline; decrease food production in some of the world's
poorest nations; and threaten the survival of many plant and animal species.
In December, more than 160 nations, including the U.S., will meet in Kyoto, Japan in an
effort to complete negotiations on a new international climate change agreement. The
Kyoto meeting will follow a last formal negotiating session to be held in Bonn. Germany
at the end of October.
International Agreements - Background and Principles
Background
The new climate change agreement would replace a 1992 treaty adopted at the Rio Earth
Summit. That agreement included non-binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Specifically, industrialized countries were to return emissions to 1990 levels by
2000, while all countries were to take policies and measures to limit emissions.
The industrialized nations, including the U.S., agree that any new treaty should require
them to set binding targets for emissions reductions. The U.S. has also argued that any
agreement would be unacceptable without meaningful developing country participation
10/02/97 THU 13:27 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
4.
004
The European Union has proposed that developed nations agree to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. The United States
believes this target is unrealistic but has not yet proposed a specific alternative.
Principles
The Clinton Administration is committed to pushing for an agreement that is balanced.
strong and cost-effective at the December meeting in Kyoto.
The United States will only support an agreement that requires all nations to participate 111
a common solution to the global problem of climate change. Like other industrialized
nations, we realize that our responsibility for large proportions of current emissions
requires us to agree on binding reduction targets. But any agreement must also require
developing nations to commit to appropriate action. [Note: By 2035, scientists estimate
that emissions from developing countries will exceed those of developed nations.]
The Clinton Administration is committed to reaching an agreement that establishes
realistic targets and timetables for reduced emissions. The United States will not sign an
agreement that threatens sustained economic growth.
The United States strongly favors an agreement that is based on flexible, cost-effective
methods for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Specifically, the United States
proposal calls for "emissions trading" among industrialized nations and "joint
implementation" (which will allow developed and developing countries to work together
to reduce emissions on specific energy projects). These measures will provide strong
incentives to achieve the greatest possible emission reductions at the lowest possible con
Domestic Policy -- Background and Principles
Background
The United States has 4 percent of the world's population yet emits more than 20 percent
of the world's carbon dioxide. Emissions produced by buildings, industry and
transportation each account for roughly one-third of that total. Despite efforts to reduce
emissions through federal programs and voluntary partnerships, U.S. emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases substantially exceed 1990 levels. (We are not alone
almost all industrialized nations will fail to meet the non-binding pledge in the Rio
agreement to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.)
Current Clinton Administration programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases include
a partnership with Detroit to triple fuel efficiency of passenger cars; pilot projects to help
farmers and industry convert crops to liquid and gaseous fuels; and a Department of
Energy program to add one million solar energy systems to buildings by the year 2010.
10/02/97 THU 13:28 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
4
005
Principles
President Clinton is committed to responsible. balanced action to confront the threat of
climate change. The Administration rejects both extremes of the climate change debate
those who support drastic actions that would severely disrupt our economy and those V 1:0
dismiss the scientific evidence and would do nothing.
President Clinton will only take actions that preserve our vigorous economic growth The
Administration believes -- and has demonstrated -- that environmental protection and
economic growth can and should go hand in hand. More than 2,000 economists, including
eight Nobel Laureates, have concluded that there are policy options "that would slow
climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in lact
improve U.S. productivity in the longer run."
The Clinton Administration will emphasize solutions based on flexible, market-based
policies, not government regulation. These programs could include, for example, some
form of emissions trading within the United States.
The Clinton Administration will invest in research and development to promote
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save energy, and lessen our
dependence on foreign oil. We will work to help American industry increase its rolc as the
world leader in developing environmental technologies.
Administration Outreach & Schedule of Upcoming Events
The Clinton Administration is committed to engaging the American people in a substantive
dialogue about the issue of climate change and to listening to a range of views about how
best to address the problem.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore hosted a meeting including three Nobel
Laureates at the White House in July to explore climate change science. They have also
met with key constituencies on the issue, including business, labor, and environmental
leaders.
Members of the Cabinet are discussing climate change in communities across the nation
Senior White House officials have met with a variety of constituencies, including
organized labor, a wide array of business interests, the environmental community, and
others to listen to specific concerns and discuss responsible ways of addressing climate
change that are consistent with maintaining economic growth.
NOAA is sponsoring a briefing on climate change for weather forecasters from across the
10/02/97 THU 13:28 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
1
006
country on October 1, to provide basic scientific information on the issue. The President
and Vice President will also address the group.
;
The President and Vice President will host the White House Conference on Climate
Change: The Challenge of Global Warming on October 6 at Georgetown University
Conclusion
Climate change poses a threat to all people -- one that may not be immediately apparent
today but will grow in severity and significance in years to come. The world must act.
And the United States must lead. The President has made clear his intention to do SO
and is committed both to developing strong, balanced and flexible policies and to
educating the public about the importance of this issue (an effort that includes a White
House Conference on Climate Change in early October).
10/02/97 THU 13:28 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
1.
007
CLIMATE CHANGE:
BASIC BACKGROUND
Science
The greenhouse effect: Scientists have long understood that the presence of certain gases in
nature (principally water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) act like a
greenhouse by trapping heat and keeping the Earth's temperature an estimated 60 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than it would otherwise be, thus sustaining life as we know it.
Human activities have enhanced this greenhouse effect by increasing the concentrations of thes
gases markedly since the Industrial Revolution. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the
most important greenhouse gas, has increased 30% from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 360
ppm. Current projections indicate that a business as usual path will result in CO2 concentrati
of 700 ppm by the end of the next century. This would be the highest CO2 level in more than "
million years.
Where is there scientific consensus: There is no serious scientific debate about the proposition
that (1) greenhouse gases are rapidly building up in the atmosphere as a result of human
activities, (2) that these increased concentrations will change our climate, and (3) that these
changes could have serious and disruptive consequences.
Where are there scientific uncertainties: No one knows for sure exactly how much or how fast
the planet will warm. Scientists estimate a range of temperature increase of 2.0 6.5 degrees F
by 2100, with a best guess of 3.5 degrees. By way of comparison, a cooling in average
temperatures of just 9 degrees produced the last Ice Age.
No one is exactly sure how the climate will react to predicted warming and where the most
noticeable impacts will be felt. The majority of scientific opinion suggests that as CO2
concentrations approach a level of 550 ppm (or double pre-industrial levels), a number of largely
negative impacts are likely. These include, but are not limited to, human health problems
(increased fatalities from heat stress and the expansion in the geographic ranges of certain
infectious diseases), more extreme weather such as floods and droughts, sca level rise, and the
loss of a number of animal and plant species.
While the planet has clearly warmed in the past century, no one can say for certain exactly how
much of this warming, or of observed climate changes, is due to human influences. The weight
of scientific opinion is that human activities have already started to warm the planet. The
intergovernmental panel of over 2000 climate experts that speaks most authoritatively on the
science of this issue, states that the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence
on global climate."
10/02/97 THU 13:29 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
4.
008
Evidence of Climate Change Over the Past Century
Average global temperature has increased by about 1 degree F.
Sea level has risen by 4-10 inches.
U.S. rainfall has increased 6%, an amount of water equal to half the yearly flow of the
Mississippi River.
Mountain glaciers are melting worldwide. For example, Glacier National Park has lost
70% of its glacial area in the last 100 years.
The ten warmest years of the century have occurred since 1980, and 1995 was the hones:
year ever on record.
What is the ultimate solution to climate change: The ultimate goal of any overall climate
change strategy must be to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Stabilizing
concentrations is different from stabilizing emissions. Were we to freeze global emissions at
today's level, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would continue to rise.
This is largely because such gases remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time. Stabilizing
concentrations at any reasonable level is a long-term process that will require reducing emissions
over time. Kyoto, therefore, should be looked at not as an effort to find a complete solution to
climate change, but rather as an important next step toward getting the world on a more
sustainable emissions path.
No policy determination has yet been made about what concentration level is acceptable. The
pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm). Today. it
stands at 360 ppm. Most of the work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) on the potential impacts of global warming assumes a level of 550 ppm or roughly twice
the pre-industrial level. The IPCC estimates that if current emissions trends continue, we will
reach 550 ppm sometime in the next century, with concentrations further increasing to almost
700 ppm by 2100.
Some Key Facts About Emissions
Climate change is a global issue requiring a global response. While developed countries have
contributed 75% of total greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, developing countries are expected to account for the majority of emissions by 2035
The United States, with only 4% of the world's population, is today responsible for over 20% of
global emissions. U.S. per capita emissions are roughly 50% higher than the OECD average and
more then eight times those of China.
10/02/97 THU 13:29 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
CEA
009
CO2 accounts for more than 85% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel
combustion makes up 99% of our CO2 emissions.
U.S. CO2 emissions are divided equally among the three major end uses: buldings (35%),
industry (34%), and transportation (31%).
(23%). Current U.S. carbon emissions by fuel type are: petroleum (42%), coal (35%), and natural ga
Despite a series of successful voluntary programs to reduce emissions, U.S. total emissions are
expected to be roughly 13% above 1990 levels by 2000, and some 28% above 1990 levels by
2010, assuming a business as usual path.
Why climate change is on the agenda now
This December, the world's nations will convene in Kyoto, Japan to try to conclude an
international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The Kyoto meeting formally the Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention
on Climate Change (FCCC) -- is the latest stage in a process started in Rio in 1992 with the
signing of the FCCC. The Convention's ultimate goal is to stabilize atmospheric concentration
of greenhouse gases at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the climate
system.
The first step in the process, also agreed in Rio, was for developed nations to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 and for all countries to take policies and measures to
address climate change. Every developed nation, other than Germany and the United Kingdom.
will fall short of the 2000 goal. (Germany and the UK will probably meet the goal but for
reasons having nothing to do with climate change i.e. absorbing East German emissions and
phasing out coal subsidies.)
In 1995, at the First Conference of the Parties, nations commenced the round of negotiation we
hope to complete in Kyoto later this year, the goal of which is to develop a new agreement to
cover the post-2000 period. Under the so-called Berlin Mandate, parties agreed (i) that they
would continue to pursue the Rio Convention's goals, (ii) that developed nations should take OF
new quantified emissions reduction objectives, and (iii) that there would be no new commitment
for developing countries, though developing countries would be required to advance
implementation of commitments they made at Rio.
Over the last two years. nations have met at several formal negotiating sessions to begin to
structure an agreement. Some countries, most notably the EU, have proposed specific targets
and timetables for emissions reductions. The U.S. has put forward a broad framework, outlining
what we feel are the key components of a new agreement. We have not yet proposed a target and
timetable.
10/02/97 THU 13:30 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
CEA
010
Our goal is to develop a comprehensive U.S. policy position in time for the final negotiating
session in Bonn, Germany at the end of October, and then to conclude an agreement in Kyoto
this December. However, it is important to note that many important issues remain unresolved
Key issues in the international negotiations
Binding Targets and Timetables: Broad consensus exists internationally that developed
nations should accept legally binding targets and timetables for emissions reductions in a new
climate change agreement.
To date, two concrete proposals for targets and timetables have been formally put on the table
The European Union has proposed that developed nations cut back emissions 15% from 1990
levels by 2010. The Association of Small Island States has proposed a 20% reduction below
1990 levels by 2005. The U.S. has stated publicly that we believe both these proposals are
unrealistic. Other nations, including Australia, Japan and Canada, have also expressed concern.
about moving too far too fast.
Several countries (including Australia, Japan and Norway) have supported the notion of
"differentiated" targets, under which different developed countries would take on different
obligations.
Flexibility: The term "flexibility" has been used primarily to refer to international emissions
trading and joint implementation. policies with the potential to substantially reduce costs of
compliance.
The U.S. proposal for emissions trading among all developed countries has met with only limited
support. However, the EU proposal is somewhat akin to trading in that each member country
would have its own target as long as the cumulative total of the member states results in a 15%
cut by 2010 (the "EU bubble"). We have insisted that all developed countries be allowed to trade
emissions.
Closely related to international emissions trading is "joint implementation" or JI. In a typical
case, a company in the developed world would invest in a renewable energy, energy efficiency or
forestry project in a developing nation. Emissions avoided as a result of this investment could be
credited against obligations at home. Since emissions reductions are typically much cheaper in
the developing world than they are in the developed world, significant efficiencies could result.
Developing countries would gain benefits in the form of technology transfer and private sector
investment flows. JI could occur between developed nations as well.
Despite the potential benefits, most developing countries remain opposed to JI (although support
has grown significantly in Latin America). They argue that JI is a way for developed countries to
avoid taking responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are also concerned that
the cheapest reductions will be used up, making future obligations harder to meet. In addition,
10/02/97 THU 13:30 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
CEA
011
some environmentalists believe that measuring project-based emissions reductions will be Foo
difficult. The U.S. business community has strongly supported JI. Utilities have been among 11...
most active participants in pilot projects to explore its feasibility.
Developing Country Commitments: As part of a draft protocol proposal submitted in Januar.
1997, the U.S. included three provisions relative to developing countries. The most important
the "evolution" concept, which would require developing countries to enter into a separate
agreement to adopt legally binding emissions targets and would include a "graduation
mechanism" under which developing countries would automatically incur increased obligations
on the basis of agreed criteria.
Starting at an international negotiating session in Bonn this July, the U.S. has made clear that
more specific proposals on developing country obligations will be a key element of the ultimate
U.S. policy.
There is a considerable gulf between the dialogue abroad (where the existing U.S. proposal for
developing country participation are almost uniformly considered too aggressive) and at home
(where Senator Byrd's resolution, calling for commitments beyond the U.S. proposal and outside
the 1995 Berlin Mandate under which this treaty is being negotiated, passed the Senate this
summer 95-0).
DOMESTIC POLICIES
The Administration is currently in the process of reviewing domestic policy options for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Among the options receiving close attention are domestic emission
trading and technology programs.
Domestic Emissions Trading Programs: Under emissions trading programs (sometimes
referred to as "cap and trade"), companies would be allowed to buy and sell the right to emit
greenhousc gases. The U.S. has had more experience with emissions trading than any other
country. The best example is the Clean Air Act's acid rain program, under which utilities are
allocated permits based on historical emissions of sulphur dioxide. Permits may be traded.
Compliance costs under this program have been much less than expected. An emissions trading:
regime for carbon dioxide would have to be on a much larger scale, and many issues would have
to be addressed (i.e. where constraints would be imposed and under what criteria permits would
be distributed) before such a program could be implemented.
Technology Programs: The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term
depends greatly on the ability to accelerate use of existing energy-efficient technologies. Over
the longer-term, the solution to the climate change problem depends on developing and
deploying new technologies that are even more efficient or are based on non-carbon energy
sources.
10/02/97 THU 13:31 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
1.
012
A range of government programs might help accelerate technological change. Research and
development programs generally aim to improve technologies by lowering production and
operating costs. Significant R&D opportunities exist in areas such as buildings, transportation.
combustion, renewables and sequestration (e.g., fuel cells, advanced industrial turbines,
advanced diesel engines, and transportation biofuels). In addition, information dissemination
programs assist businesses and consumers in identifying opportunities to reduce the energy
intensity of their products or services (e.g., using more energy efficient light bulbs, insulation.
appliances, etc.).
Existing Administration initiatives in this area include:
Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV)
The PNGV program joins the big three U.S. auto makers, federal agencies and many supplier:
of materials and equipment in an effort to develop a more efficient car. The program's goal
to triple the fuel efficiency of passenger cars with no decrease in comfort or safety.
The Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
CCAP includes some 50 initiatives covering all major greenhouse gas producing sectors of the
U.S. economy, including energy demand, energy supply, and forestry. CCAP programs have
reduced the rate of emissions growth, but not enough to achieve the goal of reducing emissions
to 1990 levels by 2000. CCAP is a voluntary program that relies on partnerships and cooperation
with industry and includes both government and private sector investment in new low-emission
high-efficiency technologies. Agency participants include DOE, EPA, and USDA.
Biomass Energy Initiative
DOE and USDA are working with companies to demonstrate power projects for rural
development and to improve technologies for converting crops to liquid and gascous fuels.
Pilot projects are running in New York, Minnesota and Iowa.
Million Solar Roofs Initiative
DOE will lead an effort to place one million solar energy systems on the roofs of buildings and
homes across the U.S. by 2010. This will be accomplished by using existing federal grants.
procurement, and other programs, and by working with local communities, businesses, statc
governments, utilities, and other groups to spur the sales of solar energy systems. In 2010, this
initiative has the potential to avert emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent to those produced by
850,000 cars and could produce the same electrical generating capacity as 3-5 coal-fired power
plants.
PCAST Energy R&D Panel
10/02/97 THU 13:31 FAX 456 6704
CABINET AFFAIRS
+++ CEA
4.
013
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology is conducting a
comprehensive and strategic review of U.S. energy R&D policies and practices "to ensure the
United States has a program that addresses its energy and environmental needs for the next
century". The group is examining energy efficiency, fossil, nuclear (fission and fusion), an !
renewable energy programs and budgets across the Federal government.
Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH)
The PATH initiative plans to have HUD, DOE, and NIST working with building suppliers,
assemblers, insurance companies, and state and local regulators in an effort improve the quality
of housing and meet ambitious environmental goals without increasing prices. Buildings are
responsible for about one third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
DOE's Industries of the Future Program
This is an industry/government partnership with the seven most energy-intensive U.S. industrie
including chemicals, paper and pulp, steel, aluminum and petroleum. The program has reached
technology agreements with each industry that focus the R&D expertise of our national labs on
cutting energy use and pollution in each industry.
By making modest changes now, we can avoid imposing
severe changes that will have to be made by our children. And for
those of us that are part of that baby boom generation, which are
basically everybody between the ages of 34 and 50, it seems to me
that we owe it to our children and to the strength and long-term
health of our economy and our society to deal with the long-term
entitlement issues now, when by making modest changes we can avoid
more severe changes later.
We're going to have to deal with the issue of climate
change in a responsible way. No one seriously questions anymore that
the climate is warming and that it is going to have some adverse
consequences. The question is, how do you do that and grow the
economy? Is there a way to do it? Of course, there is. If we would
change our habits tomorrow, just some of our habits, we could with no
extra charge, no cost at all on society, get rid of 20 percent of the
greenhouse gases with presently available technology -- tomorrow. So
what we have to do is to try to find a way to organize ourselves,
increase our awareness and do this in a way that doesn't cripple the
economy. I think we can do that.
Finally, the First Lady and I are going to have a
conference on child care in late October. It is still the number one
concern of many, many, many working people who believe that they
cannot afford or find or have access to quality, affordable child
care.
Now, those are the things we're going to be doing. In
addition to that, Eli Segal, who's here tonight, heads my national
organization where we are mobilizing employers who will agree to hire
people from welfare to work. Next week we're going to St. Louis to
announce several hundred businesses that have joined us in that
endeavor. We've still got a long way to go. We only have about 22
percent of the schoolchildren in the country committed, whose leaders
have committed to take the national test, 4th grade reading test, the
8th grade math test by 1999. We're going to keep working on that.
But the point I want to make is, every single one of
these things is something that I hope you are proud of that is part
of a dynamic mainstream political movement in America that your
contributions and your support have made possible. And this is a
better country because of it. It's a better country because we're
not out there trying to split everybody all up and divide people
every day and keep people full of hot air instead of trying to get
people together and keep working forward and moving forward. And
that's what I'm trying to build for the future and what I want you to
be a part of.
Let me just say this in closing. Every day I try to
imagine what I hope the country will be like 30 years from now. And
if that guides a President and you work back from there, you'll be
amazed how much easier that makes the decision-making process. And
when I think of the young people that are here tonight, all these
fine young people that are working for the Democratic Party and did
all the work to make this possible tonight -- what will determine
what kind of America they live in?
Number one, will we succeed in being a truly
multiracial, multiethnic democracy, where we not only respect, but
celebrate our diversity and still say the most thing is we're one
America? Number two, will we stop making excuses for ourselves and
finally embrace the idea that all children can learn and we're going
to see that they learn at internationally accepted levels of
excellence? Number three, will we reach into the areas that have not
been touched by our prosperity and figure out a way to hook them into
the future? Number four, will we figure out a way to grow the
economy while enhancing the environment? And, finally, will we
continue to do what it takes to lead the world when it comes to peace
and freedom and prosperity?
If we do those things, the best days of this country are
still ahead. And when we are all much older we can look back on this
moment and say, because we were here then and because we did what we
did, we did prepare our country for the 21st century. We saved
progressive government for its higher purposes and we revitalized
America's progressive party to make it go on.
Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
END
8:57 P.M. EDT
Message Sent To:
Peter R. Orszag
08/10/97 04:44:44
PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jeffrey A. Frankel/CEA/EOP
CC:
Subject: 1997-8-7
Forwarded by Peter R. Orszag/OPD/EOP on 08/10/97 04:52 PM
Russell W. Horwitz
08/10/97 04:40:32 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Peter R. Orszag/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: 1997-8-7
See POTUS comments on entitlements about 3/4's through the speech.
Forwarded by Russell W. Horwitz/OPD/EOP on 08/10/97 04:40 PM
SUNTUM_M @ A1
08/07/97 09:11:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: 1997-8-7
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 7, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE DEMOCRATIC BUSINESS COUNCIL
The Mayflower Hotel
Washington,
D.C.
8:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Governor Romer,
Tom, thank you. Thank you, Alan Solomon. I want to thank all the
members of the administration who came to be with us tonight, and I
thank all of you for your presence here and for your support.
I was -- a little insight on presidential
decision-making -- here are the notes my staff gave me. Here are the
notes I made at dinner. (Laughter.) You can have either speech --
which one do you like? (Laughter.) Two, two! (Applause.)
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about how I think
you fit into all this, and what we've been trying to do and where
we're going. When I ran for President, first, beginning in 1991, I
was obsessed with the idea that we had to prepare this country for a
new century and a completely different economy, and a whole different
way of living and relating to each other and the rest of the world,
and that we didn't have any strategy to do it. And I believed that
if we were going to succeed we had to create a country where, as
you've heard me say a thousand times, there was opportunity for
everyone responsible enough to work for it, where we were coming
together instead of being driven apart, and where we maintained our
world leadership for peace and prosperity and freedom.
I thought to do that it would be necessary to save
progressive government and to save the progressive political party,
to be vital forces as a part of that future. I thought it was
necessary to break through a lot of these dichotomies that seem to me
to be false -- that you were either for growing the economy or
preserving the environment -- if you have to choose we're in trouble.
That you couldn't be pro-business and pro-labor -- if you have to
choose, I think in the end the country loses. That you couldn't be
tough on crime where it was appropriate and still be smart and
compassionate where it made sense and where it was the right thing to
do. That you couldn't be for respecting our diversity and still
believe the most important thing is that we wind up being one
America. I just think a lot of these dichotomies that have always
been set up for us to argue about and take sides over are choices
that we would never make in our own lives, and that we should not
make in the life of our nation.
And you heard Tom talking about a little of it and Roy
talking about a little of it. It seemed to me that the right thing
to do for our country also in the end would wind up being the right
thing to do for the progressive cause in America and for the
Democratic Party, the progressive party in America. We almost had to
save ourselves from a legacy in some ways that was not entirely of
the Democrats own making. It was obvious to me that if we didn't do
something about the deficit there would be no more progressives in
America because the middle class would always be completely insecure.
We had a meeting today at the White House and my
distinguished Treasury Secretary from New York City, Mr. Rubin, was
making a comment about how people viewed a certain economic
situation. And Erskine Bowles said -- did I say North Carolina?
I
meant New York. Erskine Bowles is from North Carolina. So Erskine
Bowles says, "Mr. President, tell Bob that that's like the farmer
from Louisiana with three hogs." And Bob Rubin doesn't know many
farmers from Louisiana. (Laughter.)
So I told him -- some of you may have heard me tell this
story before, but when Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana in the
middle of the Depression, he was out on a country crossroads one day
making a speech to all of these farmers. And he was railing against
people that had too much and how it ought to be spread around. And
he saw a farmer in overalls and he said, "Now, Farmer Jones, if you
had a million dollars, wouldn't you give up about a third of it and
go out here on these crossroads and spread that money around so all
the little kids could have plenty to eat and people would have a roof
over their heads at night?" He said, "Of course, I would."
And he said, "If you had a brand-new Cadillac car,
wouldn't you ride up and down these roads and take the old folks to
the hospital and the young people to school that couldn't afford to
get there themselves?" He said, "You bet I would." He said, "And
farmer if you had three hogs." And he said, "Now, wait a minute
Governor, I've got three hogs." (Laughter and applause.)
It seemed to me that we had to restore some economic
discipline to this country so that people would know that their three
hogs would be all right. So that people would know that at least
they would not be robbed of the benefits of their own labor by the
defects of the system in which they lived.
And so I proposed what, at the time, was a controversial
and very difficult budget in 1993, that only members of our party
voted for, that was predicted to drive us into a recession. And
instead in four and a half years it cut the deficit by 80 percent --
before this last budget even passed. And I'm proud of that.
(Applause.) But no one doubts the ability of Democrats to manage the
economy now.
I fought for expanded trade, and we had 200 trade
agreements, and a lot of it was controversial, even within our own
party. But it is clear from all the economic analysis that 25
percent of the growth that we have enjoyed in the United States in
the last four and a half years has come from expanded trade --
selling more American products and services around the world. It is
also clear that we have, on matters of principle, have always kept a
more open market so we don't continue to open other people's markets
who are just going to take advantage of us.
It was clear to me that if people felt insecure on their
streets, in their homes and their schools, that we would never feel
fully free and prosperous even if the economy returned. So we tried
to join what was already a developing movement toward community
policing and other proven strategies to fight crime. And I
determined that ours would be the first administration that would
ever take on the issue of the irresponsible use of handguns in this
country. And I come from a state where more than half the people
have a hunting or a fishing license or both, and I figured if I can't
take this one and talk to people and talk sense to people, who can?
And so we did the Brady Bill, we did the assault weapons
ban. I still want trigger locks on these guns that children can get
their hands on. I think that these are responsible things. But
we've had a drop in serious crime in every single year, and last year
we had the biggest drop in violent crime in 35 years. And the
American people are safer and they know it And no one seriously
doubts the ability of our party to be a responsible partner in
keeping our streets safer and giving our children a more secure
future. And I think that's important. (Applause.)
I had to fight a very difficult battle on welfare. I
did not want the welfare reform bill to be an excuse to hurt children
and I vetoed two bills that I thought were. But it seemed to me that
since there was already no uniform national benefit, that the states
were already in effective control over what the size of a welfare
check was, but they didn't have any real responsibility because the
authority was divided between the states and the federal government.
And it seemed to me the responsible thing to do was to set up a
uniform set of standards about how we thought the welfare program
ought to work, to put guidelines and limits on people who could go to
work if there were jobs available and required them to do so, or to
be in education and training programs, but to take better care of the
children with adequate child care and other supports and nutrition
and medical care.
And that's what the welfare reform bill was all about.
There were a lot of things in it I didn't like -- cutting benefits to
legal immigrants -- but as you see, we've largely restored all the
things that we didn't like. And we now have a bill that is
contributing to by far the largest drop in the welfare rolls this
country has ever seen. And we now have the smallest percentage of
Americans receiving public assistance since 1970 -- smallest
percentage since 1970. (Applause.) Now, I thought that was
important. I thought it was important that we prove that we can
conduct the defense and the foreign policy operations of this
country. I no longer think that's open to serious doubt. This
country is stronger, more secure, and is helping to build the world
of the 21st century in the aftermath of the Cold War. And I feel
good about that.
I also wanted to do things to increase people's sense of
obligation to serve -- that's what the AmeriCorps program was about;
that's what the President's Service Summit was all about.
And, finally, let me say, in the Democratic Party, what
I tried to do is to bring in people who had previously not been
active before. And the most important things we've done in our party
is the Women's Leadership Forum, the Saxophone Club -- (applause)
--and your group -- your group -- because we want people in this
party to feel that they have a home, they have a role, and they have
a contribution to make, and that their voices will be heard.
Now, we've had a very good first seven months of this
year. The budget is a good budget, and it is a progressive one. The
tax cuts are confined. Some of us have received some criticism from
people who believe that I should not have signed the tax bill because
it had a capital gains tax cut and an increase in the estate tax.
But let me just remind you that Republicans are still in the majority
in the Congress -- I hope it won't be so after '98, but they are now
-- but 80 percent of that tax bill went to the children's tax credit,
to education, and to a whole array of urban and poor rural
redevelopment initiatives designed to bring the areas that are still
isolated from our prosperity into the mainstream -- 80 percent.
Secondly, there are strict caps on how much money can be
spent in the first five years and in the second five years of this
tax program. And even with the little we added on to the size of the
tax package, it's still about one-eighth -- one-eighth -- the size of
the tax bill adopted in 1981, which led to these permanent deficits.
We did not go off in some sort of tax-cutting binge designed to erode
the future stability of this country. And we now estimate with
conservative estimates that this budget will produce a surplus by
2002 at the latest and a surplus for several years thereafter.
So we are doing the right things, and we've had a good
fall. We've also invited the first new members to join NATO. We've
established alliance with Russia and Ukraine. We have worked very
hard to get the country, for the very first time, to embrace national
education standards. And I hope all of you will help us get every
state in the country to do that.
We had the Summit of Service that I mentioned, and I
launched a very important initiative on race relations which will
last for at least a year, as we examine for the first time in a
non-crisis way not only what the unfinished business is in America
between the white majority and African Americans or Hispanic
Americans, but an equally, perhaps even more important question over
the long run, which is what are we going to be like as a nation in 30
years when, unless something happens, there will be no majority race
in America and we will become the world's first truly great
multiracial, multiethnic democracy.
And unlike -- there are many ethnic groups, for example,
in a nation like Russia, but most of them live in discreet parts of
the country. in our country we're going to have 150 -- actually,
more than 150 different racial and ethnic groups largely sharing the
future together.
So it's been an exciting time. In the fall we have a
lot of other agendas coming up. And let me just mention some of the
things that I hope to get done in the remainder of this year. I
think it's important that we continue our work to expand trade. This
year we have already concluded an agreement on information technology
and telecommunication services that will amount to a $5 billion tax
reduction on American products in these areas sold around world; that
will open up 90 percent of the world markets to American products in
a area where we lead the world and we are creating very good jobs.
We need more of this.
I know there's going to be a great controversy over this
trade debate, but let me put it to you this way: We have four
percent of the world's population. We have 20 percent of the world's
wealth. The rest of the world's economy, even though it's on a lower
base, is growing at three times the rate of the American economy --
even under the astute management of our administration. (Laughter.)
Because if you start from a lower base, you grow faster.
Now, if you want your children to live in a country that
may have even less than four percent of the world's population and
still around 20 percent of the world's wealth because of how hard we
work and our skills and our ability, there are only two things we can
do. The first is to go into our cities and our isolated rural areas
and make markets and taxpayers and successful employers and employees
and businesspeople out of the people that haven't been reached in our
own country, number one. And the second is to sell to the other 96
percent of the people in the world. This is not rocket science. We
don't have an option. And the things that we sell by and large are
higher value-added products that create good jobs in America.
Are there issues of trade fairness? Of course, there
are. We have relatively more open markets than other countries. We
have done it for years as a matter of responsibility to try to help
poor countries lift themselves up; also keeps us on our toes more and
makes us more competitive, and that's one reason we're in the shape
we're in today.
Should we fight for a fair deal for our workers? Of
course, we should. Should we fight to improve the global environment
as we increase trade? Of course, we should. But we can't walk away
from this.
I'm going to Latin America in the fall. About a year
after I took office, we had this great Summit of the Americas. And
all the countries in the Americas said, we want to have a free trade
area that America and that Canada are a part of. We want our future
to be with you. There will soon be a billion people in Latin
America, the second fastest-growing area of the world. When I go
down there, I want them to believe America is still leading the way
toward greater prosperity. The rest of the world economy is on a
fast track. The only question is whether we're going to be leading
it or dragging up the rear. And I hope we can prevail upon the
Congress to work through this in a way that is as satisfactory as
possible to the people who have legitimate concerns about the
disruptions that the global economy can cause.
The second thing we're going to try to do is pass the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now, the good news
from my point of view is not such good news for you; we can still
have the Democratic Business Council with its price of entry under
McCain-Feingold. (Laughter.) But, it will eliminate most of the
serious questions people have about the campaign finance system as
present, and it will put more pressure on both the Democrats and the
Republicans to go out and get more people to contribute, to make more
people feel like they're a part of the system, and that will be a
very good thing. It will require us to involve more and more and
more people.
But let me finally say this is very important -- if
it's going to work we have to lower the cost of campaigns. And the
only way you can lower the cost of modern campaigns is to provide
free air time or drastically reduced air time -- which is why I have
also worked so hard on that.
We're going to try to pass the juvenile justice bill,
modeled on what has happened in a number of cities, but especially in
Boston where this may surprise you if you don't live in Boston
--it has been almost two full years since a single child has lost his
or her life to a handgun. Almost two full years. And, again, it's
not rocket science. They have good community policing. They have
good neighborhood block watch groups. The neighbors and the police
work together. The police and the probation officers work together.
They make house calls in Boston, just like doctors used to. The kids
in +rouble, they go to the child's home and they sit on the couch in
the living room and they talk to the parents.
And, unbelievably enough, they have a 70 percent
compliance rate with probation orders. There's no city in the
country that's even close to that. Why? Old-fashioned, human
contact in an organized, disciplined way, doing what is smart as well
as being tough. We want to do that everywhere.
We want to begin the work of dealing with entitlement
reform. And people say, well, there's no an emergency now; Social
Security is all right until 2029; you just put another decade on the
Medicare trust fund. That's true. But when the baby boomers retire,
there will be almost just about two people working for one person in
his or her retirement years. A lot of us will work longer by
choice. But the ratio will be awesome.
Draft 9/30/97 4:30pm
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
'97 SEP 30 PM4:39
REMARKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE TO WEATHER FORECASTERS
THE WHITE HOUSE
October 1, 1997
Acknowledgments: VP Gore, EPA Administrator Browner.
And I want to thank all of you weathercasters for coming today. As you well know, people
tune into the local news for your weather reports more than any other reason. [Inside joke: Of
course, it may not feel that way when your producer is cutting another 15 seconds out of your
weather show. But...] The public relies heavily on your expertise and not only to figure out
whether they'll need to put on a coat when they go to work the next morning. The fact is, your
reports save lives. This vast country, for all its natural blessings, has some of the most severe
weather and natural disasters of any country in the world. And you're the men and women America
trusts to deliver timely warnings and advice. You are engaged in a very important form of public
service, and we are indebted to you.
I'd also like to salute the men and women of NOAA and the National Weather Service who
are here today. You and your impressive technologies are, among other things, the first lines of
defense against nature's fury. In the past decade alone, you've doubled the amount of warning time
we have to prepare for tornados, and quadrupled the warning time for flash floods. You also
deserve praise for the highly successful public-private partnership you have fostered with broadcast
weathercasters. It's a wonderful model for the nation.
I have spent most of my time over the past four and a half years trying to prepare America
for the challenges and opportunities of a new century and a new millennium. Climate change is,
quite simply, one of the most important challenges we face. I believe that if we fail to address it
head-on, we will fail our deepest obligations to our children.
There are four principles that have guided me in preparing my response to the challenge of
global climate change. First, I am convinced that the science is real. We certainly don't know
everything, and more research is needed. But what we already know is enough to warrant
responsible action.
When you weathercasters look at the Doppler radar screen and see an advancing mass of
dark red echoes, you know it's going to rain. You may not know precisely how much or for how
long, but you know it would be a mistake not to advise your viewers to carry their umbrellas.
That's the way I feel about global climate change. The overwhelming majority of the
world's climate scientists have concluded that if we don't cut our emissions of greenhouse gases,
sooner or later we will disrupt the global climate. They can't know precisely how bad the effects of
global climate change could be how high the seas might rise or how much more severe our
droughts and floods could become. But given what they do know, it would be wrong for us to put
our heads in the sand and ignore this issue.
1
The second principle is that when the nations of the world meet this December in Kyoto,
Japan, the United States must be prepared to commit to realistic and binding limits on our emissions
of greenhouse gases. With 4% of the world's population, we produce more than 20% of its
greenhouse gases. I believe we must cut back. The world is looking to us for leadership.
The third principle is that we must embrace solutions that will allow us to continue to grow
our economy at the same time we honor our global responsibilities. I have worked far too hard to
revitalize the American economy to jeopardize our progress now. The plan that we will bring to
Kyoto will emphasize flexible, market-based approaches. It will also embrace new technologies.
Let me give you an example. Typically, about two-thirds of the energy produced by power plants is
lost in the form of the heat billowing out of a smokestack. But a company called Trigen [TRI-jenn]
has found a way to more than double the efficiency of power plants in Philadelphia, Chicago, and
Tulsa by capturing excess heat and turning it into steam to warm office buildings. It's a
wonderfully simple and elegant solution. It represents the kind of American ingenuity that will
make our job much easier.
Finally, I believe that we must ask all nations, both industrialized and developing, to
participate in this process. It is wonderful that so many countries in so many parts of the world are
developing so rapidly. But as we have seen here in America, economic development increases
energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, emissions from the developing world will
likely eclipse those from the developed world by 2035. So the developed world cannot take on this
responsibility alone. In Kyoto, we will ask for meaningful, equitable commitments from all nations.
[On Monday, we hope to take an important step forward in our efforts to put these general
principles I've spoken of today into one sensible policy. We have invited noted economists and
leaders from industry, state and local governments, and the environmental and scientific
communities to participate in the White House Conference on Climate Change. Our goals are
simple: We want to help the American people understand the importance of the challenge, and to
allow outside experts to help inform the policy process to the greatest extent possible.]
Many of the challenges this nation has faced in the past were clear and present dangers.
Global climate change is more of a looming threat: We see storm clouds approaching on the
horizon, but most Americans in their day-to-day lives can't yet feel the rain. And that makes the
work of educating the public that much more difficult. But we are deeply committed to putting the
evidence before the American people. We are deeply committed to building consensus to do the
right thing for our future.
Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your leadership in your
communities. And thank you for your interest in this very important subject.
2
From:
Melissa Green on 09/17/97 09:53:21 PM
Record Type:
Record
fyr
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Climate Change POTUS Meeting
Please attend a climate change meeting with the president tomorrow 9/18 at 3:00pm in the Oval Office.
The meeting will begin at 3:00pm and last for forty-five minutes. Only these people should attend:
The Vice President
Erskine Bowles
Gene Sperling
Dan Tarullo
John Podesta
-
Katie McGinty
Jim Steinberg
Todd Stern
Janet Yellen
Stuart Eizenstat
Ron Klain
Leon Fuerth
John Hilley
Thanks
L.S. in Nong Kong
mty. had on ginally been
schedules for a.m.
Message Sent To:
Heather M. Marabeti/OVP @ OVP
Tues 9/16.
Paul J. Cusack/OVP @ OVP
cancelled.
Jason S. Goldberg/WHO/EOP
Demond T. Martin/WHO/EOP
Carole A. Parmelee/WHO/EOP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP
Kristen E. Panerali/OPD/EOP
Robert S. Kapla/CEQ/EOP
Kate @ 456-9490 @ Fax
Jonathan H. Adashek/WHO/EOP
Sandra F. Daigle/CEA/EOP
Debbie B Bengtson/OVP @ OVP
Elizabeth Harrington/OVP @ OVP
Ann2456-9500 @ Fax
Virginia N. Rustique/WHO/EOP
Mtg. with POTW
9/18/97
JY
Phase out sbsities on oil Tionl.
Break down where emissus are 10mg. from.
Woldn't rule out Tax reform. Rev.-meural
Lived 2-step on LAS
Seemed & like escape clause
They want Allocated permits
CC JAF
Recil
10:30am
9-15-97
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 15, 1997
To: Jim Steinberg
Gene Sperling
Katie McGinty
John Podesta 314
Janet Yellen
Dan Tarullo
Jack Gibbons
The attached is forwarded for your
information.
Todd Stern
'97 SEP 14PM7:01
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 14, 1997
Meeting with Environmental Leaders on Climate Change
DATE:
September 15, 1997
LOCATION: Cabinet Room
TIME:
12:45 - 1:30 p.m.
FROM:
Todd Stern & Katie McGinty
I. PURPOSE
To discuss climate change with leaders of the dozen major environmental organizations most
engaged on the issue.
Meeting objectives: (1) To give the leaders of the environmental community an opportunity to
talk to you directly about their views on climate change; (2) to demonstrate your personal
engagement on the issue; (3) to make clear that you are committed to achieving a solid agreement
in Kyoto and that you recognize Kyoto to be only the first step on the path toward solving the
long-term problem; (4) to make clear your belief that the plan we put forward must both make a
serious start on addressing the environmental problem while also being economically and
politically realistic. (The truth is that negotiating a treaty that ends up rejected by the Senate
would set the cause of climate change back much more than failing to reach a final agreement in
Kyoto.)
II. BACKGROUND
This is your first meeting with the nation's environmental leadership since November 1995. The
environmental community is very concerned about climate change, and a number of these leaders
see the issue as their highest priority. Unlike the corporate CEOs you met with in August, they
are likely to have coordinated their approach to you, and, even though there are real differences in
how they see this issue (see attached rundown of the groups), they will speak with a fairly unified
voice.
In general, they come at this issue from a perspective that is quite far away from even the
moderate voices in big business, such as BP's John Browne. For example, on the issue of most
importance to them -- the target and timetable - these groups favor a very aggressive approach:
1990 levels by 2005. It is doubtful that even a target of 1990 by 2010 would garner much if any
support from business.
It is imperative that you avoid making or implying any commitments to a specific target or
timetable, even though these leaders may try to push you. As you will hear when you meet
Tuesday with a few of your advisors on this issue, the economic costs of a 1990/2010 target
are very significant.
While members of this group hold different views about acceptable implementation mechanisms,
you are likely to hear some support for flexible, market-based policies, such as emissions trading
or so-called "joint implementation", though the Sierra Club, in particular, remains opposed to
these tools.
You should also know that the group may argue that the politics favor tough action. They may
share with you a poll that the World Wildlife Fund plans to release later this month, though WWF
is concerned that it not leak yet. The poll indicates that people are concerned about climate
change and especially about some of the impacts it might have; at the same time it suggests that
people are not very enthused about many of the proposed solutions. (Poll attached)
Note: as you are probably aware, a coalition of industry groups launched an ad campaign on
September 9, with the first ad attacking the notion that we would sign a treaty that "exempts" the
developing countries of the world.
Topics of Discussion: We have attached suggested questions in order to get the dialogue going
on several topics. The conversation is likely to be free flowing, but we recommend proceeding in
roughly the following way:
General views: You should begin by making brief opening comments that articulate the
principles that guide your approach to climate change (attached). You should start the discussion
by turning to Gene Karpinski, Chair of the group. He will likely make some introductory remarks
and then turn to Bud Ris from the Union of Concerned Scientists (the only scientist among the
group) for his comments on the importance of this issue to the environmental community.
Targets and timetables: As noted, the group supports the EU's position on stringent early
reductions and will call for a 2005 target. EDF's Fred Krupp is likely to take the lead on this
issue. It would be appropriate to press them on what they see as the long-term differences
environmentally of an aggressive early target (like 1990 in 2005 or 2010) as compared with a
more gradual target (like 1990 in 2020) ---in light of the potentially significantly greater economic
costs of setting an early date. You might let Larry Summers pursue this a bit. We have
talked to him, and he is ready to do this.
International issues: The toughest issue here concerns the way to handle developing
countries. In a nutshell, the current negotiations are proceeding on the basis that developed
countries must accept binding targets and timetables, but that developing countries do not need to
do that. The Byrd Resolution, which passed 95-0 in July, in effect dismisses that approach and
articulates the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should not sign any treaty in Kyoto unless the
developing countries take on new commitments of their own (though those commitments could
be different than developed country commitments). Both because it makes substantive,
environmental sense and because of the clear message sent by the Senate, State has been
developing some new ideas of how to demand more from developing countries in a manner that
doesn't derail the Kyoto negotiations. We have let people know -- in the business and
environmental communities and on the Hill -- that we are working on some new developing
country ideas, but have not shared anything yet.
Domestic policies: These are the domestic means -- such as emissions trading and
technology -- for achieving whatever reductions we agree to. These groups have different ideas
about acceptable measures. Some support domestic emissions trading, some a carbon tax of
some kind, others an increase in CAFE standards for auto fuel efficiency. All tend to have an
optimistic view about the speed at which new technologies can be developed and put in place, and
this largely accounts for their lower estimates of the economic costs. Furthermore, they may
suggest that past economic assessments of the costs of proposed environmental regulations are
usually exaggerated because they fail sufficiently to account for the technological innovations that
result from strong regulatory measures.
III. PARTICIPANTS
Pre-brief Participants:
Todd Stern, Katie McGinty, Gene Sperling, Dan Tarullo, Jim Steinberg, Jack Gibbons, Larry
Summers, Carol Browner, Bruce Babbitt.
Meeting Participants:
Todd Stern, Katie McGinty, Gene Sperling, Dan Tarullo, Jim Steinberg, Jack Gibbons, Larry
Summers, Carol Browner, Bruce Babbitt.
John Adams
Natural Resource Defense Council
Deb Callahan
League of Conservation Voters
Phil Clapp
Environmental Information Center
Kathryn Fuller
World Wildlife Fund
Paul Gorman
National Religious Partnership for the Environment
Paul Hansen
Izaak Walton League
Gene Karpinski
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Fred Krupp
Environmental Defense Fund
Jonathan Lash
World Resources Institute
Robert Musil
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Carl Pope
Sierra Club
Howard (Bud) Ris
Union of Concerned Scientists
Mark VanPutten
National Wildlife Federation
IV. PRESS PLAN
Closed Press
V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
You and the Vice President enter the Cabinet Room.
You make brief opening comments and lead discussion.
You and the Vice President depart.
VI. REMARKS
Attached
'97 SEP 14 PM6:55
Presidential Opening Remarks
Green Group Meeting on Climate Change
September 15, 1997
Thank you all very much for coming.
Let me just say a couple of words before we begin what I hope will be a very
productive discussion.
First, let me be clear that I am committed to addressing the climate change problem.
Thanks to the Vice President and others, I am convinced of the science and of the
need to act.
Second, I want you to know I am committed to getting an agreement in Kyoto that
will work -- one that includes realistic and achievable binding targets, flexible
implementation mechanisms, and solid commitments from developing countries. I
will tell you right now that from the United States point of view, each of these three
elements is vital.
Third, I am committed to engaging the American people on this issue and to
developing public support for doing something about it. I can tell you that I do not
believe that support is there yet, and without it we cannot move forward. I know
you all are doing are a great deal on this front, and I urge you to continue.
For our part, my cabinet will be participating in twenty or more events on climate
change in the next few weeks. In fact, Secretaries Daley and Pena are in Pittsburgh
as we speak doing a climate change event there, and Secretary Babbitt is leaving
Friday for a university tour, focused on the climate issue. In several weeks, we..
hope to bring in weather forecasters from across the country for a series of briefings
here, and then on October 6 we will have the White House Conference on Climate
Change.
Fourth and finally, let's remember that we cannot solve climate change in Kyoto. If
there ever was a long-term problem, this is it. Our goal must be to take a
meaningful step in the right direction, one that puts us squarely on a path toward
stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a safe level. If we
overreach and end up with an agreement that has insufficient domestic support, we
risk setting the cause back rather than moving it forward. Likewise, we cannot
merely kick the can down the road and leave this problem for the next generation.
I hope you will help me try to strike the right balance.
Discussion Points for Climate Change Meeting with Environmental Leaders
Welcome
Thank you all for coming. (make brief statement of climate change principles
--attached). [Mr. President, you should recognize the Vice President, who may also
want to say a few words. Also if you recognize Secretary Babbitt and Administrator
Browner, you may want to note that Secretaries Daley and Pena wanted to attend but
had commitments to another climate change event in Pittsburgh.]
General Views [Recommend turning to Gene Karpinski, Chair of the Green Group.]
You've just heard a little about the principles that guide my approach to this issue.
But I'm most interested in hearing from you. Gene, how do you see this issue right
now, what do you think about our general approach? [Karpinski will likely make
a few opening comments, then turn to Bud Ris, UCS, who will underscore the
significance of the issue to the environmental community.]
Binding Targets and Timetables
As you know, the European Union has called for a 15% reduction from 1990 levels
by the year 2010. I have to be honest in saying that we don't think that's realistic.
I know you all support an early date for binding limits, and I'd like to hear your views
on the subject. [Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund, likely to respond
with strong push for a 2005 target]
[Mr. President, you may want to allow Larry Summers to follow up a bit here. It is
critical for this group to explain the environmental rationale for early and stringent
reductions, given that the economic costs of such measures are likely to be substantially
greater than those from a more gradual approach.]
International Measures
Whatever the specific level, I understand the importance of binding targets for
developed countries. But in reality that is only one piece of a larger agreement. We
feel strongly that meaningful targets can only be met in an economically responsible
manner if sufficient flexibility is provided. Furthermore, for any agreement to be
environmentally justifiable, not to mention equitable, and result in a ratified treaty
there must be meaningful developing country obligations. Will you help us work with
other nations to build support for these flexible measures, and what do you think are
appropriate commitments for developing countries?
We understand that despite some disparate views this group may be willing to express some
vague support for flexible measures. On developing countries, they will agree that
participation is needed but will argue that we not push so hard as to endanger the Kyoto
negotiations.
Domestic Policies -- Technology
As we look to develop targets and timetables, we must consider a range of domestic
implementation mechanisms for ensuring that such targets are met. Obviously,
technology will play a vital role. What are your thoughts on how the Federal
government can best spur technological innovation, and where do you see the best
promise for developing clean energy options?
Domestic Policies -- Emissions Trading & Other Ideas
Another area we are examining closely is domestic emissions trading. Tunderstand
that we have used a domestic trading scheme very effectively in addressing the
problem of acid rain. Do you think there are useful parallels to draw here and how
about an emissions trading regime for carbon dioxide? [Fred Krupp at EDF is the
major proponent of domestic trading]
Are there other ideas you have for concrete steps we can take in the near term to
begin reducing emissions domestically? [John Adams may suggest using the utility
restructuring legislation as a vehicle to achieve reductions.]
Outreach Asking for help
Regardless of any differences we may have about specific policy choices, I think we
can agree on the need to make this a serious issue with the American people. As I
have mentioned, I and my Cabinet are fully engaged in this effort. I feel the White
House Conference in October will also be a great help in this regard. But let me
reiterate that we need your help. I know you don't have the financial resources of
those who launched the multi-million dollar ad campaign last week. But your success
in bringing the clean air issue home to people across the country speaks to your ability
to get the message out.
Knowing what a priority this issue is for this community, what, specifically, are you
doing to educate the American people? [Suggest turning to Carl Pope and/or John
Adams. Both would like to share with you the outreach they've been doing].
It strikes me that the outdoor recreation community has a role to play as well.
[Suggest turning to Paul Hansen. He can highlight the work the outdoor
recreation community has been doing - you should encourage them to be more
vocal.]
The Vice President has mentioned to me that the religious community is also
concerned about climate change. I'd be interested in to know how you deliver a
message about global warming and what resonates with people. [You should turn
to Paul Gorman of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. He
will share with you the efforts of the religious community.]
Conclusion
I want to thank you all again for joining me today. This is certainly a tough issue, but
one we all agree is extremely important.
We must unite in our commitment to bring this issue to the American people - to
convince them that this is the time for action.
-
I also want to reiterate my strong hopes of reaching an agreement in Kyoto. But let
me be clear: we will not sign an agreement if it isn't the right agreement. It must
include realistic and achievable binding targets, flexible implementation mechanisms,
and commitments from developing countries, and it must be a treaty that is politically
viable domestically.
BACKGROUND ON KEY CLIMATE PLAYERS
Following is a background paper on the key players who will be attending today's climate
change meeting. This group is a subset of the "Green Group," a coalition of thirty of the
leading national environmental organizations. Though all of the environmental leaders you
will meet with today have an interest in climate change, there are divergent views between
them. We have tried to summarize the key differences, moving roughly speaking, from right
to left.
Environmental Defense Fund (Fred Krupp)
EDF is the most business-oriented and market-friendly of the green groups. They have been
consistent advocates for the flexibility measures we support, such as emissions trading and
joint implementation. They were very involved in helping to set up the domestic emissions
trading system for sulfur dioxide (acid rain), which is widely regarded as a success story.
EDF also has solid scientific credentials. Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, who works in their New
York office, has been one of the leading scientific voices on this issue for years and
accompanied the Vice President to Glacier National Park several weeks ago. EDF is one of
the groups whose support will be critical if our ultimate climate change policy is to have
environmental credibility. They are well respected by the national environmental media and
have solid relations with key components of the business community. Fred Krupp has been
EDF's CEO for over a decade and is very knowledgeable on the climate change issue.
World Resources Institute (Jonathan Lash)
WRI is the closest thing the environmental community has to a think tank. They are highly
regarded as a source of information on global environmental trends, from forest destruction
to air pollution. Climate change has been a central issue for WRI for years. Most recently,
they produced a highly useful report summarizing the economic literature on climate change
and suggesting that, given the right flexibility measures, significant emissions reductions could
be achieved at little or no cost to the economy. Bob Repetto, the economist who co-authored
the report, is one of the most credible voices arguing that tackling climate change makes solid
economic sense if done properly. WRI also has a very good feel for the developing country
side of the climate equation, both in terms of what such countries must do environmentally
and can do realistically. Jonathan Lash is the Co-Chair of your Council on Sustainable
Development and is also quite knowledgeable on the climate issue. WRI is another of the
groups that might support a more middle ground U.S. position.
Natural Resources Defense Council (John Adams)
NRDC was started almost thirty years ago (by three Yale Law School graduates) as
essentially the legal arm of the environmental community. They were instrumental in the
passage of landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act. Their interest in
climate change also goes way back. Senior scientist Dan Lashof is another one of the leading
scientific experts on the issue from the environmental community and recently authored an
excellent Washington Post Op-Ed on the subject. He also joined the Vice President at
Glacier. NRDC historically has been the leading proponent of a carbon or energy tax of some
type to address this issue. However, after the unsuccessful effort to impose a BTU tax, they
have backed off the tax issue and have indicated a greater degree of support for concepts like
emissions trading. They are also advocates for using the utility restructuring legislation to
achieve carbon limitation objectives. A last point is that they are optimistic about technology.
They would argue that over the past 30 years, successful environmental legislation has driven
technological innovation at a rate faster, and at a cost cheaper, than what economists
predicted. John Adams, the senior member of the Green Group and it's past chair, has led
NRDC since its inception.
World Wildlife Fund (Kathryn Fuller)
WWF is a very large, mainstream environmental organization, known for its focus on
protecting endangered species and habitats. They have taken an increasingly large interest
in climate change in recent years. In July, WWF released a report detailing the potential
impact of climate change on U.S. national parks and protected areas. The report received
some press attention and covers an area of the climate debate that has not been focused on
much in the past. WWF has also commissioned a poll on climate change (they may reference
this in the meeting) which shows public concern for the climate issue and a willingness to
support corrective policies even if they are expensive. The poll also indicates, however, that
people do not feel the issue is urgent. Kathryn Fuller has led the WWF for nearly a decade.
League of Conservation Voters (Deb Callahan)
The League of Conservation Voters is the bipartisan, political arm of the national
environmental community. They endorse and work for and against candidates. LCV's sole
mission is to gain grassroots support on behalf of national and state election candidates with
strong environmental records. The LCV also publishes the National Environmental
Scorecard which rates Congress on their environmental voting record and is seen as the
definitive word on the environmental performance of every member in the House and Senate.
In addition, they also put out a report card on the Administration - climate will likely be one
of the key items on which we will be graded.
Environmental Information Center (Phil Clapp)
EIC, established in 1995, was created with a mission to run public education campaigns to
inform the American public about legislation in Congress that would compromise their health,
safety, environment, and quality of life. EIC, with a large budget funded mostly from
foundations (Pew Charitable Trusts), has been extremely effective in organizing grassroots
support and using paid media to reach millions of Americans. Most recently, EIC has been
hosting regional town meetings across the country on climate change and has been effective
in galvanizing grassroots support on the issue. Phil Clapp, the founder and President, has
been very vocal on a variety of issues these past two years - including the recent clean air
standards. During the proposed clean air standards debate, Phil was quoted in a front page
story of the New York Times questioning the Vice President's commitment to these issues,
which was unfortunate.
Sierra Club (Carl Pope)
The Sierra Club is the grassroots arm of the environmental movement. They also endorse and
work on behalf of candidates. They have local, state, and regional chapters which can be
quite effective in advocating for key environmental issues. Last year, the Club elected 24-
year-old Adam Werbach as their Board President, and he has been successful in tapping in to
the youth sector. On climate change, the Club has taken a hard line position in support of
stringent binding targets. Furthermore, they have actively opposed the flexibility measures
that we believe are critical to achieving emissions reductions cost effectively (i.e. emissions
trading and, particularly, joint implementation). They believe these proposals are unworkable
and afford too many loopholes to ensure real environmental gains (though they are unlikely
to be negative on these issues in the meeting so as to preserve the appearance of unity). They
instead have favored initiatives such as raising CAFE standards for auto efficiency. Carl Pope
the club's executive director, like John Adams and Fred Krupp, is seen as one of the leading
environmental voices in the country and was a very visible and effective spokesman during
the clean air debate.
The descriptions below are in no particular order.
The Izaak Walton League of America (Paul Hansen)
Founded in 1922, the IWL is a national conservation organization whose 50,000 members
nationwide protect and enjoy America's soil, air, woods, waters, and wildlife. (These are the
hunters and fishermen.) The Ikes have a unique role to play in educating and mobilizing the
recreation community on this issue.
The National Wildlife Federation (Mark Van Putten)
The mission of NWF is to educate and assist individuals and organizations to conserve
wildlife and our natural resources. Founded in 1936, NWF has more than 4 million members
and supporters.
Physicians for Social Responsibility (Robert Musil)
Founded in 1961, PSR is a national organization of over 20,000 health professionals and
supporters working to promote arms control and international cooperation, reduce societal
violence and it's causes, and protect the environment worldwide. PSR should be encouraged
to mobilize the health care community on the health impacts associated with climate change.
Union of Concerned Scientists (Howard "Bud" Ris)
UCS is dedicated to advancing responsible public policies in areas where science and
technology play a critical role. Climate change is currently one of their greatest concerns and
they are working to encourage responsible stewardship of the global environment, promote
energy technologies that are renewable, safe, and cost effective, reform transportation policy,
and promote sustainable agriculture. UCS conducts technical studies and public education
campaigns and seeks to influence government policy at the local, state, federal, and
international levels.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (Gene Karpinski)
U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for state PIRGs around the country, representing
nearly one million members. Each state PIRG sets their own agenda, but the work they do
focuses primarily on environmental protection, hazardous waste cleanup and prevention, safe
energy, consumer protection and open government. PIRG should also be encouraged to play
a strong role in educating the American people on climate change. Gene Karpinski, in
addition to serving as PIRG's executive director, is currently the chair of the Green Group.
The National Religious Partnership for the Environment (Paul Gorman)
The NRPE is a coalition of major American faith groups and affiliated agencies. The alliance
consists of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish life, and the National Council of Churches of Christ.
The mission for the NRPE is to integrate issues of environmental sustainability and justice
permanently across all areas of organized religious life.
'97 SEP 14 PM6:55
Background on Issues
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
The Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at the Rio "Earth Summit" in 1992.
The current round of negotiations is scheduled to conclude in Kyoto this December. To date, the
United States has advanced a three-part framework for the negotiations. We have argued for (1)
binding emissions targets, (2) flexibility in achieving those targets (for example, through emissions
trading among developed nations and "joint implementation" with developing nations), and (3) the
participation of all countries. We have not yet proposed any specific targets or timetables. A
relatively low-level negotiating session has been going on this week in Bonn and will continue
next week.
Targets and Timetables
The European Union has proposed that developed nations cut back emissions 10-15% from 1990
levels by 2010. We have stated publicly that we believe this proposal is unrealistic. Other
nations, including Australia, Japan and Canada, have expressed concerns about moving too far
too fast, but have not put forward any specific targets. Several countries (including Australia,
Japan and Norway) have supported "differentiated" targets, under which different developed
countries would take on different obligations. The United States has opposed these proposals as
unworkable.
Flexibility
The term "flexibility" has been used to refer to international emissions trading, joint
implementation, banking and borrowing (applying extra emissions reductions from one period in
another period) and multi-year targets (setting emissions targets for periods of two or more years,
such as 2010-2020). Such policies can substantially reduce costs of compliance.
Our proposal for emissions trading among all developed countries has met with only limited
support. However, the EU has proposed that its members be allowed to trade emissions among
themselves (the "EU bubble"). We have insisted that all countries that all developed countries be
allowed to trade emissions.
Closely related to international emissions trading is "joint implementation." In a typical case, a
company in the developed world would invest in a renewable energy, energy efficiency or forestry
project in a developing nation. Emissions avoided as a result of this investment could be applied
to that company's obligations at home. Since emissions reductions are typically much cheaper in
the developing world than they are in the developed world, significant efficiencies could result.
Developing countries would gain benefits in the form of technology transfer and private sector
1
investment flows as well.
In spite of the potential benefits, most developed countries remain opposed to joint
implementation (although support has grown significantly in Latin America). Many of these
countries see joint implementation as a way for developed countries to avoid taking responsibility
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, some environmentalists are concerned that
measuring project-based emissions reductions will be too difficult, and some in Congress are
concerned that joint implementation will result in significant transfers of wealth overseas.
The U.S. business community has strongly supported joint implementation. Utilities have been
among the most active participants in pilot projects to explore the feasibility of joint
implementation.
Developing Country Commitments
This is the most difficult issue in the current round of negotiations. There is a vast gulf between
the dialogue abroad (where the U.S. proposals for developing country participation are almost
uniformly considered too aggressive) and at home (where Senator Byrd's resolution, calling for
commitments beyond the U.S. proposal or the 1995 Berlin Mandate under which this treaty is
being negotiated, passed the Senate recently 95-0).
Developed countries are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In the decades ahead, however,
emissions from developing countries are expected to grow sharply. By 2035, developing country
emissions are expected to exceed those from the developing world.
Per capita emissions vary widely. Carbon emissions from the United States are roughly 5 tons per
person; from the OECD as a whole, roughly 3.5 tons per person; and from developing countries
as a whole, roughly 0.5 tons per person.
The 1992 climate treaty established differentiated levels of commitments for developed and
developing countries. It called upon developed countries to take the lead in addressing climate
change and to aim to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. It called upon developing
countries to adopt policies and measures to address climate change, but provided no aim for
developing countries similar to the year 2000 goal. These differentiated commitments were
intended to recognize both the unequal contribution of developed and developing countries to
global greenhouse gas concentrations and the unequal capacity of those countries to control
emissions.
In 1995, in Berlin, the Parties to the climate treaty agreed to negotiate further steps for controlling
greenhouse gas emissions. The negotiating mandate calls on developed countries to set quantified
emissions limits for the "medium term (e.g. 2005, 2010 and 2020)." In Berlin, the United States
argued strongly that developing countries must participate meaningfully in negotiations over next
2
steps. There was little support for the U.S. position on this point, with many Parties noting the
failure of most developed countries to take significant steps toward meeting the year 2000 goal.
The Berlin Mandate states that there will be "no new commitments" for developing countries in
the current round of negotiation, but that developing countries will be required to "advance the
implementation of" their existing (non-binding) commitments.
In January, 1997, the U.S. submitted a draft protocol proposal. Provisions on developing
countries included three elements, the most important of which is the "evolution" concept, which
would require developing countries to enter into an agreement by 2005 to adopt legally binding
emissions targets and would include a "graduation mechanism" under which developing countries
would automatically incur obligations as their living standards increase.
DOMESTIC POLICIES
Your Cabinet and staff are currently in the process of shaping domestic policies options to address
greenhouse gas emissions. Among the options receiving close attention are domestic emissions
trading and technology programs.
Domestic Emissions Trading Programs
Under emissions trading programs (sometimes referred to as "cap and trade"), companies would
be allowed to buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases. The US has had more experience
with emissions trading than any other country. Examples include the Clean Air Act's acid rain
program, under which utilities are allocated permits based on historical emissions of sulphur
dioxide. Permits may be traded. Compliance costs under this program have been much less than
expected, due to unforeseen factors. (Prior to passage, industry estimated compliance costs
would be over $1,000/ton. Government studies estimated costs would be around $600/ton.
Currently, allowances are trading on the Chicago Board of trade for around $100/ton).
Among the issues to be addressed in designing a domestic emissions trading program:
Where the constraint is imposed. A "primary fuel" trading program would limit the
production or import of fossil fuels. A "sectoral" trading program would limit emissions from
one or more key sectors (e.g., utilities, transport or heavy manufacturing).
How permits are distributed. For example, permits could be parceled out to emitters based
on historical emissions, auctioned, or some combination of the two. If auctioned, substantial
revenues would be raised which, for example, could be recycled through a consumer and/or
business tax cut, or used for transitional or technology programs).
An emissions trading program for greenhouse gases could potentially be bigger in scope (by an
order of magnitude) than any existing emissions trading program. We are currently exploring
3
feasibility and implications.
Technology Programs
The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2020 depends greatly on the
ability to accelerate use of existing energy-efficient technologies. Over the longer-term, the
solution to the climate change problem depends on developing and deploying new technologies
that are even more efficient or are based on non-carbon energy sources.
A range of government programs might help accelerate technological change. Research and
development programs generally aim to improve technologies by lowering production and
operating costs. Large opportunities for cost-lowering research and development exist in
buildings, transportation, combustion, renewables and sequestration (e.g., fuel cells, advanced
industrial turbines, advanced diesel engines, and transportation biofuels). In addition, information
dissemination programs assist businesses and consumers in identifying opportunities to reduce the
energy intensity of their products or services (e.g., using more energy efficient light bulbs,
insulation, appliances, etc.).
You have strongly supported technology programs with significant climate change benefits.
Examples include:
Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV)
The PNGV program joins the big three U.S. auto makers, federal agencies and many suppliers
of materials and equipment in an effort to develop a more efficient car. The program's goal is
to triple the fuel efficiency of passenger cars with no decrease in comfort or safety.
The Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
CCAP began in 1993 with a goal of returning total US greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990
levels by the year 2000. The plan includes about 50 initiatives covering all major greenhouse gas
producing sectors of the US economy, including Energy Demand, Energy Supply, and Forestry.
CCAP programs have reduced the rate of emissions growth, but not enough to achieve the
programs goals. CCAP is a voluntary program that relies on partnerships and cooperation with
industry and includes both government and private sector investment in new low-emissions, high-
efficiency technologies. Agency participants include DOE, EPA, and USDA.
Biomass Energy Initiative
DOE and USDA are working with companies to demonstrate power projects for rural
development and to improve technologies for converting crops to liquid and gaseous fuels.
Pilot projects are running in New York, Minnesota and Iowa.
4
Million Solar Roofs Initiative
In your recent UN speech, you announced that DOE will lead an effort to place one million solar
energy systems on the roofs of buildings and homes across the US by the year 2010. This will be
accomplished by using existing federal grants, procurement, and other programs, and by working
with local communities, businesses, state governments, utilities, and other groups to spur the sales
of solar energy systems. In 2010, this initiative will avert emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent
to those produced by 850,000 cars and will produce the same electrical generating capacity as 3-5
coal-fired power plants.
PCAST Energy R&D Panel
In response to your request, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is
conducting a comprehensive and strategic review of U.S. energy R&D policies and practices "to
ensure the United States has a program that addresses its energy and environmental needs for the
next century". The group is examining energy efficiency, fossil, nuclear (fission and fusion), and
renewable energy programs and budgets across the Federal government. Their assessment,
including recommended actions, is expected by October.
Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH)
Our planned PATH initiative will have HUD, DOE, and NIST working with building suppliers,
assemblers, insurance companies, and state and local regulators in an effort improve the quality of
housing and meet ambitious environmental goals without increasing prices. Buildings are
responsible for about a third of US greenhouse gas emissions (this total is rising) and 2/3 of US
electricity consumption.
DOE's Industries of the Future Program
This is an industry/government partnership with the seven most energy-intensive U.S. industries,
including chemicals, paper and pulp, steel, aluminum and petroleum. The program has reached
technology agreements with each industry that focus the R&D expertise of our national labs on
cutting energy use and pollution in each industry.
5
White House retreats from forecast
Clinton greenhouse gases optimism met with derision
president's remarks.
By Warren P. Strobel
changes in energy consumption
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
They said he had not meant to
will be necessary, the spokesman
suggest a new U.S. policy. Nor
said.
Seeking to put out a minor fire-
could they point to a specific aca-
storm, the White House yesterday
demic citation that Mr. Clinton re-
"I'm afraid he's embarrassed
backed away from an optimistic
lied upon in making the statement.
himself," said Bill O'Keefe, chair-
prediction by President Clinton
man of the Global Climate Coali-
that significantly reducing so-
"He was not suggesting that is a
tion, one of several dozen industry
called greenhouse gases can be
policy we could pursue. That is not
groups warning that the interna-
done cost-free and quickly.
at all realistic
because of the
tional climate change initiative
Mr. Clinton's remark, which he
amount of change that would be
would harm the U.S. economy.
made during a speech Tuesday at
necessary in a short period of
American University, comes as he
time," said Deputy White House
"He ought to explain to the U.S.
is trying to build public support for
Press Secretary Barry Toiv.
Congress and to the American peo-
ple how that will be done
and
an effort to reduce fossil fuel emis-
The United States has not yet
whether it can be done without the
sions, which are thought by many
signed on to a specific target for
heavy hand" of government-man-
scientists to contribute to global
reducing greenhouse gases by the
dated energy-use reductions, said
warming.
year 2010, the subject of an inter-
Mr. O'Keefe, who is also an execu-
The president's remarks
national summit in Kyoto, Japan,
tive vice president of the Amer-
brought hoots of derision from in-
in December. The European Union
ican Petroleum Institute.
dustry representatives, who op-
is pressing for a commitment to
pose his campaign for specific tar-
Richard Seibert, vice president
reduce emissions to 15 percent be-
gets for reducing emissions,
for environmental policy at the Na-
low 1990 levels.
saying they would significantly
tional Association of Manufac-
hurt the U.S. economy.
White House officials also ac-
turers, an industry group, said
In the speech, Mr. Clinton said,
knowledged that there would in-
that, over time, new energy-saving
"We could reduce [greenhouse gas
deed be costs associated with in-
technologies will become available
emissions] 20 percent tomorrow
troducing new energy-efficient
and industry will phase them in.
with technology that is already
technologies. The savings would
But most of the cheap and sim-
available at no cost if we just
come over the long run, in "long-
ple steps already have been taken,
changed the way we do things."
term costs," Mr. Toiv said.
Mr. Seibert said. "Most of the easy
By yesterday, White House
Mr. Clinton made the remark in
fruit at the bottom of the tree has
spokesmen were clarifying the
order to alert Americans that
been picked," he said.
The Washington Times
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
Q
On climate change, the President said yesterday the
U.S. could cut emissions 20 percent tomorrow at no cost, using
available technology. Can you expand on that? Twenty percent by
when, from what baseline?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm looking at that -- I can't. I just
asked the President a short while ago, I said, do you recall
specifically where you saw that. I thought it was in, perhaps, a
book he read over the holidays. It was not. So Todd Stern, you
should be alert to the fact that it was in something he thinks he
read in a memo from somewhere in our government. I think I just put
Todd on alert. He'd better get the answer.
Q
Does this signal, perhaps, that he is going to
shoot for that level of reduction?
MR. MCCURRY: No. It says - he was making an
observation, and I think this consistent with testimony that CAA
Chairman Janet Yellen gave that there are things that we can sensibly
do that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are less costly net
term for our economy, and that you can achieve some significant
reductions by doing things that have less cost associated with them.
And I think the President - obviously, we want to pursue sensible,
common sense, cost-efficient ways of reducing greenhouse gases, as
the President has said and as Chairman Yellen has said.
Q Is he still considering going to Kyoto for the
signing of the treaty?
MR. MCCURRY: I have not heard that, and I think that
right now we're working hard to see what kind of progress we can make
just in negotiations themselves. The current level of
representation, I believe, is the under secretary level over at
State.
Q
If the President thinks that U.S. can achieve that,
though, at no cost, why not do it?
MR. MCCURRY: Oh, I think that the President does
believe there are going to have to be changes in our economy that
will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce other sources
of greenhouse gas emissions, and that will be true over time and
there are going to be ways to do it. But as Chairman Yellen has
said, we've got to find smart ways of doing it.
Q The 20 percent reference wasn't in the text, that
he adlibbed that part?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't think I saw it in the text.
Q
Do you think it was a misstatement?
SPECIAL ANALYSIS
Is There a Free Lunch in the Refrigerator?
Economists are typically skeptical of the argument heard in energy policy debates
that alternative energy-saving technologies are readily available at no extra cost to
consumers. They recognize that people do not always take advantage of cost-
effective, energy-efficient technologies that, in the long run, are good for both the
pocketbook and the environment. At current energy and product prices, however,
many consumers may not be willing to experiment with compact fluorescent light
bulbs, improved thermal insulation, better heating and cooling systems, and energy-
efficient appliances.
Consumer preferences. Although recent assessments of energy-savings
opportunities based on engineering studies suggest that from 20 to 25 percent of
existing greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated at no additional costs, many
people resist these new "green" technologies. Why? A reason is that people act as
if they have a short time horizon, perhaps because they are uncertain about future
energy prices and the reliability of the technology. Several studies have estimated
that when consumers buy air conditioners, space-heaters, water-heaters, and
refrigerators they implicitly apply a substantial discount to future cost-savings. Their
time horizon appears to be much shorter than the time horizon reflected in market
interest rates. Even when they are presented with estimates of the likely future cost
savings, they pay more attention to immediate outlays.
Moreover, factors other than energy efficiency also matter to consumers. They care
about quality and features, as well as the time and effort required to learn about a new
technology and how it works. Consumers may perceive a risk that the energy savings
will not be realized, and may be averse to such risks. Finally, even if a technology
is cost-effective in its energy use on average, it may not be cost-effective for people
who use little energy.
Environmental concerns. Why do we care whether people use energy-efficient
technologies? A key reason is that the burning of coal and other fossil fuels results
in environmental damage and global warming. Improved information about the
benefits of buying energy-efficient technologies could affect consumer decisions.
For example, the government requires appliance labels to include information about
likely energy bills, which allows consumers to make informed choices. The evidence
suggests, however, that many people still prefer conventional appliances-at least at
current energy prices.
As our experience with the oil shocks of the 1970s shows, choices do change when
prices rise. Thus, the economist's view is that the most effective way to curb energy
consumption is to raise the price of energy to reflect the harmful effects on the
environment of burning fossil fuels.
Weekly Economic Briefing
2
July 25, 1997
POTUS AU.WPD
Page 1
POTUS American University speech, 9/9/97
Excerpt on climate change
Next, we must meet a very large environmental challenge
in the next three months. We will work toward a worldwide climate
change treaty this December in Kyoto that protects the environment
even as it promotes global growth by committing the nations that sign
on to it to specific, clear guidelines in the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions into the atmosphere. We know -- (applause.) You can
clap for that -- that's all right. (Applause.)
Now, there are students here from all over the world,
students from all over our country. Many of you have witnessed --
and your families have witnessed -- in your own homes, significant
changes in climatic patterns in the last decade, and more extreme
climatic develops. It is becoming a part of the common parlance of
America, all over the country, to talk about the 500-year flood we
had along the Mississippi River. One member of Congress, who
happened to be a member of the other party, said to me the other day
-- he said, "Mr. President, we've had three 100-year floods in the
last five years in my home state." He said, "Does that mean I get to
wait 500 years before we have another bad flood?"
Many of you who are studying this issue know that a
panel of over 2,500 scientists has concluded that the climate of the
Earth is significantly warming in ways that will have not entirely
predictable, but almost certainly destructive consequences unless we
do something about it.
This is something that will affect people of all
incomes, of all backgrounds, from all parts of our country, and,
indeed, the whole world. We need the young people of America,
particularly the university students who are in a position to study
this issue, to make this a gripping national issue. And we also need
people who have the confidence in our ability to break new
technological and scientific barriers to stand up and say, you cannot
make me believe that we can't reduce greenhouse gas
emissions substantially and still grow the American
economy. We could reduce them 20 percent tomorrow
with technology that is already available at no cost if
we just changed the way we do things. (emphasis added)
Now, this will be a very controversial debate. And
there will be people who say, President Clinton has spent five years
killing himself to revitalize the American economy and now he's going
to take it down overnight be committing to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in America. That is not true. But if you let the sea
level rise and we flood the southern coast of Florida and we flood
the southern coast of Louisiana, and we otherwise disrupt what life
in the United States is like over the next 50 years, then your
children will pay the price for our neglect. We can grow this
POTUS_AU.WPD
Page 2
economy and do right by the environment. I think you believe that,
and I need you to help me convince the American people that it can be done.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to make a statement and you
get the questions. (Laughter.)
MS. THOMAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Take it to the press room and cut it up.
(Laughter).
MS. THOMAS: Thank you. This is painful. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: You don't make it look that way. It's
painful for me, too. (Laughter.)
I'm glad to be joined today by the CEOs of 10 Fortune
500 companies who have come here to meet with me on climate change.
These companies represent electric utilities, the oil and gas
industry, finance, high technology, and heavy industry. They are all
intimately interested in this issue and will be affected by whatever
happens on it in our country and throughout the world.
We want a responsible approach to climate change. We
believe that the science makes it clear that the climate is changing.
I want to proceed based on some fairly straightforward and simple
principles. First of all, as we get ready for the Kyoto conference,
I believe there should be realistic but binding limits to emissions
of greenhouse gases. I believe that we have to do it in a way that
keeps our economy growing. And I believe that we ought to embrace
of
flexible, market-based policies. I believe we should reemphasize and
reenergize our efforts in research and development to find as many
technological solutions to this as possible, and to keep our nation
in the forefront of what is now a $400 billion market for
environmental technologies.
And finally, I believe the agreement has to be a global
one. I think all nations, developed and developing, should be a part
of this. So this is part of an ongoing process that I and our
administration have undertaken to try to make sure we're working
together with all the people who would be affected by this issue and
try to reach, hopefully, a common position.
We're going to have a good meeting today, and I'm
looking forward to it. And, again, I want to thank all the
executives for coming here and giving vent to their views.
Q What do you think of the opposition, who says there
is no such thing as global warming and that they don't agree with the
scientists -- some of the scientists?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the real question is
-- I don't think that very many people disagree with the fact that
there is climate change now, I think there's some disagreement about
what the impact of it is and what the appropriate response is.
There's still some debate there. But I think the scientific evidence
for the fact of climate change is pretty compelling.
We had that panel of scientists, including the Nobel
Prize winners here the other day, and I received a letter from -- I
don't know -- over 2,500 of them, from scientists about it. So I
think that there's pretty clear evidence that the climate is changing
and could be changing substantially. There is still some difference
about what the consequences of that will be and what we ought to do
about it.
But I think if we follow these principles, we'll be
staking out a responsible position, which will permit us to continue
to grow economically and do our part in the world. After all, we
have only four percent of the world's population, but we account for
20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, which you would expect
since have slightly over 20 percent of the world's output.
Q Mr. President, how seriously are you considering
using a line-item veto to kill some provisions of the budget you'll
sign into law tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I asked Mr. Bowles to -- once we
got a budget agreement and it passed -- to institute an intensive
process to review both the spending and the tax bills to see if there
were any items that would be appropriate for the line-item veto. And
I have not yet received the results of that review.
I support the line-item veto; I did all along. And I
think if we have it, it ought to be used -- I believe that it ought
to be used somewhat sparingly. And my experience as Governor was
that once I used it a few times I didn't have to -- I didn't need to
use it very much anymore. And that's what I would hope would happen.
We'll just see -- you probably know more about the likely targets for
it than I do at this point. I was interested in the big-picture
items in the budget. We got virtually 100 percent of what I sought
and I'm elated with the budget. I think it's good for America. I
think it will keep the economy growing, and I think it's a
responsible thing to do. So whatever I do on that shouldn't be in
any way detracting from the terrific job that the Congress did on it.
Q
Mr. President, one question on UPS -- the standards
for presidential intervention are relatively high. Are you
considering doing anything else to intervene to bring an end to the
strike?
THE PRESIDENT: On UPS?
Q Yes, UPS.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first we urged the federal
mediator, and we got that. And we got -- obviously, it didn't work.
I still think the parties ought to go back to the table. UPS is a
very important company to our country and there are a lot of
employees there, and I hope they go back to the table. But at this
time I don't think any further action by me is appropriate.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
10:32 A.M. EDT
Message Sent To:
Michele Jolin 08/04/97 11:46:54 AM
Record Type: Record
To:
Jeffrey A. Frankel/CEA/EOP, Jason Shogren/CEA/EOP, Joseph E. Aldy/CEA/EOP
CC:
Subject: POTUS statement before CEO climate change event
Forwarded by Michele Jolin/CEA/EOP on 08/04/97 11:46 AM
SUNTUM_M @ A1
08/04/97 11:11:00 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-8-4
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 4, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The Cabinet Room
10:25 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Before we start, I think it's only fair
to note that we are observing another anniversary of Helen's 50th
birthday. (Laughter.) We wanted to give you a birthday cake with a
tell-tale number of -- ("Happy Birthday" song is sung.) (Laughter
and applause.)
MS. THOMAS: Now, may I have a press conference?
(Laughter.)
A
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
CLIMATE CHANGE EVENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
JULY 24, 1997
As we approach the dawn of the 21 st century, our great challenge is not only to prepare
our children for the world but also to protect the world for our children. This challenge is part of
a sacred pact between the generations to ensure that today's progress does not come at
tomorrow's expense. And that is why we have no choice but to face up to the full reality of
global climate change.
Whenever the security of our people has been threatened, the United States has led the
world to action. Climate change poses a threat to all people -- one that is subtle today but which
will grow in severity and significance in years to come. The world must act. And the United
States must lead. I am determined that we will lead -- responsibly, flexibly, making sure that we
promote prosperity as we protect the environment. We have no choice -- and the scientists
gathered here today will explain why.
Years ago, scientists could not be sure that human activities would influence our climate.
But today, the evidence is in, the science is solid, and what was once theory is now fact: Global
warming is for real. On this fundamental issue, the scientific debate is over.
The world's scientists believe that if we do not cut our emissions of greenhouse gases, we
will disrupt the global climate. In fact, the overwhelming majority of scientists take their
conclusions one step further. They believe there is ample evidence that human activities are
disrupting the global climate already today.
Our scientists are issuing clear warnings about what will result if we stick our heads in
the sand and refuse to act. If we stay on our current course, average global temperatures may rise
the
2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit in next century. To put this in sobering context, the difference in
average temperature between the last Ice Age and today is only 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
If we fail to act, scientists expect that our seas will rise 2 feet or more over the next
century, and thousands of square miles of Florida, Louisiana, and other coastal areas will be
flooded. Infectious diseases will spread to new regions. Severe heat waves will claim the lives
of more of our citizens. Our agriculture will suffer, and severe droughts and floods will be more
common than ever.
The United States must confront this challenge head-on. As I pointed out recently at a
special session of the United Nations, we have only 4 percent of the world's population, and yet
we produce more than 20 percent of its greenhouse gases. For the sake of the planet and our own
people, we simply must act.
In December, the nations of the world will convene in Kyoto, Japan, to come up with an
agreement on how best to achieve meaningful emission reductions worldwide. Working with the
American people, this Administration will bring to the Kyoto conference a strong American
commitment to realistic and binding limits on our emissions. And let me be clear:
Environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand.
In Kyoto, we will emphasize flexible, market-based approaches. We will embrace
research and development efforts that can help provide the technology to meet the new goals.
And we will ask all nations -- industrial and developing -- to participate in a common solution.
I know that the nations of the world can work together to defuse the threat of global
climate change. I know the science demands it. I know we owe it to our children.
And now, it is my honor to introduce Dr. Sherwood Rowland, the first of the
distinguished scientists we will be hearing from today.
JAF
6/23/97 9:00 p.m.
PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
ADDRESS TO THE UN SESSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
NEW YORK CITY
JUNE 26, 1997
Acknowledgments: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, Distinguished Leaders.
Five years ago, the nations of the world joined together in Rio de Janeiro around a simple but
revolutionary proposition: that today's advances should not come at the expense of future
generations -- that the earth we leave to our children and grandchildren must be as rich with
promise and beauty as the one we inherited.
At Rio, the world embraced a compelling reality: our responsibilities to build a brighter future for
our people and to protect the environment are linked together. Today, we know that we must
keep our forests healthy and whole, our rivers pure and oceans clean that preserving the
resources we share is crucial to stability and peace, within nations and among them and that
what comes out of a smokestack or goes into the water within one nation's borders can do
grievous harm to others. Just as our nations must work together to promote economic growth,
good jobs and social progress, we must join together in safeguarding the natural resources on
which growth, jobs and progress depend.
In the years since Rio, our shared resolve has led to real progress. The United States is proud to
have led the effort to ban ocean dumping of radioactive wastes and reduce land-based sources of
marine pollution. With others, we are working to protect the coral reefs conserve threatened
fish stocks and stop ozone depletion, which threatens life in the ocean and on land. We are
2
taking part in the effort to stop the advance of deserts. And we helped forge a consensus at the
Cairo Population Conference that recognizes individuals' right to make family planning choices.
Here in America, we are also making important strides. We have cleaned up a record number of
toxic waste dumps -- though we have many more to clean. We passed tough new laws to better
protect our water, created new national parks and monuments and prevented mining in
Yellowstone and oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. Our efforts for
environmental protection, economic growth and social improvement are increasingly united -- and
I am proud of the work my Council on Sustainable Development is doing to strengthen that unity.
But in the last five years, we have all learned a hard lesson: achieving the goals we set for
ourselves in Rio will be more difficult than we thought. The father of American conservation,
John Muir, said, "When we try to pick anything out by itself, we find it hitched to everything else
in the universe." That is the glory of nature -- which we see in the rainforest's web of life or
Muir's beloved California woodlands -- it is also the hurdle before mankind as we try to manage
the complex relationship between human society and the natural world. As Vice President Gore
said on Monday, "Sustainable development requires sustained commitment."
Nowhere is this more true than on the critical issue of climate change. The scientific debate is
over: Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at their highest level in more
than 400,000 years and climbing sharply. If the trend is not changed, the seas will rise more than
three feet in the next century. In America, that means 9000 square miles [ck] of Florida,
Louisiana and other coastal areas will be flooded in Asia, 17% of Bangladesh, now home to 6
3
million people, will be lost islands such as the Maldives will disappear from the map. The
changed climate will disrupt agriculture, cause severe droughts and floods and the spread of
infectious diseases, including 50 million or more cases a year of malaria.
Just as no nation is immune from this danger, no nation can evade its responsibility to confront it.
We must all do our part -- developing nations and the developed nations of the world that emit
the largest quantities of greenhouse gases. My own country's responsibility is clear. The United
States represents only 4% of the world's population, yet we emit more than 20% of the world's
greenhouse gases. That must change. That will change -- starting with a strong agreement in
Kyoto in December on emissions targets. The United States supports realistic, achievable and
binding limits that return emissions to 1990 levels and then reduce them.
major siminal change
Let us be clear: This effort will not be easy. It will carry significant costs. And it will demand
Pare of
sustained effort over many decades. Governments and industries will have to make significant
energy
investments to create new technologies and curtail pollution. Meeting our goals will require that
we innovate distribute the burden fairly in our societies and above all, use common sense to
reduce our emissions at the lowest passible cost and achieve maximum protection of the
environment.
To make good on our commitment, we must make our people full partners in this challenge.
Ultimately, their ingenuity and determination -- as well of that of people around the world -- will
decide our success. Our immediate task is to galvanize our people -- and in the coming months, I
will work to do exactly that. I and my cabinet will speak to the American people about every
aspect of climate change, and I will chair a White House conference on climate change this fall.
4
We will give them the scientific facts so that they understand why we must act... and the
economic facts so that they understand the costs.
We also must hear from those who recognize in this global problem a global opportunity -- to
develop essential new technologies that increase productivity and energy efficiency. Now, we
must unleash more of the creative power of our people to seize these possibilities. For example,
we must find ways to use the sun's energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. To advance that
effort, I am announcing that the United States will put up 1 million solar roofs around our nation
by the year 2010. By capturing the sun's warmth, we can help turn down the earth's temperature.
Today, I want to discuss three other initiatives that will help us confront the problem of climate
change and advance the sustainable development goals we share.
First: To help developing nations fulfill their responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gases, I am
pleased to announce that the U.S. will provide them with $1 billion in assistance over the next five
years. These funds will go to programs that support energy efficiency and the development of
alternative energy sources and better resource management to promote growth in ways that do
not contribute to global warming.
Second: Aid alone cannot guarantee that sound, sustainable practices take root in the developing
nations. Only when nations build thriving economies with free markets and embrace wise
environmental policies can these goals be achieved. That is why the United States will work
harder to encourage private investment that meets environmental standards. Starting today, the
5
U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation will require that its projects adhere to new and
strengthened environmental guidelines. In our era, trade and investment -- not aid -- are the
primary engine of economic change. This effort can pave the way to common guidelines for
responsible investment -- and greatly strengthen sustainable growth in developing countries.
Third: All our nations must do better at safeguarding forests, which are vital for maintaining life
on our shared planet. There has been much helpful discussion, but now nations must act more
effectively. The United States will work to eliminate subsidies and incentives that encourage
destructive logging practices protect large, ecologically important roadless areas in our national
forests establish an independent committee of scientists to improve management of those forests.
Distinguished leaders: In all of our cultures, the thought has been handed down that, as Scripture
says, "One generation passes away and another comes, but the earth abides forever." We know
the earth will abide forever. But we must fulfill our obligations so that when this generation
passes, it will be the earth we know that the coming generation inherits.
We must act wisely with our environment -- so we can we build a 21st century in which people
live in harmony and not at war...so that today's growth does not threaten tomorrow's survival.
We have much work to do. Let us strengthen our resolve -- and let us turn to it.
###
the
grounds
of
emographic bal-
with: working families with incomes between $22,000
long time. And I'm just not prepared to give up on our
the group now that Russia has joined, specifically between U.S.
process.
and $25,000. Now suppose you've got a rookie police
engagement policy. So, that's all I can say about it.
and Europe.
Mar
the
fact
that
officer in a medium-size city in the South. The average
I hope that Russia will
change in two ways that I
that this would
entry-level salary is about $23,000. And it's a woman or a
would consider immensely positive. One is I think that
without any
man with two kids at home.
International Tobacco Regulation
the participation of Russia here, just like the NATO-Rus
study here?
This police officer is paying federal taxes, a consider-
sia Founding Act, increases the chances that we can
we
won't
have
able federal payroll tax. And to characterize them as
Now that you have a U.S. tobacco agreement, would you favor
maintain stability in Europe in the 21st century and that
welfare recipients because they would be made eligible
and encourage some sort of international regulation of tobacco,
ealth insurance?
we can deal with any problems that arise, like we're
for the same help that people making $31,000 a year
and wouldn't this be a good G-7 issue?
repeatedly that
dealing with them in Bosnia, to prevent the outbreak of
means
testing
would get to raise their children, I think, is wrong. So,
Well, it might be. But the problem is, you know, the
widespread war in Europe.
the following.
that is an area where we simply have a disagreement.
G-7 nations are not the primary place where the market
The second thing I think is very positive is Russia,
Number
two,
I was encouraged that the Senate moved closer to us
is growing. I will say this: I hope that other countries
don't forget, is also a great Pacific power. So in bringing
of
reform
in
than the House. This is something I expect to work out.
around the world that are concerned with their own
Russia into this partnership along with Japan, you will
worth of savings
On the other question,
do I think we're not going
public health and who have primary responsibilities for
see a little more emphasis, I think, on what we can do as
right now. And
to make an agreement because of reported divisions
the well-being of their own people will look at what we've
a group to deal with what's going on in Asia in preserving
opposed to it?
within the Republican ranks? No, I do not expect that to
been trying to do here and ask themselves whether they
stability and freedom and opportunity there.
deal
in
the
be prohibitive. I think that there was a lot of tension
should take some similar steps if they want to avoid very
So in those ways, I think you'll see the texture of this
to
believe,
within their caucus, obviously, over this disaster aid bill,
high death rates, very high disease rates and enormous
change
over the budget
but in the end, they did the right thing
I don't expect
social cost.
pposition in both
the splits to paralyze us.
[former Con-
Bosnian War Criminals
others have said
Reforms in Japan
not capable of
Legal Impact of Tobacco Deal
Can you assure us that by the time of the next summit, the
lot of practical
I think we have been waiting for too long for Japan's
main war criminals in Bosnia will finally have been arrested?
I'd like to ask you about an aspect of this tobacco deal where
achievement of deregulation and administrative reforms. Could
you do have some expertise: the legal aspects. What's your view
you tell us your opinion as frankly as possible on this matter?
I can't promise you that, but I can tell you that's what I
the long-term
of this concept of protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits,
support
It's going to be difficult to implement the full
Security and
from liability? What kind of legal and what kind of constitutional
I agree with you. Here's the problem we're going to
spirit of the Dayton accord unless you see some
budget agree-
precedence would that set?
run into with Japan on the trade issue. We have, made
progress on the war criminals front, number one. And
all the parties
real progress over the last four years in our trading
Well, as I understand it, it does not protect them from
number two, as you may know, I have felt for some time,
is acceptable to
relations with Japan. It's become a real joy to be able to
with S0 much ethnic and religious and tribal hatred in
the prize
liability for actual damages. It protects them from
meet and work with Japan where trade was an issue, but
the world, that there probably should be an international
these
other
liability for past punitive damages and still permits
not the only issue, where we really thought we could
war crimes tribunal that is permanently established and
done
and
in
punitive damages if there is misconduct from the date of
an
identify the issues and make progress on them, that
goes forward, because I think that what we see in Bosnia
the agreement forward.
there was no big structural war going on-economic
Now, in the law, the purpose of punitive damages is to
is just one example of a whole set of very serious
war-between the United States and Japan.
deter future destructive behavior, and the concept of
problems.
And I think it's obviously not been bad for Japan
punitive damages is provided, not because the person
either. I think it's been good for both of us.
suing is entitled to it because of his or her injuries, but
Now, the prime minister has reaffirmed his commit-
has chosen
because you think the injuries are not enough-compen-
Summit's Main Accomplishment
ment to a domestic demand-led growth strategy for
to Pakistan,
sating this person is not enough to take the profit out of
Japan and has put forward a very ambitious plan for
What do you feel was the most significant accomplishment
greement, and also
whatever antisocial conduct and illegal conduct the
internal reform and deregulation and opening of the
with this year's summit?
cturer the missiles.
defendant was engaging in. So you have punitive
it have any affect
Japanese economy.
damages to take the sting out of it.
I think the most significant thing we did here was to
At the same time, he says quite rightly that all these
The people negotiating on behalf of the public, the
commit ourselves to a growth strategy that would
eports or alleged
attorneys general and the lawyers, as I understand it, got
advanced economies are going to face serious challeng-
include not only our own countries but other countries
es from the aging of our populations. That's true. You've
that
when
we
another
$20
billion
or
so
in a kind of advanced penalty
around the world, and that would be pursued while
providing ring
fund. Say, we're going to make you pay up front for the
heard all the questions that were just asked to me about
improving-net-undermining the environment. And that's
things you've done wrong, and that's how-you know, in
our medical programs. And Japan has an even older
thought were
quite significant.
the last few weeks, the agreement went from involving
population than the United States, aging even more
interests, we
Now, we always said these things specifically before.
tisfied. I think it's
about $300-and-something billion to almost $370 bil-
rapidly.
But here we said, look, we're coming up to Kyoto where
will not overlook
lion
So the decisions by the Japanese government to try to
we're all bound to adopt legally binding targets to reduce
and we will
pursue a path of fiscal austerity, driven in part by the
greenhouse gas emissions. So, that means we have to
desire to prepare for the retirement in the aging of the
take appropriate
grow our economies while improving our environments,
Campaign Finance Hearings
Japanese population, runs the risk of going back to the
number one. And then we said, we're going to reach out
old export-driven strategy of growth. And we'll just have
always going to
to Africa, we're going to reach out to the developing
The hearings on campaign fund-raising will begin soon, and a
to work through those two conflicts.
countries of Asia and Latin America, that our prosperity
number of key figures-people who worked for you or old
We can't tell the Japanese government or the Japa-
depends upon their prosperity.
friends-have either fled the country or have said they would take
nese people that they can't prepare for the aging of their
And to me, I would hope that the students who follow
the Fifth Amendment. Is there anything you can or should do to
nonulation We have to do the same
this
look
at
in
6-18-97
THE WHITE HOUSE
copied
WASHINGTON
Tarullo
June 18, 1997
McGinty
COS
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
TODD STERN
SUBJECT:
Climate Change
The attached McGinty/Tarullo memo seeks your approval for a course of action on the climate
change issue designed to take you through the Denver Summit and the UNGA Special Session on
the environment and to lay the groundwork for the December meeting in Kyoto, where
negotiations on a new treaty are supposed to conclude.
Decision point. The question for now is how specific a position you should articulate in Denver
and New York with respect to emission levels of greenhouse gases. As a matter of substance,
most of your Cabinet would support your calling for "stabilizing emissions in the medium term" --
i.e., returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2005-2020. However, the consensus of
your advisors is that such an announcement would not be tenable at this time in view of the strong
opposition it would provoke among significant business sectors, labor and Members of Congress,
and the lack of public support for concerted action. (Even relatively moderate action, such as
returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, could have substantial short-term economic costs.)
Consequently, your advisors recommend that you make strong, but non-specific statements
about climate change at both the Denver Summit and the UNGA meeting (suggested UNGA
language appears at p. 4) and that these events be followed by an intensive effort to educate
and persuade the American public about the great importance of this issue in order to build
support on the Hill for a strong American position. We would aim to decide our negotiating
position for Kyoto by the early fall. This approach will likely subject you and the Vice President
to intense criticism from the environmental community, which believes you should make specific
emission commitments now. And European leaders such as Blair and Kohl will also criticize our
lack of specifics. But the alternative appears worse -- an immediate call for specific reductions
that would be sharply attacked by large parts of the business community, rally little public
support, and have no chance of endorsement on the Hill.
(Several appendices are attached to the memo. I am sending up Appendix E only -- a draft action
plan for engaging the American public. If you want to see any of these other appendices, let me
know. Appendix A sets forth four options for specific emission reduction statements, but, as
noted, the consensus is that you should not make any such specific statement at this time;
Appendices B and C review environmental impacts and economic analysis respectively; Appendix
D is a more detailed general review of the issue.)
Approve approach
Disapprove
Discuss
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
KATHLEEN A. McGINTY
DANIEL K. TARULLO
'97 JUN 18 AM9:17
SUBJECT:
UPCOMING INTERNATIONAL EVENTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
I.
Action-Forcing Event
Over the next few weeks, you will have two high-profile events that focus attention on U.S. climate
change policies: the Denver Summit of the Eight (June 20-22) and the United Nations General
Assembly Special Session on Environment and Development (you are speaking on June 26). To
date, the United States has called for binding emissions targets, flexibility in meeting those targets
and the participation of all countries under the climate treaty, but has not signaled which specific
emissions levels would be acceptable. Negotiations are set to conclude this December in Kyoto.
Other countries and domestic constituencies are calling on the U.S. to state its views.
Your advisers are evaluating the specifics of a U.S. negotiating position, with some differences
among them. However, there is a consensus that, even at the cost of significant criticism from other
countries and environmental groups, it would be imprudent to take a specific position on emissions
levels in the upcoming events. Instead, you should make a strong statement about the need to
address the problem of climate change and begin an intense process of personally communicating
with the American public on this issue with the objective of articulating a substantive policy position
in the fall.
II.
Background
Climate change may be the most significant economic and environmental policy issue to be
addressed in the second term. There is now scientific consensus that human activities (primarily the
burning of fossil fuels) are having a discernible influence on the global climate and that "climate
change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health". The
implication is that greenhouse gas concentrations must be held to responsible levels in the long term
to avoid dire consequences. Greenhouse gas concentrations are at now their highest levels in
200,000 years and, absent policy interventions, concentrations at the end of the next century are
predicted to be at a 50 million year high. Impacts are predicted to include higher temperatures
(global average temperatures are predicted to increase 2-6.5 degrees F. by 2100), sea level rise
(threatening low-lying areas), spread of infectious diseases, and more highly variable weather (with
increased frequency of severe weather events such as droughts and floods).
The U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with roughly 25% of the world's total.
Domestic greenhouse gas emissions have been growing by a bit over 1 percent per year, so that
today's emissions are about 10 percent higher than in 1990. In many developing countries,
emissions growth rates are higher, but per capita and overall emissions levels are lower. The
developed countries are responsible for much of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and currently are the largest emitters. By 2020-2040, however, the developing countries
will surpass the developed countries in terms of emitting greenhouse gases. Since global climate
is affected by greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and since the efforts by any one
country to reduce its emissions cannot have much of an effect on global concentrations, a sensible
approach would call on all countries to play a role. The U.S. has urged developing countries to
accept significant obligations (short of quantitative emissions targets) in the international treaty
negotiations. To date, there has been little international support for the U.S. position on developing
countries.
In general, market-based policies are believed to be the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, because these policies promote flexibility and minimize economic costs. The U.S.
has urged that the climate change treaty promote maximum domestic flexibility in all countries,
establish a system where countries with quantitative emissions targets can trade emissions rights,
and establish a system of joint implementation, where developed and developing countries can
undertake joint efforts to reduce emissions wherever the cost is lower.
In a Principals meeting to consider the U.S. position on emissions levels under the climate treaty,
most of the participants indicated support for "stabilizing emissions in the medium term." (In the
parlance of the climate change negotiations, "stabilizing" means returning greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels and "medium term" means 2005-2020). But many of the agencies and offices
represented conditioned their support on success in achieving other elements of the U.S. negotiating
position (e.g., international emissions trading, participation of developing countries). Several
participants felt that further analytic work was needed, and expressed a desire to see further options
developed.
In the view of many members of your Cabinet, calling for emissions to be stabilized at 1990 levels
in the medium term and emphasizing the importance of other elements of the U.S. position would
allow you to take the high ground. You could commit the U.S. to meaningful emissions reductions,
while insisting on other principles we consider vital to an agreement. This would provide flexibility
for future development of our position and, given the likely difficulty in convincing developing
countries to participate more fully under the climate treaty, also offer a principled basis for walking
away from an agreement in Kyoto should we decide it is in our interest to do so.
However, as several of your economic advisers noted, even the seemingly moderate goal of returning
emissions levels to 1990 levels by 2010 would entail economic policy interventions greater than any
we have undertaken during your Presidency. Even with the kind of flexibility components proposed
by the United States, market-based policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
significantly are likely to raise domestic fuel prices by significant amounts and to have particularly
adverse effects on the coal industry. The result would be lower economic growth, with the most
serious effects in the earlier years. Thus, emissions control policies impose significant short term
economic costs in order to achieve distant (though potentially enormous) environmental benefits.
In the view of some of your advisers, there is strong evidence that total costs could be lowered
significantly if policies were put in place to emphasize investment in productivity-enhancing
technologies. A number of economic advisors believe that this use has not been established. Some
of the technologies envisioned would not have a major impact by 2010, but could have significant
impact in the decade that follows. An expanded program of research and policies encouraging
innovation could have low costs and achieve broad political support.
The politics of this issue are difficult, at best. For many environmental groups, strong action on
climate change is a litmus test of your environmental policy. If you fail to speak decisively on this
issue at the Summit or the UN General Assembly Special Session, their criticism will be intense.
European leaders such as Blair and Kohl will probably be both ambitious in their proposals and
critical of our lack of specifics. On the other hand, much of the business community is strongly
opposed to action that would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel and heavy
manufacturing companies are poised to attack any policies that might be supported by environmental
groups. Organized labor is increasingly opposed to strong actions, as well, largely in deference to
the concerns of the United Mine Workers. Farmers are likely to oppose any policies that would
increase energy prices. Southern and western Republicans in Congress are very skeptical about
policies to constrain greenhouse gas emissions, as are Midwestern and coal state Democrats. Indeed,
Senator Byrd currently has 45 signatures on a resolution requiring developing country obligations
before U.S. agreement in Kyoto.
III.
Recommendation
Your advisers believe it is necessary to undertake a serious educational effort to convince the
American public that climate change is an important long-term issue that requires the United States
to institute policy changes. Such an effort should be an interactive process, with you and your
Cabinet members taking lead roles in listening to the public, elected officials, and interest groups,
and then fashioning an appropriate policy response. Your advisers believe that such a process is
necessary to develop a workable political consensus in the country for an effective climate change
policy. If this consensus is not achieved, it will be virtually impossible to have an international
climate change treaty limiting domestic greenhouse gas emissions ratified by the Senate in the
foreseeable future.
Your advisers recommend that you address climate change at both the Denver Summit and the UN
General Assembly Special Session. At Denver, as you have done in the past, you should discuss the
subject in strong terms, noting that the science is quite clear on the scope of the climate change
problem. You also should note that there are extensive differences in the various proposals made
to begin the process of achieving a solution. You can sketch out the importance of creating a
long-lasting framework for implementing worldwide climate change policies, because this is an issue
of vast scope (covering many decades and all the countries on the earth). And you can call on the
Eight to work together to ensure that the treaty negotiated at Kyoto is acceptable to all members.
At the UN General Assembly Session, your advisers recommend that you again discuss the
statement in strong terms, signaling your resolve to address this issue. They recommend the
following language:
There is no more serious issue than climate change, and it is clear that we will need
seriously and significantly to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases beginning with a
strong agreement in Kyoto.
We must remember that our goal is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere at an acceptable level, a task that must begin now, but which will require
continuing sustained effort over many decades. So it is important that we set up a system
that will work -- that will allow us to reduce our emissions at the lowest possible cost so that
we can achieve the maximum protection of the environment. And it is also important that
next steps send a strong signal of our intent, so that governments and industries can make
significant investments in the new technologies that will be required if we are to achieve our
ultimate goal. And finally, although those of us in the developed world who emit the largest
quantities of these gases must take the lead, all countries must participate in moving toward
the solution.
Your advisers recommend that you then begin to outline your personal involvement in the education
campaign that will be necessary to build domestic acceptance for any meaningful emissions
constraints. Although gaining consensus across the political spectrum is not possible on this issue,
it may be possible to enhance support significantly among centrist constituencies and the public at
large. Notwithstanding that you are speaking to a UN audience, you should direct your remarks to
the American public.
You could announce specific means to pursue this dialogue, including your plans to host a White
House Conference on Climate Change in September to bring together elected officials, business,
labor, and environmental and scientific leaders, academics, and representatives of the public to
discuss climate change policy. You could announce that this White House conference would be
preceded by a series of regional conferences -- each hosted by members of your Cabinet. These
high-level conferences would serve to educate the American public and bring forward ideas on how
best to address climate change. A core goal of this and other efforts would be to break through to
the American people with the message that "Climate change is an important issue for you and your
family -- one that Bill Clinton believes we must address in a responsible way." Meanwhile, analytic
work on policy alternatives would continue, informed by the public debate. We would aim to arrive
at a complete U.S. negotiating position by the early fall.
You should be aware that this approach may lead to intense criticism of you and the Vice President
by environmental groups. These groups have been calling on the U.S. to state a specific position on
emissions levels, and will consider strong rhetoric and promises to engage personally in the issue
to be inadequate. Some commentators will equate your approach with that of President Bush. (Bush
refused to agree to any emissions levels in Rio. You reversed that position in April, 1993 and
voluntarily committed the U.S. to reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000). However,
your advisers believe that refraining from announcing specific goals until early fall is necessary to
develop the political and public consensus required to undertake any meaningful policy action on
climate change. The alternative set of actions (making statements in the next few weeks supporting
emissions constraints perceived as strong) would lead to harsh and lasting criticism from business
and labor, in the opinion of your advisers. The resulting public and Congressional reaction could
be so severely negative that you might be unable to take any significant policy steps on climate
change. Moreover, criticism from these sources also could place other policy initiatives
(environmental and others) in jeopardy.
Several appendices provide additional information. Appendix A lists five options identified to the
Cabinet recently for statements by the President on climate change. Material analyzing the projected
environmental impacts of these options is attached as Appendix B. Material summarizing the
projected economic impacts of Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 are presented in Appendix C. Additional
background material on climate change (including a discussion of domestic policy options) is
attached as Appendix D. Finally, Appendix E sets forth possible elements of a strategy for you to
engage the American public on this issue in the weeks and months ahead.
IV.
Decision
That you approve the course outlined above.
Approve
Disapprove
Discuss
APPENDIX E
CLIMATE CHANGE:
THE PRESIDENT ENGAGES THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
Overall Goal: Show the American public that President Clinton is determined to combat
climate change in a way that deserves broad support.
Overall Strategy: A Three Pronged Approach
A.
President's Vision Set Forth at UNGA Special Session
B.
Build Public Awareness Through POTUS and VPOTUS Events
C.
Outreach to Policy Community
Implementing the Strategy:
A.
President's Remarks at UNGA Special Session: Intensive Engagement to Chart
Path Forward
Goal: Set President's vision for approaching climate change and begin drawing
business, labor and environmentalists into a cooperative process on how
best to move forward.
B. Build Public Awareness Through POTUS and VPOTUS Events
Goal: Elevate public understanding of the importance of changing climate and
build support for national policy priorities developed cooperatively
through an open dialogue with the range of affected constituencies.
Strategy:
i.
Presidential Events:
a.
3. radio addresses by end of September (first possibly on June 28)
b.
Message-of-the-day events; for example:
:
Kick-off of Million Solar Rooftops (Virginia PV plant or
sites in SW/West Coast)
Visit Chicago's Board of Trade SO₂ Trading Center
Visit a GLOBE school site
Visit the Denver Clean Car Exhibit at G-8
Visit New York Harbor to highlight sea level rise issues
Visit National Park where fragile ecosystems are
threatened.
ii.
Vice Presidential Events:
a.
Site visits to technology demonstration projects (e.g. biomass or
wind demonstrations in Iowa or Minnesota)
b.
Announce a New Clean Cities participant (Houston, Phoenix,
New York City)
c.
Partnership for Advanced Housing Technology (new development
at Stapleton Airport in Denver or southern California/Florida in
disaster vulnerable areas)
d.
Visit a Federal facility participating in the Federal Energy
Management Program
iii.
Regional and National Workshops: Conduct three regional conferences
leading to a White House Conference. Three to five cabinet members and
senior White House staff would participate in each. Conferences
conducted in roundtable format, chaired by senior Cabinet members.
Each would begin with key presentations, followed by open dialogue.
Open to press and encourage live C-Span coverage. Conduct press
backgrounders before and after. Involve regional corporate CEO's,
academics, environmental & labor leaders, governors, other state & local
leaders, religious leaders and members of Congress. All conferences
would be comprehensive, but each would have a special focus, tailored
to region.
Locations:
East: New Orleans, Charleston, Miami, or the New Jersey shore.
Highlight: Coastal storms damage, infectious disease risk and
forest system impacts in southern and eastern states.
Mid: Columbus, Detroit, Chicago, or Indianapolis. Highlight:
Agriculture shifts, coal community impacts, heavy manufacturing
impacts and opportunities.
West: Sacramento, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle or San Francisco.
Highlight: Water resource conflicts, public lands impacts,
=
technology response opportunities.
National: White House/DC, Baltimore, Richmond, New York.
Highlight: Comprehensive integration of concerns into a need
and pathway for action.
C. Outreach to the Policy Community
Goal: Engage policy community (CEOs and Congress in particular) in
design of policies that comprehensively address climate change
mitigation and that garner their support.
Strategy:
i.
President and VP should each reserve 10 - 12 slots for climate
orientation briefings and meetings with industry leaders between now
and Labor Day. Cabinet members should be given key
responsibilities for particular sectors/industries. Should schedule in
close coordination with National Dialogue meetings. Also encourage
Cabinet members to host at least one public meeting and make a
major speech.
a.
Examples for President: meeting with Nobel laureates, meeting
with religious leaders, meet with Congressional leaders to stress
environmental imperative.
b.
Examples for Vice President: Dinner with Congressional leaders;
Lead a Congressional visit with scientific leaders to the
Smithsonian's climate change exhibit.
ii.
Industry Roundtables: Series of CEO meetings with POTUS, VP,
Cabinet members & other senior staff. Offer our policy inclinations, get
feedback and ask for their ideas on what's missing. Examples:
a.
Invite Norm Augustine, CEO of Lockhead Martin, to bring 10-15
CEOs of major environmental technology firms for meeting.
b.
Invite John Browne, CEO of BP, to bring 10-15 oil/gas CEOs for
meeting.
c.
Invite R. Linn Draper, CEO of AEP, to bring 10-15 moderate
electric utility CEOs for meeting.
d.
Invite Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, and Dennis Bakke, CEO of AES,
to bring 10-15 independent power developers for meeting.
e.
Invite Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, to bring 10-15
energy efficiency technology firms for meeting.
f.
Invite 10-15 renewable energy CEOs for meeting.
iii.
Disseminate broadly the results of the review by the President's Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST). The PCAST has been challenged
to produce an energy strategy that will meet the "energy and environment
needs of the next century" by October.
iv.
Open meeting with the Washington, D.C., policy community on peer-
reviewed economic analysis and other information to be used in the
regional conferences.
Notional Schedule:
June 24-7:
OSTP South East Regional Workshop (Vanderbilt) -scheduled
June 25:
VP Attends OSTP Impacts Workshop (Nashville) -scheduled
June 26:
President Speaks at UNA Special Session -scheduled
June 27:
President meets with CEO's of Big 3 automakers -scheduled
June 28:
First Presidential radio address to speak to climate change,
perhaps with discussion of transportation sector (mtg. with
Big 3 on 6/27), including the results of SunRayce 97 (pv
powered car race) -TBD
June/July:
VP hosts Congressional Dinner -TBD
Early July:
Public Release of Economic Analysis -TBD
Early July:
Cabinet Orientation -TBD
July 14-16:
OSTP North West Regional Workshop (Seattle) -scheduled
July/August:
Industry Roundtables with President, Vice President, Cabinet
and industry leaders -TBD
Late July:
Eastern Regional Meeting -TBD
Mid August:
Mid Regional Meeting -TBD
Late August:
Western Regional Meeting -TBD
Late September:
White House National Conference -TBD
September:
President's Remarks to UNA -TBD
September 3-5:
OSTP New England Regional Meeting (U of NH) -scheduled
Nov. 10-12:
OSTP National Impacts Workshop at NAS -scheduled
October:
PCAST strategy due
To: Mark Mazur at: CEA
Page 2 of 2 Monday June C 1997 5:16:17 PM
m
EXCERPTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Remarks by the President to Business Roundtable
Washington. D.C.
June 12, 1997
Finally, let me say on an issue that I know is a concern to some of you because I read your ad in the
paper (laughter) -- I think that we have to prove that we can grow the economy while not only
preserving. but actually enhancing, the environment. And I believe most of you think we can do that
And I think the message you were trying to get across in the ad is, don't wreek the economy without
knowing what you're doing. I understand that.
But let me say, I was very moved by the speech recently given by the Chairman of British Petroleum on
the issue of climate change. I don't know how many of you read it, but essentially what he said is. look.
nobody knows exactly what the impact of climate change is, but let's not deny anymore that the climate i.
changing and that it can't be good. and that no harm will be done if we take sensible steps to try to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and to do other things which will help us to preserve the environment.
We've had more extreme weather conditions in the United States in the last five years than we had in the
previous 30. And we know from all the scientific studies what is happening to the temperature of the
globe. What I ask you to do is to work with me in good faith to give our children a world worth living in
A lot of you have made a good deal of money in your corporations by technologies which improve the
environment. And if we have the strongest economy in the world, we will find a sensible way to grow that
economy in a way that fulfills our responsibilities.
Today, with 4 percent of the world's population. we produce over 20 percent of the greenhouse gases.
We're up 13 percent since 1990 when President Bush and his administration said we would try to hold
constant through the year 2000.
I had an interesting conversation with Jiang Zemin in New York about a year ago. when he said. I don't
want you to have a containment policy toward China. I said, I'm not sure I said, I don't want to have:
containment policy towards China. I said, my biggest worry about you is that you'll get rich the same W.E.
we did. And if you do that, you might burn the air up because you've got 1.2 billion people. And we need
to find an environmentally responsible way for China to grow.
So I ask you to join with us in this partnership. There is no secret plan. There is no scheme here to try to
put thousands of Americans out of business. I have devoted my passion and the best ideas I could come ''''
with to try to get this country in good shape economically and socially. But I do believe it is folly for us to
believe that we can go into the next century without a strategy that says we're going to be responsible and
we're going to do our part and lead the world on the environmental issues because we all know what the
evidence is. We don't know what the consequences are, and we don't want to go off and do something that
we're not sure makes sense. But we can do this. We can do it together. We can do it in a way that makes
sense.
And I ask you not to ever ask us to back away from that, but instead join hands with us and do what we've
done for the last four and a half years. Let's find a way to preserve the environment, to meet our
international responsibilities, to meet our responsibilities to our children. and grow the economy at the
same time. I know we can do it. Look at the evidence of the last four years. We can do anything if 11c put
our minds to it...
G7 Moves to 'Mainstream' Russia, Africa
Big Job Ahead
The Europeans, however, expressed
Some Disputes Crop Up
doubts about the U.S. prescription. Mr.
Unemployment rates, as of May 1997
Chirac said that German Chancellor Hel-
On the Environment,
France
12.8%
mut Kohl urged their fellow leaders to
accept a "social market economy.' Mr.
European
Economies
Italy
12.4
Chirac, in a news conference, approvingly
quoted Mr. Kohl as saying that "as we
Germany
11.1
move to the global market economy, we
shouldn't forget the word 'social' and con-
By JACOB M. SCHLESINGER
Canada
9.5
centrate on markets alone."
And HILARY STOUT
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Britain
5.8
On the political front, the eight leaders
DENVER - The leaders of the world's
issued a tough statement yesterday morn-
richest nations endorsed several initia-
U.S.
4.8
ing threatening to cut off aid to states that
made up the former Yugoslavia} if leaders
tives to expand and strengthen interna-
Japan*
3.3
there don adhere to the terms of the 1995
tional trade and investment, but they had
peace agreement, "uphold fully the right
some disputes over how to smooth out the
Analysts say Japan understates its unemployment
of refugees
to return to their homes,"
global marketplace's rough edges.
rate, and that by conventional measures it is about
and "cooperate fully" with the war-crimes
The main accomplishments of the
twice as high
tribunal. The eight leaders also said the
three-day annual Group of Seven summit
Source: Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
Middle East peace process "faces a crisis"
were moves to further integrate both Rus-
sia and Africa into "the economic main-
and urged both sides to "uphold the princi-
stream," as one U.S. official put it.
European Commission President
ples" of earlier peace agreements.
Jacques Santer blasted the American in-
A Big Step for Russia
Summit of the Eight
transigence, saying, "I am frankly disap-
Though the progress was largely sym-
pointed that not all our partners were able
Going into the Denver summit, Ameri-
bolic and rhetorical, leaders of the U.S.,
to take quantified commitments on the
can officials said that their top priority was
Japan, Germany, Britain, Canada,
reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions."
making Russia feel more like a member of
France. and Italy did announce a big step
French President Jacques Chirac said that
this elite club - and they seemed to have
for Russia, welcoming Moscow into the
succeeded. Except for a brief discussion of
"Americans are great polluters," more
Paris Club of creditors. Membership will
economics on Saturday afternoon, Russian
concerned with "economic activity" than
make it easier for Russia to collect pay-
environmental protection.
President Boris Yeltsin participated in the
ments for loans to developing countries.
That dispute was just a prelude to what
full summit, which had prompted organi-
Moscow, in return, agreed to write off
promise to be bigger fights between the
zers to call the meetings the "Summit of
the Eight," rather than the traditional
more than half of its estimated $120 billion
U.S. and its allies at the United Nations
"G-7."
in such credits - much of that to one-time
Earth Summit beginning today in New
African client states of the former Soviet
York, and at an environmental summit in
"The Russian state is a full-fledged
Union.
Kyoto, Japan. later this year.
member of the more important political
The summit here was marked by some
Environmental questions weren't the
and economic organizations," beamed
disputes between President Clinton and
only ones to spark disagreements between
Russian Finance Minister Anatoly Chu-
his counterparts, the most serious of which
the U.S. and the other six countries.
bais, Moscow's leading free-marketeer.
concerned curbing environmental damage
Blessed with the strongest economy in the
"Finally, the recognition has come."
from economic development. While Euro-
G-7 this year, Clinton administration offi-
For both the prestige and the money,
cials have been urging Western Europe
the Russians badly want to enter the Paris
peans pressed for an agreement to cut
carbon dioxide emissions by 15% by tite
and Japan to jump-start their sluggish
Club, a group of leading creditor nations
year 2010, Mr. Clinton refused to accept
economies by easing regulations, loosen-
formed to provide debt relief for develop-
specific limits.
ing social safety nets, and embracing more
ing countries. The admission, expected to
Prelude to Bigger Battles
American-style free-market reforms.
be formalized soon, will likely boost Rus-
U.S. officials inserted a line in the final
Please Turn to Page A9. Column 5
The final communique released yester-
economic statement calling on France,
Continued From Page A3
day reflected a compromise: The U.S.
Germany and Italy to attack their double-
sia's credit rating and allow it to borrow
agreed to a 2010 deadline for emissions
digit unemployment rates by increasing
more easily.
reduction, while saying that it intends to
"efficiency of government action and,
Far more important for Russian eco-
"commit to meaningful, realistic and equi-
where necessary, reshape its role in their
nomic integration is membership in the
table targets that will result in reductions
economies, including through reforms of
World Trade Organization, something
of greenhouse gas emissions
tax and social-security systems."
Messrs. Clinton and Yeltsin have said they
would like to see by next year. Mr. Chu-
bais, however, acknowledged some diffi-
culties in negotiating acceptable terms
with the Europeans. A Clinton administra-
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
tion official said that, while he remained
optimistic about the prospects, the Rus-
MONDAY. JUNE 23, 1997
sians "have got an ambitious legislative
agenda" of economic reforms required
before entering the free-trade regime.
American officials also trumpeted the
African initiative endorsed yesterday as
"the end of post-colonialism in Africa."
The campaign calls for shifting the em-
phasis from aid to trade and market-based
economic reforms, and is designed to
encourage Western businesses to "think of
Africa as a market," a U.S. Treasury
official said.
Mr. Chirac, however, said that U.S.
proposals on Africa went too far in trying
to create a "more dynamic investment
system" and that the other leaders had
tempered the American demands for free
trade in Africa.
In addition to trying to draw more
countries into global markets, the leaders
endorsed a package of measures designed
to minimize the risks from such a rapid
expansion. These included setting stan-
dards and new supervision mechanisms
for banks and brokerage firms, a kind of
loose global version of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
evangelical congregation in Fairbanks
begged forgiveness for the past racism of
him, of acceptance of the condition of
contends
Mr
'We Gave Up'
Continued From First Page
For Heaven's Sake
The sudden rise in conservative activ-
resisted the civil-rights movement and in
ism on race coincides with a marked
the recent past showed a profound lack of
decline in the energy of many congrega-
Racial Reconciliation
interest in issues of race. As recently as the
tions in traditional liberal denominations,
1960s, church historians say, leaders in the
such as Presbyterians and Episcopalians.
Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's
Becomes a Priority
in pursuing the same issues. While the
largest Protestant denomination, openly
denominations maintain strong policies
argued that the Bible ordained separation
advocating racial equality, some congre-
For the Religious Right
of the races and the Jim Crow laws that
gations where civil-rights fervor once
enforced it in the South.
burned hot have been demoralized. theolo-
"White conservative evangelicalism
gians say, by a perception that past efforts
was wrong on race - absolutely, painfully
Reasons Are Strictly Biblical,
accomplished little.
and deeply and very unbiblically," says
The liberals thought we could march
Jim Wallis of the Washington-based evan-
Not the Social Ideals
around and pass a few laws and racism
gelical group Sojourners. "It's the thing
would go away. When it didn't. we gave
white evangelicalism has been most wrong
Of Liberal Congregations
up," says the Rev. Nibs Stroupe, pastor of
about."
Atlanta's Oakhurst Presbyterian, one of
But the generation of pastors and dea-
the small percentage of significantly inte-
cons who at times physically barred the
Behold a 'Miracle in Memphis
grated liberal congregations.
doors of lily-white churches against Afri-
Of course, skeptics abound both on the
Al
can-Americans in the 1960s is passing
left and the right, warning that the new
away. Taking their place are forty-
By DOUGLAS A. BLACKMON
interest in race may be even less firmly
something church leaders energized by a
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
rooted among conservatives than among
new wave of conservative Christian evan-
BRUNSWICK. Ga. In the pitch dark of
liberals. Thus far, the movement has in-
gelism, which seeks to win followers both
an early Sunday morning last summer,
deed been much wider than it is deep.
from nonbelievers and from other
four members of a local black family - Ed-
While hundreds of thousands of evangell-
branches of Christianity. For them, the
ward Bailey, his wife, their daughter and a
cal Christians have participated in multi-
impetus for eradicating race problems
granddaughter - died in a gruesome auto
racial pulpit exchanges, church socials.
isn't politics. It is spreading their interpre-
accident. As funeral preparations began.
religious conferences and revivals, the
tation of the Gospel to anyone who will
family and friends quickly realized that no
conservative congregations - like those of
listen, black or white:
black church in town was big enough to
liberal denominations - remain for the
"A lot of what we are seeing today is
hold the anticipated crush of mourners.
most part starkly segregated.
due in part to a kind of changing of the
First Baptist Church stepped forward to
Younger Leaders
guard," says the Rev. John Connell, First
t
help. On the day of the funeral. more than
2,000 African-Americans crowded the long
That may be changing. For the recon-
Baptist's 43-year-old pastor. "The church
wooden pews inside the stately church.
ciliation movement is occurring at the
leadership we grew up with had a different
with its tall stone columns and the largest
nexus of two powerful currents in society:
attitude,
Why they weren't open to it 30
the explosion of evangelical churches and
or 40 years ago was more cultural than
sanctuary in town.
the maturing of conservatives who came of
biblical. To us, race isn't an issue.'
Anywhere else, such a trifling act of
age after the end of segregation.
"Conservative Christians have moved
small-town goodwill might have been unre-
markable. Here deep in the once-segre-
But evangelicals believe something
beyond all that," Mr. Connell adds. "This
gated South, however, it was one more
much more profound than social evolution
has more to do with evangelism and salva-
manifestation of a profound and startling
is occurring. They say racial reconciliation
tion than social issues."
shift among the most conservative of reli-
is, simply put, stirred by the hand of God.
Conservative Values
gious believers. For the Bailey ceremony
"The Holy Spirit is speaking to this genera-
was the first black funeral that church
tion," says the Rev. Rick Snow, the white
The origins of the reconciliation move-
leaders can recall having ever been held at
pastor of suburban Atlanta Christian Cen-
ment appear to trace back to independent
ter. "Men of God and women of God [must]
churches, such as Mr. Snow's, formed
the all-white Southern Baptist church, the
outside the mainstream denominations in
oldest congregation in a town whose
stand up and say, This is wrong. This is
racism. This is sin. Call it for what it
the 1970s and early 1980s, whose followers
churches had been firmly separated since
fused rigid moral positions with Age-of-
the day First Baptist's slave members
is.
departed to form their own congregation-
The movement is all the more remark-
Aquarius notions of human harmony.
in 1862.
able because the churches today embrac-
Atlanta Christian Center, for example,
ing racial reconciliation descend from a
was founded on Independence Day in 1976
Open Doors
religious lineage that in many cases en-
by a few members sent to proselytize by an
Whites at First Baptist say they were
dorsed slavery a century ago, fiercely
LIIC telephone she IS
just being neighborly. But for many Afri-
Please Turn to Page A8, Column 1
convinced that First Baptist's reconcilia-
can-Americans in town, the Bailey funeral
tion talk is for real. The Shecutts have
marked a turning point. "It was a sign that
Complicated Issues
decided to join there.
their doors are open," says the Rev. Rance
That perspective could be the move-
"I know for a fact that everybody
Pettibone, pastor of First African Baptist
ment's Achilles' heel, say liberal-and con-
probably won't like it," Ms. Shecutt says.
Church. the black congregation that broke
servative activists. "The real test of the
"But I'm not going there for them. It's
away during the Civil War.
evangelicals will be when the complicated
personal, between me and God."
At a time when Americans share a
issues, like poor people, come up," says
pervasive sense that relations among the
Oakhurst Presbyterian's Mr: Stroupe. So-
races are at best stagnant and at worst
journer's Mr. Wallis adds: It must be
declining precipitously, the most energetic
more, "than standing around the campfire
element of society addressing racial divi-
singing Kumbaya to each other.'
sions may also seem the most unlikely: the
religious right.
It is that - or worse - that Zack Lyde
Across the country. conservative con-
sees in the glow around First Baptist and
gregations and denominations, while
other white churches now talking about
sticking to other stringent principles of
race back in Brunswick, a humid colonial
conservative religious thinking such as the
harbor town of 18,000, where Spanish moss
proscription of homosexuality and abor-
droops from the massive live oaks outside
tion, are embracing a concept called "bib-
the county courthouse.
lical racial reconciliation" - a belief that
It "is no different than when the slave-
as part of their efforts to please God, they
master had the slave in the church SO he
are required by Scripture to work for racial
could teach him
of the duty to obey
harmony.
In Denver. the charismatic 12.000-mem-
ber Heritage Christian Center. which was
almost all white at the end of the 19S0s. is
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
today 50% African-American. Last Novem-
ber: eight black churches and five white
MONDAY. JUNE 23. 1997
congregations in Tupelo, Miss.. held a
joint revival on fighting racism. In 1995.
the traditionally white National Associa-
tion of Evangelicals - comprising 35,000
congregations - formally asked the Na-
tional Black Association of Evangelicals to
forgive its past racism.
Just warming up.
H
ligher gas taxes. A new fee on vehicle
"significantly warming," he said.
emissions tests. Smaller, more dangerous
If he is talking about the United Nations-sponsored
cars. It may sound like a nightmare, but it
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it said
could be worse. It could be public policy.
no such thing. What it said was the balance of
It didn't get much media play when it happened,
evidence suggests that there is a discernable
but late last year the House Commerce Committee
influence on global climate. There are enough hedges
released leaked administration documents that
in that sentence alone to build a formal garden.
showed what measures the Environmental
In fact, as Richard Kerr reported in Science back
Protection Agency might take to reduce the dreaded
in May, many climate experts say it isn't at all clear
global warming. According to a May 1994 memo
human activities have begun to warm the Earth or
from the agency's Office of Policy, Planning and
how much warming will occur if they do. The
Evaluation, its "Climate Change Action Plan"
problem is that there simply isn't a computer
included mandates for small, fuel-efficient cars, a 50-
powerful enough to model all the complexities
cent-per-gallon increase in the price of gasoline and
involved in Earth's weather patterns and make a
a new fee on vehicle emissions tests of $40 per
prediction about whether it's going to be warmer 300
person and more. Worse, the agency went on to
years hence.
argue that it could impose all these measures through
"Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long
statutory loopholes; no legislation was necessary.
it's almost become respectable.
So climate
Given the political implications of the memo, you
modelers have gotten in the habit of fiddling with
can understand why for two years the agency
fudge factors, so-called 'flux adjustments,' until the
stonewalled committee requests for it.
models get it right," he reports. The less they cheat,
Administration officials dismissed the proposals as
the less warmth the models predict. It may be
nothing more than, well, proposals.
decades before scientists really know.
Still, it's important to keep them in mind in view
Two other recent findings are worth noting. In July,
of the president's newfound enthusiasm for "doing
Science reported that based on an analysis of trends
something" about climate change. Last week he
in worldwide temperatures, climate change may
detailed his agenda leading up to the Kyoto climate
reveal itself as warming at night. There is no sign that
change talks in December and cited "significant
days are warming. Second, a study in the journal
changes in climatic patterns in the last decade,"
Tellus this year reported that a climate model with
major floods and rising sea levels. Somebody has to
double the existing levels of greenhouse gases
do something.
predicted weaker, not stronger storms. So President
If "you let the sea level rise and we flood the
Clinton's talk of impending weather extremes is
southern coast of Florida and we flood the southern
decidedly premature.
coast of Louisiana, and we otherwise disrupt what life
All of which brings us back to the EPA proposals
in the United States is like over the next 50 years," he
to offset climate doom. Mr. Clinton talks about the
said, "then your children will pay the price for our
cost of not doing something about global warming.
neglect." A panel of over 2,500 scientists has
But there is another side to the equation. What is the
concluded that the climate of the Earth is
cost of doing something about nothing?
The Washington Times
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
A
10
NE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
NATIO
Clinton Hones Sales Pitch
On Global Warming Pact
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1997
Experts to Gather for Meeting in Washington
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
party politics, I mean political in how
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - As it
the body politic, how our society re-
seeks a new treaty to fight the threat
sponds to this."
of global warming, the Clinton Ad-
He also said: "Right now, while
ministration has turned marketing
the scientists see the train coming
on its head: first comes the sales
through the tunnel, most Americans
pitch, and later the product will be
haven't heard the whistle blowing.
unveiled.
They don't sense that it's out there as
Call it publicity or call it education,
a big issue. And I really believe as
the results of the campaign that is
President, you know, one of my most
now reaching full boil could pro-
important jobs is to tell the Ameri-
foundly affect the proposal for con-
can people what the big issues are
that we have to deal with."
trolling climate change that the Ad-
To counter the Administration, its
ministration takes to Kyoto, Japan,
critics have mounted a $13 million
in December. There, the nations will
advertising campaign contending
try to agree on a binding treaty to
that a treaty binding industrial na-
limit emissions of heat-trapping gas-
tions to deep cuts in energy use
es like carbon dioxide, which comes
would be unfair because it would not
mostly from burning fossil fuels.
make the same demands on develop-
The Administration wants to
ing countries. And, they argue, such
broaden its public support before its
a treaty would damage the United
negotiators present specific targets
States economy by imposing energy
and timetables for greenhouse gas
taxes or other punitive costs on com-
emissions. The proposals will proba-
panies that burn fossil fuels.
bly not be the steep and urgent cuts
For its own sales pitch, the White
supported by American environmen-
House is deploying many tools of a
talists and some foreign nations, but
classic political campaign: stump
at least a meaningful first step to-
speeches and photo opportunities,
ward someday stabilizing the levels
the carefully staged meetings, alli-
of greenhouse gases that have been
ances with advocacy groups, and the
relentlessly building up in the atmos-
nearly daily events, like the meeting
phere.
with the meteorologists, aimed at
It's a tough sell.
reaping free media coverage.
"If anybody tells you this is not a
The campaign began shortly after
tough issue, they are lying," said
President Clinton, under pressure
Promise Keepers Keep Pron
Todd Stern, a senior White House
from environmentalists and Euro-
aide who is coordinating climate pol-
pean nations to act more aggressive-
Members of Promise Keepers, the evan,
icy. "We have to put together options
ly, told the United Nations in June
organization sponsoring a rally at the M
for the President that are economi-
that he would marshal American
ington today, scraped and painted a (
cally viable, that are environmental-
public support for a treaty.
ly viable, and that are politically
He assigned Mr. Stern, an experi-
viable - both in the international
enced White House aide, as a tempo-
and domestic context."
rary climate "czar" to coordinate
"We have to stand on the rooftops
the Administration's efforts. Mr.
Battle Loomed ir
and scream, because there are those
Stern brought additional staff from
who have a vested interest in not
other agencies to help out, and began
By NEIL A. LEWIS
seeing action on climate change,"
laying the groundwork for Monday's
said Kathleen A. McGinty, the chair-
high-profile public meeting.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - When
in
woman of the Council on Environ-
President Clinton and Vice Presi-
Nestlé USA announced this week
pla
that it was pulling from shelves a
sn
dent Al Gore also met with small
groups of sympathetic business lead-
product called "Nestle Magic" in the
M:
face of complaints that it was dan-
of
ers, scientists and environmental ad-
Greenhouse experts
vocates.
gerous for children, a coalition of
an
Cabinet members hit the hustings,
food safety advocates and their lob-
OV
are assembling for a
giving dozens of speeches to push the
byists claimed victory.
1
Administration's cause.
But the biggest winner was M&M/
tha
daylong conference.
On Tuesday, for example, Interior
Mars, a competing candy giant that
old
Secretary Bruce Babbitt told the
had quietly agreed to subsidize much
dy
Union of Concerned Scientists, which
of the Jobbying campaign against
OVG
supports controls on greenhouse gas
Nestlé. Mars had argued that the
bin
mental Quality, referring to powerful
emissions, that success in the cause
product, a toy-candy combination, V1-
Promise Keepers Keep Pron
Todd Stern, a senior White House
from environmentalists and Euro-
aide who is coordinating climate pol-
pean nations to act more aggressive-
Members of Promise Keepers, the evan
icy. "We have to put together options
ly, told the United Nations in June
organization sponsoring a rally at the M
for the President that are economi-
that he would marshal American
ington today, scraped and painted a
cally viable, that are environmental-
public support for a treaty.
ly viable, and that are politically
He assigned Mr. Stern, an experi-
viable - both in the international
enced White House aide, as a tempo-
and domestic context."
rary climate "czar" 10 coordinate
"We have to stand on the rooftops
the Administration's efforts. Mr.
Battle Loomed ir
and scream, because there are those
Stern brought additional staff from
who have a vested interest in not
other agencies to help out, and began
By NEIL A. LEWIS
a
seeing action on climate change,"
laying the groundwork for Monday's
said Kathleen A. McGinty, the chair-
high-profile public meeting.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - When
ind:
woman of the Council on Environ-
President Clinton and Vice Presi-
Nestlé USA announced this week
pla
dent Al Gore also met with small
that it was pulling from shelves a
snᶜ
groups of sympathetic business lead-
product called Nestle Magic" in the
M²
face of complaints that it was dan-
of
ers, scientists and environmental ad-
Greenhouse experts
vocates.
gerous for children, a coalition of
an¹
Cabinet members hit the hustings,
food safety advocates and their lob-
OV
are assembling for a
giving dozens of speeches to push the
hyists claimed victory.
D.
Administration's cause.
But the biggest winner was M&M/
that
daylong conference.
On Tuesday, for example, Interior
Mars, a competing candy giant that
oldus
Secretary Bruce Babbitt told the
had quietly agreed to subsidize much
dyn 8
Union of Concerned Scientists, which
of the lobbying campaign against
ovo SU
supports controls on greenhouse gas
Nestlé. Mars had argued that the
bim/S'n
mental Quality, referring to powerful
emissions, that success in the cause
product, a toy-candy combination, vi-
req egg
opposition to a treaty, led by energy-
"depends on all of us, together, tak-
olated the Food and Drug Safety Act
I sible
intensive industries and their labor
ing up the burden of advocacy."
of 1938 and the entire candy industry
n 81 jo
unions.
Indeed, environmental advocacy
would suffer if any child was hurt by
) citations
Ms. McGinty said the Administra-
groups have been working strenu-
Nestlé Magic.
seads pu
tion hoped to present details of the
ously to influence the press and the
But it appears that Mars began its
ys by gue
United States proposal when interna-
public, to mobilize their millions of
efforts against Nestlé just after it
tional negotiators next met in Bonn
tried and failed to bring a product to
nal Commi
members, and to persuade the Clin-
vithin the Wit
later this month.
ton Administration to call for deeper,
market that was similar in some
sa¹¹
involving
But even before those details are
faster cuts in greenhouse gas emis-
ways to Nestlé Magic.
resident. Yo
known, the campaign to build sup-
sions. The scientists' group issued a
Officials who were involved direct-
as
wful use of
port for it comes to a climax of sorts
call by about 1,500 scientists, includ-
ly in the aborted efforts to market a
ke the proc.
ing 102 Nobel laureates, more than
on Monday when carefully selected
toy-candy combination said that
half of all the living laureates in the
greenhouse experts assemble at
Mars had been hoping to sell an item
sciences, urging significant cuts by
Georgetown University for a daylong
called Treasure X, which consisted
lik
Je
industrial nations in the next few
conference.
of a box that contained both a choco-
years, followed eventually by limits
The meeting is half a conventional
late bar and a hard toy.
on the developing world. The state-
we
policy seminar where ecologists,
ment called global warming "one of
Mars sells a similar product in
pr
economists and lobbyists can have
the most serious threats to the planet
Australia and New Zealand called
off
their say. But it also resembles a
and to future generations."
Lucky Dip.
ac
political convention, a chance to put
In a poll conducted in August, be-
Company officials today said that
pro
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore in the best
fore the industry's ad campaign be-
there were crucial differences be-
possible light as they take on a knotty
tween those products and Nestlé
NATI
:
gan to air, about three-quarters of
political problem.
registered voters surveyed said they
Magic. But Attorney General Rich-
inc
"What I want to do is to deal with
believe that global warming is a seri-
ard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who
as
the central political problem here,"
ous problem and that a treaty with
campaigned against the Nestlé prod-
the
Mr. Clinton told a group of television
deep cuts in emissions is needed. The
uct, said the Mars product raised
fro
weather forecasters on Wednesday.
Mellman Group Inc. conducted the
many of the same concerns as did
ca
"I don't mean political in terms of
poll for the World Wildlife Fund.
Nestlé Magic.
me
TOCOPY
PRESERVATION
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1997
4 Warm Climate Prevails as Experts Study Ecological Problems
mists inject a somewh:
mal tone to the proceedi
that it would not be pa
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
world to do the same. Vice President
Federico F. Peña held up solar roof-
tration would create a system of
energy use so deeply.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Presi-
Al Gore and Cabinet members were
ing tiles and said they are on the
pollution-permits trading to encour-
"As I listen to all thi:
dent Clinton today convened a day-
on hand, and the balcony at George-
verge of economic feasibility. Mary
age cost-effective reductions in emis-
cerned that we are great
long conference on climate change
town University was packed with
Good, an investor who is a former
sions.
mating the size and CC
that produced a series of optimistic
appreciative students from Mr. Clin-
Administration official, spoke of the
Fred Krupp, executive director of
the undertaking," sa
discussions about harnessing tech-
ton's alma mater.
potential to grow algae and convert it
the Environmental Defense Fund, an
Nordhaus, a professor 0
noldgy, ingenuity and the entrepre-
There was almost no talk of ener-
into clean fuel. And Tom Casten,
advocacy group that favors market-
at Yale University. "We
neurial spirit to save the planet from
gy taxes, heavy-handed regulations
president of Trigen Energy Corpora-
based incentives to reduce pollution,
ing to introduce these wo
globhl warming.
or other unpopular measures to
tion, said that the deregulation of the
nologies unless we incre
said that greenhouse gas emissions
M: Clinton peppered experts with
make swift, deep reductions in the
of energy."
utility industry would help double the
could be brought below 1990 levels by
Deputy Treasury Sec
questions and ruminated aloud on
use of energy and the emissions of
efficiency of electricity plants.
2005. The Administration has been
rence Summers, one of r
how to prod the most energy-inten-
carbon dioxide and other gases that
E. Linn Draper, president of
leaning toward establishing a less-
economic advisers wh
sive economy in the world to break
trap heat in the atmosphere and
American Electric Power, a major
ambitious target, with emissions lev-
counseling caution as t
its addiction to fossil fuels, and how
threaten widespread ecological dam-
utility company, said Americans
eling off at 1990 levels by 2010.
tration debates its nego
to negotiate a treaty by the end of the
age in the next century.
would be more likely to invest in
Only at the end of the day, after
tion, was more sanguir
year that will bind the rest of the
Instead, Transportation Secretary
energy conservation if the Adminis-
Mr. Clinton left, did a panel of econo-
"The question is not whe
THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1997
NE A 19
revails as Experts Study Ecological Problems
mists inject a somewhat more dis-
respond effectively to this threat,"
mal tone to the proceedings, warning
he said. "We can and I believe we
that it would not be painless to cut
must.
to do the same. Vice President
Federico F. Peña held up solar roof-
tration would create a system of
energy use SO deeply.
Mr. Clinton encouraged the attend-
re and Cabinet members were
ing tiles and said they are on the
pollution-permits trading to encour-
"As I listen to all this, I am con-
ees to accentuate the positive as they
id, and the balcony at George-
verge of economic feasibility. Mary
age cost-effective reductions in emis-
cerned that we are greatly underesti-
discussed what is described as a
University was packed with
Good, an investor who is a former
sions.
mating the size and complexity of
serious global problem.
ciative students from Mr. Clin-
Administration official, spoke of the
Fred Krupp, executive director of
the undertaking,' said William
But Mr. Clinton seemingly recog-
ilma mater.
potential to grow algae and convert it
the Environmental Defense Fund, an
Nordhaus, a professor of economics
nizes that there is no easy solution to
re was almost no talk of ener-
into clean fuel. And Tom Casten,
advocacy group that favors market-
at Yale University. "We are not go-
the steady growth of greenhouse gas
tes, heavy-handed regulations
president of Trigen Energy Corpora-
based incentives to reduce pollution,
ing to introduce these wondrous tech-
emissions.
her unpopular measures to
tion, said that the deregulation of the
said that greenhouse gas emissions
nologies unless we increase the cost
Groping for alternative policies
swift, deep reductions in the
utility industry would help double the
of energy."
could be brought below 1990 levels by
that would encourage consumers to
energy and the emissions of
efficiency of electricity plants.
Deputy Treasury Secretary Law-
2005. The Administration has been
buy energy-saving products, he men-
1 dioxide and other gases that
rence Summers, one of Mr. Clinton's
E. Linn Draper, president of
tioned four alternatives: raising the
leaning toward establishing a less-
economic advisers who has been
eat in the atmosphere and
American Electric Power, a major
price of energy, lowering the price of
ambitious target, with emissions lev-
counseling caution as the Adminis-
en widespread ecological dam-
new technologies, creating market-
utility company, said Americans
eling off at 1990 levels by 2010.
tration debates its negotiating posi-
based incentives for people to invest
the next century.
would be more likely to invest in
Only at the end of the day, after
tion, was more sanguine in public.
in saving fuel, or increasing the pub-
ead, Transportation Secretary
energy conservation if the Adminis-
Mr. Clinton left, did a panel of econo-
The question is not whether we can
lic's awareness of the problem.
PRESERVATION
PHOTOCOPY
IOTOCOPY
SERVATION
THE WASHINGTON POST
with advocates who believe sci
Clinton Rebuffs Europeans on Cuts in 'Greenhouse Gases'
evidence suggesting a link betwee
lution and global warming. But to
was the president's most forthright
PRESIDENT, From A1
gas emissions. The version of the
on the president's right were no more
Europeans are unrealistic and would
ment yet that the debate is over.
speech the president delivered omitted
charitable. "I am particularly concerned
wreck the American economy. But oth-
science is clear and compelling
tion in greenhouse gases by 2010.
a reference in the written text to a vague
that the draft treaty now under discus-
er analysts disagree.
humans are changing the glob
Even as Clinton applauded the group for
goal of eventually reducing pollution
sion imposes mandatory restrictions on
Some European governments, nota-
mate," he said. "Concentrations of
"its strong focus on this issue," his aides
below 1990 levels.
the United States but only recommenda-
bly Germany and Britain, have achieved
house gases in the atmosphere are
dismissed that proposal as unrealistic
Responding to that omission as well
tions for emerging industrial powers,"
dramatic reductions in emissions of
highest level in more than 200,000
and vowed Clinton had no intention of
as reported U.S. attempts to block a
said Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.),
carbon dioxide in the past decade,
and climbing sharply."
announcing targets until he was certain
strongly worded statement on climate
chairman of the House International
though both countries benefited from
Clinton painted a dire picture of
they were attainable. This skepticism
change at the conclusion of the Earth
Relations Committee.
special circumstances. Britain, for ex-
century in which 9,000 square m
about the European position is shared
Summit, Kevin Dunion of Friends of the
But some business leaders said the
ample, began relying more heavily on
coastal areas in Florida, Louisian
even by some environmentalists press-
Earth said, "That kind of hypocrisy
president took a sensible approach. "He
cleaner natural gas instead of coal.
other states would be flooded as
ing Clinton to be more specific.
makes us believe quite frankly that the
resisted the temptation to use this high-
A wide range of U.S. scientists and
levels rise two feet or more. Seve
Clinton did promise he would pro-
Americans will not arrive in Kyoto with
ly public event to unveil Draconian
economists agree that the United States
percent of Bangladesh, he said, wo
duce an "American commitment to real-
real, binding targets."
measures that would be harmful to our
could achieve similar reductions, al-
under water.
istic and binding limits" on greenhouse
Environmentalists also were skepti-
economy and harmful to the American
though they differ on the economic
Five years ago in Rio de Jan
gases in time for an international confer-
cal of the "Million Solar Roofs" program.
people," said Gail McDonald, president
consequences. One recent analysis pre-
world conference on the enviro
ence this December in Kyoto, Japan.
"A million solar roofs-that's mom's
of the Global Climate Coalition, an
dicted the country could save $58 billion
set goals for reducing emissior
Environmental groups applauded
apple pie," said Michael Oppenheimer, a
organization of business trade groups.
in energy costs and generate nearly
they went largely unmet. Administ
Clinton's strong words on global warm-
scientist for the Environmental Defense
Business groups have lobbied the
800,000 net new jobs by converting to
officials have said this experience }
ing but some condemned his lack of
Fund. "I can't say it doesn't sound good.
administration in recent weeks, arguing
cleaner, renewable energy sources.
the administration to press for
specific targets for cutting greenhouse
But it doesn't get the job done." Critics
the kinds of pollution cuts urged by the
The administration has long sided
binding targets as well as for a trea
THE WASHINGTON POST
S
FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1997 A9
Europeans on Cuts in 'Greenhouse Gases'
with advocates who believe scientific
includes developing nations. China, for
evidence suggesting a link between pol-
instance, is already second to the United'
lution and global warming. But tonight
States in producing greenhouse gases.
was the president's most forthright state-
But many developing nations fear
missions. The version of the
on the president's right were no more
Europeans are unrealistic and would
ment yet that the debate is over. "The
limits would stunt economic growth. To
1 the president delivered omitted
charitable. "I am particularly concerned
wreck the American economy. But oth-
science is clear and compelling: We
address this concern, Clinton said the
ence in the written text to a vague
that the draft treaty now under discus-
er analysts disagree.
humans are changing the global cli-
f eventually reducing pollution
United States would direct about $1
sion imposes mandatory restrictions on
Some European governments, nota-
mate," he said. "Concentrations of green-
1990 levels.
the United States but only recommenda-
billion in international aid money to
bly Germany and Britain, have achieved
house gases in the atmosphere are at the
ponding to that omission as well
tions for emerging industrial powers,"
developing countries for clean-air ener-
dramatic reductions in emissions of
highest level in more than 200,000 years
orted U.S. attempts to block a
said Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.),
carbon dioxide in the past decade,
gy products. Also, he said the Overseas
and climbing sharply."
ly worded statement on climate
chairman of the House International
though both countries benefited from
Clinton painted a dire picture of a 21st
Private Investment Corp. would insist
e at the conclusion of the Earth
Relations Committee.
special circumstances. Britain, for ex-
century in which 9,000 square miles of
projects that it funds meet environmen-
it, Kevin Dunion of Friends of the
But some business leaders said the
ample, began relying more heavily on
coastal areas in Florida, Louisiana and
tal standards.
said, "That kind of hypocrisy
president took a sensible approach. "He
cleaner natural gas instead of coal.
other states would be flooded as ocean
Clinton said the Energy Department
us believe quite frankly that the
resisted the temptation to use this high-
A wide range of U.S. scientists and
levels rise two feet or more. Seventeen
would encourage solar roofs through
ans will not arrive in Kyoto with
ly public event to unveil Draconian
economists agree that the United States
percent of Bangladesh, he said, would be
subsidized loans and efforts to reduce
nding targets."
measures that would be harmful to our
could achieve similar reductions, al-
under water.
"market barriers" and stimulate con-
ronmentalists also were skepti-
economy and harmful to the American
though they differ on the economic
Five years ago in Rio de Janeiro, a
sumer demand.
he "Million Solar Roofs" program.
people," said Gail McDonald, president
consequences. One recent analysis pre-
world conference on the environment
This fall, Clinton also will host a White
lion solar roofs-that's mom's
of the Global Climate Coalition, an
dicted the country could save $58 billion
set goals for reducing emissions but
House Conference on Climate Change
ie," said Michael Oppenheimer, a
organization of business trade groups.
in energy costs and generate nearly
they went largely unmet. Administration
where aides said he would try to forge a
st for the Environmental Defense
Business groups have lobbied the
800,000 net new jobs by converting to
officials have said this experience has led
consensus among scientists, and busi-
T can't say it doesn't sound good.
administration in recent weeks, arguing
cleaner, renewable energy sources.
the administration to press for legally
ness leaders about what the U.S. position
loesn't get the job done." Crifics
the kinds of pollution cuts urged by the
The administration has long sided
binding targets as well as for a treaty that
in Kyoto should be.
PRESERVATION
PHOTOCOPY
Clinton Rebuffs Europeans
On Cutting Global Warming
At U.N., President Declines to Set Targets
By John F. Harris and Joby Warrick
acknowledged the United States pro-
Washington Post Staff Writers
duces 20 percent of greenhouse gas-
es-more than any other country-
UNITED NATIONS, June 26-
even though it has just 4 percent of
President Clinton tonight warned
the population.
human activity is dangerously in-
And he offered a number of pledg-
creasing the Earth's temperature,
es, including a promise to mobilize
but he rebuffed appeals by European
U.S. public opinion behind legally
leaders that he offer a specific target
binding global goals for reducing
for reducing "greenhouse gases" in
emissions and a proposal to install a
the next decade.
million solar roofs in the United
A day after he cheered environ-
States by 2010.
mentalists by unveiling tough regu-
But Clinton hedged on the critical
lations to reduce urban smog, he
question of specific pollution targets
angered many of the same advocates
for greenhouse gases-excess car-
by dodging the issue of how much
bon dioxide produced by factory
and how fast to reduce gas emissions
smokestacks and automobile ex-
under global treaty negotiations to
haust pipes.
be concluded in December.
The European Union has pro-
Clinton, speaking to a special ses-
posed requiring a 15 percent reduc-
sion of the U.N. General Assembly,
See PRESIDENT, A9, Col. 1
Clinton to visit Poland, Romania following NATO talks in July. Page A14
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
*FRANKEL_J@CEA_2
Tuesday October 14, 1997
Nobel Prize in Ec.
announced ("11:30
a.m. at earliest"]
8:00a
8:30a WH SR STF MTG
9:00a
9:30a CEA Staff Mtg
10:00a
10:30a INTERNATIONAL CLUSTER
MEETING
11:00a
11:30a NEC Climate Change Oversight
\
Grp Mtg, 2nd Flr, WW
12:00p
Twis 4 BANS of any
1. Sci balance
2. Bindy avealistic targets
3. Flex. dom. & MT.
4. LDCS
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION