Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285410983
label
Climate Change
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285410983
contentType
document
title
Climate Change
description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
CF01861-015
collections
Records of the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Paul Korfonta DPC Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285410983
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ae33860e911be88c
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2017-0310-F
2017-0310-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Cabinet Affairs, White House Office of
Series:
Korfonta, Paul, Files
Subseries:
DPC Subject Files
OA/ID Number:
CF01861
Folder ID Number:
CF01861-015
Folder Title:
Climate Change
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
V
7
7
3
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
EDE HOLIDAY
SAA
SUBJECT:
Update on Climate Change Negotiations
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee will hold their
second negotiating session on a framework convention on climate
change next week in Geneva. The Global Change Strategy Task
Force recently met with Robert Reinstein, the U.S. negotiator, to
discuss the upcoming session and U.S. negotiating strategy.
As you know, the first negotiating session was held last February
in Chantilly, Virginia and accomplished relatively little. Much
of the ten day session next week will continue to be spent on
organizational and procedural matters, such as the membership of
the two working groups on commitments and mechanisms. The
remaining time will be dedicated to reviewing various proposals
submitted by participating countries, and a proposed outline of a
possible framework convention structure.
The U.S. remains firm in its support for a comprehensive approach
to climate change and in its opposition to establishing targets
and timetables to accomplish that goal. The U.S. will quickly
bracket any language produced in the negotiating session that is
objectionable.
In response to the U.S. position, the U.K. has proposed an
alternative "phased comprehensive approach" that acknowledges the
ultimate goal of including all greenhouse gases, their sources
and sinks, in any framework convention, yet seeks to achieve that
goal in increments, starting with carbon dioxide. The U.K.
proposal also includes the concept of "pledge and review," which
the U.S. views as another way of establishing targets and
timetables. This threshold issue will likely come up later in
the year, since the only way the negotiating session can make
progress is to discuss less controversial issues.
You should also know that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
recently adopted a Sense of the Senate amendment (offered by
Senator Biden) to the FY 1992 State Department authorization bill
regarding a framework convention on climate change. The
amendment lists six goals a framework convention should achieve,
including the stabilization of net greenhouse gas emissions by
the year 2000 and the establishment of "verifiable goals" for net
reduction of greenhouse gasses.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 23, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY MA
EDE HOLIDAY
SUBJECT:
Climate Change Framework Convention Meeting at
9:30 Wednesday morning
A meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 23 at
9:30 A.M. in your office to obtain your approval, in concept, of
the DPC paper on Global Climate Change and a brochure
highlighting the environmental achievements of the Bush
Administration. If you approve, we will distribute these papers
to members of the DPC for their written comments and clearance.
Thereafter, we suggest that you meet with a group of
advisers on Friday to give final approval to the strategy for the
Framework Convention, to approve the final draft of the
accomplishments brochure and to consider the more sensitive
strategic questions raised by the upcoming negotiations --
questions we did not think it prudent to raise in the DPC paper,
such as:
O
Will publishing a brochure highlighting U.S. accomplishments
towards stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases actually
undercut the Administration's position that there is
insufficient scientific and economic evidence to justify
negotiations over targets and timetables?
What would have to change in the science, economics or
politics of global climate change to warrant reconsidering
our opposition to some form of targets and timetables?
If the U.S. ultimately acquiesces to some regime of targets
and timetables, when should the Administration make this
concession -- and how should it be portrayed?
What should the U.S. do if other countries do not support
the comprehensive approach or if other countries support the
comprehensive approach without granting any credit to the
U.S. for phasing out CFCs under the Montreal protocol?
Should the President address the opening session of the
climate change negotiations either in person or by video
tape?
2
Participants in this morning's meeting will include Dick
Darman, Boyden Gray, Roger Porter, Michael Deland, Bob Grady, Ken
Yale, Teresa Gorman and Richard Porter. Bob Grady took the
initiative to prepare the draft U.S. accomplishments brochure,
with the assistance of OSTP and other agencies.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 22, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
FROM:
The Global Change Working Group
SUBJECT:
Framework Convention on Climate Change
ISSUE:
Negotiators representing the United States at the first
negotiating session of the Framework Convention on Climate Change
on February 4, 1991 require guidance on three issues:
(1) Aspects of the strategy U.S. representatives should
follow during the negotiations;
(2) Whether we should press other nations to adopt the
"comprehensive approach;" and
(3) Whether a document outlining U.S. accomplishments
should be released at the first negotiating session.
BACKGROUND:
1. The General Situation.
Formal negotiations on a framework convention will take place,
over the next 18 months, under the auspices of the United Nations
General Assembly. Although differences exist regarding the
purpose of the Convention, it is our understanding that the
Convention should establish an institutional basis for
international cooperation on climate change including the conduct
of scientific research and the exchange of climate change
information. It will also provide the legal and logistical
structure for future protocols or annexes (if any) containing
specific commitments. The Convention is expected to be ready for
signing at the June 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development in Brazil.
President Bush has invited other nations to meet in Washington
for the first negotiating session. This is scheduled to take
place February 4 to 14, 1991. The first negotiating session will
focus on organizational and procedural issues. This paper
provides background on the question of climate change and
addresses three issues that need to be considered prior to the
negotiations.
2.
Previous International Action.
The World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme set up the Intergovernmental Panel on
2
Climate Change (IPCC) in 1987 as a vehicle to assess scientific
information pertaining to climate change, impacts of such change,
and possible strategies to assist in responding to potential
changes. The U.S. participated in and accepted the activities of
the IPCC.
At the Second World Climate Conference in November 1990, the IPCC
adopted an interim report. This report addressed four major
areas of climate change: (1) research; (2) the impacts of
potential change; (3) response strategies; and (4) legal measures
to implement response strategies, including possible elements of
a framework convention on climate change. This report forms the
basis for the negotiations on a framework convention on climate
change.
The Second World Climate Conference agreed that the scientific
conclusions set out by the IPCC reflect the international
consensus of scientific understanding of climate change,
including these key points:
o
"Emissions resulting from human activities are
substantially increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. These increases will enhance the
natural greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an
additional warming of the Earth's surface."
O
"Without actions to reduce emissions, global warming is
predicted to reach 2 to 5 degrees C over the next
century, a rate of change unprecedented in the past
10,000 years."
O
"The warming is expected to be accompanied by a sea
level rise of 65 cm (+/- 35 cm) by the end of the next
century."
O
Substantial scientific uncertainty continues regarding
the details of climate change. To narrow the
uncertainties, on-going research is being conducted in
high priority areas, such as oceans, clouds, carbon
cycle, polar ice sheet, and sea ice.
Some policy makers do not share the certainty reflected by the
predictions published in the IPCC report, because of the
unsettled state of the scientific analysis.
3.
The Science of Climate Change.
Studies show that concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased. However, the causes of this increase--including both
natural and human factors, as well as the way these may affect
regional climate patterns and the earth's temperature regulation
process--continue to be unclear. Certain gases, such as carbon
3
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chloroflurocarbons (CFC's),
increase the retention of heat in the atmosphere.
Natural processes are responsible for twenty times the amount of
greenhouse gas fluctuations than those caused by human
activities. For instance, even though nitrous oxide is emitted
by the manmade process of burning fossil fuels and using nitrogen
fertilizers, it is also emitted by the natural aerobic
decomposition of organic matter in oceans and soils and by
bacteria. Nevertheless, significant changes in atmospheric
concentrations are being caused by human-related activities,
largely reflecting increases in industrialization.
The earth adapts to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations
through a complex system that naturally regulates global
temperatures. One result of this natural regulatory process may
be changing climate patterns and higher average temperatures.
This system is not only affected by "sources" of greenhouse gas
emissions, but also by "sinks" that sequester concentrations of
these gases. The system also includes the radiation of energy
into space.
Although scientific research on the relation between the emission
of greenhouse gases and climate change has focussed on global
warming, this is only one of several interrelated climate
phenomena that may be affected by such emissions. Other climate
phenomena that may be affected include the patterns and amounts
of precipitation, the patterns and severity of storms, as well as
the mean sea level. Each of these climate phenomena may involve
significant fluctuations in temperature over wide regions of the
earth's surface. It is important to note that the effects of
climate change may vary by region. Changes in temperature and
precipitation may cause adverse effects in some areas of the
world while resulting in beneficial effects in other areas.
Computer models have been developed to predict the effects on
climate of different concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Nevertheless, these computer models are not yet able to reflect
the natural system of temperature regulation with much accuracy.
As a result, scientists are not able to agree on the magnitude,
spatial distribution, and timing of any climate changes caused by
increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and the effect of
natural mitigating factors. The computer models are particularly
poor guides to regional variations of climate changes. These
changes are the basis upon which economic impact studies are
made, and are key to the development of responsible policy
decisions.
4. The Economics of Climate Change.
Cost-benefit analyses of proposals for reducing emissions compare
the costs of such proposals with any benefits they would produce
4
by altering climate processes. These benefits would equal the
total costs of projected climate changes (often called the costs
of not acting) only for proposals that promise to stabilize the
climate. Most emission limitations that have been proposed
internationally would reduce natural and human emissions only
slightly and would therefore have only a minor effect on climate
processes.
Economic studies of climate change issues have only just begun
and little is yet known. For example, there are few quantitative
analyses of the cost of sea level rise. Nor has there been much
study of the impact that future climate changes may have on the
agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, which are sensitive
to climate variations. These industries amount to only 3 percent
of the U.S. GNP, but they represent a much larger part of the
economies of developing nations.
Studies based on historical data regarding carbon dioxide
emissions suggest that stabilization or small reductions would
impose costs on the order of 1 percent of GNP for industrialized
countries by the turn of the century and that those costs would
rise over time. Other studies based on analyses of particular
technologies suggest that, in principle at least, costs could be
more modest. Advances in technology could lower baseline
emissions, costs of reduction, and the tendency of costs to rise
over time.
5.
Energy Issues in Climate Change.
Even though human activities cause only a fraction of greenhouse
gas emissions, international talks have focused on reducing man-
made emissions, especially emissions from the use of fossil fuel.
The U.S. produced almost 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels in 1988. Because this was about 25 percent of all
man-made carbon dioxide emissions world-wide, the U.S. has become
a large target for criticism from other countries despite our
positive record on overall greenhouse gas emission control. It
is worth noting that the U.S. also produces about 25 percent of
the world's GNP, so that its share of man-made carbon dioxide
emissions compares with its share of production.
THE CLIMATE CONVENTION NEGOTIATIONS:
A framework convention establishes general obligations and
procedures for carrying out these obligations. Specific
commitments are usually included in subsequent annexes or
protocols to a convention. Nevertheless, several countries are
pressing to include specific obligations for targets and
timetables for stabilizing emissions of certain gases in the
convention or in protocols negotiated simultaneously with the
convention.
5
We have taken the position that such commitments are premature
and should be negotiated only after signing a framework
convention. Even then commitments should be made only if
analyses demonstrate that they are necessary and will result in
net benefits. The model is the Vienna Convention (March 22,
1985) on ozone depletion and the subsequent Montreal Protocol
(September 16, 1987). We are uncertain of the level of support
the U.S. will receive on our position and may have to reconsider
if other countries fail to support us.
1. The Process.
The climate change negotiations will be carried out through the
auspices of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, serviced
by a United Nations Secretariat. Following the first session
here in Washington, most of the negotiating sessions will be held
at U.N. facilities in Geneva, with one or possibly more sessions
in Nairobi. Sessions will be one to two weeks in length, and
will be held every three or four months through 1991. Sessions
will be scheduled as needed in 1992. Jean Ripert of France is
likely to be elected to chair the negotiations.
2. The U.S. Delegation.
The U.S. delegation for the first session will be headed by
Curtis "Buff" Bohlen, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. The
alternate head of delegation will be Robert A. Reinstein, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. Reinstein will function as negotiator for this and
subsequent sessions. The negotiating team is expected to include
12-15 representatives of the agencies with relevant energy,
environmental, scientific and economic expertise and interest in
this issue. Federal government agency involvement with the
framework convention is being coordinated by the Department of
State. White House coordination of the negotiations is being
provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
3. Agenda for the First Session.
Although a draft agenda has not yet been circulated by the U.N.
Secretariat, the following work-plan is anticipated for the nine-
day session:
Organizational matters (1 day);
Initial country statements (2 days);
Establishment of subgroups and preparation of
the legal negotiating text (5 days); and
Other matters such as defining the
relationship between the IPCC and these talks
(1 day).
6
Countries will propose text they wish to see included in the
convention. Language not agreed to by all the parties will be
bracketed. Little attempt will be made to resolve differences
about the text during the first session.
The U.S. will propose several non-controversial provisions,
particularly in the area of scientific and economic research and
cooperation. More importantly, as discussed in question 2 below,
the U.S. will seek to convince other countries that they should
adopt the comprehensive approach in the text of the framework
agreement.
A summary of other countries' positions on the global change
issue and their approach to the framework convention negotiations
is attached in Appendix A.
4. Elements for Possible Inclusion in the Framework Convention.
In addition to certain non-controversial elements of the
framework convention identified by the IPCC, we expect several
controversial elements to be proposed as well.
-- Targets and Timetables: Several countries will try to
force a debate about targets and timetables for reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from the burning of fossil fuels, over the next 18 months. All
other OECD countries, except Turkey, have made statements arguing
that such obligations should be undertaken now, either as part of
the convention itself or in protocols negotiated simultaneously
with the convention.
-- The Precautionary Principle: Many countries will suggest
putting an article on the "Precautionary Principle" into the
framework convention. As yet, there is no commonly accepted
definition of this principle. Some believe it merely reiterates
the need to prevent pollution. Others hold that it imposes a
burden of proof, i.e., that an activity cannot be undertaken
unless proof can be shown that it will not harm the environment.
-- Financial assistance: Consistent with the Houston
Economic Declaration, a general commitment to promote financial
assistance for developing countries will be negotiated in the
framework convention. Developing countries will undoubtedly
propose that this include a commitment to provide "new and
additional" funding, a commitment that we oppose. The United
States will argue that the newly established Global Environmental
Facility in the World Bank is the appropriate mechanism through
which any multilateral assistance should be processed.
-- Development and transfer of technology: The developing
countries have often called for technology transfer on a
"preferential and noncommercial basis." Although this language
7
raises the problem of protection of intellectual property rights,
there is a wide range of technologies for which this issue does
not arise. U.S. negotiators intend to highlight the value of
existing cooperation programs.
QUESTION 1:
Should the following strategy be adopted to guide
U.S. representatives at the first negotiation
session?
1.
Propose specific language on scientific cooperation and
monitoring consistent with the comprehensive approach.
2.
Oppose specific targets and timetables for greenhouse
gas emission reduction--particularly carbon dioxide.
3.
Oppose extreme statements of the "Precautionary
Principle."
4.
Oppose commitment to new and additional financial
assistance.
5.
Explore ways of promoting technology transfer that will
be advantageous to the U.S., taking full account of
market forces and the protection of intellectual
property rights.
6.
Highlight steps already taken to show U.S. commitment
to act. (See Question 3 for further elaboration).
Over the past year, the U.S. has taken a prudent approach to the
climate change issue. Other countries have been willing to
commit themselves to specific targets and timetables for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions with little regard, in some cases, for
either the cost or the lack of information necessary to craft an
effective plan.
The U.S. is widely perceived as entering these negotiations in an
isolated position, since it is the only major developed country
that has not committed itself to a timetable for achieving
specific greenhouse gas reductions. Therefore, to buttress the
prudence of our approach we will need to have a well-defined
negotiating plan to take with us to the table in February.
The U.S. can bolster its position on targets and timetables by
pointing out the scientific uncertainties as well as the likely
costs, administrative complexities, and possible trade problems
that could arise from the imposition of large taxes on the carbon
content of fossil fuels--the primary means for achieving major
reductions. We have solid economic and scientific research
already under way and partially completed that could be used to
back up this position.
To address the doubt expressed by other countries concerning the
sincerity of our commitment on the climate change issue, we may
wish to consider signals that would show the U.S. commitment to
act. Indeed, we are already taking steps--albeit steps justified
for other reasons such as energy security, clean air and other
8
environmental concerns--that address climate issues and that can
be used to improve the U.S. bargaining position. (Question 3 sets
forth a specific proposal in this regard).
Pros:
O
This strategy highlights steps already taken that
demonstrate U.S. leadership, and underscores the prudence of
the U.S. approach for addressing global climate change.
The positions outlined are consistent with past U.S.
negotiations on the issue.
The strategy emphasizes the importance of reliable
scientific and economic research as the basis of any action.
Avoiding specific commitments on timetables and levels of
reduction until subsequent protocols provides more time to
gather the scientific and economic data necessary to make
informed decisions.
O
The approach is supported by some other countries (including
Canada and some developing countries) and by some
environmental leaders.
Cons:
O
This strategy may be considered a delaying tactic by other
countries, by environmental groups and by the media.
If our position is seen as too obstructionist, it may reduce
our negotiating leverage on this issue.
The media is likely to continue its criticism of the
Administration on this issue.
QUESTION 2:
Should U.S. negotiators press other nations to
adopt the "comprehensive approach" in the
Framework Convention?
Over the past year, the U.S. has actively promoted a
"comprehensive approach" to greenhouse gases. Under this
approach, all gases would be placed on an equal footing based on
a scientifically determined "greenhouse potential index" an
index taking into account the intrinsic molecular greenhouse
efficiency of each gas, its average residence time in the
atmosphere and other relevant considerations.
This approach is preferable because: (1) other gases than carbon
dioxide are greenhouse gases, some of which are less costly to
9
regulate (such as CFC's); (2) it would ensure that developing
nations contribute to the international effort; (3) it lays the
groundwork for a market approach (nationally and internationally)
to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost; (4) it avoids
problems inherent in attempting to develop individual protocols
for each greenhouse gas, and (5) it focuses attention on the
potential for expanding sinks that sequester greenhouse gas
emissions.
Pros:
Promotes an innovative approach to the issue of climate
change enhances U.S. leadership in the negotiations.
Moves the climate change issue away from a narrow focus on
carbon dioxide which places a disproportionate burden on
energy and transportation sectors of the economy.
It is a more valid approach, from a scientific perspective,
than other approaches.
Focussing on the total picture, including both sinks and
sources, increases the flexibility of efforts to limit the
effects of greenhouse gases.
Cons:
Some countries may portray our strong support for this
approach as a ploy for avoiding the reduction of carbon
dioxide.
May involve measurement requirements too sophisticated for
some countries to handle.
Scientific uncertainties regarding characteristics and
behavior of some of the gases make it difficult to calculate
exactly comparable indices at this time.
Methods for monitoring and reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases from sources such as forestry, bovine animals, and
pipelines are still being developed.
May become a tactical bargaining chip that could be used to
pressure the U.S. into accepting targets and timetables.
QUESTION 3:
Should a document be released at the first
negotiating session outlining U.S. accomplishments
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Although we have opposed specific timetables and targets for
reducing emissions, the U.S. has already taken steps that address
10
the possibility of global climate change, such as the global
change research program, the Clean Air Act, phasing out CFC's,
and the tree initiative. In fact our efforts are unmatched by
any other country. Nevertheless, the U.S. was portrayed as anti-
environment at earlier climate change conferences principally
because of our lack, to date, of initiatives in the energy
sector. This situation might change if attention is directed to
our achievements. For this reason, we are developing a
publication to highlight U.S. accomplishments which could be
distributed at the first negotiating session.
The document could be framed as a U.S. "Action Plan" on climate
change. While it would be comprised of steps already approved or
on their way to being implemented, it is important not to frame
the document solely as an "accomplishments" brochure, lest there
be an attempt to discount actions already taken in order to press
for future commitments. Similar brochures have been prepared and
distributed by other countries at past conferences. A draft for
such a document is attached in Appendix B.
Pros:
The concrete steps taken by the U.S. compare well with the
largely rhetorical policy pursued by critics of the
Administration.
A quality document would demonstrate our rigorous interest
in the global climate change issue without breaking new
policy ground.
The U.S. would no longer be the only country without an
"Action Plan."
Cons:
Could become the focus of a negative campaign by being
portrayed as papering over the U.S. unwillingness to make
new international commitments.
May raise questions about why the U.S. still refuses to
endorse targets and timetables--if the U.S. is so close to
achieving targets others only talk about, why does it
continue to resist targets?
Could provide fodder for manipulation by countries or
interest groups with opposing views of the United States.
Attachments
Appendix A
Country Targets and Timetables
Australia
Cabinet announced target 11 October of stabilizing CO2,
CH4, N20 at 1988 levels by 2000, reducing 20 percent by
2005, provided no net adverse effect on Australian
competitiveness if other major developed nations do not take
similar actions.
Austria
Urged at February IPCC plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize by 2000 as first step; no specific
domestic target set.
Belgium
Said at IEA meeting in July that it had begun taking
actions that would lower emissions, but had not yet
conducted the analysis necessary to justify establishing a
target. Supported US position at Bergen.
Brazil
President Collor noted in June World Environment Day
speech the need for specific commitments for the
stabilization and reductions of CO2 emissions per capita.
He implied, but did not explicitly state, that he was
referring foremost to the fossil fuel emissions of developed
countries.
Canada
Pledged in June to stabilize CO2 at 1988 levels by
2005.
China
Strongly implies that it favors targets for developed
countries, opposes them for LDCs. Projects substantial CO2
emissions growth.
Denmark
National energy plan calls for 20 percent CO2 reduction
by 2005.
EC Commission
Favors stabilization -of CO2 at 1990 levels by year
2000, significant reduction by 2005.
Finland
Urged at IPCC February plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize by year 2000 as first step, no specific
domestic target set.
France
Proposed in September a three-tiered global strategy to
converge per capita CO2 emissions rates by early 21st
century. Under this plan, France would stabilize its
emissions at or below 2.0 tons per capita by 2000 (up to a
10 percent increase from current levels), provided that
other major industrialized countries agree to stabilize
their emissions.
Germany
Cabinet announced in June non-binding commitment to
reduce CO2 emissions 25 percent from 1987 levels in former
West German area by 2005.
India
Opposes targets for developing countries.
Israel
Opposes targets.
Italy
Supports stabilization of CO2 at 1990 levels by 2000 as
part of EC-wide initiative. No domestic target set.
Japan
Announced action plan 19 October to stabilize CO2
emissions per capita at 1990 levels by 2000. Methane
emissions will also be capped at current levels. Gross CO2,
N20, and other greenhouse gas emissions will be stabilized
by 2000 if feasible.
Malta
Supports targets and timetables; no domestic target
set.
Mexico
Appreciates unilateral commitments by industrialized
countries to stabilize emissions by 2000. Believes
obligations should be equitably differentiated according to
countries' respective responsibilities for causing and
combatting climate change and their level of development.
Netherlands
Parliament passed in September revised National
Environmental Policy Plan, calling for stabilization of CO2
emissions at 1989-90 average by 1994-95, 3 to 5 percent
reduction by 2000. Government officials describe commitment
as binding.
New Zealand
Environment minister announced plans in September to
reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2005.
Norway
National goal is stabilization at 1987 levels by 2000,
provided other countries take similar actions.
Portugal
Opposes targets.
Saudi Arabia
Favors stabilization by 2000 target for industrialized
countries; no domestic target set.
Spain
Would support EC stabilization target if scaled to
current per capita emissions so as to be equitable among EC
members.
Sweden
Parliamentary mandate to stabilize CO2 at 1988 levels.
Supported call at IPCC February plenary for stabilization by
2000.
Switzerland
Urged at IPCC February plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize emissions by year 2000 as first step; no
domestic target set.
United Kingdom
Prime Minister Thatcher announced in May that the UK
would enact a strategy to achieve a stabilization of CO2
emissions at 1990 levels by 2005, provided other major
industrialized countries take similar steps.
USSR
Opposes targets.
Venezuela
Opposes targets.
Note: Only the government of the Netherlands describes its
target as binding.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 21, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR EDE HOLIDAY
FROM:
RICHARD W. PORTER RWP
SUBJECT:
Climate Change Review Process
The final draft of the proposed DPC options paper for the
Framework Convention on Climate Change is attached. Appendix B,
the proposed brochure highlighting the Bush Administration Action
plan, is not attached -- the latest draft is due back Tuesday
morning.
A few thoughts on where we go from here:
o
Bob Grady deserves a great deal of credit for taking the
initiative to produce what appears to be a really bang-up
presentation of the Administration's plans for action.
O
Now that a good draft has been pulled together, it needs to
be cleared by the following agencies -- and should be cleared
in conjunction with the DPC paper:
-- Department of State
-- Department of Energy
-- OMB (Director Darman)
-- CEA
-- OPD
-- OSTP
-- EPA
-- Interior and Agriculture both have an interest, but if
the Governor expresses an interest in limiting
circulation or involvement in later discussions, they
could be omitted.
Before circulating the DPC paper (with the brochure) and
running the risk that it will leaked, it may be wise to have
the Governor look at the DPC paper and approve the process.
o
After this draft is approved, I propose circulating it (with
a draft of the brochure attached) to the interested agencies
only for written comment from the principal by COB Wednesday.
After summarizing the comments to the Governor, we could have
a small meeting in his office for final approval by Friday
afternoon.
O
The brochure must be completed and sent to the printer by
Friday afternoon.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DRAFT
January 21, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
FROM:
The Global Change Working Group
SUBJECT:
Framework Convention on Climate Change
ISSUE:
Negotiators representing the United States at the first
negotiating session of the Framework Convention on Climate Change
on February 4, 1991 require guidance on three issues:
(1) Aspects of the strategy U.S. representatives should
follow during the negotiations;
(2) Whether we should press other nations to adopt the
"comprehensive approach;" and
(3) Whether a document outlining U.S. accomplishments
should be released at the first negotiating session.
BACKGROUND:
1.
The General Situation.
Formal negotiations on a framework convention will take place,
over the next 18 month, under auspices of the United Nations
General Assembly. The purpose of the Convention will be to
establish an institutional basis for international cooperation in
the conduct of scientific research, and in the exchange of
information on global climate change. It will also provide the
legal and logistical structure for any future protocols or
annexes containing specific commitments. The Convention is
expected to be ready for signing at the June 1992 U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development in Brazil.
President Bush has invited other nations to meet in Washington
for the first negotiating session. This is scheduled to take
place February 4 to 14, 1991. The first negotiating session will
focus on organizational and procedural issues. This paper
provides background on the question of climate change and
addresses three issues that need to be considered prior to the
negotiations.
2.
Previous International Action.
The World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme set up the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in 1987 as a vehicle to assess scientific
2
information pertaining to climate change, impacts of such change,
and possible strategies to assist in responding to potential
changes. The U.S. participated in and endorsed the activities of
the IPCC.
At the Second World Climate Conference in November 1990, the IPCC
adopted an interim report. This report addressed four major
areas of climate change: (1) research; (2) the impacts of
potential change; (3) response strategies; and (4) legal measures
to implement response strategies, including possible elements of
a framework convention on climate change. This report forms the
basis for the negotiations on a framework convention on climate
change.
The Second World Climate Conference agreed that the scientific
conclusions set out by the IPCC reflect the international
consensus of scientific understanding of climate change,
including these key points:
O
"Emissions resulting from human activities are
substantially increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. These increases will enhance the
natural greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an
additional warming of the Earth's surface."
O
"Without actions to reduce emissions, global warming is
predicted to reach 2 to 5 degrees C over the next
century, a rate of change unprecedented in the past
10,000 years."
"The warming is expected to be accompanied by a sea
level rise of 65 cm (+/- 35 cm) by the end of the next
century."
O
There are substantial scientific uncertainties in the
details of climate change. To narrow the
uncertainties, research is being conducted in high
priority areas, such as oceans, clouds, carbon cycle,
polar ice sheet, and sea ice.
Some policy makers do not share the certainty reflected by the
predictions published in the IPCC report, because of the
unsettled state of the scientific analysis.
3.
The Science of Climate Change.
Studies show that concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased. However, the causes of this increase--including both
natural and human factors, as well as the way these may affect
regional climate patterns and the earth's temperature regulation
process--continue to be unclear. Certain gases, such as carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chloroflurocarbons (CFC's),
3
increase the retention of heat in the atmosphere. Natural
processes are responsible for twenty times the amount of
greenhouse gas fluctuations than those caused by human
activities. Nevertheless, significant changes in atmospheric
concentrations are being caused by human-related activities,
largely reflecting increases in industrialization.
The earth adapts to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations
through a complex system that naturally regulates global
temperatures. One result of this natural regulatory process may
be changing climate patterns and higher average temperatures.
This system is not only affected by "sources" of greenhouse gas
emissions, but also by "sinks" that sequester concentrations of
these gases. The system also includes the radiation of energy
into space.
Although scientific research on the relation between the emission
of greenhouse gases and climate change has focussed on global
warming, this is only one of several interrelated climate
phenomena that may be affected by such emissions. Other climate
phenomena that may be affected include the patterns and amounts
of precipitation, the patterns and severity of storms, as well as
the mean sea level. Each of these climate phenomena involve
significant fluctuations in temperature over wide regions of the
earth's surface. It is important to note that the effects of
climate change may vary by region. Changes in temperature and
precipitation may cause adverse effects in some areas of the
world while resulting in beneficial effects in other areas.
Computer models have been developed to predict the effects on
climate of different concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Nevertheless, these computer models are not yet able to reflect
the natural system of temperature regulation with much accuracy.
As a result, scientists are not able to agree on the magnitude,
spatial distribution, and timing of any climate changes caused by
increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and the effect of
natural mitigating factors. The computer models are particularly
poor guides to regional variations of climate changes. These
changes are the basis upon which economic impact studies are
made, and are key to the development of responsible policy
decisions.
4.
The Economics of Climate Change.
Economic studies compare the costs of reducing emissions to the
costs of not acting. The costs of not acting do not translate
directly into the possible benefits of reducing emissions. For
example, the limitation of emissions proposed by some countries
would reduce natural and human emissions only slightly and would
therefore have only a minor effect on climate processes.
Economic studies of climate change issues have only just begun
4
and little is yet known. For example, there are few quantitative
analyses of the cost of sea level rise. Nor has there been much
study of the impact that future climate changes may have on the
agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, which are sensitive
to climate variations. These industries amount to only 3 percent
of the U.S. GNP, but they represent a much larger part of the
economies of developing nations.
Studies based on historical data regarding carbon dioxide
emissions suggest that stabilization or small reductions would
impose costs on the order of 1 percent of GNP for industrialized
countries by the turn of the century and that those costs would
rise over time. Other studies based on analyses of particular
technologies suggest that, in principle at least, costs could be
more modest. Advances in technology could lower baseline
emissions, costs of reduction, and the tendency of costs to rise
over time.
5. Energy Issues in Climate Change.
Even though human activities cause only a fraction of greenhouse
gas emissions, international talks have focused on reducing man-
made emissions, especially emissions from the use of fossil fuel.
The U.S. produced almost 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels in 1988. This was about 25 percent of all man-made
carbon dioxide emissions world-wide and has drawn criticism from
other countries despite our positive record on overall greenhouse
gas emission control.
THE CLIMATE CONVENTION NEGOTIATIONS:
A framework convention establishes general obligations and
procedures for carrying out these obligations. Specific
commitments are usually included in subsequent annexes or
protocols to a convention. Nevertheless, several countries are
pressing to include specific obligations for targets and
timetables for stabilizing emissions of certain gases in the
convention or in protocols negotiated simultaneously with the
convention.
We have taken the position that such commitments are premature
and should be negotiated after signing of a framework convention.
Even then commitments should be made only if analyses demonstrate
that they are necessary and will result in net benefits. We may
have to reconsider our position if other countries fail to
support us.
1.
The Process.
The climate change negotiations will be carried out through a
forum provided by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee,
serviced by a United Nations Secretariat. Following the first
5
session here in Washington, most of the negotiating sessions will
be held at U.N. facilities in Geneva, with one or possibly more
sessions in Nairobi. Sessions will be one to two weeks in
length, and will be held every three or four months through 1991.
Sessions will be scheduled as needed in 1992. Jean Ripert of
France is likely to be elected to chair the negotiations.
2. The U.S. Delegation.
The U.S. delegation for the first session will be headed by
Curtis "Buff" Bohlen, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. The
alternate head of delegation will be Robert A. Reinstein, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. Reinstein will function as negotiator for this and
subsequent sessions. The negotiating team is expected to include
12-15 representatives of the agencies with relevant energy,
environmental, scientific and economic expertise and interest in
this issue. Federal government agency involvement with the
framework convention is being coordinated by the Department of
State. White House coordination of the negotiations is being
provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
3. Agenda for the First Session.
Although a draft agenda has not yet been circulated by the U.N.
Secretariat, the following work-plan is anticipated for the nine-
day session:
Organizational matters (1 day);
Initial country statements (2 days);
Establishment of subgroups and preparation of
the legal negotiating text (5 days) and
Other matters such as defining the
relationship between the IPCC and these talks
(1 day).
Countries will propose text they wish to see included in the
convention. Language not agreed to by all the parties will be
bracketed. Little attempt will be made to resolve differences
about the text during the first session.
The U.S. will propose several non-controversial provisions,
particularly in the area of scientific and economic research and
cooperation. More importantly, as discussed in question 2 below,
the U.S. will seek to convince other countries that they should
adopt the comprehensive approach in the text of the framework
agreement.
A summary of other countries' positions on the global change
issue and their approach to the framework convention negotiations
is attached in Appendix A.
6
4.
Elements for Possible Inclusion in the Framework Convention.
In addition to the non-controversial elements of the framework
convention which were identified by the IPCC, we expect several
controversial elements to be proposed as well.
-- Targets and Timetables: Several countries will try to
force a debate about targets and timetables for reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from the burning of fossil fuels, over the next 18 months. All
other OECD countries, except Turkey, have made statements arguing
that such obligations should be undertaken now, either as part of
the convention itself or in protocols negotiated simultaneously
with the convention.
-- The Precautionary Principle: Many countries will suggest
including an article on the so-called "Precautionary Principle"
in the framework convention. There is, however, no definition of
this principle that is universally accepted. Some have described
it as merely a statement reiterating the need to prevent
pollution. Others have taken the position that it requires
affirmative proof that an activity will not harm the environment
before it can be undertaken.
-- Financial assistance: Consistent with the Houston
Economic Declaration, a general commitment to promote financial
assistance for developing countries will be negotiated in the
framework convention. Developing countries will undoubtedly
propose that this include a commitment to provide "new and
additional" funding, a commitment that we oppose. The United
States will argue that the newly established Global Environmental
Facility in the World Bank is the appropriate mechanism through
which any multilateral assistance should be processed.
-- Development and transfer of technology: The developing
countries have often called for technology transfer on a
"preferential and noncommercial basis." Although this language
raises the problem of protection of intellectual property rights,
there is a wide range of technologies for which this issue does
not arise. U.S. negotiators intend to highlight the value of
existing cooperation programs.
QUESTION 1:
Should the following strategy be adopted to guide
U.S. representatives at the first negotiation
session?
1.
Propose specific language on scientific cooperation and
monitoring consistent with the comprehensive approach.
2.
Oppose specific targets and timetables for greenhouse
gas emission reduction--particularly carbon dioxide.
3.
Oppose general statements of the "Precautionary
7
Principle."
4.
Oppose commitment to new and additional financial
assistance.
5.
Explore ways of promoting technology transfer that will
be advantageous to the U.S., taking full account of
market forces and the protection of intellectual
property rights.
Over the past year, the U.S. has taken a prudent approach to the
climate change issue. Other countries have been willing to
commit themselves to specific targets and timetables for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions with little regard for either the cost
or the lack of information necessary to craft an effective plan.
Some will argue that the U.S. enters these negotiations in an
isolated position, alleging that it is the only major developed
country that has not committed itself to a timetable for
achieving specific greenhouse gas reductions. To buttress our
prudent approach, we will therefore need to have a well-defined
negotiating plan to take to the table in February.
The U.S. can bolster its position on targets and timetables by
pointing out the scientific uncertainties as well as the likely
costs, administrative complexities, and possible trade problems
that could arise from the imposition of large taxes on the carbon
content of fossil fuels--the primary means for achieving major
reductions). We have solid economic and scientific research
already under way and partially completed that could be used to
back up this position.
To address the doubt expressed by other countries concerning the
sincerity of our commitment in the climate change issue, we may
wish to consider signals that would show the U.S. commitment to
act. Indeed, we are already taking steps--albeit steps justified
for other reasons such as energy security, clean air and other
proven environmental concerns--that address climate issues and
that can be used to improve the U.S. bargaining position.
Pros:
O
This strategy underscores U.S. leadership in addressing
global climate change.
The positions outlined are consistent with past U.S.
negotiations on the issue.
O
The strategy emphasizes the importance of reliable
scientific and economic research as the basis of any action.
O
Avoiding specific commitments on timetables and levels of
reduction until subsequent protocols provides more time to
gather the scientific and economic data necessary to make
8
informed decisions.
The approach is supported by some other countries (including
Canada and some developing countries) and by some
environmental leaders.
Cons:
O
This strategy may be considered a delaying tactic by other
countries, by environmental groups and by the media.
If our position is seen as too passive, it may reduce our
leadership position on this issue.
O
The media is likely to continue its criticism of the
Administration on this issue.
QUESTION 2:
Should U.S. negotiators press other nations to
adopt the "comprehensive approach" in the
Framework Convention?
Over the past year, the U.S. has actively promoted a
"comprehensive approach" to greenhouse gases. Under this
approach, all gases would be placed on an equal footing based on
a scientifically determined "greenhouse potential index" an
index taking into account the intrinsic molecular greenhouse
efficiency of each gas, its average residence time in the
atmosphere and other relevant considerations.
This approach is preferable because: (1) other gases than carbon
dioxide are greenhouse gases, some of which are less costly to
regulate (such as CFC's); (2) it would encourage developing
nations to contribute to limiting the emission of greenhouse
gases; (3) it lays the groundwork for a market approach
(nationally and internationally) to maximize emission reductions
at the lowest possible cost; (4) it avoids problems inherent in
attempting to develop individual protocols for each greenhouse
gas, and (5) it focuses attention on the potential for expanding
sinks that sequester greenhouse gas emissions.
Pros:
o
Promoting an innovative approach to the issue of climate
change enhances U.S. leadership in the negotiations.
O
Moves the climate change issue away from a narrow focus on
carbon dioxide that places a disproportionate burden on
energy and transportation sectors of the economy.
O
It is more scientifically valid than other approaches.
9
Focussing on the total picture, including both sinks and
sources, increases the flexibility of efforts to limit the
effects of greenhouse gases.
Cons:
O
Some countries may portray our strong support for this
approach as a ploy for avoiding the reduction of carbon
dioxide.
May be considered too complicated for some countries to
implement.
Scientific uncertainties regarding characteristics and
behavior of some of the gases make it difficult to calculate
exactly comparable indices at this time.
Methods for monitoring and reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases from sources such as forestry, bovine animals, and
pipelines are still being developed.
QUESTION 3:
Should a document be released at the first
negotiating session outlining U.S. accomplishments
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Although we have opposed specific timetables and targets for
reducing emissions, the U.S. has already taken steps that address
the possibility of global climate change, such as the global
change research program, the Clean Air Act, phasing out CFC's,
and the tree initiative. In fact our efforts are unmatched by
any other country. Nevertheless, the U.S. has been portrayed as
anti-environment at earlier climate change conferences. This
situation might change if attention is directed to our
achievements. For this reason, we are developing a publication
to highlight U.S. accomplishments which could be distributed at
the first negotiating session.
The document could be framed as a U.S. "Action Plan" on climate
change. While it would be comprised of steps already approved or
on their way to being implemented, it is important not to frame
the document solely as an "accomplishments" brochure, lest there
be an attempt to discount actions already taken in order to press
for future commitments. Similar brochures have been prepared and
distributed by other countries at past conferences. A draft for
such a document is attached in Appendix B.
Pros:
O
The concrete steps taken by the U.S. compares well with the
largely rhetorical policy pursued by critics of the
Administration, both at home and abroad.
10
O
A quality document would demonstrate our interest in the
global climate change issue without breaking new policy
ground.
O
The U.S. would no longer be the only country without an
"Action Plan."
Cons:
O
Could become the focus of a negative campaign by being
portrayed as papering over the U.S. unwillingness to make
international commitments.
O
May raise questions about why the U.S. still refuses to
endorse targets and timetables--if the U.S. is so close to
achieving targets others only talk about, why does it
continue to resist targets?
O
Could provide fodder for manipulation by countries or
interest groups with opposing views of the United States.
Attachments
Appendix A
POSITIONS ON CO₂ EMISSION TARGETS
Bose Year
(when specified)
Stabilization by 1995:
Netherlands
1989-90
Stabilization by 2000:
Australia
1988
Austrio
EC Commission
1990
Finland
Italy
1990
Japan
1990
Norway
1987
Sweden
1988
Switzerland
Stabilization at ~ 10% over
current levels by 2000:
France
Stabilization by 2005:
Canada
1988
United Kingdom
1990
3-5% reduction by 2000:
Netherlands
1989-90
20% reduction by 2005:
Australia
1988
Denmark
New Zealand
1990
25% reduction by 2005:
Germany
1987
Support targets for Industrialized countries,
weaker or no targets for LDCs:
Brazil
China
India
Malta
Mexico
Soudi Arabia
Opposs targets:
Isroel
USSR
Venezuela
Country Targets and Timetables
Australia
Cabinet announced target 11 October of stabilizing CO2,
CH4, N20 at 1988 levels by 2000, reducing 20 percent by
2005, provided no net adverse effect on Australian
competitiveness if other major developed nations do not take
similar actions.
Austria
Urged at February IPCC plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize by 2000 as first step; no specific
domestic target set.
Belgium
Said at IEA meeting in July that it had begun taking
actions that would lower emissions, but had not yet
conducted the analysis necessary to justify establishing a
target. Supported US position at Bergen.
Brazil
President Collor noted in June World Environment Day
speech the need for specific commitments for the
stabilization and reductions of CO2 emissions per capita.
He implied, but did not explicitly state, that he was
referring foremost to the fossil fuel emissions of developed
countries.
Canada
Pledged in June to stabilize CO2 at 1988 levels by
2005.
China
Strongly implies that it favors targets for developed
countries, opposes them for LDCs. Projects substantial CO2
emissions growth.
Denmark
National energy plan calls for 20 percent CO2 reduction
by 2005.
EC Commission
Favors stabilization -of CO2 at 1990 levels by year
2000, significant reduction by 2005.
Finland
Urged at IPCC February plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize by year 2000 as first step, no specific
domestic target set.
France
Proposed in September a three-tiered global strategy to
converge per capita CO2 emissions rates by early 21st
century. Under this plan, France would stabilize its
emissions at or below 2.0 tons per capita by 2000 (up to a
10 percent increase from current levels), provided that
other major industrialized countries agree to stabilize
their emissions.
Germany
Cabinet announced in June non-binding commitment to
reduce CO2 emissions 25 percent from 1987 levels in former
West German area by 2005.
India
Opposes targets for developing countries.
Israel
Opposes targets.
Italy
Supports stabilization of CO2 at 1990 levels by 2000 as
part of EC-wide initiative. No domestic target set.
Japan
Announced action plan 19 October to stabilize CO2
emissions per capita at 1990 levels by 2000. Methane
emissions will also be capped at current levels. Gross CO2,
N20, and other greenhouse gas emissions will be stabilized
by 2000 if feasible.
Malta
Supports targets and timetables; no domestic target
set.
Mexico
Appreciates unilateral commitments by industrialized
countries to stabilize emissions by 2000. Believes
obligations should be equitably differentiated according to
countries' respective responsibilities for causing and
combatting climate change and their level of development.
Netherlands
Parliament passed in September revised National
Environmental Policy Plan, calling for stabilization of CO2
emissions at 1989-90 average by 1994-95, 3 to 5 percent
reduction by 2000. Government officials describe commitment
as binding.
New Zealand
Environment minister announced plans in September to
reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2005.
Norway
National goal is stabilization at 1987 levels by 2000,
provided other countries take similar actions.
Portugal
Opposes targets.
Saudi Arabia
Favors stabilization by 2000 target for industrialized
countries; no domestic target set.
Spain
Would support EC stabilization target if scaled to
current per capita emissions so as to be equitable among EC
members.
Sweden
Parliamentary mandate to stabilize CO2 at 1988 levels.
Supported call at IPCC February plenary for stabilization by
2000.
Switzerland
Urged at IPCC February plenary that industrialized
countries stabilize emissions by year 2000 as first step; no
domestic target set.
United Kingdom
Prime Minister Thatcher announced in May that the UK
would enact a strategy to achieve a stabilization of CO2
emissions at 1990 levels by 2005, provided other major
industrialized countries take similar steps.
USSR
Opposes targets.
Venezuela
Opposes targets.
Note: Only the government of the Netherlands describes its
target as binding.