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
312197337
label
Todd Stern July 8, 1997: Miscellaneous Sent [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
312197337
contentType
document
title
Todd Stern July 8, 1997: Miscellaneous Sent [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Staff Secretary (Clinton Administration)
Todd Stern's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
312197337
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7422166-20190774S-Seg2-028-013-2023
[Climate Change]
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1cfad84d30cfa165
ocrText
Misc
seat
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
ENVIRONMENT
GROWTH
GLOBAL
July 2, 1997
IN
A
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the more than 60 national business organizations that make up
the Global Climate Coalition, I am writing to express our disappointment and
concern about the direction of your global climate policy as you enunciated it at
the United Nations last week. Your remarks indicate a belief that the science is
conclusive on the existence of human-induced climate change. That impression
is reinforced by your more recent remarks suggesting that some damaging
climate events over the past four or five years have been the result of
greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. President, we believe that you have been
seriously misinformed about the state of knowledge on this subject.
A U.S. position in the UN climate negotiations premised on such conclusions
is at odds with the body of scientific knowledge expressed in the Second
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and the views of established scientists that were published in the May 16 issue
of the journal Science.
We agree that potential for human-induced climate change deserves serious
attention. The Global Climate Coalition shares your view that a realistic policy
is required and we have made suggestions that are likely to be supported by
Congress and the American people. The United States has an enviable record
of improving energy efficiency while leading the world in economic
performance. Already U.S. industry has made significant progress in reducing
the rate of emissions growth, largely through participation in Climate Action
Plan programs initiated by your administration in 1993. We should not
jeopardize our record of achievement by actions that are driven by political
expediency rather than hardheaded analysis.
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 1500 - North Tower
Washington, DC 20004-1703
Telephone: (202) 637-3162
Fax: (202) 638-1043
Fax: (202) 638-1032
The Honorable William J. Clinton
Page Two
July 2, 1997
Any climate policy that is ultimately adopted will have global implications for
decades to come. Therefore, it is imperative that there be a clear link to the
scientific foundation that underpins it. Over the past few weeks eminent
scientists have underscored the significant degree of uncertainty about the
detection and attribution of climate change elucidated in the IPCC assessment.
Indeed, recent modeled forecasts have not only reinforced the extent of
uncertainty about the future changes in climate, but they also have revised
downward the possible sea level rise and temperature increase in 2100 to
perhaps as little as three inches and 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We believe that the most reasonable and defensible path forward will be guided
by a U.S. policy that recognizes both the global and the long-term nature of the
climate issue; recognizes that time properly used is an asset; and emphasizes
investment in information to better inform policymakers of the costs and
benefits associated with their decisions. Such a policy would increase research
to reduce uncertainties; promote research and development of new technology;
emphasize the diffusion of existing technology into developing countries;
promote the economic turnover of our own capital stock; recognize different
national circumstances; continue to promote voluntary initiatives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; and balance greenhouse gas abatement activities
with our national economic objectives.
You have expressed a desire to work with American business in addressing
potential climate change. We stand ready to work to fashion a policy that will
demonstrate both responsible action and protection of the nation's economic
well being.
Children Yours truly,
William F. O'Keefe
Chairman
GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
Global Climate Coalition
1275 K St. N.W.
Suite 890
GROWTH IN
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: 202.682.9161
Fax: 202.638.1043
July 3, 1997
The Vice President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Mr. Vice President:
According to the June 26 issue of the Tennessean, you stated that "There is a small
group that likes to spread dissension and skepticism" and that the skeptics of your views on
global warming are like "tobacco executives who have a stake in saying that there's no
problem at all. That's unethical."
Mr. Vice President, you are wrong on the science and it is demeaning to your office to
resort to McCarthy-like tactics to advance your vision. Healthy debate is the hallmark of a
free society; efforts to suppress it are not. You need look no further than the May 16 issue of
Science to see that your views on the state of knowledge do not reflect the mainstream of
scientific opinion.
Although the Global Climate Coalition does not share your views on the state of
science and what it portends for the future, we do support responsible action to address the
climate issue that does not expose our nation's economic well-being to needless risks.
Sincerely,
Gail Mc Donald
Gail McDonald
President
PRINTED WITH
SOY INK
The Texnessean 6/26/97
Gore says environmental skeptics unethical
By HECTOR BECERRA
SCIENC
departure on Air Force II, Gore
and JOE ROGERS
used graphs and charts to detail for
Staff Writers
"How can we say it's all right to create such
the conference attendees a trend his
Vice President AI Gore attacked
a radical change on our planet's atmosphere?
said could result in catastrophic
skeptics of global warming last
changes in the planet.
night, comparing them to tobacco
It's not all right."
"We've got the technology, the
executives who have a "stake in
entrepreneurs and the know-how to
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
saying there's no problem at all."
solve the problem. If we have will
Gore, in town for the Sixth Annu-
and desire, there's no question we
al Family Re-Union Conference,
bad for you," Gore said. "That's climate variations.
can make things happen.'
spoke last night at Vanderbilt Uni-
ridiculous and unethical.
"This is part of our attempt to
The series of regional workshops
versity to the Workshop on Climate
"How can we say it's all right to
raise: consclousness broadly about
will lead to a national conference,
Variability and Water. Resource
create such a radical change on our
what we do and don't know about
which Itself will be a precursor to
Management to the Southeast. The
planet's atmosphere? It's not all
these things," be said.
an International conference later
vice president described a planet on
right."
Gibbons said one of the challeng-
this year, Gibbons sald.
the verge of severe trauma un-
In a victory for one of Gore's pet
es to the science and technology
Among the major topics expected
less decisive steps are taken to
Issues, President Clinton announced
community is to make sure the ad-
there is the greenhouse effect and
counter the "greenhouse effect,"
earlier that be would implement
vances in understanding are applied
what countries can mutually agree
which many scientists believe is
tougher Environmental Protection
in other fields, such as agriculture.
to do about it.
leading to global warming.
Agency standards for clean air.
"We aren't connecting the pleces
The problem is made worse by
"There is a small group that likes
John Gibbons, assistant to the
yet," Gibbons sald.
releases into the atmosphere from
to spread dissension and skepticism,
president for science and technolo-
But Gore said the "pleces of the
fossil fuel combustion, Gibbons sald.
just like the big tobacco companies
gy, said the regional climate work-
figsaw puzzle" are more evident
"It's especially a U.S. problem,
spent huge amounts of money tell-
shop is a step in a process toward
than before.
because we account for a fourthet
ing tobacco smokers smoking is not
understanding the implications of
Bypassing his scheduled 7:35 p.m.
all that's happening." be said
TOTAL P.02
American
1220 L Street, Northwest
William F. O'Keefe
AP
Petroleum
Washington, D.C. 20005-4070
Executive Vice President
Institute
Tel 202-682-8300
Fax 202-682-8198
June 10, 1997
Dr. John H. Gibbons
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology Policy
424 Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20504
Dear And Dr. Gibbons:
As a result of our recent discussion of climate change at the German Embassy, I have re-
reviewed the study, Changing by Degrees, by the Office of Technology Assessment.
Further, I am told that Changing by Degrees has been one of the more influential
engineering studies on the feasibility of curbing CO₂ emissions. Nonetheless, neither
Changing by Degrees nor any of the other similar studies demonstrate that Americans can
substantially curb their use of fossil fuels (and, hence, their emissions of CO₂) at negligible
economic cost. The costs of such curbs, in fact, would be substantial.
Like other technology-based studies, Changing by Degrees attempts to show that
Americans-both at work and at home-waste substantial amounts of energy. Also, like
the other studies, it then simply takes it for granted that government representatives are
wise enough and can implement the right policy tools to eliminate the alleged massive
waste, and thereby cut carbon emissions at an economic cost approaching zero. Assuming
such perfection in the political marketplace is quite a leap of faith.
If Americans really do waste vast amounts of energy, the implications would be
enormous-extending far beyond energy and CO₂ emissions. Changing by Degrees
presents findings that strongly imply that economic reasoning and evidence do not apply to
energy markets, no matter how well they may explain behavior in other markets. Since
the U.S. economy is and has been one of the most robust on the world stage, Americans
must be using labor, capital and raw materials extraordinarily well to compensate for their
alleged incompetence in using energy. But, if Americans know how to use other
resources well, why do their intelligence and talents fail them when burning a gallon of
gasoline or using a kilowatt of electricity? No engineering study to date has offered an
answer for such inconsistent economic behavior-or even acknowledged this larger issue.
An equal opportunity employer
Dr. John H. Gibbons
June 10, 1997
Page 2
More specifically, Changing by Degrees projects that by 2015 the U.S. industrial sector
will emit 556 million metric tons of carbon, and then asserts that the adoption of cost-
effective practices would reduce those emissions by 17 percent. OTA offers no
explanation why profit-seeking U.S. industrial firms literally throw away billions of dollars
annually, year after year, on needless energy use in an era of "downsizing" and cost-
cutting. Surely, this anomaly deserves recognition and an explanation.
Economist Dr. Robert Hahn, of the American Enterprise Institute and Carnegie-Mellon
University, and who has published extensively on government regulation, observes that
regulatory agencies often claim "that it would be in the interest of firms to adopt [the
agencies' proposed] rules for purely economic reasons. Thus, the agencies effectively
claim that firms are not maximizing profits without government intervention." Dr. Hahn
concludes that "one must be skeptical" of such claims since "companies are in the business
of making money, while the government is not."
Other findings in Changing by Degrees also raise important questions about the
assumptions behind the study. For example:
What will be the consequences elsewhere in the economy if Americans start
making the "correct" investments in energy-saving technology? If Americans are not
investing enough in energy-saving equipment, they must be spending too much money
somewhere else. Dr. David Montgomery and his colleagues at Charles River Associates
have found that, to finance the additional "cost effective" energy-saving investment, an
implausibly large amount of money would have to be shifted away from other sorts of
capital investment-thereby imposing substantial opportunity costs on the U.S. economy.
Why do consumers all make the same mistake: using too much energy? Inherent
human fallibility assures that it will never be cost-effective to attempt eliminating all
mistakes-including all mistakes about energy use. However, while some mistakes are
always to be expected, it is not realistic to believe that many millions of human beings will
all make the same mistake-over and over again, decade after decade. Yet, this is what
Changing by Degrees implies. Some people probably buy too much energy and others
too little. As a consequence, total energy use in a world free of mistakes may not be that
much different from what we observe in the real world. Furthermore, and most important,
markets send signals and produce information. Why have not people learned from their
mistakes and the pressures of competition?
How well can analysts measure the benefits and costs faced by energy users?
For instance, Changing by Degrees uses a discount rate of 7 percent to measure the cost
of financing investments in energy-saving technologies. Since many (if not most) actual
energy users use higher rates implicitly or explicitly in making investment decisions,
Dr. John H. Gibbons
June 10, 1997
Page 3
Changing by Degrees has undercounted the actual cost of making such investments and
inferred "irrational" behavior when none may in fact exist. Furthermore, government
intervention meant to improve energy efficiency will not change the financing costs faced
by energy consumers. Also, OTA presumes that rational and cost-conscious energy users
should expect higher energy prices. For instance, OTA assumes that the price of gasoline
in 2015 will be $1.85 a gallon in 1987 dollars, or about $2.40 in 1995 dollars. It is
interesting to note, however, that the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual
Energy Outlook: 1997 projects the average U.S. retail gasoline price in 2015 at $1.17 a
gallon measured in 1995 dollars. Obviously, higher expected future energy prices make
energy-saving technologies more attractive investments today-and OTA's projected
price for 2015 is more than twice that of EIA. While I have no idea whether a gallon of
gasoline in 2015 will cost $2.40, $1.17 or something else, neither do the authors of
Changing by Degrees. I will simply state for the record that the dominant long-term trend
for the price of gasoline (and other fossil fuels), adjusted for inflation, has been downward
during the 20th century. I note, too, that proved world reserves of crude oil are at historic
levels-representing nearly a half century of supply at current rates of consumption. In
light of these facts, energy users-rational and cost-conscious-could be expecting lower
future energy prices than the authors of Changing by Degrees.
In short, Changing by Degrees and other engineering studies raise provocative questions
about energy use-and, indeed, about how capitalist economies function in general-that
deserve further study. However, these studies do not show that we should junk
mainstream economic reasoning or that a vast reservoir of "free" energy savings exists for
enlightened government policies to tap.
Indeed, besides violating both reason and experience, promises of a "free lunch" invite
people to give short shrift to the enormously important scientific and
policy issue of potential climate change. Without a clear grasp of the basic economics, we
cannot expect the political system to produce a comprehensive, flexible and cost-effective
climate policy.
Sincerely,
Siel
William F. O'Keefe
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 682-8300
AP
William F. O'Keefe
Executive Vice President
March 20, 1996
The Honorable Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
The White House
2nd Floor, West Wing
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Dr. Tyson:
In response to your request at our meeting on March 6, I have attached an API list of
"Additional U.S. Actions to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions".
I hope these ideas stimulate further White House discussion of this complex issue and that
industry can continue to contribute in a positive way to the domestic and international climate
change policymaking process.
Please call me if you would like further elaboration or clarification of the attached list. I look
forward to opportunities in the future to continue the dialogue on the climate policy issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc
E. Holstein
E. Seidman
R. Brown
An equal opportunity employer
Additional U.S. Actions
to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
U.S. industry recognizes the legitimate concerns about the potential long-term
effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's climate system.
Increased energy efficiency reduces greenhouse emissions and most companies
have sought to improve energy efficiency--and lower costs--since the 1970s. The
EOP Group, for example, reported in 1993 that the U.S. achieved a 30 percent
reduction in total energy consumption per unit of GDP from 1970 to 1990.
More recently, companies have launched their own initiatives or joined in
government/industry voluntary programs aimed at limiting carbon dioxide,
methane and other fossil fuel emissions, both in response to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force on March 21, 1994, and
to the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan that was released in October 1993. To
date, while overall results of industry's efforts are positive, the magnitude
remains uncertain, both because the greenhouse gas programs are so new and
because the federal reporting system does not capture all private sector actions.
Some have responded to this uncertainty and to statements that we face
catastrophic consequences if emissions are not reduced promptly by proposing
policies and measures that would mandate substantial near-term emission
reductions. This strategy is inconsistent with the current state of climate science
and with a growing body of economic analyses. Current proposals for near-term
emission reductions would be extremely harmful to the U.S. economy, reducing
output, costing jobs and placing U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage.
Moreover, the only way to achieve such reductions in a 10-15 year timeframe is
by a large energy tax.
A more productive approach would include the following actions:
o government and industry cooperatively identify and assess
cost-effective, flexible voluntary programs;
o a policy and investment environment that would be conducive to
increased private investment in new technologies and processes;
impediments to the economic turnover of energy-inefficient capital
stock should be identified, reviewed and modified or removed;
o tax rules should be reviewed to explore the possibility of fostering
greater investment in new energy-efficient R&D; and,
o an investment climate should be developed to encourage the export of
U.S. energy-efficient technologies to developing nations.
The following list identifies several opportunities for government/industry
cooperation.
0 Identify, Expand and Report Cost-Effective Near-Term Actions
- work with government to expand vehicle scrappage programs
aimed at reducing emissions from older vehicles
- work with government officials to identify, assess and expand the most
cost-effective programs within the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan
- ensure intellectual property rights and patents protection for climate
change technologies and discoveries
- remove impediments to the voluntary reporting of company programs
and public/private programs aimed at limiting emissions
o Stabilize the Policymaking and Investment Environment
- focus funding of policy-relevant research on reducing major
uncertainties about the climate system and on improving the accuracy of
climate models, particularly with respect to possible regional impacts,
and the role of oceans, clouds and water vapor
- encourage private investment in climate change research
- encourage corporations to include climate change considerations in
their long-range business plans
o Accelerate Capital Stock Turnover
- reduce corporate tax rate
- revise depreciation rules to remove any disincentives to the early
retirement of energy-intensive equipment and facilities
2
- change regulations that now discourage capital stock turnover (e.g.,
Superfund and impediments in the Clean Air Act to new investments)
o Stimulate Investment in Climate Change R&D
- explore the desirability of incentives aimed at increasing private sector
R&D in energy-efficient technologies
- request the Treasury Department identify tax barriers that discourage
investment in new energy-efficient R&D technologies and processes
- identify ways to encourage corporations to review current R&D plans
and budgets and to consider enhancing investments in new energy-
efficient technologies and processes
- explore ways to identify promising private technologies and whether
accelerated commercialization would help limit greenhouse gas
emissions
0
Strengthen Climate Change Technology Investment Abroad
- take steps to remove "additionality" as a criteria for "Joint
Implementation" activities
- work with international bodies to broaden "sovereign risk insurance" to
cover political and other risks to foreign direct investment in
technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions
- examine export restrictions to see if any unnecessarily constrain the
export of U.S. climate technologies
- work with foreign governments to increase direct investment
opportunities in a way that provides an opportunity to earn an adequate
return on investment
- protect intellectual property rights and patents on technologies
transferred
3
AFI-CIO Executive Council
February 20, 1997
Studement
U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS
The U.S. government is involved in United Nations negotiations pursuant to the "Berlin
Mandate" for an amendment to the Rio Treaty on Climate Change. The Rio Treaty committed
the United States and other nations to voluntarily stabilize carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the
year 2000. Current negotiations are aimed at mandatory reductions below 1990 levels after the
year 2000.
The Berlin Mandate specifically excludes developing nations from emission reduction
requirements while legally binding the United States to future emission reductions. By
exempting developing nations from any future commitments, the Berlin Mandate ensures that
there will be no meaningful worldwide effort to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide.
We believe the parties to the Rio Treaty made a fundamental error when they agreed to
negotiate legally-binding carbon restrictions on the United States and other industrialized
countries, while simultaneously agreeing to exempt high-growth developing countries like
China, Mexico, Brazil and Korea from any new carbon reduction commitments. As much as 60
percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from such countries in the next few
decades, with China becoming the single-largest emitter in the near future. The exclusion of new
commitments by developing nations under the Berlin Mandate will create a powerful incentive
for transnational corporations to export jobs, capital, and pollution, and will do little or nothing
to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Such an uneven playing field will cause the
loss of high-paying U.S. jobs in the mining, manufacturing, transport and other sectors.
Carbon taxes, or equivalent carbon emission trading programs. will raise significantly
electricity and other energy prices to consumers. These taxes are highly regressive and will be
most harmful to citizens who live on fixed incomes or work at poverty-level wages.
As corporations shut down domestic factories. mines and mills as a result of higher
energy costs, they will have additional incentives, beyond the search for cheap labor and anti-
labor regulatory regimes, to locate new capacity off-shore, in countries with no carbon reduction
commitments. Carbon emissions, therefore, will bc transferred to the developing world along
with the jobs, thus providing no real benefit to the environment.
The U.S. government has not completed a thorough economic analysis of the effects of a
treaty amendment on the U.S. economy, even though U.S. negotiators have been at the
bargaining table for over 18 months and have agreed to a December 1997 deadline for reaching
agreement on this far-reaching treaty amendment.
The AFL-CIO Executive Council calls upon the responsible agencies of the U.S.
government to provide it and its affiliates with any existing studies of the economic impact of
future treaty obligations and. further, make available the results of the economic modeling effort
currently being undertaken by the government within 30 days of completion.
The AFL-CIO Executive Council further urges that in the ongoing negotiations to amend
the Rio Treaty on climate change. the United States insist upon the incorporation of appropriate
commitments from all nations to reduce carbon cmissions; and seek a reduction schedule
compatible with the urgent need to avoid unfair and unnecessary job loss in developed
economies. The President should not accept and the Congress should not ratify any amendment
or protocol that does not meet these standards.
JUN-23-1997 11:37
FROM GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
TO
96828115
P.02
III
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. RES. 98
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United
States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on green-
house gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 12, 1997
Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INOUYE,
Mr. WARNER, Mr. FORD, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr.
LEVIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. McCONNELL, Mr. ASHOROFT,
Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. BURNS, Mr.
CONRAD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BOND, Mr.
COVERDELL, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HATCH,
Mr. BREAUX, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JOHN-
SON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr.
SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr.
FRIST, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ALLARD, and Mr. MURKOWSKI) submitted
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions
for the United States becoming a. signatory to any inter-
national agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-
mate Change (in this resolution referred to as the "Con-
/
JUN-23-1997 11:37
FROM GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
TO
96828115
P.03
2
vention"), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in
1994 and is not yet fully implemented;
Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change
on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and
the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization
For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
including the United States, as "Annex I Parties", and
the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico,
India, Brazil, and South Korea, as "Developing Country
Parties";
Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's "Conference of the
Parties" adopted the so-called "Berlin Mandate";
Whereas the "Berlin Mandate" calls for the adoption, as soon
as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a. protocol or an-
other legal instrument that strengthens commitments to
limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the
post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process
called the "Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate";
Whereas the "Berlin Mandate" specifically exempts all Devel-
oping Country Parties from any new commitments in
such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;
Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United
States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt
policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary
of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for
"legally binding" emission limitation targets and time-
tables for Annex I Parties, a. position reiterated by the
Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;
SRES 98 IS
2
JUN-23-1997 11:38
FROM GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
TO
96828115
P.04
3
Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country
Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to sur-
pass emissions of the United States and other OECD
countries as early as 2015;
Whereas the Department of. State has declared that it is criti-
cal for the Parties to the Convention to include Develop-
ing Country Parties in the next steps for global action
and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of addi-
tional steps to include limitations on Developing Country
Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until
after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in
Kyoto, Japan in December 1997;
Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is in-
consistent with the need for global action on climate
change and is environmentally flawed; and
Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals
under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment
between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and
the level of required emission reductions, could result in
serious harm to the United States economy, including
significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy
and consumer costs, or any combination thereof: Now,
therefore, be it
1
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-
2
(1) the United States should not be a. signatory
3
to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the
4
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
5
Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in Decem-
6
ber 1997, or thereafter, which would—
SRES 98 IS
0