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
225358369
label
GlCC [Global Climate Change] Public Outreach Reaction
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
225358369
contentType
document
title
GlCC [Global Climate Change] Public Outreach Reaction
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
225358369
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4739346-20171095F-005-005-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e33881923eada7ba
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:
13726
FolderID:
Folder Title:
GICC [Global Climate Change] Public Outreach Reaction
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
20
5
1
1
(202) 785-0507
FAX: (202) 785-0514
!!!!!
06
Michael L. Marvin
Executive Director
The
Business Council
1200 18th Street, NW
for
Ninth Floor
Sustainable
Washington DC 20036
Energy
[email protected]
Exxon Urges Developing Nations to Shun
Environmental Curbs Hindering Growth
By IAN JOHNSON
tion, they would still be affected because
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
developed countries would have slower
BEIJING - The chairman of Exxon
economic growth and import less. Mr.
Corp., the world's biggest oil company.
Raymond said. He called on Asian coun-
urged developing countries to avoid envi-
tries to fight emission limitations for at
ronmental controls that would hinder their
least another-20 years until the process of
development. Otherwise. he said. they risk
climate change is better understood.
losing foreign investment.
While Mr. Raymond's comments re-
Lee R. Raymond's warning to dele-
flect the stance of the American Petroleum
gates of the 15th World Petroleum Con-
Institute, a major U.S. oil-industry lobby-
gress was in stark contrast to the views of
ing group that he heads, there are dis-
some governments and many companies
senters in the industry. In a May speech,
in the run-up to an international confer-
British Petroleum PLC's chief executive
ence on global warming in Kyoto. Japan.
officer, John Browne. said, "The time to
in December.
consider policy dimensions of climate
Mr. Raymond said developing coun-
change is not when the link between
tries need "rational" environmental stan-
greenhouse gases and climate change is
dards. not those based on the premise that
conclusively proven, but when the possibil-
the world's climate is warming and that
ity cannot be discounted and is taken
fossil fuels are partly to blame. If the
seriously by the society of which we are
December meeting results in tougher envi-
part.
ronmental laws. then energy may be ra-
However, Mr. Raymond warned that if
tioned. he warned.
too much emphasis is put on environmen-
Urging developing countries to in-
tal rules that cost investors money, oil
crease. not curtail, their use of fossil fuels,
multinationals can always invest else-
Mr. Raymond said nature was to blame for
where. "Competition among countries
most global warming. Besides. he said, the
eager to develop petroleum reserves is at
earth's temperature often changes. "The
an all-time high," he said, and nations
ice ages are a good example, he added.
need to offer tax concessions as well as
Even if developing countries are ex-
"rational environmental standards" to
cluded from requirements to curb pollu-
lure businesses to invest.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
The Kyoto Protocol:
a painful response
S
While most Americans focus on the
estimates. EIA examined six emission re-
11
t
here and now-election results; foot-
duction scenarios and concluded that as
ball scores-longer-term issues bear
higher energy costs work their way through the
n
watching because they ultimately can affect
economy, the annual loss in GDP could range
y
the here and now. One such issue is climate,
1-
from $150 billion to $400 billion. That trans-
a
change.
lates to an annual cost of $1,500 to $4,000
V,
Mobil is concerned about the potential
per family.
y
as
for human activities to affect climate. That's
The Administration's Council of Eco-
why we support voluntary efforts to reduce
nomic Advisors (CEA) estimates the annual
emissions. The Kyoto Protocol has been billed
GDP penalty at $7 billion-$12 billion, or a cost
as a solution. It isn't the right one. It only
per household of $70-$110. Why this rosy pic-
focuses on emissions in developed countries,
ture? Because the CEA is counting on the U.S.
will only minimally reduce the amount of green-
being able to meet most of its target by relying
house gases in the atmosphere and will pro-
on a global emissions trading system. Yet, the
duce major economic distortions in the U.S.
Kyoto Protocol limits emissions trading to the
and elsewhere.
developed countries.
et-
Credible private-sector studies have de-
While emerging economies probably offer
tailed Kyoto's potential economic effects. And
opportunities to reduce emissions at lower
the
ad-
now, a U.S. government report provides fur-
costs than in the U.S., some nations like China
eral
ther evidence of what to expect.
and India have said they are unwilling to par-
ing.
Earlier this year, analyses by WEFA, Inc.,
ticipate in such schemes.
nify-
und
and Standard & Poor's DRI concluded that
Just 15 months ago, the U.S. Senate
uca-
the only way the U.S. could meet the Kyoto-
voiced its concerns over ratifying a treaty that
alth
mandated emissions target is to significantly
would cause serious harm to the U.S. econ-
hich
veen
increase energy prices, force conservation
omy or that did not include participation by
easi-
and promote fuel switching-all at consider-
developing nations. Those concerns still have
able cost.
not been satisfied.
esn't
Schu-
WEFA estimates the cost of achieving the
This week, negotiators are meeting in
idea
Kyoto target by 2010 would result in a loss of
Buenos Aires to discuss the complex rules to
aisle
and
2.4 million jobs, a doubling of electricity prices
implement the Kyoto Agreement. Emissions
and an annual loss in economic output of $300
trading is certain to be on the agenda. Serious
Schu-
billion-an amount greater than our nation's
differences already exist on the percentage of
2 21st
expenditures for primary and secondary edu-
reductions that should come from domestic
using
that
cation. Ditto DRI's conclusions: job losses of
actions rather than trading. The U.S. would
can-
more than one million, an increase in electricity
argue for no restrictions; the European Union
be-
geo-
prices of nearly 40 percent and a decline in
wants at least 50 percent of the reductions to
GDP of roughly $100 billion.
come from domestic steps.
I for
Now the U.S. Department of Energy's
While complex mechanics continue to be
lose
out.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) re-
worked, the fatal flaws of the Protocol-man-
far
ports the mandated emissions cap could
dated emissions targets, selective participation
S a
cost the U.S. far more than the Administration
and economic distortions-still persist.
the
es,
'St
li-
10
e,
Mobil
The energy
to make a difference.
PHOTOCOPY
d
PRESERVATION
it
1
http://www.mobil.com
1998 Mobil
octreach
TS J Divk F
Mtd. with cor
July
alum, steel, forest power. cement
Agreemt to .e inventory D movitory system
le audit of proctices
Stakwi of initial teutative streach goal reduct 2010
0 actr dan 10 achieve
Aluminum
Baul o'Neill
have a 'r of PFGThey are vllg to redup
STretch goil 0 emissur (O₂
Sreel
Jul. 16
Forest Products weyerhanser, Baselalcade,
Concrete - DATH
- yet 'setter mkt acceptance at blended cemens
chemicals
Gos sipelines
Airlines
Electronics
3/8/97
PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
KEY OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC MEETING
Messages We Must Communicate
1.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVER.
The best scientific evidence available suggests that global warming is a real environmental problem that
requires serious attention. Inaction poses unacceptable risks.
2.
THE ECONOMIC PICTURE EMERGES
Our economic analysis is complete. It shows that we can afford to adopt a reasonable, market based solution.
It confirms that our protocol approach is grounded in solid economics, and it points the way to a domestic
policy approach that will achieve environmental gains and a robust economy.
Our analysis confirms the following:
Inflexible policies are right to be rejected: they are too costly. The global community cannot afford to
waste the limited capital available on inefficient control investments.
Flexible policies deserve our support: they are the most cost effective. This approach targets the
limited capital available to the most good it can do.
Rational timing and international offsets offer the best chance for a reasonable transition in
greenhouse gas performance of carbon-dependent sectors of our economy -- delivering the fairest and
best results for American industry and workers.
The entire international community will benefit from emissions trading flexibility as much as the U.S.
There is a vast market on the horizon for advanced technologies -- whether efficiency, renewables,
natural gas or clean coal technologies.
The potential impacts of inaction -- from more storms, health and agriculture impacts -- require a
prudent insurance policy in the form of serious action.
3.
DOMESTIC POLICY DESIGN PLANS
Opportunity. The greenhouse gas reduction market will be hungry for advanced technology, and America
intends to take the lead in this new market. We are launching a new domestic policy development effort that
will include designing a strategic public-private partnership to research, develop and deploy improved
technologiesfor winning in this growth market.
Fairness. Our domestic implementation plan will also include an emissions trading program that will strike a
fair and efficient balance of responsibility for all those contributing to the rising greenhouse gas emissions
problem. It will allow the private sector the flexibility to invest in response strategies that achieve reductions at
the least cost.
Workers. Our cost effective approach will ensure that the fewest workers are adversely effected -- and we
will work with American business and labor unions to construct a workforce and community transition effort to
ensure a viable economic future for any American worker losing work from the changes coming under our
climate strategy. We will make every effort to connect any job losses with emerging opportunities in
manufacturing advanced technologies.
Next Steps. Over the next several weeks, we will convene small groups to focus on specific sector interests
and concerns. Our initial sectoral analysis is open for consultation, as are our policy design alternatives. In
each sector session over the next month, we will consult panels of experts in discussions of potential impacts,
mitigation options, research and development alternatives and workforce transition programs.
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Mid-June Climate Change Meetings:
Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Overall Schedule:
1.
Press Backgrounders (day before)
2.
Pre-briefs (as necessary)
3.
Public Meeting/Draft Report Release (Mellon Auditorium, 1 day)
4.
Hill Staff Briefings/Draft Reports (House, Senate, 1/2 day each, day after)
5.
Sector-Based Meetings (Set up a series over the next month)
6.
Other post-briefs (take advantage of key opportunities)
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Draft Report for Public Review
Table of Contents:
1.
Welcome from Katie McGinty and Dan Tarullo
(lead author: Steve Seidel)
2.
Executive Summary
(lead authors: David Gardiner, Alex Cristofaro, Mark Chupka)
3.
Scientific Basis for Action
(lead author: Jerry Melillo)
4.
Economic Analysis of Emissions Scenarios
(lead author: Ev Ehrlich)
5.
Economic Sector Implications
(lead authors: Jeffrey Hunker, Judi Greenwald)
6.
Domestic Policy Responses For Consideration
(lead authors: Joe Romm, Ed Montgomery, David Gardiner)
7.
Next Steps: Process for Consultation
(lead author: Dirk Forrister)
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Schedule for document clearance: Chapters 1,3, 6, 7 -- 2 days grace for
2,4,5
Draft 1 Due: 5/13 COB
Draft 1 Circulated: 5/14
Comments Due: 5/19 COB
Final Drafts Circulated: 5/21 COB
Final Concurrence Due: 5/23
Week of 5/26: Duplication And Compilation
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Public Meeting Schedule:
TIME
SUBJECT
PRESENTERS
9:00 - 9:15
Welcome
Katie McGinty/Dan
AM
Tarullo
9:15 - 9:45
Scientific Basis for Action:
Jack Gibbons
AM
Core scientific understandings
Outside science leaders
[TBD by Jerry Melillo]
Direction of future assessments
9:45 -
Introduction Of Economic Analysis Of
Ev Ehrlich
10:45 AM
Emissions Scenarios: overview of analysis
and interaction of the economy to relative price
Dale Jorgensen,
changes from policy
Harvard University
William Nordhaus,
Yale University
10:45 -
Summary of domestic and international baselines
Mark Chupka, DOE
11:15 AM
through 2010
11:15 -
Alternative carbon stabilization policies reviewed
David Gardiner, EPA
11:45 AM
by the IAT
11:45 AM -
LUNCH BREAK
1:10 PM
1:10 PM
Major Assumptions:
1:10 - PM
Technology in the baseline (The National Energy
Andy Kydes, EIA
Modeling System)
Steve Bernow, Tellus
Institute
1:10 - 1:30
Carbon stabilization policies and technology
Philip Tseng, DOE
PM
assumptions in Markal-Macro
Stephen DeCanio,
University of CA Santa
Barbara
1:30 - 1:50
Monetary Policy and Inflation in DRI
Ron Early, DOE
PM
1:50 . 2:10
Discussion of effects of alternative policy
Tracy Terry, EPA
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
PM
options
Bill Hohenstein, EPA
Larry Goulder,
Stanford University
Robert Repetto, WRI
2:10 PM
Results:
2:10 - 2:30
Domestic macroeconomic and price impacts of
Howard Gruenspecht,
PM
carbon stabilization, and comparison of the three
DOE
models
John Weyent, Stanford
Energy Modeling
Forum, Stanford
University
2:30 - 2:50
International macroeconomic and price impacts
Al McGartland, EPA
PM
of carbon trading and joint implementation
Larry Goulder,
Stanford University
2:50 - 3:10
Energy Impacts- the.effects of the supply side
Ron Early, DOE
PM
Ray Kopp, RFF
3:10 - 3:30
Industry and regional impacts, and aggregate
Tracey Terry, EPA
PM
impacts on international trade
Rich Richels, Energy
and Power Research
Institute
Robert Scott, Economic
Policy Institute
3:30 - 3:50
Industry international competitiveness impacts
Kerry Smith, Duke
PM
University
3:50 - 4:10
Economic Sectors, Next Steps For
Jeffrey Hunker, DOC
PM
Analysis
4:10 - 4:30
Lessons Learned From Modeling
CEA/Treasury?
PM
4:30 - 4:45
BREAK
PM
4:45 - 5:30
Introduction Of Policy Options For
Assistant Secretaries
PM
Consideration
Joe Romm -
Technology
DRAFT - PREDECISIONAL, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Ed Montgomery -
Transition
David Gardiner -
Trading
5:30 - 5:45
Next steps and process for consultation
Dirk Forrister,
PM
WHCCTF
Mar-04-98 09:45P Climate Change Task Force
P.01
CC: JAF
54
White House Climate Change Task Force
Am
751 Jackson Place. N.W. Washington, DC 20503
RC
March 4, 1998
JA
MEMORANDUM TO DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Dirk
Forrister. Chair Dirk Forish
SUBJECT:
Meeting on Industry Outreach
I would like to remind you of the meeting Thursday, March 5, from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. in the
White House Conference Center in the Lincoln Room (724 Jackson Place, NW) for the first
meeting of an Assistant Secretaries' Industry Consultation Council. I have attached several
documents to help you prepare for the meeting.
The draft agenda is as follows:
I.
Overview of Project Goals and Approach
11.
Organizational Structure and Process
Industry's Role and Participation
Federal Role and Participation
111.
Timetable
Phase I Sectors
IV.
Next Steps
I hope to see you tomorrow. Please call me before selecting substitutes if you are not able to
attend or if you would like to bring additional staff (space is limited). If you have any other
questions, you may call me or Lisa McNeilly at (202) 343-1060.
Attachments:
"Scoping Paper: Industry Consultations"
"Addendum A: Industry Plans for Early Reductions"
"Addendum B: Questions for Industry"
202 1343-1060 Pax 202 343-1162
Mar-04-98 09:45P Climate Change Task Force
P.02
Distribution:
David Gardiner
EPA
260-0275
David Doniger
EPA
260-5155
Mark Mazur
DOE
586-9626
Dan Reicher
DOE
586-9260
Jeffery Hunker
Commerce 482-4636
Melinda Kimble
State
647-0217
Rafe Pomerance
State
647-0217
Victoria Greenfield
State
647-5713
Jon Gruber
Treasury
622-2633
Sherri Goodman
DOD
703-693-7011
Charlie Rawls
USDA
720-5437
Ed Montgomery
DOL
219-4902
David Hales
USAID
216-3174
John Leiber
DOT
366-7127
Jennifer Haverkamp
USTR
395-4579
Rosina Bierbaum
OSTP
456-6025
Henry Kelly
OSTP
456-6023
T.J. Glauthier
OMB
395-4639
Cheri Carter
OPL
456-6218
David Sandalow
CEQ
456-2710
Peter Orzag
NEC
456-2223
Bill Antholis
NEC
456-5334
Jeff Frankel
CEA
395-6947
Marty Spitzer
PCSD
408-1655
Total pages: 11
Mar-04-98 09:45P Climate Change Task Force
P.03
SCOPING PAPER: INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS
Draft: March 4, 1998
"We must continue to encourage key industry sectors 10 prepare their own greenhouse
gas reduction plans. And we must...remove the harriers 10 the most energy efficient usage
possible. There are ways the federal government can help industry to achieve meaningful
reductions voluntarily, and we will redouble our efforts to do so."
President Clinton, October 22, 1997
Background:
In his climate change address at the National Geographic Society auditorium on October 22, 1997, President
Clinton challenged American industries to develop their own action plans, and he pledged for his
Administration to work with state and local governments to remove any barriers to greater energy efficiency.
In urging companies to take early action, the President also committed to ensure that firms receive
appropriate credit for their achievements.
There arc a number of industrial sectors that have expressed interest in working with the Administration on
climate change policy, although some are more advanced in their thinking than others.
The Task Force convened interagency meetings last fall with three sectors that were prepared to
make proposals to the Administration: steel, cement and airlines. Natural gas, renewable and energy
efficiency firms continue to want to play a key role.
Task Force and agency staff had very productive individual meetings last fall with electric utilities,
pulp and paper, natural gas and a couple of petrolcum companies. Although they are still trying to
evaluate their posture toward the issue in the wake of the Kyoto agreement, there are progressive
companies in each sector that we should engage soon to help influence the evaluations others are
making.
Since the Kyoto Conference, other key sectoral players have stepped forward to express intcrest in
being involved: appliance manufacturers, chemicals and aluminum.
Additionally, the Administration has good relations with a set of industry leaders active in the
President's Council on Sustainable Development, DOE's Industries of the Future and Climate
Challenge programs and EPA's "Green" and Climate Wise partnerships.
Besides these groups, there are other important industries that are likcly to be interested in participating as
this effort matures.
L
PROCESS
A. In General --
1.
Goals
The consultations should maintain a clear focus on enabling industries to
1
Predecisional Draft -- Do Not Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:45P Climate Change Task Force
P.04
meet the President's challenge of developing early voluntary action plans
within nine months. Industries will be encouraged to make commitments as
close as possible to the Kyoto target. Also, firms will be the most
forthcoming if meetings are designed to --
strategize on removing barriers;
assure carly credit;
and inform federal climate policy development (e.g. the $6.3 billion
incentive package; the emissions trading program design; federal
energy use: and the ongoing international negotiations).
2.
CEO Vision
The consultations will be most successful if those active in the discussions
have directions from their CEO's. (The alternative if they do not have
CEO cover for what they are doing, they will be conservative.) Prior to
sectoral meetings, a senior White House or Cabinet official [or a high-level
former CEO] should speak with at least two key CEO's about the talks in
order to assure their engagement.
3.
Crosscutting
There will bc a crosscutting effort to cut across all groups on some overall
design questions. This could assure that cach group benefits from lessons
of the others. and it could help us achieve a cohcrent overarching policy
structure. The issue of credit for early action and perhaps emissions trading
will be discussed in separate, expedited inter-agency forum.
4.
Agencies
From the onset, the effort needs to take advantage of agency expertise and
abilities, particularly their strengths to carry out follow-up actions.
B. Operational Considerations
1.
Background Analyses
Documents will be prepared for cach sector compiling background
information currently available in the agencies. These papers will be used
to inform the Federal teams and provide some basis for discussions with the
private sector.
2.
Scoping Mtg.
Wc should convene a small "scoping group" to plan each consultation. It
should contain a fcw select industry Icaders combined with a few federal
experts. This group can help strategize about the best way to frame
questions, how the effort should be defined for that sector, and how to
ensure the best outcomes.
3.
Attendance
We should be inclusive of as many companies as possible. Pending review
of FACA requirements, the meetings would be more constructive if they
were "off the record." It might also be uscful to have a follow up mceting
to vet any ideas with others involved with the sector (academics. labor
leaders and public interest groups).
2
Predecisional Draft Do Not Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:46P Climate Change Task Force
P.05
On the federal side, we should assemble expert teams from relevant
agencies (Energy, EPA, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, Defense,
Interior, NASA, State, USTR, AID) and White House offices (NEC, CEQ,
OSTP, OMB, NSC). We should select a leader for each sectoral team to
help focus activities, drive the process and serve as a point of contact.
4.
Guidance
Sectors will be asked to prepare in advance of the consultations information
on industry historical cmissions, future trends, and potential reductions.
For example, they could determine what the industry's baseline was in 1990
(or 1995 for those gases), what the scenarios are for 2008 to 2012 and what
actions could bring the greatest improvements on those scenarios. It could
also be beneficial to review the industrics' competitive situation in the
international economy. its business trends (including energy and
environment) and its research and development plans. The ultimate goal is
to reach agreement on a voluntary reduction plan, either collectively or
individually.
4.
Industry Kick-Off
After the scoping meetings, the next activity will be a kick-off meeting with
industry. The wider industry membership and the Federal teams will attend
to describe the process to the private sector and to set the timelinc for
action. When industry has had time to draft a preliminary commitment, the
Federal teams will follow-up, review the plans and respond to agency
requests.
5.
Follow Up
The federal team should ensure that ideas are submitted for expedited
consideration in the policy process. Agencies should havc primary
responsibility to carry out follow-up activities, pursuant to their proper
authorities, under coordination by White House offices.
C. Time Line
The following time line describes the actions and responsible parties for four major activities: initial
preparation, scoping meetings, industry consultations, and agreements and follow-up.
1. Initial Preparations (present - early March)
Goal: To prepare the Federal government to effectively engage the private sector.
(1) Prepare planning documents that will he used as templates to guide the consultations for all
sectors.
Finalize template for Sector Analyses; analyses will include sections on sector emissions,
options for emissions reductions, current sector activities, and barriers to or opportunities for
emissions reductions.
WHCCTF: 3/2
3
Predecisional Draft -- Do Not Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:46P Climate Change Task Force
P.06
Draft Sector Analyses for 1-2 sectors; assignments made for agency leads for remaining
sectors
Agencies (DOF/EPA): 3/2
Draft questions to be addressed in consultations
WHCCTF: 3/2
(2) Establish Federal leadership structure
Assemble an Assistant Secretary Council, with representatives of each relevant agency, to
give oversight and guidance.
WHCCTF/Agencies: late February/early March
Establish technical teams from the agencies to be responsible for each sector
WHCCTF/Agencies: late February/early March
(3) While consultations will occur with the full list of industries categorized in the scoping paper,
initial meetings will proceed in a phased manner to immediately address those industries who are
already close to making voluntary commitments to reduce emissions.
Narrow the list of industries to 6-8 for Phase I of scoping meeting and full consultations;
determine broad strategy for remaining sectors on the list
WHCCTF/Agencies: early March
Preliminary list: steel. airlines, electric utilities. aluminum. pulp & paper and
cemeni; possibly buildings. autos, chemicals, fleets. electronics
Select a member of the Assistant Secretary Coucil to join each sector group
WHCCTF/Agencies: early March
Draft Sector Analyscs for 6-8 sectors prepared and approved
Agency leads: second week of March
(4) Present work to Assistant Sccretaries Council for discussion
WHCCTF/Agencies: second week of March
2. Scoping Meetings with Phase I Industry Sectors (March)
Goal: To plan industry consultations in conjunction with representatives of each sector.
(1) Establish contact with selected sector CEOs through calls and/or meetings with Cabinet members
or other senior White House personnel. Timing might vary from sector to sector and could be held
before or parallel to scoping meetings.
Contact at least two CEOs from each sector to assure their engagement.
WHCCTF: varies
4
Predecisional Draft -- Do Not Quole or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:47P Climate Change Task Force
P.07
(2) Hold a preliminary, scoping meeting with a subgroup of each industry sector leaders to help plan
the full industry consultations. It will be important to have appropriate industry people at these
meetings who have the ability to at least informally speak for their CEOs and/or industrics.
Identify a small number of principal players in each sector from the private sector
Agency leads: early March
Draft agenda for scoping meeting to include discussions on the structure of the
consultations (agenda, questions. etc.), participants, and review of draft sector analyses
WHCCTF: early March
(3) The scoping meetings could probably be done in two weeks. holding about three each week.
WHCCTF/Agency teams: 3/15 - 3/30
(4) Roll-out event to lay out plans (vision, scope, time table)
Two parts: POTUS or VPOTUS meeting with CEOs followed by a larger bricfing of DC
representatives from key sectors
WHCCTF: mid to late March
(5) Input from labor and environmental groups is also highly desirable. Teams for these "sectors"
will also be assembled, and their efforts will be incorporated into the industry consultations.
3. Industry Consultations (April -- August)
Goal: To encourage voluntary emissions reductions commitments from the industry sectors, improve
understanding of technology opportunities, and identify and reduce barriers to these reductions.
(1) Before the start of the Phase I consultations, the input from the scoping meetings should be
incorporated into the Sector Analyscs.
Finalize questions for industry and other inputs for consultations
WHCCTF/Asst Sec Council: 4/15
Using the other documents, draft an options workbook matching barriers and potential
opportunities with existing options available to sectors (inventory of Federal "carrots")
WHCCTF/Asst Sec Council: 4/15
(2) The actual industry consultations will involve as broad a participation within each sector as
possible. The consultations will require a series of meetings. First, an industry kick-off to present
charge to full industry membership. Second, meetings with Federal teams to review commitment
plans and plan implementation.
Agency teams/WHCCTF: 1st SCI, end April - late May; 2nd sei, July - early Aug.
(3) At the earliest appropriate time, the labor and environmental groups will be incorporated into the
process. Their exact participation may vary from sector to sector.
5
Predecisional Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:47P Climate Change Task Force
P.08
(4) We will also convene consultations with industries offering technological solutions ina way that
informs and cnhances the emission reduction agreements with emitting industries. These may take
the formof separatemectings, depending on what works best with a given sector.
(5) Industry teams will present draft agreements to the Assistant Secretary Council.
Agency leads: end August
4. Agreements and Follow-Up (September -- October)
Goal: To ensure agreements are finalized and set into motion.
(1) The draft agreements will include responsibilities/activics for both industry and Federal
agencies. The industry section will include their commitments on emissions reductions. The Foderal
agency section would include the help already availablc to sectors and potential agency actions to
address barriers identified. Ideally, endorsements from labor, environments and some relevant state
agencies will be solicited.
Agency teams: September
(2) A roll-out event by senior administration officials with presentations by industry and by agencies.
Mid-October
(3) Continue work on remaining industrics, beginning a second phase of scoping mcctings and full
industry consultations.
End of October
IL SPECIFIC GROUPS
There are specific players in key industries that can provide important inroads into most of the major
emissions sectors. I would recommend that we begin consultations with the groups that have already
expressed interest (Phase 1). As wc build a track record of success, it will be casier to bring others on board.
Phase I Sectors
Energy Intensive Industries
Seven industries emit 50 percent of the greenhouse gases from the industrial sector (which is a full third of
the emissions from end use sectors). Four of these are being considered for inclusion in the first phase of
consultations. In addition, the carbon dioxide released during the calcification process means that the cement
industry is also included here.
1.
Steel
2.
Aluminum
3.
Pulp and Paper
4.
Chemicals
5.
Cement
6
Predecisional Draft -- Do No: Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:47P Climate Change Task Force
P.09
Electric Utilities/Fuels/Buildings
Electric utility emissions comprise one-third of U.S. source emissions. The fucls producer and building
sectors crosscut all the industry sectors listed, but none of the fuels producers are likely to be addressed
during this first phase.
6.
Electrics
7.
Buildings
Transportation
The transportation sector represents a final third of U.S. end use emissions. Especially in the case of
automobiles. the prescnce of so many individual cinitters will prove extremely challenging.
8.
Airlines
9.
Automobiles
10.
Fleets
Future Growth Industries
Industry sectors whose emissions arc projected to rise in the future also need to be a part of the consultations.
11.
Telecomm/Electronics
Phase II Sectors
Energy Intensive Industries
12.
Glass
13.
Foundries
14.
Refineries
Electric Utilities/Fuels/Buildings
15.
Natural Gas
16.
Renewables
17.
Efficiency
18.
Mining
Transportation
19.
Railroads
Other
20.
Appliances
21.
Vendors
22.
Agriculture
III. Addendum
A: Industry Plans for Early Reductions -- A one-page summary description
B: Questions for Industry -- Sample questions to he considered by industry
7
Predecisional Drafi -- Do Not Quote or Cite
Mar-04-98 09:48P Climate Change Task Force
P.10
ADDENDUM A: INDUSTRY PLANS FOR EARLY REDUCTIONS
Draft: March 4, 1998
We must continue to encourage key industry sectors to prepare their own greenhouse gas
reduction plans. And we must remove the barriers to the most energy efficient usage
possible. There are ways the federal government can help to achieve meaningful
reductions voluntarily, and we will redouble our efforts to do so."
-- President Clinton, October 22, 1997
GOAL:
Develop plans of action to achieve early voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in key sectors of
the economy with the goal of making as much progress as possible toward the targets set in Kyoto.
RATIONALE:
To the extent that cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases can be achieved in the near to medium-term
through voluntary efforts, the burdens associated with meeting future targets will be reduced and the rate of
build-up of greenhouse gases will be slowed.
INDUSTRY'S ROLE:
To develop a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond "business as usual." Building on existing
government-industry partnerships. the plan should identify:
an emissions reduction goal;
the path forward for achieving that goal using cost-effective measures;
barriers to achieving reductions that could be removed;
incentives that could be created to encourage such reductions:
possible changes in federal procurement or practices:
options for reducing emissions through trading or sequestration;
opportunities for achieving reductions abroad; and
a longer-term research and development strategy.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE:
To facilitate the development and implementation of industry plans by:
emissions; inventorying existing programs and resources with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas
where appropriate, provide collaborative support to facilitate a broad based industry
dialogue, to contribute technical and analytic assistance, and to provide other assistance in
the development of industry plans for early action:
working cooperatively, wherever possible. to remove barriers and create new incentives
for reducing emissions; and
developing guidelines for early credit for qualifying reductions.
WHY PARTICIPATE:
Participating industries will be able to jump start their search for low cost reductions, benefit from federal
support in such efforts, and be poised to help shape and take advantage of credit for early actions.
TIMETABLE:
Kick-Off Meetings with Initial Sectors
March-April
Plan Preparation
April-August
Initial Sector Plans Presented
September-November
Additional Plans and Implementation
November and beyond
Mar-04-98 09:48P Climate Change Task Force
P.11
ADDENDUM B: QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY
Draft: March 4, 1998
BACKGROUND
Describe the nature of the industrial sector. Include number and size of firms, industrial
output and sales. overseas investments and exports. and a general description of the
economic forecast for the industry including future sales and any projected changes in
structure, technology or market position of the industry.
Identify current sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Where possible, include estimates
of baseline emissions and of projected future emissions. Also, specifically identify energy
use (total and per unit of output).
Discuss technological options for greenhouse gas reductions (e.g. energy efficiency or
renewable energy). This would include an estimate of relative cost effectiveness of
options identified. Options that sequester greenhouse gases may also be included here.
Include existing activities, especially those in partnership with government, to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Explore ways to include labor and environmental group leaders (or other relevant parties
outside the industry) in the process.
EMISSIONS REDUCTION GOAL
Decribe in detail the emissions reduction goal in relation to the Kyoto baseline, including
the time frame for achieving the reduction. Identify which companies within the industry
are cooperating to achieve the goal.
Identify emissions reductions that would be possible before the first Kyoto budget period
if credit for early action was available.
Include an action plan showing the actions to be taken by industry and how the goal will
be achieved.
Identify barriers to achieving reductions and who might remove them. Include potential
incentives to encourage reductions that could be created and who might create them.
Focus on possible changes in government (Federal, state or local) practices or
procurement.
Identify long term R&D needs to achieve additional reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions for the industry.
Identify the impacts on competitiveness, productivity, jobs, further environmental benefits
or other auxiliary outcomes from meeting the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal.
September 25. 1997
JLY
MEMORANDUM FOR TODD STERN. GENE SPERLING, KATIE MCGINTY. & DAN
JAF
TARULLO
MJ
FROM:
DIRK FORRISTER
RL
AM
SUBJECT: FRIDAY'S ROOSEVELT ROOM MEETINGS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
JA
Following the meeting held last week with representatives from electric utilities, two additional
meetings with industry representatives have been scheduled for Friday, September 26th. A
meeting at 9 am includes a group of industries representing manufacturing firms with generally
moderate views on climate change. A second meeting at 3 pm will include chemical companies
and representatives from other energy-intensive manufacturing industries. Both meetings will
take place in the Roosevelt Room. This memo provides background information on the
companies attending these meetings and the issues they are likely to raise.
1. AGENDA
The meetings will cover two major topics. plus any other topics you or the participants want to
explore in the time available.
International Framework: what do they view as the critical elements for the Protocol that
would gamer their support? What do they view as "deal breakers" in terms of their ability
to support? What type of target/timetable could they support (or at least not oppose)?
These firms represent a wide range of positions. Some support only
voluntary actions and nothing else. Many support key elements of our
current negotiating framework (e.g., emissions trading. joint
implementation. multi-year budget period. and greater actions by
developing countries.) This group is very concerned that we will
compromise or walk away from these issues in order to get a deal in
Kyoto.
There is some support for a binding target in this group. but only if all the
other parts of the framework are achieved. Others that could be convinced
to support a reasonable target have been disappointed in the lack of any
Administration economic analysis underlying the selection of a target.
Most would prefer a longer period for a target to facilitate capital stock
tumover.
Early Action Incentives: is there some way to advance an early action program as part of
the president's policy announcement? Is there some way to reconcile industry's interest in
undertaking early action with the uncertainty about domestic policy design? Most of these
companies have participated in actions aimed at reducing emissions under the President's
Climate Change Action Plan. Many believe that more can be achieved. but they fear that,
in the absence of a clear domestic program. further reductions achieved might only make
it more difficult to comply with future required targets. These companies also fear that
they will be singled out to carry more than their fair share of emissions reductions.
Because they are already heavily regulated industries, they view themselves as casy targets
for greenhouse gas reductions. particularly if reductions from the auto sector are not
achieved for political or other reasons.
2. Participants
I. Friday, 9 - 10 am
MOTOROLA CORP.
Richard Guimond, Corporate Director: leading manufacturer of electronic goods. They
generally have a strong environmental. are participating in a voluntary program to reduce
greenhouse gases from the chip manufacturing process, and refused to sign the BRT
advertisement. They generally favor cost-effective, market-based solutions and have concerns
about international competitiveness. They are sensitive to the concerns of their major customers.
but want to see a responsible response to deal with the threat of climate change. Rich is a former
DOE and EPA official in the hazardous waste field.
BALLARD POWER SYSTEMS
Scott Weiner, President: leading developer of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. It has
formed a strategic alliance with Daimler Benz to commercialize fueLcells for the transport sector
and has been participating in PNGV program. It is also working with GPU International to
develop fuel cells for stationary electric power applications. with a field trial of a 250 kilowatt
power plant scheduled for 1999 and commercial production during 2001. Scott is a former New
Jersey environment commissioner and former executive with General Public Utilities.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
Judith Bayer, Director, Environmental Government Affairs: with annual revenues of $23.5
billion. UTC provides a broad range of high-technology products to the aerospace. buildings and
automotive industries. Major business lines include: Pratt and Whitney engines, Carrier heating
and air conditioning systems. Otis elevators. Sikorsky helicopters and International Fuel Cells.
They are members of the International Climate Change Partnership. Because Carrier's products
rely heavily on HFCs. they feel strongly that any climate treaty should include all gases in a single
basket and not contain specific policies and measures. They are also interested in any federal
policies that could spur sales of fuel cells.
AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES
Jim Wolf, Vice President, Government Affairs: the world's largest producer of bathroom and
kitchen fixtures. one of the world's largest manufacturers of heating and air conditioning systems,
and a major supplier of vehicle braking and control systems. Worldwide sales in 1996 were $9.6
billion. They are a member of both the in International Climate Change Partnership and the
Business Council for Sustainable Energy. As a manufacturer of energy efficient equipment, they
have been a leading supporter of taking near-term actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases. They also support emissions trading and joint implementation, budget periods, and treating
all gases within a single basket. They strongly oppose harmonized policies and measures.
HONEYWELL CORP.
Glen Skovholt, Vice President: Mike Bonsignore attended the CEO meeting with the
President and is a supporter of action to address climate change. With sales of $7.3 billion. the
company is a world leader in energy efficiency technology. They have been an active participant
in Green Lights and Energy Star voluntary programs. While it has a lot to gain from any actions
that spur growth in energy efficiency technologies. it is careful in the political debate to avoid
offending its major customers in the automobile. oil and utility industries. Honeywell is a member
of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
AT&T
Alice Borrelli, Director: While they have not been active on the issue of climate change. AT&T
believes that the scientific case for action is strong. They did not sign the Business Roundtable ad
calling for more research before taking action. They believe that the electronics and
communications sectors could benefit from actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They
support efforts to bring the larger developing countries into the process.
GENERAL ELECTRIC
Larry Boggs, Legislative Counsel: has many business units that would be affected by climate
change. GE is a major manufacturer of energy consuming appliances, is the parent company of
Employers Reinsurance, and is a major supplier to the automobile and aerospace industries. GE is
a member of the International Climate Change Partnership.
ALLIED SIGNAL
Joseph McQuire, Director, Environmental and Legislative Affairs: is a chemical producer
and manufacturer for the automotive, acrospace and utility sectors. Allied has sought to play a
moderating influence on this issue among major manufacturing firms. They believe that cumate
change must be addressed but support a moderate approach to any agreement including reliance
on market mechanisms such as emissions trading. They have been involved in several "green
programs" under the Climate Change Action plan where they have technologies capable of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are a member of the International Climate Change
Partnership.
INTEL CORPORATION
Tim Mohin, Manager, Government Affairs: the world's largest chipmaker and a leading
manufacturer of PC. networking and communication products. Intel has been actively involved
in a number of voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. but has not taken an
active role on climate policy issues. They manufacture computers under the "Energy Star" label
that "sleep" when inactive. substantially reducing energy consumption. They are also
participating in an industry research program aimed at reducing or eliminating PFC emissions (a
potent greenhouse gas) from the chip manufacturing process. They would like any international
agreement to include flexible measures that allow for cost-effective reductions and that require
actions by developing countries.
BRITISH PETROLEUM
Bruce McCrodden, Vice President, External Affairs: The President of BP America and the
CEO of BP (John Browne) have been outspoken advocates of actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In a speech this week. John Browne spoke out in support of taxes to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. BP is also expanding its own emissions trading and joint
implementation activities. BP chairs the International Climate Change Partnership.
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE PARTNERSHIP
Kevin Fay, Executive Director: comprised of approximately 35 companies and associations, this
group represents a relatively moderate position on climate change. Members include chemical
companies. air conditioning and refrigeration manufacturers, aerospace companies, and one oil
company (BP). They seek to balance recognition that the science compels some action with the
need to take sensible. cost-effective steps that will not prove burdensome to their companies.
They generally have been supportive of the proposed U.S. framework, but remain concerned that
we will not achieve key elements of our proposal, but will sign an agreement in Kyoto anyway.
They are seeking assurances that WC not back down from our proposals. They are interested in
the possibility of an expanded voluntary program to achieve nearer-term reductions, but are
concerned that any program must insure that investments in reductions are counted toward any
future obligations incurred by their firms.
BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Michael Marvin, Executive Director: Members include companies that manufacturer energy
efficiency equipment and alternative sources of power. They represent those firms that stand to
gain markets from any actions that restrict greenhouse gas emissions. As such. they have been
active in promoting early action and have strongly supported the U.S. position on emissions
trading and joint implementation and realistic binding targets. They have urged actions by 2005
and are very concerned that any target that extends significantly beyond that will not be taken
seriously by industry or consumers and will undermine efforts to reduce emissions and advance
technology in the near term.
II. FRIDAY 3 pm MEETING -- PARTICIPANTS and COMPANY PROFILES
Alcoa
Marcia Dalrymple. Manager, Government Affairs
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Alcoa is one of the world's leading producer of aluminum and alumina
and has sales of $13.1 billion. Whether it will be easy to scale-up trading to deal with carbon emissions
remains an open question in their view. Alcoa has been an active participant in two of EPA's voluntary
programs: Green Lights (energy efficient lighting) and the Voluntary Aluminum Partnership (reducing
chemical emissions from the smelting process). Alcoa has experience in the acid rain emissions trading
program; they opted in as a large industry generator.
Paul O'Neill, Alcoa's CEO, joined the President and Vice President for the August 4 CEO meeting.
He is concerned that policy-making should not get ahead of sound science and he is advocating a
focused research effort aimed at resolving uncertainties. They are concerned about competitiveness
impacts related to developing country obligations, but don't have a view yet on the details of those
obligations. Alcoa wants to work with us to help shape policy on climate change.
FMC Corp.
Harold S. Russell. VP. Government Affairs
Based in Chicago, FMC is a diversified supplier of chemical products, agricultural chemicals, precious
metals, defense systems, automobile components, food machinery, petroleum equipment and
specialized machinery. With annual sales topping the $3 billion mark, FMC ranks as a Fortune 150
company. International sales to more than 100 countries account for more than one-third of their total
annual revenues.
Robert Burt, CEO of FMC, chairs the Business Roundtable's Environment Committee and climate
change initiative. The Business Roundtable has said that we need a much more extensive policy
dialogue before we make final decisions regarding targets and timetables. Burt is unconvinced that we
need targets and timetables at all. Burt has taken moderate approaches on other environmental issues
like Superfund and TRI and has been willing to take reasonable positions that draw tire from hard-une
colleagues. He has taken interest in the potential for voluntary action to play a role in our final
domestic policy.
Bethlehem Steel
Maurice (Mo) Emest Carino Jr., VP. Federal Government Affairs
Bethlehem Steel is headquartered in Bethlehem, PA, with major plants in MD, IN, PA, upstate NY,
and MS, and a coal mine in West Virginia. In 1996, they achieved sales of almost $4.7 billion. They
are the nation's largest producer of plate steel, most of it in the higher value grades required for the
more demanding industrial uses. They are also a leading supplier of railroad rails to the rail
transportation market and large diameter pipe to the energy market. One of their main economic issues
are tremendous heath care and pension liabilities. Since 1978 they have reduced their energy use by
40% and have recently restructured. Bethlehem has also endorsed the CERES Principles.
Bethlehem's CEO is the Chair this year of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). His number
one climate issue is developing countries because of their steel production. Flexibility is important as
well. Regarding targets and timetables, they are concerned about the impact on growth of a carbon
cap. In addition, at the meeting with the President, he emphasized the importance of voluntary
programs. Credits for early reduction is very important because they have achieved reductions
since 1990. At a meeting yesterday, AISI told us that they could achieve a 10% reduction from
1990 levels by 2010 through voluntary programs.
DUPONT CORPORATION
Tom Jacob. Environmental Manager
A major chemical producer (including HFCs) and the parent company to Consolidated Coal. -
Dupont is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. DuPontwas a leader in recognizing
the scientific case demanded action to phase-out CFCs. In the case of climate change, they
believe that John Browne of BP got it right when he said that significant uncertainties remain, but
that prudence supports taking some actions now. They are very concerned that this issue is
getting highly politicized on both sides and look to the Administration to provide bipartisan
science-based leadership. They are also concerned that if actions are taken that all industries
should be required to contribute in an equitable manner and fear that the chemical industry may be
an easier target that some other sectors (e.g., autos or buildings). They are currently exploring
possible ways to structure voluntary programs to achieve meaningful actions while safeguarding
investments.
ENRON CORP
John Palmisano. Director. Regulatory Affairs:
Ken Lay attended the CEO meeting with the President and was supportive ot acuon w
address climate change. With annual revenues of $13 billion. Enron is a diversified energy
company with one of the world's largest natural gas pipelines. an active wholesale electricity
brokerage business. major investments in solar and wind technologies, and the recent purchaser of
Portland General Electric Utility. Enron has also been an active trader in sulfur dioxide
allowance market and strongly supports joint implementation and emissions trading. They
believe action in the nearer-term is critical to sending the proper signals to the market place.
Enron is a member of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. John left EPA after helping
design the earliest EPA emissions trading programs and established his own trading company
which ultimately was purchased by Enron.
Georgia-Pacific
James E. Bostic, Jr., VP
Georgia-Pacific, headquartered in Atlanta with $13 billion in annual revenues, ranks first nationally in
the production of structural and other wood panels and second nationally in lumber, owning six million
acres of timberland. They own the world's largest building products distribution system. 1996 was a
very challenging year for Georgia-Pacific, because of the most dramatic price collapse ever in
commodity pulp and paper markets.
On climate change, Georgia-Pacific is positioned with some unique opportunities: forest sequestration
and producing energy from biomass waste or crops. They are concerned about potential international
competitiveness impacts, if energy prices rise dramatically with climate policy, but are interested in
working constructively on a reasonable outcome.
Weyerhauser
Gary D. Risner, Federal Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager
Weyerhauser is one of the largest forest products companies in the world. Weyerhauser operates
more than 130 manufacturing facilities and employs 39,700 people in North America. They also
have sales offices in Asia and Europe. Their headquarters are in Federal Way, WA. Their main
business units are Timberlands (producing wood and wood fiber): Wood Products (producing
softwood lumber, plywood and veneer; oriented strand board, composite panels. hardwood
lumber and doors, and wholesale building materials): Pulp. Paper, Packaging and Recycling
(market pulp. newsprint, bleached paperboard, printing and writing papers, container board and
corrugated packaging. and collection and marketing of recyclables. chemicals): Weyerhauser Real
Estate. and Weyerhauser Mortgage.
Regarding climate change. Weyerhauser supports the American Forest and Paper Association's
Global Climate Change Position statement. which says that:
--Any new treaty must involve all countries including the developing nations.
--Biomass fuels combustion must continue to be considered a net-zero greenhouse gas
contribution
--Any treaty must recognize the positive effects of active forest management
--Carbon storage in forests and wood products must be better recognized
--Climate science must be subjected to periodic review by peers and all stakeholders
--Treaty participants must assure consistent reporting and enforcement in all countries
Weyerhouser also believes that flexible. incentive based approaches can be appropriately utilized
to encourage world-wide participation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Pushing for
mandatory emissions reductions in the short term may not be required and could be potentially
damaging to the US economy. A better approach is to continue global scientific studies with
ongoing climate change verification while stimulating incentive based technology development to
meet long term emissions reduction requirements and time schedules.
Holnam Inc.
David Rinas. Sr. Vice President
Holnam is the largest cement manufacturer in North America. Headquartered in Michigan,
Holnam has manufacturing facilities. distribution centers and marketing offices spread throughout
the United States. Holnam is a private company, wholly owned by Holderbank Financiere Glaris.
which is the world's largest producer of cement and related construction material. Holderbank is
headquartered in Switzerland and is publicly traded on stock exchanges in Zurich and London.
Holnam has been very proactive on climate change. They claim that we could reduce CO2
emissions from cement production cheaply and easily by increasing the use of cement substitutes.
The U.S. is behind the rest of the world in the utilization of substitutes. Holnam wants the federal
government to encourage the use of substitutes and overcome the market barriers we are
reviewing these proposals at present.
Trigen
Thomas R. Casten. President and CEO
Trigen is recognized internationally as a leader in district energy systems. (District energy applies
economies of scale to heating and cooling buildings. A central plant produces chilled water. hot
water or steam and pipes it to a number of buildings, thus eliminating the need for individual
boilers and chillers.) The company has developed and operates 11 district energy systems in
North America that provide economical and environmentally responsible heating and cooling to
municipalities. commercial buildings. institutions and industry. Trigen is based in White Plains,
NY.
Trigen believes that the Administration's first act on the road to Kyoto should be to seize the low-
hanging fruit represented by combining production of heat and power. More than two-thirds of
the energy produced by burning fossil fuels for electricity is discarded as waste heat. Trigen's
own analysis indicates that combining heat and power generation could drop the United States'
output of CO2 well below 1990 levels.
Owens Corning
John D. Hopkins. Jr., VP. Legislative Affairs
Headquartered in Toledo. Ohio. Owens Corning is a $3.8 billion, publicly held company of 19,000
people with manufacturing. sales and research facilities. including joint venture and licensee
relationships, in more than 30 countries worldwide. Originally a glass company, the company
now offers a diversified array of products. including complete building materials systems.
advanced glass fiber used in more than 40,000 composite end-use applications from skis and golf
clubs. to bridge decking and transmission towers. to automobiles, computers, and fiber optic
cables. and large-diameter pipe used to build the infrastructure of developing nations.
Owens Corning joined in the insulation industry's Lisbon Declaration on CO2 reductions. It says
that the greenhouse effect requires urgent action. and that there is massive potential for energy
savings in space heating through the use of proven thermal insulation technology. It says that 133
million tons of CO2 could be reduced if all American homes were to be insulated to the Council
of American Building Official's 1992 Model Energy Code. On the other hand. Owens Corning
signed the BRT ad. Joint implementation is especially valuable because the quality of building
stock in Central and Eastern Europe is poor.
Dow Chemical
Paul Cicio, Global Issues Manager/Government Affairs
Dow is the sixth largest chemical company in the world. operating in 157 countries.
Headquartered in Midland. MI. they have sales of $20 billion a year. Dow is the largest producer
of plastics in the world. Dow is also one of the largest energy consumers in the world. Dow has
323 operating facilities globally, including plants in about 20 states in the U.S. Over 90% of their
energy consumption is through cogeneration. Dow is the only company (to their knowledge) who
has committed to a 20% energy efficiency improvement over the next ten years (2% per year;
about twice as high as the national average.) Dow has made voluntary commitments to reduce
energy use in the U.S., Canada, Germany. and the Netherlands.
Regarding climate change. Dow strongly supports actions to reduce energy use. Dow believes
tough decisions on the treaty should be delayed until the science and economics are better
understood. Dow is supporting more meaningful dialogue with the U.S. government regarding
what it is we truly need to do without losing competitiveness.
Whirlpool
Michael Thompson. Director of Government Relations
Whirlpool is the world's leading manufacturer and marketer of home appliances. Headquartered
in Benton, MI., the company manufactures in 13 countries and markets products in more than 140
countries. In the last 8 years. Whirlpool has grown from a primarily U.S. manufacturer to a
global company employing some 50,000 people on four continents. Whirlpool was the first
company to develop and implement a CFC recovery and recycling for refrigerators. In 1994
Whirlpool began producing the refrigerator that won the Super Efficient Refrigerator Program
(SERP) contest sponsored by U.S. public and private utilities. Whirlpool is also a voluntary
participant in EPA's 33/50 program.
Whirlpool has not been active on the climate change issue. It is a Republican bedrock company
from the midwest. They signed the Business Roundtable ad. They are a company that should be
better off under climate change restrictions. because they typically make the most efficient
products in the appliance industry. They may still harbor some bitterness toward the
Administration because they were unhappy that DOE took so long to complete the refrigerator
appliance efficiency standards that Whirlpool lost its technological head start. They use
refrigerants (HFCs) that would be covered under our proposed "comprehensive" approach and
strongly oppose any harmonized policies and measures. They are a member of the International
Climate Change Partnership.
06/20/97
10:55
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
001/015
K
OFFICE OF TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
UNDER SECRETARY
Copy AM JS
FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS
MM
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
2201 C Street, N.W.
Room 7250
Washington, D.C. 20520
Phone: 202-647-6240 Fax: 202-647-0753
Please deliver to:
Jim Baker, Commerce/NOAA
Rosina Bierbaum, White House
Dirk Forrister, CEQ
Jeffrey Frankel, CEA
John Garamendi, Interior
Jack Gibbons, White House
T.J. Glauthier, OMB
Sherri Goodman, Defense
Fred Hansen, EPA
Number of Pages (including cover): 15
Date: June 20, 1997
I thought you would be interested in the following testimony on climate change,
which I delivered yesterday to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
TEW
10:55
C202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
4
002/015
Testimony of Timothy E. Wirth
Under Secretary for Global Affairs
Department of State
Before the Subcommittee on International
Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
June 19, 1997
06/20/97
10:55
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
003/015
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you this morning to discuss
the importance of climate change and to outline the United States negotiating
position as we move toward December's multi-national conference in Kyoto.
Climate change is probably the most important environmental challenge facing
the world. The ecological, human, economic and political consequences are of
enormous importance for the mid-term and for the long-term - and each of us
needs to understand them. We look forward to active and frequent consultations
with this Committee and with the other members of Congress as we seek to
reach an agreement and as we set up the needed long-term process.
The Science
I want to begin with the science - because scientists were the ones who drew our
attention to climate change in the first place, and because we continue to base
our policies on the best evidence and the most rigorous scientific analysis
available.
Let me highlight some of the key scientific issues on which there is a global
consensus:
human activities have significantly increased the atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases over the last century.
1
06/20/97
10:56
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
4
004/015
global average temperatures have already increased by about one half to one
degree Fahrenheit.
the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate.
projections of the future change, based on complex climate models and on our
best understanding of the physics of the climate system, suggest an increase
of another 2 to 6 ½ degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, with an average greater than
any seen in the last 10,000 years.
Sea levels are projected to rise an additional 1 ½ feet by 2100, from expansion
of the oceans due to global warming, and from a melting of glaciers and ice
sheets.
Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse effects on
human health, with direct and indirect effects leading to increased mortality.
Coastal populations and infrastructure are vulnerable: a 20 inch rise in sea
levels would put about 100 million people at risk each year from storm
surges, with significant costs.
2
06/20/97
10:56
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
1
005/015
Natural and managed ecosystems are at risk as ideal ranges shift with the
climate. The location of forest and agricultural zones will change
significantly.
Future unexpected changes in the climate are not included in the models.
These surprises may have impacts of global magnitude such as fundamental
changes in global ocean circulation or ecosystem behavior.
These are the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -
an international body of more than 2500 scientists, expert in all aspects of
climate change, including the physical sciences, the social sciences and the
economics. U.S. government experts have endorsed their work, as have the
academic communities in the United States and around the world.
An excellent summary of the science and the impacts that could occur as a result
of global climatic disruption was presented yesterday on behalf of nearly 2500
leading American scientists and I would like to include their statement for the
record.
We do not yet have all the answers with respect to the science. We cannot yet
say with certainty what the local effects of climate change will be. But, with
better scientific data, the picture is becoming clearer.
3
06/20/97
10:56
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
006/015
For instance, in the United States, twenty inches of sea level rise would inundate
9,000 square miles of U.S. coastal land, with great loss of property and
infrastructure. Rising temperatures could double the number of heat-related
deaths. We now know that the ten warmest years since records began all
occurred since 1980. Some of the most recent data shows that four of the five
hottest years have occurred since 1990. With CO2 concentrations doubled in the
atmosphere, heat waves like the one that killed around 500 people in Chicago
two summers ago would be four to six times as likely to occur.
While we acknowledge uncertainties about where, how fast and when climate
change will occur, and while we continue to press for research that will help us to
answer these important questions, the basic fact remains that we are having a
discernible impact on our climate.
Our policy is based on the current scientific consensus and on the need to achieve
the most cost-effective emissions reductions possible. Our policy has three
simple and straightforward objectives which are outlined in detail in a
framework proposal we submitted to the climate convention in January. The
proposal was shared with this Committee and was distributed widely with the
public. The three objectives are as follows:
1. We are seeking to establish a legally binding emissions target for developed
countries which is verifiable, credible and realistic.
4
06/20/97
10:56
202 647 9099
OES-0A-MLP
007/015
2. We are seeking an agreement in Kyoto that maximizes the flexibility for each
country to meet this legally binding target, including through the use of
market mechanisms.
3. Third, we recognize the importance of involving all countries in the
agreement - and to this end we have incorporated extensive language into
our proposal that calls for developing countries to act.
Let me go through each of these in greater detail.
The Target: It is clear that the Framework Convention on Climate Change has
not proven adequate to the task of reducing global emissions. We anticipate that
only two countries will meet the Convention's non-binding aim of lowering
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. We ourselves will miss the aim by
about 10%.
We believe a binding legal obligation to act will result in the passage of domestic
laws - in all countries - that compel action. In order to build in some flexibility,
our proposal calls for the targets to be multi-year in nature. Without this sort of
legal obligation, countries will continue to pay only lip-service to their efforts to
solve this problem. The past shows this is not enough.
5
9099
OES-0A-MLP
008/015
Flexibility: Solving the problem of climate change is a long-term proposition
that will require enormous effort over a sustained period. It is therefore vital
that we achieve emissions reductions as cost-effectively as possible. Our
approach to climate change seeks to do this. We have recommended that each
country be given the maximum flexibility to meet its legal obligation. And we
have rejected common, harmonized policies and measures recommended by some
countries. We have also learned from the successes of the past, and are,
wherever possible focusing our efforts on the use of market mechanisms to
reduce costs.
One of the most innovative of these is the introduction of "emissions trading" into
the lexicon of international agreements. The concept has been successfully used
to reduce costs (as much as tenfold) in meeting the standards set for power plant
emissions of sulfur dioxide. A similar program has also been successfully
implemented in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer. In the climate context, we envision that Parties would be allowed to trade
their emissions - seeking to reduce them where it is most cost-effective to do so.
While we are still engaged in working through some of the details of how to
implement this proposal, it is clear that such a program could significantly
reduce the costs; some studies suggest by up to one-half.
Another piece of our strategy on flexibility is joint implementation. Through
joint implementation, countries are allowed to undertake emissions reductions
6
projects in developing countries and count these reductions against their own
emissions. We believe that joint implementation holds enormous potential to
reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. Joint
implementation would also produce other benefits such as encouraging
technological innovation, promoting the use of cutting-edge U.S. energy
technologies, and protecting forests and other critical habitat around the world.
The U.S. has extensive experience with successful joint implementation projects.
Recently, our approach on joint implementation received a major boost when
President Clinton received the endorsement of the Dominican Republic and the
seven Central American nations to endorse our concept of joint implementation
for credit. This is a good example of our commitment to pushing through flexible
mechanisms to implement new commitments under the Climate Change
Protocol.
Developing Countries: We recognize the importance of including developing countries
in this agreement. Their participation is critical to achieving any kind of a lasting
success in combating the threat of climate change. For that reason, the participation of
developing countries has been a central piece of our own negotiating strategy. We must
seek a level playing field in which all countries that contribute to the problem
contribute to its solution.
7
06/20/97
10:57
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
010/015
Developed countries, including the former Soviet Union and the countries of
Eastern Europe, contribute about 60% of global emissions today, and developing
countries account for about 40%. What do these numbers tell us? First, that the
developed countries have historically contributed the greatest amount to the
current heightened concentrations; we have fouled the nest. But the developing
countries are rapidly growing, as are their emissions. The United States, with
5% of the world's population, is the largest greenhouse gas emitter, with more
than 20% of the world's emissions. But China is not far behind, and is expected
to pass us sometime in the first quarter of the 2 1st Century, although on a per
capita basis, its emissions are projected to be less than one fifth of our own even
then.
There is a clear concern about the potential impacts on our international
competitiveness. Let me assure you that developing countries are part of our
negotiating strategy and they must join us in order to insure that no country
suffers significant competitive disadvantage.
We are all in this together, with different histories but with the same future. We
pull a heavier oar at the beginning; over time, we all must pull together. Our
policy has to be calibrated to reflect this reality. We cannot expect to solve the
global problem unless all countries -- developed and developing -- participate in
the solution. To this end, we have proposed three separate elements for
developing countries in our proposal for Kyoto:
8
9099
OES-OA-MLP
011/015
1. We call on developing countries to continue to elaborate on their
commitments in the Convention - including by providing information on
emissions on an annual basis (the same as for developed countries), and by
taking "no regrets measures" (actions which may be valuable in their own
right, and which also mitigate climate change). We also call for a regular
review of the actions developing countries are taking (again, using a review
process similar to that established to assess our own actions).
2. We call on the newly developed countries (such as Mexico and Korea) to take
on binding legal obligations to reduce emissions, recognizing that while the
targets they adopt may not be the same as our own, such commitments will
codify their new status, and differentiate them from the lesser developed
countries. We are now working with potential members of this group to seek
their agreement on such a step. While by no means an easy task, we believe
that in Kyoto, we can find some language to insure that countries in this
category will take on commitments that correspond to their more developed
status.
3. We call for the negotiation of a new legal instrument which will include
legally binding obligations for all countries - including all developing
countries - as a next step in the path toward the ultimate stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that is not
9
06/20/97
10:58
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
012/015
dangerous. This step, too, faces significant difficulty in the negotiations
leading toward Kyoto.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to note that one of the most important
potential incentives with regard to additional developing country participation--
the Global Environmental Facility - would be seriously undermined if Congress
does not fully fund the U.S. contribution to this program. I hope you will support
our request of $100 million for the GEF for this year.
Let me close this morning by briefly reviewing for you the negotiating process
between now and December 1- when we meet in Kyoto for the third session of
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention.
We have two more one-week officials-level negotiating sessions - the first in late
July in Bonn, and the second in late October, also in Germany. During these two
weeks we will be examining and negotiating the extensive text, which is a
compilation of all the material submitted by all countries. This is an extremely
divergent and broad document reflecting many interests around the world and it
must be moved toward some consensus.
At one end of the spectrum, reflecting their strong commitment to making an
aggressive statement, the European Union has proposed that developed
countries reduce emissions by 15 % below 1990 levels by the year 2010. The
10
06/20/97
10:58
202 647 9099
OES-0A-MLP
013/015
Organization of Small Island States has proposed a 20% reduction by the year
2005.
At the other end, reflecting their concerns with the potential impacts of various
emission reduction proposals (particularly on reductions in the consumption of
fossil fuel), OPEC countries have introduced a proposal that they be
compensated for any economic cost they might incur as a result of treaty
requirements.
Other countries have introduced recommendations that they be allocated an
individualized, different target. This commitment to so-called "differentiation" is
not yet defined, but is used by many countries as a first step toward finding their
own way of joining the negotiating process.
As we examine these proposals, and develop our own negotiation strategy, we
will continue to be guided by our own principles of feasibility and economic
opportunity. We are, as you know, doing extensive economic modeling, and we
have not yet completed the process. We expect the modeling will soon be
completed and available to all interested parties.
I think it is useful as we think about the economic impacts of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions that we remember over 2,300 economists, including
eight Nobel Laureates, have endorsed a statement which in part states:
11
06/20/97
10:58
202 647 9099
OES-OA-MLP
014/015
" As economists, we believe that global climate change carries
with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical
risks, and that preventive steps are justified For the United
States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are
policy options that would slow climate change without harming
American living standards, and these measures may in fact
improve U.S. productivity in the longer run."
I would ask that the economists' statement also be included in the record.
Finally, I should note that we understand that Kyoto is but one more step on the
long road toward stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of carbon and other
greenhouse forcing gases. The long-term goal is stabilization of concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an acceptable level. This is a task that
must begin now but which will require a sustained effort over the next decades.
Kyoto is a first step, but a very important one. The message that we send, by
what we do, is enormously important. We believe we can succeed by:
-- developing new technologies, and thus improving the way we fuel our
economy, transport ourselves, and process materials
-- using flexible economic instruments and market mechanisms
12
015/015
-- bringing in developing countries as full partners
-- fulfilling the obligations of our leadership role
And throughout this process, we can continue to promote economic development
and improve the standard of living for the American people, while we protect the
environment.
It is important, in Kyoto, that we set up a system that will work -- one 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 we send a clear signal to governments and industries so they 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 must take the lead, everyone must participate in moving toward the
solution.
I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues on this most
challenging and complex of environmental issues.
Thank you very much and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
13
Apr-09-97 02:21P Climate Change Task Force
P.02
OMR
F41
CC:JS
White House Climate Change Task Force
750 Jackson Place. N.W. Washington, DC 20503
April 9, 1997
MEETING NOTICE
Per Alicia work will
To:
Distribution
Dirk Forrister 343-1060
Jeff, also CEA. warkent Calledin name ja
From:
Re:
First Monthly Task Force Meeting
marks wary washington. of
As you know. Katie McGinty (Council on Environmental Quality) and Dan Tarullo (National
Economic Council) established the White House Climate Change Task Force to coordinate
communications efforts across agencies in order to support the international negotiations leading
up to the Kyoto Summit in December. I appreciate the many words of encouragement and
support as we have been getting organized.
I would like to invite you to serve on the Task Force itself. which will meet on a monthly basis to
coordinate communications efforts across agencies. If you are not the appropriate representative
for your agency, please give me a call to discuss who would be more appropriate. The Task
Force will help guide the work of three staff-level working groups: (1.) public communications
and education: (2.) congressional affairs: and (3.) media response. Given the importance of this
effort. there will be no substitutions for Principals at the Task Force meetings.
The Task Force staff has been working hard to audit our current communications situation and to
begin to plan and work with your agencies to implement improved communications about the
Administration's policy priorities. In order to develop and finalize our work plan. we need an
intensive "kick off' session of the Task Force. After consulting with several of you. [ plan to
schedule a 3 hour off-site meeting. If you are willing to devote this time and we use it wisely. it
should save us many hours of meetings later. The Task Force staff will provide agenda and
background papers prior to the meeting to expedite our work.
Given scheduling difficulties. I thought it best to poll Task Force Members on your availability SQ
that we can ensure maximum attendance. Please fill out the attached form with your preferences
on meeting times and return it by fax to Mary Washington at the Task Force (fax: 343-1162) by
noon Thursday. April 10. Your prompt response will enable us to select a final time and place SO
that you can plan your schedule accordingly.
I appreciate your interest in this effort. If you have questions, please feel free to give me a call.
'II'
1060
Fax 202
Apr-09-97 02:21P Climate Change Task Force
P.03
RESPONSE FORM FOR TASK FORCE OFF-SITE PLANNING SESSION
Please respond with your preferences by noon Thursday, April 10
Name:
Agency:
I can be available the following days and times:
Thursday, April 17, 3:00 to 6:00 pm
Friday, April 18, 9:00 am to Noon
Friday, April 18, 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Friday, April 18,
to
Apr-09-97 02:21P Climate Change Task Force
P.01
Distribution:
David Sandalow, CEQ/NSC
Marc Chupka, DOE
Mark Mazur, CEA/NEC
Kyle Simpson, DOE
Shelly Fidler, CEQ
Josh Gottbaum, Treasury
Rosina Bierbaum, OSTP
Ev Ehrlich, Commerce
Jerry Melillo, OSTP
Jeffrey Hunker, Commerce
T.J. Glauthier, OMB
Bill Samuels, Labor
Alicia Munell, CEA
Frank Kruesi, Transportation
Jeffrey Frankel, CEA
Charlie Rawls, Agriculture
Eileen Claussen, State
Brooks Yeager, Interior
Rafe Pomerance, State
Terry Garcia, NOAA
David Gardner, EPA
Mary Nichols, EPA
Jun-17-97 03:59P Climate Change Task Force
P.01
do:s
June 17, 1997
JAT
FAX MEMO
J.S
TO:
Katie McGinty, David Sandalow at CEQ
Am
Dan Tarullo, Mark Mazur at NEC
FROM:
Dirk Forrister, Climate Change Task Force
RE:
Attachment
Attached is the version of the document that was delivered to Todd Stern. It was shortened per
Todd's comments, eliminating the "message" text.
Thanks.
Jun-17-97 04:00P Climate Change Task Force
P.02
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 and benefits from the
involvement of a broad range of participants.
Overall-Strategy: A Three Pronged Approach
1. President's Vision Set Forth at UNGASS
2. Engage American Public in National Dialogue
3. Outreach to Policy Community
1.
President's Remarks at UNGASS: Intensive Engagement to Chart Path Forward
Goal:
Set President's vision for approaching climate change and begin national dialogue.
drawing business. labor and environmentalists into a cooperative process on how
best to move forward.
2.
Engaging the American Public in a National Dialogue on Path Forward
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:
Presidential Events:
3 radio addresses by end of September (first possibly on June 28)
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.
Vice Presidential Events:
Site visits to technology demonstration projects (e.g. biomass or wind
demonstrations in Iowa or Minnesota)
Announce a New Clean Cities participant (Houston. Phoenix, New York City)
Partnership for Advanced Housing Technology (new development at Stapleton
Airport in Denver or southern California/Florida in disaster vulnerable areas)
Visit a Federal facility participating in the Federal Energy Management Program
Jun-17-97 04:00P Climate Change Task Force
P.03
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.
3.
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:
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.
Examples for President: meeting with Nobel laureates, meeting with religious
leaders, meet with Congressional leaders to stress environmental imperative.
Examples for Vice President: Dinner with Congressional leaders: Lead a
Congressional visit with scientific leaders to the Smithsonian's climate change
exhibit.
Industry Roundtables: Series of CEO meetings with POTUS. VP, Cabinet members &
Jun-17-97 04:00P Climate Change Task Force
P.04
other senior staff. Offer our policy inclinations, get feedback and ask for their ideas on
what's missing. Examples:
Invite Norm Augustine, CEO of Lockhead Martin, to bring 10-15 CEOs of major
environmental technology firms for meeting.
Invite John Browne, CEO of BP. to bring 10-15 oil/gas CEOs for meeting.
Invite R. Linn Draper, CEO of AEP, to bring 10-15 moderate electric utility
CEOs for meeting.
Invite Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, and Dennis Bakke, CEO of AES. to bring 10-15
independent power developers for meeting.
Invite Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, to bring 10-15 energy efficiency
technology firms for meeting.
Invite 10-15 renewable energy CEOs for meeting.
Disseminate broadly the results of the PCAST review. The Committee has been
challenged to produce an energy strategy that will meet the "energy and environment
needs of the next century" by October.
We should still consider an open meeting with the Washington, D.C., policy community
on peer-reviewed economic analysis and other information to be used in the regional
conferences.
Notational 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 UNGASS - 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
:- Jun-17-97 04:00P Climate Change Task Force
P.05
Late September:
White House National Conference - TBD
September:
President's Remarks to UNGA - 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
Jun-17-97 02:51P Climate Change Task Force
P.01
CC
JY
June 17, 1997
FAX MEMO
ASAF
Am
TO:
Todd Stern, Staff Secretary
Katie McGinty, David Sandalow at CEQ
Dan Tarullo, Mark Mazur at NEC
FROM:
Dirk Forrister, Climate Change Task Force
03
RE: Attachment
At the direction of Shelley Fidler and David Sandalow, I have tried to incorporate comments to
the attached in response to the morning meeting. OSTP sent several suggestions. which we
incorporated as best we could in time available.
Obviously, it got longer. Now 5 pages. I am open to suggestions -- easiest way to shorten is to
drop out "messages" and save for later.
Please advise.
Thanks,
Dirk at 343-1060
(Or fax changes to 343-1162)
:
Jun-17-97 02:51P Climate Change Task Force
P.02
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 and benefits from the
involvement of a broad range of participants.
Overall Strategy: A Three Pronged Approach
1. President's Vision Set Forth at UNGASS
2. Engage American Public in National Dialogue
3. Outreach to Policy Community
1.
President's Remarks at UNGASS: Intensive Engagement to Chart Path Forward
Goal:
Set President's vision for approaching climate change and begin national dialogue,
drawing business, labor and environmentalists into a cooperative process on how
best to move forward.
Message:
America has played an important role in this century for a peaceful and prosperous world.
There are new challenges on the horizon. As America prepares to enter the 21" century.
we are committed to improving our public education, advancing free trade, and beginning
the transformation to a more sustainable environment.
Climate change is our most important global environmental challenge as we approach the
21" century. The science is firm; the early evidence in consistent. Risks of inaction are
high and unacceptable: increased storms, droughts and heat waves; increased sea level
rise; more spread of infectious disease; problematic agricultural shifts; loss of forests and
ecosystems. Costs of action are low and manageable, provided that policies are flexible
and market based and that technology is deployed. Waiting isn't the answer because it
makes the job harder to solve.
I know the economy and how to create jobs. I am going to promote America's economic
future and enhance the prospects for American workers. And I am going to find a way to
address climate change effectively. We can do both.
The path forward is clear: we need an effective international policy to control emissions.
We're committed to maximum flexibility for businesses SO we can achieve the greatest
environmental benefits at the lowest cost. We need a commitment to act but act
thoughtfully and a recognition that this is a global issue to be addressed globally. We need
policies that send strong signals to the market spurring investment and innovation in
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Jun-17-97 02:51P Climate Change Task Force
P.03
I need the business community to step forward to work with us to find solutions. We need
honest dialogue and a common vision. We need pragmatic steps now and ambitious goals
for the future. We need to turn our technological prowess into an engine for change in
abating greenhouse gas emissions. We can do this together, if we set our minds to it.
Today, I'm asking every American to consider being part of this solution. Over the
coming weeks, I'm asking the Vice President and my cabinet to engage in a new dialogue
with the American public to find a common vision on the policy solutions required. I want
them to report back to me at a White House Conference in early September with their
findings on how best to move forward.
I know that with the strength of the American spirit, the ingenuity of industry and the
dedication to our children, we will meet this new challenge.
2.
Engaging the American Public in a National Dialogue on Path Forward
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.
Message:
We're serious about addressing climate change problems. We can meet the
challenge better by working together than apart. We want to share what we have
learned about climate science, economic impacts and opportunities, and possible
policy alternatives. We want to listen to your views and incorporate them into our
decision making. With concrete proposals, business can play a critical role in our
decision making. We want to draw together America's best scientists, economists.
and industry leaders to chart a path forward. And we want to go united into the
world community with a vision of where all of America believes we should go on
this critical issue.
Strategy:
Presidential Events:
3 radio addresses by end of September (first possibly on June 28)
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.
Vice Presidential Events:
Site visits to technology demonstration projects (e.g. biomass or wind
Jun-17-97 02:52P Climate Change Task Force
P.04
demonstrations in Iowa or Minnesota)
Announce a New Clean Cities participant (Houston, Phoenix, New York City)
Partnership for Advanced Housing Technology (new development at Stapleton
Airport in Denver or southern California/Florida in disaster vulnerable areas)
Visit a Federal facility participating in the Federal Energy Management Program
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. (Include mix of Albright. Rubin. Daley, Browner. Peña,
Glickman, Babbitt. Shalala, Richardson, Witt, McGinty, Sperling. Tarullo. Gibbons,
Yellin. etc.). 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 region. would be comprehensive. but each would have a special focus, tailored to
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.
3.
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.
Message:
We need your help. Work with us, and we will jointly develop solutions that will
work effectively and mitigate negative economic impacts to your business.
Strategy:
President and VP should each reserve 10 - 12 slots for climate orientation briefings and
Jun-17-97 02:52P Climate Change Task Force
P.05
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.
Examples for President: meeting with Nobel laureates, meeting with religious
leaders, meet with Congressional leaders to stress environmental imperative.
Examples for Vice President: Dinner with Congressional leaders; Lead a
Congressional visit with scientific leaders to the Smithsonian's climate change
exhibit.
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.
Invite Norm Augustine. CEO of Lockhead Martin, to bring 10-15 CEOs of major
environmental technology firms for meeting.
Invite John Browne, CEO of BP, to bring 10-15 oil/gas CEOs for meeting.
Invite R. Linn Draper, CEO of AEP, to bring 10-15 moderate electric utility
CEOs for meeting.
Invite Ken Lay. CEO of Enron, and Dennis Bakke, CEO of AES, to bring 10-15
independent power developers for meeting.
Invite Michael Bonsignore. CEO of Honeywell, to bring 10-15 energy efficiency
technology firms for meeting.
Invite 10-15 renewable energy CEOs for meeting.
Disseminate broadly the results of the PCAST review. The Committee has been
challenged to produce an energy strategy that will meet the "energy and environment
needs of the next century" by October.
We should still consider an open meeting with the Washington, D.C., policy community
conferences. on peer-reviewed economic analysis and other information to be used in the regional
Additional Points:
Resources:
In order to implement the strategy effectively. we need to significantly upgrade our
Jun-17-97 02:52P Climate Change Task Force
P.06
outreach effort. It will take significant financial and staff resources to conduct
preparations and carry out events and follow up. White House communications and
advance personnel could contribute expertise in planning this education drive. In
addition, principals would need to make time available for preparation. speeches,
roundtables, etc.
Up to $2 million (rough estimate) would be required for the regional and White House
conference. We will need to designate a central coordinating facility to augment the
White House Climate Change Task Force on this project.
Orientation: In order to jump start the process, it will be necessary to have a half-day
orientation session for principals, perhaps at the Vice President's residence or the
Blair House. This would cover science, economics. technology, and policy
options. This would happen in early July.
Notational 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 UNGASS - 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 UNGA - 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
R
EDEFINING PROGRESS
ONE KEARNY STREET
4TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94108
Telephone 415.781.1191
Facsimile 415.781.1198
March 10, 1997
Jeffrey Frankel
Member Nominee
Council of Economic Advisers
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Frankel,
Peggy Duxbury, the Director of Corporate Policy for Redefing
Progress, asked me to forward this information to you. Enclosed you will
find the list of signatories to the Economists' Statement on Climate
Change. There are currently 2,488 signatories. As you peruse the list you
will notice that one asterisk (*) denotes one of the original five
economists that drafted the statement, two asterisks (**) denotes a Nobel
laureate in Economic Science.
If you have any questions regarding the statement or the list of
signatories please contact Peggy Duxbury at 202-588-8900; or you may
want to contact our Senior Economist, Professor Stephen DeCanio of the
University of California, Santa Barbara at 805-893-3130.
Sincerely,
am Chland
Elsa Cleland
Program Assistant
Printed on
Kery Paper
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Herbert S. Wong
Howard M. Wachtel
American University
Robert L. Wood, Jr.
James H. Weaver
American University
Dhez Woodworth
Karen Hallows
American University, Averett College
Donald Wooten
Ralph E. Beals
Amherst College
Jiehjou Joe Wu
Richard C. Hoyt
Analytics
Martin J. Wyand
Samuel Gubins
Annual Reviews Inc.
Steven Yamarik
Elbert V. Bowden
Appalachian State University
Richard Young
James Cavallo
Argonne National Laboratory
Robert C. Young
Lutz Hendricks
Arizona State University
Piljoo Yum
Michael Lemmon
Arizona State University
Katherine K. Yunker
Gary A. Latanich
Arkansas State University
Peter Zadrozny
Brian J. Cody
Arthur Andersen
Jay Zarnikau
Kevin J. O'Connor
Assistant Attorney General
Stephen H. Zeller
Thomas White
Assumption College
M. G. Zephirin
Jian Cao
AT&T
Mingliang Zhang
Douglas G. Hobbs
AT&T
Jacob Benus
ABT Associates
Christopher J. Monroe
AT&T
Clark C. Abt
ABT Associates, Inc.
Kumiko Powell
AT&T
Leland Deck
ABT Associates, Inc.
Gregory Napiorkowski
AT&T Laboratories
Ulrich F.W. Ernst
ABT Associates, Inc.
Louis T. Brewer
AT&T. Rtd.
Robert Kornfeld
ABT Associates, Inc.
Robert F. Hebert
Auburn University
Marty Makinen
ABT Associates, Inc.
John P. Sophocleus
Auburn University
Gregory B Mills
ABT Associates, Inc.
Henry Thompson
Auburn University
Larry L. Orr
ABT Associates, Inc.
Hiro Fukao
Aurthur D. Little
Gunars Hauff Platais
ABT Associates, Inc.
Patrick J. Kennon
Aviation Economics
Allen B. Ferguson
AFE, Inc.
Mark Tomass
Babson College
Amy K. Taylor
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
Stephen Silver
BADM, The Citadel
Chiou-nan Yeh
Alabama State University
Judith A. Smrha
Baker University
Earl W. Adams
Allegheny College
Barbara Sherman Rolleston
Baldwin-Wallace College
Kenneth G. Ainsworth
Allegheny College
Terence E. Byrne
Baltimore-Washington Financial Advisors
Stephen D. Casler
Allegheny College
Leland S. Prussia
Bank of America Corporation
Pamela Mobilia
Alpine PCS
R. McFall Lamm, Jr.
Bankers Trust Co.
Michael Stavy
Alternative Energy and EV's
Maxwell Rhee
Banque Nationale de Paris
Paul Thompson
AMBAC Indemnity
Mary Lashley Barcella
Barcella Associates
Riad Tabbarah
Ambassador of Lebanon to the U.S.
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Bard College
Daniel Bell
American Academy of Arts & Science
Shannon Mudd
Barente Group
Paul Kahane
American Economic Association
Gopal Iyer
Baruch College
M. Abdul Shibli
American Economic Association
Theodore Joyce
Baruch College
Jay G. Chambers
American Institutes for Research
Ted Walther
Bates College
Donald Rosenthal
American Management Systems
Steve Shanltle
Battelle
Tom Everding
American Medical Association
Kathrine F. Wellman
Battelle Memorial Institute
Donald Bowles
American University
Dave Anderson
Battelle-Northwest
Robin Hahnel
American University
David B. Belzer
Battelle-Northwest
Sue Headlee
American University
Joseph A. McKinney
Baylor University
Alan G. Isaa
American University
John Katharopoulos
BCBS of Michigan
Bruce H. Lubich
American University
Ernie Nadel
BCI
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Wayne A. Morra
Beaver College
Andrew Weiss
Boston University
James Lacey
Bell Labs
Carla Y. Willis
Boston University
Steven G. Lanning
Bell Labs Lucent Technologies
Wei Yu
Boston University
Roger Story
Bellcore
William F. Samuelson
Boston University School of Management
Kristina Weir
Bellevue Community College
John Fitzgerald
Bowdoin College
Gary L. Hodgin
Belmont University
Charles R. Chittle
Bowling Green State University
Mary M. Thompson
Belmont University
Paul F. Haas
Bowling Green State University
Warren Palmer
Beloit College
Alan Day Haight
Bowling Green State University
Marc Bendick, Jr.
Bendick & Egan Economic Consultants, Inc.
Mark Kasoff
Bowling Green State University
Bertrand LaNoue, O.S.B.
Benedictine College
Kyoo Kim
Bowling Green State University
Janet M. Thomas
Bentley College
Harold I. Lunde
Bowling Green State University
Lucy Ackert
Berry College
Stephen Ziliak
Bowling Green State University
Bassem Abou-Zeid
Bethel College
Felicia Yesari
BPBA-New York
Phyllis Campbell
Bethel College
Kalman Goldberg
Bradley University
Miles O. Bidwell
Bidwell Associates Inc.
Kevin M. O'Brien
Bradley University
Charles W. Bischoff
Binghamton University
Anne P. Carter
Brandeis University
Clifford D. Clark
Binghamton University
Gary H. Jefferson
Brandeis University
Stanley H. Masters
Binghamton University
Arthur Lewbel
Brandeis University
Dr. N.J. Wulwick
Binghamton University
Rachel McCulloch
Brandeis University
L. Aubrey Drewry, Jr.
Birmingham-Southem College
Brian Kelly
Brian Kelly Inc.
M. Iqbal Akhtar
Blackburn College
Robert Axtell
Brookings Institution
Bennett W. Golub
Blackrouk Financial Management
Margaret M. Blair
Brookings Institution
Edward Bloom
Bloom Research
William Dickens
Brookings Institution
Woo-Bong Lee
Bloomsburg University
Edward R. Fried
Brookings Institution
Marshall Reinsdorf
BLS
Robert E. Litan
Brookings Institution
Ronald L. Friesen
Bluffton College
Nora Lustig
Brookings Institution
Chong-en Bai
Boston College
Robert Solomon
Brookings Institution
Christopher Baum
Boston College
Leo J. Raskind
Brooklyn Law School
Frank M. Gollop
Boston College
Louis Putterman
Brown University
Marvin Kraus
Boston College
Mark B. Schupack
Brown University
Robert G. Murphy
Boston College
Michael Spagat
Brown University
Harold Petersen
Boston College
Akio Yasuhara
Brown University
Joseph F. Quinn
Boston College
David R. Ross
Bryn Maur College
Paul Streeten
Boston College
Thomas Loo
Budget Comp.
Donald J. White
Boston College
Christian Ehemann
Bureau of Econ.Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Eli Berman
Boston University
Gerald A. Pollack
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Zvi Bodie
Boston University
Joel D. Fischer
Burnham Securities Inc.
William M. Capron
Boston University
Hasan MacNeil
Butte College
Jonathan Eaton
Boston University
Bruce W. Kimzey
BYU-Hawaii, School of Business
Shane J. Hunt
Boston University
Robert Wassmer
Cal State Sacramento
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Boston University
James M. Payne
Calhoun Community College
Thomas McGuire
Boston University
Tsong-Yue Lai
Califonia State University
Zvika Neeman
Boston University
Malcom Dole, Jr.
California Air Resources Board
Debraj Ray
Boston University
Seymour Goldstone
California Energy Commission
Ingo Vogelsang
Boston University
Lionel J. Lerner
California Energy Commission, Rtd.
David Weil
Boston University
Charles R. Plott
California Insitute of Technology
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Lance E. Davis
California Institute of Technology
Robert K. Arnold
CCSCE
Phillip Fanchon
California Polytechnic State University
Robert Deuson
Center for Disease Control
James Ahern
California Polytechnic University
Stephen T. Parente
Center for Health Affairs
Franklin Y. Ho
California Sate Polytechnic University
Carol Moore
Center for Naval Analysis
Daniel R. Blake
California State University
Jan Ondrich
Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University
Neil Garston
California State University
Sidney Weintraub
Center for Strategic and IntL. Studies
Tom G. Geurts
California State University
Paul B. Ginsburg
Center for Studying Health System Change
A. R. Gutowsky
California State University
James Reschovsky
Center for Studying Health System Change
Don R. Leet
California State University
Richard Glendening
Central College
Madhu S. Mohanty
California State University
Brian Peterson
Central College
Eduardo M. Ochoa
California State University
N. Wayne Jordan
Central Florida Community College
Michael Perelman
California State University
Paul Natke
Central Michigan University
Anil K. Puri
California State University
Baird Allen Brock
Central Missouri State University
Eric J. Solberg
California State University
David A. Anderson
Centre College
Donald J. Oswald
California State University, Bakersfield
Bruce K. Johnson
Centre College
Robert G. James
California State University, Chico
Robert E. Martin
Centre College
Suleman A. Moosa
California State University, Chico
Michael J. Walsh
Centre Financial Products Ltd.
Scott Houser
California State University, Fresno
Raymond Sfeir
Chapman University
Robert S. Ozaki
California State University, Hayward
Robert J. Larner
Charles River Associates
Paul D. Staudohar
California State University, Hayward
Philip K. Vealecer Sr.
Charles River Associates
Marion S. Beaumont
California State University, Long Beach
Deloris R. Wright
Charles River Associates
Micheal J. Farrell
California State University, Long Beach
Gladys A. Dejesus
Chowan College
John A. Tomaske
California State University, Los Angeles
Laurits R. Christensen
Christensen Associates
H. Dieter Renning
California State University, Stanislaus
Samuel Cutting
Christensen Associates
Mary Fair Berglund
California Transportation Commission
Koenraad M. Driessens
Christensen Associates
Young J. Park
California University of Pennsyvania
Laurence D. Kirsch
Christensen Associates
Julie Elston
Caltech
Philip Schoech
Christiansen Associates
John P. Tiemstra
Calvin College
Rita C. Sweeney
Christiansen Associates
Scott V. Parris
Cambridge University Press
Kookshin Ahn
Chung-Ang University, Seoul
Pierre Canac
Cameron School of Business
Jarl R. Hellemalm-Ashfield
Church of God
John M. Courington
Cameron University
Frederick Schroeder
Cigna Financial Advisors, Inc.
Yu-Mong Hsiao
Campbell University
Alfred Eisenpreis
City Innovation
Andrew C. Givens
Cardinal Energy Service, Inc.
Alfred Keisenpress
City Innovation
Dickson K. Smith
Cardinal Strich College
Gordon Alexander
City of Austin, Texas
George H. Lamson
Carleton College
Greg Hill
City of Seattle
Stephen H. Strand
Carleton College
Paul A. Zak
Claremont Graduate School
Mark S. Kamlet
Carnegie Mellon University
Mark Haggerty
Clarion University
Lester B. Lave
Carnegie Mellon University
Daniel M. Bernhofen
Clark University
George Loewenstein
Carnegie Mellon University
John C. Brown
Clark University
Allan H. Meltzer
Carnegie Mellon University
Joseph Golec
Clark University
Russell Sheldon
Carnegie Mellon University
Wayne B. Gray
Clark University
Shyam Sunder
Carnegie Mellon University
Attiat P. Ott
Clark University
Chris I. Telmer
Carnegie Mellon University
Rudy Yaksick
Clark University
Bo Carlsson
Case Western Reserve University
Fredric Menz
Clarkson University
Amresh Hanchate
Case Western Reserve University
J.K. Mullen
Clarkson University
Robert E. Schill
Castleton State College
Holley Ulbrich
Clemson University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Michael Bond
Cleveland State University
Harold W. Watts
Columbia University
John F. Burke Jr.
Cleveland State University
Susan S. Wieler
Columbia University
Myong-Hun Chang
Cleveland State University
Maurice Wilkinson
Columbia University
Donald G. Freeman
Cleveland State University
Elliot Zupnik
Columbia University
Jon D. Harford
Cleveland State University
Duncan K. Foley
Columbia University, Barnard College
Vijay K. Mathur
Cleveland State University
Perry Mehrling
Columbia University, Barnard College
Peter J. Francis
CNA Corporation
Rajiv Sethi
Columbia University, Barnard College
H. A. Gemery
Colby College
William J. Beeman
Committee for Economic Development
Randy Nelson
Colby College
Ronald S. Boster
Committee for Economic Development
Tom Tietenberg
Colby College
Andrew Haggard
Committee for Economic Development
Wayne A. Grove
Colgate University
Van Doorn Ooms
Committee for Economic Development
Michael R. Haines
Colgate University
Robert Atallo
Comp. Resource Solution
Oz Honkalehto
Colgate University
Jeffrey G. Woods
Concord College
David M. Sturges
Colgate University
William A. Cop
Congressional Research Service
Robert W. Turner
Colgate University
Dick Nanto
Congressional Research Service
Lawrence J. Frateschi
College of Du Page
Spencer J. Pack
Connecticut College
Mary Goldschmid
College of Mount Saint Vincent
Daniel W. Kennedy
Connecticut Labor Dept.
Lee H. Endress
College of Security Studies, Asia-Pacific Center
Stuart Harshbarger
Coopers and Lybrand
Marcia J. Frost
College of St. Benedict
Ziad Ayash
Coopers & Lybrand
James R. Ashley
College of St. Catherine
Habtu Braha
Coppin State College
Miles B. Cahill
College of the Holy Cross
Donald C. Cell
Cornell College
David H. Feldman
College of Wiliam and Mary
Imran Farooqi
Cornell College
Robert B. Archibald
College of William and Mary
Gordon Urquhart
Cornell College
Eric R. Jensen
College of William and Mary
John H. Bishop
Cornell University
John S. Strong
College of William and Mary
Duane Chapman
Cornell University
Carol A. Dahl
Colorado School of Mines
Gary S. Fields
Cornell University
Graham Davis
Colorado School of Mines
Robert H. Frank
Cornell University
Wade E. Martin
Colorado School of Mines
Robert Gibbons
Cornell University
Robert R. Keller
Colorado State University
Robert C. Lind
Cornell University
John B. Loomis
Colorado State University
Bill Rosen
Cornell University
John R. McKean
Colorado State University
Shankar Subramanian
Cornell University
Kenneth C. Nobe
Colorado State University
Erik Thorbecke
Cornell University
Charles Revier
Colorado State University
Seymour Smidt
Cornell University, Johnson Graduate School
Stephen Weiler
Colorado State University
Hirsch S. Ruchlin
Cornell University Medical College
Kenneth N. Kuttner
Columbia Business School
Michael D. Topper
Cornerstone Research
Chris Mayer
Columbia Business School
Anne Bunton
Cottey College
Orba Traylor
Columbia College
Steven Neil Braun
Council of Economic Advisers
Chaitram J. Talele
Columbia State College
Alice Tepper Marlin
Council on Economic Priorities
Jay Pil Choi
Columbia University
Lenore H. Burckel
Cowers TM
Roger F. Murray
Columbia University
Naomi Chesler
CPE
Richard R. Nelson
Columbia University
Joseph M. Phillips
Creighton Unviersity
Hugh Patrick
Columbia University
Roberto Riley
Critical Decisions Group
Roberto Perotti
Columbia University
P. Hartland-Thunberg
CSIS
Giulio Pontecorvo
Columbia University
Joseph Berechman
CUNY
Stefan H. Robock
Columbia University
Albert I. A. Bookbinder
CUNY
Ronald M. Schramm
Columbia University
Lawrence Jay Kaplan
CUNY
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS ONE KEARNY STREET FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Hugo M. Kaufmann
CUNY
Wesley A. Magat
Duke University
Ki-Ho Kim
CUNY
Carol Mansfield
Duke University
Irving Stone
CUNY
Pietro Peretto
Duke University
Ashok Vora
CUNY
Ed Tower
Duke University
Robert Kaestner
CUNY, Baruch College
E. Roy Weintraub
Duke University
V. Petratos
CUNY, C. S. I.
Richard Henning
E. Elgar Publishers
Howard Chernick
CUNY, Hunter College
Seewoonundun Bunjun
East Stroudsburg University
Peter Eilbott
CUNY, Queens College
C.A. Christofides
East Stroudsburg University
Zadia H. Feliciano
CUNY, Queens College
P. Neelakantan
East Stroudsburg University
Harvey Gram
CUNY, Queens College
Perm S. Mann
Eastern Connecticut State University
Peter Chow
CUNY, The City College
Harold D. Nordin
Eastern Illinois University
Paul G. Althaus
CUNY, York College
James E. Payne
Eastern Kentucky University
Sheri L. Aggarwal
Dartmouth College
Thomas G. Watkins
Eastern Kentucky University
M. O. Clement
Dartmouth College
Richard A. Yoder
Eastern Mennonite University
Michael M. Knetter
Dartmouth College
Adrian J. Lottie
Eastern Michigan University
Dennis E. Logue
Dartmouth College
Michael G. Vogt
Eastern Michigan University
John A. Menge
Dartmouth College
Thomas W. Bonsor
Eastern Washington University
Sang-Seung Yi
Dartmouth College
Hugh Richards
ECON
David W. Martin
Davidson College
Frederic B. Jennings, Jr.
Econologistics
C. Louise Nelson
Davidson College
Richard A. Baum
Economic Analysis
George Szejner
DC Superior Court
Kenneth R. Button
Economic Consulting Services Inc
Gary D. Lemon
De Pauw University
Geoffrey H. Moore
Economic Cycle Research Institute
Peter Meenan
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Jared Bernstein
Economic Policy Institute
Richard Sciacca
Deloitte & Touche LLP
John A. Laitner
Economic Research Associates
Calvin A. Hoerneman
Delta College
Paul F. White
Economic Research Services, Inc.
Craig Walker
Delta State University
Steve Holland
Economics Institute
Pete Morton
Denver University
An-Sik Min
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Bala Batavia
DePaul University
Rudi W. Schadt
Edwin L. Cox School of Business, SMU
Woods Bowman
DePaul University
Robert J. Eggert
Eggert Economic Enterprises
Animesh Ghoshal
DePaul University
Eli Ginzberg
Eisenhower Center, Columbia University
Adolph E. Mark
DePaul University
Richard F. Muth
Emory University
Michael Marschoun
DePaul University
Jeffrey A. Rosenweig
Emory University
Max R. Langham
Dept of Food & Resource Economics
E. Somanathan
Emory University
Martha O. Blaxall
Development Alternatives, Inc.
Robert Catlett
Emporia State University
Eric R. Nelson
Development Alternatives, Inc.
C.K. Woo
Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.
Greig Harvey
DHS Associates
Bruce Stram
Enron Corporation
Gordon S. Bergsten
Dickinson College
Kenneth Acks
Env. Damage Valuation & Cost-Benefit News
Cono Casella
Dowlire Colege
Paul Holden
ERI
William M. Boal
Drake University
Robert Neal Peterson
ERS
Shawkat Hammoudeh
Drexel University
Dennis Erickson
Erskine College
Bijou Y. Lester
Drexel University
Kenneth P. Seiden
Essential Economics, Inc.
Vibhas Madan
Drexel University
Richard Castellana
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Andrew Verzilli
Drexel University
Steven A. Seelig
FDIC
Mark Y. An
Duke University
Danny A. Bring
Federal Communication Commission
Martin Bronfenbrenner
Duke University
Edward Lotterman
Federal Reserve Bank, Minneapolis
Philip J. Cook
Duke University
Kevin Lansing
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Joseph Haimowitz
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Mary Ann Baily
George Washington University
Richard M. Todd
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Anita M. Benvignati
George Washington University
Patricia Pollard
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Vincy Fon
George Washington University
Dean F. Amel
Federal Reserve Board
Warren Greenberg
George Washington University
Alexander David
Federal Reserve Board
Eric Kodjo Ralph
George Washington University
Dale W. Henderson
Federal Reserve Board
David C. Riber
George Washington University
Murat F. Iyigun
Federal Reserve Board
Julian Silk
George Washington University
Randall Mariger
Federal Reserve Board
Stephen C. Smith
George Washington University
Steve Rhoades
Federal Reserve Board
Elinor H. Solomon
George Washington University
Laura S. Rubin
Federal Reserve Board
John Cuddington
Georgetown University
Charles Siegman
Federal Reserve Board
Charles K. Ebinger
Georgetown University
Guy V.G. Stevens
Federal Reserve Board
Daniel Kahn
Georgetown University
Chunsheng Zhou
Federal Reserve Board
Mitch Kaneda
Georgetown University
Gerald D. Lomen
Federal Reserve Board of New York
Jens Ludwig
Georgetown University
George Budzeika
Federal Reserve Board of New York, Rtd.
Ibrahim M. Oweiss
Georgetown University
Richard E. Ludwick, Jr.
Federal Trade Commission
James Tybout
Georgetown University
Ohannes Hagopian
Felician College
George J. Viksnins
Georgetown University
Abdollah Ferdowsi
Ferris State University
Robert E. Moore
Georgia College & State University
Daniel Teferra
Ferris State University
Usha Nair
Georgia Institute of Technology
Herbert E. Neil
Financial and Economic Strategies
Ronald G. Cummings
Georgia State University
Gabriel Torres
Fitch Investor Services
Julie Hotchkiss
Georgia State University
Benjamin Chinitz
Florida Atlantic University
Jorge Martinez-Vazquez
Georgia State University
Alison Butler
Florida International University
Rubin Saposnik
Georgia State University
Maria Willumsen
Florida International Unversity
David L. Sjoquist
Georgia State University
James Cobbe
Florida State University
Richard J. Cebula
Georgia Tech
Charles E. Rockwood
Florida State University
Peter G. Sassone
Georgia Tech
William J. Serow
Florida State University, Ctr. for the Study of Pop.
Ralph Chances
Gettysburg College
Michael Slotkin
Florida Tech
Brendan Cushing-Daniels
Gettysburg College
Peter M. Ewen
Forcasts Department, APS
Katsuyuki Niiro
Gettysburg College
Bernard Wasow
Ford Foundation
Janamitra Devan
Global Strategies Group
Dominick Salvatore
Fordham University
Randal G. Gunden
Goshen College
Jacqueline G. Coolidge
Foreign Investment Advisory Service
Katherine Henneberger
Goucher College
Betty F. Slade
Formerly Harvard Inst. for Intl. Development
Mark Montgomery
Grinnell College
Glenn G. Stevenson
Formerly Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Claude Gruen
Gruen Gruen & Associates
Ronald G. Ridker
Formerly of The World Bank
Robert T. Tanimura
GTE Telephone Operations
Yury F. Ruban
Frontier Vision Technologies, Inc.
Peter C. Mayer
Guam Power Authority
Daniel A. Mizak
Frostburg State University
Louis D. Johnston
Gustavus Adolphus College
Young J. Park
Fu Associates, Ltd.
Herbert W. Fraser
H. W. Fraser Associates
Raul Moreno
Fundacion Nacional Para El Desarruo
Ahmad Faruqui
Hagler Bailly
Kim M. Gardey
Gardey Investment Management
Harold A. Cohen
Hal Cohen, Inc.
Anthony Negbenebor
Gardner Webb University
Robert E. Dansby
Halcyon Inc.
Frances Hammond
General Motors Corporation
John Haldi
Haldi Associates, Inc.
Claire Friedland
George J. Stigler Center, University of Chicago
Elizabeth J. Jensen
Hamilton College
Carrie A Meyer
George Mason University
Hilke Kayser
Hamilton College
Steven C. Michael
George Mason University
Burke Burright
Hamon Systems Center
Chris G. Rodrigo
George Mason Universtiy
Robert Charles Graham
Hanover College
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Samuel S. Chun
Harvard Business School
Abram Bergson
Harvard University, Littauer Center
Thomas K. McCraw
Harvard Business School
Rashi Fein
Harvard University, Medical School
Randall Bluffstone
Harvard Inst. for International Developement
David Hemenway
Harvard University, School of Public Health
Bruce R. Bolnick
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Maurine A. Haver
Haver Analytics
David C. Cole
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Shelley M. Mark
Hawaii, Dept of Bus. Econ. Devel. & Tourism
John Luke Gallup
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Vincent A. Fulmer
Hawthorn College
Clive S. Gray
Harvard Inst. for International Development
HIlda Kahne
Heller School, Brandeis University
Glenn P. Jenkins
Harvard Inst. for International Development
David E. Ervin
Henry A. Wallace Institute
Jeffrey D. Sachs
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Michael MacCully
High Point Univerisity
Jeffrey Vincent
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Michael McCully
HIgh Point University
Clifford Zinnes
Harvard Inst. for International Development
Ugur Aker
Hiram College
John Y. Campbell
Harvard University
Stephen L. Zabor
Hiram College
Robert Dorfman
Harvard University
James Metzger
Histecon Associates Inc.
Claudia Goldin
Harvard University
James E. Metzger
Histecon Associates Inc.
Lester E. Gordon
Harvard University
Takatoshi Ito
Hitotsubashi University, International Monetary Fund
Jerry R. Green
Harvard University
Matthew K. Loke
HMSA
Brian Hall
Harvard University
Jacob Weissman
Hofstra University
James K Hammitt
Harvard University
Walter E. Hoadley
Hoover Institution
Oliver Hart
Harvard University
Robin Klay
Hope College
* Dale Jorgenson
Harvard University
Linda Marie Dynan
Hospital Research and Education Trust
Lawrence Katz
Harvard University
Cleveland A. Chandler
Howard University
Nathan Keyfitz
Harvard University
Sung Kwack
Howard University
David Laibson
Harvard University
Chuck Nwaka
Howard University
Andrew Metrick
Harvard University
C. Elisabeth Pittman
HPA, Inc.
John R. Meyer
Harvard University
L. Douglas Lee
HSBC Washington Analysis
Cheol Soo Park
Harvard University
Mark Shroder
HUD (for identification only)
Dwight H. Perkins
Harvard University
David T. Hulett
Hulett & Associates
Amartya Sen
Harvard University
Steven Hackett
Humboldt State University
Steven Shavell
Harvard University
Daniel M. Ihara
Humboldt State University
Tilman Slembeck
Harvard University
Saeed Mortazavi
Humboldt State University
Roswell G. Townsend
Harvard University
Tim Yeager
Humboldt State University
Raymond Vernon
Harvard University
Alan McInnes
I.R.S.
Martin L. Weitzman
Harvard University
Tatsuji Hayakawa
IADB
Michael Whinston
Harvard University
Michael C. Barth
ICF Kaiser
P. Timothy Bushnell
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Robert Tokle
Idaho Sate University
David T. Ellwood
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Rob P. Vos
IDB
Richard F. Garbaccio
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Mylene Kherallah
IFPRI
Jose Antonio Gomez-Ibanez
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Lawrence Y. Fu
Illinois College
Mun S. Ho
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
J. Lon Carlson
Illinois State University
Christopher Jencks
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
L. Dean Hiebert
Illinois State University
Edward A. Parson
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt
Michael A. Nelson
Illinois State University
F. M. Scherer
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Michael C. Seeborg
Illinois Wesleyan University
William Spitz
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Thomas E. McGinnis
Indiana State Government
Robert Stavins
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Govt.
Janardhanan A. Alse
Indiana University
Robert H. Mnoouin
Harvard University, Law School
Fwu-Rang Chang
Indiana University
W. Kip Viscusi
Harvard University, Law School
Mariannne V. Felton
Indiana University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Roy Gardner
Indiana University
David T. Coe
International Monetary Fund
Craig W. Holden
Indiana University
Gregory C. Dahl
International Monetary Fund
Eckhard Janeba
Indiana University
Vikram Haksar
International Monetary Fund
Joyce Man
Indiana University
William L. Hemphill
International Monetary Fund
Lloyd Orr
Indiana University
Ernesto Hernandez-Cata
International Monetary Fund
Philip T. Powell
Indiana University
George Iden
International Monetary Fund
Phillip Saunders
Indiana University
Dev Kumar Kar
International Monetary Fund
Scott Smart
Indiana University
Malcom D. Knight
International Monetary Fund
Martin C. Spechler
Indiana University
Michael P. Leidy
International Monetary Fund
David Waterman
Indiana University
John E. Leimone
International Monetary Fund
Clarence C. Morrison
Indiana University Bloomington
Wayne E. Lewis
International Monetary Fund
Ashton I. Veramallay
Indiana University East
Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti
International Monetary Fund
Shyam 1. Bhatia
Indiana University Northwest
Rakia Moalla-Fetini
International Monetary Fund
Arthur Martel
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Alphecca Muttardy
International Monetary Fund
Robert J Stonebrakon
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Toshiro Nishizawa
International Monetary Fund
Roger W. Schmenner
Indiana University School of Business
Michael G. Papaioannou
International Monetary Fund
Thomas L. Guthrie
Indiana-Pudue at Fort Wayne
Lorenzo L. Perez
International Monetary Fund
Lawrence J. Haber
Indiana-Pudue at Fort Wayne
Patricia A. Reynolds
International Monetary Fund
Robert Weiss
Industrial Electrotechnology Laboratory
Kevin L. Ross
International Monetary Fund
Roy B. Helfgott
Industrial Relations Counselors Inc.
Thomas Rumbaugh
International Monetary Fund
Charles Marston
Infinity Inc.
Sunil Sharma
International Monetary Fund
Thomas P. Rothrock
Info Tech Inc.
Richard Stillson
International Monetary Fund
Bruce McKinlay
Information Systems Group
Mark R Stone
International Monetary Fund
Herbert Kiesling
Iniana University
Nicholas Tsaveas
International Monetary Fund
Jon Christianson
Inst. for Health Services Research
Caroline Van Ryckeghem
International Monetary Fund
Albert O. Hirschman
Institute for Advanced Study
Jeromin Zettelmeyer
International Monetary Fund
Geoffrey Carliner
Institute for International Economics
Jonathan Levin
International Monetary Fund, Rtd.
Robert J. Muscat
Institute for Policy Reform
Robert F. Lundy
Interstate Commerce Commision, Rtd.
Richard Webb
Instituto Cuanto
Nazrul Islam
Intl. Institute for Adv. Studies
Michael Gavin
Inter-American Development bank
Roger Williams
INVEST
Michael A. Gomez
Inter-American Development Bank
David Hennessy
lowa State University
Orlando A. Reos
Inter-American Development Bank
Stanley R. Johnson
Iowa State University
Charles Richter
Inter-American Development Bank
J. Peter Mattila
Iowa State University
Peter C. Balash
Internal Revenue Service
William Merrill
lowa State University
Joseph M. Crews
Internal Revenue Service
John A. Miranowski
Iowa State University
Dean Jolliffe
International Food Policy Research Institute
Peter Orazem
Iowa State University
Agnes R. Quisumbing
International Food Policy Research Institute
Cynthia Haciemun
Iowa Wesleyan College
Stephen A. Vosti
International Food Policy Research Institute
Shawky El Toukhy
ITA of New Jersey
Geert J. Almekinders
International Monetary Fund
Elia Kacapyr
Ithaca College
Adolfo Barajas
International Monetary Fund
M. Raquibuz Zaman
Ithaca College
James E. Blalock
International Monetary Fund
Marc Bilodeau
IUPUI
Zeljko Bogetic
International Monetary Fund
Jannette M. Barth
J.M. Barth & Associates, Inc.
Elaine Buckberg
International Monetary Fund
Andrew Kohen
James Madision Univerisity
Gustavo Canonero
International Monetary Fund
Joanne M. Doyle
James Madision University
Adrienne Cheasty
International Monetary Fund
Ehsan Ahmed
James Madison University
Peter B. Clark
International Monetary Fund
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.
James Madison University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
William C. Wood
James Madison University
Dwayne S. Breger
Lafayette College
Kevin Stokes
Jefferson Community College
James DeVault
Lafayette University
Ronald Swanstrom
Jefferson High School
Robert A. Baade
Lake Forest College
Edward J. Jorgenson
Jet Propulsion Laoboratory
Richard F. Dye
Lake Forest College
Lawrence R. Cima
John Carroll University
William Maskoff
Lake Forest College
Thomas A. Sears
John F. Kennedy University
Jeffrey O. Sundberg
Lake Forest College
Cristino R. Arroyo
Johns Hopkins University
Rolando A. Santos
Lakeland College
Christopher D. Carroll
Johns Hopkins University
Judith Markland
Landmark Strategies
Carl F. Christ
Johns Hopkins University
Thomas W. Langford
Langford and Associates
W. Max Corden
Johns Hopkins University
Christopher J. Pleatsikas
Law & Economics Consulting Group
David G. Fernandez
Johns Hopkins University
Steven Stoft
LBNL
Isaiah Frank
Johns Hopkins University
Hui-Liang Tsai
Lebanon Valley College
Louis J. Maccini
Johns Hopkins University
J. Richard Aronson
Lehigh University
Douglas W. Copeland
Johnson County Community College
Thomas Hyclak
Lehigh University
Zohreh M. Niknia
Johnson County Community College
Todd A. Watkins
Lehigh University
Nan L. Wilson
Johnson County Community College
Eban Goodstein
Lewis & Clark College
Milton Russell
Joint Institute for Energy and Environment
James H. Grant
Lewis & Clark College
Joseph A. Swanson
Joseph Swanson & Co.
Shaomin Huang
Lewis Clark State College
Kenneth A. Reinert
Kalamazoo College
Hal Sider
Lexecon Inc.
Andrew Barkley
Kansas State University
Jeffery T. Collins
Lincoln Memorial University
Robert B. Borges
Kansas State University
Vishwanath Tirupattur
Lincoln National
Patrick Gormely
Kansas State University
Randy R. Grant
Linfield College
Steve Hamilton
Kansas State University
Stpehen M. Lewarne
LMCL Corp
Richard L. D. Morse
Kansas State University
Douglas A. Wion
Lock Haven University
Amir Tavakkol
Kansas State University
Michael Edesess
Lockwood Financial Group
Roger Trenary
Kansas State University
Gang Feng
Lockwood Trade Journal Co., Inc.
Pierre Carasso
Kayne Anderson
John T. Evans
Long Island University
Carol M. Condon
Kean College of New Jeresey
P. M. Rao
Long Island University
Youn-Suk Kim
Kean College of New Jersey
Ranbir Varma
Long Island University
Alexander S. Kelso, Jr.
Kelso International
Brian R. Horrigan
Loomis, Sayles & Co.
Penelope B. Prime
Kennesaw State University
Steven Booth
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Richard J. Kemt
Kent State University
Verne W. Loose
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Arthur D. Chesler
Kentucky Wesleyan College
Robby C. Winters
Los Angeles City College
Kottayam V. Natarajan
King Co. Dept. of Natural Resources
Nancy L. Sidener
Louisiana Council for Economic Education
Hamid Hosseini
King's College
John M. Church
Louisiana State University Law Center
Zachary Rolnik
Kluwer Publishers
Marc C. Chopin
Louisiana Tech
Wan Ho Cho
Korean Consulate
Theodore Palivos
Lousiana State University
Richard A. Boykin
KPMG Economic Consulting Services
Howard Baetser, Jr.
Loyola College
John P. Brown
KPMG Economic Consulting Services
James Konow
Loyola Marymont University
Steven D. Felgran
KPMG Economic Consulting Services
Robert Carow
Loyola University, Chicago
Stephen E. Baldwin
KRA Corporation
Marc Douglas Hayford
Loyola University, Chicago
Jon Haveman
Krannert School of Management
George Kaufman
Loyola University, Chicago
Dr. Mark J. Ratkus
La Salle University
Bruce Vanderporten
Loyola University, Chicago
David H. Robinson
La Salle University
Dan C. Messerschmidt
Lynchburg College
James C. Haefner
Labelon Corporation
D. Sykes Wilford
M.D. Bankers Trust
Howard Bodenhorn
Lafayette College
Marshall Pomer
Macroeconomic Institute
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Emily Sun
Manhattan College
Stephen A. Woodbury
Michigan State University
John F. Tomer
Manhattan College
Paul A. Nelson
Michigan Technological University
Bruce Carpenter
Mansfield University
Atanu Saha
Micronomics Inc.
Joan E. Gadsby
Market Media International Corporation
Bichaka Fayissa
Middle Tennessee State University
James Tober
Marlboro College
Reuben Kyle
Middle Tennessee State University
David E. Clark
Marquette University
John Craven
Middlebury College
David L. Marshall
Marshall & Associates
Yoshi Fukasawa
Midwestern State University
Harlan M. Smith, II
Marshall University
Alec R. Levenson
Milken Institute
Mark A. Thompson
Marshall University
Kurt R. Schaefer
Miller Freeman Inc.
Amy M. Diduch
Mary Baldwin College
Ross Miller
Miller Risk Advisors
Amata
Marygrove College
Marion Ross
Mills College
Calvin Timmerman
Maryland Public Service Commission
Patrick A. Taylor
Millsaps College
Steven Payson
Marymont University
Kevin Richardson
Minute Maid Company
Walter Corson
Mathematica Policy Research
Paul W. Grimes
Mississippi State University
Lyle Nelson
Mathematica Policy Research
Robert O. Weagley
Missouri University
Merrile Sing
Mathematica Policy Research
M. A. Adelman
MIT
Karen Akerhielm
Mathtech Inc.
Susan Athey
MIT
Ramsey Nguon Lay
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace West
E. Cary Brown
MIT
David Wyss
McGraw Hill
Evsey D. Domar
MIT
Anthony Pennington-Cross
McGraw-Hill
Franklin M. Fisher
MIT
Susan M. Lund
McKinsey & Company
Carl Kaysen
MIT
B. David Collier
Medical College of Wisconsin
* Paul Krugman
MIT
Charles H. Andrews
Mercer University
Donald Lessard
MIT
C.W. Blowens
Metro-Dade County Planning Department
Jorn Steffen Pischke
MIT
David J. O'Hara
Metropolitan State University
George W. Rathjens
MIT
O. Homer Erekson
Miami Univerisity
Tim Riddiough
MIT
Robert L. Conn
Miami University
Eli Shapiro
MIT
Raymond Gorman
Miami University
Paul Smoke
MIT
William R. Hart
Miami University
** Robert Solow
MIT
William K. Hutchinson
Miami University
Scott Stern
MIT
Peter Eckstein
Michigan AFL-CIO
Robin Wells
MIT
H. William Rockwell, Jr.
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
William C. Wheaton
MIT
Richard T. Baillie
Michigan State University
Alan M. Strout
MIT, Rtd.
James T. Bonnen
Michigan State University
Ernst R. Berndt
MIT, Sloan School of Management
Kenneth D. Boyer
Michigan State University
Erik Brynjolfsson
MIT, Sloan School of Management
John P. Hoehn
Michigan State University
** Franco Modigliani
MIT, Sloan School of Management
Harry J. Holzer
Michigan State University
B. Wernerfelt
MIT, Sloan School of Management
Mordechai Kreinin
Michigan State University
Dale W. Larson
Mitsubishi Research Institute
Corinne M. Krupp
Michigan State University
Michael H. Lee
Montana Public Service Commission
Robert J. La Londe
Michigan State University
Phillip LeBel
Montclair State University
Paul L. Menchik
Michigan State University
William Gissy
Morehouse College
Norman P. Obst
Michigan State University
Michael Rolins
Mount Holyoke College
Paul Segerstrom
Michigan State University
Frank Zarnowski
Mount St. Mary's College
W. Paul Strassmann
Michigan State University
George Heitmann
Muhlenberg College
Scott M. Swinton
Michigan State University
Arthur J. Raymond
Muhlenberg College
Daniel R. Talhelm
Michigan State University
Rohini P. Sinha
Muhlenberg College
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Seid Y. Hassan
Murray State University
Roy Radner
New York University
Martin Milkman
Murray State University
Joshua Ronen
New York University
Brian Thomas
MWD
Amy Ellen Schwartz
New York University
Brian Crumb
NACT
Jacob A. Toby
New York University
Roman A. Ohrenstein
Nassau College, SUNY
W. Van Der Klaauw
New York University
C. Stuart Callison
Nathan Associates, Inc.
Paul Wachtel
New York University
Gary L. French
Nathan Associates Inc.
Lawrence White
New York University
John Varley
Nathan Associates, Inc.
Holger C. Wolf
New York University
Abraham J. Falick
National Association of Business Ecomonists
Edward Wolff
New York University
Brian J. Ostrom
National Center for State Courts
Thomas A. Pugel
New York University, Stem School
Robert W. Beckstead
National Defense University
Robert A. Kavesh
New York University-Stern School
Gerald C. Berg
National Defense University
Mark J. Lawless
NFPA International
Alan J. Daskin
National Economic Res.earchAssociates Inc.
Thomas A. Foulkes
NHTI
Li-Lan Cheng
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Stanton A. Warren
Niagara University
Leonardo Giacchino
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Yuzo Kumasaka
NLI Research Institute
Marci Kramer Mayer
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Blair T. Bower
NOAA Consultant
Robert Petersen
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Carol A. Jones
NOAA Damage Assesment Center
David Tabak
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Carolyn Dewa
NORC
Stephen E. Usher
National Economic Research Associates Inc.
Lawrence B. Morse
North Carolina A&T University
Ted R. Miller
National Public Services Research Institute
Gregory N. Price
North Carolina A&T University
Chris Wise-Mahr
National Science Foundation
Ryoichi Sakano
North Carolina A&T University
Robert Schmidt
National University
Samim Cilem
North Carolina State University
Bill Gates
Naval Postgraduate School
Darren L. Frechette
North Carolina State University
David Whipple
Naval Postgraduate School
Duncan M. Holthausen
North Carolina State University
Joseph DaBoll-Lavoie
Nazareth College
Michael B. McElroy
North Carolina State University
Edward A. Schroeder, IV
Nazareth College of Nazareth
Fanis Tsoulouhas
North Carolina State University
Joyce Gleason
Nebraska Wesleyan University
J. Carl Poindexter
North Carolina State Universtiy
Richard McGahey
Neece, Cator & McGahey
Thomas M. Love
North Central College
Richard L. Kaluzny
New Jersey Division of Taxation
Allen Vander Muelen
North Central College
David T. Geithman
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Lynn Schneider
North Georgia College & State University
Eliot Orton
New Mexico State University
Watson Collins
Northeast Utilities
Robert Heilbroner
New School for Social Research
John Adams
Northeastern University
Willi Semmler
New School for Social Research
Kamran M. Dadkhah
Northeastern University
Alex I. Yufa
New York City Economic Dev. Corp.
Barbara M. Fraumeni
Northeastern University
Sidney Friend, Jr.
New York City Police Department
Gustav Schachter
Northeastern University
Carol L. Osler
New York Federal
Lori Leachman
Northern Arizona University
William J. Lawrence
New York Institute of Technology
Richard J. Dowen
Northern Illinois University
Sonya Kornreich
New York State Dept. of Labor, Rtd.
Young C. Kim
Northern Illinois University
Janusz A. Ordover
New York Univeristy
Todd Knoop
Northern Illinois University
William J. Baumol
New York University
Virginia Wilcox-Gok
Northern Illinois University
Jess Benhabib
New York University
Tom Cate
Northern Kentucky University
Walter W. Haines
New York University
Gary E. Clayton
Northern Kentucky University
Lewis A. Kornhauser
New York University
Martin G. Giesbrecht
Northern Kentucky University
** Wassily Leontief
New York University
Hillar D. Neumann, Jr.
Northern State University, South Dakota
Rita Maldonado-Bear
New York University
R. Stephen Elliott
Northwestern State University
Dick Netzer
New York University
Deborah Lucas
Northwestern University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Boaz Moselle
Northwestern University
Emery N. Castle
Oregon State University
Todd Pulvino
Northwestern University
Laura S. Connolly
Oregon State University
Mark A. Satterhwaite
Northwestern University
Joe Kerkvliet
Oregon State University
Alan M. Taylor
Northwestern University
Ronald A. Oliviera
Oregon State University
Michael Wallerstein
Northwestern University
Carol Horton Tremblay
Oregon State University
Burton A. Weisbrod
Northwestern University
Bronwyn H. Hall
Oxford University, UK
Donald P. Jacobs
Northwestern University, J.C. Kellog Schoool
Jacques J. Polak
P. Jacobson Foundation
Sr. Beth Anne Tercek
Notre Dame College
Richard Ottinger
Pace Law School
Liang-rong Shiau
NSU
Michael Szenberg
Pace University
John Tepper Marlin
NYC Comptroller's Office
Bruce McWilliams
Pacific Institute
Eileen R. Kaufman
NYC Dept of Design & Construction
Marlen Miller
Pacific Lutheran University
Larry M. Blair
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Rachel Nugent
Pacific Lutheran University
C.J. Austermiller
Oakland Community College
Norris A. Peterson
Pacific Lutheran University
Kevin J. Murphy
Oakland University
John A. Jaksch
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
A. T. Aburachis
Oannon University
Joseph M. Roop
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
David L. Cleeton
Oberlin College
Michael J. Scott
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Hirschel Kasper
Oberlin College
Philip J. Ruder
Pacific University
Robert L Moore
Occidental College
H. Joe Story
Pacific University
Micheal K. Tamada
Occidental College
Teresa L. C. Laughlin
Palomar College
James Whitney
Occidental College
Loren A. Lee
Palomar College
Robert De Young
Office, Controller of the Currency
Craig Paxton
Paxton Analysts
Joseph R. Mason
Office of the Controller of the Currency
Brandt Witte
Peace Corps, U.S. Department of State
William O. Shropshire
Oglethorpe University
Daniel A. Underwood
Peninsula College
Frederick Church
Ohio Legislature Budget Office
Colin Polsky
Penn. State Univ., Earth System Science Center
Hassan Y. Aly
Ohio State University
Mark D. Agee
Pennslvania State University
Robert J. Caswell
Ohio State University
Ali Abderrezak
Pennsylvania State University
Stephen G. Cecchetti
Ohio State University
Lawrence L. Biacchi
Pennsylvania State University
Nancy Ettlinger
Ohio State University
Gary Bolton
Pennsylvania State University
Eric Fisher
Ohio State University
Tim Considine
Pennsylvania State University
Belton M. Fleisher
Ohio State University
Jacob DeRooy
Pennsylvania State University
Amy Jocelyn Glass
Ohio State University
Donald J. Epp
Pennsylvania State University
Elian Khalil
Ohio State University
Ann Fisher
Pennsylvania State University
Nelson C. Mark
Ohio State University
Thomas A. Gresik
Pennsylvania State University
Mario J. Miranda
Ohio State University
Barry N.
Pennsylvania State University
Herbert Parnes
Ohio State University
James F. Kasting
Pennsylvania State University
Alan Randall
Ohio State University
Philip A. Klein
Pennsylvania State University
Brent Sohngen
Ohio State University
Chidem Kurdas
Pennsylvania State University
Richard A. Tybout
Ohio State University
Jeffrey K. Lazo
Pennsylvania State University
Jay L. Zagorsky
Ohio State University
James D. Rodgers
Pennsylvania State University
Jingang Zhao
Ohio State University
Norman R. Swanson
Pennsylvania State University
Chulho Jung
Ohio University
William J. Wheele
Pennsylvania State University
Kurt A. Schwabe
Ohio University
Elizabeth T. Hill
Pennsylvania State University, Mont Alto
James V. Koch
Old Dominion University
M.M. Shahjahan
PEPCO
Paul R. Koch
Olivet Nazarene University
Morton Zeman
Perimeter Adult Learning & Services
Vartkes L. Broussalian
OMB, Washington, Rtd.
Peter L. Bernstein
Peter L. Bernstein, Inc.
Rohit Sah
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
Yoon Kim
Phoenix, Inc.
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
James Lehman
Pitzer College
Robert L. Randall
RainForest ReGeneration
Sailaja Raparla
Point Systems Solutions, Inc.
William Dow
RAND Corp.
Hans Lofgren
Policy Research Institute
Sheila Nataraj Kirby
RAND Corp.
Jane Venohr
Policy Studies, Inc.
Julia Lowell
RAND Corp.
Eleanor Brown
Pomona College
C. Barry Pfitzner
Randolph Macone College
Michael Kuehlwein
Pomona College
Antoinette J. Criss
Randolph-Macon Woman's College
James D. Likens
Pomona College
Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla
RDP Consulting Group
Stephen V. Marks
Pomona College
Richard B. Parker
Red Oak Research
Frank C. Wykoff
Pomona College
Carl M. Stevens
Reed College
Giles H. Burgess Jr.
Portland State University
Heidi Brown
Reed Consulting Group
Myron B. Katz
Portland State University
Benjamin H. Stevens
Regional Science Research Corp.
Harold G. Vatter
Portland State University
H. Michael Coiner
Regis College
John F. Walker
Portland State University
Mary J. Oates
Regis College
Helen Youngelson-Neal
Portland State University
Robert L. Lessne
Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
Thomas P. Potiowsky
Portland State Universtiy
Donald F. Vitaliano
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Robert Kirchner
Potomac Electric Power Company
Katherine B. Heller
Research Triangle Institute
Peter Merrill
Price Waterhouse
Sheila A. Martin
Research Triangle Institute
Elizabeth C. Bogen
Princeton University
Gary Zarkin
Research Triangle Institute
Gregory Chow
Princeton University
Marvin Feldman
Resource Decisions
Maria Hanralty
Princeton University
Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Burton Malkiel
Princeton University
Alema Karim
Rhode Island College
Kenneth Rogoff
Princeton University
Dagobert L. Brito
Rice University
Timothy Van Zandt
Princeton University
Gordon W. Smith
Rice University
Mark Watson
Princeton University
Kei-Mu Yi
Rice University
John P. Lewis
Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School
Melaku Lakew
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Michael Rothschild
Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School
Kirk D. Gifford
Ricks College
R. Thomas Burge
Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals
Henry J. Frank
Rider University
Curt Mueller
Project Hope
Paul J. Schoofs
Ripon College
Mary Jane Lenon
Providence College
Clare W. Zempel
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated
David Zalewski
Providence College
Michael J. Vernarelli
Rochester Institute of Technology
YJ Yoon
Public Choice Center
Albert Keidel, III
Rock Creek Research, Inc.
Evan White
Public Utility Commision of Oregon
Bernard Rose
Rocky Mountain College
Antonio L. Rosado
Puerto Rico Economist Association
Kenna Taylor
Rollins University
George R. Averiit
Purdue University
Ron Balman
Roosevelt University
John M. Connor
Purdue University
Dale Bremmer
Rose Hulman Institute of Technology
Larry De Boer
Purdue University
Stephen Smith
Rose State College
Paul L. Farris
Purdue University
Michael A. Crew
Rutgers University
Dan Kovenock
Purdue University
Horace J. De Podwin
Rutgers University
Patrick McCarthy
Purdue University
A. Myrick Freeman III
Rutgers University
James C. Moore
Purdue University
Richard W. Johnson
Rutgers University
Janet S. Netz
Purdue University
Marlene Kim
Rutgers University
Hedayeh Samavati
Purdue University
Bruce Mizrach
Rutgers University
Gerald E. Shively
Purdue University
Robert H. Patrick
Rutgers University
George R. Hall
Putnam, Hayes & Barlett, Inc.
Carlos Seiglie
Rutgers University
Trish Kelly
Quinnipiac College
Leslie E. Small
Rutgers University
Rex J. Bates
R. J. Bates
Michael K. Taussig
Rutgers University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Edmund M. Tavernier
Rutgers University
Sharon Pang
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meahr & Flonn
Marjorie W. Munson
Rutgers University, Douglass College
Deborah Haas-Wilson
Smith College
William H. Wrean
Sacajawea & Company
Roger T. Kaufman
Smith College
Lucjan Orlowski
Sacred Heart University
Michael V. Leonesio
Social Security Administration
Alannah Orrison
Saddleback College
L. Scott Muller
Social Security Administration
Kenneth G. Woodward
Saddleback College
Carlos A. Benito
Sonoma State University
Hong Y. Park
Saginaw Valley State University
Stephen D. Lewis
Sonoma State University
Charles Henning
SAIC
Robert G. McGillivray
Sound Economics
Gilbert Becker
Saint Anselm College
Thomas Mitchell
South Illinois University
Reza Ramazani
Saint Michael's College
Elizabeth Granitz
Southampton College
Thampy Mammen
Saint Norbert College
Christopher R. Mann
Southeast Michigan Council of Govts.
Dorothy Ryan Siden
Salem State College
Kenneth Chinn
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Chee Y. Thum
Salomon Brothers Inc.
Scott Bellamy
Southern Arkansas University
James Gerber
San Diego State University
Paul Shrier
Southern California College
Adam Gifford, Sr.
San Diego State University
David Lui
Southern California Edison
S. Grossbay-Shechtman
San Diego State University
Donald Elliott
Southern Illinois University
Douglas B. Stewart
San Diego State Universtiy
S. Grosskopf
Southern Illinois University
Dluchi O. Nnachi
San Francisco Juvenille Court
Julius Horvath
Southern Illinois University
Betty J. Blecha
San Francisco State University
Stanford L. Levin
Southern Illinois University
Yea-Mow Chen
San Francisco State University
Jim Musumeci
Southern Illinois University
Joanna Moss
San Francisco State University
Paul Trescott
Southern Illinois University
R. Newby Schweitzer
San Francisco State University
R.W. Hafer
Southern Indiana University
Douglas F. Greer
San Jose State University
J. Carter Murphy
Southern Methodist University
Thomas Drennen
Sandia National Laboratories
Thomas Osang
Southern Missouri University
Michael Kevane
Santa Clara University
Thomas Dalton
Southern University at New Orleans
Helen Popper
Santa Clara University
E. Dale Wasson
Southwest Missouri State University
R. D. Norton
Sarkisian
Bernice de Gaines Scott
Spelman College
Edward Alban
Savannah State University
Anne R. Hornsby
Spelman College
John Watters
SBC Communications
Kenneth N. Hamilton
Spring Hill College
Frank D. Weiss
School of Advanced International Studies
Brian K. Staihr
Sprint
Jurgen Brauer
School of Business, Augusta State University
Theodore S. Woodruff
St. Ambrose University
Patricia Dillon
Scripps College
Patricia Hughes
St. Cloud State University
Jere W. Clark
SCSC
Mark Partridge
St. Cloud State University
M. Louise Curley
Scudder, Stevens & Clark
Micheal St. John
St. John & Associates
Allen S. Bellas
Seattle University
Daniel Finn
St. John's University
Vinay Datar
Seattle University
Sara Gordon
St. John's University
William L. Weber
SEMO State University
Ralph A. Terregrossa
St. Johns University
Jerry Jenkins
Sequoia Institute
Robert A. Blewett
St. Lawrence University
Henry C.F. Arnold
Seton Hall University
Linda R. Rudolph
St. Lawrence University
Tony Loviscek
Seton Hall University
Sarah A. Stevens
St. Lawrence University
Alan G. Myers
SFWS
Kathleen N. Gillespie
St Louis University, School of Public Health
Michael J. Chapman
Shearman & Sterling
Joan Underhill Hannon
St Mary's College of California
Thomas H. Sheenan, Jr.
Sheenan International
Theodore Tsukahara, Jr.
St. Mary's College of California
Daneil A. Pavsek
Shenandoah University
Andrea T. Williams
St. Mary's College of California
Signe L. Sherman
Sherman Holdings
Roy E. Robbins
St. Mary's University
Kirk E. Vandezande
Simon Fraser University
Gary Scott
St. Mary's University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Herbert Kessel
St. Michael's College
Hossein S. Kazemi-
Stonehill College
David Emery
St. Olaf College
Raymond A. Pepin
Stonehill College
Rebecca Judge
St. Olaf College
Jeffrey H. Rohlfs
Strategic Policy Research
Xum Z. Pomponio
St. Olaf College
Karen Nelson
Streamline Training & Documentation
David W. Schodf
St Olaf College
Shahruz Mohtadi
Suffolk University
Paul Wojick
St. Olaf College
Jonathan Sunshine
Sunshine and Associates
William F. Baxter
Stanford Law School
Betty C. Daniel
SUNY, Albany
John J. Donohue
Stanford Law School
Terrence Kinal
SUNY, Albany
", ** Kenneth J. Arrow
Stanford University
Kajal Lahiri
SUNY, Albany
B. Douglas Bernheim
Stanford University
Jim H. Wyckoff
SUNY, Albany
Martin Carnoy
Stanford University
John S. Nader
SUNY at Delhi
Hung-po Chao
Stanford University
Robert L. Basmann
SUNY, Binghamton
John Earle
Stanford University
Manas Chatterji
SUNY, Binghamton
Victor R. Fuchs
Stanford University
Edward C. Kokkelenberg
SUNY, Binghamton
Auner Greif
Stanford University
Richard M. Romano
SUNY, Broome
Thomas Hellman
Stanford University
Frederick G. Floss
SUNY. Buffalo
Bert G. Hickman
Stanford University
Thomas Romans
SUNY, Buffalo
Bruce F. Johnston
Stanford University
David Ring
SUNY, Colege at Oneonta
Anne O. Krueger
Stanford University
Edward I. Beck
SUNY, College at Oneonta
Mordecai Kurz
Stanford University
William H. Foeller
SUNY, Fredonia
Lawrence J. Lau
Stanford University
Amar K. Parai
SUNY, Fredonia
Henry M. Levin
Stanford University
David A. Martin
SUNY, Geneseo
Charles E. McLure, Jr.
Stanford University
Peter Vukasin
SUNY, New Paltz
Gerald M. Meier
Stanford University
William P. O'Dea
SUNY, Oneonta
Rosamond Naylor
Stanford University
Wade L. Thomas
SUNY, Oneonta
Karine Nyborg
Stanford University
Michael A. Stoller
SUNY, Plattsburgh
Ciaran S. Phibbs
Stanford University
Warren L. Fisher
Susquehanna University
Scott Rozelle
Stanford University
C.E. Chang
SW Missouri State University
Andrea Shepard
Stanford University
Stephen Golub
Swarthmore College
Ezra Solomon
Stanford University
Larry E. Westphal
Swarthmore College
A. Michael Spence
Stanford University
Donald H. Dutkowsky
Syracuse University
Myra H. Strober
Stanford University
Bernard Jump
Syracuse University
Jeffrey Williams
Stanford University
A. Dale Tussing
Syracuse University
Pan A. Yotopoulos
Stanford University
Michael Wasylenko
Syracuse University
Jeremy Bulow
Stanford University Business School
David I. Goldeberg
Systematic Forecasting, Inc.
Patricia Bowles
State Education
Faith Breen
Systems Resource Management
Khosrow Khojasteh
State of Iowa
Dana Stevens
Takashi Corporation
Gregory Vitale
State of Iowa
Cindy Houser
TAMIU
Bernard Brown
State of New Jersey
William L. Beaty
Tarleton College
Richard Fryman
State University of West Georgia
Thomas D. Legg
TD Legg Financial Economics
Siegfried G. Karsten
State University of West Georgia
Robert E. Lucore
Teamsters Union
William C. Schaniel
State University of West Georgia
Michael J. lleo
Technical Associates, Inc.
James E. Mallett
Stetson University
J. Jay Choi
Temple University
Ranjini Thaver
Stetson University
Thomas E. Getzen
Temple University
Richard H. Wood, Jr.
Stetson University
Charles P. Hall
Temple University
Richard M. O'Conor
Stockholm School of Economics
Charlotte Phelps
Temple University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Whewon Cho
Tennessee Tech. University
J. Michael Finger
The World Bank
Seisel Jonakin
Tennessee Tech. University
Delbert Fitchett
The World Bank
Wade L. Griffin
Texas A& M University
Maria Freire
The World Bank
Lonnie L. Jones
Texas A & M University
Nobuhiko Fuwa
The World Bank
Manzoor E. Chowdhury
Texas A&M University
Charles C. Griffin
The World Bank
Julian E. Gaspar
Texas A&M University
Keith E. Hansen
The World Bank
Javier Gimeno
Texas A&M University
Robert Hunt
The World Bank
Ronald C. Griffin
Texas A&M University
Estelle James
The World Bank
Thomas D. Jeitschko
Texas A&M University
John Kellenberg
The World Bank
Noh-Sun Kwark
Texas A&M University
Timothy King
The World Bank
John R. Moroney
Texas A&M University
Stefan G. Koeberle
The World Bank
Rajiv Sarin
Texas A&M University
Mark W. Leiserson
The World Bank
C. Richard Shumway
Texas A&M University
A. Mead Over, Jr.
The World Bank
Amy P. Thurow
Texas A&M University
Martin Ravallion
The World Bank
James H. Ullmer
Texas A&M University
Maurice Schiff
The World Bank
Farshid Vahid
Texas A&M University
Inderuit Singh
The World Bank
Frank Giesber
Texas Lutheran University
Andrew Steer
The World Bank
Richard E. Quandt
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Moshe Syrquin
The World Bank
Paul R. Carpenter
The Brattle Group
Humayun Tai
The World Bank
Peter Fox-Penner
The Brattle Group
Saji Thomas
The World Bank
Peter Fox-Penner
The Brattle Group
Jacques Van der Gaag
The World Bank
Kenneth T. Wise
The Brattle Group
Yin-kann Wen
The World Bank
G.R. Guralnik
The Business Group, Inc.
John Williamson
The World Bank
Donald E. Campbell
The College of William & Mary
Loerene Yap
The World Bank
A. Doris Capistrano
The Ford Foundation
Philip J. Glaessner
The World Bank, Rtd.
Henry E. Cole
The Future Group International
Ralph H. Hofmeister
The World Bank, Rtd.
Gerald Kraft
The GSK Group, Ltd.
Enrique Lerdau
The World Bank, Rtd.
Ronald H. Miller
The Hudson Group
George C. Maniatis
The World Bank, Rtd.
Thomas E. O'Hare
The Intertich Group
Theodore Lang
Thomas Lane & Associates
Gina Livermore
The Levin Group
Michael H. Thomson
Thomson Econometrics
David C. Stapleton
The Lewin Group
James W. Thomson
Thomson Investing
Linz Audain
The Mandate Corporation
Richard Skolnik
Tiffin University
William G Rhoads
The Nature Conservancy
Nayyer Hussain
Tougaloo College
Peter Howitt
The Ohio State University
B. Michael Gilbar
Town of Hanover, New Hampshire
Martin Duffy
The Perseus Group
George C. Georgiou
Towson State University
Larry Willmore
The United Nations
Chang Min Kong
Towson State University
Fernando Losada
The Weston Group
William Ingram
Tradewinds Realty
Peter G. Moll
The World Band
Bruce Vermeulen
Training & Development Corp.
Hideo Akabayashi
The World Bank
Ward S. Curran
Trinity College
Robert Armstrong
The World Bank
Andrew J. Gold
Trinity College
Carter Brandon
The World Bank
William Breit
Trinity University
Herman Cesar
The World Bank
David Gillette
Truman State University
Yi Chen
The World Bank
Seymour Patterson
Truman State University
Martha De Melo
The World Bank
Werner Sublette
Truman State University
David Dollar
The World Bank
Jane Sung
Truman State University
Gunnar S. Eskeland
The World Bank
Carsten Kowalczyk
Tufts Univeristy
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Joseph A. DiMasi
Tufts University
Michael E. C. Ely
U.S. Foreign Service, Rtd.
Thomas A. Downes
Tufts University
William B. Shear
U.S. General Accounting Office
David M. Garman
Tufts University
William McNaught
U.S. General Acounting Office
Neva Goodwin
Tufts University
Charles Collier
U.S. Government
Jonathan Harris
Tufts University
Edgar A. Peden
U.S. Government
Gilbert Metcalf
Tufts University
Mark Rubin
U.S. Government
David Hotchkiss
Tulane University
Thomas Jennings
U.S. Intl. Trade Commision
Eamon M. Kelly
Tulane University
Oscar A. Echevarria
U.S. Investment Group
Irving H. LaValle
Tulane University
John Heinberg
U.S. Labor Department
David Malueg
Tulane University
Adrian Kendry
U.S. Naval Academy
William H. Oakland
Tulane University
Brian J. Richter
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Jonathan B. Pritchett
Tulane University
Stephen Altheim
U.S. Treasury Department
Dahlia Remler
Tulane University
Donald Rousslang
U.S. Treasury Department
John H.Y. Edwards
Tulane University, The World Bank
James M. Russell
U.S. Treasury Department
Michael Crosswell
U.S.A.I.D.
Willliam B. Trautman
U.S. Treasury Department
David A. Heesen
U.S.A.I.D.
Lawrence D. Krohn
UBS Securities
Jerre A. Manarolla
U.S.A.I.D.
David R. Bell
UCLA
James L. Mudge
U.S.A.I.D.
M.J. Brennan
UCLA
Donald A. Sillers
U.S.A.I.D.
Trudy Ann Cameron
UCLA
Liliana E. Pezzin
U.S. Agency for Health Care Pol. & Res
Bhagwan Chowdhry
UCLA
Arden K. Sansom
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Brad Cornell
UCLA
Frank D. Campbell
U.S. Army Trade Analysis
Werner Z. Hirsch
UCLA
Anthony Barkume
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Jack Hirshleifer
UCLA
Adam A. Sokoloski
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Wei-Yin Hu
UCLA
Kathleen Short
U.S. Census Bureau
Tom K. Lieser
UCLA
Anthony C. Homan
U.S. Consumer Product Saftey Commision
John J. McCall
UCLA
John E. Jelacic
U.S. Department of Commerce
Rebecca Menes
UCLA
Elliot Levy
U.S. Department of Commerce
Paul M. Ong
UCLA
H. Kemble Stokes, Jr.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Mohan Penubarti
UCLA
Robert Copaken
U.S. Department of Energy
John G. Riley
UCLA
Inja K. Paik
U.S. Department of Energy
Richard H. Sander
UCLA
Joseph M. Burns
U.S. Department of Justice
Stuart O. Schweitzer
UCLA
Robert Blicksilver
U.S. Department of Labor
Donald Shoup
UCLA
C. Anne Pence
U.S. Department of State
Hilary Sigman
UCLA
Ian H. Goldstein
U.S. Department of the Interior
Robert M. Williams
UCLA
J. L. Bascunana
U.S. Department of Transportation
Jose` De La Torre
UCLA, Anderson School of Mgmt.
Deborah Shields
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Marvin Lieberman
UCLA, Anderson School of Mgmt.
Robbin Shoenaler
U.S. Dept of Agriculture
Georgios Karras
UIC
Kenneth Hanson
U.S. Dept of Agriculture, ERS
Bill Lord
UMBC
James M. MacDonald
U.S. Dept of Agriculture, ERS
Nathaniel Wollman
Uniersity of New Mexico
Tanya Roberts
U.S. Dept of Agriculture, ERS
Todd A. Burgman
Union College
David Schimmelpfennig
U.S. Dept of Agriculture ERS
Ella K. Hensley
Union College
Ken Borghese
U.S. Dept of Commerce
J. Douglas Klein
Union College
Paul D. Gayer
U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services Rtd.
Therese McCarthy
Union College
Ann M. Watkins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hiroshi Kawamura
United Nations
Monroe Burk
U.S. Foreign Service
Gary W. Grizzle
United Parcel Service
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Roger D. Little
United States Naval Academy
** John C. Harsanyi
University of California, Berkeley
Herbert Traxler
United States PHS
Larry S Karp
University of California, Berkeley
John Mark Lindrall
Univ. of Phoenix, Southern CA campus
Theodore E. Keeler
University of California, Berkeley
Stanley Long
Univ. of Pittsburgh, Penn. State Univ.
Clark Kerr
University of California, Berkeley
James J. Heckman
Univeristy of Chicago
Robert D. Kooter
University of California, Berkeley
Richard Bryant
Univeristy of Missouri-Rolla
Sylvia Lane
University of California, Berkeley
Gautam Vora
Univeristy of New Mexico
John M. Letiche
University of California, Berkeley
Richard W. Stratton
University of Akron
Anne M. Libby
University of California, Berkeley
Nancy S. Barrett
University of Alabama
Peter S. Menell
University of California, Berkeley
Walter S. Misiolek
University of Alabama
Richard B. Norgaard
University of California, Berkeley
Harris Schlesinger
University of Alabama
Mauice Obstfeld
University of California, Berkeley
Seung-Dong Lee
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Jeffrey S. Petersen
University of California, Berkeley
Robert A. McLean
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Jeffrey S. Petersen
University of California, Berkeley
John F. Schnell
University of Alabama, Huntsville
Gordon Rausser
University of California, Berkeley
William S. Brown
University of Alaska SE
David Romer
University of California, Berkeley
Todd R. Smith
University of Alberta, Canada
Daniel Rubinfeld
University of California, Berkeley
Willard T. Carleton
University of Arizona
Mark Rubinstein
University of California, Berkeley
Alberta H. Charney
University of Arizona
Jerome Siebert
University of California, Berkeley
James C. Cox
University of Arizona
Frank E. Trinkl
University of California, Berkeley
Roger W. Fox
University of Arizona
Hal R. Varian
University of California, Berkeley
David A. King
University of Arizona
Ben F. Vaughan, IV
University of California, Berkeley
Eric Monke
University of Arizona
Oliver E. Williamson
University of California, Berkeley
Richard Newcomb
University of Arizona
Glenn A. Woroch
University of California, Berkeley
Leslie S. Stratton
University of Arizona
Stephen Penman
University of California, Berkeley, Haas School
Lester D. Taylor
University of Arizona
Pablo T. Spiller
University of California, Berkeley, Haas School
Gordon Tullock
University of Arizona
David J. Teece
University of California, Berkeley, Haas School
Ronald J. Vogel
University of Arizona
Richard H. Holton
University of California, Berkeley Hass School
John L. Wilson
University of Arizona
Richard Meese
University of California, Berkeley, Hass School
Edward E. Zajac
University of Arizona
Robert D. Cooter
University of California Berkeley, Law School
Mark Zupan
University of Arizona
Lovell S. Jarvis
University of California, Davis
William P. Curington
University of Arkansas
David F. Layton
University of California, Davis
Gary Ferrier
University of Arkansas
Peter H. Lindert
University of California, Davis
Michael Sher
University of Auckland
Thomas Mayer
University of California, Davis
David W. Stevens
University of Baltimore
Klaus Nehring
University of California, Davis
Esra Bennathan
University of Bristol, UK
John E Roemer
University of California, Davis
Robert M. Anderson
University of California, Berkeley
Robert Smiley
University of California, Davis
Peter Berck
University of California, Berkeley
Dennis J. Aigner
University of California, Irvine
Garland L. Brinkley
University of California, Berkeley
David Brownstone
University of California, Irvine
Clair Brown
University of California, Berkeley
Michelle R. Garfinkel
University of California, Irvine
Miguel Cantillo
University of California, Berkeley
Barrie R. Nault
University of California, Irvine
Gary Charness
University of California, Berkeley
Peter Navarru
University of California, Irvine
** Gerard Debreu
University of California, Berkeley
Kenneth A. Small
University of California, Irvine
Aaron S. Edlin
University of California, Berkeley
Keith Griffin
University of California, Riverside
Anthony Fisher
University of California, Berkeley
Jang-Ting Guo
University of California, Riverside
Lee S. Friedman
University of California, Berkeley
Steven Helfand
University of California, Riverside
Gregory Grossman
University of California, Berkeley
Aziz Khan
University of California, Riverside
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Keith C. Knapp
University of California, Riverside
Daphne Greenwood
University of Colorado
Victor D. Lippit
University of California, Riverside
Charles W. Howe
University of Colorado
R. Robert Russell
University of California, Riverside
Keith E. Maskus
University of Colorado
Takeo Hoshi
University of California, San Deigo
Robert McNown
University of Colorado
Richard T. Carson
University of California, San Diego
Naci Mocan
University of Colorado
John Conlisk
University of California, San Diego
Paul Stutsman
University of Colorado
Joseph Grunwald
University of California, San Diego
Bernard Udis
University of Colorado
Alex Kane
University of California, San Diego
Russell R. Wermers
University of Colorado
Lawrence B. Krause
University of California, San Diego
Robert K. Davis
University of Colorado, Boulder
Richard W. Ruppert
University of California, San Diego
Michael J. Mueller
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Allan Timmermann
University of California, San Diego
Peter Barth
University of Connecticut
Joel Watson
University of California, San Diego
Walter Dolde
University of Connecticut
Michael Willoughby
University of California, San Diego
C. P. Hallwood
University of Connecticut
Christopher Woodruff
University of California, San Diego
Lanse MInkler
University of Connecticut
Harold S. Luft
University of California, San Francisco
Susan Randolph
University of Connecticut
Elliot Marseille
University of California, San Francisco
Arthur W. Wright
University of Connecticut
William S. Comanor
University of California, Santa Barbara
John Rapp
University of Dayton
Robert T. Deacon
University of California, Santa Barbara
Stacie E. Beck
University of Delaware
Stephen J. DeCanio
University of California, Santa Barbara
Kenneth A. Lewis
University of Delaware
Charles D. Kolstad
University of California, Santa Barbara
George R. Parsons
University of Delaware
Lloyd J. Mercer
University of California, Santa Barbara
Laurence Seidman
University of Delaware
Doug Steigerwald
University of California, Santa Barbara
Russell F. Settle
University of Delaware
Menzie D. Chinn
University of California, Santa Cruz
David E. Black
University of Deleware
Daniel Friedman
University of California, Santa Cruz
Pamela C. Brown
University of Deleware
Richard B. Howarth
University of California, Santa Cruz
Lawrence P. Donnelley
University of Deleware
Michael M. Hutchison
University of California, Santa Cruz
Pamela J. Smith
University of Deleware
Lori Kletzer
University of California, Santa Cruz
Francis Tannian
University of Deleware
Alan Richards
University of California, Santa Cruz
Donald Pemberton
University of Detroit, Mercy
Catherine Y. Co
University of Central Florida
Maurice Tsai
University of Evansville
James D. Fearon
University of Chicago
Sanford V. Berg
University of Florida
Lars Peter Hansen
University of Chicago
Eugene Brigham
University of Florida
Milton Harris
University of Chicago
David Denslow
University of Florida
David Hummels
University of Chicago
Elias Dinopoulos
University of Florida
Gale D. Johnson
University of Chicago
Ira Horowitz
University of Florida
Stefan Krieger
University of Chicago
Tracy R. Lewis
University of Florida
Timur Kuran
University of Chicago
Jay R. Ritter
University of Florida
Uzma Qureshi
University of Chicago
John F. Scoggins
University of Florida
Andres Rodriguez
University of Chicago
Richard E. Suttor
University of Florida
Thomas Sargent
University of Chicago
Andy Keeler
University of Georgia
Lars A. Stole
University of Chicago
P. Mather Lindsay
University of Georgia
Cass D. Sunstein
University of Chicago
Steve Turner
University of Georgia
Austan Goolsbee
University of Chicago, Graduate School of Bus.
W.J. Florkowski
University of Georgia, Griffin
Dennis Hanseman
University of Cincinnati
Paul Callaghan
University of Guam
Wolfgang Mayer
University of Cincinnati
Demetrios Giannaros
University of Hartford
Mark Cronshaw
University of Colorado
Bharat Kolluri
University of Hartford
Charles De Bartolome
University of Colorado
Farhad Rassekh
University of Hartford
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Rao Singamsetti
University of Hartford
Gonyung Park
University of La Verne
Sumner La Croix
University of Hawaii
John Vahaly
University of Louisville
Chung H. Lee
University of Hawaii
R. Betancount
University of Maryland
David McClain
University of Hawaii
Christopher K. Clague
University of Maryland
James Moncur
University of Hawaii
Robert Costanza
University of Maryland
Richard E. Peterson
University of Hawaii
Peter Cramton
University of Maryland
Louis A. Rose
University of Hawaii
Maureen Cropper
University of Maryland
David L. Hammes
University of Hawaii, Hilo
John H. Cumberland
University of Maryland
Denise Eby Konan
University of Hawaii, Manoa
John W. Dorsey
University of Maryland
A. Reza Hoshmand
University of Hawaii, West Oahu
Karla Hoff
University of Maryland
D. Andrew Austin
University of Houston
Theodore C. Kariotis
University of Maryland
Steven G. Craig
University of Houston
Suzi C. Kerr
University of Maryland
Janet Kohlhase
University of Houston
Anthony Lanyi
University of Maryland
A. Marvasti
University of Houston
Erik LIchtenberg
University of Maryland
Stephen Devadoss
University of Idaho
Douglas Meade
University of Maryland
Eliezer B. Ayal
University of Illinois
Arvind Panagariya
University of Maryland
Anil K. Bera
University of Illinois
Lee E. Preston
University of Maryland
John B. Braden
University of Ulinois
Paul A. Weinstein
University of Maryland
Hans J. Brems
University of Illinois
Phillip Weitzman
University of Maryland UNW College
Robert W. Gillespie
University of Illinois
Norman D. Aitken
University of Massachusetts
Gerrit Knaap
University of Illinois
Branch Ben
University of Massachusetts
Walter W. McMahon
University of Illinois
Paul M. Brown
University of Massachusetts
Donald W. Paden
University of Illinois
James T. Campen
University of Massachusetts
George G. Pennacchi
University of Illinois
Nancy Folbre
University of Massachusetts
Robert Resek
University of Illinois
Irving Gershenberg
University of Massachusetts
Thomas S. Ulen
University of Illinois
Herbert Giwtes
University of Massachusetts
Richard F. Kosobud
University of Illinois, Chicago
Donald W. Katzner
University of Massachusetts
George Rosen
University of Illinois, Chicago
James K. Kindahl
University of Massachusetts
Houston H. Stokes
University of Illinois, Chicago
Joann Stewart
University of Massachusetts, Boston
William F. Maloney
University of Illinois, Urbana
David Terkla
University of Massachusetts, Boston
William F. Malowey
University of Illinois, Urbana
Andres Torres
University of Massachusetts, Boston
David J. Balan
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
K.K. Fung
University of Memphis
Koji Taira
University of Indiana
David M. Kemme
University of Memphis
John M. Brooks
University of lowa
Anphonse G. Holtmann
University of Miami
Joel Horowitz
University of Iowa
David Letson
University of Miami
Gerald Nordquist
University of Iowa
David C. Mauer
University of Miami
Thomas F. Pogue
University of Iowa
Kerry Anne McGeary
University of Miami
Calvin D. Siebert
University of lowa
Bryan W. Roberts
University of Miami
Benjamin Wilner
University of lowa
Yan Chen
University of Michigan
S. Y. Wu
University of lowa
Paul N. Courant
University of Michigan
Neal Becker
University of Kansas
Alan V. Deardorff
University of Michigan
Joseph Sicilian
University of Kansas
Merritt B. Fox
University of MIchigan
De-Min Wu
University of Kansas
Edward Gramlich
University of Michigan
Yoonbai Kim
University of Kentucky
Richard A. Hirth
University of Michigan
Donald J. Mullineaux
University of Kentucky
F. Thomas Juster
University of Michigan
James Stoker
University of Kentucky
J. Kmenta
University of Michigan
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Jeffrey K. Mackie-Mason
University of Michigan
Lilyan E. Fulginiti
University of Nebraska
Michael R. Moore
University of Michigan
Gordon Karels
University of Nebraska
James N. Morgan
University of Michigan
Craig R. MacPhee
University of Nebraska
Christine Papajohn
University of Michigan
E. Wesley F. Peterson
University of Nebraska
Albert Park
University of Michigan
Roger F. Riefler
University of Nebraska
Jonathan A. Parker
University of Michigan
Richard K. Perrin
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Terry L. Roe
University of Michigan
Ronald M. Cronovich
University of Nevada
Wolfgang F. Stolper
University of Michigan
Ricardo Gazel
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Frank Thompson
University of Michigan
W. David Bradford
University of New Hampshire
Steven T. Vass
University of Michigan
Dwayne Wrightsman
University of New Hampshire
Michael Wellman
University of Michigan
Edward A. Downe
University of New Haven
Warren C. Whattey
University of Michigan
Robert Rainish
University of New Haven
Sugato Bhattacharyya
University of Michigan Business School
Geoffrey J. Bannister
University of New Mexico
David Weinstein
University of Michigan Business School
Max D. Bennett
University of New Mexico
Mark J. Perry
University of Michigan, Flint
K. Gawande
University of New Mexico
N. N. Reddy
University of Michigan, Flint
Christine Sauer
University of New Mexico
Edward Coen
University of Minnesota
Arja Turunen-Red
University of New Orleans
Jay S. Coggins
University of Minnesota
Andrew C. Brod
University of North Carolina
Jared Creason
University of Minnesota
Alfred J. Field Jr.
University of North Carolina
Bryan Dowd
University of Minnesota
Barry M. Popkin
University of North Carolina
Roger Feldman
University of Minnesota
David J. Ravenscraft
University of North Carolina
Edward Foster
University of Minnesota
Teresa L. Kauf
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Leonid Hurwicz
University of Minnesota
Michael Luger
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Timothy J. Kehoe
University of Minnesota
Richard A. Zuber
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Pareena Lawrence
University of Minnesota
Fikret Ceyhun
University of North Dakota
John A. Nyman
University of Minnesota
Donald R. Escarraz
University of North Dakota
Margaret Peteraf
University of Minnesota
Micheal A. McPhasa
University of North Texas
Philip M. Raup
University of Minnesota
Michael Nieswiadomy
University of North Texas
C. Ford Runge
University of Minnesota
Jeffrey H. Bergstrand
University of Notre Dame
Vernon W. Ruttan
University of Minnesota
Ralph Chami
University of Notre Dame
G. Edward Schuh
University of Minnesota
Robert E. Florence
University of Notre Dame
Mahmood A. Zaidi
University of Minnesota
Richard G. Sheehan
University of Notre Dame
Robert T. Kudrle
University of Minnisota
Charles K. Wilber
University of Notre Dame
Arne Kildergaard
University of Mississippi
James C. Hartigan
University of Oklahoma
Norman K. Womer
University of Mississippi
Zhen Zhu
University of Oklahoma
Robert J. Bevins
University of Missouri
Shuanglin Lin
University of Omaha
Floyd K. Harmston
University of Missouri
Bruce A. Blonigen
University of Oregon
W. Whitney Hicks
University of Missouri
Stephen Haynes
University of Oregon
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes
University of Missouri
Raymond Mikesell
University of Oregon
Chyi-Ing Lin
University of Missouri
Paul B. Simpson
University of Oregon
Shawn Ni
University of Missouri
Robert E. Smith
University of Oregon
Donald J. Schilling
University of Missouri
James P. Ziliak
University of Oregon
Philip B. Thompson
University of Missouri, Rolla
Arthur I. Bloomfield
University of Pennsylvania
Douglas Dalenberg
University of Montana
David Cummins
University of Pennsylvania
John Duffield
University of Montana
Patricia M. Danzon
University of Pennsylvania
Michael Kupilik
University of Montana
Paul E. Fischer
University of Pennsylvania
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Morris Hamburg
University of Pennsylvania
William S. Rawson
University of South Carolina
Alan Heston
University of Pennsylvania
Oliver G. Wood, Jr.
University of South Carolina
** Lawrence R. Klein
University of Pennsylvania
Dennis A. Johnson
University of South Dakota
Herbert S. Levine
University of Pennsylvania
John C. Briggs
University of South Florida
Daniel Levinthal
University of Pennsylvania
Thomas N. Chirikos
University of South Florida
Andrew Postlewaite
University of Pennsylvania
K. Gyimah-Brempong
University of South Florida
Petra E. Todd
University of Pennsylvania
Eila Hanni
University of South Florida
Franklin Allen
University of Pennsylvania, Warton School
John W. Rowe, Jr.
University of South Florida
Elizabeth E. Bailey
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
R. Mark Wilson
University of South Florida
Richard C. Marston
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
Catherine S. Elliott
University of South Florida, New College
William G. Whitney
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
Frederick R. Strobel
University of South Florida, New College
Daniel Berkowitz
University of Pittsburgh
Semoon Chang
University of Southern Alabama
Gene W. Gruver
University of Pittsburgh
Timothy N. Cason
University of Southern California
Steve Husted
University of Pittsburgh
Kevin Chang
University of Southern California
John Kagel
University of Pittsburgh
Jeff Chapman
University of Southern California
Josephine E. Olson
University of Pittsburgh
Baizhu Chen
University of Southern California
Alvin E. Roth
University of Pittsburgh
Richard H. Day
University of Southern California
Steven F. Rushen
University of Pittsburgh
Peter Gordon
University of Southern California
Kevin Sontheimer
University of Pittsburgh
Jeff Nugent
University of Southern California
Michael H. Spiro
University of Pittsburgh
Peter B. Rosendorff
University of Southern California
Edward Sussna
University of Pittsburgh
Howard F. Chang
University of Southern California Law School
Jerome C. Wells
University of Pittsburgh
Lewis R. Gale, IV
University of Southwest Louisiana
Evaldo A. Cabarrouy
University of Puerto Rico
Marsha Blumenthal
University of St. Thomas
Kate Stirling
University of Puget Sound
Paul R. Casperson
University of St. Thomas
Lorenzo Garbo
University of Redlands
Charles M. Gray
University of St. Thomas
John P. Burkett
University of Rhode Island
Demos P. Hadjiyanis
University of St. Thomas
S. Ghon Rhee
University of Rhode Island
Peter M. Bearse
University of Tennessee
Stephen Swallow
University of Rhode Island
Sidney L. Carroll
University of Tennessee
Robert Dolan
University of Richmond
Amy Farmer
University of Tennessee
Peter W. Schuhmann
University of Richmond
Charles B. Garrison
University of Tennessee
Jonathan Wight
University of Richmond
Jean Gauger
University of Tennessee
Jeffrey S. Banks
University of Rochester
John W. Mayo
University of Tennessee
James A. Kahn
University of Rochester
Matthew N. Murray
University of Tennessee
Per Krusell
University of Rochester
Jonathan D. Rubin
University of Tennessee
Lionel W. McKenzie
University of Rochester
Thomas R. Sadler
University of Tennessee
Florian Zettelmeyer
University of Rochester
E. Bruce Hutchinson
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
Eric Hanushek
University of Rochester, Wallis Institute
William J. Crowder
University of Texas
Yhi-Min Ho
University of Saint Thomas
Chrys Dougherty
University of Texas
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula
University of San Diego
Don Fullerton
University of Texas
Man-Lui Lau
University of San Francisco
Tracy Hofer
University of Texas
Mike Lehmann
University of San Francisco
Charles C. Holt
University of Texas
Ed Scahill
University of Scranton
David Kendrich
University of Texas
Samuel L. Baker
University of South Carolina
Stephen L. McDonald
University of Texas
Randolph C. Martin
University of South Carolina
Dwight Steward
University of Texas
John H. McDermott
University of South Carolina
Wim P.M. Vijverberg
University of Texas
William T. Moore
University of South Carolina
Geoffrey T. Andron
University of Texas, Austin
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Ray Marshall
University of Texas, Austin
Wayne Carroll
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
David Scoones
University of Texas, Austin
Maria DaCosta
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
Brian M. Trinque
University of Texas, Austin
Darwin Wassink
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
Paul W. Wilson
University of Texas, Austin
Sayeed Payesteh
University of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac
Charles Lackey, Jr.
University of Texas, Brownsville
Thomas S. Nesslein
University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
John Merrifield
University of Texas, San Antonio
Glenn Knowles
University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse
Jose A. Pagan
University of Texas-Pan American
W.A. Brock
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Michael Ballot
University of the Pacific
Martin David
University of Wisconsin, Madison
David E. Keefe
University of the Pacific
Arik Levinson
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Walter C. Wagner
University of the Pacific
James D. Shilling
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Johannes Overbeek
University of the Virgin Islands
David J. Bernstein
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Alan H. Gleason
University of Toledo
Markos J. Mamalakis
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
John Murray
University of Toledo
Sol Shalit
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
C. R. Winegarden
University of Toledo
Nancy J. Burnett
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
Bobbie L. Horn
University of Tulsa
M. Kevin McGee
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
John Karikari
University of Tulsa
Norman R. Cloutier
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Gail Blattenberger
University of Utah
Dennis A. Kaufman
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Lance Girton
University of Utah
Richard H. Keehu
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Mark Glick
University of Utah
Ahdol Sooti
University of Wisconsin, Platteville
Kenneth P. Jameson
University of Utah
Thomas D. Crocker
University of Wyoming
Thomas N. Maloney
University of Utah
Mark D. Soskin
Universtiy of Central Florida
R. Thayne Robson
University of Utah
Robert Stern
Universtiy of Michigan
Abbas Alnasrawi
University of Vermont
Jerrold M. Peterson
Universtiy of Minnesota
Michael Sesnowitz
University of Vermont
John D. Bitzan
Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute
Alfred L. Thimm
University of Vermont
Gerhard N. Rostvold
Urbanomics Research Associates
Mark R. Eaker
University of Virginia
Christine Williams
USG
John Elder
University of Virginia
Amit Batabyal
Utah State University
Charles A. Holt
University of Virginia
Carl Lundgren
Valmarpro Forecasting
Jane Ihrig
University of Virginia
Rudolph C. Blitz
Vanderbilt University
John K. Whitaker
University of Virginia
Malcolm Getz
Vanderbilt University
John Treble
University of Wales
C. Elton Hinshaw
Vanderbilt University
William Beyers
University of Washington
Gian S. Sahota
Vanderbilt University
Gardner Brown
University of Washington
Fred M. Westfield
Vanderbilt University
Kathryn Dewenter
University of Washington
Geoffrey A. Jehle
Vassar College
Dan Jacoby
University of Washington
Phyllis W. Isley
Vermont Law School
J. Lawarree
University of Washington
N. Laopodis
Villa Julie College
Haideh Salehi-Esfahani
University of Washington
Wen Mao
Villanova University
Robert Varadi
University of Washington
Kishor Thanawala
Villanova University
James Andreoni
University of Wisconsin
John H. Bowman
Virginia Commonwealth University
Patricia Hallinan
University of Wisconsin
Amy H. Dalton
Virginia Commonwealth University
Donald A. Nichols
University of Wisconsin
Eleanor C. Snellings
Virginia Commonwealth University
Raghar Oygard
University of Wisconsin
Djavad Salehi-Isfahani
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
James D. Schilling
University of Wisconsin
Thomas J. Meeks
Virginia State University
Lawrence Weiser
University of Wisconsin
Catherine Eckel
Virginia Tech
Kenneth D. West
University of Wisconsin
George W. Norton
Virginia Tech
Abbas A. Taheri
University of Wisconsin Center, Fox Valley
Vijay Singal
Virginia Tech
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Mark Stegeman
Virginia Tech
Annette N. Brown
Western Michigan University
Nicholas Tideman
Virginia Tech
Bassam E. Harik
Western Michigan University
Allan Mandelstamm
Virginia Technical University
Emily P. Hoffman
Western Michigan University
Vernon O. Roningen
VORSIM
Werner Sichel
Western Michigan University
Glen H. Mitchell
VPISU
Dennis R. Murphy
Western Washington University
Chirstopher J. O'Leary
W.E. Upjohn Institute
John R. Wagner
Westfield State College
Jonathan Peters
Wagner College
Maria K. Wrotniak
Westminster College
Donald W. Walls
Walls and Associates
James Halteman
Wheaton College
Art Goldsmith
Washington and Lee University
John A. Walgreen
Wheaton College
John C. Winfrey
Washington and Lee University
Gordon Weil
Wheaton College
Lisa Daniels
Washington College
James F. Shepherd
Whitman College
Bruce Herrick
Washington & Lee University
Samuel Webb
Wichita State University
Gareth P. Green
Washington State University
Charles Waldauer
Widener University
Robert Rosenman
Washington State University
James S. Hanson
Willamette University
Ernst W. Stromsdorfer
Washington State University
Don Negri
Willamette University
Marcus Berliant
Washington University
Beth A. Wilson
Willamette University
Wilhelm Neuefeind
Washington University
Elizabeth Brainerd
Williams College
Bruce Petersen
Washington University
Matthew Hyle
Winona State University
Dennis L. Lambert
Washington University School of Medicine
David Peterson
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
R. W. La Hote
Washtenaw Community College
Marcus Boggs
Wishview Press
Kenneth G. McCoin
Waterford International
E. B. Gendel
Woodbury University
Yong U. Glasure
Wayland Baptist University
Michael J. Radzicki
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Doris Geide-Stevenson
Weber State University
Edward K. Hawkins
World Bank, Rtd.
John Mukum Mbaku
Weber State University
Robert Repetto
World Resources Insititute
Sarah Tinkler
Weber State University
Paul Faeth
World Resources Institute
James Burtle
WEFA Group
Norman S. Anon
Wright State University
Virendra Singh
WEFA Group
Rishi Kumar
Wright State University
Jeffrey F. Werling
WEFA Group
Thomas Traynor
Wright State University
Marshall Goldman
Wellesley College
Steven C. Agee
XAE Corporation
Lori Bollinger
Wesleyan University
Robert O. Zimmerman
Xavier University
John P. Bonin
Wesleyan University
Henry Hansmann
Yale Law School
Joyce Jacobsen
Wesleyan University
Paul W. MacAvoy
Yale School of Management
Marnie W. Mueller
Wesleyan University
Katherine O'Regan
Yale School of Management
Gary Yohe
Wesleyan University
Lynne Bennett
Yale University
Stratford M. Douglas
West Virginia University
Dirk Berlemann
Yale University
Jerald J. Fletcher
West Virginia University
Robert Evenson
Yale University
Clifford B. Hawley
West Virginia University
Barry Nalebuff
Yale University
Kern O. Kymn
West Virginia University
* William Nordhaus
Yale University
Walter C. Labys
West Virginia University
M.J. Peck
Yale University
Douglas W. Mitchell
West Virginia University
L. G. Reynolds
Yale University
Peter V. Schaeffer
West Virginia University
T. Paul Schultz
Yale University
Susan K. Kask
Western Carolina University
Jody Sindelar
Yale University
Vaman Rao
Western Illinois University
** James Tobin
Yale University
James A. Yunker
Western Illinois University
Joel Waldfogel
Yale University
Donald L. Alexander
Western Michigan University
Gustav Ranis
Yale University, Economic Growth Center
Usree Bandyopadhyay
Western Michigan University
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Annonymous
James E. Clark
Michael Adler
Edward H. Clarke
Ahmad Afrasiabi
These economists
Richard J. Claycombe
Donald E. Agthe
A. W. Coats
Gary Anders
elected not to list
Lee Cohen
Anthony Apostolides
thier attiliation.
Charles D. Coleman
Almudena Arcelus
Gilbert R. Coleman
Arthur G. Ashbrook, Jr.
John S. Coleman
David Ashmore
Lorraine M. Connell
Elias R. Ason
Roger H. Coupal
Shimon Awerbuch
Julie-Anne M. Cronin
Omar Azfar
William Crowell
Timothy D. Baker
Irma T. de Alonso
Drue Barker
Karl De Schweinitz
Chris Beacham
Andrea Dean
Jack Beebe
Ann A. Dean
Ken Beier
William Dellal
William R. Belmont
Mike Denning
Rene Bernier
Robert Dennis
Robert V. Bishop
Philip A. Dillaber
Robert V. Bishop
Gordon K. Douglass
Jeff Bond
Karl Driessen
Theodore Borek
Kenneth R. Dunmore
Joseph E. Bowring
James Duprey
Paul Boyce
David M. Eaves
Abbass Bozory
Peter M. Emerson
W.C. Brainard
Christian Ergen-Zucchi
Benjamin Bridges
Bruce Fallick
Shannon R. Brown
George R. Feiwel
Harold L. Bryant
Marianne Ferber
Rogene A. Buchnolz
Thomas Foster
David Buland
George Fox
J. Herbert Burkman
Philip E. Franklin
David R. Burnett
Hugh Franks
David Burress
Peter F. Freund
Joseph P. Cain
Joseph Froomkin
Ralph N. Calkins
John Dean Gaffey
David C. Campbell
Craig Gallet
Frank Canter
Howard Gensler
Joseph V. Cartwright
Frank W. Gery
Angela E. Chang
Arun Kumar Ghosh
Roberto Chang
James E. Glassman
Irving W. Cheskin
Patricia Godoy-Kain
Ajai Chopra
David Calvin Gogerty
Andrew Chritton
Dana Goldman
Clara Chu
Scott Goldsmith
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
Richard Gomez
Tim Lefever
Richard B. Goode
Frank Leiber
Bernard Gordon
Sergio Pereira Leite
Edgar J. Gordon
Frank Lerman
Carmine Gorga
James A. Lew
Gertrude Schroeder
Chyongchiou Lin
Jay V. Groves
Elmer P. Lotshaw
Caren Grown
John Maher
Raymond L. Guarnieri
Jon Manger
Souleyman Gueye
Roger Mann
John M. Hackett
Lawrence F. Mansfield
James L. Hamilton
D. Ward Mardfin
Dr. Raynal Hammelton
Pat Markovich
David D. Hanig
Yves Maroni
Rudolph W. Hardy
William A. Masters
Rebecca A. Havens
Charles S. Maurice.
Robert Hawkins
Timothy E. Mc Clive
John Hayes
Gretchen McClain
Mark D. Henson
Henry B. McFarland
John J. Hisnanick
John McFarland
Austin Curwood Hoggatt
Kathleen V. McNally
Richard Hooley
Mary McNally
Andrew Horowitz
Francois Melese
Serim Huh
Eloy Mestre
Jacob C. Hurwitz
George E. Michel
Gordon Irlam
Dubravko Mihaljek
Brian C. Jack
H. Lynn Miller
Milton Garnet James
Raymond A. Miller
Willem J. Jansen
Rick Mines
Rod E. Jensen
Rafael Montalvo
Nizar Jetha
John R. Moore
Rose Jochnowitz
Fred Morser
George A. Jougantos
Milton Moss
William Kahley
Robert T. Mott
Patrick Karani
Martin Muhleisen
Bernard Kemp
Robert Myers
Amos Khasigian
Delle Nadler
Kevin J Kiyan
Maud Naroll
Nicholas Komninos
Eric Nauenborg
Jacques J. Kozub
John Navratil
Kishure Kulkarni
Deenie Neff
Van Lam
Jessica Gordon Nembhard
Kathleen Lang
Richard Nichols
Jules N. LaRocque
Jurg Niehans
P. Michael Laub
Norman Nierenberg
Douglass B. Lee
Kent R. Nilsson
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
LIST OF ECONOMISTS WHO HAVE ENDORSED TO DATE
MARCH 7, 1997
NAME
AFFILIATION
NAME
AFFILIATION
M. S. Noorzoy
David I. Siskind
John R. Norsworthy
Edward K. Smith
Donald W. O'Connell
Leah J. Smith
Donald J. O'Hara
Saul I. Smith
Gerald T. O'Mara
Terrence P. Smith
Kenan Ogelman
John J. Soladay
Ernest C. Olson
Thomas M. Stanback, Jr.
Carlos Padilla
John Stein
Stahis S. Panagides
Robert L. Steiner
Jan Parker
Robert D. Stevens
Stephen Parkoff
John R. Stewart, Jr.
George L. Perry
William S. Stine
Barbara Y. Peters
Eugene D. Straub
Ralph W. Pfouts
Cornelia Strawser
Nora Piore
Timothy E. Sullivan
Elliot A. Ponchick
Li-Teh Sun
Abdul Qayum
Daniel G. Swanson
Michael Rabbitt
Stella Swetnick
Richard Raymond
Clyde Tappwig
David Reiffen
Lawrence Thurston
Robert A. Rennie
Arturo R. Torres Jr.
Jeffrey M. Rhodes
James Trask
R.R. Rhomberg
Kuo Tseng
Mark W. Rider
W.N. Turpin
Divid W. Riggs
Carlos Uliberri
David C. Roberts
Evamaria Uribe
S. Scanlon Romer
Evert Van Der Heide
Charles Ronald Ross
John Van Dewater
Gregory L. Rosston
Karen Van Nuys
Richard L. Ruth
Va Nee V. Van Vleck
Karl E. Sagner
Desiderius Vikor
Teresa Sala-Ruede
Juan A. Vileta-Trip
David Sandler
Keith Waehrer
Chetan Sanghavi
Leibert Benet Wallerstein
Debojyoti Sarkar
Gary Watts
David Schenker
Richard Weckstein
Valeo Schultz
Andrew W. Weier
Deborah A. Senior
Barbara Weinstein
Marnie Shaul
William J. Weiskopf
Joseph F. Shaw
John H. Wells Jr.
John P. Shelton
Damon Whelchel
Priya Shyamsundar
Thomson Whitin
Peter Siegelman
Jonathan Willner
F. Brian Simmons, III
Nancy H. Wilson
Kent Sims
Alan R. Winger
Fereidoon P. Sioshansi
Milton A. Wolf
SPONSORED BY:
REDEFINING PROGRESS - ONE KEARNY STREET - FOURTH FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO - CALIFORNIA - 415-781-1191
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Endorsed by Over 2000 Economists
including six Nobel Laureates
I.
The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists
under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it
significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that
preventive steps are justified.
II.
Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total
costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that
there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming
American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S.
productivity in the longer run.
III.
The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-
based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum
cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required-such as an international
emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most
efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as
carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such
policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes.
Sponsored By
REDEFINING PROGRESS
One Kearny Street
4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 781-1191
Fax: (415) 781-1198
EMail: [email protected]
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
Date: 13 Feb 97
To:
Alicia Munnell
Jeffery Frankel
From: Jason Shogren
RE:
GCC Outreach Program
Should we pay more attention to the outreach program?
I talked with Sally Kane from NOAA (ex-CEA) who gave us a heads-up on the framing of the
outreach programs that Dirk from DOE is organizing.
The fear is that these regional outreach programs will present an unbalanced view of what we do
and do not know about GCC--leaning toward alarming the public. We should care about this
because these workshops might not present the best state of the art knowledge about the likely
economic impacts of GCC.
Attached is one example from the Central Great Plains workshop. On page 2, the wording is:
Day 1: "potential vulnerabilities and risks..."
Day 2: "critical constraints to economic, social and ecological sustainability..."
Day 3: "needed community efforts to deal with climate change..."
Also attached in a letter from John Gibbons following up on a GCC meeting with the VP that
outlines what is going on in the outreach program.
We have not been invited to any of the outreach meetings to discuss content or process.
Apparently there is a central great plains regional meeting tomorrow--I am trying to find out
where and when.
What can we do?
Attend the meetings to make sure that the economic message is balanced.
Write a letter to Katie McGinty/Dan Tarullo suggesting that a formal or informal Advisory Board
be established to help provide useful information to the outreach programs.
301 427 2073
P.03/04
FEB-13-1997 13:48
NOAA/OGP
ran as. QIU 701 1000
1.00
WORKSHOP PROPOSAL OUTLINE
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON RANCHING, FARMING AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION IN THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
(COLORADO, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, WYOMING)
OSTP SPONSORED
The evidence for climate change is becoming more compelling, yet must regions of the
United States do DDI have a strategy to deal with the potential Impacts of climate change. In the
Central Great Plains region (Ls., the Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming area). the
potential impact of elimate changes is anticipated to affect winter snowfall, growing season
rainfall amounts and intensities, minimum winter temperatures, and summer time average
temperannes. The combined effect of these changes in weather patterns and average seasonal
climate will affect numerous sectors critical 9 the economic, social and ecological welfare of this
region.
Water resources already scarce in the region may come under greater competition among
the various users, for instruce ustan demands for drinking water may compete for water
available for agriculture and wildlife conservation. Climate warming may severely impact
the werland areas of the region bringing about SEVEIC consequences to the migratory and local
water fowl and wildlife popularions. Climate change may also result in greater crop damages
due B increased drought stress resulting from higher growing scaron temperatures. The loss of
soil from these croplends may be enhanced by the lack of plant cover. Ranchers in the region
may not be sble B support the current number of animals on the existing rangelands due to
reduced dryland pasture production and back water resources for their andress
Associated with climare change will be 8 mumber of indirect effects that will modify the
ecological imegrity of mary of the ccosystems in the region. The increased number of moxious
weeds, greater pest outhreaks, increased rate of aquifer use, and loss of werlands for water fowl
may result due to increased temperatures in the region The economic and acathetic costs of
these changes have not been evaluated within the region, nor strategies for mitigating or adapting
to those changes have been developed.
In order to better understand the scope of climate change issues and the potential
economic and political implications of these climate impacts, we proposa to hold an initial
workshop of critical smkeholders in this region and the scientific community to highlight the
regional concerns and knowledge, The initial focus of this workshop will be on the ranching,
farming, and wildlife sectors within the region. The goals of the workshop are:
To more clearly. understand the scope of the potendal climate changes impacts that this
region may need a deal with in the future,
To identify the critical climate related constraints to economie, environmental, and social
well-bring in the region among the stakeholders of the region;
To begin the development of a regional mitigation and adaptation strategy that is
politically, economically, and socially feasible.
301 427 2073 P.04/04
FEB-13-1997 13:49
NOAA/OGP
6-
1:00PM ENVIRONMENT DIVISION-
2023584103:# 3/
with -- WI 1110 will 181 THANK
THE 014 TO: 1000
1.43
The Workshop participants will include representativies from the following sectors.
Political Sector
Congressional representatives, state legistlatures, county and city council
members
Land management sector
Agricultural extension agents, rangeland extension agents, water conservation
board members, wildlife conservation mangers, national and smite park resource
managers
Non-goveramental organizations
The Name Conservancy, Audoban Society, Cattlemen's Association
Commercial and Industrial sector
Seed developers, agrobusiness, crop insurance
Citizens
Ranchers, furners, recreationists, hunters, fisherman
Scientists
Climatologists, ecosystem selentiats, hydrologists, agricultural scientists, wildlife
scientists
The structure of the workshop will be designed to provide a forum to present what is
known about the climate change issues and identify the impacts of these changes and then to
provide 4 platform for identification of critical issues related to climate impacts on various
economic and anvironmental sectors critical to the region. We anticipate a three day warkshop
in order to address these issues. The location of the meeting is still be decided, but H location in
Colorado is being contemplated The timeframe of the forum in ser for May or June of 1997.
Day 1: Presentation of climate change issues and potential impacts relevant to the region;
identification of potential vulgerabilities and risks associated with regional
climate change impacts
Day 2 Discussion of critical constraints to economic, social, and emlogical sustainability
in the region; development of possible minigation and adaptive strategies.
Day 3: Develop framework for needed community efforts to deal with climate change
impacts and identify critical issues for further development Plenary discussion of
Summary comments and future plans
The outcome to the workshop will be & regional appreciation of what critical climate change
issues are that would affect the regional development and sustainability. The workshop will
provide forma for beter understanding of the scientific basis of climare change impacts and the
interwoven. sucio-economie and environmental fabrie from which the climate change impacts will be
TOTAL P.04
FEB-13-1997 13:48
NOAA/OGP
301 427 2073 P.02/04
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Fobruary 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
ATTENDEES AT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CLIMATE RESEARCH MEETING
FROM:
John H. Glbbon 8ay
SUBJECT:
Follow-up on the Papers Assigned by the Vice President on January 30
At the end of our very productive meeting on Global Change Research, the Vice President gave a number of
charges:
1) to help with the CEQ/NEC communication outreach effort (Kalie Metiinty and Dan Tarullo will send you a
follow-up memo on this);
2) to assist with regional impacts workshops (Tim Wirth has since held an initial meeting and asked agencies
to submit information about planned events to DOS), and
3) some agencies were tasked to prepare short impacts papers over the next 3-4 weeks. OSTP will serve as the
focal point for this effort.
This miemo is to clarify the assignment to produce impacts papers. The lead agencies designated were:
NIH/EPA:
Health
NOAA:
Fisheries. Coastal Zones
USDA:
Agriculture, Forests
DOI:
National Parks, Water Resources
FEMA:
Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness
The ideal product would be short text, about 5 pages, written to address 3 key topics:
what is the condition of the resource today (current stresses):
what additional impacts does climate change pose for the resource:
what resources (and where) are most vulnerable to as climate-changed world. what sncin-economic
impacts might ensue, and what options for managing natural resources in the face of such change,
ought to he explored.
The papers will serve many purposes over the coming months as we work with stakeholders to explain what
climate change incans for the average oitizen. We want good graphics-some national and some regional-that
help explain the vulnerabilities of resources to climate change. Because several agencies may have Interesting
work to bring to hear on each of these resources, I suggest the load agencies for each paper convene a meeting
with other relevant agencies as soon as possible. Agencies should bring to these mestings an inventory of
their completed, ongoing and proposed work on climate change so we can share this information as soon 36
possible.
We hope you can complete your papers and submit them to us by the end of February. Rosina Bierbaum and
Jeny Melillo of my office (456-6202) are assigned leads on this effort and will be happy to attend the inter-
agency meetings and help with the overall process.
01/14/97 10:47 '2026470217
5.
002/004
GROUP OF SIX PLUS
OSTP
Rosina Bierbaum
456-6202
FAX: 456-6025
CEA
Alicia Munnell
395-5036
FAX: 395-6958
NEC
Elgie Holstein
456-5370
FAX: 456-2223
OMB
T.J. Glauthier
395-4561
FAX: 395-4639
Justice
Lois Schiffer
514-2701
FAX: 514-0557
Commerce
Jeffrey Hunker
482-6055
FAX: 482-4636
NOAA
Terry Garicia
482-3567
FAX: 482-6318
Treasury
Robert Gillingham
622-2220
FAX: 622-2633
Interior
Brooks Yeager
208-6182
FAX: 208-4561
USTR
Jennifer Haverkamp
395-7320
FAX: 395-4579
Agriculture - Charlie Rawls
720-6158
FAX: 720-5437
DOE
Dirk Forrister
586-5506
FAX: 586-9987
EPA
Mary Nichols
260-7400
FAX: 260-5155
David Gardiner
260-4332
FAX: 260-0275
DOT:
Frank Kruesi
366-2222
FAX: 366-3997
OVP
Pete Jordan (ID)
456-9501
FAX: 456-9500
CEQ
David Sandlow
456-6543
FAX: 456-2710
CEQ
Steve Seidel
395-3706
FAX: 456-6546
01/14/97
10:47
'2026470217
003/004
The Washington Post
BUSINESS
Linking Business's Climate and Earth's
Some Companies Begin to Explore Whether Global Warming Could Hurt Their Bottom Lines
By Martha M. Hamilton
santo Co., the chemical and biotech-
public policy for the St. Louis-based
Because of that, the issue of global
Washington Post Staff Writer
nology company. has begun measuring
company.
warming is taken seriously by senior
its own CO² emissions. "If you look at
"We depend on farmers to a large
management at the company, she said.
A few U.S. businesses are begin-
the kind of businesses Monsanto is in,
part, and farmers depend on things
"The first step is where are you with
ning to take practical steps to deal
the economic consequences of even a
like stable weather patterns and soil
CO2 emissions," she noted. Although
with what their managers regard as a
slightly warmer world are pretty dev-
moisture content," she said. "Extreme
environmental laws require companies
real and potentially dangerous trend-
astating," said Kate Fish, director of
weather patterns are daunting."
to keep track of other emissions:-
global climate change.
such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous ax-
These companies have concluded
ide-carbon dioxide emissions have
that the spread of carbon dioxide and
TOO HOT TO HANDLE?
been "free," she noted.
other "greenhouse" gases-through
the burning of fossil fuels such as coal
Other companies have studied ways
and oil-could produce devastating
T
he earth is almost two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was 130
to offset or reduce emissions of carbon
worldwide changes in temperature and
years ago; that, coupled with coastal erosion caused by particularly
dioxide. AES Corp., a company that
precipitation. They fear this "global
bad hurricane seasons, has businesses looking at ways to limit the
builds independent power generating
warming" will be harmful to the envi-
environmental harm they cause.
plants, has in several cases in the past
ronment-and also to the corporate
planted trees or bought endangered
Mean global temperature
bottom line.
60"
forests-because the trees will help
Some of the corporate steps are
absorb carbon dioxide produced by the
tentative, and they come at a time
power plants.
when most U.S. companies are still
59
Northeast Utilities, the largest elec
spewing out carbon dioxide without
tric utility in New England, joined in E
thinking much about its potential
58
voluntary federal program to reduce
costs, Indeed; representatives of the
emissions. The company reported lás
U.S. coal, oil and utility industries are
month that it had limited CO2 emis
vigarously opposing a Clinton adminis-
57
sions to 11.1 million tons systemwide
tration plan to seek binding limits on
1996: 58
in 1995-even lower than the targe
releases of greenhouse gases. But
56
it had set, of 14.7 million tons.
there are signs, too, of changing busi-
Dow Chemical Co. has established
ness attitudes toward global warming.
At Mobil Corp., for instance, there
55
1866: 56.3
goal of improving energy efficiency
have been staff-level discussions about
a rate of 2 percent per year, per prod
whether the company should track its
uct manufactured, according to Pau
54
emissions of carbon dioxide. Mobil
Cicio, the company's manager of gov
1870 '80 '90 1900 '10 20 '30 '40 '50 60 '70 '80 '90 '96
hasn't yet reached any decision on the
ernment relations, hydrocarbons and
matter, a spokesman said.
SOURCE NASA
energy policy. This is one of a series 0
But some are more concrete. Mon-
See CLIMATE, H8, CoL 1
01/14/97
10:48
2026470217
004/004
H8 SUNDAY, JANUARY 1997
Signs Increase That Business Attitudes
Are Changing Toward Global Warming
CLIMATE, From H1
One industry that is mindful of the
measures" while waiting for additional
global environmental goals the chemi-
potential effects of global climate
scientific assessment, Nutter said.
cal company has established, he said.
change is the insurance industry-
"There's no certainty as to what the
"The most important way compa-
which would have to pay for floods,
impact of climate change will be on
droughts and other natural disasters
nies improve energy efficiency is when
weather patterns," said Karen M.
that might result from changes in glob-
Clark, president of Applied Insurance
they build new facilities," Cicio said.
al temperature and weather.
Research of Boston, a company that
For instance, a new plant in Alberta,
A warning to the industry came last
provides computer modeling for the
Canada, which produces ethylene-
April from Franklin W. Nutter, direc-
insurance industry. The computer
the basic raw material for the produc-
tor of the Reinsurance Association of
models can only assess what the indus-
tion of plastics-is 30 percent more
America. In a speech to the Casualty
try's losses would be if predictions
efficient than a similar plant built just
Actuarial Society, he urged the indus-
about the impact of global warming on
17 years ago.
try to encourage energy efficiency,
weather patterns are true, she said.
"The key is looking for projects that
Reinsurance is the process of sharing
Clark and others said that, so far,
accomplish the best of both worlds-
risks among insurance companies.
there has been more corporate inter-
the ones that allow us to make a re-
Nutter noted that the International
est in the possible business impact of
turn for our shareholders and also to
Panel on Climate Change "predicts'
global climate change in Western Eu-
that over the next 100 years the earth
improve the environment." he said.
rope than in the United States.
"That doesn't happen by accident."
will warm from 1.5 degrees to 6.3 de-
Monsanto's Fish said she worries
grees Fahrenheit, and that sea level
And other companies have achieved
that "it will put U.S. business at a com-
will rise from 6 inches to 38 inches-
greenhouse-gas-reducing energy effi-
petitive disadvantage worldwide, if we
roughly the same amount of change in
ciency in the course of pursuing other
see companies in other countries driv-
goals. Carrier Corp., for instance, was
the next 100 years as has occurred
ing toward more efficient production."
looking for a new type of chiller to re-
over the Earth since the last Ice Age
International negotiators are ham-
place an old technology that relied on
nearly 10,000 years ago."
ozone-depleting chlorine. The compa-
The result of these climate changes,
mering out details of how to address
according to the panel, "would be
the issue of global climate change, in-
ny chose to skip over an interim gen-
eration of chillers that would still have
greater frequency and intensity of
cluding whether to set legally binding
used the ozone-depleting chemical.
droughts, geographic spreading of dis-
targets for reducing emissi ns of
ease more common in warmer cli-
greenhouse gases after the year 2000.
Instead, it went directly to an alter-
mates, the retreat of mountain gla-
Said Eileen Claussen, the State De-
native that used no chlorine at all, ac-
ciers, storms of greater malevolence
partment's assistant secretary for
cording to Matt Chadderdon, vice
and more intense wet and stormy con-
oceans and international environmen-
president for government relations for
ditions."
tal and scientific affairs: "I think it is a
the United Technologies Corp. subsid-
iary.
The insurance industry "should not
competitiveness issue, and I would like
postpone reasonable and appropriate
us to be out there in the lead."
for Divu
Hdw ve ice Peer revew.
CEX
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
OUTREACH PLAN FOR MODELING RESULTS
Stage I - Base case runs and major assumptions -- Mid February.
Release in briefings to Congressional staff (we go to them) and outside groups (invite in to
DOC).
Announce formation of peer review panel & process.
--
12 members (3 recommendations each from Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board,
EPA Administrator's Science Advisory Board, OSTP's Science Advisory Panel ???
and Council of Economic Advisors???).
--
Selection criteria: range of sectoral expertise, energy/environmental/economic
modeling expertise, published work in area w/ peer review, independent from
government, (also, academics, enviro's and industry???)
--
Convened as Climate Modeling Review Panel. We will not seek consensus, just
individual views. Should comply with FACA.
--
Base case & assumptions would be presented to Taskforce by Ehrlich group in
early March, and Taskforce members would be invited to provide review
comments and recommendations for improvement within 2 weeks.
Stage II -- Modeling Runs -- Late April to Early May
Provide confidential briefings to Congressional staff (and Members, where requested) at
OEOB.
Convene peer review panel to hear Ehrlich's presentation on modeling results and key
interpretations; respond with written comments within 2 weeks. This process would not
become public until stage III. Again no FACA problem with keeping pre-decisional info
confidential.
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
Stage III -- Public Workshop on Modeling & Results -- Late May to Early June
Opportunity for full public participation.
Ehrlich group presents full package: basecase, runs, assumptions and interpretations of
results.
Peer review panel responds with individual review and comments.
Ehrlich group provides response re: how we dealt with recommendations.
Audience participates in question and answer session with Ehrlich group and review team.
Package put on internet for public at large to consider.
Package put in Federal Register as Notice for public at large.
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
GROWTH GLOBAL )
CC.Am Ca AW
IN
A
JS
19 February 1997
TR
Dear Member of the Interagency Taskforce on Climate Change Policy:
Attached for your information is a letter from the Global Climate Coalition to
Assistant Secretary Eileen Claussen outlining several concerns expressed by
Coalition members with the January 17 "U.S. Draft Protocol Proposal."
Also attached are questions that the GCC believes need further clarification so
that sound climate policies can be developed.
I hope you find this information useful.
Sincerely,
William F. O'Keefe
Chairman
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - Suite 1500 - North Tower . Washington, DC 20004-1703
Telephone: (202) 637-3162
Fax: (202) 638-1032
Fax: (202) 638-1043
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
ENVIRONMENT
GROWTH IN IN A GLOBAL
February 14, 1997
The Honorable Eileen Claussen
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans
and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs
Room 7831
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, Rileen DE. 20520
Dear Ms Claussen:
On behalf of the Global Climate Coalition, I want to thank you and other State
Department officials for the time you set aside January 17 to brief interested
parties about provisions in the "U.S. Draft Protocol Proposal" to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change. In the interest of continuing that dialogue, I
want to express several general impressions and to pose a number of questions
prompted by this latest U.S. proposal and its predecessor last December.
First, we note the impressive effort evident in the proposal's elaborate policy
architecture, given the short time allowed by the Secretariat to submit such
documents. However, it is difficult to analyze the draft protocol and its
implications until we are fully informed about the Administration's proposed
target, timetables and policy tools-such as emissions trading-that have been
proposed to implement a Kyoto agreement. The lack of detail denies the
American public, labor and industry groups such as ours the ability to fully
assess the merits of the U.S. draft protocol proposal, especially its implications
for our nation's economic well-being. In our view, any protocol of this nature,
were it ratified, may well result in policies, regulations and other measures
many times more costly than they need be. Certainly, the growing body of
economic analyses argues strongly against early actions that would be many
times more costly but would produce no greater benefits than policies that were
based on optimal timing.
As you know, our members strongly share the view that developing nations
need to be part of any new Kyoto agreement. We have attached questions on
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 1500 - North Tower
Telephone: (202) 637-3162
Washington, DC 20004-1703
Fax: (202) 638-1032
Fax: (202) 638-1043
The Honorable Eileen Claussen
February 14, 1997
Page Two
this matter, as well as others. It is vitally important to establish in advance of the
Kyoto meeting appropriate criteria for including developing countries and the
resolve not to support any agreement that does not involve a specific schedule
for active developing country participation. There is a political and equity.
argument why developing countries must be included in any new commitments.
Would Americans accept a U.N. agreement that requires substantial personal,
economic and lifestyle sacrifices, yet allows environmental gains, however
distant or few, to first be marginalized and then completely overrun by the
absence of active participation by developing nations, which will be the major
emission sources in the next century? We think not, and urge the Administration
to stand firm on developing country participation in any new agreement. At
home, we urge you to make public as soon as possible the economic analyses on
which your draft protocol proposal is based.
The GCC is encouraged by the stipulation that all greenhouse gases be included
in any new agreement and by the attention given to the "free rider" problem.
However, the GCC believes a number of points in this document require
additional comment so that policymakers and the public may more precisely
understand what U.S. representatives are preparing to negotiate in Kyoto.
For example, how are the results of the Administration's economic analyses
linked to the policy choices outlined in this draft protocol proposal? What, if
any, institutional organizations need to be created or strengthened to implement
the proposed tradable permits initiative? If international oversight is not
contemplated, how would the integrity of such a system be protected, and by
whom? Given the myriad of proposals now before the Parties, is the
Administration concerned that important issues will not be resolved at the
December meeting in Kyoto? If key issues are left unresolved, would the "Kyoto
Agreement" be contingent on the satisfactory resolution of those issues by a time
certain?
In short, we are encouraged by the Administration's January 17 effort to clarify
its position regarding post-2000 greenhouse gas emissions, but we also are
concerned by the important questions the draft protocol raises and does not
answer. Rather than dwell on those concerns here, we enclose a list of some of
the questions that we hope you can respond to before or after the Bonn meeting
late this month.
The Global Climate Coalition appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
U.S. draft protocol proposal. Be assured we will continue to participate
The Honorable Eileen Claussen
February 14, 1997
Page Three
constructively in this national and international debate seeking to identify
realistic, flexible climate policies whose benefits are commensurate with costs.
Sincerely,
fir William F. O'Keefe
Chairman
Attachment
CC: Federal Interagency Group on Climate Change Policy
February 14, 1997
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION ENCLOSURE
RE: SOME ISSUES CONCERNING U.S. NON-PAPER OF DECEMBER 1996
AND U.S. DRAFT PROTOCOL FRAMEWORK OF JANUARY 17, 1997
In asking these questions, we, of course, recognize that, in some cases, (such as Articles
2.7 and 4.6) you have not had an opportunity to spell out all of the details in the draft protocol
and, of course, the specific target and timetable are absent. However, in other Articles, the lack
of details raises issues and serious concerns. Our primary interest is in understanding what you
intend or what you were thinking in crafting any particular Article, Annex, or provision in order
for industry, labor and others to better understand the impact of the draft U.S. proposal and how
it would be implemented from a practical sense should it or elements of it combined with
proposals by other Parties be adopted in Kyoto.
Article 1 - Definitions
A.
The draft defines "Party" to mean a "Party to the Protocol". Annex A includes the
Annex I Parties to the Convention that sign and ratify or accept the Protocol and Annex B
includes such non-Annex I Parties to the Convention that want to be included in Annex
B. Article 5.5 and 5.6 seem to suggest that other Convention Parties may become Parties
to the Protocol. Is that intended? If the U.S. draft protocol or significant elements
thereof are agreed to in Kyoto, could non-Annex I Parties to the Convention sign and
ratify or accept the Protocol, have equal voting rights, and also not agree to be included
in either Annex A or B?
Article 5 - Advancement of the Implementation of Article 4.1 of the Convention
B.
As drafted, Article 5 of the draft Protocol only applies to those Convention Parties who
become Parties to the Protocol. Since Article 5 seems to impose new requirements or
obligations, which you presumably believe are consistent with section 2.(b) of the Berlin
Mandate Decision, on Protocol Parties in regards to Article 4.1 of the Convention, what
is the incentive for non-Annex I Parties to the Convention (i.e. developing countries) to
become Parties to the U.S. draft protocol and be subject to such requirements?
C.
Article 5.5 applies to non-Annex A and B Parties, while Article 5.7 applies to all Parties
to the draft Protocol. Both include the words "no regrets measures" which are not
defined. What are such measures? Is it true that "no regrets measures" are not
necessarily "no risk measures"? Does Article 4.1 of the Convention provide for or
require "no regrets measures" for any Party? If not, what is the application of Article
5.7(b) to Parties not subject to Article 5.5 of the draft Protocol?
Article 16 - Evolution
D.
There is concern that greenhouse gas emissions are growing rapidly in developing
countries and that the Berlin Mandate precludes any new commitments applicable to such
countries in any AGBM protocol or other legal instrument with the result that any such
CLMTENCL.DOC
1
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
instrument will not be fully global, will create economic and competitive disadvantages
and will not be environmentally sound. We think a provision like Article 16 is needed
for the developing countries, although we realize that it is only an agreement to agree. It
does not, for example, include even a hint as to whether the agreement might, as
minimum, be patterned after Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol. However, we are
concerned that Article 16 (which, as drafted, now applies only to Protocol Parties) will
not apply to developing country Parties to the Convention unless they become Protocol
Parties and become Annex B Parties. Is it your intention that Article 16 should apply to
developing country Parties to the Convention? What if they are not included in Annex B
of the Protocol? Would that intention be better achieved by converting Article 16 to an
amendment to the Convention?
E.
Do you contemplate that the process of implementation of Article 16 would be spelled out
in a decision at COP3 by the Convention Parties or by the Parties to the Protocol at their
first meeting after entry into force? Are you concerned that some Parties to the
Convention might delay signing and ratifying the draft Protocol until they see the results
of the process under Article 16, particularly if the delaying Parties are developing
countries with significant growth in greenhouse gases?
F.
Annex B states that it includes Convention Parties "not listed in Annex A" that "indicate"
they want to be "included" in Annex B. One country that immediately comes to mind
because of its recent accession to the OECD would, based on Administration testimony in
the House Commerce Committee last September, seem to be Korea which is a U.S.
trading partner. However, we understand that an OECD document entitled "Korea's
Accession Revised Draft Report to the Council" and dated last August states in paragraph
24 of an Annex entitled "Korean Undertakings" that: "For purposes of future
negotiations and agreements, Korea would not choose to be classified as a developing
country, except in the areas of agriculture and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change." If the U.S. draft protocol was agreed to in Kyoto, is Korea committed
as an OECD member to becoming a Party subject to Articles 5 and 16, but not Annex A
or B, or does it mean that, as a developing country Korea could choose not to become a
Protocol Party?
G.
As you know, non-Annex I Parties are participating in negotiations for new commitments
for Annex I Parties, while they enjoy an exemption from new commitments. However,
Article 16 provides no similar exemption for Annex I Parties. Why should Article 16
which calls for new and progressive "quantitative greenhouse gas emissions obligations"
based on some future "agreed criteria" be applicable to Annex A Parties to the Protocol,
including the U.S., since the U.S. draft of the Kyoto protocol otherwise applies to them
and imposes new obligations on them beyond those in Article 4.1 and 2 of the
Convention? What new obligations for Annex A Parties do you contemplate in the
Article 16 process? Does, for example, this mean that under Article 4.1(b) Annex I
Parties, like the U.S., by signing the Protocol are agreeing to reductions beyond the
requirements of Article 2 of the draft protocol?
CLMTENCL.DOC
2
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
Article 2 - Emissions Budgets
H.
We observe that Section III of the December Non-Paper called for "focusing"
negotiations on a "binding, medium-term emissions target" and expressed interest in
working toward a "longer-term concentration goal". However, Article 2.3 appears to
call for a second target or "budget period" before there is an agreement by non-Annex A
and B Parties to the Protocol that are developing countries to negotiate "quantitative
greenhouse. gas emissions obligations" under Article 16 and to adopt such obligations by
[2005]. Does this second target send the wrong signals to the developing countries who
agree to become Parties to the draft protocol and are subject to Article 16? .Why is it in
the best economic and competitive interests of the United States to offer a second target
and timetable before negotiations with all Parties to the Convention in the AGBM begin
and before the U.S. analysis and assessment and its assumptions are provided to
Congress, industry, labor, environmentalists, and others? What is the need?
I.
The Non-Paper states that the U.S. "strongly urges consideration of banking" and that
multi-year averaging would give Parties "important flexibility". However, Article 2.5
seems to weaken that support for banking by providing that emissions of tonnes "may"
(not "shall") be carried over and added to the "next budget period". That leaves
uncertainty for industry and suggests that a Party like the U.S., might retire such tonnes
rather than bank them which could have future economic and competitive consequences.
Why did you take this discretionary approach? Why not follow the mandatory approach
of Article 2.6? The Article does not specifically mention multi-year averaging. Why? Is
it implied?
Article 6 - International Emissions Trading
J.
As the chief proponent of an emissions trading program, the U.S. in its December Non-
Paper said it was "critical" that provisions for "international" emissions trading "be
included in the Kyoto agreement." When Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA) was
signed into law, it spelled out in great detail the allowance program for existing and new
electric utility units, including the timetable, the target, the cap, the trading system, the
nature of the allowances, the rights of allowance holders, the tracking system, and the
limitations. Upon enactment, the utility industry knew the program details and could
plan their future. That program, which applied equally to all covered units of the electric
utility industry, is for one industry with an identified and limited number of sources and
it is a national trading program. Presumably, an international trading program will cover
many industries, sectors, and gases on an international scale. However, our review of
Article 6 of the draft protocol provides none of the details of an international trading
program. It merely authorizes trading between Annex A and B Parties that establish a
"mechanism" for certifying and verifying trades. It does not require that a trading
program be established by all such Parties or that such a "mechanism" be put "in place"
or that it be operated uniformly. All the important details are missing.
CLMTENCL.DOC
3
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
Do you intend to include these "critical" provisions in the protocol to be adopted in
Kyoto or do you plan to defer development of such provisions to a post Kyoto. legal
instrument, to a decision of the Parties to the Protocol after it enters into force, to
bilateral negotiations between Parties, or some other means?
K.
Article 6 provides that a Party "may authorize" any domestic entity to participate in
actions "leading to transfer" of tonnes. What "actions" do you have in mind for this
entity? In the case of the CAA, the trades are between utilities with reporting to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Is that same approach likely to be accepted on an
international scale if the domestic entity is a non-governmental organization in one
country and a government agency in another?
L.
As noted, Article 6 authorizes trading between Parties. However, unlike the CAA no
mention is made of trading by private sector entities that will likely need such trading to
operate. Also, unlike the CAA it does not allocate, or provide for an allocation of, the
initial tonnes for various industries and sources to operate or indicate whether such
industries and sources will be faced with penalties for continuing to operate without such
allocation if such a program is initiated.
It only allows private sector entities, after receiving authorization from a Party, to
"participate in actions leading to transfer and receipt. of carbon equivalent emissions.
Therefore, it appears that private sector entities can only suggest to Parties that certain
emissions trading transactions take place. This imposes significant constraints on private
sector international emissions trading, establishes a bureaucracy involving two separate
governments or their designees between the private sector and the completion of trades,
lowers any possible expectation that private sector entities would receive any benefit from
trades, and makes the private sector subservient to the political and policy whims of
governments in order to carry out what industry does best, i.e., produce goods and
services and employ workers.
The wording of Article 7 on Joint Implementation carries the same structure and
constraints. Under Article 7.1, any Party can generate tonnes of carbon equivalent
emissions. Under Article 7.5, only Annex A or B Parties may acquire those tonnes of
carbon equivalent emissions. And under Article 7.6, private sector entities, even after
receiving authorization from a Party, are limited to "participat[ing] in actions leading to
generation, transfer and receipt under this Article of tonnes of carbon equivalent
emissions." Again, the private sector entities cannot, themselves, engage in emissions
trading.
The proposed construction of Articles 6 and 7 and lack of details would appear to
virtually eliminate the functioning of an international market in tradable permits. Instead,
trading, as noted, can occur only between governments. The type of trading activity that
would occur between governments, as a practical matter, would likely bear little
resemblance to the trading activity that would be expected to occur in a private sector
international tradable permits market if the program works as its proponents contend. Is
the Administration intending an international governmental trading system? Who will
CLMTENCL.DOC
4
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
make the trades, pay for the tonnes, and receive the tonnes and money? If not, when will
we learn the details for evaluation by industry, labor, and others?
Article 3 - Measurement and Reporting
M.
Article 3.5 suggests that the transfers of tonnes of carbon equivalent emissions under
Articles 6 and 7 would be reported to the Convention Secretariat annually. Do you
intend that the Secretariat would perform the role in trading that EPA does under Title IV
of the CAA and if so is annual reporting adequate? If not, what entity should perform
that role and what is the purpose and need for a Party to also report to the Secretariat?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the U.S. of an international entity
performing the EPA-type role in trading?
Article 7 - Joint Implementation (JI)
N.
Article 7.2(b) uses the term "additional" which is not defined or explained. The
definition of "additional" and the methodology for calculating greenhouse gas reductions
from JI projects must be determined in order to estimate the magnitude of the cost
savings due to JI. How will the Administration obtain this information in order to factor
the cost savings of JI into its economic analysis?
CLMTENCL.DOC
5
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION ENCLOSURE
RE: SOME ISSUES CONCERNING U.S. NON-PAPER OF DECEMBER 1996
AND U.S. DRAFT PROTOCOL FRAMEWORK OF JANUARY 17, 1997
In asking these questions, we, of course, recognize that, in some cases, (such as Articles
2.7 and 4.6) you have not had an opportunity to spell out all of the details in the draft protocol
and, of course, the specific target and timetable are absent. However, in other Articles, the lack
of details raises issues and serious concerns. Our primary interest is in understanding what you
intend or what you were thinking in crafting any particular Article, Annex, or provision in order
for industry, labor and others to better understand the impact of the draft U.S. proposal and how
it would be implemented from a practical sense should it or elements of it combined with
proposals by other Parties be adopted in Kyoto.
Article 1 - Definitions
A.
The draft defines "Party" to mean a "Party to the Protocol". Annex A includes the
Annex I Parties to the Convention that sign and ratify or accept the Protocol and Annex B
includes such non-Annex I Parties to the Convention that want to be included in Annex
B. Article 5.5 and 5.6 seem to suggest that other Convention Parties may become Parties
to the Protocol. Is that intended? If the U.S. draft protocol or significant elements
thereof are agreed to in Kyoto, could non-Annex I Parties to the Convention sign and
ratify or accept the Protocol, have equal voting rights, and also not agree to be included
in either Annex A or B?
Article 5 - Advancement of the Implementation of Article 4.1 of the Convention
B.
As drafted, Article 5 of the draft Protocol only applies to those Convention Parties who
become Parties to the Protocol. Since Article 5 seems to impose new requirements or
obligations, which you presumably believe are consistent with section 2.(b) of the Berlin
Mandate Decision, on Protocol Parties in regards to Article 4.1 of the Convention, what
is the incentive for non-Annex I Parties to the Convention (i.e. developing countries) to
become Parties to the U.S. draft protocol and be subject to such requirements?
C.
Article 5.5 applies to non-Annex A and B Parties, while Article 5.7 applies to all Parties
to the draft Protocol. Both include the words "no regrets measures" which are not
defined. What are such measures? Is it true that "no regrets measures" are not
necessarily "no risk measures"? Does Article 4.1 of the Convention provide for or
require "no regrets measures" for any Party? If not, what is the application of Article
5.7(b) to Parties not subject to Article 5.5 of the draft Protocol?
Article 16 - Evolution
D.
There is concern that greenhouse gas emissions are growing rapidly in developing
countries and that the Berlin Mandate precludes any new commitments applicable to such
countries in any AGBM protocol or other legal instrument with the result that any such
CLMTENCL.DOC
1
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
instrument will not be fully global, will create economic and competitive disadvantages
and will not be environmentally sound. We think a provision like Article 16 is needed
for the developing countries, although we realize that it is only an agreement to agree. It
does not, for example, include even a hint as to whether the agreement might, as
minimum, be patterned after Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol. However, we are
concerned that Article 16 (which, as drafted, now applies only to Protocol Parties) will
not apply to developing country Parties to the Convention unless they become Protocol
Parties and become Annex B Parties. Is it your intention that Article 16 should apply to
developing country Parties to the Convention? What if they are not included in Annex B
of the Protocol? Would that intention be better achieved by converting Article 16 to an
amendment to the Convention?
E.
Do you contemplate that the process of implementation of Article 16 would be spelled out
in a decision at COP3 by the Convention Parties or by the Parties to the Protocol at their
first meeting after entry into force? Are you concerned that some Parties to the
Convention might delay signing and ratifying the draft Protocol until they see the results
of the process under Article 16, particularly if the delaying Parties are developing
countries with significant growth in greenhouse gases?
F.
Annex B states that it includes Convention Parties "not listed in Annex A" that "indicate"
they want to be "included" in Annex B. One country that immediately comes to mind
because of its recent accession to the OECD would, based on Administration testimony in
the House Commerce Committee last September, seem to be Korea which is a U.S.
trading partner. However, we understand that an OECD document entitled "Korea's
Accession Revised Draft Report to the Council" and dated last August states in paragraph
24 of an Annex entitled "Korean Undertakings" that: "For purposes of future
negotiations and agreements, Korea would not choose to be classified as a developing
country, except in the areas of agriculture and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change." If the U.S. draft protocol was agreed to in Kyoto, is Korea committed
as an OECD member to becoming a Party subject to Articles 5 and 16, but not Annex A
or B, or does it mean that, as a developing country Korea could choose not to become a
Protocol Party?
G.
As you know, non-Annex I Parties are participating in negotiations for new commitments
for Annex I Parties, while they enjoy an exemption from new commitments. However,
Article 16 provides no similar exemption for Annex I Parties. Why should Article 16
which calls for new and progressive "quantitative greenhouse gas emissions obligations"
based on some future "agreed criteria" be applicable to Annex A Parties to the Protocol,
including the U.S., since the U.S. draft of the Kyoto protocol otherwise applies to them
and imposes new obligations on them beyond those in Article 4.1 and 2 of the
Convention? What new obligations for Annex A Parties do you contemplate in the
Article 16 process? Does, for example, this mean that under Article 4.1(b) Annex I
Parties, like the U.S., by signing the Protocol are agreeing to reductions beyond the
requirements of Article 2 of the draft protocol?
CLMTENCL.DOC
2
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
Article 2 - Emissions Budgets
H.
We observe that Section III of the December Non-Paper called for "focusing"
negotiations on a "binding, medium-term emissions target" and expressed interest in
working toward a "longer-term concentration goal". However, Article 2.3 appears to
call for a second target or "budget period" before there is an agreement by non-Annex A
and B Parties to the Protocol that are developing countries to negotiate "quantitative
greenhouse gas emissions obligations" under Article 16 and to adopt such obligations by
[2005]. Does this second target send the wrong signals to the developing countries who
agree to become Parties to the draft protocol and are subject to Article 16? Why is it in
the best economic and competitive interests of the United States to offer a second target
and timetable before negotiations with all Parties to the Convention in the AGBM begin
and before the U.S. analysis and assessment and its assumptions are provided to
Congress, industry, labor, environmentalists, and others? What is the need?
I.
The Non-Paper states that the U.S. "strongly urges consideration of banking" and that
multi-year averaging would give Parties "important flexibility". However, Article 2.5
seems to weaken that support for banking by providing that emissions of tonnes "may"
(not "shall") be carried over and added to the "next budget period". That leaves
uncertainty for industry and suggests that a Party like the U.S., might retire such tonnes
rather than bank them which could have future economic and competitive consequences.
Why did you take this discretionary approach? Why not follow the mandatory approach
of Article 2.6? The Article does not specifically mention multi-year averaging. Why? Is
it implied?
Article 6 - International Emissions Trading
J.
As the chief proponent of an emissions trading program, the U.S. in its December Non-
Paper said it was "critical" that provisions for "international" emissions trading "be
included in the Kyoto agreement." When Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA) was
signed into law, it spelled out in great detail the allowance program for existing and new
electric utility units, including the timetable, the target, the cap, the trading system, the
nature of the allowances, the rights of allowance holders, the tracking system, and the
limitations. Upon enactment, the utility industry knew the program details and could
plan their future. That program, which applied equally to all covered units of the electric
utility industry, is for one industry with an identified and limited number of sources and
it is a national trading program. Presumably, an international trading program will cover
many industries, sectors, and gases on an international scale. However, our review of
Article 6 of the draft protocol provides none of the details of an international trading
program. It merely authorizes trading between Annex A and B Parties that establish a
"mechanism" for certifying and verifying trades. It does not require that a trading
program be established by all such Parties or that such a "mechanism" be put "in place"
or that it be operated uniformly. All the important details are missing.
CLMTENCL.DOC
3
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
Do you intend to include these "critical" provisions in the protocol to be adopted in
Kyoto or do you plan to defer development of such provisions to a post Kyoto. legal
instrument, to a decision of the Parties to the Protocol after it enters into force, to
bilateral negotiations between Parties, or some other means?
K.
Article 6 provides that a Party "may authorize" any domestic entity to participate in
actions "leading to transfer" of tonnes. What "actions" do you have in mind for this
entity? In the case of the CAA, the trades are between utilities with reporting to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Is that same approach likely to be accepted on an
international scale if the domestic entity is a non-governmental organization in one
country and a government agency in another?
L.
As noted, Article 6 authorizes trading between Parties. However, unlike the CAA no
mention is made of trading by private sector entities that will likely need such trading to
operate. Also, unlike the CAA it does not allocate, or provide for an allocation of, the
initial tonnes for various industries and sources to operate or indicate whether such
industries and sources will be faced with penalties for continuing to operate without such
allocation if such a program is initiated.
It only allows private sector entities, after receiving authorization from a Party, to
"participate in actions leading to transfer and receipt..." of carbon equivalent emissions.
Therefore, it appears that private sector entities can only suggest to Parties that certain
emissions trading transactions take place. This imposes significant constraints on private
sector international emissions trading, establishes a bureaucracy involving two separate
governments or their designees between the private sector and the completion of trades,
lowers any possible expectation that private sector entities would receive any benefit from
trades, and makes the private sector subservient to the political and policy whims of
governments in order to carry out what industry does best, i.e., produce goods and
services and employ workers.
The wording of Article 7 on Joint Implementation carries the same structure and
constraints. Under Article 7.1, any Party can generate tonnes of carbon equivalent
emissions. Under Article 7.5, only Annex A or B Parties may acquire those tonnes of
carbon equivalent emissions. And under Article 7.6, private sector entities, even after
receiving authorization from a Party, are limited to "participat[ing] in actions leading to
generation, transfer and receipt under this Article of tonnes of carbon equivalent
emissions." Again, the private sector entities cannot, themselves, engage in emissions
trading.
The proposed construction of Articles 6 and 7 and lack of details would appear to
virtually eliminate the functioning of an international market in tradable permits. Instead,
trading, as noted, can occur only between governments. The type of trading activity that
would occur between governments, as a practical matter, would likely bear little
resemblance to the trading activity that would be expected to occur in a private sector
international tradable permits market if the program works as its proponents contend. Is
the Administration intending an international governmental trading system? Who will
CLMTENCL.DOC
4
2/14/97
February 14, 1997
make the trades, pay for the tonnes, and receive the tonnes and money? If not, when will
we learn the details for evaluation by industry, labor, and others?
Article 3 - Measurement and Reporting
M.
Article 3.5 suggests that the transfers of tonnes of carbon equivalent emissions under
Articles 6 and 7 would be reported to the Convention Secretariat annually. Do you
intend that the Secretariat would perform the role in trading that EPA does under Title IV
of the CAA and if so is annual reporting adequate? If not, what entity should perform
that role and what is the purpose and need for a Party to also report to the Secretariat?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the U.S. of an international entity
performing the EPA-type role in trading?
Article 7 - Joint Implementation (JI)
N.
Article 7.2(b) uses the term "additional" which is not defined or explained. The
definition of "additional" and the methodology for calculating greenhouse gas reductions
from JI projects must be determined in order to estimate the magnitude of the cost
savings due to JI. How will the Administration obtain this information in order to factor
the cost savings of л into its economic analysis?
CLMTENCL.DOC
5
2/14/97
01/07/97
14:21
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
002/006
December 9, 1996
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We appreciate your summary of the Administration's position regarding climate change outlined
in your letter dated September 17. We share common ground on several critical aspects.
including the need for participation by all countries, the rejection of inflexible, harmonized
policies and measures, and the effectiveness of market-based mechanisms. We also share
your view that responsible stawardship of the environment is interdependent with sustainable
economic growth.
However, we still have significant concerns with regard to the U.S. position. While we are
encouraged by your call for additional economic analyses and technical assessments, we
believe it is imperative that they be conducted using a transparent peer review process to
ensure the objectivity and credibility necessary to build support for appropriate policy decisions.
We encourage the active involvement of academics, labor, business, think tanks, and other
stakeholders, along with consultations with Congress. Policy decisions that can have a
significant impact on the U.S. and global economies deserve national debate and broad
consensus. Indeed, a premature policy decision that could cost the equivalent of our annual
economic growth for a decade warrants careful review and analysis.
Most importantly, we agree that this is a global issue requiring global solutions. Any actions
must be predicated on a defined role and timetable for developing nations, which are projected
to soon surpass industrialized nations in total carbon emissions. In addition, we need to focus
on long-term, comprehensive global solutions that address the environmental, economic and
societal consequences of policy decisions.
We remain concerned about the Administration's call for urgent action and the appearance that
the U.S. may be prepared to make premature commitments that could have serious economic
and competitive consequences. Given the long-term nature of this issue, there is time to
reduce scientific uncertainties and to refine the climate models that predict the timing, extent
and effect of human impacts on global climate. It is imperative that we take the time to do this
right.
We welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on this critical issue as climate change policy
has significant implications for America's economic health, for jobs, for the lifestyles of Its
citizens, and for trade relationships with other nations. You can count on our continued
involvement as responsible corporate citizens.
Sincerely,
01/07/97
14:22
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
003/006
My Dannel
C.E. Buyanth
Garry N. Drummond
Garold R. Spindler
Chief Executive Officer
C.E. Bryant. Jr.
President
President
Drummond Company, Inc.
Cyprus Amax Coal
Continental Conveyor & Equipment
Wam.
Didk Cheney
I H Keyes
William Carr
Dick Cheney
President & COO
James H. Keyes
Chairman, President & CEO
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
President and CEO
Halliburton Company
Johnson Controls, Inc.
RR Juni
Bruce R. Clark
harry Bosisely
Ray R. Irani
Bruce R. Clark
Chairman of the Board & CEO
Lawrence A. Bossidy
President
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Chief Executive Officer
Lake Shore Mining Equipment, Inc.
AilledSignal, Inc.
Dept.
T.2: Supple
Trains Enger
David Tarasevich
Timothy L. Guzzle
President and CEO
Travis Engen
Chairman of the Board
Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation
Chairman, President and CEO
TECO Energy, Inc.
ITT Industries
Phefle
John D. Letler
Hams W Backer
President and CEO
Harry M. Conger
Gulf States Steel, Inc.
Hans W. Becherer
Chairman
Chairman and CEO
Arther grow
Homestake Mining Company
Deere and Company
Arthur Brown
CEO and Chairman of Board
Daid M. LN Charlefrona
Hecla Mining Corporation
David M. LeVan
Charles J. DiBona
John WSun
Chairman, President & CEO
President
CONRAIL Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
John W. Snow
Chairman, President and CEO
CSX Corporation
Phil Hutchinson
Peter I. Bijur
Philip A, Hutchinson, Jr.
andrew aloe
Chairman of the Board and CEO
President & CEO
Texaco Ing.
Andrew Aloe
Association of International Automobile
Chairman and CEO
Manufacturers
Shenango, Inc.
D'D G. belief
John any
William 0 Gay
David A. Arledge
William D. Fay
President and CEO
John D. Ong
President & CEO
The Coastal Corporation
Chairman of the Board and CEO
American Highway Users Alliance
The BF Goodrich Company
01/07/97
14:22
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
004/006
Robert J. Eaton
W.R. W.R. Timken, Timber
Chairman & CEO
Ken Kenneth L. Way Way
Chairman - Board of Directors
Chrysler Corporation
Chairman & CEO
The Timken Company
Lear Corporation
HL Full Don-H Dairs
H.L. Fuller
Don H, Davis, Jr.
James James F. Hardymon 7. Hardymon
Chairman & CEO
President & COO
Amoco Corporation
Chairman & CEO
Rockwell International
Textron, Inc.
Hank Binth
Junes E Dempany
Curtis H. Barnette
Jerry E. Dempsey
Chairman & CEO
H. Leighton Steward
Chairman & CEO
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Chairman of the Board
PPG Industries, Inc.
Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.
Mike R. Bown John Smith
Michael R. Bowlin
John F. Smith, Jr.
Chairman & CEO
Robert J. Allison, Jr.
Chairman, CEO & President
ARCO Corporation
Chairman, President & CEO
General Motors Corporation
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Pash
Mercott
Peter S. Hellman
Southwood J. Morcott
President & COO
Samir G. Gibara
Chairman & CEO
TRW. Inc.
Chairman, CEO & President
Dana Corporation
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
my Monan
R. Barry Barry Uber
When
Alex Trotman
Dan't N Hong
Chairman, President & CEO
David H. Hoag
Vice President
Ford Motor Company
Chairman & CEO
Ingersoll-Rand Company
LTV Corporation
Freel Teader
Rafneer
DD make
Fred Tucker
Richard A. Snell
Executive V.P. & General Manager
James J. Mulva
President & CEO
Motorola
President & COO
Tenneco Automotive
Phillips Petroleum Co.
LuRRayund
John F. Fiedler
Lee R. Raymond
VGBeghini Victor G. Beghini
Chairman & CEO
Chairman & CEO
Borg-Warner Automative
Fresident
Exxon Corporation
Marathon Oil Company
01/07/97
14:23
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
005/008
Rx That
Ray L Hunt
Ron He ddod
Jan. Boyd
Ron W. Haddock
Chairman & CEO
President & CEO
James W. Boyd
Hunt Oil Company
President
FINA
John T. Boyd Company
L.O.Wad
Lee M. Gardner
Keith Bailey
President & CEO
L.O. Ward
Chairman, President & CEO
Mascotech, Inc.
Chairman & CEO
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Ward Petroleum Corporation
Canoll
Philip J. Carroll
Thomasr Petry
Thomas E. Petry
Bobby E cooper
President & CEO
Chairman & CEO
Bob E. Cooper
Shell Oil Company
President & CEO
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
Kennecott Corporation
A. Noto
Thom Fallure
Heinz C. Prechter
Chairman & CEO
Thomas V. Falkie
Chairman & Founder
Mobil Corporation
President & CEO
ASC Incorporated
Berwind Natural Resources Corporation
James E. Declusin
Frank A. MEDurson . Homas Moore
Frank McPherson
Chief Operating Officer
M. Thomas Moore
Chairman & CEO
California Steel Industries, Inc.
Chairman & CEO
Kerr-McGee Corporation
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.
John R Aall
John R. Hall
Calphs. Anningham
Chairman
Ralph S. Cunningham
President & CEO
John K. Carrington
Ashland, Inc.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Chief Operating Officer
Barrick Gold Corporation
Clabome Claiborne P. Deming ? Dearing
B.E. Douglas
J.Fanell Joseph C. Farrell
President & CEO
President
Murphy Oil Corporation
Chairman & CEO
Truax-Harris Energy
The Pittston Company
Ken Den
Rfsh
A. pennett
Kenneth T. Derr
Thomas J. Usher
Chairman & CEO
Stephen D. Bennett
Chairman, President & CEO
Chevron Corporation
President & CEO
USX Corporation
Acme Metals Incorporated
01/07/97
14:24
202 647 0191
STATE OES/EGC
006/006
J. Viodes
Seven 7. Leer
B.R. Brown
James T. Rhodes
Steven F. Leer
Chairman of the Board
President & CEO
President and CEO
CONSOL, Inc.
Virginia Power
Arch Mineral Corporation
Robert BVL a Krebs
Edward R. Caine
Edward R. Caine
Robert Robert G. Spencer Spenser
President & CEO
President & CEO
President
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
WCI Steel, Inc.
Corporation
Hepburnia Coal Company
Desk
will C. Payment
David R. Goode
William C. Payne
Edward L. Watson
Chairman. President & CEO
Chairman, President & CEO
Vice Chairman
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Ashland Coal, Inc.
Texas Utilities Electric Co.
R. a
AND
amisia
John C. Grisham
A.W. Dahlberg
Alan J. Noia
President
Chairman & CEO
President & CEO
Buckeye Industrial Mining Co.
Southern Company
Allegheny Power System, Inc.
T.Lellin
6. R agery
Paul H. Tellier
Michael T. Puskarich
President & CEO
E. Linn Draper, Jr.
President
Chairman. President & CEO
Canadian National Railways
Cravat Coal Company
American Electric Power
HOD
Robert J. Darnell
Larry D. Haab
Theodore F. Gundlach
Chairman, President & CEO
Chairman, President & CEO
Chairman & CEO
Inland Steel Industries. Inc.
Illinois Power Company
T.J. Gundlach Machine Company
X x. Engellands
WCHound
James Q Hunduson
Irl F. Engelhardt
W.R. Holland
James A, Henderson
Chairman & CEO
Chairman & CEO
Chairman & CEO
Peabody Holding Company, Inc.
Ohic Edison Company
Cummins Engine Company. Inc.
R. Thomas Green; to
Cal W. Smith
R. Thomas Green. Jr.
John Nils Hanson
Carl W. Smith
Chairman, President & CEO
President & COO
Chairman & CEO
Oglebay Norton Company
Harnischfeger Industries, Inc.
AMVEST Corporation
F-743 T-060 P-001/005 JAN 10 '97 14:32
EDF
JAF
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Capital Office
1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 387-3500
Fax 202-234-6049
URGENT
PLEASE DELIVER BEFORE AFTERNOON MEETING ON 1/10/97
Everett Erhlich
482-0432
Jennifer Havercamp 395-4579
Jeffrey Hunker
482-4636
Mary Nichols
260-5155
Rosina Bierbaum
456-6025
David Gardiner
260-0275
Alicia Munnell
395-6958
Frank Kruesi
366-7127
Elgie Holstein
456-2223
Pete Jordan
456-9500
Joshua Gotbaum
622-2633
Steve Seidel
456-6546
Lois Schiffer
514-0557
David Sandalow
456-2710
Brooks Yeager
208-4561
David Hales
703-875-4205
Terry Garcia
482-6318
Alan Larson
647-5713
T.J. Glauthier
395-4639
Elleen Claussen
647-0217
Charlie Rawls
720-5437
Rafe Pomerance
647-0217
Dirk Forrister
586-9987
Jonathan Pershing
647-0191
Mark Chupka
586-0861
Sue Ben Aida
736-4520
FROM: Joe Goffman
DATE: January 10, 1997
Number of pages including cover sheet (5)
National Headquariers
257 Park Avenue South
5655 College Ave.
1405 Arapahoe Ave.
128 East Hargett St.
44 East Ave., Suite 304
New York, NY 10010
Oakland, CA 94618
Boulder, CO 80302
Ruleigh, NC 27601
Austin. TX 78701
(212) 505-2100
(510) 658 8008
(303) 440-4901
(919) S21-7793
(512) 478-516)
700% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
F-743 T-060 P-002/005 JAN 10 '97 14:33
EDF
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Capital Office
1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
To: Participants, Inter-Agency Process on Climate Change
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 387-3500
Fax 202-234-6040
From: Dan Dudek, Joe Goffman, Annie Petsonk
Re: U.S. Protocol Submission for January 15
Date: January 10, 1997
Last July, Undersecretary Wirth transformed the international debate on climate
change, establishing the United States' leadership role in that debate. His dramatic
statement at the Geneva meetings forged an inextricable linkage between a U.S.
commitment to support the development of an international agreement legally binding
countries to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction obligations and flexible
compliance elements exemplified by emissions trading and joint implementation for
credit. Now, the U.S. has reached the moment when it must provide the international
community with the essential details of an international GHG emissions budget and
trading program that can fulfill that linkage.
The document submitted by the U.S. at last December's meeting of the Advisory
Group on the Berlin Mandate outlined to an impressive and encouraging extent some of
the elements of the structure of such a program. Nevertheless, many critical details
remained unspecified in the December submission. In addition, the skepticism freely
expressed by many other governments and interests, both here and abroad and including
the environmental community, testified to the failure of the U.S. to communicate its ideas
and intentions convincingly. The severity of this criticism and the apparent absence of a
forceful U.S. response to it raises fears that the U.S. would be unable or unwilling to
deliver in a final protocol those clements essential to integrating the flexibility and
environmental integrity so necessary to the linkage established by Undersecretary Wirth.
That is why it is critical that the upcoming U.S. submission be carefully crafted to
ensure that no one misconstrues or dismisses the U.S. commitment to fashioning an
international agreement that can achieve political, economic and, above all,
environmental success. We believe that the attached detailed specifications -- which
represent a fully integrated design, not merely an accretion of discrete, negotiable
elements -- for a GHG emissions budget and trading system can provide the
structure for an international regime that meets these demands for success.
A
protocol that includes only some of these elements and thus meets only some of these
tests will justify the vigorous opposition of the environmental community for the
National
fundamental reason that it will not accomplish its environmental objectives.
257 Park Avenue South
5055 College Ave.
1405 Arapahoe Ave.
New York, NY 10010
128 Basi Hargett St.
44 East Ave., Suite 304
Oakland. CA 94618
Boulder, CO 80.02
(212) 505-2100
Raleigh. NC 27601
(510) 658-8008
Austin, TX 78701
(303) 140-4901
(919) 821-7793
(512) 478-5161
100% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
F-743 T-060 P-003/005 JAN 10 '97 14:33
We stress the necessity of maintaining the integration of all of the proposed
elements set forth here because the test for success of an international GHG protocol is an
exacting one. First, an international protocol and the regime it establishes must impose
comprehensive and credible GHG emissions obligations. Second, it must ensure
compliance by sovereign nations whose voluntary agreement lies at the foundation of the
protocol itself and its implementation. Participants in the protocol also will no doubt
demand assurance that their economic aspirations can be met even while fulfilling their
GHG emissions requirements. At the same time, the protocol must accommodate the
inevitable diversity of nations' domestic responses to their GHG obligations. Finally, to
succeed environmentally. the protocol must stimulate early commitments to GHG
emissions reductions and to innovation, foster the broadest menu of strategies, tools and
opportunities for the development of successful solutions to the GHG emissions problem
and maximize participation by both industrialized and developing countries.
In addition, capitalizing on the construct enunciated by Undersecretary Wirth last
July, the proposed design adopts an approach under which those elements affording
flexibility to nations and firms and those ensuring the environmental integrity of the
system are identical. Thus, one of the rationales for setting emissions budgets on a 10-
year scale, for example, is to ensure that the international community has the necessary
time to complete the scientific and technology assessments as well as generate sufficient
information (i.c., on the basis of 5 years' experience) about ongoing performance under
the then-current budget regime in order to establish the GHG emissions budget for the
ensuing period. At the same time, a 10-year budget period affords nations and firms the
temporal latitude needed to respond both to their GHG emissions constraints and to
changing economic demands, while also forcing nations and firms to take the actions
necessary to curb their GHG cmissions. Accurate annual reporting is more crucial to
the integrity of a GHG emissions budget and trading system than shortened or more
frequent budget periods.
Similarly, one of the critical features of the proposed design ties an automatic,
limited "debt-carryover"-with-interest provision for nations' GHG emissions budgets to
penalties for failure to meet budget obligations. This feature exemplifies the iron linkage
that must be forged between flexibility and compliance accountability -- just as it is
critical to ensuring the balancing of nations' compliance accounts and the atmospheric
GHG ledger.
Without these structural and substantive provisions. any protocol negotiated by
the next Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change,
scheduled for Kyoto, Japan before the end of the year will merit rejection by the U.S.
With these provisions, an international protocol can blaze the path to a global solution to
a crucial environmental threat. To ensure this, we urge that the U.S. January 15
submission fully reflect the details of the attached proposal.
2
F-743 T-060 P-004/005 JAN 10 '97 14:34
We are prepared to offer you extensive support and assistance in the development
of this effort both before and after January 15. Thank you for your consideration in this
matter.
3
F-743 T-060 P-005/005 JAN 10 '97 14:34
MINIMUM ELEMENTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL
PROTOCOL FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS
January 9. 1997
I. Credible Environmental Goals
first period of emissions reductions begins by 2005 and ends not later than 2014
ultimate concentrations of 450 ppmv (CO₂ equivalent), inclusive of all GHG
Transient constraint: warming rate not to exceed of 1° C per Century
II. Legally Binding Obligations
For OECD nations and economies in transition. Established on the basis of historic emissions
baselines and Set as a cumulative emissions budget
For other nations, Comprehensive GHG Inventory and Reporting
III. Transparent and Verifiable Annual National Reporting
all gases, sources and sinks by sector
all transacted international GHG reductions by country and vintage
IV. Continuing Review and Evaluation Process to Set New Budget Levels
Assessment of Science
Review of Progress of the Parties
Review of Development and Adoption of Technologies
Then Set New Decadal Emissions Budget
V. International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading
decadal emissions budgets to provide both economic investment, planning, and response
flexibility and action-spurring certainty
banking for both carly reductions and debt carryover
all GHG emissions by sources, uptake by sinks, and transactions in terms of 100-year
GWPs
Joint Implementation, for credit, is an essential element for addressing both graduation
and economic competitiveness concerns
In nations that have not taken a budget, project-by project crediting with
international review
For nations with a budget, full international trading of reductions
VI. Enforcement
All GHG reduction obligations remain until discharged
For Cumulative Net Emissions Greater Than Budget But Less Than 110%:
All Emissions Greater Than Budget Automatically Deducted From Next
Budget
Dispremium (interest) charged on emissions over budget
For Cumulative Net Emissions Greater Than 110% But Less Than 120%:
Above Plus automatic discounting of the non-complier's sold GHG
reductions that have not yet been used by other countries for compliance
beginning in the year of first occurrence (discounting to be in proportion to
amount of non-compliance)
For Cumulative Net Emissions Greater Than 120%:
Above Plus Mandatory COP Review of Party's Non-Compliance
White House Climate Change Task Force
734 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20503
October 31, 1997
TO:
DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Dirk Forrister
SUBJECT:
Path forward based on recent outreach meetings
Over the past few weeks, I have arranged with representatives of the Assistant Secretaries
working group on climate change meetings with three industries--air transport, cement, and steel-
-to discuss climate change policy. I am attaching detailed reports on these meetings for your
review. Each contain a set of recommended "next steps" that Assistant Secretaries should
consider at an appropriate future meeting. And each produced insights about low cost emission
reduction potentials--ranging from 5 to 15%--for technology strategies in those sectors.
For the airline industry, the main issue is whether the Framework Convention on Climate Change
(FCCC) should defer to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in addressing
greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes. At the United States' suggestion, the FCCC's
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) has already agreed to defer the
issue temporarily while it requests a report from ICAO on how greenhouse gases should be
addressed. Even though the U.S. government has already moved in the industry's direction, the
industry is advocating a complete exemption of aircraft emissions in the Protocol, believing that
emissions are more properly addressed by ICAO and its aviation experts. To that end, they will
craft language for our consideration that would refer emission limitation responsibility for aircraft
greenhouse gas emissions to ICAO in a way that (1) assures that action will be taken; and (2)
respects the provisions of international law regarding what parties from one treaty can
impose/request of parties to another treaty. They also plan to consult with other countries and
with ICAO on this matter. On a particularly encouraging note, they provided a MITRE
Corporation study indicating that improved air traffic control, measures could reduce emissions by
about 12% worldwide. We agreed to convene a future meeting to discuss this study after
government experts have reviewed it.
202 343-1060
Fax 202 343-1162
For our cement industry consultations, we held an initial meeting with Holnam (America's largest
cement manufacturer). Holnam believes that we could achieve a 5-15% reduction in cement
industry emissions, while reducing costs, by using more cement substitutes. While there are
numerous institutional and market barriers to increasing this utilization, there are a number of
things that the federal government could do to reduce these barriers. EPA has already begun to
work on this through its labeling and federal procurement programs. NIST is working within the
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) cement committee on possible updated cement
specifications to allow more substitutes. The Assistant Secretaries should discuss additional
actions that other agencies could take to encourage the use of cement substitutes, particularly in
public education and federal procurement.
The steel industry claims it could reduce its emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2010
using voluntary programs, but they oppose mandatory programs. The Assistant Secretaries may
want to consider further discussions about mechanisms (e.g., a la the 33/50 program under EPA's
toxics programs) whereby the steel industry could make a voluntary commitment that would
prompt significant action by this sector. The steel industry also had a number of suggestions for
things the government could do. The Assistant Secretaries may be interested in following up on
these as well.
I have received requests from a few other groups interested in briefing us on their ideas, but I
know your time is very limited. I will be in touch regarding scheduling additional meetings, and
III promise not to over-burden you.
Finally, I hope you can help me make sure that all of these ideas receive appropriate
consideration. Thanks for your interest.
DISTRIBUTION:
Organization
Name
Fax
Phone
State
Rafe Pomerance
647-0217
647-2232
Melinda Kimble
647-3004
Commerce
Jeffrey Hunker
482-4636
482-6055
OSTP
Rosina Bierbaum
456-6025
456-6077
Henry Kelly
456-6023
456-6033
CEA
Jeff Frankel
395-6947
395-5046
Treasury
Robert Gillingham
622-2633
622-2220
Jon Gruber
622-0563
Karl Scholtz
622-0120
Justice
Lois Schiffer
514-0557
514-2701
Jim Simon
Interior
Brooks Yeager
208-4561
208-6182
Brooke Shearer
208-1873
208-6291
Mark Schacfer
371-2815
208-4811
NOAA
Terry Garcia
482-6318
482-3567
OMB
T.J. Glauthier
395-4639
395-4561
USTR
Jennifer Haverkamp
395-4579
395-7320
USDA
Charlie Rawis
720-5437
720-6158
DOE
Dan Reicher
586-0148
586-9500
Mark Chupka
586-0861
586-5523
Joe Romm
586-9260
586-9220
Mark Mazur
586-9626
586-7700
EPA
David Doniger
260-2865
David Gardiner
260-0275
260-4332
DOT
John Lieber
366-7127
366-4544
OVP
Pete Jordan
456-9500
456-9513
PCSD
Marty Spitzer
408-1655
408-5296
CCTF
Dirk Forrister
343-1162
343-1060
Steve Seidel
USAID
Sally Shelton-Colby
216-3235
712-1479
David Hales
216-3174
712-1750
DOL
Ed Montogmery
219-4902
219-5108
DOD
Sherri Goodman
703-693-7011
703-695-6639
NEC
Peter Orszag
456-2223
456-5358
Bill Antholis
456-5334
456-2198
CEQ/NSC
David Sandalow
456-2710
456-6224
Meeting with Holnam, Inc.
September 5, 1997
Meeting Summary and Proposed Next Steps
Dirk Forrister welcomed the attendees from Holnam and several federal agencies. (See attached
list of attendees.) Gary Sauer of Holnam presented background information on the cement
industry and explained how CO2 emissions could be reduced by 5 to 15 million tons per year from
the U.S. cement industry by using blended cement. Holnam is a U.S. company, held by
Holderbank, a global company. Holnam is also in the business of providing cement blending
materials such as flyash, slag and limestone.
Sauer said that other countries are doing much more blending than the U.S. He said the barriers
are antiquated standards; fragmented markets; and conservatism. Sauer argued that policymakers
need to create incentives for reducing CO2 emissions.
Gloria Jeff of FHWA said that the blended cement tends to take longer to reach maximum
strenghth; and this can be an issue, especially in the construction industry. The price of blended
cement is lower, but there is this tradeoff with setting up time, and quicker set-up times are
important. She also said that all concrete uses some flyash--98 to 99% of concrete has some
flyash. However, not much slag is being used because it is not widely available.
In Europe, the roads contain more substitutes and they are more durable, but they are rougher.
FHWA is conducting a test case in Michigan using European road specifications. FWHA is
willing to work with ASHTO to look at specifications for more flyash, and to try to get more
research on optimizing strength. durability and set-up times. She is also willing to work on
education and training of state highway personnel responsible for state specifications.
Jean Briskin suggested a performance based standard in lieu of a content based standard. Jeff said
FWHA already has both performance standards and content standards. M.S. Chawla of the Navy
said that the Navy already allows substitution of materials as long as the performance standard is
met.
Geoff Frohnsdorff of NIST, and chair of the ASTM cement committee, said he has advocated
broade cement substitution for its energy efficiency benefits for nearly 25 years. After decades
of work, he expects a draft specificcation for blended cement to be out this year. He said the
barriers to broader substitution are lack of familarity and lack of data.
Briskin and Jeff pointed out that there are air quality benefits (in terms of Nox and particulates)
as well as CO2 benefits to using blended cement, and that non-attainment areas have an incentive
to look at blending. Judi Greenwald suggested that Holnam might want to quantify these benefits.
Mark Bernstein suggested that we might want to consult with the Construction and Building
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council.
Tom Rutherford of DOD said that they use a lot of blended cement in construction, so the set up
time is often not a problem. He suggested a federal task force to set up federal purchasing
standards as well as a non government standards.
M.S. Chawla of the Navy suggested that we could require blended cement but allow waivers.
Thus the norm would become blended cement, but there would still be an "out" when necessary.
Jean Briskin suggested that EPA could work with the cement industry on an energy star labeling
program.
PROPOSED NEXT STEPS:
To follow up on meeting suggestions, the Assistant Secretaries climate change working group
should consider appointing
1. EPA (Jean Briskin) could work with Holnam (Gary Sauer) on an Energy Star Labelling
program and voluntary corporate commitment to reduce emissions. EPA could value Energy Star
program benefits as credits under Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans. (See attachment.)
2. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH: FHWA (Gloria Jeff), OSTP (Mark Bernstein)
and Holnam (Gary Sauer) could work with ASHTO and NSTCto :
--develop an education and training program on blended cement for highways, housring
and other applications
--develop a model state specification aimed at increasing the amount of flyash in highway
cement
--develop a joint research program to optimize strength, durability, and set-up time for
blended cement
3. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT: EPA (Jean Briskin); DOD (Tom Rutherford), GSA (?), and
FHWA (Gloria Jeff) should develop an effective approach (e.g., an executive order) to
encouraging agencies to purchase cement that meets the Energy Star labelling requirements to be
developed by EPA.
4. NATIONAL STANDARDS: NIST (Geoff Frohnsdorff) should continue working with ASTM
to develop a standard for blended cement that can be used by all of the other efforts.
Opportunities to Reduce Carbon Emissions Associated with Production and Use of Coment
September 10, 1997
1. Energy Star Concrete
EPA could label concrete that has low carbon content during its production and use. Low carbon
content could be achieved by increasing the amount and frequency of use of mix-ins such as fly ash or slag.
As is the case for all Energy Star products, the criteria would be set lo assure that product performance was
the same or better than non-Encrgy Star products. Energy Star labeling is an effective way to educate
purchasers and the public about environmentally prefcrable products.
2. Energy Star Pavement
EPA could labcl pavement that has a high albedo- reflects heat well. By reflecting rather than
absorbing heat, Energy Star pavement could contribute to a reduced urban heat island effect. As part of a
comprehensive set of Cool Communities Activities, Energy Star pavement would help slow the formation of
ground level ozonc (reducing local air pollution) while reducing energy needed for air conditioning in urban
arcas. The critcria would be set to assure that product performance was the same or better than non-Energy
Star products, including assurance of driver safety through no increased glare. Energy Star labeling is an
effective way to educate purchasers and the public about environmentally preferable products. EPA has
already begun a Cool Communities effort, and is presently identifying communities who wish to test
appropriate measures on a pilot basis.
3. Energy Star Pavement/Concrete Procurement Initiative
EPA could work with other federal, state and local agencies to assist them in specifying low carbon
concrete and/or reflective paving surfaces through performance rather than content based specifications. EPA
has much experience with using procurement initiatives to promote the use of environmentally proferable
products by providing model procurement specifications and leveraging key actors to undertake mass
procurements. Experience with the Energy Star Computers program has proven that a procurement initiative
would be greatly assisted by an Executive Order for federal agencies to follow the procurement specifications
where their performance criteria are met by the specified products.
4. (SIPs) Incorporate effects of Energy Star Pavement/Concrete into Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans
EPA has begun to work with states to improve the way in which energy cfficiency and other
measures are credited into State Implementation Plans (SIPs). By incorporating the effects of Energy Star
Pavement/Concrete into SIPs, communities will have an increased incentive to accelerate their adoption of
these environmentally preferable materials, because they can contribute to lower cost compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter. Increased use of fly ash, blast
furnace slag or other appropriate mix-ins reduces the combustion of fuel used to make clinker, thereby
reducing the emissions of regulated air pollutants, while also reducing cmissions of carbon dioxide. Increased
use of reflective pavements can cool urban heat islands. slowing the formation of ozonc and reducing the need
plants. for air conditioning, thereby allowing for more efficient use of electricity, and reducing emissions from power
SignIn Sheet
Name
Affil
Phone #
PAX#
Judi Greenwald
WHCCTF
202 343 1060
20234343463
Jeffrey Humker
Commerce
202 482 - 6055
482-4636
TOM CHIZMADIA
HOLNAM
313-529-4306
313-529-5268
GANY SAUER
HOLNAM
313 529 4341
11 "
Veanne Briskin
EPA
202 233 - 9135
202-233-9575
Matt Williamson
EPA
202 233 9054 " " 9578
M.S. CHAWLA
NAVY DEPT
202-433-8760
202-433-8777
GEOFF FROHNSDORFF
NIST/DOC
301-975-6706
301-990-6891
MARK BERNSTEIN
OFFICE DFSCIENCE&TECHNOLOGY POLICY
202-456-6041
-6023
DAVID GARDINER
EPA
202-260-4332/0275
Jerry L. MALONE
DOT
202-366-6800 / 202-366-3956
GARY BACHUA
DOC
202-482-1091
202-501-2492
GLORIA J. JEFF
DOT
202-366 2240 202-366 9626
Joe Canny
DOT
202-366-4540
366-7127
CHUCK PITCHER
DOC
202-482-0385
482-0382
NAZIR BHAGAT
DOC
(202) 482 - 3855
(202)482-5656
Bill Hooke
D.C
(202) 482 - 5419
(202)482-4636
DIRK FORRISTER
Holnam WH Climate Change TF
202/343-1060
202/343-1162
Mike Mullin
313529.4310
529-5268
MACRIENSULLIVAN
DoD
(703)604-0519
(703)607-4237
DOD
Meeting with Air Transport Association and Air Industries Association
September 17, 1997
Meeting Summary and Proposed Next Steps
Dirk Forrister, the Chair of the White House Climate Change Task Force, opened the meeting and
introductions were made. (See attached attendees list). The business representatives asked about
the outreach effort, and Dirk Forrister described the Task Force's activities. Richard Kettler of
the ATA began the substantive discussion. He explained that returning to 1990 CO2 emissions
levels would require a 25% reduction in air traffic. He said the industry is looking for some
recognition in the climate negotiations that ICAO (International Civil Aeronautics Organization)
needs to be the only worldwide agency for setting aviation standards. ICAO has been around for
almost 50 years; they should remain in charge. Howard Ayleswowrth from AIA pointed out that
there are tradeoffs between NOx and CO2 and between environmental performance and safety
that ICAO is able to address. He also said that fuel use per passenger mile has been steadily
declining. Airlines have an enormous incentive to reduce fuel costs by improving fuel efficiency,
regardless of climate change. ATA's counsel said that it is very important that the climate treaty
not conflict with the Chicago convention, which sets up an international regime for aviation
regulation and provides a process for ensuring that nationsl comply.
Jonathan Pershing of the State Department explained that the United States had successfully
inserted language into the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at
the August negotiating session in Bonn. The language says that Parties should work through
ICAO and report to SBSTA. Pershing said that this will essentially defer the issue until ICAO
reports back. The industry representatives said that while this language is helpful, it is not
suffficient. The industry wants complete deference to ICAO. Pershing said that the Europeans
would object to that, and there was a risk that if the U.S. raised this matter and it was explicitly
rejected, the aviation industry would be worse off. Pershing also explained that there were many
things the U.S wants that no one else wants and that a provision such as the airlines are
suggesting could simply become a negotiating target--i.e., people would object because we want
it. Pershing suggested that the aviation industry work with their counterparts in other countries
and see if they can find support for this.
Judi Greenwald asked what happens if we defer to ICAO, and then ICAO doesn't do anything.
The industry representatives responded that the U.S. is a major player in ICAO and that we would
work through ICAO to ensure action. Cindy Newberg of EPA said that ICAO is a consensus
based organization and that they might not be able to move forward on this, even if the U.S. takes
an aggressive stance. Greenwald also asked whether ICAO could do something prior to Kyoto
that would give the climate negotiators confidence that they were actually moving forward on
this. The industry representatives said that they would work on that. The U.S. Government's
representative to ICAO, James Erickson, said that ICAO is aware of this issue.
Jim Conley of the IAM (representing labor) said that the workers are in agreement with the
industry on this matter, and that we in the government need to keep the job implications of ths
treaty in mind as we move forward.
Jonathan Pershing also handed out and discussed a report, "Special Issues in Carbon/Energy
Taxation; Carbon Charges on Aviation Fuels" by the Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC.
He said that the report describes the difficulties inherent in raising aviaiton fuel taxes, and thinks
the report makes it less likely that aviation fuel taxes would be adopted as a common policy and
measure. The U.S. position is to oppose any common policies and measures.
At the close of the meeting, industry provided a brief summary of a "MITRE study" that finds
substantial greenhouse gas reductions available from air traffic control improvements.
NEXT STEPS
1. The industry will work on Protocol language for our consideration that would refer emission
limitation responsibility to ICAO in a way that (a) ensures action will be taken and (b) respects
international law regarding what parties of one treaty can impose/request of parties to another
treay. The industry will also meet with their international counterparts to identify other countries
who would support complete deferral to ICAO on aviaiton greenhouse gases.
2. The industry and the U.S. ICAO representative will try to get ICAO to report to the parties on
its greenhouse gas activities prior to the Kyoto negotiating session.
3. NASA and FAA will provide their comments on the MITRE study (on the greenhouse gas
reduction benefits of air traffic control improvements) to Dirk Forrister.
4. Dirk Forrister will hold a follow-up meeting to discuss the MITRE study.
Sign In Just
NAME
AFFIL
PHONE
FAX
JUDI GREENWALD
WHCCTF
343 1060
343 1163
Cindy Newberg
CPA
233-9729
233 - 9665
Howard Wesoty
NASA
358-4650
358-3550
Greta Creech
NASA
358-1734
358-4066
Howard Aylesworth
AIA
371.8456
371.8471
Laurance 5. Camparel
DOL
482-3038
482-0325
Shelley Longmur
United Airlines
296-2337
296-2869
John Buscher
United Arline
296-2337
296-2869
3reg Dole
Boeing
103-526-2540
X 2578
D.H. HILTON
GULFSTREAM
912 865 3106
912965 +812
Susan Walsh
Eva Seydel
United Technologies
202-336-7415
x 7447
Pratt+ Whitney/UTC
2023367443
x7421
Bob Bluhm
American Airlines
817/967-3764
817/963-2047
JAMES ERiCKSON
FAA
202/267-3576
267-5594
Jim Conley
IAM
301-967-4558
967-4591
RICHARD RIDGE
GE AIRCRAFT ENGINES
202-637-4024
637-4224
John Bogin
Northwest Airlines
(612) 726 7370
727-4845
Michael Wascom
Julie Ellis
Air Transport Assn
(202) (202)626-4033 626-4033
(202)626 4208
FEDEX
901 395-5129
901-395-3812
JIM MULDOON
FAA
202-267-7573
267-5594
Pat SNYDER
Dyer Ellis&Joseph for ATA
202 944 - 3562
944-3068
Mary Raines
Delta
404 715-2705
404 715
RA BRowN
DELTA AIR LINES
404 715-7230
715-722
-Tohn Montgomery
AMERICAN Auslines
817-967-1069
967-9352
Meeting Summary
Thursday. September 25
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Opportunities in the Steel Industry
Continuing our outreach efforts on climate change, Agency representatives met with
several member companies of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). (See attached list of
attendees). AISI requested the meeting to follow up on Bethlehem Steel's suggestions to the
President regarding voluntary programs.
Dirk Forrister, Chair of the White House Climate Change Task Force, opened the meeting
with introductions. Bruce Steiner made a presentation called "Global Climate Change and the
Steel Industry." He said that this issue is important to steel. Steelmaking is energy intensive and
largely coal-based (coal is not only an energy source but also a feedstock). The steel industry has
made major investments in energy conservation, accomplishing a 45% reduction in energy
consumption since 197, without decreasing production. But the pace of reductions is slowing and
further reductions are more difficult to obtain. The economic consequences of climate change
policy could be devastating to the domestic steel industry, based on studies by Argonne and ESI.
The developing countries are major competitors for U.S. steel makers. 4 of the top 10
steelmaking countries--China, Korea, India, and Brazil--are not Annex 1 countries. The U.S.
steel industry does not own facilities abroad.
The key issues for the steel industry are : (1) a global solution is needed; (2) maximum
flexibility is needed (including voluntary commiments and recognition of progress to date; they
applaud Administration's flexibility proposals, but have some questions); (3) taxes and energy
reduction mandates should be avoided; and (4) science must lead policy.
The industry has already done a lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more
effective utilization of materials; improved energy efficiency in existing processes; other efforts
such as Green Lights; development and implementation of new technology; employee and
community awareness and education programs; and product-related remission reduction efforts
(e.g., participation in PNGV).
THE OVERALL STEEL INDUSTRY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY CAN
ACHIEVE AT LEAST A 10% GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION BELOW 1990
LEVELS BY 2010 THROUGH VOLUNTARY EFFORTS. This would be achieved through a
wide variety of activities--from greater scrap utilization to fuel substitution to reducing plant
traffic to replacement of existing units with more efficient new technologies.
AISI also pointed out that the government could do more. They want us to avoid
overstatement of the science; work toward more cost-effective regulations; support electricity
competition; promote voluntary programs; provide R&D assistance and incentives; promote CO2
sinks; promote joint implementation, technology transfer; and flexibility; promote energy
efficiency labelling (taking into account materials and energy use over the whole life cycle);
promote life-cycle analysis in procurement policies; develop safe, economical nuclear power; and
include all greenhouse gases.
Judi Greenwald of the WHCCTF commended AISI for their constructive suggestions
regarding what the steel industry can do; as well as what the government can do. Denise Swink
of DOE said that it is important to keep in mind that all of the technologies don't work all the
time. She finds the estimate believable, and suggested that a few concrete examples of what
technology has achieved in specific cases would be helpful.
Jean Briskin of EPA said that the steel industry could work with her office and/or DOE on
labeling. She said another promising area would be the use of steel slags in cement. She also said
that her office works on federal and state procurement guidelines for energy efficient equipment,
and would like to work with the steel industry on this. Judi Greenwald asked whether EPA was
working on life-cycle labeling in terms of materials, and Jean said no. Bruce Steiner said that the
International Iron and Steel Institute is doing a study on life cycle analysis. Jean said that recycled
content labelling would also have potential benefits. Jean also siad that the federal advisory
committee on clean air, energy and climate might be a useful forum for these ideas.
Denise Swink pointed out that in many states cogeneration facilities have one-stop
permitting, which is a big advantage. Diane Regis talked about the Common Sense Initiative,
where all the stakeholders have learned that technology is the key. The NGO participants would
support targeted investment tax credits. Chuck Carson of USX said that it is important to keep in
mind that for many years the steel industry wasn't profitable. Now they've done the hard work
and sacrifice to become profitable agin, but there still isn't enough capital to do all the things
everyone wants them to do. Diane thinks CSI has had some success in raising the level of
appreciation for these capital issues, and for things like plantwide performance standards. Diane
also pointed out that there is a continuum between voluntary and regulatory approaches; it's not a
purely either/or choice.
Judi Greenwald explained that she would be putting together a more detailed path forward
as a result of this meeting. She asked for suggestions from Jean Briskin, Denise Swink and Diane
Regis, and from AISI (if they decide they have anything more to add).
NEXT STEPS:
1. EPA (Jean Briskin) and/or DOE (?) could work with the steel industry on labelling (including
of recycled content, encouraging the use of steel slags in cement; and on federal and state
procurement guidelines for energy efficient equipment.
2. EPA (Diane Regis) could work with the steel industry through the Common Sense Initiative
on one-stop permitting, investment tax credits, and plantwide standards.
3. DOE (Denise Swink) could work with the steel industry on coming up with illustrative real-
world examples of the benefits of technology.
WED
04:25
PM
FAX NO.
P. 02
Opportunities to Reduce Carbon Emissions Associated with Production and Use of Steel
September 30, 1997
1. Label Star for Recycled Content
Using stecl scrap consumes less energy and lowers the cost of producing new steel. EPA could
label products made from steel (i.e. appliances) that contain a certain specified level of recycled material.
Labeling can bc an effective way to educate purchasers and the public about environmentally preferable
products. Need to research current status of labeling efforts in this area.
2. Energy Star Steel Procurement Initiative
EPA could work with other federal, state and local agencies to assist them in specifying high
efficiency equipment. This equipment could include motors which use a higher grade of steel that is
more efficient and therefore uses less energy and emits less CO2 into the atmosphere. EPA has
considerable experience with using procurement initiatives to promote the use of environmentally
preferable products by providing model procurement specifications and leveraging key actors to
undertake mass procurement. Experience with the Energy Star Computers program has proven that a
procurement initiative would be greatly assisted by an Executive Order for federal agencies to follow the
procurement specifications where their performance criteria are met by the specified products.
3. Incorporate effects of Energy Star Steel into Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
EPA has begun to work with states to improve the way in which energy efficiency and other
incasures are credited into State Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA can work to understand the
relationship between energy efficiency and air quality in steelmaking to assure appropriate accrediting of
efficiency improvements undertaken by the industry. Mutually agreed upon measures may provide an
increased incentive for the industry to accelerate their adoption of energy efficiency measures because
they can contribute to lower cost compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone
and particulate matter
Sign- - in wheet
Judi Name Greenwald
Afhl
Phone
Fax
WHCCTF
343-1060
343 106
Jeanne Briskin
US EPA
202 233 - 9135
233-9575
MARTIN SUHOZA
LTV STEEL
216-622-4835
622-1951
BRUCE STENNER
AISI
202-452-7112
463-657
GARY ALLIE
WLAND STEEL
219/399-3332
399-603
JIM SCHULTZ
CARGILL STAR
012-688-1243
688-129
SCOTT SALMON
USX CORP.
202/783-6797
783-63c
Charles Bell
DOC/ITA
202/482-0608
482-14
A.E. MOFFAT
Bethlehemskel
610-694-7640
694-587
Moe Carino
Bethlehem Steel
202-775-6211
775-622
Alex Cristofaro
EPA
202 260-5503
260-078c
Kevin James
BPA
202 260-2424
260-051
CHUCK CARSON
U.S. STEEL
412-433-1174
433-20,
imise Swinch
DOE
2025869232
9234
Drani Regas
EPA-Water
202-260-5700
260-571
DICK FORRISTER
Task Four
343-1060
343-1162
1400 16th Street, NW
Fax 202.797.6501
=10
Suite 330, Box 5
Email [email protected] or
Washington, DC 20036-2266
[first initial]+{lastname]@acpa.com
Phone 202.797.6500
Web http://www.igc.apc.org/eic
Environmental
Information
CA: JAF
Center
TR JS
Friday, February 21, 1997
Alicia Munnell
Member
Council of Economic Advisers
OEOB Room 314
17th St. and Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Ms. Munnell:
As you probably know, in January, five preeminent economists -- Kenneth Arrow, Dale
Jorgenson, Paul Krugman, William Nordhaus and Robert Solow -- signed the enclosed
"Economists' Statement on Climate Change," and circulated it to their colleagues. The
Statement has now been endorsed by eight Nobel Prize-winning economists and over
2,300 economists around the country. Never before, even in the case of the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff Act, have so many economists endorsed a consensus declaration.
This remarkable consensus has garnered significant attention in the press. For example,
Peter Passel of the New York Times commented that "the nation's movers and shakers
would do well to pay attention" to the statement. The Washington Post discussed the
Statement in a Sunday editorial that concluded that a "near-term date" should be set for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that the consequences of inaction on climate change
"are likely to be dire." We have enclosed copies of these and other press reports on the
Statement.
We expect that the same special interests who continue to dispute the science of climate
change will also continue to claim that climate change cannot be mitigated without adversely
impacting Americans' standard of living. We believe, however, that the consensus
expressed in the Economists' Statement makes such claims untenable, and we hope that the
Administration's consideration of mitigation strategies is based on sound economics, just
as its consideration of climate science has been based on sound science.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any aspect of climate change mitigation with
you in greater detail. Please call either of us at (202) 797-6500.
Sincerely,
George Abar Ah
Day Kedull
Doug Kendall
Enclosures
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Endorsed by Over 2000 Economists
including six Nobel Laureates
I.
The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists
under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it
significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that
preventive steps are justified.
II.
Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total
costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that
there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming
American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S.
productivity in the longer run.
III.
The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-
based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum
cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required-such as an international
emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most
efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as
carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such
policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes.
Sponsored By
REDEFINING PROGRESS
One Kearny Street
4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 781-1191
Fax: (415) 781-1198
EMail: [email protected]
January 3rd, 1997
Dear Colleague,
As you may know, representatives of the world's nations will convene in Kyoto in December, 1997
to negotiate an international agreement addressing the threat of global climate change due to
greenhouse gas emissions. This presents a significant opportunity for the United States to exercise a
leadership role in ensuring our long-term well-being. Conversely, a failure on the part of the U.S.
government to put forward a well-reasoned position would be a major environmental, economic,
and diplomatic setback.
As the climate debate unfolds, it is imperative that public policy be guided by sound economics
rather than misleading claims put forward by special interest groups. For this reason, we invite
you to join us in endorsing the attached non-partisan consensus statement on the economics of
climate change.
Once this statement has been signed by a large number of economists, it will be widely
disseminated to leaders in the public and private sectors, and to the general media. This effort is
being coordinated by Redefining Progress, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy organization.
Attached please find an endorsement form for your consideration. This letter and endorsement
form are being sent to the membership of the American Economic Association. Please feel free to
circulate it to your colleagues in case they are not on the AEA mailing list.
We thank you for your prompt attention to this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Kemeth Kenneth/J I Arrow anow
Dew Joye
Pal RKL
Dale W. Jorgenson
Paul R. Krugman
Wiman D. Northaus
Robert M. Solour
William D. Nordhaus
Robert M. Solow
NOBEL LAUREATE SIGNATORIES
Kenneth J. Arrow
Stanford University
Gerard Debreu
University of California at Berkeley
John C. Harsanyi
University of California at Berkeley
Lawrence R. Klein
University of Pennsylvania
Wassily Leontief
New York University
Franco Modigliani
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Emeritus)
Robert M. Solow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Tobin
Yale University
ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Among the over 2,300 economists who have endorsed the Economists' Statement on
Climate Change are the following, they include scholars at top universities and
economists from top corporations.
Michael C. Barth
ICF Kaiser
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Boston University
William J. Baumol
New York University
Anne O. Kreuger
Stanford University
Steven Neil Braun
Council of Economic Advisers
Mordecai Kurz
Stanford University
W.A. Brock
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Steven G. Lanning
Bell Labs-Lucent Technologies
Martin Bronfenbrenner
Duke University
Lester Lave
Carnegie Mellon University
John P. Brown
KPMG Econmic Consulting Services
David Lui
Southern California Edison
R. Thomas Burge
Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals
Paul W. MacAvoy
Yale School of Management
Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future
Gerald M. Meiser
Stanford University
Trudy Ann Cameron
University of Los Angelos California
John R. Meyer
Harvard University
Jian Cao
AT&T
Christopher J. Monroe
AT&T
Carl F. Christ
Johns Hopkins University
Richard R. Nelson.
Columbia University
Gerard Debreu
University of California at Berkeley
Richard B. Norgaard
University of California at Berkeley
Stephen J. DeCanio
University of California at Santa Barbara
Charles Plott
California Institute of Technology
Robert Dorfman
Harvard University
Richard E. Quandt
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Franklin M. Fisher
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Roy Radner
New York University
Peter J. Francis
CNA Corporation
Gordon Rausser
University of California at Berkeley
Victor R. Fuchs
Stanford University
Kenneth Rogoff
Princeton University
Claudia Goldin
Harvard University
David Romer
University of California at Berkeley
Edward Gramlich
University of Michigan
Michael Rothschild
Princeton University
Jerry R. Green
Harvard University
Daniel Rubinfeld
University of California at Berkeley
Frances Hammond
General Motors Corporation
Vernon W. Ruttan
University of Minnesota
John C. Harsanyi
University of California at Berkeley
Jeffrey Sachs
Harvard University
Oliver Hart
Harvard University
Thomas Sargent
University of Chicago
James J. Heckman
University of Chicago
F.M. Scherer
Harvard University
Albert O. Hirschman
Institute for Advanced Study
T. Paul Schultz
Yale University
Jack Hirshleifer
University of Los Angelos California
M.M. Shahjahan
PEPCO
Robert Hunt
World Bank
Steven Shavell
Harvard University
Leonid Hurwicz
University of Minnesota
A. Michael Spence
Stanford University
Christopher Jencks
Harvard University
Robert Stavins
Harvard University, Kennedy School
Gale D. Johnson
University of Chicago
Bruce Stram
Enron Corporation
Carl Kaysen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Tobin
Yale University
Robert Kirchner
PEPCO
Gordon Tullock
University of Arizona
Lawrence R. Klein
University of Pennsylvania
Hal R. Varian
University of California at Berkeley
J. Kmenta
University of Michigan
W. Kip Viscusi
Harvard Law School
Oliver E. Williamson
University of California at Berkeley
The Washington Pos
C6 SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 199
Staying Cool
E NOW KNOW that the old saying
W
administration accepted, in principle, the no-
attributed to Mark Twain-"We all
tion of binding targets. Now nations are negoti-
grumble about the weather but nothing
ating those targets-amounts and dates-hop-
is done about it"-is not quite true. By virtue of
ing to reach agreement at yet another
the coal we burn and the gasoline we use and in a
conference in Kyoto in December.
thousand other ways, we all have a great effect
on the weather. The earth has grown warmer by
Opponents of meaningful action, led by parts
about one degree, on average, during the last
of the energy and utilities industries, have
century, and scientists believe the process is
shifted their strategy from attacking the scien-
accelerating. If nothing is done to slow global
tists to warning of dire economic consequenc-
warming, the consequences in the next century
es. But last week more than 2,000 economists
aré likely to be dire. Much turns on decisions the
signed a statement challenging the industry
government must take this year.
claims. The broad array of economists, led by
After years of debate, few now dispute that
Nobel-Prize winners Kenneth J. Arrow and
the burning of fossil fuels releases gases into
Robert M. Solow, said that measures to reduce
the atmosphere which then trap more of the
greenhouse-gas emissions need not harm the
sun's warmth than the planet would otherwise
economy-and "may in fact improve U.S. pro-
retain. The effects of this are more complex
ductivity in the longer run." That's because
than the term "global warming" suggests.
there are many innovative and energy-efficient
Some parts of the earth are likely to become
technologies just awaiting the right financial
colder, others drier; monsoon and hurricane
incentives to enter the market. In many such
paths may shift; storms may become more
fields, U.S. industry leads the way.
extreme; sea levels will⁻ rise. Many small
The key, then, is for the United States to set
islands and low-lying coastal areas, such as
a goal that's not pushed off to some distant date
Maryland's Eastern Shore, are at risk. Rela-
like 2020 or beyond. A near-term date would
tively small temperature changes could have a
send the signal industry needs to begin serious-
dramatic impact on agriculture and even the
ly investing in more efficient technologies, and
spread of disease.
the commercialization of such technologies
At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,
would offer an alternative path for development
the United States-which produces something
to giants like China and India. Their economies
like one-quarter of the world's greenhouse-gas
are sure to grow in coming decades; and if they
emissions-vowed to reduce them to 1990
follow the U.S. path to prosperity, we will all be
levels by the year 2000. It seemed a modest
doing more than just grumbling about the
goal, but it won't be met. So last year the
weather.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997
Economic Scene
Peter Passell
stitutions to enforce the targets is in the talking
Yawn. A global-warming alert.
stage.
That's where the economists' statement fits in.
"We wanted to be there early," said Stephen
But this one has solutions.
DeCanio of the University of California at Santa
Barbara, "before governments and politicians
TERNLY worded petitions and ringing
were locked into positions." Specifically, the state-
S
screeds of principle are as much a part of
ment is intended to give the Clinton Administra-
campus life as grade Inflation - which Is
tion some help in pressing the Idea of creating an
why Washington rarely takes them seriously. But
International market in emissions permits at the
the nation's movers and shakers would do well to
next global meeting on climate change, set for
pay attention to a statement on global warming by
Kyoto, Japan, in December.
some 2,000 mostly academic economists.
The Idea Is simple. If and when world leaders
For one thing, the signatures collected by Rede-
start to deal with the practical issues, they are apt
fiaing Progress, a group of policy-minded social
to set national targets for containing emissions
scientists based in San Francisco, range from the
himlor
that will be very expensive to meet in the rich
newish left (Duncan Foley of Barnard College) to
industrial economies, and probably won't be hon-
the skeptical center (James Heckman of the Uni-
Niculae Asclu
ored in the large emerging economies like China,
versity of Chicago) to the libertarian right (Gor-
Russia, India and Indonesia.
don Tullock of the University of Arizona). "Mar-
policy options that would slow climate change
Creating an emissions trading system that al-
ket-based approaches to coping with climate
without harming American living standards."
lows already rich economies to pay the emerging
change generate as much consensus among econo-
And what might these policy options be? Here,
economies to use less energy and less carbon-
mists as free trade," explains Paul Krugman of
the drafters stake out a position that seems almost
Intensive fuels as they develop offers a double
M.I.T., one of the organizers of the statement.
obvlous to economists, but has barely entered the
dividend. It reduces the cost for developed coun-
More important, the statement focuses on what
consciousness of environmental policy makers. "A
tries, in turn reducing the chances their legisla-
Is now regarded by Insiders as a make-it-or-break-
cooperative approach among nations is required
tures will balk. And it creates a pool of capital to
it Issue in slowing atmospheric warming: design-
- such as an International emissions trading
be used as an incentive to push emerging econo-
ing an international system that permits rich
agreement," the statement asserts.
economies to contribute cash In lieu of emissions
To understand where the economists really
mies toward environmentally benign growth.
Translation: Getting, say, China or India to
reductions. "Allowing some to pay others to re-
want the diplomats to go, consider where we are
dure greenhouse emissions could reduce the total
now. Current rates of deforestation and combus-
switch from coal to natural gas, or to encourage
cost by 80 to 90 percent," estimates William
tion of carbon-based fuels - coal, oil, gas are
energy conservation by charging world market
Nordhaus, an economist at Yale and another or-
adding carbon dioxide Into the atmosphere faster
prices at home would be a lot easier if they were
than the oceans can absorb it. The higher carbon
paid billions of dollars each year to do it.
gahizer of the statement.
dioxide concentrations trap solar energy. Rising
temperatures will likely change weather patterns
Not every economist who favors emissions trad-
Like any committee looking for consensus, the
drafters of the climate statement cast their net
radically and raise the level of the oceans.
ing signed the statement. "I'm worried It will be
widely. "We believe that global climate change
Governments of all the major economies are
used at Kyoto to commit America to useless,
carries with it significant environmental, econom-
vaguely committed to containing greenhouse gas
expensive unilateral actions in reducing emis-
ic"social and geopolitical risks, and that preven-
emissions before once-a-century hurricanes be-
sions," says Robert Hahn, an economist at the
tive steps are justified," the unshocking Introduc-
come an annual event In the Carlbbean, Kansas
American Enterprise Institute.
turns Into a dust bowl and the Bay of Bengal
But Mr. Nordhaus has very different worrles.
tion reads.
doubles In size at the expense of Bangladesh. But
"Economists haven't been important players in
Those who read on, however, will discover there
is meat on these bones: "Sound economic analy-
the emphasis Is on the vague: the process of
environmental policy over the last 30. years," he
setting emissions targets or creating political In-
said. "This time we could make a difference."
sis," the authors argue, "shows that there are
D2
FINANCIAL TIMES
4
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 14 1997
Economists back call for new carbon taxes
By Mark Suzman in Washington
that would slow climate change
bating global warming ahead of
across the country by Redefining
revenues generated from such pol
without harming American living
the international conference on
Progress, a non-partisan, non-
cies can effectively be used t
More than 2,000 US economists,
standards, and these measures
the issue in Kyoto, Japan, next
profit public policy organisation
reduce the deficit or to lower exis
including six Nobel laureates,
may in fact improve US productiv-
December.
based in San Francisco.
ing taxes," it says.
yesterday endorsed an unprece-
ity in the long run," the statement
The administration recently
The statement cites scientific
Mr Stephen DeCanio, senior ect
dented statement calling for new
says.
indicated its support for emissions
evidence from the United Nations-
nomic fellow with Redefinin
taxes on carbon use and an inter-
Although there are still some
trading but has backed away from
sponsored Intergovernmental
Progress, said the statement 1
national emissions trading agree-
sceptics, the overwhelming con-
the idea of a carbon tax.
Panel on Climate Change in 1995
aimed at persuading the US t
ment to help control global
sensus among economists is a
The statement was drafted by
to argue that "preventive steps are
take an international lead in con
warming.
blow for energy companies and
five prominent economists, Mr
justified" to combat the "signifi-
bating global warming.
The economists argue that using
other lobby groups which have
Kenneth Arrow and Mr Robert
cant environmental, economic,
"Some groups have asserted the
such market-based policies to limit
managed to derail previous
Solow, both Nobel prizewinners,
social and geopolitical risks" asso-
we cannot address the global cl
the growth in greenhouse gas
attempts to introduce such a car-
Mr Dale Jorgenson of Harvard Uni-
clated with global warming.
mate change problem withou
emissions could ultimately prove
bon tax on the grounds that it
versity, Mr Paul Krugman of the
Specifically, it calls for the US
incurring serious economic harm,
beneficial for the economy.
would be prohibitively expensive.
Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
and other countries to co-operate
he said. "These 2,000 economist
"For the United States in partic-
It will also put pressure on the
nology and Mr William Nordhaus
on reforms such as carbon taxes
have said essentially the opposit
ular, sound economic analysis
Clinton administration to come up
of Yale University.
and the auction of internationally
- that the greatest risks lie wit
shows there are policy options
with concrete proposals on com-
It was circulated to economists
tradeable emission permits. "The
inaction."
THE
WALL STREET JOURNA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997 B
Group of Economists Seeks
Treaty on Global Warming
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
WASHINGTON - A group of 2,100
economists signed a statement calling for
international controls to prevent global
warming, asserting that such controls
would not harm Americans' standard of
living and "may in fact improve" the
nation's economic productivity.
The statement - to be announced here
today - takes issue with a letter by more
than 100 chief executives of U.S. compa-
nies sent to President Clinton in Decem-
ber that warned that a global treaty
"could have serious economic and com-
petitive consequences."
The proposed treaty would control
emissions of carbon dioxide and other
"greenhouse gases" that many scientists
believe are slowly warming the planet by
trapping sunlight. In their letter, the
CEOs also warned the president to avoid
making "premature commitments" be-
cause of "scientific uncertainties" that
require further study.
But Kenneth J. Arrow, a Nobel Prize-
winning economist at Stanford Univer-
sity who helped shape the agreement
among the economists, said they believe
there now is enough scientific research to
establish that man-made causes of global
warming will have a "significant" detri-
mental effect on climate.
The Washington Pos
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1997 A3
Economists
Urge Reduced
U.S. Emissions
Reuter
More than 2,000 economists said in a state-
ment yesterday that the United States would
be able to reduce its industrial emissions to
slow global climate change without damaging
its economy.
Prepared by five leading economists, the
statement said well-designed policies relying
on market mechanisms "may in fact improve
U.S. productivity in the longer run."
Spokesmen for industries that depend
largely on fossil fuels such as oil and coal have
argued that the threat of climate change from
heat-trapping industrial emissions is over-
blown, and countries should wait for more sci-
entific proof of global warming before imple-
menting policies to slash emissions.
But the economists, who released the state-
ment at a news conference, said climate
change "carries with it significant environmen-
tal, economic, social and geopolitical risk," and
that "preventive steps are justified."
They endorsed a system of "market mecha-
nisms, such as carbon taxes or trading of mar-
ketable emissions permits among countries."
Revenues from carbon taxes or emissions
credits could be used to reduce budget deficits
or lower taxes to benefit the economy, said
the statement drafted by Nobel laureates Ken-
neth Arrow and Robert Solow, as well as Dale
Jorgenson of Harvard University, Paul Krug-
man of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, and William Nordhaus of Yale Univer-
sity.
1
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
Revised 2/27
OUTREACH PLAN FOR MODELING RESULTS
Objectives:
Improve Congressional, stakeholder & public confidence in economic underpinnings of
negotiating position.
Support (but not compromise) negotiating strategy.
Identify any problem spots early enough to respond -- not awaiting critique at end that
could spoil value of analytical effort.
Build on momentum of recent statement by 2,000 economists.
Stage I -- Base case runs and major assumptions -- Mid March
Release in briefings to Congressional staff (we go to them) and outside groups (invite in).
Announce formation of peer review panel & process.
--
12 members (Interagency Analysis Team ("IAT") recommends members +
Deputies sign-off).
Selection criteria: macro-economic expertise, range of sectoral expertise (including
economics of energy, environment, labar, agriculture, industry, etc.), published &
peer reviewed work in the climate change field, independent from government.
Convened as Climate Modeling Review Panel, with written Charge outlining scope
of review provided by IAT. Since we would not seek consensus, but rather
individual views, it would not come within the ambit of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act [see Natural Resources Defense Council vs. Herrington, 637 F.
Supp. 116 (D.D.C. 1986)].
Base case & assumptions would be presented to the Panel by Ehrlich group in mid
March, and Taskforce members would be invited to provide review comments and
recommendations for improvement within 2 weeks (early April).
2
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
Stage II -- Modeling Runs -- Late April to Early May
Provide confidential briefings to Congressional staff (and Members, where requested).
Convene Panel to hear Ehrlich's presentation on modeling results and key interpretations;
they respond with written comments within 2 weeks. This process would not become
public until stage III.
Stage III -- Public Workshop on Modeling & Results -- Early June
Opportunity for full public participation.
Full economic analysis offered to Congress.
Ehrlich group presents full package: basecase, runs, assumptions and interpretations of
results.
Peer review panel responds with individual review and comments.
Ehrlich group provides response re: how we dealt with recommendations.
Audience participates in question and answer session with Ehrlich group and review team.
Package put on internet for public at large to consider.
Package put in Federal Register as Notice for public at large.
R EDEFINING PROGRESS
ONF KEARNY STREET
4TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94108
Telephone 415.781 1191 Facsimile 415.781 1198
Jue Gravender
January 14th, 1997
I Elsa Cleveland
Mr. Jeffrey Frankel
Member Designate
8 Nibels
Council of Economic Advisors
OEOB Room 315
2,500
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. Frankel,
Modia
Learnef
We want to bring to your attention the enclosed "Economists" Statement on
Climate Change." The statement - originally drafted by Kenneth Arrow, Dale
Jorgenson, Paul Krugman, William Nordhaus, and Robert Solow - is now being
circulated for endorsement to the entire membership of the American
Economics Association (AEA). We expect a large number of endorsements
from economists across the country, after which an official public
announcement will be made in mid-February.
This initiative is being coordinated by Redefining Progress, a non-partisan,
non-profit public policy organization. We are pleased to provide you with
advance notice of this undertaking.
As you will notice, the attached statement represents a remarkable consensus.
It not only provides strong support for the United States to seek an
international agreement on climate change, but also a rebuke to those who
claim that any meaningful effort to mitigate climate change will devastate the
economy.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this initiative or the economics
of climate change in more detail. Please call Ted Halstead at (415) 781-1191
or Stephen DeCanio at (805) 893-3130.
Most Sincerely,
threethre
Stephen J. Decimo
Ted Halstead
Stephen J. DeCanio, Ph.D.
President
Senior Economist
enclosure
Printed OM
Recyclar Paper
3
White House Climate Change Taskforce
February 26, 1997
Agenda
1.
Outreach Plan for Modeling Results
Insights from Hill Discussions
Objectives
Straw-person Proposal on Process
Next Steps
2.
Initial Draft Outreach Plan for Year
Organization
Key Activities
Staff Support
Next Steps
3.
Around the Table
Guih,
Sut
Cordon
hua
STate Cid JSTR
noi
Jerry
Jin
^'
I'D
DUE
Robit
SP
omF
us
UMM
WH CC
YOU FORE
Spp
N
B."
X
Miny
Same'
Keate
Labor
Agr
Bran
1.0 or
uson
2
Predecisional Draft / Not for Quotation or Distribution
Convene peer review panel to hear Ehrlich's presentation on modeling results and key
interpretations; they respond with written comments within 2 weeks. This process would
not become public until stage III. Again no FACA problem with keeping pre-decisional
info confidential.
still not am antride-circulary
or This stage.
Stage III -- Public Workshop on Modeling & Results -- Early June
Opportunity for full public participation.
Full economic analysis offered to Congress.
Ehrlich group presents full package: basecase, runs, assumptions and interpretations of
results.
Peer review panel responds with individual review and comments.
Ehrlich group provides response re: how we dealt with recommendations.
Audience participates in question and answer session with Ehrlich group and review team.
Package put on internet for public at large to consider.
Package put in Federal Register as Notice for public at large.
On Trach
Sandolow wity
GOAL
To solicit public input on a variety of domestic policy options so that the Administration can be
informed as it makes decisions with respect to both domestic and international policy issues, and
to communicate the most current Administration thinking regarding domestic policy options and
approaches.
TIMETABLE
February 15
Administration produces a white paper regarding overall policy options
and publishes in Federal Register.
May 15
Comment Period Closes.
July 15
Administration publishes summary of comments and reactions as part of
updated paper.
October 15
Comment Period Closes.
January 15
Administration publishes final paper.
Ongoing
Discussions in specified fora, and in informal meetings with interested
parties.
DISCUSSION FORA
President's Council on Sustainable Development
EPA Advisory Committee on Climate Change
Heinz Center Project
Kennedy School Utility Effort
Center for Clean Air Policy Group