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
158698192
label
Administration Documents on Climate Change [binder 1] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
158698192
contentType
document
title
Administration Documents on Climate Change [binder 1] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the White House Task Force on Climate Change
John Gibson's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
158698192
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-146925348-20171094F-001-001-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
37c42959184375b9
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1094-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:
WH Task Force on Climate Change
Series/Staff Member:
John Gibson
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
41017
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Administration Documents on Climate Change [binder 1] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
100
3
9
2
Administration
Documents
on
Climate
Change
John Gibson
White House Task Force on Climate Change
Administration Documents on Climate Change
Index
A. Press Releases
1. Remarks by the President on Global Climate Change-October 22, 1997
2. Press Briefing by Chair of the National Economic Council, Gene Sperling-October
22, 1997
3. Remarks by President Clinton and President Cardoso at signing of Declaration on
Education-October 14, 1997
4. Remarks by the President at DNC Young Democratic Council Reception-October
8, 1997
5. Remarks by the President at DNC Reception-October 8, 1997
6. Remarks by the President to Weather Forecasters-October 1, 1997
7. Remarks by the President to the 52ND Session of the United Nations General
Assembly-September 22, 1997
8. Remarks by the President to the Democratic Business Council-August 7, 1997
9. Remarks by the President on Climate Change-August 4, 1997
10. Opening Remarks by the President and the Vice-President at Lake Tahoe Forum-
July 26,
1997
11. Opening Remarks by the President and the Vice President at Discussion on
Climate Change-July 24, 1997
12. Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations Special Session on
Environment and Development-June 26, 1997
13. Remarks by Vice President Al Gore at the United Nations General Assembly
Special Session on the Environment and Development New York, NY-June 23,
1997
14. Remarks by the President on the Environment-May 9, 1997
15. Remarks by the President and Vice President upon Departure-April 22, 1997
16. Statement by the President-October 1, 1996
17. Prepared Remarks of Vice President Al Gore-February 12, 1996
18. Remarks by the Vice President at George Washington University-March 20, 1995
19. Remarks by the President at White House Conference on Climate Change-October
19, 1993
20. Remarks by the President in Earth Day Speech-April 21, 1993
B. The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
1. Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion-October 9, 1997
2. Statement before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and
Trade Promotion of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations-June 19, 1997
3. Opening Remarks at the Conference on Climate Change, Evolving Technologies,
U.S. Business, and the World Economy in the 21st Century-June 18, 1996
4. Testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee-September
17, 1996
C. Statement before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power by Dr.
Jane Yellen, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers-July 15, 1997
D. Testimony of Eileen Claussen before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the
Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives-September 26, 1996
E. White House Conference on Climate Change: The Challenge of Global Warming-
October 6, 1997
F. Climate Change Action Plan-October 1997
G. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996-October 1997
H. Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First
Century-September 30, 1997
I. Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by
2010 and Beyond-September 22, 1997
J. Accelerating Globalization?: The Economic Effects of Climate Change Policies on
U.S. Workers-September 17, 1997
K. The Global Climate Debate: Keeping the Economy Warm and the Planet Cool,
Impact on Five Key Industries: Airlines, Automobiles, Chemicals, Semiconductors
and Steel-September 1997
L. Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Policies: Results of the Research Efforts
of the Interagency Analytical Team-June 1997
M. Draft Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change-January 17, 1997
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
A
Divider Title:
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 22, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
National Geographic Society
Washington, D.C.
2:57 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Vice
President, to all of you who are here. I. thank especially the members
of Congress who are here, the leaders of labor and business who are
here, all the members of the administration, and especially the White
House staff members that the Vice President mentioned and the Secretary
of Energy, the Administrator of the EPA, and the others who have helped
us to come to this moment.
On the way in here we were met by the leaders of the National
Geographic, and I complimented them on their recent two-part series on
the Roman Empire. It's a fascinating story of how the Empire rose, how
it sustained itself for hundreds of years, why it fell, and speculations
on what, if any, relevance it might have to the United States and,
indeed, the West.
And one of the gentlemen said, well, you know, we got a lot of
interesting comments on that, including a letter referencing a statue we
had of the bust of Emperor Vespasian. And one of our readers said, why
in the world did you put a statue of Gene Hackman in a piece on the
Roman Empire? (Laughter.) And : say that basically to say, in some
senses, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
(Laughter.)
For what sustains any civilization, and now what will sustain all
of our civilizations, is the constant effort at renewal, the ability to
avoid denial and to proceed into the future in a way that is realistic
and humane, but resolute. Six years ago tomorrow, not long after I
started running for President, went back to my alma mater at
Georgetown and began a series of three speeches outlining my vision for
America in the 21st century -- we could keep the American Dream
alive for all of our people, how ÷ could maintain America's leadership
of 7
10/27/97 10:06:19
the it the countries of the world no not work together 1.0 cut the
emission :t greenhouse gases, then temperatures will rise and will
discupt the climate. In tact, most scientists say the process has
already begun. Disruptive weather events are increasing.
Pisease-bearing insects are moving to areas that used to be too cold for
them. Average temperatures are rising. Glacial formations are
receding.
Scientists don't yet know what the precise consequences will be.
But we do know enough now to know that the Industrial Age has
dramatically increased greenhouse cases in the atmosphere, where they
take a century or more to dissipate; and that the process must be
slowed, then stopped, then reduces if we want to continue our economic
progress and preserve the quality of life in the United States and
throughout our planet. We know what we have to do.
Greenhouse gas emissions are caused mostly by the inefficient
burning of coal or oil for energy. Roughly a third of these emissions
come from industry, a third from transportation, a third from
residential and commercial buildings. In each case, the conversion of
fuel to energy use is extremely inefficient and could be made much
cleaner with existing technologies or those already on the horizon, in
ways that will not weaken the economy but in fact will add to our
strength in new businesses and new jobs. If we do this properly, we
will not jeopardize our prosperity -- we will increase it.
With that principle in mind, I'm announcing the instruction I'm
giving to our negotiators as they pursue a realistic and effective
international climate change treaty. And I'm announcing a far-reaching
proposal that provides flexible market-based and cost-effective ways to
achieve meaningful reductions here in America. I want to emphasize that
we cannot wait until the treaty is negotiated and ratified to act. The
United States has less than 5 percent of the world's people, enjoys 22
percent of the world's wealth, but emits more than 25 percent of the
world's greenhouse gases. We must begin now to take out our insurance
policy on the future.
In the international climate negotiations, the United States will
pursue a comprehensive framework that includes three elements, which,
taken together, will enable us to cuild a strong and robust global
agreement. First, the United States proposes at Kyoto that we commit to
the binding and realistic target of returning to emissions of 1990
levels between 2008 and 2012. And we should not stop there. We should
commit to reduce emissions below 1990 levels in the five-year period
thereafter, and we must work toward further reductions in the years
anead.
The industrialized nations tried to reduce emissions to 1990
levels once before with a voluntary approach, but regrettably, most of
us including especially the United States -- fell short. We must
find new resolve to achieve these reductions, and to do that we simply
must commit to binding limits.
Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms for meeting these
limits. We propose an innovative, joint implementation system that
allows a firm in one country to invest in a project that reduces
emissions in another country and receive credit for those reductions at
home. And we propose an internatiinal system of emissions trading.
These innovations will cut worldwide collution, keep costs low, and help
:eveloping countries protect their environment, too, without sacrificing
INTER economic trowth.
Third, both industrialice: leveloping countries must
passicipate In meeting the climate change. The
6 of 7
10/27/97 10:06:21
want to yet moving now. We will start with our package of strong market
incentives, tax cuts, and cooperative efforts with industry. We want to
stimulate early action and encourage leadership. And as we reduce our
emissions over the next decade with these efforts, we will perform
regular reviews to see what works rest for the environment, the economy,
and our national security.
After we have accumulated à decade of experience, a decade of
data, a decade of technological innovation, we will launch a broad
emissions trading initiative to ensure that we hit our binding targets.
At that time, if there are dislocations caused by the changing patterns
of energy use in America, we have à moral obligation to respond to those
to help the workers and the enterprises affected -- no less than we do
today by any change in our economy which affects people through no fault
of their own.
This plan plays to our strengths -- innovation, creativity,
entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the way by
developing tremendous environmental technologies and implementing
commonsense conservation solutions.
Just yesterday, Secretary Pena announced a dramatic breakthrough
in fuel cell technology, funded by the Department of Energy research -
a breakthrough that will clear the way toward developing cars that are
twice as efficient as today's models and reduce pollution by 90 percent.
The breakthrough was made possible by our path-breaking partnership with
the auto industry to create a new generation of vehicles. A different
design, producing similar results, has been developed by a project
funded by the Defense Advanced Research Products Agency and the Commerce
Department's National Institute or Science and Technology.
The Energy Department discovery is amazing in what it does.
Today, gasoline is used very inefficiently in internal combustion
engines -- about 80 percent of its energy capacity is lost. The DOE
project announced yesterday by A.D. Little and Company uses 84 percent
of the gasoline directly going into the fuel cell. That's increased
efficiency of more than four times traditional engine usage.
And I might add, from the point of view of all the people that are
involved in the present system, continuing to use gasoline means that
you don't have to change any of the distribution systems that are out
there. It's a very important, but by no means the only, discovery
that's been made that points the way toward the future we have to
embrace.
I also want to emphasize, however, that most of the technologies
available for meeting this goal through market mechanisms are already
out there -- we simply have to take advantage of them. For example, in
the town of West Branch, Iowa, a science teacher named Hector Ibarra
challenged his 6th graders to apply their classroom experiments to
making their school more energy efficient. The class got a $14,000 loan
from a local bank and put in place easily available solutions. The
students cut the energy use in their school by 70 percent. Their
savings were so impressive that the bank decided to upgrade its own
energy efficiency. (Laughter.)
Following the lead of these fth graders -- (laughter) -- other
major companies in America have snown similar results. You have only to
look at the proven results achieved by companies like Southwire, Dow
Chemical, Dupont, Kraft, Interface Tarpetmakers, and any number of
others in every sector of our economy 1:0 see what can be done.
of 7
10/27/97 10:06:23
nivner profit. We have to Toat uwn carriers to successful markets and
we have to create incentives to enter them. I call on American business
to lead the way, but I call upon government at every level -- federal,
state, and local -- to give business the tools they need to get the job
done, and also to set an example in all our operations.
And let us remember that the chailenge we face today is not simply
about targets and timetables. It's about our most fundamental values
and our deepest obligations.
Later today, I'm going to have the honor of meeting with
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew :, the spiritual leader of 300,000,000
Orthodox Christians -- a man who has always stressed the deep
obligations inherent in God's gift to the natural world. He reminds us
that the first part of the word "ecology" derives from the Greek word
for house. In his words, in order to change the behavior toward the
house we all share, we must rediscover spiritual linkages that may have
been lost and reassert human values. Of course, he is right. It is our
solemn obligation to move forward with courage and foresight to pass our
home on to our children and future generations.
I hope you believe with me that this is just another challenge in
America's long history, one that we can meet in the way we have met all
past challenges. I hope that you believe with me that the evidence is
clear that we can do it in a way that grows the economy, not with
denial, but with a firm and glad embrace of yet another challenge of
renewal. We should be glad that we are alive today to embrace this
challenge, and we should do it secure in the knowledge that our children
and grandchildren will thank us for the endeavor.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
3:24 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 7
10/27 97 10:06:24
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 22, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL GENE SPERLING,
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY
DAN TARULLO,
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JIM STEINBERG,
STAFF SECRETARY TODD STERN,
CHAIR OF COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENT QUALITY KATIE MCGINTY,
AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TREASURY LARRY SUMMERS
The Briefing Room
1:15 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: We are bringing before you a parade of
administration officials, harmoniously and vigorously united together
-- brown and green alike, they march out, and all colors in between.
The President's global climate change team is here with
you, including all of the following and more: Gene Sperling,
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Chair of the National
Economic Council; Dan Tarullo, Assistant to the President for
International Economic Policy; Jim Steinberg, Deputy Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs; Todd Stern, Assistant to the
President and Staff Secretary and really the shepherd of all of our
global climate folks at the White House; Katie McGinty, the Chair of
the Council on Environmental Quality; and Larry Summers, Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury.
They are here at your disposal, but we are going to do
the following. We'll start with Gene giving a little overview of the
policy directions the President has now put in place as we head to
Kyoto. Katie will tell you a little bit, expand a little bit on the
specifics of the policy. And I guess Jim and Todd can talk about the
negotiating process that we foresee looking ahead to Kyoto.
Mr. Sperling.
MR. SPERLING: The President, the Vice President and
everyone in the administration who has worked on this issue feels
very strongly that this is perhaps the major environmental challenge
of our generation. All of us believe strongly that the science
compels action; that the science, based on the scientists that came
together from over 150 countries, makes clear that there has been a
discernable human influence on the climate with potentially
disruptive effects for our future; and that the United States must
play a leadership role in addressing this environmental challenge.
The President today puts forward an ambitious, but
sensible and sound approach for addressing this. He sets timetable
and targets of reaching 1990 levels by the period of 2008 to 2012.
Our policies will be based on five fundamental principles, that we
be, one, guided by the science; two, that our approach be market-
based and common sense; three, that we should first look for the win-
win, positive solutions that exist before us; fourth, that there must
be global participation, that this is a global problem that requires
a global solution; and, fifth, recognizing the uncertainty in
engaging on a long-term we need to have common sense, economic and
scientific review periodically.
MORE
- 2 -
The President puts forward a proposal today that one can
see in three stages. The first stage is where the President says,
here are the things America can do without waiting, without, we
think, conflict in addressing this problem. And if you look on the
materials we've handed out, on the third page, it runs through the
specific items from the tax incentives to the industry action to the
early credit. These are the things this President is committed to
doing as soon as possible. This is what we can do without waiting.
This is what we can do right now to utilize the opportunities that
are before us. And it very much fits the principle that to the
degree there are under-utilized energy efficiencies that exist right
now, it would be irresponsible for us to not first do everything
within our power to make sure that our industries and our people
utilize those efficiencies and get the gains that are before us.
The second period would be, in having a five-year
review, would be to look at 2004, to evaluate what has worked; to do
more of what is being effective; to take account of what new things
we have learned on the science, the environment and the economics;
and to go forward and to start planning for the third stage, the
binding stage, between 2008 and 2012. It is at this stage we would
call for a broad-based emissions trading system, both domestically
and internationally, that we believe would ensure that we hit the
binding targets that the President has set out.
I should stress that by the time a President and the
Congress would have to implement this, we would have under our belt a
decade of experience, a decade of innovation, a decade of technology,
a decade' of science and economic review. So this is a strong
approach, but it is handled in a sound and sensible way that
recognizes both the uncertainties we face, but both -- that we have
an imperative to reach the binding target that the President is
setting forward.
If you look in the materials we have, we try to give
some examples as you go through on some of the places where the
President feels very strongly in the area of electricity, in the area
of cogeneration, others where there is, we think, significant waste
and, therefore, significant opportunities using existing technologies
and energy efficiency, and our hopes for where there can be
innovation and breakthroughs, the type that you heard Secretary Pena
talk about yesterday, that can put us on a path.
There will be many people who will suggest that down the
road, in 2008, that this would be difficult to implement. But as
with so many other issues -- entitlement reform and others -- the
thing we know for sure is that if we act early we make it easier to
deal with a long-term problem. It is only when we wait too long and
too late that the choices become too difficult. We have before us
the opportunity to deal with these things in a way that this country
is best at -- through innovation, through technology, through
mobilizing this country, through using the powers of the market. And
this President is committed, that without waiting, he is going to try
to mobilize those forces to go forward and do our part in dealing
with our generational responsibility in addressing this environmental
issue.
MS. MCGINTY: Thanks to my partner, Gene. Good
afternoon. I just want to underscore a few of the points that Gene
made, maybe elaborate briefly.
First of all, today President Clinton is exercising
strong leadership in putting forth a bold plan to take on the
challenge of global climate change. Four points that I think are
worth underscoring and emphasizing: The President's exercise of
leadership today will, first and foremost, get this country moving.
today to begin to secure the opportunities we have before us to
MORE
- 3 -
reduce emissions, to improve the environment and to seize economic
opportunity in doing that.
How? One, through a very innovative new initiative on
tax incentives to encourage investments in energy-efficiency,
renewable energy, in encouraging the turnover of older, less
efficient capital stock -- things like that. Second, through a
program of designing and affording credit to industries who are
willing to step up to the plate and take action early -- earlier than
any of the periods that are being discussed in the international
arena. The President will want to work in partnership with industry,
affording them credit for taking early action to reduce emissions,
through new investments in the important technologies that the United
States can develop and has the opportunity to lead the world in
developing.
And, fourth, and importantly, by unleashing the forces
of competition in the electricity markets. Today, electricity
generation and transmission is governed by rules that in some
instances are 70 years old. That antiquated system has stifled some
of the most efficient and effective technologies we have that can
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity
sector. The President is putting that forward today, something we
can begin to move forward on that can help us to reduce emissions and
seize tremendous economic opportunity.
The President has underscored in previous statements on
this issue that today we throw out two-thirds of the energy we
generate. These policies are about capturing those inefficiencies,
enhancing the economy and the environment at the same time. so the
first principle, through the President's leadership, we are getting
to work today.
Second, the President's leadership increases our ability
to bring the entire world to a binding, but realistic and achievable
set of goals in reducing greenhouse gas emission -- binding first.
Why? Because our experience since 1992, the Rio Earth Summit, shows
us that simply voluntary actions aren't sufficient to meeting this
challenge. The voluntary actions have achieved some reductions, but
not enough, and we have continued to see emissions grow.
so the President is saying it's time to give the issue
the seriousness it merits; binding reductions are very important.
But those reductions should be realistic and achievable. What the
issue really demands is action, not the pie in the sky kind of
rhetoric we've heard, nor the doomsday scenarios we've heard, either
-- 1990 levels by the year 2008 to 2012 is significant, first: it
represents a reduction in U.S. emissions on the order of 28 percent
from where we would otherwise be in the year 2010. But it's
realistic and achievable. As Gene underscored, the President is
seizing on this decade of opportunity we have from 1998 to 2008 to
find those ways to harness market forces to help us get this job
done.
That leads to the third principle. The President's
leadership here is about harnessing market forces to help us to
achieve environmental objectives in a cost-effective way and in a way
that helps us build new industries. We have great experience in this
country in using market forces to reduce the costs of achieving
environmental goals.
The Clean Air Act has provided us with a wonderful
example. We've reduced the emissions that cause acid rain by more
than 40 percent of what was required under the law for less than a
tenth of the price that was predicted. How? Because we used
innovative means, a marketable permit scheme, where firms can trade
among themselves the right and the obligations to reduce emissions.
We've reached targets that way, but in a much more cost-effective
MORE
- 4 -
manner. so the President is exerting leadership here by saying we
will put those market forces to work to help us take on this
objective.
Fourth and finally, the President's leadership is also
about recognizing that climate change is a global challenge and it,
therefore, requires a global solution. The United States has put
proposals on the table that can help encourage the participation of
developing countries -- our initiative on joint implementation, for
example, where U.S. businesses can act in partnership with developing
countries jointly to reduce emissions.
And today the President will emphasize this important
principle again and underscore that for the U.S. to undertake binding
obligations, we will secure the participation of developing countries
in this effort as well. And as you saw last week, the President has
made this a priority as he has spoken to leaders around the world,
and was joined last weekend by President Menem as President Menem
recognized also that developing countries have to be part of the
solution as well.
So with these four principles, the President is putting
us on the road today to take on this challenge in a way that will
significantly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas. emissions, that offers us
the promise of seeking and achieving a global agreement on this
issue, and that will unleash market forces so that we can secure new
and important economic opportunities as we pursue our goals.
Thank you.
MR. STERN: Let me say just a couple of things briefly
on the international context. Gene and Katie have already alluded to
a number of the more salient factors involved in the negotiation. As
you know, international attention to climate change did not begin
last month, and it won't end at Kyoto. As important as Kyoto is,
this is part of an ongoing process that the world community is going
to have to engage in over the course of the coming decades.
I think what has changed in the relatively recent past
is the attention that the leaders of the world themselves are paying
to this issue. It has, over the course of the last six months, been
a topic of conversation in numerous presidential meetings, of our
President with his counterparts from around the world. As Katie
alluded, in just the last few days, the President has been on the
phone with a number of his colleagues from other industrialized
countries talking about Kyoto, about the approach that we are all
taking. He has also, I might add, been consulting in follow-ups to
the climate change conference with industry leaders,
environmentalists) and others to discuss how we move forward in a
realistic fashion.
The second point I would make is factual. As you
probably are aware, our negotiators are in Bonn this week and will be
there next week in the final set of formal discussions before the
Kyoto Conference itself. The positions that the President announces
this afternoon will be tabled by our negotiators and they will pursue
those positions over the course of the next week and a half.
Third, I just wanted to re-emphasize some of the key
negotiating instructions, position, what we have laid out as our
position this afternoon, which are relevant for the international
negotiations.
First, Gene mentioned the target and timetable itself,
the 2008 to 2012 period returning to 1990 levels of emissions.
Secondly, as I think Katie mentioned, flexibility is of
key importance. It is an essential component of the President's
MORE
- 5 -
domestic agenda on climate change; it must be an essential component
of the international agenda on climate change. That means
international emissions trading; it means international joint
implementation proposals and mechanisms so that the most cost-
effective means of reducing emissions are available to all the
countries of the world to seize.
Third, the President will say this afternoon, as I think
both my colleagues have mentioned, that the United States cannot
assume binding obligations in this area without developing country
participation. The developing countries of the world will, over the
course of the next couple of decades, become the most significant, in
quantitative terms, emitters of greenhouse gases. That is
notwithstanding the fact that, to date, the developed countries have
been. Thus, as a matter of science as well as policy, we simply
cannot solve this problem without the participation of developing
countries.
Now, in pursuit of that, we have made quite clear, Katie
alluded to the President's discussions with President Menem -- this
has been the subject of numerous consultations at a staff and
ministerial level as well, and this will be an important component of
our negotiators' positions taken in Bonn and all the way to Kyoto.
I think I'll stop there. Who is running the questions
here?
Q
The word "bold" isn't very -- the environmentalists
don't think this is very bold. You haven't mentioned -- emissions.
It's a real retreat, is it not?
MS. MCGINTY: Let me say, first of all, that many in the
environmental community have spoken very favorably, especially to the
President's insistence that we are going to get to work now. The
President's idea that we will offer incentives to industry to step up
to the plate and take early actions to reduce emissions is a proposal
that is very important to the environmental groups and that they
support wholeheartedly.
Would they like to see additional reductions, reductions
on the order of what the European countries and others have been
talking about? Certainly. Would some in the business community like
to have seen less reductions? Certainly. But what the President has
put together here is an ambitious plan that will reduce U.S.
emissions by 28 percent in the year 2010. It's an aggressive plan to
move us forward.
2
-- on developing countries -- you talk in terms of
assuring that developing countries, must participate in whatever
regime results. But I don't hear you saying that there would have to
be some point at which they accept binding obligations. Would there
be, perhaps at a later date, perhaps on a case-by-case basis
different standards, but are you going to propose in Kyoto that there
be binding totals and limits on the developing nations?
MR. STERN: As I said a moment ago, our position is one
of the indispensability of participation. The nature of that
participation is to be defined obviously in the course of
negotiations. I think it is useful, however, to refer to President
Menem's own observations on the subject last week where he did make
reference to the need for developing countries to take on obligations
on emissions as well.
Q
How is this package tailored to meet the
requirements on the Hill and to win the ratification you'll need for
anything coming out of Kyoto?
MR. STERN: That's the next briefing. (Laughter.)
MORE
- 6 -
MR. SPERLING: Well, I think that there is no question
that, despite what some, for honorable reasons in the environmental
community might have preferred, I think in what was considered the
range of potential options the President did pick will probably be
perceived on the Hill as the most ambitious within that range.
But the President is also I think providing people
assurance that what he is going to be presenting to Congress -- what
we will present in our budget in detail further -- is the type of
things that we think the country should be able to rally behind,
which is the focus on R&D and technology, tax incentives to encourage
more use of renewable energy sources. I think that this is the type
of mobilization that I think many people would consider win-win,
market-based solutions. And the fact that there is review in
different stages I think reflects the concern that people would have
that we would, in the year 1997, seek to say that we knew exactly how
a decade from now exactly what would be the right -- what energy
prices would be, where the technology would have been. I mean, most
people, if we were to look back 13 years wouldn't look very good at
predicting the Internet and other things.
So I think when you're trying to deal with something
like this and have binding targets, it is a sensible approach to
assure people that you are going to try to do all of the positive
things that people can rally around first, and see how far you can
get there and assure people that you are going to be reviewing the
science and the economics periodically, so that when the time comes
that you do put forward an emissions training program you do have a
decade of experience and review behind us.
And, ultimately, Congress and the President, at a later
time, will ultimately have to pass things and have that judgement.
So I think the President has put a sensible path that I think should
also be reassuring to people on the Hill that we are taking a
sensible path. I don't know what the specifics the President has put
forward, people should find particularly objectionable.
Q
Gene, you make it sound as if this plan, 30 percent
reductions, is almost entirely painless.
MR. SPERLING: Well, let me go back five years on our
budget. There were people who said at that point that if we did not
do something dramatic -- dramatic reduction on Medicaid or Medicare,
dramatic increase on discretionary budget -- if we didn't do those
things we would never get near balance.
Now, we put forward what we thought at the time was a
prudent plan to go forward, under the notion that it would not make
sense to rush to do things that may not be necessary, that you should
try to do things in a prudent, sensible, market-based way. As it's
turned out, that plan and the subsequent growth of the economy has
led us to arrive at a goal. Looking back five years, having done
more controversial, more painful things would not have made sense
when we were able to reach that goal.
The President takes the approach here that there is
tremendous -- as Katie described, tremendous inefficiencies out
there. There is tremendous potential to alert the American public
and to work with industry to capitalize on the inefficiencies that
are out there. And by alerting the public and making the public more
conscious, you do start to create the market for more people to think
that there is profit to be made and reason to research and to do
more. And to give you a chance to have a positive cycles.
Now, in the years 2008-2012, when you're in that binding
period and you have emissions trading, that is the period where there
could be arguments as to what the possible impacts would be on
MORE
- 7 -
energy. But the truth is, it's pretty hard for any of us to know.
And so I think the President, in providing a sensible path, in going
forward and making sure that we are doing all of the win-win,
positive things first, that down the road Congress and the President
will have to evaluate whether those have been enough and whether we
have to take more strenuous steps.
Q
So no increase in energy prices?
MR. SPERLING: The plan that we have as you look forward
does not include increased energy prices. I think that one has to
acknowledge that one you enter the emissions trading period in 2008,
that there will probably be costs, those emissions. But how much and
what the price of energy will be and what kind of success we've had
at having other efficiencies by then is, again, very hard to predict.
I doubt people would have predicted the tremendous real decrease in
gasoline oil prices we've had.
Q
Do you have a target for the five-year period after
2012 for those reductions?
MS. MCGINTY: The President will indicate that the
United States proposal includes both a binding target of reaching
1990 levels emissions between the year 2008 and 2012; and that then
in the next five-year period of years, that emissions should be
reduced below 1990 levels. And the extent to which they should be
reduced is an issue that we will take up in the international arena
and have discussions there.
MR. SPERLING: I'm just going to let Larry follow up on
mine, and then we'll take the next question.
DEPUTY SECRETARY SUMMERS: Thank you, Gene.
If I could just add, this is a helping-hand approach,
rather than a heavy-handed approach to working to reduce energy
consumption. It doesn't provide for mandated increases in prices on
energy over the next decade. And it does contain a number of
provisions that are likely to work to reduce energy costs.
Those provisions include measures that will support the
introduction of technologies that will increase fuel efficiency, such
as vehicles that have more miles per gallon. Those provisions
include measures that by encouraging energy conservation will reduce
demand for energy, which will tend to reduce its price worldwide.
And those provisions include electricity restructuring, which by
harnessing competition in an important network industry has the
potential to bring down the costs of energy to consumers, just as
we've seen in telecommunications and in airlines, and that on fairly
conservative estimates could mean as much as $20 billion to
households.
So this is an approach that is, as Gene has emphasized,
one that is very much focused on doing all we can over the next
decade to exploit win-win solutions that can come from harnessing
market forces to do things that are both good for the economy and
good for the environment.
Q
Can I stay on this question of cost for a second?
What you guys are saying is we're kind of hazy in this 2008 to 2012
period, we can't know for sure. But I seriously doubt that the
administration's economic team would have signed off on these 1990
levels without doing a hard analysis that said, based upon our
knowledge now we predict that this scheme would mean energy cost of X
by the year 2008 or 2010 or 2012. Are you saying you don't and
haven't done that? or if you have, what are the numbers?
MORE
- 8 -
MR. SPERLING: First of all, I think we were pretty
clear that, as Larry said, there is not a mandated energy price
increase between the year 1998 and 2008. We're acknowledging that in
the binding -- in the emissions trading period that it can't be ruled
out that there could be some effect on energy prices. We're saying
that part of that is going to depend on what the success of the
variety of different efforts, many of the nine steps that the
President has had there.
2
Well, what I'm saying is, haven't you guys done an
analysis that say best case scenario it's X, worst case scenario it's
Y. And if you have, won't you share that with us?
MR. SPERLING: I think I'll let Larry speak. First of
all, there is -- you know, I've been around here five years. If you
want an econometric model to show you something 13 years out, you can
do anything you want. You can show anything that you want. What
we're trying to do is --
Q
We'll keep that in mind the next time you --
(laughter.)
MR. SPERLING: What's that? The next time that we
predict what a particular policy right now will be 13 from now with
an econometric model, you can be free to show that to me, and I would
say you'd have a hard time showing a time in the past that we've
tried to predict 13 years out in that sense. But we have certainly
been locked in doing a tremendous amount of economic analysis. When
you look at the things there, you will see, for example in the five-
lab study, that there is, from the Energy Department, there is very
careful analysis on what the potential is for reducing metric million
tons of carbon through the efficiencies in the three main sectors --
the building, the transportation, and the industrial sectors.
As Larry said, and this really is the first time today
that the President will be and is announcing that he will be
supporting an electricity restructuring proposal, there is certainly
in that area a tremendous amount of waste because there is not
incentives to capture. the full amount of energy that is used.
We have gone through all of this analysis, but I think
that what we have tried to do, and I think what the economic team has
worked to stress, was to recognize where there is really is
uncertainty, that rather than to try to pretend that you can draw a
road map from here to Los Angeles with every street and turn in it
over the next 13 years, is to try to have a process where we have the
ability to incorporate what we are learning, what we are seeing, what
works. That is, I think, the soundest and most realistic approach
for us going forward.
We clearly think that if things -- if this country
mobilizes the right way, that we can get there without having a
significant price increase, even after the year 2008. One of the
things that will be a key element, and I can let Larry speak to that,
is the success of having a truly international system with
international trading. Where you allow for the most market
efficiencies, where people have the ability to seek out the places
where there is the greatest capacity to reduce carbon greenhouse gas
emissions at the lowest price, that will be one of the most key
elements in determining how much we can do this in a cost-effective
way.
And that's one of the points one has to understand in
climate change. When you reduce a million metric tons of carbon,
when you reduce carbon emissions anywhere in the globe, it has the
same impact. And so having a system develop over time that allows
that to happen will be absolutely critical and vital to what the
costs are. If you assume that that will work very well, extremely
MORE
- 9 -
well, then you can have very, very, very; very low cost impacts. If
you assume that it won't, then it would be more difficult.
And I think, again, what we've tried to do is
incorporate a process where we can constantly review that and where
the country can make adjustments accordingly.
Q
I just want to get back to something you didn't
finish. Do you have a targeted number, or any range --
MS. MCGINTY: We're not specifying a number at this
time.
&
At what point would you get around to specifying a
number?
MS. MCGINTY: To hearken back to what Gene has outlined,
at this point the President is outlining a very clear plan that takes
us, not from today to tomorrow, but a clear plan for the next decade,
for the five years that follow that decade, in that five years to hit
1990 levels on average between 2008 and 2012, and beyond, to say we
need then to move to reduce emissions below 1990 levels. We're not
going to specify that specific target today.
2
When will the period come when you begin to
specify?
MS. MCGINTY: It's still under discussion.
0
Is it within the next year or is it --
MR. STERN: The point I think that Katie just made is
we're not going to start negotiating in public. That's why we have
negotiators who go to Bonn and then to Kyoto.
Q
How does the $5 billion in tax cuts on R&D break
down? And over what period of time would that be? And when you
might get something like that before Congress?
MR. SPERLING: That will be in our fiscal year 1999
budget. We met, the team working on this, with the budget team,
including Frank Raines, and we tried to almost do an early budget
review so that we could make sure that we have room in our budget for
a significant initiative. And so what we are comfortable doing this
time is announcing that there will be a $5 billion, or at least a $5
billion in R&D and tax incentives. What the exact composition is of
those will be announced with the rest of our budget.
2
Over what period of time will that $5 billion --
MR. SPERLING: That's $5 billion over five years. So at
least $1 billion a year of additional funds beyond -- or tax
incentives beyond what we have currently.
Q
If I could follow up, Gene, you said that most of
those ideas, or many of them, will come from this report from the
President's committee on science and technology. so could you at
least outline a few or highlight a few from that report that are
likely to be in your package?
MR. SPERLING: We are announcing almost, as you see,
almost every element we have now. It is not our intention to
announce, the specifics of every single thing we're going to do now,
quite honestly. This is something the President cares very deeply
about. He wants to return to this, and we will roll out the details
of our plan periodically. But also, you have to understand, we do
our budget review in the first two weeks of December, and so we will
have time and opportunity to spell out in detail as we present our
MORE
- 10 -
budget the exact specifics. Certainly, the -- recommendations will
be highly considered and certainly many of those will make it into
our budget.
Q
How flexible, Gene, are you going to be in the
negotiations this week, next week, up to Kyoto, with regard to your
binding target proposal for the industrialized world? Is this a take
it or leave it proposal from the United States, or are you flexible
enough in these pending negotiations to perhaps strengthen the
binding targets the President outlined today?
MR. SPERLING: This is our position; this is a position
that the President has worked on himself. He has developed this plan
himself. He took this from a variety of different recommendations,
all of this, gave him -- he pulled different pieces and put together
a strategy that he feels comfortable with. This is our position.
And when I say that we're not seeing anymore, I'm not commenting one
way or the other on what would happen in negotiations. This is our
position and this is where we stand.
Q
Gene, what has happened since the time the
President set the year 2000 as the goal? What's changed since then?
MS. MCGINTY: I think this is an important point. We
have a lot of attention to this issue now because Kyoto is on the
horizon, but the fact is that the President has been hard at work on
this issue since 1993. First, he reversed the position of the
previous administration and signed the United States up to the goal
of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. He followed
that immediately with a 50-point plan to help us to achieve that
goal.
Now, that plan has delivered very significant reductions
in emissions from where they otherwise would have been. Did it get
us or are we on track to get to the year 2000? As we articulated
more than a year and a half ago, we are not on track to do that.
Why? One, economic growth has been quite robust and more robust than
even we had anticipated in the beginning of 1993. Two, oil prices
have proven to be lower than were anticipated in early 1993. But,
three, and most compellingly and importantly, is that the Congress
had as part of its anti-environmental agenda, had not funded the
President's initiatives in energy efficiency and renewable energy
Now, despite those three factors, the President's efforts have
delivered significant emissions reductions from where we otherwise
would have been, on the order of about -- for the jargon -- on the
order of about 40 million metric tons of carbon emissions.
You will see today major utilities in the United States
standing up and saying that the President has outlined today a very
sensible and very strong policy to move forward on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those utilities have been working
in partnership with us since 1993, with the President's leadership.
They have signed up voluntarily and have voluntarily reduced their
emissions significantly.
so we have been at this consistently since 1993. Kyoto
presents us an opportunity with taking this issue now to the next
steps where we can join together with the world community, looking
beyond the year 2000 and the steps that have to be taken then.
Q
Are the utilities that began participating in '93
going to get credit for those reductions?
MS. MCGINTY: One of the points that the President wants
to emphasize today is that we will build a program to provide credit
for those who will take early action. As part of our effort to do
this, to undertake this effort in partnership with industry, we will
MORE
- 11 -
work with them, we will work with members of the environmental
community to put the details of that initiative together.
But the idea is simple: We want to incentivize industry
to take action now to reduce emissions -- not to wait until the year
2008 to begin. If we have a marketable permit scheme in the year
2008, for example, then what we would be talking about here is
working with industries so that they could get credits to play in
that tradeable permit scheme that would be set up in the year 2008
for the actions that they take to reduce emissions now. That's one
of the ideas we would pursue.
Q
Does that have budgetary impact, the provision of
credits --
MS. MCGINTY: Budgetary in what sense?
Q
Does it cost any money off the budget? Is it a tax
incentive? I don't understand your credit.
MS. MCGINTY: No. The notion of a marketable permit
system is that you provide permits to various actors in the economy
and they have a choice: They can reduce their emissions to the level
required, or if it's more cost effective for them, they can purchase
permits from other players in the economy who have not only met their
target, but gone over and above it. And the idea is simply that
those who take actions now won't be penalized for having taken action
early, and that those reductions in emissions that they achieve will
be recognized when the binding period comes into play.
Q
-- this document, it does indicate here, we reject
the European proposal for more stringent early reductions. Would you
remind us of the reasons for that rejection?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, I'll first of all remind you of what
the European policy is. Overall, the European Union has called for a
15 percent reduction from 1990 levels by the year 2010. Now, the
reasons that that approach is not appropriate for the United States,
that we feel is not realistic or achievable, is also related to why
we believe our plan is significant, but realistic and achievable.
The President's plan will reduce U.S. emissions by 30
percent from where they otherwise would be in the year 2010. That's
an ambitious undertaking. To go further and add to it 10 or 15
percent additional reductions, we don't believe is realistic or
achievable in the time period that we are looking at. It just
underscores the fact that what we've tried to do here is a very
significant and ambitious plan, but one that is built on the
opportunities that we know that are out there, that can enable us to
get started now and seize some economic opportunities; that's what
the President's target represents.
Q
What's the number now, from this point to back to
1990 levels? I've heard between 15 percent and 20 percent. What is
it from today's date?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, in the year 2000, business as usual,
it would be 13 percent. But do we know today -- I think it's about
7.5 percent -- 7.5 percent. Today I think we are on the order of
about 7.5 percent above 1990 levels of emissions.
2
-- you expect emissions in the United States to
start
2
What's the point of having an economic review of
how we're doing five years out if we're committing to binding
targets? I mean, if you're saying we absolutely will meet these by
this date, and your economic review says, geez, you know what, it's
MORE
- 12 -
going to cost a lot more money than we thought it would? There's no
opt out, is there?
MS. MCGINTY: The notion of economic reviews as
scientific reviews is just common sense. We are putting forward here
some very ambitious ideas that we think can deliver both
environmental and economic results. But we want to make sure we are
seizing all the best opportunities that are out there, and the point
of that review is to make sure that all the best ideas are ideas that
we are implementing.
Q
If you don't envision a clause that lets you out --
is what I'm asking, is there any clause that lets you out of this?
If it says this is going to cost a lot more than we thought and we
can opt out or not, is it really binding?
MS. MCGINTY: It is a binding treaty and it's very
important to the President and a principle that he has consistently
put forward is that we are now moving into a period where binding
emissions reductions are absolutely required, certainly.
Q
So there's no -- if five years from now we say it's
going to cost a lot more money --
MS. MCGINTY: Look, there's no treaty in the world that
would require a country to bankrupt itself. And this treaty is no
different than any other treaty in the world in that respect.
2
When does the United States expect to stop
increasing its greenhouse gas emissions and start decreasing them?
How will we know if we're not performing, because the track record so
far is one of saying you are going to meet targets and then missing
them, saying you were going to review them and then postponing them.
When are we going to actually turn the corner and start cutting down?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, let me just say that the whole point
of the series of efforts that we have announced today is to enable us
not to wait until the year 2008, but to move forward now. We are
going to do our level best through providing the tax incentives we've
spoken about, by designing a program that affords credit to
industries for taking early action, by investing in new technologies
to begin to turn those curves just as soon as we can. But we are
moving as ambitiously and as aggressively as we can toward that
target period.
Q
When do you expect U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to
start going down?
MS. MCGINTY: From where they would otherwise be, we
would hope --
2
To stop going up. They're going up. It's a very
simple question.
MS. MCGINTY: You may be on a level of technical detail
that I can't provide.
2
Can anybody say when the emissions are going to
start going down?
Q
The EU has put forward a much stricter proposal and
the developing countries in Bonn just signed a statement saying they
support the EU proposals. So how good do you think the chances are
of getting a treaty out of Kyoto?
MS. MCGINTY: Well, let me underscore, this is a very
difficult undertaking, and the President is addressing it with
tremendous seriousness of purpose, as was referred to here before.
He has worked this issue very hard with leaders from around the
world. Now, I just say and underscore that U.N. processes operate
- 13 -
often, and this one does, on the basis of consensus proposals and
moving forward on a consensus basis.
What we are trying to do here is not only hear the
voices who want to go much quicker, much further, much faster, but
recall that there are many voices out there, too, many countries who
are saying much less, much slower, if not, nothing at all. And what
we are trying to do is provide that leadership that can hopefully
take those two extremes of the debate and find that common ground
that would enable the world to move forward in a reasonable and
effective way in the years post-2000.
&
I don't understand the global thing. Could I just
ask for clarification on what the President today envisages in the
treaty with regard to global obligations from the developing
countries? Would it necessarily be binding targets and timetables,
or could it take another form?
MR. MCCURRY: That's been asked and answered.
Q
That's not been answered.
MR. MCCURRY: It's been answered as well as it's going
to be answered.
Q
The previous proposals on developing countries, do
they still stick? That is, some may -- that the large developing
countries should graduate into commitment, into binding targets?
What's been going on the last six months, does that still hold?
MR. STERN: Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're
referring to, but what I think you are bringing up is the nature of
the problem, which as I said earlier, there is general agreement that
the problem of global warming, of global climate change, is not going
to be resolved without the participation of developing countries.
What, when and exactly what participation will mean is obviously what
our guys are going to be doing in Kyoto, and therefore, it is
premature to indicate exactly what that means.
What we can say, and what the President will say this
afternoon is we will not assume binding emission reduction
obligations without the participation of the developing countries.
Q
On the post-2012 role, you all are saying you are
not taking a specific target. But yesterday environmental groups say
that they were told there would be a five percent reduction as a goal
and then that was abandoned last night. Can you say why that -- the
President backed off that as a specific target?
MS. MCGINTY: That is a number that some of the
environmental community have suggested. We just have not arrived at
a number and are not prepared to discuss one right now.
Q
They said the administration told them that.
That's not true?
MS. MCGINTY: It's a number that I've heard them
discuss.
Q
But you all never told them that?
MS. MCGINTY: No.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
2:04 P.M. EDT
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON AND PRESIDENT CARDOSO AT SIGNING OF
DECLARATION ON EDUCATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brasilia, Brazil)
For Immediate Release
October 14, 1997
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT CARDOSO
AT SIGNING OF DECLARATION ON EDUCATION
Garden of Alvorada Palace
Brasilia, Brazil
1:40 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Mr. President of the United States of
America, William Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, may I say to you
first what a pleasure it is, Mr. President, for me and for Ruth,
my wife, to welcome both you and Mrs. Clinton. And I'd like to
take advantage of this opportunity to state our pleasure, and I'm
quite sure the pleasure of the Brazilian people as a whole. This
is particularly due to the excellent relations between the two of
us, which I think makes it obvious to everyone that there is a
friendship that joins these two Presidents, and that we share a
great many interests -- and by "we," I mean our two peoples.
On both sides, we are interested in ensuring that we will draw
closer together and bring our societies closer together as well in
very practical ways. We've had a number of opportunities in which
to chat. We've covered, I think, just about every problem that was
on our agenda before this meeting, including the most general problems,
such as peace throughout the world; including the possibility of
working together in a number of situations which might require more
direct action on the part of the United States or Brazil -- not just
in our region, of course, but also views were exchanged, opinions were
exchanged about a number of international problems as weil. And I can
assure you that we both agree with regard to the overall objective,
which is to increase the prosperity of people on the Earth as a whole.
of 18
10/21/97 18:32:37
white
House
Database
doc:
It is also our conviction that prosperity is something that needs
to be made a general phenomenon. The prosperity of one nation should
not harm the prosperity of any other nation, and nothing leads us to
believe this. On the contrary; we feel that what's good for Brazil
is good for the United States, and what's good for the United States
is good for Brazil as well.
Just in terms of commercial relations, for example, the United
States is our number one trading partner. But Brazil, as we like to
say, is also a major global trader. We have excellent relations with
the Mercosur countries, other countries in Latin America, with Europe
and Asia, not to mention Africa. And it is with a full understanding
of the comprehensive nature, the global nature of our relationships
that we, in turn, have been able to reach a closer relationship.
We have underscored our commitment to the sort of endeavor
that we have embarked upon, for example, in Mercosur, which is a
very important part of our foreign policy in Brazil, which we
feel to be an example of the success of the work of these four
countries -- Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and now Chile
as well.
Much agreement has been reached with regard to trade, democracy,
keeping peace. And we also believe that by working together we can
move towards the integration of the Americas as a whole in such a way
as to avoid harming our Mercosur interests and in such a way as to
avoid harming the interests of the NAFTA countries. But we should
integrate the hemisphere as a whole in the line with the view that
has already been expressed just a moment ago -- in other words,
prosperity for all is best for each and every one.
On the other hand, it also became quite clear that we agree on
a number of other issues, even at a personal level. For example,
our take on problems is quite similar in our two countries. An example
of that fact can be seen via the declaration that we are now signing
in the area of education, one of the social area endeavors. I was
extremely pleased when I heard President Clinton's State of the Union
address, because he spoke about education and what he said certainly
made me feel quite enthusiastic. What he said moved us. As a former
professor and as two human beings, I'm sure that we agree that
education is an instrument which will allow us to equalize relations
within a society and to do away with so many of the differences and
asymmetries that can exist among countries as well.
In this meeting we would like to reaffirm our full commitment
to all the programs in the educational field as a symbol of our concern
of the social issues. The integration that we are seeking to pursue
as the regional, sub-regional and even at a broader level, as soon as
that becomes timely, is going to be integration that will exclude no
countries, no fragments within countries, either. Integration is
designed to improve the standard of living of the peoples who
integrate.
Another thing that we can go over is a list of key issues that
have to do with, for example, the climate change. President Clinton,
for example, holds the view that I think is quite proper vis a vis
climate change. He talks about shared responsibility. He talks
of 18
10/21/97 18:32:38
about the fact that responsibility should exclude no segment of
humanity because the climate is something that involves the
preservation of the conditions of life for future generations
throughout the planet. So we must come up with mechanisms which
will allow us to reduce the greenhouse gas effect. We should reduce
the greenhouse gases, but in such a way as to ensure that we're not
harming the interests or the development of any country -- the United
States, Brazil or developing countries. These things should be done
in a balanced way to ensure that we will solve the problems and do
so in the best way for our countries, which is what we're going to
try to do in Kyoto in December.
Another thing that we're doing is broadening our cooperation
in the field of space studies in a clear demonstration of a number
of possibilities that exist for cooperation between Brazil and the
United States, certainly in terms of advanced technology.
I don't want to take up too much time, but may I reaffirm the
fact that -- very simply, because we did cover such a broad range of
topics -- the fact that we avoided no single topic is a clear sign that
we can reach an understanding even upon those things that we have some
slight misunderstandings on. And, of course, misunderstandings usually
just reflect the interests of our individual countries that we, of
course, must defend properly, but at the same time in a way which
shows that we have an old friendship, a long-term friendship and
this friendship allows us to deal with these issues in such a way.
I'd like to repeat something I said in the Panalto Palace.
Since the second world war never have we seen so many possibilities
for cooperation in so many broad fields -- certainly nothing compared
to the many opportunities that are opening up for Brazil and the United
States right now, which is why I'm particularly pleased to speak via
the media to the peoples of our countries to reaffirm the tremendous
satisfaction that I feel in being able to welcome this great President,
Bill Clinton, in our country.
Thank you so much. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Let me begin by thanking you and Mrs. Cardoso and the representatives
of your government for the warm welcome you have given to us,
including our very large delegation, the senior members of our
administration, a big percentage of our Cabinet and the distinguished
delegation from Congress. We are delighted to be here.
I believe this visit marks a new phase in the long friendship
between the United States and Brazil. This is clearly a unique moment
of opportunity in the Americas. A quiet revolution is bringing our
hemisphere together around common values of democracy, free markets,
mutual respect and cooperation. It gives us the opportunity to advance
the welfare, the freedom and the security of all of our people in a way
that has not been possible before.
Because we have the largest economies and the most diverse
populations in the hemisphere, Brazil and the United States have
both a special ability and a special responsibility to help lead
the Americas into the 21st century. Under President Cardoso's
leadership, Brazil clearly is meeting that challenge in fulfilling
of 18
10/21/97 18:32:39
white
House
Database
doc:
REMARKS
its destiny as a great nation. Through your own remarkable economic
reforms, your strategic partnership with Argentina, your leadership
in Mercosur and throughout the hemisphere, and increasingly on the
wider international stage, Brazil has helped to consolidate peace
and democracy and to promote prosperity and stability.
Brazil and the United States share a fundamental belief that
opening the markets of our hemisphere to trade and investment is the
best way to create good jobs and strengthen democracy and cooperation
in all our countries.
Three years ago, when we met at the Summit of the Americas in
Miami, we pledged to pursue a free trade area of the Americas by early
in the next century. Today, the President and I agreed that at the
next Summit of the Americas in Santiago, we should launch comprehensive
and balanced negotiations to achieve that goal, turning our common
agenda into a common plan of action.
If I might, I'd like to just speak a moment about what I think
has been the cause of some misunderstanding between our two countries,
which is the question of what the American attitude toward Mercosur is
and what its relationship to our support for a free trade area of the
Americas is.
I support Mercosur. I think it has been a good thing for Brazil,
a good thing for all the member nations, a good thing for stability,
for growth and cooperation in the region, and quite a good thing for
the United States. Our exports to the Mercosur countries have grown
substantially since 1991. And we believe that these sort of regional
trade arrangements everywhere -- if they serve to open borders, to
increase economic activities and to promote growth, promote stability
and opportunity that benefit Americans.
We believe that we can create a free trade area of the Americas
consistent with Mercosur and the leadership and role of Brazil and the
other members in it. So to me, this is a false choice that we don't
intend to ask the Brazilians, the Argentineans, or the other members
of Mercosur to make. We believe we can build on this and go forward
to a free trade area of the Americas.
Trade has produced about a third of the economic growth the
United States has enjoyed since I became President in January of 1993.
And I'm working hard to continue to expand our capacity to trade and
to create good high-wage jobs in our own country by securing the
presidential negotiating authority necessary to tear down more of the
trade barriers of the past so that we can open wider the doors of the
future to good jobs and higher incomes.
Now, let me say that as we promote more free markets and more
free trade, I believe that all of us must work harder to extend their
benefits to all citizens. No great democracy has succeeded in doing
that so far. We know we have to begin by ensuring that all of our
citizens receive the education and training they need to succeed in
this new economy. And I applaud the President's emphasis on education.
The education declaration we have just signed focuses on what I believe
the keys to making education work in both our countries are.
1 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:39
First, high standards for what children must learn and testing to
measure their progress. Second, training our teachers SO that those to
whom we entrust our children's future are, themselves, well-prepared.
Third, intensive parent and community involvement. And fourthly,
something the President has worked very hard on, access to technology
to realize the possibilities of the information age for all our
children.
In the United States we're working hard to make sure that every
classroom and library in our country is hooked up to the Internet by
the year 2000. We're giving discounted rates to our schools so that
they can afford to be on the Internet. And we are finding something
I am certain will be the experience in Brazil as well, and that is
that very often the largest benefit of this technology revolution will
flow to the children who are most in need, who tend to be in isolated
rural or urban school districts where they have not had the chances
and the opportunities many of our other children have. So I think
that the Internet can be an instrument by which we democratize as
well as increase the excellence of educational opportunity.
We've also agreed that we can't have today's progress at
tomorrow's expense. The President talked a little bit about our
common commitment to the environment. The clean energy agreement we
have signed will help Brazil to continue to grow, fueled by renewable
and efficient energy technologies. Our park services will work
together to protect wetlands like the Everglades and the Pantanal
Park in Brazil. We share Brazil's determination to conserve the
Amazon, one of the most wondrous and biologically diverse environmental
habitats in the world. The United States will contribute another
$10 million to the G-7's cooperative program with Brazil to sustain
the rainforests. And we will help Brazil to put 21st century
technology into this effort, including research done by Brazilians
in space.
The fires throughout the Amazon have added urgency to these
efforts, and the uncertainties about the climatic effects of this
El Nino, both in South America and in the United States, have also
added urgency to our efforts.
We did, as the President said, discuss the challenge of climate
change. Five years ago in Rio, the world community began to chart a
common course to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to
global warming. Developed countries have a special responsibility
to lead. I told President Cardoso that the United States will meet
that responsibility with a commitment to limit our emissions when we
meet in Kyoto on December the 6th. But as we do our part, I believe
so, too, must the developing world. Climate change, after all, is
a global problem that requires a global solution.
So here is the question, it seems to me -- and I would like to
talk a little about this because I think it's quite important I
think it's very important that the people of Brazil understand that
just as with the trade issue and Mercosur, the United States would
never knowingly make any suggestion that would undermine the growth
of Brazil or any other country. It is not in our interest. We,
after all, only have 4 percent of world's people. We enjoy a very
high standard of living. We can only maintain our own standard of
living if you grow. If there are more good jobs for Brazilians,
higher incomes, more people are brought into the social compact in
this country, then you can be a stronger partner, not only for us,
of 18
10/21/97 18:32:40
white House Database doc:
19930119+19971021%29%298cuse_lnyp=
but for your neighbors in this continent and throughout the world.
So our strategy is to aggressively support the growth of the
emerging economies of the world, the strength of their democracies,
and our capacity to cooperate together. I do not believe that any
reasonable person can look at the world of today and imagine the
world of tomorrow and believe that America can gain by someone else's
economic loss. We have an interest in finding a way to grow together.
By the same token, the world will not gain if some countries
limit their greenhouse gas emissions and other countries grow in the
same old way with the same old energy base so that the climate
continues to warm more rapidly than it has at any time in the last
10,000 years.
So what we want to do is to find a way for the developing
countries to fulfill their responsibilities within the framework of
Kyoto, recognizing that those of us in developed countries must do
more, but that we must all participate. And we want to be very
explicit that any participation on your part would not come at the
expense of economic growth.
Developing nations have an opportunity to chart a different
energy future than some of the developed countries. And if we share
our technology and we share our knowledge, then we can achieve that.
This is very important.
Brazil has already gone a long way toward proving this
point, because you have developed SO many non-traditional fuels,
biologically-based fuels, for running your vehicles. So you have
given evidence to the general point that I hope will be embraced by
all the countries of the developing world. And I encourage that.
Finally, let me say, we talked about expanding our
cooperation in regional and global security, and I want to say a
word of appreciation to Brazil as the guarantor of the Peru-Ecuador
peace process, and appreciation for its historic decision to join
the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to sign the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. In all these actions, Brazil has taken its place
as a world leader for peace and security.
Today, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty we signed will help
us to crack down on drug production and trafficking and fight
transnational crime in a way that benefits all of our people.
President Cardoso said two years ago when he visited me at the
White House and I quote "The vocation of Brazil and the United
States is to stand together." I believe we stand together today as
never before. The issues we face are central to the well-being of
both our peoples. The fate of our hemisphere, with strong democracies,
a commitment to fight crime and drugs, to work for lasting peace,
the future of the new economy, preparing our people for the 21st
century -- that's what this trip is all about. These are all
objectives we share, and they really matter to ordinary citizens
in both our nations and throughout this hemisphere.
6 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:41
Thank you. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: President Clinton, I'd like to ask you to
begin if you don't mind.
Q Mr. President, Attorney General Reno has made her decision
and will extend her inquiry into your telephone fundraising to
determine whether a special counsel should be named. How do you
feel about that hanging over you for another 60 days at least?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I feel nothing about it. There is a law
and there are facts. And I feel that it would be much better is she
were permitted to do her job. I know I didn't do anything wrong.
I did everything I could to comply with the law. I feel good about
it. But I told you yesterday, the thing I don't feel good about is
the overt, explicit, overbearing attempt to politicize this whole
process and to put pressure on more than one actor in it. That's
wrong. There's a law. There's a fact-finding process. And I'm
going to cooperate with it in every way I possibly can.
I Mr. Clinton, will the recent -- between the European Union
and Mercosur affect how you formulate your strategy for commerce
in the Americas?
And for President Fernando Enrique, the question is, what is the
relative importance of Europe as far as Brazil's commercial strategy
or trade strategies concerned, especially vis a vis the United States?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, if I were in Brazil I
would be trying to sell as much as I could to America and to Europe.
I think that's the way this market works. Both the European Union
and the United States have increased our exports to Brazil and to the
Mercosur countries in the last few years markedly. So I don't feel
threatened by it, I just want to make sure we're fully competing.
And if we don't fully compete, it will be our fault, not yours and
not Europe's.
That's one of the reasons that I'm seeking fast track authority.
It's up to the United States to decide whether it's going to be a fully
competitive nation, but we have -- in the last two years, for the first
time in a long time, more than half our new jobs have come in the
higher wage categories. And it's the direct result of our aggressive
pursuit of trade opportunities.
So I'm prepared to compete and all I want is a fair chance to
compete with the Europeans here or anywhere else. But I don't see that
as a bad thing. If I were in your position, I'd be trying to sell more
to everybody.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Well, : believe that what President Clinton
said is most helpful to us. The more competition we have between the
United States and Europe for trade, the better it is for US because it
makes our products much cheaper. So I agree with President Clinton.
It is true that Brazil's number one individual client is the United
States today. But the European Union, as a whole, or taken as. a whole,
imports and exports a bit more than the United States, actually. We
7 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:45
are now, as [ said before and I'm going to repeat this, global traders.
We actually trade with a number of countries and areas throughout the
world and we're very interested in increasing these trade flows.
With regard to the United States, we have increased such trade
flows. Unfortunately, we have an increasing trade deficit as a result
of the increased trade with the United States. So we have to review
this situation and try to balance it better to the benefit of both.
We want to increase imports and exports. We don't want a zero-sum game
and we don't want a game in which one loses and the other wins. We
want a win-win situation in the trade arena.
That is why we say that our trade policy with Europe is
very active. It will continue to be very active. But I agree
wholeheartedly with President Clinton -- we cannot think about
such economic blocks as isolated fortresses. They have been
designed to increase trade, and we're going to take advantage
of every opportunity that we can find to intensify our trade
abroad, to sell things abroad. We will do so whenever we can.
We're not going to close off our economy because our
competitiveness, our progress in the area of technology and the
cheapening of the products for own people depend on such trade.
Thank you.
2 Mr. President, in Venezuela your discussions included
alternative energy sources. Here you've also discussed safe or
clean energy sources. I wonder, given that in the United States
there is opportunity for improvement in the area of both energy
incentives and also reducing the amount of emissions, do you find
it difficult to discuss this topic while abroad?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, because I don't think the two things are
inconsistent. I think we are -- a real responsibility in the United
States to do energy conversion. We were on that path, ironically,
20 years ago, when our experts underestimated the amount of natural
gas reserves that would be available to us in the United States and
throughout the world. And we thought we could move to a clean coal
technology and do the job. We now know that that decision was not
accurate. But the people who made the decisions 20 years ago did
it based on the best evidence they had at the time.
So I think we're going to have more reliance on natural gas and
other forms of energy that are even cleaner. And we have to do more
conservation. If you were there at the climate change conference we
had at Georgetown a couple of weeks ago, we learned, among other
things, that two-thirds of all the heat generated in the production
of electricity is wasted. If we can recover half of that waste heat,
we will generate enormous new capacity for growth without adding one
single pollutant in the form of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
So we've got a lot to do on our own account.
But as I said -- let me reiterate what I said. What I want to
do is to try to help the developing countries grow their economy just
as fast as would otherwise be the case, but chart a different energy
future than the one we charted in the past when we were at the same
stage of development. And the question is, can they do that. I think
it's absolutely clear, crystal clear that they can.
8 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:46
And this is a big problem. In China today, bronchial disease is,
among children, the number one health problem for kids in the country
already. So I want the Chinese economy to grow and the Chinese people
to prosper, but I think they should choose a different energy course
for the same growth. And I think they can and we should be trying to
help them. If we don't do it, then no matter what we in the developed
countries do, within 30 to 40 years we'll be right back in the same
pickle we're in today, except worse.
Q I have two questions for both Presidents. For President
Clinton, since 1995 both governments have worked on the bilateral trade
with you, but so far they have no concrete results. And the perception
is that Brazil is still complaining about trade barriers and better
access to the U.S. market. So I'd like to know if both Presidents
have now a new orientation toward a new phase in the trade bilateral
relationship.
For President Fernando Enrique, my question is, if there is no
fast track authority, if this is not granted, would Brazil be willing
to negotiate -- if there is no fast track, do you believe that there
will be an continuity in the negotiations of FTAA? And if there isn't,
would Mercosur take on this role -- in other words, the role of the
principal protagonist in terms of trade in the region?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: I don't want to make any bets on American
policy. If there is going to be this sort of a policy or not is the
United States' problem. I think that President Clinton is going to
be in a position to get the fast track authority he wants.
But integration, whether we're talking about integration
throughout the hemisphere or Mercosur, are two processes that are
very interesting to our economies, quite apart from any political
issues, which will simply decide the speed at which such issues are
decided.
So what President Clinton said was crystal clear when he talked
about his view of Mercosur and FTAA. He said there is no clash between
the two; there is no opposition. There is simply a situation, and we
have to give ourselves enough time so that we will be in a position to
prepare for increased competition. It's just a matter of time,
procedures, so that we will be in a position to participate fully in
conversations and understandings.
So with or without a fast track authority, the question is, is it
good or bad for us to increase international trade, and the answer is
always the same -- it's always good to increase international trade.
So I would say that the other factors are just conditioning factors,
but the key objectives are out there and they're unchanging.
We will continue to work to our utmost to consolidate Mercosur,
but simultaneously to work on the FTAA. We signed an agreement in
Miami -- I didn't sign it myself personally, but I was just the
President-elect, but President Clinton was kind enough to ask me to
come and observe. And this is not just a commitment on paper. It's
a real commitment -- we really want to increase our trade foundation.
9 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:47
Now, people are talking about the United States, Europe and so
forth -- trade is trade. We have to look at things one question at
a time, how we're going to deal with the interests that are being
affected, how can we build bridges in such a way as to benefit the
parties involved. All of this involves a long construction process.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all, I would only add
to what the President said that I believe, and I think he believes,
as well, that if we can proceed with this free trade area of the
Americas, it's also a way of stabilizing the democratic governments of
many smaller countries in our hemisphere and giving them some assurance
that, if they stay with democracy and reform, their people will also be
able to reap some economic benefit from it.
So I think it is important that Brazil assume a leadership role
in this fashioning of this whole agreement. And I hope they will,
because I think what we're trying to do is to say, this is, first and
foremost, about economics, but economics supports freedom and democracy
and stability if we do it properly.
Now, on the question you asked me, the trade question, let me
just briefly say, we went over the specific trade issues that Brazil
has with the United States and the specific trade issues the United
States has with Brazil. And we -- obviously, neither one of us are
trade negotiators and these are somewhat specific and, in some cases,
almost arcane issues involved, but what we did do is we resolved that
we would give both sides instruction that we want these matters resolved
if at all possible and as quickly as possible. They're dragging on,
they're an irritant to our relationship. And they're, in the context
of our larger objective, a negative rather than a positive force and
we'd like to have them resolved. And that's basically the decision
we made.
2 Mr. President, just to go back for a moment to Janet Reno and
her investigation I'm wondering if you can tell us, has this whole
affair complicated your relationship with her and your ability to
actually function with your highest ranking law enforcement official?
For instance, do you find yourself not talking to her because you're
hesitant to have too much contact with the Attorney General?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I don't really have anything to add
to what I said yesterday about that. I think you all are perfectly
capable of drawing your own conclusions and evaluating whether this
puts our political system in balance or out of balance, and I don't
think that we should discuss it here.
The most important thing is we've got a law; we've got a
fact-finding process. The fact-finding process should proceed with
integrity; the law should be implemented without pressure either way.
I am doing my part. I wish others were doing as well.
I Mr. Fernando Enrique, I hope you don't mind if I ask
Mr. Clinton the question. Mr. President, your visit was preceded
by diplomatic turmoil. A document was disseminated that said that
Brazilian corruption was endemic. This was commented on by the
American Ambassador and his comments made things worse. The head of
the Supreme Tribunal, the Superior Court in Brazil reacted badly,
as did some other people in the federal government -- even a governor
10 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:48
of a federal district. And they also reacted not just to this issue,
but to a number of other issues in which excess security was demanded
by some of your advisors.
Brazilian authorities called this people's attitude rather
aggressive. Not only authorities, but people as a whole in Brazil
felt that they had been badly mistreated. I would like to know your
view, sir. Do you think there was any exaggeration? Do you think
there were any diplomatic mishaps in this situation?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I became aware of tis
document and the characterization of the Brazilian culture after it had
been released. The document was wrong and it represented an appalling
error of judgment for anybody to write such a thing. It has been
decisively rejected by every American authority, beginning with the
Ambassador here now. And it has been excised from the document.
So I regret very much that it happened, but once in a while such
a thing may even happen in Brazil, where someone who works for some
agency will put out something in printing which shouldn't happen.
I can only ask the Brazilian people not to infer that that is the
feeling of either the government or, more importantly, the people of
the United States toward Brazil. I assure you that no Brazilian could
have been any more upset about it than I was. I thought it was terrible
and I did everything I could to correct it.
Now, in terms of the trip here, I just don't have enough facts
to know. I know that our people historically, because of the problems
that have periodically affected our Presidents -- always on our own
home turf, I might add, always when we're at home -- that the security
for an American President often seems to others to be too rigid and
too uncompromising. But, as I said, we've never had problems with our
Presidents' security in a foreign country, but we've had enough problems
at home over the last 35 years and before that I hope you will at least
understand that. But I try to make sure that our people are as
understanding and cooperative with the people in every country and
community they visit as possible, and I hope they have been. That's
all I can say. I don't know the facts.
Q Sir, does it embarrass you when these questions about
fundraising follow you on foreign trips, as they have on this
one, or does it embarrass the country?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I can't be embarrassed by other people's
judgment. I have no control over what you decide to ask about. That's
your decision, not mine. That's a question you should ask somebody
besides me. I didn't have anything to do with what was asked. I think
other people sometimes in other countries wonder what it's all about,
especially when everyone concedes that there was no request or improper
public action in any way, nor did any occur as a result of whatever
communications are in dispute.
But that's a decision for you. You have to decide what questions
you're going to ask. I can't be embarrassed about how you decide to do
your job.
2 I have a question that : want to ask both Presidents. People
11 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:49
White House Database doc: REMARKS
IGNING
OF
who monitor relations between Brazil and the United States feel that
the problems that we have had most recently are often exacerbated by
the bureaucracies of our two countries simply because there's not
enough involvement of the Presidents and the leaders of the two
countries. This is criticism that's been leveled against our countries.
I wonder if you would agree.
The United States has a difficulty being a superpower, and the
only superpower, to deal with an emerging power in the Americas that
is asserting its leadership as a democracy as a freer market. Former
Secretary Kissinger told me recently that he believed that really you
have to adapt, because you are not used to that. You have to adapt
intellectually to that. I'd like you to talk about this issue.
Does our emerging role bother Americans or the United States of
America?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Well, at least as far as the Brazilian side
is concerned, I was so very pleased because the touchiest issues are
always being brought up for President Clinton. No one is asking me
these touchy questions. I was so pleased up until now.
However, my involvement and President Clinton's involvement
can only be that of people who are involved at a very general level
involving problems between our two countries. Of course, there are
always going to be some sort of bureaucratic problems, but I'm quite
sure that we can deal with them quite easily. I think bureaucratic
problems and red tape dissolve as soon as people see the warmth of our
warm and direct personal relations, which are much more important than
any bureaucratic entanglement.
Now, of course, we do understand fully that for security reasons,
you do have some problems of your own. Luckily enough, we in Brazil
don't have to face these major threats. It's not the case of every
country. The United States particularly has had to face some very
difficult situations. Of course, our security forces try to pay
attention at all times in Brazil. But I'm always breaking the rules
in Brazil and so far nothing has ever happened and things are very
tranquil and I'm sure they 11 continue to be so in the future.
But I'm quite sure that anything that comes up can be dealt with
quite easily because of the warmth and the openness that President
Clinton and Mrs. Clinton have shown to us in Brazil at all times.
They have shown to all Brazilians that their trip is an open-hearted
visit.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd actually like to respond, if I might,
to both your questions. Because the question you asked the President,
I think the answer to your question is a lot of people who work in
government bureaucracies the world over are following established
policies, and they tend to acquire an interest in maintaining the
established policies, and most of them don't have the authority to
change it, which is why these kind of personal relationships are so
important. Because it's our responsibility if we want to change the
direction of the country not to blame the people who work for us -- and
particularly the people who many not even be political appointees, they
work through from one administration to another -- but to try to give
different instructions, to send different messages down there.
¹² of 18
10/21/97 18:32:50
And that's why -- sometimes I think, with all respect, sometimes
members of the press and even our own publics say, well, why did they
spend all that money and do that foreign trip, all the money we spent
to come here, all the money we spent to entertain us -- why did they
do all that? There didn't seem to be an great earth-shaking specific
agreement. And the main reason is the very thing you said -- that we
have to increase understanding, we have to increase sensitivity. And
even subtle shifts in our position can send a different message to
those down in the governmental hierarchies that have to implement
these decisions on a daily basis. So I think that's a very good
question.
The second thing is, does the United States, at the end of the
Cold War left as being the world's only superpower, feel threatened by
the emergence of Brazil or any other country. The answer to that is,
I actually support the emergence of countries to a greater role of
influence and responsibilities, as long as they share our basic
values -- not agree with us on everything, but share our basic values.
If they're committed to freedom and democracy, if they're
committed to open trading systems, if they're committed to giving all
their people a chance to participate in the wealth that the global
economy generates, if they're committed to a responsible global approach
on the environment, if they're committed to working with us against
threats that cross national borders -- terrorism, weapons proliferation,
criminal syndicates and drug trafficking -- if they're committed to
those things, then I don't see this as competition. I see this as
people emerging to take on more responsibility. And if we work
together, more good will happen.
I'll give you another example. When I became President, there was
the question of whether the United States would object if, in addition
to NATO in Europe, there were an independent European security force
working with NATO. And I made it clear from the beginning, I support
this. I don't see these things as competing.
We have to change because most of the threats to nations in the
years ahead will come not from other nations, but from threats that
cross national borders -- guerrillas, terrorists, weapons proliferation,
drugs, crime, environmental and disease problems -- number one. And
because most of the benefits that nations can derive for their people
require them to cooperate with people beyond their borders, we will have
to change our conception of how national power and influence is
acquired.
National power and influence is acquired, ironically, by becoming
more interdependent and cooperative with others who are strong and
self-sufficient and self-reliant, but need to be allied with you.
And I do believe, frankly, that this will require a big change in the
way people look at politics -- not just in the United States, but
elsewhere.
2 Since you spoke yesterday on Air Force One, it's been reported
that the White House and the Justice Department have been negotiating to
figure out a way that you could speak to investigators about campaign
finance. Have you reached such an agreement? And under what conditions
would you speak to the Justice Department?
:3 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:51
white
House
Database
doc:
OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I know nothing about that I didn't say
yesterday. I literally -- no one has talked to me about it and I know
nothing to add to what I said yesterday.
I Mr. President, Mr. President of Brazil, Fernando Enrique
Cardoso, Brazil defends negotiations with the FTAA in complementation to
tariff laws. Now, what complements are we talking about specifically as
long as Brazil adheres to the calendar?
And for President Bill Clinton, last night, Mr. Clinton, you said
that you felt touched by Brazil and had felt touched by Brazil for over
30 years. Have you been touched enough to say that you're going to give
support to Brazil's candidacy on the Security Council so that Brazil
will become a full member of the Group of Nine as well next year?
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: Okay, I'm going to break a couple of the rules
here once again. Go ahead, one last additional question, very, very
quickly before we answer.
I The United States government wants that Brazil open the
Brazilian market, but there are many restrictions against Brazilian
products, like oranges. My question is, why not the USA don't change
the situation, keep the situation and allow the free commerce for many
Brazilian companies?
Fernando Cardoso, I would like to know what the Brazilian
government's view on these non-tariff barriers against a number of
Brazilian products that are trying to get into the U.S. market.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: All right, I'm going to begin by answering the
question on the additional agreements or side agreements to the FTAA. I
think that President Clinton talked about his views very clearly when he
talked about the meaning of the overall proposal for hemisphere-wide
integration. And he made his comments in a way that I think was quite
proper.
He said it's not just a matter of tariffs -- I'm going to talk
about the tariffs in a minute -- but it's not just a matter of tariffs.
It's a much broader concept that we're fighting for here, because we're
talking about the fact that there are some political considerations that
come into play. And, of course, political considerations are based on
values -- a common desire, a shared desire to keep the peace, to control
drug trafficking, to avoid criminal activities on the international
level or in the international sphere.
So we're not just talking about trade here, so much so that what
we proposed in the meetings that we've had thus far and that we're going
to continue to have over the next few days, is that the key topic be
education. And in Santiago, we're going to keep insisting on education
as the key issue, because people can say, all right, very generously,
let's talk about something that will move people, but that means that
we have to talk about something that goes beyond tariffs.
Tariffs, of course, are very important to countries and their
economies and especially interesting to specialists. But countries have
much more that they talk about and disagree with in the area of
14 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:52
international relations aside from tariffs. And SO we have to talk
about things that will bring our people closer together.
Education is ideal because the basic tenet of education is
equality, and I think that what President Clinton said here pretty much
follows along the same line of thought. And we do not want to limit our
relationship to issues that don't even require a meeting between
Presidents, because technical-level meetings will be enough.
What we are here to express and symbolize is something far
greater than this. It's the desire for democracy and greater
equality. A country such as Brazil that has no reason to hide its
problems, especially our social problems, which are SO great in nature,
is in a position to want very much to improve the standard of living of
its people. Within Mercosur, outside of Mercosur, we're very interested
in seeing that all agreements be broader in scope, just as President
Clinton just said.
So with regard to the specific issues that were brought up -- you
talked about steel and orange juice and footwear and -- everywhere
throughout Latin America where President Clinton goes, he's going to
hear the same issues being brought up. And elsewhere as well, because
the French, the Japanese, the British, they all have the same problems.
To the degree that our countries move forward and progress, especially
Brazil, where the industry sector is growing rapidly, of course we're
going to begin to compete and problems and are going to crop up. And,
of course, some moment in time is going to require arbitration of some
nature, which is not meant to be just political in nature. But the
greater our understanding is, the better our possibilities will be of
reaching an understanding as to these issues.
Now, there are specific points on the agenda of demands of our
two countries that neither one of us have really talked about them much.
Some were brought up now, but we both know what they are. And when
President Clinton goes back to the United States, people are going to
ask him, did they ask you about this, that, or the other. I'm not even
going to mention what they are. He's going to say, yes, I did talk to
President Cardoso about it. What did he say? Well, President Cardoso
said he's going to give utmost consideration to these issues. And
that's what I'm going to say to you. We're both going to work hard
to try to solve these issues.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say again, on balance, the United
States has a lower tariff structure than virtually any country in the
world, and fewer restrictions on trade than the European Union, for
example. And I hope we can work these last remaining areas out. If you
think about how big and complicated our countries are and the fact that
we have now two-way trade in the neighborhood of $23 billion a year.
The number of disputes is actually relatively small and I'm encouraged
by that.
I'm not going to ignore the gentleman's clever question on the
United Nations. First of all, you should know that today Brazil has
been elected to a two-year term on the Security Council.
Congratulations, Mr. President, that's a very good thing for the
United Nations, as well as for Brazil.
The United States' position has been that the Security Council
15 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:53
White House Database doc: REMARKS
IGNING
OF
ought to be expanded, that a permanent seat ought to be given to Latin
America, and that the Latin American nations themselves should resolve
how that permanent seat should be filled. This really is one of those
areas where I don't think it's our place to tell the people of Latin
America how to proceed here. I hope we will proceed and give a
permanent seat on the Security Council to Latin America, because I
think that the actions of the last several years clearly warrant that.
And, again, that's another one of those questions like the gentleman
who asked me about Brazil's emergence. The more there is a stable,
constructive presence in global affairs presented by Latin America,
the better off the world's going to be.
2 Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon. Based on your
comments yesterday on Air Force One, sir, it would seem that you've
been briefed on the videotapes that are soon to be released. What is
your understanding of what's on them? And is there anything on them
that causes you any concern?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, I think it's the same old stuff. As I
said, those of you who have been going to the fundraisers with me,
you've already seen it live so the replay will probably be boring
for you. That's what I understand and I'm not worried about it.
I Mr. President -- are already saying that -- (inaudible.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I've not made a decision yet about what to
do. But let me say this, I intend to take a strong position there
and I expect to probably be criticized by all sides. The United States,
as our friends in Europe are well aware, is in a particularly difficult
position when the benchmark is 1990, for three reasons.
Number one, we've had economic growth since 1990 far greater
than Europe, so our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up more,
which means we have more to do to go down. Number two, the Europeans
are -- particularly if they're treated together --benefit from the
incorporation of East Germany into Germany and the dramatic drop in
production in East Germany, which has a high level of pollution.
Therefore, they get a big reduction in pollution for something that -
not because of any independent policy action taken, but because of
the incorporation of East Germany into Germany.
And, thirdly, the presence of the North Sea oil for Great Britain
gave Britain the ability to sell the oil, which is relatively polluting
to other countries and keep the natural gas, which is quite clean, and
substitute that for coal. So using the 1990 base mark, they have a lot
of inherent advantages over the United States in terms of the degree of
rigor required to meet any given target.
Nonetheless, I think there's so much we can do through technology
and different purchasing patterns and conservation patterns, that I
think that we can do quite a great deal. And I intend to propose that
we do a great deal. What I'm trying to do is to put together a
comprehensive agreement in Kyoto that will actually do what everybody
wants, which is do reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
substantially in the next century.
Right now we're at about double the volume of greenhouse gases
in of 18
10/21/97 18:32:55
in the atmosphere that existed before the dawn of the Industrial Age.
If we don't do something we'll be triple the volume by the middle of
the next century. And we know that something bad will happen. Even
though the skeptics on the other side say we don't know exactly what
and when, we know enough to know it's not going to be good, and we've
seen enough evidence of that so far.
So I'm going to have a credible plan. I'm going to do my best
to get everybody involved in it. I hope I'll even have some success
at selling it to the Congress. Right now, it may be a lot easier to
sell it to the environmentalists and to the business community than
to sell it to the Congress, but I'll do my best.
I Mr. President, have you decided against using your line item
veto authority? And am I mistaken, or is this becoming habit forming?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it's not habit forming but, yes, I used
it again today -- as I told you yesterday I would -- on I can't remember
how many projects, but more than a dozen worth more than $140 million
that were not either in my budget or recommended by the Department of
Defense. I thought it was appropriate.
I know that a lot of members that voted for the line item veto
in Congress now wonder whether they did the right thing, now that I'm
exercising it. But I'd like to remind you that, again, I have deferred,
in great measure, to Congress. Congress put in 750 projects not
requested in our budget or in the Defense Department plan, and reduced
overall weapons procurement, reduced overall research and development
to pay for virtually all of them.
And I'm hoping that in the years ahead I won't be using it as
much and future Presidents won't use it as much because it will lead
to a different kind of negotiation in the budgeting process.
But I think what I did today was responsible and quite restrained.
And I believe that it's important to send a signal to the American
people that we're going to stay on the budget track we started on,
and we're going to stay within these numbers and balance the budget.
That's one of the things that's given us the big economy we've got.
PRESIDENT CARDOSO: I'd like to thank all the Brazilian and
American journalists for having joined us and for being SO good
about answering all our questions. And may I say that the emphasis
that President Clinton has put on the environmental issue is one that
I would like to bring up for Brazil as well. We have an energy matrix
that is very, very clean. We use hydro power and now gas, natural gas.
And we are strengthening our links with regard to the energy matrix
throughout the rest of Latin America. So I think that our dialogue
in terms of climate has been extremely positive.
Thank you to everyone.
END
2:35 P.M. (L)
:7 of 18
10/21/97 18:32:56
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DNC YOUNG DEMOCRATS COUNCIL RECEPTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
For Immediate Release
October 8, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT DNC YOUNG DEMOCRATS COUNCIL RECEPTION
CoreStates Arena
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7:52 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: First let me thank my good friend, Steve Grossman,
for the hard work he's done as Chair of our party. And I want to
ask him and our national Finance Chair, Alan Solomont, who is here,
who is also from Boston -- I appreciate what they said about
Philadelphia in Philadelphia. Please don't ever say it in Boston.
(Laughter.) We're trying to hold both beachheads in a tough time.
Let me say to the Mayor, Philadelphia has a wonderful Mayor,
flack, promoter, arm twister, and leader in Ed Rendell. He always
thinks -- (applause.) He's never ashamed to ask for the business,
and I like that. And I feel pretty good at this podium. (Applause.)
Somewhat to my regret, I will not be the nominee of our party in
2000. (Laughter.) And so, ultimately, it will not be my decision
to make, but I will say this -- the last time we had a convention
in Philadelphia, in 1948, it worked out pretty well for us.
(Applause.) And I like that.
I'd like to thank the Saxophone Club and the Young Democrats
from Philadelphia, tonight's co-chairs, Lou Magazzu, Don Schroeder,
Jill Ross-Stein, Jerry McCabe, and David Maser, and all of you who
worked hard to make this a success. I'd like to thank you for
coming here and for your good spirits, and for helping us to take
this country in a new direction.
of 5
10/21/97 18:35:42
Through you, I would like to thank the people of Philadelphia who
gave me nearly 80 percent of the vote here in the last election.
I am very grateful for that. (Applause.) And the people of
Pennsylvania, for twice supporting A1 Gore and me and our
administration and what we were trying to do.
Last week was the sixth anniversary of my declaration for
the presidency, back in October of 1991. It's hard for me to
believe that six years have passed and that almost five-eighths of
my presidency is behind me. But I am very proud of what we've been
able to do together. And I did it mostly for the young people of
this country and for the future of this country -- because I wanted
you to -- (applause) -- I believed that if we changed the direction
of America we could create a nation in the 21st century where the
American Dream really was alive for every person, without regard
to race or gender or background, everybody who was willing to work
for it.
I believe that we can create an America still leading
the world toward peace and freedom and democracy and prosperity.
And I believe we can create an America out of all of our diversity
where we celebrate our differences and respect our differences and
we're still bound together as one America -- a stunning challenge
to all those countries where people are killing each other because
of their differences. And that's what I want for you and your
future and our children's future. (Applause.)
It seems hard for me to believe it was six years ago. I said,
okay, let's all get together and work at this and we'll change this
country. We will pursue a course based on the future, not the past;
based on change, not the status quo; based on unity, not division;
based on helping everybody, not just a few; based on leading, not
following. And we'll have a government that doesn't try to do
everything, but doesn't walk away from our challenges, either.
And we'll change this country. And six years later, look at
what's happened. In four years and eight months in office we've
got over 13 million new jobs and the strongest economy in a
generation; a lot of our most distressed neighborhoods are
beginning to come back. (Applause.)
We just learned today that last month alone -- in one
month -- there were 250,000 people who moved from welfare to
work. (Applause.) That there has been a 26 percent reduction
in the number of people who were living on welfare, moving
instead into families living on pay checks -- the biggest drop
in the history of the country. Five years of declining crime,
thanks to the efforts of people like Mayor Rendell who took those
police officers and put them on the streets in community policing
programs.
This country has a stronger and cleaner environment than
it had five years ago. This country has a smaller government
and stronger partnerships with cities and states and the private
sector. But we also stood against the Contract On America and
the attempt to take away the things that bind us together as a
country -- our common commitments to education, to the environment,
to the health of our children, and to the future of our country.
(Applause.) That's what this was about.
2 of 5
10/21/97 18:35:43
And as we look ahead, we've still got a lot of challenges
ahead of us and a lot of things I hope we can do to build that
bridge to the 21st century before we begin to celebrate the
millennium in 2000, and I have to depart in January of 2001.
And I just want to mention three or four of them now.
First of all, all of you are here at this Saxophone Club
Young Democrats event at ticket prices of $25 to $100. It's my
favorite group. We started this when I was running for President -
the Saxophone Club. A young American with a great idea started it
and we tried to promote it all over the country. (Applause.) If
we can get the other party to stop trying to kill campaign finance
reform in the Senate we could all raise all of our money this way
and be on an equal footing and we'd see who had more bodies, more
citizens, more people, more voices and better ideas. And I hope
you'll help us do it. (Applause.)
Secondly, we have a great challenge before us long-term
that will affect the youngest people in this audience I'm convinced
in your lifetime if we don't do something about it. And that is
confronting the challenge to the change in our climate by the
warming that is going on all across the Earth as we put more
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Now, what the challenge
is, is for us to figure out a way to do less of it without throwing
people out of work, without diminishing incomes, without cutting
off future growth. Can we do it? You bet we can.
Don't let anybody tell you that we can't improve our
environment and still grow the economy. Two-thirds -- let me
just give you one example -- two-thirds of all the heat generated
by electric power plants is wasted -- two-thirds. Of all the
inputs of coal and oil, only one-third of it goes to actually
giving you electricity you can use for heating or cooling or
lighting or for manufacturing purposes. What happened to the
other two-thirds? If we go get it back, we'll be putting less
into the atmosphere that warms the atmosphere and compromises
the future of our children and grandchildren.
So I ask you to help me in that. The young people of America
have been the strongest environmentalists, and yet, we owe it to
you to give you a strong economy. We have to find a way to do both.
I know we can and I need your help to do it and to send a message
loud and clear: We do not want to have to make a choice in the
21st century and we refuse to do SO. We can clean our environment
and grow our economy and we're determined to do it. (Applause.)
The third thing that I would ask you to do in thinking about
the future is to support our efforts to continue to lead the world
toward peace and freedom and prosperity. I know most Americans
believe on a daily basis that what happens halfway around the world
doesn't affect them -- but it does. Not just in the climate changes,
which affect us all no matter where the problems occur, but in
other ways as well.
If we had not .stepped in to stop the slaughter in Bosnia,
eventually the United States would have been pulled in = a wider,
deeper conflict in Europe, and more American lives would have been
put at risk. If we had not stepped in to try to restore democracy
in Haiti, eventually we would have had much more disruption on our
3 of 5
10/21/97 18:35:44
white House Database doc: REMARKS
own shores and much more human destruction on the island of Haiti
that we would have been forced to come to grips with.
If we don't continue to try to reach out and trade on
honorable and fair terms to sell more American products in
Latin America and Asia and Africa and the other growing countries
of the world, not only will we see other countries with weaker
economies and weaker democracies, we won't grow as wealthy as we
would grow. Because we only have 4 percent of the people in the
world, we have to sell to the other 96 percent. These things matter.
It matters that we're banning chemical weapons. It matters
that we're trying to do something about land mines. It matters
that we're trying to stop nuclear testing for all times. It matters
that we're trying to make this a safer, freer, more prosperous world.
And someone has to take the initiative.
So all of you who are young -- you look around here at the
students who are here who come from all these different heritages
and backgrounds -- you should want your country out there working
for peace in the Middle East, peace in Northern Ireland, to continue
to make the peace in Bosnia hold. You should want your country out
there working to reduce the nuclear threat, to fight terrorism,
and to take the lead in global efforts to grow the economy and
preserve the environment. And you have to develop this attitude.
Just like you see people from all over the world in Philadelphia -
that is our meal ticket to the future, if we relate to the rest of
the world in a constructive and friendly and strong way.
So I ask you -- say we want America to lead the world, not to
follow, and we will support that. That's part of the new Democratic
Party we're trying to build. (Applause.)
Finally, and most importantly, let me come back to where
I began. The biggest challenge we face is to embrace our diversity,
celebrate our diversity, respect our differences -- our racial,
our ethnic, our religious, all our other differences -- and say
that still the most important thing is we can find common ground
as one America.
When you look at the time I spend as your President, trying to
stop people from Bosnia to Burundi and Rwanda, from the Middle East
to Northern Ireland -- people who look as different as daylight and
dark, united only by one thing -- they are caught in the grips of
ethnic or religious or racial hatred, and it dominates their lives
and destroys their countries -- we can stand as a shining alternative
to that.
One of our school districts, the one just across the Potomac
River from Washington -- Fairfax County -- now has students in the
public school district from 182 different countries, speaking over
100 different languages. One school district. Many -- I'll bet you
the number is not much smaller in Philadelphia. I know it's not in
New York or Chicago or Los Angeles. The point is we are really
becoming the world's first truly multiracial, multiethnic democracy
in the sense that here, we all, more or less, live and work together.
And yet we know that there continue to be problems that civide us.
.1 of 5
10/21/97 18:35:45
That's why I had this national advisory board on race,
and I asked the American people to join me in trying to deal
with our racial differences. And we know that not everybody
has an equal economic and educational opportunity. We know
there are still some neighborhoods where all this economic
recovery has not reached. We know there are still some schools
that are not doing the job they should be doing for their children.
We know, in other words, that our ideal of liberty, which was forged
in Philadelphia around the Liberty Bell so long ago, is still not
real for everyone.
This country will always be a work in progress. But as we
move into a global information age, where not only the changes
in the economy and technology, but the changes in how we live and
patterns of immigration have brought us closer to others and to
each other than ever before, the great test of our time and your
future will be whether we can learn to live together, both
respecting our differences and saying what unites us in the end
is more important -- the shared values, the shared devotion to
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the belief that everybody
has a place in this country if they work hard, obey the law,
and show up every day as good citizens.
That's what I want you to really fight for, because if you
do it, believe me, the best days of this country are still ahead,
and the Democratic Party that came into power in the United States
by a vote of the American people in 1993 and changed the course of
this country to bring us together and move us forward, will have
a proud claim to its contribution to that for the 21st century,
thanks to you.
Thank you. God bless you, and good night. Thank you.
(Applause.)
END
8:06 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 5
10/21/97 18:35:46
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT DNC RECEPTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
For Immediate Release
October 8, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT DNC RECEPTION
The Kushner Companies
Florham Park, New Jersey
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you, Jim, and thank
you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here for him and for our
Party and for what we're fighting for.
I want to thank my longtime friend, Alan Solomont, for being here
and for being the Finance Chair of our Democratic Party -- yes, you
can clap for him, that's a nice -- why don't you do that? He has a
thankless job. (Laughter.) When he calls people, you know -- even
when he calls me, I think he's going to call and hit me up for a
contribution any day. (Laughter.)
But most of all I'd like to thank the Kushners, Charles and Seryl,
and thank you, Rae Kushner; and thank you Mrs. Felsen. And I thank
the children who gave me the shofar. Joshua and Nicole, Dara and
Miryam, thank you. And I'm glad we've got a long-distance connection
to Israel. In a way, I always have a long-distance connection to
Israel. (Laughter.) President Weizman was just here and we had a
great visit. And of course Mr. Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu
had a visit of their own, and we're hopeful that the peace process
is back on track and so is the -- that the security process is
back on track, and I know all of you hope that, as well. But
we're working hard on it.
Let me just briefly say that I came to New Jersey today for
Jim McGreevey for what I think is a very good reason -- it is
entirely positive, there's nothing negative about it --and that
is that in the next several years, for the foreseeable future in
the 21st century, who happens to be governor of any state and what
decisions they make will have a bigger impact on how people live
than in the previous 20 years, as an inevitable outgrowth of the
I of 4
10/21/97 18:20:14
way the world is changing, the way we change how we govern ourselves,
how we make decisions, and how we go forward. And I think it's
very important.
Let me say that a lot of you have helped me a lot over the last
several years, and for that I am very grateful. I think we are much
closer than we were five years ago to realizing the vision that I
started out with when I announced for governor -- for President,
and I was a governor. I'm going to talk about that in a moment.
That is, I think we're closer to the time when every
American has a chance to live out the American Dream if he or
she will work for it. I think we're closer to the time when
our country has articulated a vision that will maintain our
world leadership for peace and freedom and prosperity and
security. And I think we're closer to a time, although we still
have a lot of challenges, in which we can reach across all the
racial, the ethnic, the cultural, the religious lines that divide
us, and stand in stark contrast to what is going on in so much of
the world today and to the terrible story that Charles told us that
had such a wonderful ending -- of his family -- by being a country
that really can embrace all this diversity, celebrate it, respect it,
honor it, and say we're still bound together as one America. And I
feel very good about that.
There is still a lot to do. There is a lot going on in
Washington. I'm still trying for the fifth year in a row to pass
campaign finance reform. And the opponents thought they had
killed it yesterday, but we've got a little life left in us up there.
And if you can influence anybody, I hope you will -- although I
want to say that Senator Torricelli and Senator Lautenberg are part
of the unanimous vote in our caucus for the McCain-Feingold. bill
and for campaign finance reform, which I very much appreciate.
We're dealing with the trade issue and the question of the
extension of the President's authority to conduct trade negotiations
with other countries and then have the Congress vote up or down on
the bill, which is essential for me to make those agreements and to
continue to expand trade. Otherwise, no one wants to negotiate with
535 people; they want to negotiate with one person.
And there's a lot of debate and it's a healthy thing.
Because what we really want in the global economy is more
involvement in the world economy in a way that benefits America,
but also having our communities make the appropriate response for
people who have or will suffer as a result of dislocations in that
economy. We owe that to them. That's what we're trying to achieve.
We had a fascinating conference this week on climate change.
I'm convinced the climate is warming at an alarming rate and that
we have to do the responsible thing to lower our emissions of
greenhouse gases into the atmospnere. But it's a difficult problem
for a democracy to address because it's not on anybody's back right
now. It's something that's out there ahead of us. But if we do a
little bit now we can avoid disastrous consequences and much more
burdensome actions later.
Hillary and I are going to have the first White House
2 of 4
10/21/97 18:20:16
Conference on Child Care at the end of the month. And that's
a huge problem. We have more people in the work force than
ever before, a higher percentage of people in the work force
than ever before. But the most important job any of us has is
our job to raise our children well. I know you believe that.
I had more people -- we just all took our picture -- I had a
higher percentage of people in the line that I just stood in
ask me about my family and my daughter than any photograph line
I have ever stood in in my whole life. And that's a great tribute
to you and your values. And I thank you for that.
But this child care issue is really about whether all these
people who have to work who also have children, can succeed at
work and at home. And we shouldn't have our country making a
choice there. We don't want to crater to the economy, but our
most important job is to raise our children well.
So we're full of all these challenges, and it's exciting.
But we have to -- when I took office, we had this huge deficit
and basically a yesterday's government. And I made a commitment,
as I've said many times, to policies that favored the future over
the past, change over the status quo, unity over division, and
things that benefit everybody instead of just a few people. And
that required changes, so we down-sized the government, we shared
more responsibility with state and local government and the private
sector. And state governments, anyway, have primary responsibility
for things like auto insurance rates and, constitutionally, education.
So I could go out here and talk until I'm blue in the face
about the importance of embracing national education standards.
The United States is the only great country in the world that
has no national standards of academic achievement that guarantees
international capacity -- in terms of operating the economy -- that
everybody has to follow. We're not talking about federal government
standards. We're not talking about imposing anything on anybody.
It's totally voluntary. But that means that every governor may
will decide whether to participate in the standards movement.
So the decisions made by the Governor of New Jersey in the
next 20 years, almost certainly, will range over a wider scope
and have a deeper impact on the lives of the people of New Jersey
than in the previous 20 years. And if my vision is going to be
fulfilled, we have to have a partnership that really works:
to grow the economy, to fight crime, to preserve the environment,
to deal with social problems, and most importantly, to make sure
that every child in this country has a chance to live out his or
her dreams with a decent education.
That's why I showed up here today -- because this young man
actually has an idea of what he will do if he gets elected. He's
not running for Governor because he wants to live in that
magnificent old house. New Jersey I think has the oldest and
perhaps the most beautiful old governor's mansion in the country.
He actually has an idea of what he wants to do, and I think it's
the right idea.
And I hope you help me achieve it. Thank you.
Bless you. (Applause.)
of 4
10/21/97 18:20:17
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO WEATHER FORECASTERS
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 1, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO WEATHER FORECASTERS
East Room
2:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Welcome to the White House on a cool, overcast day, about 60 degrees.
(Laughter.) How am I doing? I'm auditioning. (Laughter.) You
know, I have to leave this job after three years, and I don't know
what I am going to do. And I am too young to retire, and I'm used
to delivering bad news. (Laughter and applause.)
Let me say, we are delighted to have you here in the
White House. I thank you for coming and for devoting this much
of your time to the briefings and to giving us a chance to meet
with you on what is a profoundly important issue -- and one,
frankly, that you, just in the way you comment on the events that
you cover, may have a real effect on the American people.
People look to you to figure cut what they're going to wear
in the morning and whether something really bad is going to happen.
If so, they expect a timely warning and advice. So you not only
get watched more than anyone else on the television news programs
to find out about the weather, sometimes you are actually saving
lives and always performing a public service. And we thank you
for that.
I'd also like to thank your outstanding partners at NOAA
and the National Weather Service. I'm very proud of them and what
they have done. In the past decade alone, they have doubled the
amount of warning time we have to prepare for tornadoes, quadrupled
of 7
10/21/97 19:17:59
the time for flash floods. And those are just two of the ways that
our people here, with NOAA and the National Weather Service, and
their research and technology have improved our nation's safety
and planning.
You know, I spent most of my time over the last four and
a half years telling the American people that we had to prepare
for the 21st century, with all of its new opportunities and all
of its new challenges if we want to keep the American Dream alive
for everyone who will work for it and maintain our leadership for
peace and freedom, and keep our country coming together with all
of its diversity and clash of interests, whether it's racial and
ethnic or religious or whatever. And we have really focused on
trying to just get the country to think about how we have to build
these bridges to the future, how the future will be as we want it
to be.
Clearly, to me, this climate change issue is one of the
principal challenges that we face -- a challenge that, if we
meet it, will ensure the continued vitality of our small planet
and the continued success of the United States throughout another
hundred years; a challenge that should we fail to meet it, could
imperil the lives of our children and, if not our children, our
grandchildren on this planet -- how they live, how they relate to
others and whether they are able to continue to pursue their
dreams in the way that our generation has.
In trying to come to grips with this climate change issue,
and then talk to the American people about it, there are four
principles that have guided me and I'd like to go over them
very briefly.
First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the
that climate is warming at a more rapid rate, that this is due in
large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse
gases going into the atmosphere, and that nobody knows exactly
what the consequences are going to be or when they're going to be
manifest, but, on balance, it won't be all that long and they
won't be good. That is sort of a summary of what the prevailing
scientific opinion is.
I know there are those in a distinct minority who have a
different view, but I am persuaded, having carefully looked at
all this, that the vast majority opinion is, in fact, in all
probability, accurate. And that, therefore, we would be
irresponsible not to try to come to grips with the results of
these findings.
Now, unlike a lot of weather forecasts, there is something
we can do about this weather forecast because we've got enough
lead time -- at least we believe we do. So I think that's
very important.
Now, the second thing I want to say is that if we know
that the majority of our scientists have this view, and they say,
we don't know precisely what the cad effects of global climate
change are or exactly how fast the climate will change; that means
we don't know how severe the droughts and the floods of the future
2 of 7
10/21/97 19:18:00
will be in à particular region, but we know that it won't be long
and the consequences won't be good -- if we know that, then it seems
to me 1t is incumbent on the United States, when the nations of the
world meet in December in Kyoto, Japan, to discuss climate change,
that we be prepared to commit purselves to realistic and binding.
limits on our own emissions of greenhouse gases.
With 4 percent of the world's population, we enjoy
over 20 percent of the world's wealth. That also explains
why we produce over 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.
Those two things are related. Now, I believe that we have a
responsibility to cut back. First, because the world is looking
to us for leadership, and, secondly, because we won't have any
influence in getting anybody else to cut back if we don't.
To give you an example of how significant that is, we've
got all these other countries that are growing that have far
larger populations than we do. We estimate the that the developing
countries of Asia and Latin America will grow at roughly three
times the rate of the United States, Japan, Europe and Canada in
the next 20 years. If that is true, we'll have to work very hard
to maintain our 20 percent share of wealth. But even if we do
maintain our standard of living and grow our economy, we won't be
for long the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. So if
we expect others to show restraint, we must do the same and we must
lead the way.
The third principle is that we must embrace solutions
that allow us to continue to grow the economy while we honor our
global responsibilities and our responsibilities to our own children.
We have worked too hard here, from the first day, to revitalize the
American economy to jeopardize our progress now. And, furthermore,
we cannot make changes that will leave whole chunks of that economy
out in the cold without having a response to them.
So the question is: Can we emphasize flexible, market-based
approaches? Can we embrace technology to make energy production
more efficient and put fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
Is there, in short, a way out of astronomical taxes or heavy-handed
governmental regulation that will permit us to gradually bring down
our greenhouse gas production and still grow the economy and enjoy
what we've been enjoying here for the last four and a half years?
I believe the answer is, yes.
Now, let me just give you one example. Typically, about
two-thirds of the energy produced by power plants is absolutely
lost in the form of wasted heat, billowing out in clouds of steam
or pumped out into rivers. A company called Trigen has doubled
the efficiency of power plants in Philadelphia, Chicago and Tulsa,
simply by capturing the waste heat and turning it into steam to
warm office buildings a fuel factories, and in the process, by
definition, dramatically cutting the volume of greenhouse gases
going into the atmosphere to do the same amount of work in all
those places.
That is just one small example. The Vice President and I have
been working with the Big Three automakers, our energy labs, and
the UAW for years now on a new generation of vehicles that we hope
will get triple the gas mileage of a typical car. Perhaps the design
10/21/97 19:18:01
of 7
will even include a blend of gasoline and electricity in a way that
avoids the worst problems of electric cars -- that is, they don't go
very fast, and you have to charge them up too often -- but gets the
benefit of the energy conservation elements of the cars.
All these things are out there, and we found over time -- how
many times have you seen America rise to a challenge? We didn't
know how we were going to get to the Moon when President Kennedy
said we were going there, but we got there because we put our
resource behind it, and we started with what we knew, and then,
in the process of exploring the outer limits of what we knew, we
found a lot of things we didn't know, and we were able to put them
to work toward a common mission.
This is a scientific mission
even more important in its implications than our race to the Moon
in the 1960s. And yet we know a very great deal about how to do it
without crippling the American economy.
Finally, because of what I said earlier, because we
represent only 4 percent of the world's population, and because
the developing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa,
increasingly, are going to grow at three times the rate of the
developed countries, I believe we have to ask all nations, both
industrialized and developing, to be a part of this process.
I'm happy that other countries are developing. It's actually
good for our economy when countries move from the ranks of the very
poor countries into middle income countries, because then they can
do more business with us. So it helps us when other people lift
their children out of poverty and have a brighter future. It also
means that they, too, however, become bigger energy users, and it
imposes on us even heavier responsibilities, all of us, to change
our patterns of energy use SO that all of us can grow our economies
without contributing to this greenhouse gas problem.
But because of the growth rates in the future, both the
population and economic growth and the associated energy use, we
could have a great deal of effort by Europe, by the United States,
by Canada, by Japan, and still be in very difficult straits on this
issue within 40 years, unless we get real solid support from the
developing countries. Should we make allowances for their growth?
Of course, we should; but in some way, in a fair and appropriate way
they should also participate in this agreement. Now, if that doesn't
happen, then their emissions, the emissions of the developing world
will exceed the emissions of the developed world by about 2035.
Now, those are the things I want to do. I want to try to
get America to accept the fact that the majority scientific opinion,
the overwhelming majority scientific opinion is accurate. I want
us to make a commitment, therefore, to go to Kyoto with binding
targets. I want us to implement our commitment in a way that
continues to grow the economy in a different way, but still
maintains our robust entrepreneurial economy. And I want to find
a fair way for the developing countries to participate. Those are
my four objectives.
On Monday, we're going to try to take another step toward
putting these principles into effect. We invited noted economists
and industrial leaders, state and local governmental leaders, and
leaders from the environmental and scientific communities here to
1 of 7
10/21/97 19:18:02
the White House Conference for G white House Conference on Climate
Change. Our goals are simple. We want the American people to
understand the importance of the challenge and to allow outside
experts to help inform the policy process so we'll make the best
decisions.
Now, I'd like to ask you to think about this in terms of
the work you do. When we had the terrible floods in the Dakotas
and Minnesota not very long ago, a young congressman from South
Dakota was in my office -- happened to be a member of the other
party -- I don't believe there's a partisan aspect to the weather,
(laughter) -- although some days it seems stormier than others
around here. (Laughter.) And this young man said -- I was talking
about climate change, and he said, Mr. President, we've had 300 year
floods in the last nine years. He said, does that mean I get to go
500 years without one? (Laughter.) And you'd be amazed how many
people just sort of from their anecdotal, personal experiences have
this sense that there is more instability in the climate than there
used to be, and understand that it has something to do with the
changes in the relationship of where we live and whatever little
patch of land we occupy and this larger globe and the atmosphere
which envelopes it.
So what I hope will happen at the Climate Change Conference
I also hope has happened a little here today. What I want to do
is to deal with the central political problem here -- and I don't
mean political in terms of party politics; I mean political in terms
of how the body politic, how our society responds to this -- if we
have a problem that is a clear and present danger that we can see
and feel, we get right on it. How did we get to the Moon? Because
the Russians beat us into space, so we knew how to keep score, we
would beat them to the Moon. And if we didn't, since there was a
Cold War and nuclear weapons, goodness knows what the consequences
would be.
Now, it is much harder when you have no manifestation of this
problem unless you happen to live in a place which has experienced
an unusual number of or intensity of weather aberrations. And, even
so, they go away and then you can start thinking about something
else. It is difficult when you are not quite sure how to keep score,
and you don't know who the enemy is.
All of you live with the weather as a fact of life, and a
pre-condition for life on our planet in a way that nearly no one
else in the world does. The men and women of America who tune in
and listen to you talk about the weather and rely upon you are either
enlightened or entertained or disappointed by whatever it is you say
and however you say it. Most of them are sort of like Sergeant Joe
Friday -- they just want the facts.
This is a case where people need the facts and the context.
Where if all you do is just try to get people to start thinking about
this -- you might not even know how you feel about it, or exactly
what you think should be done. That's okay. But I would ask you
to think about whether you should ask people to think about this.
Because our country always gets it right. We always get it
right once we focus on it. But right now, while the scientists see
the train coming through the tunnel, most Americans haven't heard
of 7
10/21/97 19:18:03
the whistle blowing. They don't sense that it's out there as a big
issue. And I really believe, as President, one of my most important
jobs is to tell the America people what the big issues are that we
have to deal with. If we understand what the issues are, if we start
with a certain set of principles, we nearly always come to the right
place.
That's what we did -- we passed the first balanced budget
in a generation earlier this year, partly because we had already
gotten the deficit down by over 85 percent, but partly because we
got people in both parties to agree that there's a goal -- we're
going to balance the budget -- and then the Republicans said,
here are the things we want in the balanced budget plan, and the
Democrats said, here are the things we want, and we found out a way
to reconcile them, and still do the most important thing, which was
to balance the budget, and we did it.
That's how we have to deal with this climate change issue.
We have to say, there's a challenge out there, we have to respond
to it, here's the principles we want in our response. And then we
have to get after it. But we can't do it until we build the
awareness of the American people.
So I hope you will think about how your work has been affected
by what we believe is going on in the climate. And, again, I don't
ask for you to advocate or do anything outside whatever your own
convictions or parameters of permissible speech are, but I do think
it's very important, since you have more influence than anybody does
on how the American people think about this, that at least you know
what you believe and how you think we should proceed.
Thank you for being here, and thank you for your leadership.
(Applause.)
The first time I ever really thought about this issue in this
way was when I was reading Al Gore's book -- (laughter) -- which
preceded our partnership. Sometimes he thinks all the great things
he did preceded our partnership. (Laughter.) I think most of the
greatest things he's done occurred after our partnership started.
(Laughter.) I remember so well -- one of the first times -- we have
lunch once a week, and I remember one week we were having lunch very
early in this term -- this is over four years ago. And he said, just
in case you missed it in my book, here's the chart -- (laughter) -
of how much we are increasing the emission of greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, and here's 10,000 years and here's the last 50,
like that.
So I can now pass Al Gore's climate test -- (laughter) -- and
I'm very proud of that. I think we should be proud that we have a
Vice President who not only cares about this issue, but knows enough
about it to have an opinion worthy of the respect of any scientist
in the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President.
END
2:30 P.M. EDT
of 7
10/21/97 19:18:04
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE 52ND SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
September 22, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE 52ND SESSION OF
THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
United Nations
New York, New York
10:50 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,
distinguished guests: Five years ago, when I first addressed
this Assembly, the Cold War had only just ended and the
transition to a new era was beginning. Now, together, we are
making that historic transition.
Behind us we leave a century full of humanity's
capacity for the worst and its genius for the best. Before us,
at the dawn of a new millennium, we can envision a new era that
escapes the 20th century's darkest moments, fulfills its most
brilliant possibilities, and crosses frontiers yet unimagined.
We are off to a promising start. For the first time
in history, more than half the people represented in this
Assembly freely choose their own governments. Free markets are
growing, spreading individual opportunity and national
well-being. Early in the 21st century, more than 20 of this
Assembly's members, home to half the Earth's population, will
lift themselves from the ranks of low-income nations.
Powerful forces are bringing us closer together,
profoundly changing the way we work and live and relate to each
other. Every day millions of our citizens on every continent use
laptops and satellites to send information, products and money
across the planet in seconds. Bit by bit, the information age is
chipping away at the barriers -- economic, political, and social
1 of 7
10/22/97 06:48:40
-- the once kept people locked in and ideas locked out. Science
is unraveling mysteries in the tiniest of human genes and the
vast cosmos.
Never in the course of human history have we had a
greater opportunity to make our people healthier and wiser, to
protect our planet from decay and abuse, to reap the benefits of
free markets without abandoning the social contract and its
concern for the common good. Yet today's possibilities are not
tomorrow's guarantees. We have work to do.
The forces of global integration are a great tide,
inexorably wearing away the established order of things. But we
must decide what will be left in its wake. People fear change
when they feel its burdens but not its benefits. They are
susceptible to misguided protectionism, to the poisoned appeals
of extreme nationalism, and ethnic, racial, and religious hatred.
New global environmental challenges require us to find ways to
work together without damaging legitimate aspirations for
progress. We're all vulnerable to the reckless acts of rogue
states and to an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and
international criminals. These 21st century predators feed on
the very free flow of information and ideas and people we
cherish. They abuse the vast power of technology to build black
markets for weapons, to compromise law enforcement with huge
bribes of illicit cash, to launder money with the keystroke of a
computer. These forces are our enemies. We must face them
together because no one can defeat them alone.
To seize the opportunities and move against the
threats of this new global era, we need a new strategy of
security. Over the past five years, nations have begun to put
that strategy in place through a new network of institutions and
arrangements with distinct missions, but a common purpose -- to
secure and strengthen the gains of democracy and free markets
while turning back their enemies.
We see this strategy taking place on every continent
-- expanded military alliances like NATO, its Partnership for
Peace, its partnerships with a democratic Russia and a democratic
Ukraine; free trade arrangements like the WTO and the Global
Information Technology Agreement; and the move toward free trade
areas by nations in the Americas, the Asia Pacific region, and
elsewhere around the world; strong arms control regimes like the
Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nonproliferation Treaty;
multinational coalitions with zero tolerance for terrorism,
corruption, crime, and drug trafficking; binding international
commitments to protect the environment and safeguard human
rights.
Through this web of institutions and arrangements,
nations are now setting the international ground rules for the
21st century, laying a foundation for security and prosperity for
those who live within them, while isolating those who challenge
them from the outside. This system will develop and endure only
if those who follow the rules of peace and freedom fully reap
their rewards. Only then will our people believe that they have
a stake in supporting and shaping the emerging international
system.
2 of 7
10/22/97 06:48:41
The United Nations must play a leading role in this
effort, filling in the fault lines of the new global era. The
core missions it has pursued during its first half-century will
be just as relevant during the next half-century: the pursuit of
peace and security, promoting human rights, and moving people
from poverty to dignity and prosperity through sustainable
development.
Conceived in the cauldron of war, the United Nations' first
task must remain the pursuit of peace and security. For 50 years
the U.N. has helped prevent world war and nuclear holocaust.
Unfortunately, conflicts between nations and within nations had
endured. From 1945 until today, they have cost 20 million lives.
Just since the end of the Cold War, each year there have been more
than 30 armed conflicts in which more than a thousand people have
lost their lives, including, of course, a quarter of a million
killed in the former Yugoslavia and more than half a million in Rwanda.
Millions of personal tragedies the world over are a
warning that we dare not be complacent or indifferent. Trouble
in a far corner can become a plague on everyone's house.
People the world over cheered the hopeful developments in
Northern Ireland, grieved over the innocent loss of life and the
stalling of the peace process in the Middle East, and longed for
a resolution of the differences on the Korean Peninsula, or between
Greece and Turkey, or between the great nations of India and Pakistan
as they celebrate the 50th anniversaries of their birth.
The United Nations continues to keep many nations
away from bloodshed: in E1 Salvador and Mozambique, in Haiti and
Namibia, in Cyprus and in Bosnia, where so much remains to be
done but can still be done because the bloodshed has ended.
The record of service of the United Nations has left
a legacy of sacrifice. Just last week, we lost some of our
finest sons and daughters in a crash of a U.N. helicopter in
Bosnia. Five were Americans, five were Germans, one Polish and
one British; all citizens of the world we are trying to make,
each a selfless servant of peace. And the world is poorer for
their passing.
At this very moment, the United Nations is keeping
the peace in 16 countries, often in partnership with regional
organizations like NATO, the OAS, ASEAN and ECOWAS, avoiding
wider conflicts and even greater suffering. Our shared
commitment to more realistic peacekeeping training for U.N.
troops, a stronger role for civilian police, better integration
between military and civilian agencies -- all these will help the
United Nations to meet these missions in the years ahead.
At the same time, we must improve the U.N.'s
capabilities after a conflict ends to help peace become
self-sustaining. The U.N. cannot build nations, but it can help
nations to build themselves by fostering legitimate institutions
of government, monitoring elections and laying a strong
foundation for economic reconstruction.
This week, the Security Council will hold an
unprecedented ministerial meeting on African security, which our
Secretary of State is proud to chair, and which President Mugabe,
chairman of the Organization of African Unity, will address. It
will highlight the role the United Nations can and should play in
preventing conflict on a continent where amazing progress toward
democracy and development 1S occurring alongside still too much
of 7
10/22/97 06:48:42
winne
House
Database
doc:
discord, disease and distress.
In the 21st century, our security will be challenged
increasingly by interconnected groups that traffic in terror,
organized crime and drug smuggling. Already these international
crime and drug syndicates drain up to $750 billion a year from
legitimate economies. That sum exceeds the combined GNP of more
than half the nations in this room. These groups threaten to
undermine confidence in fragile new democracies and market
economies that so many of you are working so hard to see endure.
Two years ago I called upon all the members of this
Assembly to join in the fight against these forces. I applaud
the U.N.'s recent resolution calling on its members to join the
major international antiterrorism conventions, making clear the
emerging international consensus that terrorism is always a crime
and never a justifiable political act. As more countries sign
on, terrorists will have fewer places to run or hide.
I also applaud the steps that members are taking to
implement the declaration on crime and public security that the
United States proposed two years ago, calling for increased
cooperation to strengthen every citizen's right to basic safety,
through cooperation on extradition and asset forfeiture, shutting
down grey markets for guns and false documents, attacking
corruption and bringing higher standards to law enforcement in
new democracies.
The spread of these global criminal syndicates also
has made all the more urgent our common quest to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow them to fall or to
remain in the wrong hands. Here, too, the United Nations must
lead, and it has, from UNSCOM in Iraq to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, now the most expansive global system ever devised
to police arms control agreements.
When we met here last year, I was honored to be the
first of 146 leaders to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
our commitment to end all nuclear tests for all time -- the
longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in the history of arms
control. It will help to prevent the nuclear powers from
developing more advanced and more dangerous weapons. It will
limit the possibilities for other states to acquire such devices.
I am pleased to announce that today I am sending this crucial
treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. Our common
goal should be to enter the CTBT into force as soon as possible,
and I ask for all of you to support that goal.
The United Nations' second core mission must be to
defend and extend universal human rights and to help democracy's
remarkable gains endure. Fifty years ago the U.N.'s Universal
Declaration of Human Rights stated the international community's
conviction that people everywhere have the right to be treated
with dignity, to give voice to their opinions, to choose their
leaders; that these rights are universal -- not American rights,
not Western rights, not rights for the developed world only, but
rights inherent in the humanity of people everywhere.
Over the past decade, these rights have become a
reality for more people than ever from Asia to Africa, from
Europe to the Americas. In a world that links rich and poor,
North and Scuth, city and countryside, in an electronic network
of shared images in real time, the more these universal rights
of 7
10/22/97 06:48:42
take hold, the more people who CO not enjoy them will demand
them.
Armed with photocopiers and fax machines, e-mail and
the Internet, supported by an increasingly important community of
non-governmental organizations. They will make their demands
known, spreading the spirit of freedom, which as the history of
the last 10 years has shown us, ultimately will prevail.
The United Nations must be prepared to respond, not
only by setting standards but by implementing them. To deter
abuses, we should strengthen the U.N.'s field operations and
early warning systems. To strengthen democratic institutions,
the best guarantors of human rights, we must pursue programs to
help new legal, parliamentary and electoral institutions get off
the ground. To punish those responsible for crimes against
humanity and to promote justice SO that peace endures, we must
maintain our strong support for the U.N.'s war crime tribunals
and truth commissions. And before the century ends, we should
establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most
serious violations of humanitarian law.
The United States welcomes the Secretary General's
efforts to strengthen the role of human rights within the U.N.
system and his splendid choice of Mary Robinson as the new High
Commissioner. We will work hard to make sure that she has the
support she needs to carry out her mandate.
Finally, the United Nations has a special responsibility
to make sure that as the global economy creates greater wealth,
it does not produce growing disparities between the haves and
have-nots, or threaten the global environment -- our common home.
Progress is not yet everyone's partner. More than
half the world's people are two days' walk from a telephone,
literally disconnected from the global economy. Tens of millions
lack the education, the training, the skills they need to make
the most of their God-given abilities.
The men and women of the United Nations have expertise across
the entire range of humanitarian and development activities. Every
day they are making a difference. We see it in nourished bodies of
once starving children, in the full lives of those immunized against
disease, in the bright eyes of children exposed to education through
the rich storehouse of human knowledge, in refugees cared for and
returned to their homes, in the health of rivers and lakes restored.
The United Nations must focus even more on shifting
resources from hand-outs to hand-ups, on giving people the tools
they need to make the most of their own destinies, spreading
ideas in education and technology, the true wealth of nations, is
the best way to give people a chance to succeed.
And the United Nations must continue to lead in
ensuring that today's progress does not come at tomorrow's
expense. When the nations of the world gather again next
December in Kyoto from the U.N. Climate Change Conference, all of
us, developed and developing nations, must seize the opportunity
to turn back the clock on greenhouse gas emissions so that we can
leave a healthy planet to our children.
In these efforts, the U.N. no longer can and no
of 7
10/22/97 06:48:43
longer need go it alone. Innovative partnerships with the
private sector, NGOs, and the international financial
institutions can leverage its effectiveness many times over.
Last week, a truly visionary American, Ted Turner, made a
remarkable donation to strengthen the U.N.'s development and
humanitarian programs. His gesture highlights the potential for
partnership between the U.N. and the private sector in
contributions of time, resources and expertise. And I hope more
will follow his lead.
In this area and others, the Secretary General is
aggressively pursuing the most far-reaching reform of the United
Nations in its history -- not to make the U.N. smaller as an end
in itself, but to make it better. The United States strongly
supports his leadership. We should pass the Secretary General's
reform agenda this session.
On every previous occasion I have addressed this
assembly, the issue of our country's dues has brought the
commitment of the United States to the United Nations into
question. The United States was a founder of the U.N. We are
proud to be its host. We believe in its ideals. We continue to
be, as we have been, its largest contributor. We are committed
to seeing the United Nations succeed in the 21st century.
This year, for the first time since I have been
President, we have an opportunity to put the questions of debts
and dues behind us once and for all, and to put the United
Nations on a sounder financial footing for the future. I have
made it a priority to work with our Congress on comprehensive
legislation that would allow us to pay off the bulk of our
arrears and assure full financing of America's assessment in the
years ahead. Our Congress' actions to solve this problems
reflects a strong bipartisan commitment to the United Nations and
to America's role within it.
At the same time, we look to member states to adopt
a more equitable scale of assessment. Let me say that we also
strongly support expanding the Security Council to give more
countries a voice in the most important work of the U.N. In more
equitably sharing responsibility for'its successes, we can make
the U.N. stronger and more democratic than it is today. I ask
the General Assembly to act on these proposals this year SO that
we can move forward together.
At the dawn of a new century, SO full of hope, but
not free of peril, more than ever we need a United Nations where
people of reason can work through shared problems and take action
to combat them, where nations of goodwill can join in the
struggle for freedom and prosperity, where we can shape a future
of peace and progress and the preservation of our planet.
We have the knowledge, we have the intelligence, we
have the energy, we have the resources for the work before us.
We are building the necessary networks of cooperation. The great
question remaining is whether we have the vision and the heart
necessary to imagine a future that is different from the past,
necessary to free ourselves from destructive patterns of
relations with each other and within our own nations and live a
future that is different.
A new century and a new millennium is upon us. We
1) of 7
10/22/97 06:48:44
are literally present at the future, and it is the great gift it
1S our obligation to leave our children.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
11:09 A.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
7. of 7
10/22/97 06:48:44
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC BUSINESS COUNCIL
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 7, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE DEMOCRATIC BUSINESS COUNCIL
The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D.C.
8:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Governor Romer, Tom, thank
you. Thank you, Alan Solomont. I want to thank all the members of the
administration who, came to be with us tonight, and I thank all of you
for your presence here and for your support.
I was -- a little insight on presidential decision-making -
here are the notes my staff gave me. Here are the notes I made at
dinner. (Laughter.) You can have either speech -- which one do you
like? (Laughter.) Two, two! (Applause.)
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about how I think you fit
into all this, and what we've been trying to do and where we're going.
When I ran for President, first, beginning in 1991, I was obsessed
with the idea that we had to prepare this country for a new century
and a completely different economy, and a whole different way of living
and relating to each other and the rest of the world, and that we
didn't have any strategy to do it. And I believed that if we were
going to succeed we had to create a country where, as you've heard me
say a thousand times, there was opportunity for everyone responsible
enough to work for it, where we were coming together instead of being
driven apart, and where we maintained our world leadership for peace
and prosperity and freedom.
I thought to do that it would be necessary to save progressive
government and to save the progressive political party, to be vital
forces as a part of that future. I thought it was necessary to break
through a lot of these dichotomies that seem to me to be false -- that
you were either for growing the economy or preserving the environment
1 of 7
10/22/97 07:13:30
if you have to choose we're in trouble. That you couldn't be
pro-ousiness and pro-labor -- if you have to choose, I think in the
end the country loses. That you couldn't be tough on crime where it
was appropriate and still be smart and compassionate where it made
sense and where it was the right thing to do. That you couldn't be
for respecting our diversity and still believe the most important thing
is that we wind up being one America. I just think a lot of these
dichotomies that have always been set up for us to argue about and take
sides over are choices that we would never make in our own lives, and
that we should not make in the life of our nation.
And you heard Tom talking about a little of it and Roy talking
about a little of it. It seemed to me that the right thing to do for
our country also in the end would wind up being the right thing to do
for the progressive cause in America and for the Democratic Party, the
progressive party in America. We almost had to save ourselves from a
legacy in some ways that was not entirely of the Democrats own making.
It was obvious to me that if we didn't do something about the deficit
there would be no more progressives in America because the middle class
would always be completely insecure.
We had a meeting today at the White House and my distinguished
Treasury Secretary from New York City, Mr. Rubin, was making a comment
about how people viewed a certain economic situation. And Erskine
Bowles said -- did I say North Carolina? I meant New York. Erskine
Bowles is from North Carolina. So Erskine Bowles says, "Mr. President,
tell Bob that that's like the farmer from Louisiana with three hogs."
And Bob Rubin doesn't know many farmers from Louisiana. (Laughter.)
So I told him -- some of you may have heard me tell this story
before, but when Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana in the middle of
the Depression, he was out on a country crossroads one day making a
speech to all of these farmers. And he was railing against people that
had too much and how it ought to be spread around. And he saw a farmer
in overalls and he said, "Now, Farmer Jones, if you had a million
dollars, wouldn't you give up about a third of it and go out here on
these crossroads and spread that money around so all the little kids
could have plenty to eat and people would have a roof over their heads
at night?" He said, "Of course, I would."
And he said, "If you had a brand-new Cadillac car, wouldn't you
ride up and down these roads and take the old folks to the hospital
and the young people to school that couldn't afford to get there
themselves?" He said, "You bet I would." He said, "And farmer if you
had three hogs." And he said, "Now, wait a minute Governor, I've got
three hogs." (Laughter and applause.)
It seemed to me that we had to restore some economic discipline
to this country SO that people would know that their three hogs would
be all right. So that people would know that at least they would not
be robbed of the benefits of their own labor by the defects of the
system in which they lived.
And so I proposed what, at the time, was a controversial and
very difficult budget in 1993, that only members of our party voted
for, that was predicted to drive us into a recession. And instead
in four and a half years it cut the deficit by 80 percent -- before
this last budget even passed. And I'm proud of that. (Applause.)
But no one doubts the ability of Democrats to manage the economy now.
: fought for expanded trade, and we had 200 trade agreements,
and a lot of it was controversial, even within our own party. But it
is clear from all the economic analysis that 25 percent of the growth
that we have enjoyed in the United States in the last four and a half
2 of 7
10/22/97 07:13:31
years has come from expanded trade -- selling more American products
and services around the world. It is also clear that we have, on
matters of principle, have always kept a more open market so we don't
continue to open other people's markets who are just going to take
advantage of us.
It was clear to me that if people felt insecure on their streets,
in their homes and their schools, that we would never feel fully free
and prosperous even if the economy returned. So we tried to join what
was already a developing movement toward community policing and other
proven strategies to fight crime. And I determined that ours would be
the first administration that would ever take on the issue of the
irresponsible use of handguns in this country. And I come from a state
where more than half the people have a hunting or a fishing license or
both, and I figured if I can't take this one and talk to people and
talk sense to people, who can?
And so we did the Brady Bill, we did the assault weapons ban.
I still want trigger locks on these guns that children can get their
hands on. I think that these are responsible things. But we've had
a drop in serious crime in every single year, and last year we had
the biggest drop in violent crime in 35 years. And the American
people are safer and they know it. And no one seriously doubts
the ability of our party to be a responsible partner in keeping our
streets safer and giving our children a more secure future. And I
think that's important. (Applause.)
I had to fight a very difficult battle on welfare. I did not
want the welfare reform bill to be an excuse to hurt children and I
vetoed two bills that I thought were. But it seemed to me that since
there was already no uniform national benefit, that the states were
already in effective control over what the size of a welfare check
was, but they didn't have any real responsibility because the authority
was divided between the states and the federal government. And it
seemed to me the responsible thing to do was to set up a uniform set
of standards about how we thought the welfare program ought to work,
to put guidelines and limits on people who could go to work if there
were jobs available and required them to do so, or to be in education
and training programs, but to take better care of the children with
adequate child care and other supports and nutrition and medical care.
And that's what the welfare reform bill was all about. There
were a lot of things in it I didn't like -- cutting benefits to legal
immigrants -- but as you see, we've largely restored all the things
that we didn't like. And we now have a bill that is contributing to
by far the largest drop in the welfare rolls this country has ever
seen. And we now have the smallest percentage of Americans receiving
public assistance since 1970 -- smallest percentage since 1970.
(Applause.) Now, I thought that was important. I thought it was
important that we prove that we can conduct the defense and the foreign
policy operations of this country. I no longer think that's open to
serious doubt. This country is stronger, more secure, and is helping
to build the world of the 21st century in the aftermath of the Cold War.
And I feel good about that.
I also wanted to do things to increase people's sense of
obligation to serve -- that's what the AmeriCorps program was about;
that's what the President's Service Summit was all about.
And, finally, let me say, in the Democratic Party, what I tried
to do is to bring in people who had previously not been active before.
And the most important things we've done in our party is the Women's
Leadership Forum, the Saxophone Club -- (applause) -- and your group -
your group -- because we want people in this party to feel that they
have a home, they have a role, and they have a contribution to make,
of 7
10/22/97 07:13:32
and that their voices will be heard.
Now, we've had a very good first seven months of this year. The
budget is a good budget, and it is a progressive one. The tax cuts
are confined. Some of us have received some criticism from people who
believe that I should not have signed the tax bill because it had a
capital gains tax cut and an increase in the estate tax. But let me
just remind you that Republicans are still in the majority in the
Congress -- I hope it won't be so after '98, but they are now -- but
80 percent of that tax bill went to the children's tax credit, to
education, and to a whole array of urban and poor rural redevelopment
initiatives designed to bring the areas that are still isolated from
our prosperity into the mainstream -- 80 percent.
Secondly, there are strict caps on how much money can be
spent in the first five years and in the second five years of this
tax program. And even with the little we added on to the size of the
tax package, it's still about one-eighth -- one-eighth -- the size of
the tax bill adopted in 1981, which led to these permanent deficits.
We did not go off in some sort of tax-cutting binge designed to erode
the future stability of this country. And we now estimate with
conservative estimates that this budget will produce a surplus by
2002 at the latest and a surplus for several years thereafter.
So we are doing the right things, and we've had a good
fall. We've also invited the first new members to join NATO. We've
established alliance with Russia and Ukraine. We have worked very
hard to get the country, for the very first time, to embrace national
education standards. And I hope all of you will help us get every
state in the country to do that.
We had the Summit of Service that I mentioned, and I
launched a very important initiative on race relations which will
last for at least a year, as we examine for the first time in a
non-crisis way not only what the unfinished business is in America
between the white majority and African Americans or Hispanic
Americans, but an equally, perhaps even more important question over
the long run, which is what are we going to be like as a nation in 30
years when, unless something happens, there will be no majority race
in America and we will become the world's first truly great
multiracial, multiethnic democracy.
And unlike -- there are many ethnic groups, for example,
in a nation like Russia, but most of them live in discreet parts of
the country. In our country we're going to have 150 -- actually,
more than 150 different racial and ethnic groups largely sharing the
future together.
So it's been an exciting time. In the fall we have a
lot of other agendas coming up. And let me just mention some of the
things that I hope to get done in the remainder of this year. I
think it's important that we continue our work to expand trade. This
year we have already concluded an agreement on information technology
and telecommunication services that will amount to a $5 billion tax
reduction on American products in these areas sold around world; that
will open up 90 percent of the world markets to American products in
a area where we lead the world and we are creating very good jobs.
We need more of this.
I know there's going to be a great controversy over this
trade debate, but let me put it tc you this way: We have four
percent of the world's population. We have 20 percent of the world's
wealth. The rest of the world's economy, even though it's on a lower
base, is growing at three times the rate of the American economy -
even under the astute management of our administration. (Laughter.)
of 7
10/22/97 07:13:32
Because if you start from a lower base, you grow faster.
Now, if you want your children to live in a country that
may have even less than four percent of the world's population and
still around 20 percent of the world's wealth because of how hard we
work and our skills and our ability, there are only two things we can
do. The first is to go into our cities and our isolated rural areas
and make markets and taxpayers and successful employers and employees
and businesspeople out of the people that haven't been reached in our
own country, number one. And the second is to sell to the other 96
percent of the people in the world. This is not rocket science. We
don't have an option. And the things that we sell by and large are
higher value-added products that create good jobs in America.
Are there issues of trade fairness? Of course, there
are. We have relatively more open markets than other countries. We
have done it for years as a matter of responsibility to try to help
poor countries lift themselves up; also keeps us on our toes more and
makes us more competitive, and that's one reason we're in the shape
we're in today.
Should we fight for a fair deal for our workers? Of
course, we should. Should we fight to improve the global environment
as we increase trade? Of course, we should. But we can't walk away
from this.
I'm going to Latin America in the fall. About a year
after I took office, we had this great Summit of the Americas. And
all the countries in the Americas said, we want to have a free trade
area that America and that Canada are a part of. We want our future
to be with you. There will soon be a billion people in Latin
America, the second fastest-growing area of the world. When I go
down there, I want them to believe America is still leading the way
toward greater prosperity. The rest of the world economy is on a
fast track. The only question is whether we're going to be leading
it or dragging up the rear. And I hope we can prevail upon the
Congress to work through this in a way that is as satisfactory as
possible to the people who have legitimate concerns about the
disruptions that the global economy can cause.
The second thing we're going to try to do is pass the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now, the good news
from my point of view is not such good news for you; we can still
have the Democratic Business Council with its price of entry under
McCain-Feingold. (Laughter.) But, it will eliminate most of the
serious questions people have about the campaign finance system as
present, and it will put more pressure on both the Democrats and the
Republicans to go out and get more people to contribute, to make more
people feel like they're a part of the system, and that will be a
very good thing. It will require us to involve more and more and
more people.
But let me finally say -- this is very important -- if
it's going to work we have to lower the cost of campaigns. And the
only way you can lower the cost of modern campaigns is to provide
free air time or drastically reduced air time which is why I have
also worked so hard on that.
We're going to try to pass the juvenile justice bill,
modeled on what has happened in a number of cities, but especially in
Boston where -- this may surprise you if you don't live in Boston
--1t has been almost two full years since a single child has lost his
or her life to a handgun. Almost two full years. And, again, it's
not rocket science. They have good community policing. They have
good neighborhood block watch groups. The neighbors and the police
10/22/97 07:13:33
of 7
work together. The police and the probation officers work together.
They make house calls in Boston, just like doctors used to. The kids
in trouble, they go to the child's home and they sit on the couch in
the living room and they talk to the parents.
And, unbelievably enough, they have a 70 percent compliance rate
with probation orders. There's no city in the country that's even
close to that. Why? Old-fashioned, human contact in an organized,
disciplined way, doing what is smart as well as being tough. We want
to do that everywhere.
We want to begin the work of dealing with entitlement
reform. And people say, well, there's no an emergency now; Social
Security is all right until 2029; you just put another decade on the
Medicare trust fund. That's true. But when the baby boomers retire,
there will be almost just about two people working for one person in
his or her retirement years. A lot of us will work longer -- by
choice. But the ratio will be awesome.
By making modest changes now, we can avoid imposing
severe changes that will have to be made by our children. And for
those of us that are part of that baby boom generation, which are
basically everybody between the ages of 34 and 50, it seems to me
that we owe it to our children and to the strength and long-term
health of our economy and our society to deal with the long-term
entitlement issues now, when by making modest changes we can avoid
more severe changes later.
We're going to have to deal with the issue of climate change
in a responsible way. No one seriously questions anymore that the
climate is warming and that it is going to have some adverse
consequences. The question is, how do you do that and grow the
economy? Is there a way to do it? Of course, there is. If we would
change our habits tomorrow, just some of our habits, we could with no
extra charge, no cost at all on society, get rid of 20 percent of the
greenhouse gases with presently available technology -- tomorrow. So
what we have to do is to try to find a way to organize ourselves,
increase our awareness and do this in a way that doesn't cripple the
economy. I think we can do that.
Finally, the First Lady and I are going to have a conference
on child care in late October. It is still the number one concern
of many, many, many working people who believe that they cannot
afford or find or have access to quality, affordable child care.
Now, those are the things we're going to be doing. In
addition to that, Eli Segal, who's here tonight, heads my national
organization where we are mobilizing employers who will agree to hire
people from welfare to work. Next week we're going to St. Louis to
announce several hundred businesses that have joined us in that
endeavor. We've still got a long way to go. We only have about 22
percent of the schoolchildren in the country committed, whose leaders
have committed to take the national test, 4th grade reading test, the
8th grade math test by 1999. We're going to keep working on that.
But the point I want to make is, every single one of
these things is something that I hope you are proud of that is part
of a dynamic mainstream political movement in America that your
contributions and your support have made possible. And this is a
better country because of it. It's a better country because we're
not out there trying to split everybody all up and divide people
every day and keep people full of hot air instead of trying to get
people together and keep working forward and moving forward. And
that's what I'm trying to build for the future and what I want you to
be a part of.
6 of 7
10/22/97 07:13:34
Let me just say this in closing. Every day I try to
imagine what I hope the country will be like 30 years from now. And
if that guides a President and you work back from there, you' 11 be
amazed how much easier that makes the decision-making process. And
when I think of the young people that are here tonight, all these
fine young people that are working for the Democratic Party and did
all the work to make this possible tonight -- what will determine
what kind of America they live in?
Number one, will we succeed in being a truly multiracial,
multiethnic democracy, where we not only respect, but celebrate our
diversity and still say the most thing is we're one America? Number
two, will we stop making excuses for ourselves and finally embrace
the idea that all children can learn and we're going to see that they
learn at internationally accepted levels of excellence? Number three,
will we reach into the areas that have not been touched by our
prosperity and figure out a way to hook them into the future? Number
four, will we figure out a way to grow the economy while enhancing the
environment? And, finally, will we continue to do what it takes to
lead the world when it comes to peace and freedom and prosperity?
If we do those things, the best days of this country are
still ahead. And when we are all much older we can look back on this
moment and say, because we were here then and because we did what we
did, we did prepare our country for the 21st century. We saved
progressive government for its higher purposes and we revitalized
America's progressive party to make it go on.
Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
END
8:57 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 7
10/22/97 07:13:34
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 4, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The Cabinet Room
10:25 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Before we start, I think it's only fair
to note that we are observing another anniversary of Helen's 50th
birthday. (Laughter.) We wanted to give you a birthday cake with a
tell-tale number of -- ("Happy Birthday" song is sung.) (Laughter
and applause.)
MS. THOMAS: Now, may I have a press conference? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to make a statement and you get the
questions. (Laughter.)
MS. THOMAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Take it to the press room and cut it up.
(Laughter).
MS. THOMAS: Thank you. This is painful. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: You don't make it look that way. It's painful
for me, too. (Laughter.)
I'm glad to be joined today by the CEOs of 10 Fortune 500
companies who have come here to meet with me on climate change. These
companies represent electric utilities, the oil and gas industry,
finance, high technology, and heavy industry. They are all intimately
interested in this issue and will be affected by whatever happens on
it in our country and throughout the world.
We want a responsible approach to climate change. We believe
that the science makes it clear that the climate is changing. I want
to proceed based on some fairly straightforward and simple principles.
First of all, as we get ready for the Kyoto conference, I believe
there should be realistic but binding limits to emissions of greenhouse
of3
10/21/97 18:47:50
gases. I believe that we have to do it in a way that keeps our economy
growing. And I believe that we ought to embrace flexible, market-based
policies. I believe we should reemphasize and reenergize our efforts
in research and development to find as many technological solutions to
this as possible, and to keep our nation in the forefront of what is
now a $400 billion market for environmental technologies.
And finally, I believe the agreement has to be a global one.
I think all nations, developed and developing, should be a part of
this. So this is part of an ongoing process that I and our
administration have undertaken to try to make sure we're working
together with all the people who would be affected by this issue and
try to reach, hopefully, a common position.
We're going to have a good meeting today, and I'm looking forward
to it. And, again, I want to thank all the executives for coming here
and giving vent to their views.
I What do you think of the opposition, who says there is no
such thing as global warming and that they don't agree with the
scientists -- some of the scientists?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the real question is -- I
don't think that very many people disagree with the fact that there
is climate change now, I think there's some disagreement about what
the impact of it is and what the appropriate response is. There's
still some debate there. But I think the scientific evidence for the
fact of climate change is pretty compelling.
We had that panel of scientists, including the Nobel Prize
winners here the other day, and I received a letter from -- I don't
know -- over 2,500 of them, from scientists about it. So I think
that there's pretty clear evidence that the climate is changing and
could be changing substantially. There is still some difference
about what the consequences of that will be and what we ought to do
about it.
But I think if we follow these principles, we'll be staking out
a responsible position, which will permit us to continue to grow
economically and do our part in the world. After all, we have only
four percent of the world's population, but we account for 20 percent
of the greenhouse gas emissions, which you would expect since have
slightly over 20 percent of the world's output.
I Mr. President, how seriously are you considering using a
line-item veto to kill some provisions of the budget you'll sign into
law tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I asked Mr. Bowles to -- once we got a
budget agreement and it passed -- to institute an intensive process
to review both the spending and the tax bills to see if there were
any items that would be appropriate for the line-item veto. And I
have not yet received the results of that review.
I support the line-item veto; I did all along. And I think if
we have it, it ought to be used -- I believe that it ought to be used
somewhat sparingly. And my experience as Governor was that once I
used it a few times I didn't have to -- I didn't need to use it very
much anymore. And that's what I would hope would happen. We'll just
see -- you probably know more about the likely targets for it than I
do at this point. I was interested in the big-picture items in the
budget. We got virtually 100 percent of what I sought and I'm elated
with the budget. I think it's good for America. I think it will keep
the economy growing, and I think it's a responsible thing to do. So
whatever I do on that shouldn't be in any way detracting from the
2 of 3
10/21/97 18:47:51
terrific job that the Congress did on it.
I Mr. President, one question on UPS -- the standards for
presidential intervention are relatively high. Are you considering
doing anything else to intervene to bring an end to the strike?
THE PRESIDENT: On UPS?
I Yes, UPS.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first we urged the federal mediator, and
we got that. And we got -- obviously, it didn't work. I still think
the parties ought to go back to the table. UPS is a very important
company to our country and there are a lot of employees there, and I
hope they go back to the table. But at this time I don't think any
further action by me is appropriate.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
10:32 A.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 3
10/21/97 18:47:52
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
OPENING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AT LAKE
TAHOE FORUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Incline Village, Nevada)
For Immediate Release
July 26, 1997
OPENING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT LAKE TAHOE FORUM
Hyatt Hotel
Incline Village, Nevada
11:55 A.M. PDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Please be seated, ladies and gentlemen. Thank
you very much. It's a great honor to be here. And as you can imagine,
it's a wonderful pleasure for the President and me to be able to come
to this beautiful place and to take part in this important process.
A couple people, just as we were coming in to this room, said, why
don't we have this down by the lake site this morning? And you want
to know the answer? The answer is, there was no way to do that without
closing down a public beach on a Saturday and we thought it would be
better to let people continue enjoying this lake while we all go about
the work of trying to preserve it for the future. (Applause.)
On behalf of the President, I want to acknowledge some of the
distinguished guests who are here. Then I'll make some brief remarks
and present the President. After the President's remarks, I'll call
on some presenters to start us off, and then we'll have a series of
five short panel discussions on topics that are critical to the future
of Lake Tahoe.
First, let me acknowledge Governor Miller. We appreciate your
hospitality, Governor, and thank you very much. And representing
Governor Wilson, Doug Wheeler is present. We appreciate his presence.
Of course, we're delighted to have the senators from the two states
who are here -- Senator Harry Reid, who suggested this forum; Senator
Richard Bryan, both from Nevada. And Senator Dianne Feinstein and
Senator Barbara Boxer, both from California. Congressman Jim Gibbons
and Congressman John Ensign, both from Nevada; and Congressman Dick
1 of 7
10/22/97 07:24:40
Fazio, Congressman John Doolittle, Congressman George Miller, who was
here yesterday -- all from California.
Members of the President's Cabinet who are here and who have been
here, working hard on this issue include Secretary of Interior Bruce
Babbitt, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner. Also, the Chair
of the Council of Environmental Quality Katie McGinty. And all the
members of the Tahoe Basin Steering Committee who are here -- we want
to say a special word of thanks to you.
And there are two statewide elected officials, constitutional
officers here -- the Attorney General of Nevada, Frankie Sue Del Papa,
who was, incidentally, a former member of the TRPA, and Lt. Governor
Gray Davis of California.
And, Mr. President, in addition to the Cabinet members, I want to
note that the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, played a
major role in the lead-up to today's conference, and his Deputy,
Secretary Mort Downey, is here. And two other Deputy Secretaries are
here -- both of them happen to be Californians -- Rich Ruminger,
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture; and John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary
of the Interior; and John Zhirsky, from the Department of the Army
for Civil Works.
Mr. President, yesterday was my kind of day. I've had a chance to
tell the President about this, but I got the better end of this deal.
(Applause.) Right after I arrived in Lake Tahoe, a park ranger guided
me on a hike near the Desolation Wilderness. The trail finished at a
summit with a breathtaking view of the Fallen Leaf Lake where Tipper
and I stayed last night, and a backdrop of the majestic Mount Tallac.
And then after the hike, I went to the Forest Service Visitors Center
to take part in the conference on Lake Tahoe's future. And I want to
emphasize that that discussion yesterday, which was very lengthy and
very detailed, was actually a wrap-up session following a much
lengthier and much more detailed series of intensive issue workshops,
five of them led by members of the President's Cabinet and others, and
all of them based on the premise that throughout the world, but
especially here in Lake Tahoe, the environment and the economy go hand
and hand.
Lake Tahoe demonstrates clearly that the economy is the environment,
and the environment is the economy. That's the fundamental foundation
of all of our conversations. And that's where we will start in the
first of our five panels today.
But yesterday we talked in depth about Tahoe's stunning water clarity
and how we can work together to keep Tahoe blue. We discussed the
importance of forest health and what we must do to prevent wildfires
and reduce erosion into the lake. And we spoke about transportation
and its critical role, and recreation and tourism -- how we can balance
the demands of development and traffic with the constant need to
protect the air and the water.
The discussions yesterday yielded a lot of information and insights.
The discussion on water clarity emphasized the fact that this lake is
unique throughout the world, and the bright, cobalt blue quality just
has to be preserved. Everybody agrees on that.
And there was a discussion of the critical role of nitrogen and
phosphorus in feeding the algae growth, which is, of course, the main
reason why the clarity is slowly disappearing. And the scientists
2 of 7
10/22/97 07:24:41
make the point that the phosphorus 15 critical as a limiting factor,
and that's why soil erosion must be controlled. And nitrogen, the
other critical element, comes predominantly, it seems, from the
emissions from cars and trucks and buses, both directly through the
air and indirectly after being deposited on the land and then washed
in with the soil erosion.
On the panel dealing with forest health, we had an extensive
discussion about the history of the forest and what can be done in
practical terms to restore forest health. We had an extremely
interesting conversation about the planning that's under way to deal
with the transportation issue. And : was extremely impressed with
what the business community talked about for the future of recreation
and tourism here to emphasize the quality of the recreation experience
here at Lake Tahoe, the creation of partnerships and how in the future
the economy and the environment will go hand in hand as well.
We heard, Mr. President, from a lot of people -- Democrats and
Republicans, Nevadans and Californians, environmentalists and business
owners, public officials, private citizens, and tribal leaders. There
were a lot of different viewpoints, but there was one thing that
everybody agreed on: this place is amazing. It's a national treasure
that must be protected and preserved.
Lake Tahoe sits on the edge of two states, but it's smack-dab in the
middle of paradise. And all who benefit from the Lake Tahoe Basin bear
responsibility for keeping it that way. In fact, it's our moral
obligation to be faithful stewards of our heritage and protect this
area for future generations. So that's why we're here today -- to make
sure that this special place is protected, as the President's doing
with Yellowstone and the Everglades and the Grand Canyon. This is one
of crown jewels, unique among them all.
We'll succeed if we remain committed and especially if we recognize
the overriding importance of the other great asset here in Lake Tahoe,
in addition to the natural beauty, the unique partnership and consensus
that has emerged here.
Now, it is my pleasure to present the individual who has made
possible and led the growing national consensus on protecting the
environment and growing the economy at the same time; someone whose
commitment to our national heritage is unparalleled, who understands
that environmental protection and economic growth are one in the same,
not only here, but all over our nation; someone who knows that we need
to come together and find common ground if we're to preserve America's
sacred ground.
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of United States, Bill Clinton.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. First of all, ladies and
gentlemen, I want to thank all of you who have had anything to do with
these efforts in working with us over the last several months. The
members of the Cabinet and the deput: secretaries have been
acknowledged. The members of the Congress have been acknowledged.
The other distinguished state officials from California and Nevada
have been acknowledged. But there are a lot of people who work for
these federal agencies at other levels who have just been out here
killing themselves for the last few months to try to make this a good,
successful two days. And to all the citizens who worked with them,
and to all the federal employees who are here, I want to thank all of
you for what you did to help these last two days be successful.
of 7
10/22/97 07:24:41
(Applause.)
In addition, there are four people who worked with us to help make
these workshops and in this forum a success -- Katie McGinty, Jim Lyons,
Tom Tuckman, Phil Bayles -- I can't count; six -- Jeff Bailey and Dave
Van Note. And I want to thank them.
I want to say a special word of appreciation to the members of
Congress from these two states who have proved that this is a
bipartisan, perhaps even a nonpartisan endeavor, that we all have
a stake, not just as Westerners, but as Americans, in not only
preserving Lake Tahoe, but, if possible, reversing some of the
difficulties of the last two years.
But I would be remiss if I did not say a special word of thanks to
the person who thought this idea up and got my commitment months ago --
months ago -- to show up, if you forgive me, come hell or high water.
And here we are in the middle of the budget negotiations we're trying
to finish today back in Washington, but I am here because I promised
Harry Reid months ago I would be here. (Applause.) Thank you.
I also want to thank the people who took us out on the boat today and
who do all this wonderful research here, and everybody who took the
Vice President around yesterday. When I got up at 5:00 a.m. in the
morning my time, 2:00 a.m. your time, to come here today -- and I ought
to be tired but I'm exhilarated, partly because of the beauty of the
surroundings. And I always -- on the few times in my life I've been
privileged to be at this great site, I've always been exhilarated by it.
The other reason I am pumped up is that when I saw the Vice President
this morning he was virtually glowing, and I knew he had been here in
his element. (Laughter). And the minute we got on the boat, I got my
Marine Biology 101 lecture -- (laughter) -- about, phosphorous,
nitrogen, what does what, what does the other. I looked at the
plankton. I mean, I could pass anybody's test now. (Laughter.)
And you have madé Al Gore a happy man. (Laughter and applause.) He
thinks that he is a -- this may be one of the deepest lakes in the
world, but he's just about 6 inches below heaven right now. (Laughter.)
Let me say that the first stewards of this land, of course, were the
Washoe People. They tell us that Lake Tahoe was the product of the
Good Spirit's benevolent hand. They've also treated it that way.
Perhaps now more and more Americans and more and more citizens of the
world are tending to look at our environment that way. I certainly
hope so.
When Washoe families came to the Lake each spring, they blessed the
water and shared its bounty. And when they left their campsites each
winter, they hardly left a track behind. Today, it appears to me that
all those who are involved in this great endeavor revere this region
and have worked hard to keep it safe from harm.
Your cooperation to protect Lake Tahoe is, frankly, as the Vice
President said, an outstanding model for the work we have to do to
protect all kinds of national treasures and deal with all kinds of
environmental challenges in the new century. And if I could be quite
candid here, one of the reasons that I wanted to come here was not
only to highlight to the nation the importance of Lake Tahoe, but
also to show the nation that there 15 a place where environmentalists
and business people and ordinary citizens, where Republicans and
4 of 7
10/22/97 07:24:42
Democrats, wnere tribal leaders and governmental people, where
everybody is working together in common cause recognizing that there
cannot be an artificial dividing line between preserving our natural
heritage and growing our economy.
That is the fundamental lesson as Americans we have to absorb if we
hope to be able to have our grandchildren and our grandchildren's
grandchildren 100 years from now celebrating the kind of country
we're celebrating on the edge of this new century. So you are doing
something important for the country. (Applause.)
As all of you know, the Vice President and I got to go out on the
UC Davis research vessel this morning to see how the scientists
monitor the lake's clarity and quality, and we also learned just how
not only pristine Lake Tahoe still is, but how much it has degraded
over the last 40 years or SO. We could see from measurable evidence
and the charts that are tacked up inside the vessel what we have to
do to reverse the decline.
We also have gotten the message in the workshops the Vice President
has described. Over the last two months, I think it's astonishing
that more than 1,000 people have participated in these workshops. I
believe this is the seventh such meeting -- I think that's accurate.
And for all of those 1,000 people plus, I want to thank you because
the announcements that will be made today and the work that will be
done in the months and years ahead is in no small measure the direct
result of your willingness to give your time to participate in this
process.
We learned that all of us have to find even better ways to work
together. And I think you know that just a few moments ago, I signed
an executive order to ensure greater cooperation among all the
governments, agencies and businesses working here. It's not a
top-down federal mandate, but a pledge to collaborate and share
resources more than ever. We will work with you, we will support
you, but you -- the states, the tribes, the local citizens -- you
will lead the way. The executive order simply embodies the
ratification of our obligation to help and to support.
The workshops also convinced us that the federal government must
take new actions now to help protect Lake Tahoe's environment and,
with it, the area's economy and quality of life. Today, with real
projects based on listening to local people, we commit to take more
than 25 specific actions and more than double the federal government's
investment in the basin in each of the next two years to well over
$50 million. (Applause.)
Among the things that we intend to do are, first, to expand our
efforts to restore the forest and reduce the risk of catastrophic
fires. The Forest Service will use prescribed fire and other means
to clean out the dry brush and wood on more than 3,500 federally owned
lots and 3,000 acres of open forest each year.
Second, we'll take steps to protect and restore the lake's fabled
water quality. We will work with UC Cavis to develop computer tools
that can predict how various watershed improvements will contribute
to water quality. Every federal agency here will work to increase
efforts to restore natural habitat, reduce erosion, and keep the
water clean.
One crucial measure we'll work narc to deliver is a new pipeline to
of 7
10/22/97 07:24:43
carry waste water out of the Tahoe Basin. (Applause.) And I thank
all the members who have supported that, but I particularly want to
recognize the efforts of Senator Boxer and Congressmen Fazio and
Doolittle.
Third, we will help to cut down on traffic congestion and auto
pollution by joining with you to improve mass transit throughout the
region. I'm pleased to report that the U.S. Postal Service will help
by switching to cleaner natural gas trucks and expanding home mail
delivery to people on the west side of the lake. The Sierra Nevada's
legendary 19th century mail carrier, Snowshoe Thompson, would probably
be proud of that. (Laughter.)
And let me say, if I might do a little home cooking here, there are
natural gas buses manufactured in Chattanooga, Tennessee -- (laughter)
-- now being sold all over the world, now in use in the rainforest in
Costa Rica, that would be very good for reducing air pollution around
the lake. (Laughter.) And I know someone who would be helpful in
getting you in touch with the appropriate people. (Applause.)
Finally, the Vice President met with Washoe elders yesterday and
announced that we will assist the tribe in their efforts to protect
sacred areas and preserve their culture. (Applause.) The Forest
Service intends to provide approximately 350 acres to the Washoe
for use in growing traditional plants, and another section of land
where the Washoe will establish a cultural center. As part of this
action, the Forest Service intends to provide tribal members access
to the water's edge for the first time in a century. (Applause.)
I learned today from their leader that the Washoe first wrote to
the President of the United States asking help on these matters in
1877. It just took 120 years, but I can tell you, from now on, the
mail will run more rapidly between Lake Tahoe and Washington, D.C.
(Applause.)
We hope to do more beyond today's announcement as we work with
leaders from California and Nevada and Lake Tahoe's many friends
in Congress. I also want to recognize the efforts of Governor Miller,
Governor Wilson earlier this week in recommending their states'
resources to the lake -- recommitting their states' resources to the
lake.
I'm convinced we can succeed in this endeavor. And, as I said
before, I'm convinced, as we do, the model of cooperation you have
established will be a model that we'll want to follow throughout
the country.
We have a lot of work to do today to preserve the pristine Head
Water's Forest in northern California, something of great concern
I know to Senator Feinstein and many others; to restore the Florida
Everglades; to protect the endangered Sterling Forest in the
Northeast; to save Yellowstone from gold mining. We have an awful
lot of work to do I think in perhaps cur biggest challenge of all
in confronting the challenge of global climate change as we move
into a new century.
President Theodore Roosevelt said, standing not far from here,
"We are not building this country of curs for a day. It is to last
through the ages." Well, as we approach the 21st century and deal
with these huge mega-challenges like climate change, you have given
us a way to meet the challenge of the ages -- by working together
and understanding what our forebears knew centuries ago. We cannot
of 7
10/22/97 07:24:44
divide our quest for prosperity from our obligation to hand nature,
God's great gift to us, on down to the generations.
We can do that. You have snown us the way. And we are determined
to do our part. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
12:16 P.M. PDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 7
10/22/97 07:24. :+
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
OPENING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AT DISCUSSION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 24, 1997
OPENING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT DISCUSSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The East Room
1:57 P.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Please be seated ladies and gentlemen. On
behalf of the President and the First Lady, it is my pleasure and
honor to welcome all of you to the White House. I'm going to present
the President in just a moment.
Before doing so, on his behalf, : would like to acknowledge the
distinguished guests who are present. I will formally introduce our
panel of Nobel laureates and university scientists in just a moment.
I want to acknowledge members of the President's Cabinet who are here
-- Administrator of the EPA Carol Browner; Secretary of Commerce Bill
Daley; Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman; Secretary of Energy Federico
Pena; Under Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers; Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency James Lee Witt; Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty; the President's
Science Advisor, Dr. Jack Gibbons, and other distinguished guests who
are present. We meet today to discuss the future of our planet and
the realities of global climate disruption.
I want to acknowledge one other person who is in the room somewhere
and I haven't had a chance to see him yet, but Charles David Keeling
is here. And, Dr. Keeling, thank you very much for joining us. And
he was responsible, along with one other, in measuring carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere for the very first time back in the last 1950s. And
my own introduction to this issue came about as a direct result of the
of 6
10/21/97 19:10:08
measurements which showed the annual cycle of carbon dioxide and the
steadily increasing peaks of concentrations of carbon dioxide, and now,
of course, we know other greenhouse gases, as well, that resulted from
those measurements.
Later, when I came to the Congress quite a few years after that,
in holding hearings I saw that those concentrations had increased
dramatically and, of course, all around the world scientists were
studying it intensively. And now we will soon hear from these
scientists about what the world's scientific conclusion is about what
this means for increased droughts and floods, dramatic changes in the
distribution of forests and croplands. And all of this gives rise to
great concern that we are committing future generations to a planet
that is altered in profound ways that can cause great harm to future
generations.
This administration has always worked on a simple principle when
addressing problems of a scientific and technical nature, and that
principle is: Science must inform policy decisions. Scientists are
by nature a cautious group, but the world's scientific community is
telling us in many ways that they believe that we as a civilization
are disrupting the balance of the world's climate. In the words of
the 2,000 scientists who participated in the intergovernmental panel
on climate change -- and I quote -- "there is a discernable human
influence on global climate."
More than 2,600 scientists have signed a letter about global
climatic disruption, which we'll be hearing more about in just a few
minutes. Today, we hear about the concerns of scientists. They
speak as eminent experts and as U.S. citizens who care about the
future of this planet. Each has a resume far too long to recount,
but let me briefly introduce those who are with us today.
Dr. Sherry Rowland won the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for
his pioneering research in atmospheric chemistry, explaining the
destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer. He is also a professor
at the University of California at Irvine and an official with the
National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Mario Molina shares the 1995 Nobel Prize with Sherry
Rowland. He is the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of
Environmental Science at MIT.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco is an eminent ecologist, past President of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, very active
with the AAAS, and also past President of the Ecological Society of
America. She is currently the Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of
Marine Biology and a distinguished Professor of Zoology at Oregon
State University.
Dr. Stephen Schneider is a climate scientist and professor at
Stanford University, recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship and winner
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's
Westinghouse Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology.
Dr. Bob Shope has devoted his professional life to the study of
viruses carried by biting insects. He is currently a professor in
the Departments of Pathology and Microbiology and Immunology at
the University of Texas.
? of 6
10/21/97 19:10:09
Dr. Henry Kendall won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1990.
He is Chairman of the Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and
the J.A. Stratton Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
And John Holdren is an expert on energy and environmental
science and delivered the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on
behalf of the Pugwash Conferences. He is currently the Director of
the Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government and Professor of Environmental Science
and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
at Harvard.
And now I would like to introduce the person who is leading our
country and the world toward a recognition of what must be done to
deal with this issue. It is my honor, ladies and gentlemen, to
present the President of the United States, President Bill Clinton.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen,
first let me thank you for being here -- members of the administration
and concerned members of the public, the scientists and other experts
that are here.
I would also like to say a special word of thanks to the
Vice President. In one of our earliest meetings together -- we meet
once a week and have lunch -- he went over the whole history of
greenhouse gas emissions and climatic change. And I became convinced
first that he was convinced that something was wrong. (Laughter.)
Then I became convinced something was wrong. And it's been a great
help to me, and I believe, to the people of the United States to have
him in the position that he's in not only with the convictions that
he has, but with the knowledge that he has. And I'm very grateful to
him for what he has done to help me come to grips with this issue.
To me, we have to see this whole issue of climate change
in terms of our deepest obligations to future generations. I have
spent most of my time in the last four and a half years trying to
prepare the American people for a new century and a new millennium.
It is also very important that we protect the Earth for that new
millennium, to make sure that people will be able to take advantage
of all the things we are trying to do, the opportunities we are
trying to create, the problems we are trying to solve.
It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to
future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of
climate change. Whenever the security of our country has been
threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is
what is at stake here. And the scientists have come here to
explain why.
As the Vice President said, the overwhelming balance of
evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory,
but now a fact that global warming is for real. The world scientists
believe that if we don't cut our emissions of greenhouse gases, we
will disrupt the global climate. In fact, there is ample evidence
that human activities are already disrupting the global climate,
of 6
10/21/97 19:10:09
and that if we stay on our current course, the average global
temperatures may rise 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit during the next
century.
To put that in some context, the difference in average
temperature between the last Ice Age, which was 10,000 to 12,000
years ago -- 10,000 to 12,000 years ago -- and today, is about 9
degrees Fahrenheit. So we could have two-thirds of that change in
100 years unless we do something.
If we fail to act, scientists expect that our seas will
rise one to three feet, and thousands of square miles here in the
United States, in Florida, Louisiana and other coastal areas will be
flooded. Infectious diseases will spread to new regions. Severe
heat waves will claim lives. Agriculture will suffer. Severe
droughts and floods will be more common. These are the things that
are reasonably predictable.
In the face of this, the United States must confront a
challenge that in some ways is the most difficult of all democracy's
challenges to face. That is, we have evidence, we see the train
coming, but most ordinary Americans in their day-to-day lives can't
hear the whistle blowing. They have no -- unless they have lived in
a place where they have experienced severe and unusual and completely
atypical weather disruptions in the last five years or so, the degree
of the challenge is inconsistent with the actual perceived experience
of most ordinary Americans. And this is true, indeed, throughout the
world. And that presents us our challenge.
A democracy is premised on the proposition that if the
American people, or any people in any democracy, know what the facts
are and believe them, way more than half the time they will do the
right thing. And so what we are doing today is beginning a process
in which we ask the American people to listen to the evidence, to
measure it against their own experience, but not to discount the
weight of scientific authority if their own experience does not yet
confirm what the overwhelming percentage of scientists believe to be
fact today. This is a great exercise and a great test for our
democracy.
I do want to say that I am convinced that when the nations of
world meet in Kyoto, Japan, in December on this issue, the United
States has got to be committed to realistic and binding limits on our
emissions of greenhouse gases. Between now and then, we have to work
with the American people to get them to share that commitment. We
have to emphasize flexible market-based approaches. We have to
embrace research and development efforts in technology that will help
us to improve the economy -- improve the environment while permitting
our economy to grow. We have to ask all nations, both industrial and
developing, to participate in this process.
But if we do this together, we can defuse this threat. And we
can make the 21st century what it sught to be, not only for our
children, but for all the children of the world. I believe the
science demands that we face this challenge now. I'm positive that
we owe it =0 our children. And I hope that we can find the wisdom
and the skill to do democracy's work in the next few months, to build
the consensus necessary to actuall; make action, as opposed to
rhetoric, possible.
1 of 6
10/21/97 19:10:10
And for all of you for your commitment to that, I thank you.
And now I'd like to ask Dr. Rowland to be the first of our
distinguished scientists to lead off. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I wish every American could hear what we've
heard today. But thanks to our friends in the media, a good
number of them will hear at least a portion of what we have heard
today. And this is the beginning of a consistent long-term effort
that we all have to make to involve the people of this country in
this decision. And I thank you all for the points you've made
because, in different ways each of them will resonate with citizens
of this country in a way that I believe will give us the support we
need to take the action that has to be taken.
In the weeks and months ahead, the Vice President, the Cabinet,
other members of the administration and I will be out in the country
discussing this. We'll be working with the American people; we'll be
talking about solutions as well as problems. The truth is, it's like
anything else -- the quicker you get another answer Dr. Holdren
might have given is that the quicker you get after this the less
extreme the remedy you have to embrace to have a measurable effect
to avoid an undesirable outcome. And the longer you wait, the more
disruptive the ultimate resolution will be. So that's another thing
that I'd like to emphasize.
Before we close I hope you will permit me to make a brief
statement. Just before I came in here to this meeting I learned that
today, and not very long ago, retired Supreme Court Justice William
Brennan passed away. He was a remarkable human being, one of the
finest and most influential jurists in our nation's history. He
served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. He was perhaps during that
period the staunchest, most effective defender of individual freedom
against government intrusion.
His devotion to the Bill of Rights inspired millions of
Americans and countless young law students, including myself. And
one of the great honors I have had as President was to be able to
award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in my first year in
office.
He once said, the role of the Constitution is the protection of
the dignity of every human being and the recognition that every
individual has fundamental rights which government cannot deny. He
spent a lifetime upholding those rights, and he authored some of the
most enduring constitutional decisions of this century, including
Baker V. Carr on one person, one vote; The New York Times V. Sullivan,
which brought the free speech doctrine into the latter half of the
20th century. The force of his iceas, the strength of his leadership
and his character have safeguardec freedom and widened the circle
of quality for every single one of is.
We will miss him greatly. And I know you join me in sending our
5 of 6
10/21/97 19:10:11
nouse
best wishes and our prayers to his family and friends, and our
gratitude for his life.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
3:05 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 6
10/21/97 19:10:12
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL
SESSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
June 26, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL SESSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The United Nations
New York, New York
6:30 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mr.
Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen: Five years ago in Rio, the
nations of the world joined together around a simple but revolutionary
proposition, that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense.
In our era, the environment has moved to the top of the
international agenda because how well a nation honors it will have an
impact, for good or ill, not only on the people of that nation, but all
across the globe. Preserving the resources we share is crucial not only
for the quality of our individual environments and health, but also to
maintain stability and peace within nations and among them. As the
father of conservation in our nation, John Muir, said, "When we try to
pick anything out by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in
the universe."
In the years since Ric, there has been real progress in
some areas. Nations have banned the dumping of radioactive wastes in
the ocean and reduced marine pollution from sources on land. We're
working to protect the precious coral reefs, to conserve threatened
fish, to stop the advance of deserts. At the Cairo Conference on
Population and Development, we reaffirmed the crucial importance of
cooperative family planning efforts to long-term sustainable
development.
Here in America, we have worked to clean up a record number
of our toxic dumps and we intend to clean 500 more over the next four
years. We passed new laws to better protect our water, created new
of 4
10/21/97 18:49:12
national parks and monuments, and worked to harmonize our efforts for
environmental protection, economic growth and social improvement, aided
by a distinguished Council on Sustainable Development.
Yesterday, I announced the most far-reaching efforts to
improve air quality in our nation in 20 years, cutting smog levels
dramatically, and, for the first time ever, setting standards to
lower the levels of the fine particles in the atmosphere that form soot.
In America, the incidence of childhood asthma has been increasing
rapidly. It is now the single biggest reason our children are
hospitalized. These measures will help to change that, to improve
health of people of all ages, and to prevent as many as 15,000 premature
deaths a year.
Still, we here have much more to do, especially in reducing
America's contribution to global climate change.
The science is clear and compelling: We humans are
changing the global climate. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are at their highest levels in more than 200,000 years, and
climbing sharply. If the trend is not changed, scientists expect the
seas to rise two feet or more over the next century. In America, that
means 9,000 square miles of Florida, Louisiana, and other coastal areas
will be flooded. In Asia, 17 percent of Bangladesh, land on which 6
million people now live, will be lost. Island chains such as the
Maldives will disappear from the map, unless we reverse the predictions.
Climate changes will disrupt agriculture, cause severe
droughts and floods and the spread CÍ infectious diseases, which will be
a big enough problem for us under the best of circumstances in the 21st
century. There could be 50 million or more cases of malaria a year. We
can expect more deaths from heat stress. Just two years ago, here in
the United States in the city of Chicago, we saw the tragedy of more
than 400 of our citizens dying during a severe heat wave.
No nation can escape this danger. None can evade its
responsibility to confront it. And we must all do our part --
industrial nations that emit the largest quantities of greenhouse gases
today, and developing nations whose green house gas emissions are
growing rapidly. I applaud the European Union for its strong focus on
this issue, and the World Bank for setting environmental standards for
projects it will finance in the developing world.
Here in the United States, we must do better. With 4
percent of the world's population, we already produce more than 20
percent of its greenhouse gases. Frankly, our record since Rio is not
sufficient. We have been blessed with high rates of growth and millions
of new jobs over the last few years, but that has led to an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions in spite of the adoption of new conservation
practices. So we must do better, and we will.
The air quality action I took yesterday is a positive first
step, but more must follow. In order to reduce greenhouse gases and
grow the economy, we must invest more in the technologies of the future.
I am directing my Cabinet to work to development them. Government,
universities, business and labor must work together. All these efforts
must be sustained over years, indees, over decades. As Vice President
Gore said Monday, "Sustainable development requires sustained
commitment." With that commitment, we can succeed.
We must create new technologies and development new
strategies like emissions trading that will both curtail pollution and
support continued economic growth. We owe that in the developed world
to ourselves and, equally, to those in the developing nations.
10/21/97 18:49:13
2 of 4
Many of the technologies that will help us to meet the new
air quality standards can also help us to address climate change. This
is a challenge we must undertake immediately and one in which I
personally plan to play a critical role.
In the United States, in order to do our part, we have to
first convince the American people and the Congress that the climate
change problem is real and imminent. I will convene a White House
Conference on Climate Change later this year to lay the scientific facts
before our people, to understand that we must act, and to lay the
economic facts there so that they understand the benefits and the costs.
With the best ideas and strategies and new technologies and increased
productivity and energy efficiency, we can turn the challenge to our
advantage.
We will work with our people and we will bring to the Kyoto
conference a strong American commitment to realistic and binding limits
that will significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.
I want to mention three other initiatives briefly that we
are taking to deal with climate change and to advance sustainable
development here and beyond our borders.
First, to help developing nations reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the United States will provide $1 billion in assistance over
the next five years to support energy efficiency, develop alternative
energy sources and improve resource management to promote growth that
does not have an adverse effect on the climate.
Second, we will do more to encourage private investment to
meet environmental standards. The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation will now require that its projects adhere to new and
strengthened environmental guidelines, just as our Export-Import Bank
already does and as I hope our allies and friends soon will. Common
guidelines for responsible investment clearly would lead to more
sustainable growth in developing nations.
Third, we must increase our use of new technologies even as
we move to develop more new technologies. Already, we are working with
our auto industry to produce cars by early in the next century that are
three times as fuel-efficient as today's vehicles. Now we will work
with businesses and communities to use the sun's energy to reduce our
reliance on fossil fuels by installing solar panels on 1 million more
roofs around our nation by 2010. Capturing the sun's warmth can help
us to turn down the Earth's temperature.
Distinguished leaders, in all of our cultures we have been
taught from time immemorial that, as Scripture says, "One generation
passes away and another comes, but the Earth abides forever." We must
strengthen our stewardship of the environment to make that true and to
ensure that when this generation passes, the young man who just spoke
before me and all of those of his generation will inherit a rich and
abundant Earth.
Thank you very much.
Applause.)
END
6:42 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
of 4
10/21/97 18:49:14
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
Remarks by Vice President Al Gore at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on
the Environment and Development New York, NY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 23, 1997
Remarks by Vice President Al Gore
at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session
on the Environment and Development
New York, NY
June 23, 1997
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, President Cardoso, thank
you for the magnificent way in which your country hosted the Earth
Summit in 1992 and thank you for your inspiring remarks. Thank you,
President Razali, for your personal commitment to this process dating
back to the very beginning. You presided over the first meeting of the
Commission on Sustainable Development which I had the pleasure to
attend, and I thank you very much for the courtesy of being able to
address this gathering this morning. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary-General. We are extremely grateful for your hard work and
dedication to the future of the United Nations.
Esteemed colleagues, ministers, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of
President Clinton and the American people, welcome to New York and to
this important session marking the fifth anniversary of the UN
Conference on Environment and Develcpment.
Five years ago, world leaders and concerned citizens from around the
world gathered in Rio to chart a course called sustainable development.
This week we measure our progress asking how successful we have been and
how to do better.
In the past five years we have mace much progress. We have negotiated
international agreements to protect critical fish stocks, ban ocean
dumping of nuclear waste and stem land based sources of marine
pollution. We have forged a new global consensus on population and
gender equality. We know that womer.'s empowerment -- education, health
care and economic opportunity -- is essential to building a healthy
future. We have fostered democracy and increased stability around the
world. We have witnessed a dramatic and inspiring rise in environmental
10/21/97 18:11:36
of 3
awareness around the globe. Non-governmental organizations are active
and involved, invigorating their democracies while protecting the
environment. Private capital flows are skyrocketing, bringing with them
the promise of economic growth and better tomorrows. And increasingly,
the private sector is becoming an active and welcome partner in
sustainable development. We have new and better tools to promote
sustainable development. From the Internet to satellite energy,
technology is opening new vistas in cur efforts to improve the lives of
people around the world.
And yet, enormous challenges remain. Many of the goals of Rio remain
to be achieved. Take, for example, the two critical issues of climate
change and forests. Today greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at
record rates. Unless we change course, during the lives of our
grandchildren, concentration of these gasses in the atmosphere will
reach levels not seen on this planet for more than 50 million years.
Scientists warn, as a result of sea-level rise, of more severe droughts
and floods, loss of forest cover and the spread of infectious diseases.
Kyoto presents a critical opportunity for the world to forge an
agreement with binding emissions limits, flexibility in meeting those
targets and the participation of all nations. We must act. Forest
loss is occurring at dramatic levels; only slightly below those
witnessed during the 1980's. The consequences for human well-being,
social stability, biodiversity, soil stability, water quality and
climate change are extremely serious. We must reverse these trends.
In the words of a president of my country early in this century,
Theodore Roosevelt, "We must safeguard our forests as we keep a great
and beautiful cathedral."
Today more than one billion of the EarthG, citizens live in abject
poverty and more than two billion lack access to sanitation. In too
many places, poverty breeds environmental degradation, and
environmental degradation, in turn, breeds poverty. We have learned
that there are no easy answers or quick fixes. The road to sustainable
development requires a sustained commitment and conviction. It needs
imagination and ingenuity. It demanas engagement and enterprise from
us all.
Our task for the coming days must be to chart the course for the years
to come. We must unite in our resolve to meet the challenge of climate
change. We must work to protect the world's forests by creating a
follow-up mechanism to the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests that
produces on-the-ground results, not new negotiations. We must
capitalize on the upcoming Year of the Ocean to protect the marine
environment and we must establish a coordinated approach to addressing
the problems plaguing fresnwater resources around the globe.
In short, we must roll up our sleeves and go to work. These are no
small tasks but we must make sustainable development a guiding
principle of the 21st century. Thank you.
###
Return to the main page
of 3
10/21/97 18 11:38
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(San Jose, Costa Rica)
For Immediate Release
May 9, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Braulio Carrillo National Park
Costa Rica
11:07 A.M. (L)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
President, for delivering on the rainforest. (Laughter.) You know, in
my part of the United States, the children are raised with an old
proverb that has come, true today. The proverb is, you must be careful
what you ask for in life, because you might get it.
Well, Dr. Macaya, to Joaquin Viquez -- didn't that young
man do a great job. You should be very proud of him; he was terrific.
(Applause.) Thank you.
To all of those who have spoken before and who have come
here, and let me thank the members of my Cabinet and administration who
are here, and also the members of the National Park Service. Hillary
and I have tried to make sure we're at at least one of our national
parks every year, and I think it's fair to say that they are the most
popular public servants in the United States, so it's nice to see them
-- in the case of Mr. Findley -- someplace besides Yellowstone. I'm
glad you're all here. Thank you all very much for what you do.
(Applause.)
Most of what needs to be said has been said. I come
here to emphasize the importance of the forest that surrounds us, the
chain of life not only in Costa Rica and Central America but to all the
world. We know that the rainforests of the world provide us with a good
deal of our oxygen and enormous resources coming out of the plant and
animal life they contain. We know that the forest helps us keep our
climate stable to preserve our soils, :: protect our river. It nurtures
plants that provide food and clothing and furniture and medicine. And
from the stunning quetzal bird to the stealthy jaguar, we know that the
| of 4
10/21/97 18:14:04
marveious animals must be preserved ter all to see.
There is a new understanding today in the world between
the bonds that connect human beings and their natural environment. We
know we have to preserve them, and we know that in the end economic
development itself cannot occur unless the environment is preserved.
That is the lesson of the Rio Earth Summit five years ago, the driving
force behind the CONCAUSA Alliance between the United States and Central
America that President Figueres discussed, and also the driving notion
behind the way we want to integrate this hemisphere -- not just in trade
and economics but also in education and health -- and finally in common
cause to sustaining the treasures we see around us here today.
Costa Rica is showing the way -- you heard President
Figueres say that now more than one-quarter of its land is being
protected. The unique natural resources are generating jobs and income.
Just before I came up here, Secretary Babbitt gave me the figures on
Costa Rica's tourism income because of the commitment the people of this
country have made to preserving and protecting the natural environment.
We now know we have to do this not only in our hemisphere but around the
world.
You know, the examples that the President cited I thought
were quite important. We are pursuing ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
There is some doubt about exactly what increased greenhouse gas
emissions are doing to the climate, but no one doubts that they're
changing the climate, and no one doubts that the potential consequences
can be very profound and severe.
Almost three years ago, the Vice President of the United
States, Al Gore, and President Figueres signed an agreement that will
help United States companies greenhouse gas emissions by investing in
environmental projects in Costa Rica.
Today, there are more than a dozen of these joint projects
all across Central America -- promoting solar energy in Honduras,
geothermal energy in Nicaragua, forest management in Belize. Now the
carbon certificates created by the government of Costa Rica and the
United States companies will provide a new way to finance these
investments. Proceeds will go to clean power plants, protecting or
planting forests, launching other programs that pay environmental
dividends. This is a long way from the philosophy which prevailed in
this country, in our country, and indeed throughout the developed and
the developing world just a few years ago.
From electric buses, which the President pointed out, to
wind-driven power plants, Costa Rica's ambitious plans prove that we can
have clean air and renewable energy in ways that create jobs here and in
our country. That bus, I believe, was made in the Vice President's home
state of Tennessee. And he asked me to say he appreciates it.
(Laughter.)
Third, let me say a special word of appreciation for
something the President mentioned, and that is the work that is being
done with the rain forest and with the space program by Dr. Franklin
Cheng Diaz, to deal with Chagas disease, which kills 20,000 people in
Latin America every year. The idea of combining what we know about
space and what we find in the rain forest to make people have better and
healthier lives is another stunning reminder that we destroy these
resources at our peril.
Last, let me say, we're finding new ways to preserve our
2 of 4
10/21/97 18:14:05
natural heritage. Once, our National Park Service worked with Costa
Rica to help to set up your incredible network of parks. Now the Costa
Rican Bark Service is returning the favor by helping us to use your
computer software in ways that will enable our park rangers at
Yellowstone -- which is the shining diamond of our park system -- to
catalog and preserve its natural wonders.
Soon after we complete this moment, Secretary Babbitt and
Minister Castro will sign an agreement strengthening our cooperation for
the next century. We're also working together to help other countries
take better care of their wildlife, train professionals to manage
fisheries in Argentina, run national parks in Paraguay, teach
conservation in Guatemala. Now we have to work across national lines to
protect the habitat of the songbirds, the sea turtles, the other
creatures that migrate between our shores, and to stop the illegal and
deadly trade in endangered species.
Yesterday in San Jose, President Figueres, our fellow
leaders, and I pledged to make sustainable development a cornerstone of
our relations. It will be part of the 1998 Summit of the Americas in
Santiago and eventually the foundation of a larger global effort.
We must ban leaded gasoline everywhere, not just in Costa
Rica, and control pesticides in our hemisphere, and reach a global
agreement to phase out the most dangerous toxic chemicals.
We have to protect our own forests and work with the United Nations to
develop a strategy for the sustainable management of others around the
world. And we must meet the challenge of climate change -- regionally
and beyond our hemisphere.
Together, we can make this a very historic year, Mr.
President. As you know, the United Nations is having a special session
next month on the environment. I am pleased to be leading America's
delegation to the U.N. I hope many other world leaders will be there.
Together, we need to reaffirm the spirit of Rio and lay out the concrete
steps we're going to take to move ahead to make the preservation of the
global environment and sustainable development the policy of every
nation on earth. (Applause.)
We are seeking to build a world where people live in the
21st century in harmony, not at war with each other; when they recognize
that they have more in common than what divides them; when they no
longer seek to elevate themselves by demeaning other people. That kind
of world will only occur if we are alsc generous, wise and good to our
natural environment, and where we do not expect today's growth to
threaten tomorrow's survival. That is :y commitment; that is Costa
Rica's commitment -- let us make sure we realize it. Thank you and God
bless you all.
Before the paper is too we:, we have to ask Secretary Pena,
Secretary Babbitt, and Minister Castro :0 come sign our agreements on
electric transport and parks on behalf of our two nations. And we hope
that the pens still work. (Laughter and applause.)
END
11:16 A.M. (L)
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
of 4
10/21/97 18:14:06
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT UPON DEPARTURE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 22, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND VICE PRESIDENT
UPON DEPARTURE
The South Lawn
9:05 A.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Of
course, as you know, the President is about to depart for North Dakota
and the surrounding area to bring some additional help and encouragement
and solidarity to the victims of the 500 Year Flood in that area.
Prior to leaving, the President is going to make an
important announcement concerning a major new step forward in our effort
to empower the American people with information needed to protect their
environment. This new step being taken by the President vastly expands
the community's right to know about pollutants being released into their
neighborhoods and into their communities.
One important aspect cf this announcement is the reinventing
feature that streamlines the collection of information by the businesses
affected by this new announcement and protects the environment in new
ways, while at the same time reducing the burden of information
collection on businesses. This measure probably has more support across
all lines in America than any other thing that we do; because when you
give the American people they can use to protect themselves, then people
at the grassroots level find very creative ways to convince those sources
of pollution to reduce the emissions into the air and water in the
communities where these individuals live.
It is only one example of the broad-based effort led by
President Bill Clinton to greatly improve the protection of the
environment. Everything from emissions in the smallest community to the
global issues, such as climate change. And, incidentally, our research
effort is continuing to pin down what many scientists have said is a link
between extreme weather events not only in this country, but in other
10/21/97 18:15:35
of 4
nations as well -- that have long been predicted to become more common in
a world where temperatures are rising even slightly.
I preceded the President to the north central area two weeks
ago and talked with one mayor who said his community had had six
hundred-year floods in the last 10 years. The scientific community
cautions that no one can ever say that a particular event, even a 500
hundred year flood, is connected to global climate change. But they do
say and have said for two decades that the probability that such events
will occur increases along with climate change.
This announcement, again, on the community's right to know
is a major advance, emblematic of this President's leadership on the
environment. Therefore, on this Earth Day, it is a particular privilege
and pleasure for me to present President Bill Clinton.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As all of you know I am about to
leave for North Dakota, where the people are quite literally in the fight
of their lives. What they have endured is enormous. How they are
enduring it is remarkable. I am going to view the flood damage to pledge
our nation's support to see that we are doing everything we can do to
help them.
You know, Americans have a habit of joining together at
times like this and I think all Americans have been very deeply moved by
the pictures we have seen of a town being flooded and burning at the same
time, the people in North Dakota losing everything they have. I,
personally, can't remember a time when a community that large was
entirely evacuated. And we have to stay together.
I think it is appropriate, for the reasons the Vice
President said, that coincidentally this trip is occurring on Earth Day,
because since 1970, the first Earth Day, Americans have stood side by
side against a rising tide of pollution and for the proposition that we
have to find a way to live in harmony with and grow our economy in a way
that is consistent with preserving our environment.
Earth Day started at the grassroots. Soon the force of
neighbor joining with neighbor grew into a national movement to safeguard
our air, our land and our water. The movement led national leaders of
both parties to put in place the environmental safeguards that protect us
today: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Environmental
Protection Act. In 1995, an attempt to reverse this consensus and to
radically weaken our environmental laws was strongly rebuffed here in
Washington and, even more importantly, all across America. And in 1996,
that consensus began to be restored again.
These environmental protections have done an awful lot of
good. But one of the best things we can do in Washington to protect the
environment is to give people in communities all across our country the
power to protect themselves from pollution. That is the mission of the
Community Right to Know law. This law tells citizens exactly what
substances are being released into their neighborhoods. In the decade
its been on the books, citizens have joined with government and industry
to reduce the release of toxic chemicals by 43 percent. Under our
administration we strengthened Right to Know, nearly doubling the number
of chemicals that must be reported, making it easier for Americans to
find out what toxics, if any, are being sent into the world around them.
In 1995, I directed EPA Administrator Carol Browner to find
ways to expand Community Right to Know even further. Today, we are
making good on that pledge. Today, we increased by 6,100 -- 30 percent
the number of facilities that need to tell the public what they are
releasing into our environment. Today, seven new industries -- including
of 4
10/21/97 18:15:36
mining, electric utilities and hazardous waste treatment centers that use
substances like mercury, lead and arsenic -- will now be subject to the
Community Right to Know law. Today, more information will be required
from 700 companies already providing information under the law. It will
be more accessible to Americans. And today we set in motion a process
that will guarantee that all the stakeholders -- including citizens,
community groups, environmental groups and businesses -- will have
opportunities to work together from now on to continue to improve this
law.
By expanding Community Right to Know we're giving Americans
a powerful, very powerful early warning system to keep their children
safe from toxic pollution. We're giving them the most powerful tool in a
democracy: knowledge. We are truly living up to the promise of Earth
Day.
I also want to say a special word of thanks to Katie McGinty
for the work that she has done on this, and the White House. And I want
to thank the Vice President for taking my place at the Earth Day
celebration at Anacostia today, to talk about Community Right to Know and
for all of his work on the environment.
And just let me say in closing, with regard to the comments
he made about climate change and the possible impact it may have had on
the enormous number of highly disruptive weather events that have
occurred just since we've been here in the last four years and a few
months, I think it is very important that we continue to intensify our
government's research efforts in this regard and that we take the very
best knowledge we have and bring it =0 bear on a lot of the decisions
we'll be having to make together as a country over the next four years.
We do not know, as the Vice President said, for sure that
the warming of the earth is responsible for what seems to be a
substantial increase in highly disruptive weather events; but many people
believe that it is and we have to keep looking into it. We have to find
the best scientific evidence we have and we have to keep searching for
the answers to this. I think every American has noticed a substantial
increase in the last few years of the kind of thing we're going to see in
North Dakota today. And if there is a larger cause which can be eased
into the future, we ought to go after that solution as well. Thank you.
2 Is a Marshall Plan appropriate? Your Chief of Staff
suggested yesterday it may take a Marshall Plan to help North Dakota.
THE PRESIDENT: You know, we've had -- I suppose because
North Dakota is not highly populated we may -- we've had disasters which
have affected more people. But I believe that probably this is the
highest percentage of people in any state or community that I have seen
affected by this. And, you know, if you look at Grand Forks you see a
place that literally has to be completely rebuilt, or people have to
reconstitute their lives elsewhere. So I do believe that we're going to
have to be prepared to be very creative here.
The Congress has shown in the past, even when it was quite
costly -- after the earthquake in California, for example that we can
unite across party lines to do what has to be done. We need to take a
hard look at this. This situation in North Dakota is virtually
unprecedented in many, many ways and I want to go out there, make sure
that I have read all the information available, talk to the people there,
see for myself and then I'll come back and, along with the Congressional
delegation with Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad and Congressman
Pomeroy, we'll put our heads together and see where we go from here.
O Any idea, Mr. President, on how much money it might take
and will it be there when you need 11?
of 4
10/21/97 18:15:37
THE PRESIDENT: I think, as I said, my experience in dealing
with the flood in the middle west and all the disasters in California,
the Pacific northwest, the floods in the southeast, is that Congress
finds a way. And I think everybody in America has been totally
overwhelmed by what we have seen on television and seen in the news
reports -- these pictures of buildings completely surrounded by water,
burning down. You know, I think it's been an overwhelming experience. I
think the American people are with the people of North Dakota and I think
we" 11 do what we have to do.
2 Mr. President, are you making any tangible headway on the
Chemical Weapons treaty, on getting the votes for the Chemical Weapons
treaty?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope so. We're working hard on it.
We are working very, very hard on it -- I am, the Vice President is,
everyone in our administration is. I worked over the weekend some on it.
We're doing the best we can to put together a strong case. I think the
fact that we have come up with a package of 28 clarifying amendments that
respond to 90 percent of the objections, even of the strongest opponents
of the treaty, I think shows the good faith in which we have proceeded.
And we've worked very hard on this and I'm actually quite optimistic.
2
Have you talked to Senator Lott?
Q
-- for Saddam Hussein and honoring the no-fly zone?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, my message is that we support people
in exercising their religious liberties and in living out their religious
convictions everywhere in the world. And we certainly support that in
the Muslim world. But we don't want to see religion, in effect, used and
distorted in a way to try to avoid the international obligations that are
imposed. And we intend to continue to observe the no-fly zone and
continue to support the embargo until he lives up to the conditions of
the United Nations resolutions.
END
9:19 A.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of 4
10/21/97 18:15:38
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 1, 1996
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 3816, the "Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997.
The Act provides $20 billion in discretionary budget
authority for programs of the Department of Energy (DOE),
portions of the Interior and Defense Departments, the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), and several smaller agencies.
The Act provides $11.4 billion for atomic energy defense
programs, $0.3 billion above my request. I am disappointed
that the Congress has funded unrequested increases for nuclear
weapons management and related programs, while curtailing
investments in important civilian activities. Nevertheless,
I am pleased that the Act will provide for a significantly
enhanced Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship and Management
program that will continue DOE's strong commitment to ensuring
the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
This Act will also enable the Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management program to aggressively address the
environmental legacy of previous weapons activities.
I am pleased that the Congress dropped a provision
that would have made funding for the nuclear waste management
program contingent upon congressional passage of a subsequent
authorization bill. This language could have led to the
immediate suspension of ongoing work at the Yucca Mountain site.
I am also pleased that the Congress provided $45 million
to the International Nuclear Safety program, which assists
nations of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in
improving the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors.
I am disappointed that the Act cuts $93 million from
my request for solar and renewable energy research programs.
Investments in the development of advanced renewable energy
technologies, which have a large potential export market,
will creaté new jobs and reduce pollution, thereby addressing
climate change and protecting human health and the environment.
I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for DOE departmental
10/21/97 18:39:04
of 2
nouse
Database
doc.
administration and program direction in civilian research and
defense programs that may jeopardize the Department's ability
to perform its missions and maintain its financial management
responsibilities.
I am disappointed that the Act includes over $210 million
in unrequested funds for Corps' construction, studies, and
operation and maintenance programs. The Congress should have
used these funds to restore reductions it made to other priority
DOE and Corps programs, such as the Corps' wetlands regulatory
program.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 30, 1996.
# # #
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected]
of ?
10/21/97 18:39:05
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
PREPARED REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 12, 1996
PREPARED REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Baltimore, MD
The Technology Challenge:
What is the Role of Science in American Society?
Over the next three days, I will be delivering three speeches on
America's technology challenges. Tomorrow, in Virginia, I'll ask: How must
we update our notions of self-government and bring them into harmony with the
Information Age? On Wednesday, in Philadelphia, I'll celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the ENIAC computer and ask: Are we providing the spark to
ignite private innovation, new industries, and better jobs?
But today, before this extraordinary collection of minds, I'll
ask the question that in many ways must precede the others: What is the
role of science in American society? Why does science matter anyway?
These are complex questions. And no one person has all the
answers. I certainly don't. In fact, before I proceed further this
morning, I want to recalibrate your expectations. As you listen during
the next half-hour, feel free to think our session as a biology class.
But don't think of me as the professor. Think of me as the frog.
So let me begin by describing a deep -- but little noticed --
change in the pona of our public life. Not too long ago, the metaphors
of science migrated easily to the realm of political and economic
affairs. In previous generations, the logic and lingo of science --
from Newtonian physics to the industrial science of Frederick Taylor --
informed our public conversation. But not today -- or at least not
I of 8
10/22/97 06:57:27
very often. When when i day that cur current, chaotic political
culture reminds me of Ilya Prigogine that because our system has
more and more energy coming in, it will eventually reorganize itself
into a complicated and unpredictable new system
nobody has a
clue what I'm talking about.
As a result, the language we use to discuss public problems is
less vivid and less robust than it ought to be. Chaos theory may offer
clues for when government should intervene in the economy. Economic
policy perhaps should focus less on "priming the pump" -- and more an
"imprinting the DNA.' Evolution could offer insight into our social
structures. But at the moment, we lack the vocabulary to even begin
such discussions.
We either avoid scientific metaphors altogether -- or we lean
against the crutch of Industrial Age metaphors that are splintering
with age. In particular, we continue to rely on the metaphor of the
factory -- of mechanized mass production -- well after it has exhausted
much of its supportive force.
So today, in the spirit of academic inquiry, let me propose an
alternative metaphor
an updated metaphor
a metaphor more
appropriate to the times and more muscular in its power to explain. It
is the metaphor of distributed intelligence.
In the beginning of the mainframe computer era, computers
relied almost totally on huge central processing units surrounded by
large fields of memory. The design was much like a mass-production
factory. The CPU would send out to the field of memory for raw
information that needed to be processed, bring it back to the center,
do the work, and then distribute the answer back into the field of
memory. This technique performed certain tasks well -- especially
those that benefited from a rigid hierarchy or that depended on the
outer reaches only for rote tasks.
Then along came a new architecture called massive parallelism.
This broke up the processing power into lots of tiny processors that
were then distributed throughout the field of memory. When a problem
was presented, all of the processors would begin working
simultaneously, each performing its small part of the task, and sending
its portion of the answer to be collated with the rest of the work that
was going on. It turns out that for most problems, this approach is
more effective.
But somehow this idea, revolutionary as it was in the computer
world, never travelled to other regions of our life -- and didn't come
anywhere near politics. And that's a shame. Because in the realm of
politics or economics or public policy, the metaphor of distributed
intelligence has enormous explanatory power. It offers an insight into
why democracy has triumphed over governments that depended exclusively
on a central authority. And it illuminates why private sector
organizations are shedding their middle layers and pushing power,
information, and influence to frontline workers. Taken a step further,
it even helps explain phenomena as diverse as virtual communities on
the Internet and television programs like "America's Funniest Home
Videos.
All of which raises 3 quest much like the one Lily Tomlin
2 of 8
10/22/97 06:57:28
asked me last week when the President signed into law landmark
legislation reforming American telecommunications. As I tried to
explain something to her during the bill-signing ceremony, Lily --
actually, her character, Ernestine the operator -- asked me: If you
know so much, how come you're not signing the bill? In other words, if
this is such a great metaphor, why hasn't it taken hold?
Here's one possible explanation: I've got it wrong. Perhaps
the metaphor of distributed intelligence simply isn't as powerful as
I've claimed.
Here's another possibility: the increasing segmentation of
society -- in particular, the segmentation of scientific disciplines.
At their best, the scientific community and the university community
embody the ideal of distributed intelligence. The great power of
science derives in part from specialization into disciplines. But much
of the power also comes from open criticism and communication across
disciplines. Indeed, some of the most significant discoveries have
emerged from the productive friction that occurs when different
perspectives rub against each other and produce the spark of new
insight. But if the physicists don't talk to the chemists, and the
chemists don't talk to the economists, and if the economists don't talk
to the climatologists, then distributed intelligence is more aspiration
than reality. So a second explanation for the absence of this
metaphor is that it describes a phenomenon that itself disappearing.
Finally, here's a third possibility why the notion of
distributed intelligence has not migrated to our public conversation:
the growing disconnect between science and democracy. Walk through the
halls of Congress, and you'll see the Gucci loafers of corporate
lobbyists, but not the white lab coats of American scientists. Page
through a directory of members of Congress, and you'll find well over
150 lawyers, but only six scientists, two engineers, and one science
teacher among the 535 people in the House and the Senate.
As a result, scientific concepts sometimes elude the vast
majority of our elected officials. That is inherently unfortunate,
because we want well-rounded leaders.
But let me dwell a moment about some of the harder-edged
consequences -- in the hopes that it will solidify my case for this new
metaphor: Lack of scientific understanding undercuts support for the
pursuit of further understanding, which fosters deeper ignorance, which
in turn further erodes support for battling that ignorance. It's a
vicious cycle.
And it's already underway. Listen to what some members of
Congress have been saying recently.
Two weeks after the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to
scientists for their work on ozone depletion, Texas Congressman Tom
Delay said -- and I'm quoting -- "The science underlying the CFC ban is
debatable." The agreement to terminate the use of CFC's, he said, was
"the result of a media scare."
Congressman Delay also said that DDT was -- and I'm quoting --
"not harmful."
: of 8
10/22/97 06:57:28
white
House
Database
doc:
PREPARED
And just a few weeks ago at a hearing on clean drinking water,
Oklahoma Congressman Tom Coburn said -- and I'm quoting once again to
assure you I'm not making this up -- ": want to touch on
cryptosporidium for a minute
this disease can sometimes be very
helpful, because it helps us identify those who in fact are immune
compromised."
These comments ought to send snivers up our spines, because
they suggest that the lack of scientific metaphors is merely the
symptom of a deeper disregard for science itself and further proof of
the vicious cycle I mentioned a few moments ago.
And that's precisely the opposite of how it should work in
America. For much of this century, Americans have benefited from a
virtuous circle -- a virtuous circle of science and success. As the
nation generated wealth, a portion of that wealth was invested in
research, science, and technology. Those investments helped answer
what seemed answerable -- and eventually spawned still greater wealth,
which was then invested in still more research. On and on it went. In
this virtuous circle -- launched with bipartisan agreement --
prosperity generated investment, investment generated answers, and
answers generated further prosperity.
But now -- because of the woeful lack of knowledge that you
just heard -- that virtuous circle risks coming undone. At the very
moment a new age demands continued investments in science and
technology, there are some in Congress threatening to turn the clock
backward with the largest cuts in 15 years.
In their most recent budget, according to AAAS's own study, the
Congressional leadership proposed reducing federal funding for science
and technology by one-third by the year 2002, adjusted for inflation.
And get this: several years after the Cold War ended, defense R & D is
going up, while civilian R&D is going down. More for Star Wars, less
for environmental research. At the very moment global economic
competition and global environmental degradation demand civilian
research and the technologies it often produces, this Congress is
proposing the sharpest cuts in nondefense research since America was
fighting World War II.
This organization's study a few months ago laid out the numbers
plain and simple. The only investment the Congress wants to increase
was in health sciences. And that's creat. But in almost every other
realm, they're approaching science with all the wisdom of a potted
plant.
Research on issues that will affect the health of our children,
the condition of our planet, and the vibrancy of our economy -- risks
being slashed to the bone. Global warming
down.
Supercomputers
down. Nuclear nonproliferaticn.
down. New materials
way down. Solar energy
way
down.
Environmental satellites
down. Water quality
down.
It's like they're living in in gravity-defying universe.
Everything that ought to be up is down. Everything that ought to be
open is closed. Their science policy is straight out of science
10/22/97 06:57:29
1 of 8
fiction. is few may talk like Johnny Mnemonic, but most support
policies designed for Fred Flintstone. They promise to boldly go where
no Congress has gone before, but their flight plan will take us into
the ground.
President Clinton vetoed several of the bills containing these
cuts -- but not before that other side shut down the government, and
furloughed thousands of government scientists. And right now, several
agencies -- in particular, the National Science Foundation -- are
sputtering along with stopgap funding that makes it almost impossible
to plan and difficult even to finance day to day activities.
But the saddest part is that 10 doesn't have to be this way.
Last week, President Clinton proposed a budget outline that leads to
the first balanced budget in seventeen years. And he gets there
without compromising our values, without abandoning our commitments to
education, the environment, and science and technology.
Of course we've got to balance the budget, but there's both a
sensible path and a dangerous path that can take us there. Consider:
federal investments in basic research now total 0.27 percent -- that's
0027 for any humanities majors in the crowd -- 0.27 percent of
America's gross domestic product. That's considerably less than
American households spend each year on pet food or breakfast cereal.
Only a few years ago, the United States -- public and private
combined -- invested three percent of its GDP in research and
development. Today, it's sunk to 2.6 percent. But if that weren't
enough, consider the long-term consequences if these deep cuts are
imposed: by the year 2000, for the first time in history, Japan will
spend more on research and development than the United States, in real
terms. Not more per capita, or more as a portion of their Gross
Domestic Product. More. Period. Even though Japan's economy is
considerably smaller than ours and its population is about half our
size.
If our guiding metaphor is the factory, such proposals don't
seem outlandish. After all, the goal of the factory is to crank out
more and more of the same thing at a lower and lower cost. Shaving a
little here and little there is smart business.
But if the guiding metaphor is distributed intelligence, such
proposals are terribly misguided. Because distributed intelligence
combined with this virtuous circle of riches and research is needed now
more than ever, and has already made a difference in this country.
For instance, the discovery of the structure DNA led to new
drugs for Lou Gehrig's disease. The Hubble Telescope, besides opening
new vistas on our universe, helped produce to new treatments for breast
cancer. A federally-supported agency, the National Academy of
Sciences, sounded the first alarm that chloroflorocarbons were eroding
the czone layer. The MRI was a product of four separate discoveries in
four separate fields of scientific inquiry. And the Human Genome
Project is now determining the location and sequence of an estimated
100, $ 00 human genes, and generating new strategies to battle illness
and disease.
5 of 8
10/22/97 06:57:30
If we abandon our commitment to science, and fail to understand
the power of distributed intelligence, this is what we risk losing --
the chaotic, convoluted, unpredictable breakthroughs that basic science
produces.
But we also risk losing something even more significant, the
effects of which could be even more tragic. We risk losing our
children.
It would be tragic if the richest nation on the planet, through
its inaction, told its own future that discovery doesn't matter.
Anybody who has kids -- or remembers being one -- knows the ferocious
curiosity that bubbles in our youngsters. Kids capture bugs and ask
questions about clouds and wonder how cars work. Kids like you never
stopped.
But if we extinguish that natural creativity with a fire hose
of needless reductions -- if we broadcast an unending stream of signals
that discovery doesn't matter, that science is for someone else -- then
all of us will pay an emotional and financial price impossible to
calculate. And if we fail to reform cur schools -- away from the model
of the factory and toward the model of distributed intelligence -- we
will have only ourselves to blame.
Fortunately, President Clinton is trying to do better. On
education, he's made real progress
launching direct student loans
opening the doors of college to more Americans
establishing education standards so every diploma means something
promoting education technology in the classroom
proposing a tax
deduction for families' investments in higher education.
And on science and technology, he's also scored big -- in large
part because he's fielded a scientific dream team. Jack Gibbons has
become the most influential science acvisor the White House has seen in
a generation. Cabinet secretaries Like Bruce Babbit, Ron Brown, Carol
Browner, Hazel O'Leary, and Donna Shalala have fought for a cleaner
environment, a strong technology base, national laboratories, and
health care research. Dan Goldin has helped take NASA to the stars,
while keeping the costs here on Earth. And every layer of the
Administration is peopled with women and men dedicated to discovery.
And that team has delivered results. We've extended the R&D
tax credit for three years
lowered capital gains taxes for
investments in emerging companies
scaled back the anti-trust
barriers to joint ventures in research
beefed up protection of
intellectual property, giving inventors real protections for their
patents
boosted funding for the nation's flagship research
agencies
launched an education technology initiative
established the National Science anc Technology Council
supported
research into global climate change
and ensured our environmental
regulations meet the tests of common sense and cutting-edge science.
But we cannot do it alone. That is not how democracies work.
And this is where you come in. Democracies, too, depend on distributed
intelligence. And this democracy needs the sound of your voices and
the cedication of your hearts. You must take up the call for
knowledge. You must enlist in the army of persuasion whose battle cry
says knowledge is important for knowledge's sake. Because when you say
of 8
10/22/97 06:57:30
something is important -- and you say 10 with enough force -- others
might pay attention. But if you view your own pursuit of knowledge as
divorced from the nation's pursuit of progress, both endeavors will
fall short of their goals.
In a sense, at the edge of a new century, we have a choice of
two paths. One path retreats from understanding, flinches in the face
of challenges, and disdains learning. It's a know-nothing society -- a
society in which the storehouses of knowledge dwindle, the spigots of
discovery are twisted and turned off, and missions of exploration are
stalled on the ground. This know-nothing society bases regulations on
suspicion instead of science, says that DDT isn't harmful, and claims
that global warming is the empirical equivalent of the Easter Bunny.
That's the path we will be forced onto if these Congressional
cuts become the law of the land, because scattered throughout their
proposals are cuts in funding -- and outright prohibitions on research.
The guiding principle is an old saying applied to a modern nation: what
we don't know won't hurt us. Trouble is, that's the recipe for
destruction in a distributed intelligence society.
But there's another path -- infinitely brighter, considerably
more American. It's a path on which government continues funding
basic science and applied technology. It's path that keeps the
virtuous circle of progress and prosperity alive and functioning. It's
a path whose signposts say "education is a matter of national
security,' "environmental protection is a matter of national security."
It's a path dotted with investments that open the doors of education to
all our people. It's a path that applies what we've learned from
science to the rest of our lives.
And it's a trail that's within our power to blaze. We have in
our hands and our minds and our souls the power to create this learning
society. That's partly what this year's presidential elections will
be all about.
Last year, another President -- Chuck Vest, President of MIT --
decided to present his annual report as a series of questions his
faculty told him were the most urgent ones in their fields. What he
told us in that report underscores the need to deliver on these crucial
investments in science and technology.
He reminded us that we don't know "which aspects of climate
change are predictable." And we need to know.
We don't know "how best to use our information infrastructure
and new media to promote learning among children." And we need to know.
We don't know "how to produce materials with no waste
by-products." And we need to know.
We don't know "how to extract all the energy from existing fuel
sources. And we need to know.
We don't know "how and why cells die." And we need to know.
of 8
10/22/97 06:57:31
We don't know "how know old the universe is, \ at it is made
of, or what its fate will be; we do not understand what mechanism
generates mass in the building blocks of matter." And we need to know.
We need to know these things. We need to understand these
things. We need to discover these things.
We need to create a learning society, a society that harnesses
the power of distributed intelligence and uses it to lift our lives.
And as the very embodiment of that ideal, you have an obligation to
help make it happen.
As always in America, it's possible -- but it's up to us. As
always in America, it's possible -- because it's up to us. Let's get
to work.
###
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
To comment on this service: [email protected].
3 of 8
10/22/97 06:57:32
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT George Washington University
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release
March 20, 1995
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
March 17, 1995
George Washington University
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for your warm welcome. And,
President Steve Trachtenberg*, thank you for your kind introduction
and your friendship and your leadership of this great university. I
want to also acknowledge Walter Boortz*, Vice President for
Administration and Information Services, and my longtime friend and
partner in the efforts to deal with this issue, Under Secretary of
State for Global Affairs and Former Senator Tim Wirth, who is doing
an outstanding job in addressing these issues. (Applause.)
I also want to acknowledge another partner who works with me, the head
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jim Baker, who
is here from the administration, doing a great job. (Applause.) And
there are many others I probably ought to acknowledge, and I hope you
will forgive me for not doing so. I'm afraid I'd miss somebody.
I want to give a special word of thanks to the AmeriCorps students from
G.W., who are volunteering to help with today's event, and I want to
thank them, also, for their excellent community service work in the
District's Shaw neighborhood. And also, I want to recognize this
university for its many achievements in the sciences, some of which
inform the debate of which this speech is a part today.
It is great to be back at G.W. again. And one reason is, this is the
nation's first green university. The commitment you have made in a
unique partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency has made you
the first university in America to develop a truly comprehensive plan of
environmental awareness in all of the university's activities. And I
want =0 congratulate you for that.
I mentioned the AmeriCorps students earlier -- 15 of them are part of
of9
10/21/97 11:37:10
white
House
Database
doc:
the Green University Initiative, doing a great job, working to draft a
model environmental audit plan that will establish practices that are
both environmentally sound and cost-saving.
And, by the way, Happy St. Patrick's Day. This is one day out of the
year you can't be accused of being too green. There couldn't be a
better day to address the issue that I believe is the single most
serious manifestation of the environmental crisis which now
characterizes the radical change in the relationship between human
civilization and the Earth's environment.
Two weeks from now, this issue of global climate change will be
discussed by more than 120 different countries in Berlin as they begin
the first conference of the parties for a framework convention on
climate change. Since it's St. Patrick's Day, I thought I would begin a
discussion of this issue by quoting an old Irish politician, Sir Boyle
Roche*, who once asked in the last century, sarcastically, "Why should
we put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity? For, what
has posterity ever done for us?" That way of thinking would go over
real well in this session of Congress. (Laughter and applause.)
Posterity is particularly relevant when talking about global climate
change, because our actions today will have far-reaching implications
for the environment that we leave to future generations. A commitment
to posterity requires that we accept and understand this profound change
in the nature of the relationship between human civilization and the
ecological system of the Earth.
I mentioned a moment ago that in my view global climate change is a
manifestation of that radical change in the fundamental relationship
between civilization and the Earth. There are other manifestations - -
the rapid destruction of forests, especially tropical rain forests; the
unprecedented loss of living species at a rate that has not taken place
on this planet since the disappearance of the dinosaurs so many tens of
millions of years ago; the poisoning of air and water in many places on
the Earth; and the degradation of important ecosystems, from the Aral
Sea in Central Asia to the coral reef networks in shallow areas of the
world's oceans.
All of these, including global climate change, are manifestations of
this change in the relationship between human beings and the
environment. This radical change has come about in the lifetimes of
people gathered here in this auditorium because of a confluence of three
factors. The first is the unprecedented explosion in the numbers of
human beings around the world. We're adding the equivalent of one
China's worth of people every 10 years. Still, we have begun to address
a sensible plan of action to assist nations that wish to stabilize
population growth. But the momentum built into the numbers themselves
ensure ensures that the rapid growth will continue for quite sometime
to come.
The second of these three factors is the acceleration of the scientific
and technological revolution, which has vastly magnified the ability of
the average human being to have an impact on the environment around him
or her. To use an analogy, warfare is an ancient habit of human
civilization. But the invention of nuclear weapons SO completely
transformed the consequences of all-out warfare as to require us to go
back and think anew about that age-old habit. The Cold War was in part
a result of that sobering reexamination of what all-out warfare would
mean with these incredibly powerful new weapons.
2 of 9
10/21/97 11:37:11
But all of them taken together have transformed the consequences of
all-out exploitation of the Earth, just as surely as nuclear weaponry
transformed the consequences of all-out warfare. And SO we must think
anew about the way in which we go about exploiting the land and the sea
and the air or the sustenance that we need to survive.
The third factor leading to this radical change is in some ways the most
important. It is a philosophical shift in our way of thinking about the
consequences of what we do to the environment, a change which has led
too many people to assume that we need not take into account the future
effects of our present actions.
All three of these factors together have created a change that we are
attempting to come to grips with in sessions like the one in Cairo on
population and sustainable development; sessions like the many which led
to the Montreal Protocol to limit the introduction of ozone- depleting
substances into the stratosphere; and conferences like the one in Berlin
two weeks from now, which will address global climate change.
In order to deal with this issue, we have to begin with the facts. And
any discussion of the facts must take into account categories upon which
there is agreement and categories that are featured by disagreement. I
would like to concentrate on the former rather than the latter, because
there is widespread agreement about the central facts which characterize
this problem.
The revisionist view not withstanding, there is a firm domestic and
international consensus on the most salient issues. Number one: We
know that greenhouse gases are building up rapidly in the atmosphere.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased about 25 percent since
the Industrial Revolution; nitric oxide has gone up by 15 percent;
methane has gone up by more than 100 percent.
Number two: Scientists also agree that continuing this buildup of
greenhouse gases will cause the climate to change. The operative word
in that sentence is not may, it is will. A continued buildup of this
kind will cause the climate to change. About that there is no serious
disagreement. The scientific community cannot tell us the pace of these
changes or the precise pattern they will take, but they are telling us
that change is coming.
There is an international consensus that global surface temperatures
could increase from an average of 2 degrees fahrenheit to 8 degrees
fahrenheit over the next century. That is the rate unseen on this
planet for at least the last 10,000 years. That is, unseen during the
entire history of human civilization. Since the first cities appeared
on the Earth, no such change has been seen.
The United States and other areas in high latitudes are projected to
warm even more, with increases of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In just
the last century, the Earth's temperature has risen by about one degree
Fahrenheit. The nine warmest years in this century have all occurred
since 1980, even though the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, as predicted at
the time, held down temperatures for about three years, until the heavy
particulates blocking out a tiny fraction of the sun's radiation fell
back out of the atmosphere to Earth.
Already, there is ominous evidence of significant change underway.
Alpine glaciers in every part of the world are retreating rapidly. You
may have seen the pictures not long ago of the prehistoric traveler
whose body was found in a mountain pass in the Alps in Italy. They were
walking along, and there he was. Why nad no one noticed him there for
the last 5,000 years? Because the ice covering him has not melted in
of 9
10/21/97 11:37:11
5, 000 years. It is now -- it has now melted.
In other areas that have not seen the ice retreat in human experience,
it is now retreating. There is a decrease in northern hemisphere snow
cover; evidence of a decrease in Arctic sea ice. Average precipitation
in the lower 48 States has increased in the last century by about five
percent. Torrential rains have increased in the summer during
agricultural growing seasons.
These are troubling, complex and challenging issues to confront, but we
should not image that they occur according to a pattern of slow and
gradual change. We know that natural systems are replete with
thresholds beyond which change can occur suddenly and dramatically. A
warmer Earth alters precipitation, soil moisture and sea level that can
lead to changes in the ideal ranges for crops, forests and wetlands.
Changes in precipitation patterns cause draught in some areas and more
rainfall in others. It causes a change in the distribution of microbial
populations and vulnerabilities to viruses and bacteria; a change in the
distribution of pests; a change in the distribution of plant and animal
life.
Combinations of changes can have dramatic effects --increased rainfall
can lead to more floods, which together with higher sea levels, can
threaten the existence of some low-lying coastal communities, threaten
the existence even of some small island nations and low-lying coastal
nations.
We have seen concern expressed by scientists in several parts of the
world about the increased frequency of drastic weather events. In our
own country, we have seen the effects of a shift in the pattern that we
call El Nino, from a pattern that occurs every two to five years to a
relatively new pattern during the last decade and a half in which it has
a tendency to become almost constant.
Some members of the business community, whose lines of work make them
especially sensitive to these kinds of changes, are also beginning to
express concern. Recently, I met with a large number of representatives
from the insurance industry and the reinsurance industry. Frank
Nutter*, President of the Reinsurance Association of America, has warned
about a serious risk of bankruptcy within the insurance industry, that
can come from, in his words, "significant and perhaps, permanent changes
in our climate in this country and in the world."
It's easy to see why insurance companies are concerned. In 1993, the
Mississippi flooding caused an estimated $10 billion to $20 billion
worth of damage. Hurricane Hugo cost the federal government alone about
$1.6 billion. Hurricane Andrew topped $2 billion in federal disaster
payments and cost property insurers at least $16 billion. The floods
and mud slides in California have caused over $2 billion in damage
already this year.
Does it make sense for us to assume that we need not take action to
diminish the chance that an altered climate pattern will lead to an
increase in the frequency of severe events of this sort? We ignore
these changes at our peril. I mentioned that climate change can cause a
shift in the distribution of microbial populations. The range of
infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, can change
significantly.
How should we respond to this kind of threat? The Clinton
administration believes that we must guard against potentiallydevastating effects
these issues through an aggressive research program. This approach is,
in fact, analogous to an insurance policy and is not just an abstract
notion.
of9
10/21/97 11:37:12
Three years ago we joined the international community in signing the
historic Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was the beginning
of a process to design a kind of insurance policy. It was a treaty that
called on all nations to work together 17. an unprecedented effort to
protect the global environment. Specifically, the industrialized
countries were urged to take the lead by stabilizing greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Soon after taking office, President Clinton went beyond the vague,
non-binding language of the treaty, declaring that the United States
would meet the goal set out in the treaty. The President's commitment
was made to complement his economic objectives. He promised to turn our
economy around, and he has delivered. Inflation is down, growth is up,
unemployment is down, jobs are up. All told, we are demonstrating that
economic and environmental progress can CO hand in hand.
No doubt, the powerful economic course set by President Clinton
challenges several of the assumptions of the plan. Rather than shirking
away from this good news, we embrace it. Today I want to reaffirm the
President's pledge: The United States is committed to reaching 1990
levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. We've developed an
ambitious plan aimed at fulfilling the President's commitment. Forty
out of forty-seven of these initiatives have received funding are now
underway. Most of these initiatives share at least one common feature
-- they will mean new, clean American jobs for our future.
For example, we have signed voluntary agreements with the bulk of our
utility industry to keep greenhouse gas emissions down. Similar
partnerships have been forged with U.S. industry on energy-efficient
computers, buildings and lighting systems. We have pledged 430 million
to the global environmental facility for its second phase -- the largest
contribution of any nation in the world. We have created a new
environmental technology initiative, totaling more than $1 billion to
develop and disseminate environmentally superior technology. And, the
U.S. has launched the world's first pilct program to assess the
feasibility of joint investment projects with other countries aimed at
reducing or sequestering emissions of greenhouse gases and promoting
sustainable development.
In addition, we have launched a partnership for a new generation of
vehicles, also know by some as the Clean Car Initiative. It is a real
partnership. All three of the big three automakers are participating,
along with the national laboratories; all cf the relevant federal
agencies; and many suppliers of parts, materials and equipment; also,
engineering faculties and students across the country. Together we're
tackling a technological challenge in some ways as tough as putting a
man on the moon. We're going to develop a car with three times the
efficiency of today's automobiles with no sacrifice in cost, comfort or
safety.
In the process we hope to discover the best ways to apply new
technologies which may, in fact, lead to even greater improvements in
efficiency -- all in 10 years' time. Success will mean less dependence
on foreign oil and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. And, of course,
in addition to the benefits for the American consumer, the project also
holds the promise of an extremely attractive and competitive automobile
for world markets at the turn of the century and the thriving U.S. auto
industry to produce them.
In our building and construction initiative, our goal is to improve the
competitive performance of this $800 billion industry by developing much
better tonstruction technologies that Lead to less emissions. With the
full cooperation of the industry, we're determined to ensure that our
buildings, like our industry, are the productive, efficient, safe
of 9
10/21/97 11:37:13
and durable in the entire world. That means cutting delivery time in
half with a 50 percent reduction in cost.
We want to see a 50 percent reduction in construction work injuries and
illnesses also, while there's a 30 percent improvement in productivity
and comfort. And we're developing detailed plans with the industry to
reach these objectives. We want to see 50 percent less waste and
pollution and 50 percent more durability and flexibility.
We recognize that our plan is ambitious. And we recognize that it
requires support from leaders on Capitol Hill. Some of our previous
requests were not fully funded, and Congress is now considering taking
previously approved funding back. Just as this treaty requires
international consensus, our domestic response to it requires a national
consensus. We are committed to working with the Congress in a true
partnership on behalf of our nation, the world and all of its people.
But it is incumbent upon the new leadership on Capitol Hill to step up
to the plate and recognize both the challenges and the opportunities
presented by climate change and recognize, too, the need for U.S.
leadership.
Fulfilling this responsibility in the future requires acknowledging that
our plans and those of our industrialized partners are only the first
step. In two weeks, in Berlin, nations will meet to determine what more
the international community can do in response to the dramatic
scientific evidence that now exists. Once again, this administration
will be at the forefront of this global effort.
We have said for almost a year that we do not believe that the current
agreement is adequate. It only contains an aim or goal for the year
2000, and this aim only applies to a limited number of countries. We
are now in a situation in which the maximum response that is politically
feasible throughout the world still falls short of what is really needed
to address the problem. All the nations of the world will need to work
together to develop guidance on what steps to take beyond the year 2000.
So we must negotiate a new aim for the future.
In view of these limitations, and mindful of our responsibility to the
future, we are working with other nations to develop a mandate that can
be agreed upon in Berlin and can set the course for next steps under the
treaty. This will require us all to carefully examine what we each can
do to contribute to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Our
goal, in other words, in Berlin is to build a foundation and begin
momentum.
Just as there are thresholds in the natural climate system there are
also thresholds in the political system. When evidence accumulates to
the point where enough people are no longer willing to listen to
skeptics that have arguments that are not grounded in the facts, then
beyond that threshold, the possibilities for significant action improve
dramatically. That is why it is important to develop quality research.
We've already begun that process here in the United States, and that
will be a part of the process we will follow in the future.
But now is the time to re-launch negotiations and walk more concretely
toward the treaty's objective. Now is the time to establish a new
negotiating mandate that will allow us = fulfill our responsibilities
to future generations -- a mandate that ensures we move forward from the
important first steps outlined for the pre-2000 period.
We strongly believe that all nations must participate in this effort.
Certainly, industrialized countries who have contributed most of the
problem can and should take the lead. And we shall. But we simply
of 9
10/21/97 11:37:14
cannot ignore the fact that emissions are rising fastest in developing
countries, which together now account for almost 50 percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions in the world. We know that industrialized
countries have special responsibilities, and we fully support the
Convention's call for common but differentiated responsibilities. But
we very much want the developing nations to join us at the negotiating
table, so that together we can define these common but differentiated
responsibilities in the post-2000 era. Not so that alone we can do
less, but so that together we can do more -- through trade, technology
cooperation, and a host of strategies that offer benefits for all
nations.
We also must do a better job of ensuring that nations are matching
rhetoric with reality; that we are accountable for what we say we will
do. To date, only a handful of nations have put forward clear
substantive proposals that move them toward the emission reductions they
have enunciated. We must be clear: Good intentions and high- flying
rhetoric will not come close to helping us meet the very significant
challenges inherent in reducing emissions. What is needed and expected
under the treaty is concrete action.
In the negotiations that will follow the Berlin meeting it is imperative
that we establish a menu of measures from which to choose strategies for
reaching any new aim set for the post-2000 period. Only an analytic
phase as part of the negotiating process can provide us with realizable
measures, and the realistic understanding of what our expectations and
goals should be for the future. But the measures selected must truly
achieve emissions reductions, and nations must be prepared to show
actions and results.
Finally, we believe that the mandate for negotiations should be
concluded as rapidly as possible. We believe that an aggressive,
ambitious approach, looking at short-term and long-term goals -- that is
for the years 2010 and 2020 -- can be concluded by 1997, when the third
conference of the parties will be held. We think this date is a fair
one, one that reflects our view of the importance and urgency of the
climate change problem and also gives us the lead time to develop and
begin to take advantage of new technologies.
On the one hand, we have nations that will be trying to appease strong
constituencies in their countries by outbidding the rest of the national
community in their pledges to reduce emissions by future actions. But
what future generations need is aggressive, measurable and ambitious
actions, and not political promises of future actions.
On the other hand, we have political extremists -- some of them in our
own country -- who would have the United States evade and ignore tough
issues like global climate change, ozone depletion, or any number of
threats to human and environmental health. Far outside the mainstream
of scientific consensus, they would deny the existence of the problem
and seek to prevent the United States from even acknowledging its
concern, even though the actions that we envision are good both for the
environment and for the economy.
This is an intellectually, politically, and morally bankrupt position
which must be resisted. It is similar to the position that was taken
for SC long by the tobacco industry in the face of mounting medical and
scientific evidence about the connection between smoking and lung
cancer. To this day, the precise causal relationship and all the
details about exactly how smoking causes lung cancer cannot be
established with precision. But the relationship is accepted. It is a
medical fact. Yet, for so long, those -- some of those with an economic
interest in delaying the recognition of that connection argued
implausibly that the scientific evidence was questionable, ought to be
of 9
10/21/97 11:37:15
vnite House Database doc: REMARKS
IDEN
ge
19930119+19971021%29%29&use
ignorea, was insufficient upon which to base any conclusions.
They were wrong. And those who are now seeking to delay the time at
which we recognize the connection between the accumulation of greenhouse
gases and global climate change are also wrong. If you think back to
the dramatic fires in Kuwait when the oil fields were set ablaze in
1991, all of that carbon pollution put together amounted to less than
one percent of what we put into the Earth's environment every year. And
that amount continues to increase every year.
We cannot forget that we are now witnessing the most extreme and
concerted assault on the environment in history. The core of the socalled Contra
nation's environmental laws and commitments. Buried in arcane rhetoric
about regulatory reform is a deliberate attack, widely acknowledged in
the popular press, that effectively revokes many of this nation's most
important environmental laws from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act to the Endangered Species Act. The President and I don't support
this, and will not accept it. The health of our children, the safety of
our workers, and the integrity of our environment cannot be so
recklessly jeopardized.
Rather than attack environmental initiatives, we hope the Congress will
work with us to craft policies that are as environmentally sound as they
are economically beneficial.
Let me close by drawing an analogy to the response by the international
community to another problem that was similar in some ways to global
climate change. That is the problem of ozone depletion. Ten years ago,
at about the same stage in the development of scientific knowledge, the
nations of the world came together in Montreal to take prudent steps
toward protecting the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer. These initial
efforts were expanded in the aftermath of a stunning scientific
discovery -- a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica which was the
size of the North American continent.
After that discovery was confirmed, the world's political system crossed
a threshold beyond which it became much easier to secure agreement on
the need to act. That led to the London Amendments in 1990, where the
world agreed to phase out the most damaging ozone- depleting chemicals,
and the subsequent Copenhagen Agreement which accelerated the process by
five years. Every American can be proud that the United States helped
to lead these efforts politically and scientifically.
As with the ozone issue, nations have agreed on the nature of the
climate change threat, and we have taken the first tentative initial
steps to thwart that threat. But this is just a beginning. I think we
can answer the question that I quoted from Sir Roche* at the beginning
of my speech about posterity, and answer it with another Irish sentiment
written by the great poet, William Butler Yeats. He wrote, "I have
spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly because you tread on my
dreams."
Unless we tread softly, our dreams for the future will be nothing but
dreams. Let us make sure that our next steps are the right ones. Thank
you very much. (Applause.)
END
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
of 9
10/21/97 11:37:16
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 19, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The South Lawn
12:27 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank
you all for being here and thank the Vice President, the Cabinet, our
Science Advisor, Katie McGinty and others who worked so hard on this
policy. If I might begin by just observing -- I was looking at the
clouds hoping we didn't have too much of a climate change this
morning before the event could unfold.
This is an issue which has been of great concern to me
for a long time. When I decided to seek this office back in 1991, I
did it after having spent more than a decade as a governor, deeply
frustrated by what seemed to me too often to be inevitable,
persistent, aggravating conflicts between the impulse to promote
economic opportunity for the people that I represented and the clear
obligation -- the moral obligation -- on all of us to try to preserve
this planet that we all share.
And anyone with eyes to see could look down the road and
recognize that, even with imperfect scientific knowledge, at some
point the impulse to give people something to do would have to be
reconciled with the obligation to preserve the planet that we all
share. And that if there were ways, through the use of technology,
and partnerships and ingenuity to actually enhance economic
opportunities while preserving the planet, how much better off we
would all be.
That is what we have sought to do in this
administration. The Vice President outlined the number of things
! of 4
10/21/97 11:29:43
that we have tried to do to move the environmental agenda forward,
and at the same time move our economy forward. I remember so well
the sort of shocking, but bracing and reinforcing feeling I had the
first time I began to go to New Hampshire, which is what you have to
do in this country if you want to ultimately become president, to
find that people just living their own lives in what was in a very
economically depressed state also believed that we could find a way,
and that we had to find a way to pursue our economic objectives and
fulfill our moral responsibilities to have an aggressive and
responsible program about the environment.
That cannot be done unless we change our attitude about
what we put into our atmosphere and how we respect the air we
breathe. That requires us to meet head-on the serious threat of
global warming. I made a commitment to do that on Earth Day this
year, to make a commitment to an approach that would draw on the most
innovative people we could find in this country, whether they were in
business, labor, government, or the environmental movement, to turn
this challenge into an opportunity, and that's what this report seeks
to do.
It seeks to give the American people the ability to
compete and win in the global economy while meeting our most deep and
profound environmental challenges. We have begun the task of linking
our economy to the environment today in what I believe is a truly
extraordinary fashion. And I think if all of you read the plan in
its exquisite and sometimes mind-bending detail, you will see that it
is a very aggressive and very specific first step. I would argue the
most aggressive and the most specific first step that any nation on
this planet has taken in the face of perhaps the biggest
environmental threat to this planet.
The task is accomplished primarily by harnessing private
market forces, by leveraging modest government expenditures to create
a much larger set of private sector investments. And by establishing
new public-private partnerships to bring our best research and our
best technologies. This plan takes the environmental debate where it
should have been years ago -- beyond the confrontation over ideology
to a conversation about ideas. Beyond polemics to real progress.
On Earth Day I made a commitment to reduce our emissions
of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. And I asked
for a blueprint on how to achieve this goal. In concert with all
other nations, we simply must halt global warming. It is a threat to
our health, to our ecology and to our economy.
I know that the precise magnitude and patterns of
climate change cannot be fully predicted. But global warming clearly
is a growing, long-term threat with profound consequences. And make
no mistake about it, it will take decades to reverse. But the first
step is before us today. And because most of our recommendations do
not require legislation, something which will doubtless please the
Congress with all the burdens they have already on their plate, we
can take action on our plan beginning today. This plan is the
result, as the Vice President has said, of genuine collaboration,
based on solid scientific and economic analysis, including funding to
back up each and every proposal it contains. Like the announcement
of our clean car initiative last month, this approach to global
warming encourages public-private cooperation across a spectrum of
economical, technological and environmental questions.
There are 50 separate initiatives in this plan, touching
every sector of our economy because the problem, frankly, affects
every sector of the economy. There are measures to improve energy
efficiencies in commercial buildings and to make better household
10/21/97 11:29:48
2 of 4
appliances. There are new agreements with public utilities to reduce
greenhouse gasses and new public-private ventures to increase the
efficiency of industrial motors.
The plan will make it possible for all Americans to
purchase appliances unlike any we own today. When your furnace dies
or your washer breaks, you'll be able to go to a local store and buy
a new appliance much more efficient than any you can buy today, and
one that will save money in its operation. The energy savings we
achieve will lower the cost of doing business in America, and make us
more competitive on the world market and more prosperous here at
home. And the investments generated by this plan will create jobs in
the sectors that make, install, and use energy efficient and
pollution-cutting technologies.
Finally, to meet the challenge of global warming, as I
have said, with regard to cutting the deficit and reforming health
care and in so many other areas, we, frankly, must all take some more
personally responsibility. We will all benefit environmentally and
economically from the actions we are proposing today, and it will
take all of us to make this plan work. So I say to all the American
people, if your utility offers you help in conserving energy in your
own home, seize it. If you own a business and the EPA offers you a
chance to join the Green Lights program, do it. If you run a factory
and the Department of Energy offers you a plan to help install an
efficient motor system, use it. You will save money and you will
help your country and your fellow citizens.
This plan isn't designed for an archive; it's designed
for action. For rapid implementation, constant monitoring, and for
adjustments as necessary to meet our goals. It's part of a longrange strategy th
White House to identify and implement those policies which will
continue the trend of reduced emissions.
The action plan reestablishes the United States as a
world leader in protecting the global climate. I urge other
industrial countries to move rapidly to produce plans as detailed, as
realistic and as achievable as ours. This initiative gives us a
chance, a very, very good chance to reduce greenhouse gases, grow our
economy, and create a new high-skilled, high-wage job based in
America.
We take pride here in this country in the love we have
for our land, in our leadership among nations, in our ability to set
new goals and solve new challenges. Today, we have given life to
those values again. And through them, we will help to build a
healthier environment and a stronger economy for decades to come.
We also will help to meet our moral obligation to
ourselves, our neighbors around the world, and most important, to our
children. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END12: 36 P.M. EDT
Return to the main page
Return to the Virtual Library
The White House Help Desk
10/21/97 11:29:51
of 4
The White House Virtual Library
White House Press Release
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN EARTH DAY SPEECH
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 21, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN EARTH DAY SPEECH
U.S. Botanical Gardens
Washington, D.C.
11:50 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen, for being here in the wonderful Botanical Gardens. I must
say there's a lot I have to learn about this town, as you can tell if
you follow events from day to day. And I didn't know that the
Botanical Gardens was a branch of the Congress until I showed up
here. (Laughter.) Just one more thing I'm not responsible for --I'm
glad to be here. (Laughter.)
I also think that we should introduce a guest from
another country who is here with us -- the Environmental Minister
from Australia, Roz Kelly. Would you stand up? We're glad to have
you here. (Applause.)
Al Gore introduced Katie McGinty, and you were all good
enough to clap. And I don't know if you could hear through the
clapping that her parents are here. And what you may not know is
that the real reason we appointed her is that she's one of 10
children and we'd like to carry Pennsylvania in 1996. (Laughter.)
We think that there's a significant likelihood now because of that.
I want to say a special word of thanks to the Vice
President for two things -- first of all, for the wonderful trip that
he has just concluded, going to Poland to represent our country on
the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, and the
wonderful remarks he gave in New York on the eve of that departure
and the way that he represented the United States in Poland. And
secondly, notwithstandıng what he said in the introduction, which was
true -- (laughter) -- one of the reasons : did ask him to join the
ticket is that he knew more about the subject of the environment than
did and I thought I had something to learn from him. And I have
learned a great deal, and it has been an immensely rewarding
of 8
10/22/97 07:21:55
experience and one which I hope will benefit the United States in
many ways over the course of the next four years.
That's worth clapping for -- I agree with that, don't
you think?
(Applause.)
It's a good thing to have this celebration in the
springtime, a time when our spirits are renewed and we are reminded
by nature of new beginnings and forgotten beauty. This has been an
astonishingly beautiful spring in Washington, D.C., and something for
which I will always be grateful -- my first springtime here that I
see every morning as I go out and jog around in it and try to breath
in it something that is a continuing challenge. (Laughter.)
A little more than a week ago, most Americans celebrated
holy days of freedom and renewal. Today, we still nurture the faith
that helps us to understand more clearly that we can do better. This
is a time of new beginnings, a time when there is anguish and anxiety
all around us, but we still must yearn once again to succeed in our
common purposes to reach our deepest goals.
For all of our differences, I think there is an
overwhelming determination to change our course, to offer more
opportunity, to assume more responsibility, to restore the larger
American community, and to achieve things that are larger than
ourselves and more lasting than the present moment. We seek to set
our course by the star of age-old values, not short-term
expediencies; to waste less in the present and provide more for the
future; to leave a legacy that keeps faith with those who left the
Earth to us.
That is the American spirit. It moves us not only in
great gatherings, but also when we stand silently all alone in the
presence only of nature and our Creator.
If there is one commitment that defines our people, it
is our devotion to the rich and expansive land we have inherited.
From the first Americans to the present day, our people have lived in
awe of the power, the majesty and the beauty of the forest, the
rivers, and the streams of America. That love of the land, which
flows like a mighty current through this land and through our
character, bursts into service on the first Earth Day in 1970.
When I traveled the country last year, I saw and spoke
of how much had been accomplished by the environmental movement since
then and how much still remains to be done. For all that has been
done to protect the air and the water, we haven't halted the
destruction of wetlands at home and the rain forest abroad. For all
that has been learned, we still struggle to comprehend such dangers
to our planet's delicate environment as the shroud of greenhouse
gases and the dangerous thinning of the ozone layer. We haven't done
nearly enough to protect our forest communities from the hazards,
such as lead poisoning, which is believed to cause mental
retardation, learning disabilities, and impaired growth.
Unless we act, and act now, we face a future where our
planet will be home to nine billion people within our lifetime, but
its capacity to support and sustain our lives will be very much
diminished. Unless we act, we face the extension of untold numbers
of species that might support our livelihoods and provide medication
to save our very lives. Unless we act TOW, we face a future in which
the sun may scorch us, not warm us; where the change of season may
take on a dreacful new meaning; and where our children's children
will inherit a planet far less hospitable than the world in which we
came CI age. : have a faith that we will act, not from fear, but
2 of 8
10/22/97 07:21:56
from поре and through vision.
All across this country, there is a deep understanding
rooted in our religious heritage and renewed in the spirit of this
time that the bounty of nature is not ours to waste. It is a gift
from God that we hold in trust for future generations. Preserving
ur heritage, enhancing it, and passing it along is a great purpose
worthy of a great people. If we seize the opportunity and shoulder
the responsibility, we can enrich the future and ennoble our own
lives.
Just as we yearn to come together as a people, we yearn
to move beyond the false choices that the last few years have imposed
upon us. For too long we have been told that we have to choose
between the economy and the environment; between our jobs; between
our obligations to our own people and our responsibilities to the
future and to the rest of the world; between public action and
private economy.
I am here today in the hope that we can together take a
different course of action, to offer a new set of challenges to our
people. Our environmental program is based on three principles.
First, we think you can't have a healthy economy without a healthy
environment. We need not choose between breathing clean air and
bringing home secure paychecks. The fact is, our environmental
problems result not from robust growth, but from reckless growth.
The fact is that only a prosperous society can have the confidence
and the means to protect its environment. And the fact is healthy
communities and environmentally sound products and services do best
in today's economic competition.
That's why our policies must protect our environment,
promote economic growth, and provide millions of new high-skill,
high-wage jobs.
Second, we want to protect the environment at home and
abroad. In an era of global economics, global epidemics and global
environmental hazards, a central challenge of our time is to promote
our national interest in the context of its connectedness with the
rest of the world. We share our atmosphere, our planet, our destiny
with all the peoples of this world. And the policies I outline today
will protect all of us because that is the only way we can protect
any of us.
And, third, we must move beyond the antagonisms among
business, government and individual citizens. The policies I
outlined today are part of our effort to reinvent government -- to
make it your partner and not your overseer -- to lead by example and
not by bureaucratic fiat.
In the face of great challenges, we need a government
that not only guards against the worst in us, but helps to bring out
the best in us. I know we can do this because our administration
includes the best team of environmental policymakers who have ever
served the United States: the Vice President, Interior Secretary
Babbitt, EPA Administrator Browner and I hope that the EPA will,
soon, by the grace of Congress, be a Cabinet-level department -- and
Energy Secretary O'Leary, Commerce Secretary Brown, Transportation
Secretary Pena, the Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, our
Environmental Policy Director Katie McGinty, and our Science and
Technology Advisor Jack Gibbons. All of them share an unshakable
commitment to a healthy environment, a growing economy and a
responsive government.
Our economic plan will create new job opportunities and
: of 8
10/22/97 07:21:57
new business opportunities, protecting our natural environment. The
reductions in the interest rates which we have seen already will free
up tens or billions of dollars for responsible investments in this
year alone.
The jobs package I have asked the Congress to pass
contains -- this is hardly been noticed, but it actually contains
green jobs from waste water treatment to energy efficiency, to the
restoration of our national parks, to investments in new technologies
designed to create the means by which we can solve the problems of
the future and create more jobs for Americans.
Our long-term strategy invests more in pollution
prevention, energy efficiency, and solar energy, in renewable energy,
and environmental restoration, and water treatment -- all of which
can be found in the five-year budget that we have presented to the
Congress.
These investments will create tens of thousands of new
jobs, and they will save tens of thousands more. Because when we
save energy and resources we will have more to invest in creating new
jobs and providing better living standards. Today every other
advanced nation is more energy efficient than we are. That is one of
the reasons why over the last couple of years, for example, the
average German factory worker has come to make over 20 percent more
than his American counterpart; that German workers, while having
higher wages, also have more secure and better health care. That's
because that economy uses one-half the energy we do to produce the
same amount of goods. We can do better and we will.
I believe we can develop the know-how to out-conserve
and out-compete any one else on Earth. All over the world people are
buying products that help them to protect their environment. There's
a $200-billion market today for environmental technologies. And by
the turn-of-the-decade in the century, it will be $300 billion.
Let me just share one example with you -- something we
all know and use and something some of us are still trying to learn
how replace: light bulbs. Long-lasting energy-saving light bulbs
didn't even exist in 1985. Now American companies sell over $500
million worth of these products, with sales expected to reach $2
billion by 1995 and $10 billion by the year 2000, creating thousands
of new jobs. American scientists have taken the lead in developing
these technologies, and it's time to help our companies take the lead
in bringing out products and services to market.
I've asked the Energy Department, the Commerce
Department, and the EPA to assess current environmental technologies
and create a strategic plan to give our companies the trade
development, promotional efforts and technical assistance they need
to turn these advances into jobs here in America, as well as to help
promote a better environment. America can maintain our lead in the
world economy by taking the lead to preserve the world environment.
Last year, the nations of the world came together at the
Earth Summit in Rio to try to find a way to protect the miraculous
diversity of plant and animal life all across the planet. The
Biodiversity Treaty which resulted had some flaws, and we all knew
that. But instead of fixing them, the United States walked away from
the treaty. That left us out of a treaty that is critically
important not only to our future, but to the future of the world.
And not only because of what it will do to preserve species, but
because of opportunities it offers for cutting-edge companies whose
research creates new medicines, new products, and new jobs.
10/22/97 07.21:57
of 8
Again, just one recent example makes the point. A tree
that was thought to have no value, the Facific Yew, used to be
bulldozed and burned. Now we know that that tree contains one of our
most promising potential cures for ovarian cancer, breast cancer and
other forms of cancer. We cannot walk away from challenges like
those presented by the Biodiversity Treaty. We must step up to them.
Our administration has worked with business and
environmental groups toward an agreement that protects both American
interests and the world environment. And today, I am proud to
announce the United States' intention to sign the Biodiversity
Treaty. (Applause.)
This is an example of what you can do by bringing
business and environmentalists together, instead of pitting them
against each other. We can move forward to protect critical natural
resources and critical technologies. I'm also directing the State
Department to move ahead with our talks with other countries which
have signed the convention so that the United States can move as
quickly as possible toward ratification.
To learn more about where we stand in protecting all our
biological resources here at home, I'm asking the Interior Department
to create a national biological survey to help us protect endangered
species and, just as importantly, to help the agricultural and
biotechnical industries of our country identify new sources of food,
fiber and medication. (Applause.)
We also must take the lead in addressing the challenge
of global warming that could make our planet and its climate less
hospitable and more hostile to human life. Today, I reaffirm my
personal, and announce our nation's commitment, to reducing our
emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.
(Applause.)
I am instructing my administration to produce a costeffective plan b
emission. This must be a clarion call, not for more bureaucracy or
regulation or unnecessary costs, but instead, for American ingenuity
and creativity, to produce the best and most energy-efficient
technology.
After the Cold War, we face the challenge of helping
Russia achieve a healthy democracy, a healthy economy, and a healthy
environment. Our Russian aid package includes $38 million to clean
up pollution and promote better uses of energy. As with the full
range of our investments in Russia, this is truly an investment not
only in promoting our own values, but in protecting our national
security. To protect the environment at home and abroad, I am
committed to a government that leads by example, brings people
together, and brings out the best in everyone. For too long our
government did more to inflame environmental issues than to solve
them. Different agencies pursued conflicting policies. National
leaders polarized people. And problems wound up in the courts or in
the streets instead of being solved.
We seek to bring a new spirit to these difficult issues.
Three weeks ago in Portland, Oregon, we brought together business
people, timber workers, and environmentalists from throughout the
Northwest to discuss how best to preserve jobs and to protect the
old-growth forests and the species which inhabit them. People sat
down in a conference room, not a court room, and in the words of
Archbisnop Thomas Murphy of Seattle, we tried to find common ground
for a common good. At the close of that forest conference, I asked
my Cabinet and our entire administraticn to begin work immediately to
craft a balanced, comprehensive long-term policy that is also
comprehensible.
of 8
10/22/97 07:21:58
Before I ask our companies and our communities and our
families to meet any challenge, it seems to me we have to set that
standard for the government. The American people are entitled to
know where the United States stands on this issue and many other
issues. And it is time to bring and end to the time when issues like
this wind up in court and there are five different positions from the
United States government itself. We can never solve problems in that
fashion. We can only undermine the security and stability of
people's lives.
That's one reason I am proud that yesterday the United
States Army announced its plan to clean up a large number of sites
where we learned recently that chemical weapons materials may be
buried, in some places from as long ago as World War I. Working with
the EPA, the Army will clean up this problem safely and in an
environmentally-sound manner.
This is a legacy of America's efforts to defend our
people and the community of free nations. Now, we are taking steps
to defend our people and our environment and the environment of the
world. In that same spirit, I plan to sign an executive order
requiring federal facilities that manufacture, process or use toxic
chemicals, to comply with the federal right-to-know laws, and
publicly report what they are doing. (Applause.)
I might add that it is time that the United States
government begins to live under the laws it makes for other people.
With this executive order, I ask all federal facilities to set a
voluntary goal to reducing their release of toxic pollutants by 50
percent by 1999. This will reduce toxic releases, control costs
associated with cleanups, and promote clean technologies. And it
will help make our government what it should be -- a positive example
for the rest of the country. (Applause.)
Poor neighborhoods in our cities suffer most often from
toxic pollution. Cleaning up the toxic wastes will create new jobs
in these neighborhoods for those people and make them safer places to
live, to work, and to do business.
Today, I am also signing an executive order that directs
federal agencies to make preliminary changes in their purchasing
policies, to use fewer substances harmful to the ozone layer. Here,
too, we must put our actions where are values are. Our government is
a leading purchaser of goods and services. And it's time to stop not
only the waster of taxpayers' money but the waste of our natural
resources.
Today I am signing an executive order which commits the
federal government to buy thousands more American made vehicles,
using clean, domestic fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, methanol,
and electric power. This will reduce our demand for foreign oil,
reduce air pollution, promote promising technologies, promote
American companies, create American jobs, and save American tax
dollars. To demonstrate my commitment to this issue, Energy
Secretary O'Leary is creating a task force led by the Land
Commissioner of Texas, Gary Mauro, who is here in the audience today,
who has headed a successful effort in his own state. I hope we can
do as well in America as they have done 10 Texas. (Applause.)
In that same spirit, : plan to sign an executive order
committing every agency of the national government to do more than
ever to Duy and use recycled products. This will provide a market
for new technologies, make better use of recycled materials, and
of 8
10/22/97 07:21:59
encourage the creation 01 new products that can be offered to the
government, to private companies, and to consumers. And again, it
will create jobs through the recycling process.
We must keep finding new ways to be a force for positive
change. For example, the federal government is the largest purchaser
bf computer equipment in the world, and computers are the fastest
growing area of electricity use. That's why I am also signing an
executive order today requiring the federal government to purchase
energy-efficient computers. We're going to expand the market for a
technology where America pioneered and still leads the world, and
we'll save energy, saving the taxpayers S40 million a year, and set
an example for our country and for the world.
For as long as I live and work in the White House, I
want Americans to see it not only as a symbol of clean government,
but also a clean environment. That's why I'm announcing an energy
and environmental audit of the White House. We're going to identify
what it takes to make the White House a model for efficiency and
waste reduction. It might mean fewer memos and less paper.
(Laughter.) And then we're going to get the job done. I want to
make the White House a model for other federal agencies, for state
and local governments, for business, and for families in their homes.
Before I ask you to do the best you can in your house, I ought to
make sure I'm doing the best I can in my house. (Applause.)
I ask that all of us today reaffirm our willingness to
assume responsibility for our common environment, and to do it
willingly, hopefully, and joyously. We are challenged here today not
so much to sacrifice as to celebrate and create. I've challenged
Americans who are young in years or young in spirit to offer their
time and their talent to serve their communities and their country.
I've asked them to help in teaching our children, healing the sick,
policing our streets.
But equally important are efforts to protect our
environment -- from our largest cities to our smallest towns to our
suburbs. Our National Service Plan will ask thousands of American to
do their part, from leading recycling drives to preventing lead
poisoning.
The challenge to shoulder responsibility and seize
opportunity extends to each of us in business, communities, and
homes. In our own lives, in our own ways, each of us has something
to offer to the work of cleaning up America's environment. And each
of us surely has something very personal to gain.
On a colder day in the middle of winter, just three
months ago, a poet asked us to celebrate, not only the marvelous
diversity of our people, but the miraculcus bounty of our land.
"Here on the pulse of this new day," Maya Angelou challenged us to
look at, "the rock, the river, the tree, your country." Now, it is a
season of new hope and new beginnings. And as we look anew at our
neighbors, our children and our own communities, as well as the world
around us, we must seize the possibilities inherent in this
exhilarating moment; to face our challenges, to exercise our
responsibilities, and to rejoice in them.
Thank you very much. (Appleuse.)
END12:16 P.M. EDT
10/22/97 07:22:00
of 8
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
B
Divider Title:
Statement of
The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth
Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion
October 9, 1997
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Today, in addition to providing an update on our progress in the climate change
negotiations, I would like to address three issues: (1) the matter of the European Union
"bubble", (2) issues related to developing country participation, and (3) the various
mechanisms through which we can bring appropriate technologies to developing
countries to assist them in combating climate change.
Let me start with an update, in particular focusing on developments since I last
appeared before this committee in June 1997.
We are rapidly approaching the end of the negotiations leading up to the third
session of the Conference of the Parties, to be held in Kyoto, Japan from December 1-10,
1997. As of today, there are only 64 days left - and only about 18 of those are set aside
for formal negotiations. Progress has been made, on some of the important issues, and
the beginnings of an agreement are emerging. If we are successful, the agreement is
likely to include critical elements of our own proposal, including:
an emissions budget, which allows for smoothing of fluctuations in weather and
economic variables and some flexibility in the timing of emissions reductions;
a multi-gas approach, in which not only carbon dioxide but all greenhouse gases are
incorporated (although there is significant opposition to including "sinks");
2
international emissions trading and joint implementation, both of which increase
flexibility by allowing Parties to offset emissions at home with the purchase of
emissions reductions elsewhere;
mechanisms for monitoring and verification of reductions, which insures a level
playing field for all Parties; and
action by developing countries, in addition to a target and timetable from developed
countries.
I do not mean to suggest that the final text will include each of these elements in
the form that we originally set forth in our U.S. proposal this past January; the
negotiating process does not allow for that But the Administration has proposed, and
much of the world has begun to accept, an overall paradigm for moving forward to
address this serious problem: a solution which maximizes flexibility in implementation
while insuring the integrity and environmental benefits of emissions targets.
The Administration is not yet at the point of finalizing its decision regarding a
target for controlling emissions. We will keep you informed as to our progress on this
front. We have clearly heard the concerns raised in this committee, as well as those
raised in the Senate Resolution passed early this summer. I wish to restatc here: our
agreement will protect American competitiveness and will be in the best interest of the
American people. The President again committed himself to these goals at the White
House conference on Monday, and it is a goal to which we have consistently adhered
during the course of our negotiations.
However, on many aspects of our proposal, we have been clear - and the
domestic consensus supports our approach. The Administration has been aggressively
promoting these elements of our proposais in an intense round of bilateral and
multilateral sessions. The President has made climate change an issue in his meetings
with other national leaders, including in sessions on the margins of the General Assembly
session of the United Nations. The Vice President and the Secretary of State have raised
climate change in their own meetings. 1 have had a series of sessions in Europe and
3
Saudi Arabia, as well as with key ministers from Japan, Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand, and I will continue to raise this issue in meetings in China later this month.
Senior officials have been in Latin America and in Asia discussing our positions. Our
hard work is beginning to pay off in an opening of peoples' minds to our perspectives;
we remain hopeful that our continued efforts will crcatc a consensus around our approach
as we move to Kyoto.
Our allies in the negotiations are found in all blocs of countries: among the
developed countries, we have our most extensive areas of common ground with
Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand - each of which supports our proposals for
the flexibility elements so important to achieve a lasting, successful and economically
feasible agreement in Kyoto. Many countries of the former Soviet Union and of Eastern
Europe support our proposals as well. However, we have reached something of an
impasse with our European colleagues.
The EU "Bubble"
As you are probably all awarc, the EU has chosen what many analysts consider an
unrealistic and unachievable target of a fifteen percent reduction by 2010 below 1990
levels. Further complicating the negotiation, European Union member states have also
insisted that they be allowed to "bubble" their emissions. This mcans that while
emissions as a whole may be limited to a set target, each individual country may not be
required to meet that limit. In fact, a significant portion of the total EU emissions
reductions are anticipated to stem from the re-unification of Germany, and the removal
of coal subsidies in the UK and a switch to natural gas. While we certainly applaud the
shutting down of inefficient and polluting factories and of the removal of subsidies in the
energy sector, it is not clear that the benefit of such actions should eliminate the need for
other countries within the EU to act. Yet, under the EU proposal, some countries will
not be required to reduce emissions at all and some will be allowed to grow. For
example, Portugal will be entitled to emissions increases of 40 percent above 1990 levels
by 2010, Spain will be able to increase emissions by 17 percent, and France will be
required only to maintain emissions at 1990 levels
4
Congress has been quick to point out some of the problems inherent in this kind
of "burden-sharing". I would like to share with you some of the questions we have asked
on this issue:
We have questioned how the EU proposal would relate to international emissions
trading. If it is merely a proposal in which each country would be given a flat-rate,
and then allowed to trade emissions on the market, we would support their approach.
We have not been told how the EU intends to insure accountability: for example, if
the European Union exceeds its target, what compliance mechanisms exist? Will
each country within the EU have the same obligations as countries outside of the
Union? Is each country responsible for its "share" only? How is that determined?
What kind of examples is the EU setting for the developing world? If a 40 percent
increase is allowed for some industrialized countries, than even less can be demanded
from developing countries. Surely we must demand more of the industrialized
country Parties in an effort to set an appropriate standard.
How will new European Union member states be brought in? If the number of
countries is enlarged through the addition of Eastern European members with low
emissions, will the overall target be adjusted?
I hope this list of questions gives you an idea of the extent to which we are
demanding answers in the international debate. Clarity on these questions is essential for
eventual agreements in Kyoto.
Developing Countries
Let me turn to another issue of enormous concern to those on this committee and
to others outside this room as well: the participation of developing countries. Lct me be
clear - developing countries must participate in this treaty. The rationale for developing
countries to act is clear: while at present they are responsible for less than half of global
emissions, over the next decades, their percentage of the total will grow, despite the fact
that their per capita emissions will continue to remain far below our own. We must
S
address this trend of rising emissions if we are to truly make a dent in the long-term
problem.
However, I believe it would be instructive to understand better another
perspective on this issue - that of developing countries themselves. Let's look at some
numbers.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), approximately
half a billion cases of malaria are already reported each year. However, experts
believe outbreaks of malaria will increase as climate changes. Most of the deaths
from malaria occur in children less than five years old - and almost all of these kids
live in developing countries.
According to the World Bank, two billion people live on less than $2 a day, and 1.3
billion live on less than $1 a day - and all of these are in developing countries.
It is this perspective, and these factors that developing countries consider when
they call on the developed world to act first.
Many uninformed observers have suggested that there are no obligations for
developing countries in the current agreement This is not true. In fact, among other
commitments, developing countries are called upon to inventory their emissions of
greenhouse gases, to take policies and measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change,
to cooperate in the development and transfer of technologies, and to promote and
cooperate in climate change research, education and training.
Developing countries have taken action to address their FCCC commitments.
Just as we are working to mitigate our emissions, developing countries have proceeded
aggressively to develop programs which have reduced their own. Some of the
developing country effort has been the result of successful programs mounted by AID, by
the U.S. Country Studies Program, U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, and by
bilateral and multilateral donations from other countries and international organizations.
However, much of the resources and the impetus for action have come from within these
6
countries. As we move to another level of international commitment, it is important to
understand what has been achieved to date.
A number of examples of developing country efforts are illustrative of this
progress. According to the World Bank, between 1991 and 1996, fossil fuel subsidies in
14 developing countries that account for 25 percent of global carbon emissions from
industrial sources declined about 45 percent - from $60 billion to $33 billion (for
comparison, note that OECD subsidies declined by about 20.5 percent, from $12.5
billion to $9.9 billion). China, which accounts for approximately 12 percent of total
world energy-related CO2 emissions, has been actively reforming energy pricing, and
subsidies have fallen from 37 percent in 1984 to 29 percent in 1995, while petroleum
subsidies have fallen from 5 percent in 1990 to 2 percent in 1995. Furthermore, Chinese
efficiency gains have also been significant; without intervention, emissions would have
been nearly 155 million metric tons higher in 1990 than they were with policy actions.
And, by the end of 1993, 12 percent of China's installed electrical generation capacity
was produced by co-generation. Many other developing countries are also activcly
promoting energy efficiency. For example, in Brazil an aggressive program to use
ethanol from sugar cane has replaced nearly half of the gasoline that otherwise would
have been used.
What does all this tell us? Clearly, it tells us that our expectations and theirs are
predicated on different assumptions. We look at them and point to the cause of the
problem in the future; they look at us and point to the cause of the problem now. We
look at them and worry about competitiveness; they look at us, and point to our,
overwhelmingly better lifestyle and standard of living - which most of them are
desperate to duplicate, but are being told is beyond their reach because of the
environmental consequences. As President Clinton remarked at the White House
conference on Monday, our problem with China is one of national security - it is that
China might follow our emissions path, and in so doing would create a world unlivable
for us all. We look to Kyoto and demand that all countries participate; developing
7
countries look to Kyoto and agree to take actions - but only after the industrialized world
has moved first.
Historically, the bonds of the developing country alliances are difficult to break,
notwithstanding the often great differences within the group. We can empathize with the
needs for small island states, which face potential eradication through sea level-rise, to
insist on aggressive targets. We can conclude that grouping all developing countries
together is a mistake - and we can suggest that poor countries which emit next to nothing
should have different obligations than do the wealthier countries with a significant share
of the global total.
We can accommodate the concerns of developing countries that differences
between levels of development arc real by providing flexibility in the obligations we
insist they take on. Many developing countries accept that eventually they will have to
assume greater responsibility for dealing with climate change - but suggest the
appropriate time for such action would be once they have passed a certain threshold of
economic development.
We can also address the concerns developing countries have set forth regarding
the imbalance in our expectations - that they be called upon to set targets before we have
demonstrated our own good faith. This is best accomplished by fully funding our own
programs and by aggressively seeking to develop the technologies that will be needed for
global reductions.
We can continue to promote active developed and developing country
cooperation through our ongoing bilateral and multilateral assistance programs.
Evidence of success in these efforts is beginning to emerge in many developing countries
with the development of renewable energy technologies, the removal of subsidies, the
improvements in efficiencies and the implementation of climate action plans. We can
demonstrate with our own commitments that we value these environmental efforts, and
that the United States will stand by countries which invest in the long term and the global
well-being.
8
Ultimately it is actions themselves that will determine international success in
addressing the climate change problem - - not the instrument which codifies the
obligations, or the process through which the actions may be generated Real emissions
reductions, in all countries in the world, at the least possible costs are our goals. Others
may also exist - and we need to take advantage of them all.
I am not proposing that we step back from our view; that both developed and
developing countries must act to avoid continued and potentially calamitous global
warming. Rather, I am saying we must determine what we ask of developing countries
with a realistic and fair appreciation of how they see the world as well. The level and
timing of each country's commitments must bc commensurate with its national abilities
and level of development. Balance and fairness must be maintained. And any package
to which we agree in Kyoto will insure this is done.
Our developing country proposal has three parts:
(1) Ir calls for continuing to advance the implementation of commitments: essentially
defining the specifics of what that means, and including calling on them to increase
energy efficiency, to emphasize market oriented pricing, to increase the use of
renewables, to improve their transport sector - and in general to take actions to
address climate change that are justified economically in their own right.
(2) It creates a new category of countries (Annex B): in which developing countries
would voluntarily take on legally binding emissions limitation or reductions
commitments: and
(3) It proposes that the Partics ultimately agree on provisions so that all Parties
(including developing countries) have quantitative greenhouse gas cmissions
obligations, and so that there is a mechanism for automatic application of progressive
obligations to Parties based on agreed criteria.
While we may be willing to be flexible on the procedures through which each of
these elements is made part of the Kyoto package, we remain absolutely convinced on
the substance. Developing countries must bc clearly and integrally a part of next steps in
9
order for the U.S. to consider becoming a Party. The United States will not assume
binding obligations until developing countries make adequate commitments in terms of
their own obligations.
Developing the Infrastructure
Let me turn finally to the broader question of how we intend to develop
mechanisms to bring appropriate technologies to developing countries to assist them in
combating climate change. We all recognize that unless remedial action is taken,
developing country emissions are expected to rise as part of their economic development.
In my view - and I believe in the view of most of the members of this committee - it will
he critical to find ways to work with developing countries to reduce emissions. This must
be a priority regardless of the approach we take through the Convention or any
subsequent legal instrument.
What does this mean? It means we must build the next 100 gigawatts of power
generating capacity to be cleaner and more efficient. It means we must fully fund the
Global Environment Facility. It means we must seek to continue our efforts to develop
initiatives to promote environmental export credits and initiatives. It means we must
rationalize our lending through the multilateral development banks and our bilateral
assistance programs to cover environmental concerns. And, it means we must endeavor
to continue our efforts to develop and implement the new technologies of the future.
Let us bricfly consider two of the largest developing country cmitters: China and
India. Even after more than a decade of extremely strong economic growth, China is still
a seriously underdeveloped country. On a per capita basis, China's GDP is abdut $620.
Over 100 million Chinese still have no electricity. Seeking to remedy its domestic
energy scarcity, China's five year plan calls for the addition of 70 gigawatts of electricity
generating capacity before the year 2001. That means China will have to add one 1,000
megawatt electric plant every month for the next four years. Under current policies, most
of that will come from coal - which currently accounts for about 75% of China's
electricity. Yet there is a substantial opportunity to help China make more use of gas and
renewable energy with profitable opportunities for U.S. businesses.
10
India is in similar straits. CO2 emissions increased by 40 percent between 1986
and 1995, with domestic coal fueling industrialization. Currently, India is even lower in
per capita emissions than China - nearly five times below the world average of four tons
a person, and approximately 1/20th of the level in the United States. Like China, India is
also installing enormous quantities of new energy generating capacity - plans call for the
installation of 62 gigawatts by 2002. Inefficiencies and poor technology mar their
current infrastructure; currently in India, up to 40 percent of the electricity generated is
lost in transmission and distribution. Here too, there are profitable opportunities for U.S.
businesses.
We must seek ways to encourage these countries to build a more climate-friendly
energy infrastructure. Fortunately, opportunities to move in a more sustainable direction
are available. For example, we can work with the international financial institutions
(including the World Bank and the regional development banks) and require them to look
more closely at the implications of power plant financing. This might require moving
away from some of the current solutions which have been seen by the international
financial institutions as least cost because damages from climate change may not have
been factored into earlier cost calculations. We would welcome a more extensive
dialogue with Congress on ways to improve energy lending strategies in these arenas.
Many of the actions we want developing countries to take will be good for the
global environment, but will cost money up-front. We must increase the funding
available for the Global Environment Facility, which seeks to provide part of the costs to
meet the incremental global environmental benefits the planet so urgently requires.
We need to look at ways to bring our private sector into the dialogue as well.
Commercial energy suppliers are seeking power generation opportunities in developing
countries. To maximize these opportunities, we will need mechanisms that provide
"emissions credits" for such investments by firms and/or developed countries. We need
other export financing agencies to adopt standards like Ex-Im Bank's sct of emission
guidelines for the projects it supports. while offering financial incentives for U.S.
exporters and foreign buyers who chose renewable energy and low emission technology
11
options to meet their power generation needs. These measures such as Ex-Im Bank's
need to be complemented by a global recognition and acceptance of strong
environmental criteria. Once our firms demonstrate that new, fuel-efficient technologies
and renewable energy sources are commercially viable, we can expect that countries in
the developing world will quickly adopt that technology. We should also look to ways to
encourage research and development into energy-efficiency and renewable energy both
by our private sector and through government funding and research. The development of
long-term alternatives will be critical in the path to a sustainable future. Congress has
been in the forefront of promoting private sector investment; we would welcome a
continued dialogue on how to advance our environmental goals through such
mechanisms.
It is clear that these actions must be taken. However, it is equally clear that none
of these important steps can be taken by the Administration acting alone. Each will need
congressional support. The Senate's attention to the climate issue has brought into focus
the importance of the problem, and the need to involve all countries in the solution. In
this light, we must now work together to find that solution. I look forward to doing just
that.
I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you.
Under Secretary for Global Affairs Timothy E. Wirth
Statement before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy,
Export and Trade Promotion of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC, June 19, 1997
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.
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.
D 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.
- 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.
| of 5
10/21/97 13:50:20
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.
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.
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.
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
2 of 5
10/21/97 13:50:22
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 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.
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 21st 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:
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.
of 5
10/21/97 13:50:23
17/06/19 Wirth on Climate Change
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/970619tw.htm
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 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 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:
"
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.
1 of 5
10/21/97 13:50:25
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
-- 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.
(##)
OF
Return to the Department of State Home Page. This is an official U.S.-Government source
for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of
contents.
5 of 5
10/21/97 13:50:26
Cimate
Conference on Climate Change, Evolving Technologies, U.S.
Business, and the World Economy in the 21st Century
Opening Remarks of the Honorable Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, D.C., June 18, 1996
Good morning and thank you all for coming.
On behalf of Secretary Christopher, Undersecretary Spero and the rest of the Department, I want to welcome you here today
for this important and exciting conference where we will explore the intersection of good economic and good environmental
policy.
As all of you know, the Clinton Administration has placed economic issues, technology issues, trade liberalization and
American competitiveness at the top of its strategic priorities. Simultaneously, we have attempted to integrate the
environment our economic and social policy, both domestic and foreign. This kind of integration is symbolic of the ideas put
forward by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development the idea of eco-efficiency. Eco-efficiency is about
integration - linking economics, environment and equity. And it is a promising platform from which to build.
In this country and around the world, there are countless examples which demonstrate that the public and private sectors can
work together to achieve simultaneous economic and environmental progress. Tremendous strides have been made in
developing more efficient means of generating power and transporting people. Ingenious new systems of productio
Pollyanna, or to suggest that the hard work is done and that we can now relax.
I cite them because these successes are important, very important:
- they prove that partnerships between the public and private sectors, between science and
government, can work;
they prove that public dollars, wisely invested, can bring a significant return;
= they demonstrate that there is a great deal of money to be made from technological innovation and
the need for a clean environment;
= and they form the foundation for the resolve and determination that must be summoned to face
today's challenges.
Among the foremost of these challenges is how to take sensible steps to guard against potentially costly impacts associated
with global climate change. This is an issue that has been with us for some time, first postulated more than 100 years ago and
taken up through serious scientific investigation about 25 years back.
An enormous amount of research has been done and the workings of the global climate system are now broadly understood.
Late last year the international body of scientists assembled to investigate this issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, issued its second assessment report and more strongly than ever before underscored the seriousness with which the
world's leading experts view the issue of global climate change and humankind's role in it.
In the weeks and months ahead, we will be engaging in important negotiations that will help guide public and private actions
to control greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2000 period. These negotiations will no doubt be the subject of intense
discussion and debate. Today, however, we want to explore and try to define broad common ground. This conference is
aimed at identifying opportunities for developing, demonstrating and deploying goods and services that serve our economic
and environmental interests. We want to help highlight the notion and the reality that far-sighted, creative and aggressive
businesses can do well while doing right.
This is a major theme emerging in the State Department. Secretary Christopher is preparing the Department to take on the
challenges of the post-Cold War economic and environmental alike.
Undersecretary Spero will be talking about the Department's America Desk and our efforts to work with the private sector to
strengthen America's economy at home, by enhancing opportunities abroad. Similarly, in his extraordinary speech on
Lof2
10/21/97 13:39:57
American diplomatic leadership in international environmental affairs this April, Secretary Christopher made the critical
linkage we are exploring here today.
"We are committed," he said at that time, "to helping U.S. companies expand their already commanding share of a $400
billion market for environmental technologies."
That is what today's meeting is all about. It is not about revisiting stale arguments or engaging in debates about the science of
global climate change. It is not even about the critical negotiations that will continue next month over what the international
community will do together to address this challenge. Rather. recognizing that this is a problem that must be addressed, and
can be addressed, we want to explore that territory where there is complete consensus: where opportunities exist for reducing
emissions and enhancing efficiencies, American industry should be at the forefront.
We look forward to working with you on this important challenge. We need your input and ideas and we welcome your
suggestions about how we can do a better job of working with you to capitalize on the market opportunities that are opening
up all over the world.
Thank you again for coming.
[end of document
DEPARTMENT
)
3
Return to Environmental Issues
This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the WWW.
2 of 2
10/21/97 13:39:58
resumony on Cimile Change, 9/17/90
htp://www.sate.gov/www/global/oes/96091/.htm
Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs
Testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
DEPARTMENT
U.S. Senate, September 17, 1996
Washington, DC
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to rejoin your company this morning to describe the Clinton
Administration's efforts to address the far-reaching challenge of global climate change. As you know,
the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon and ratified by the Senate in
1992, recently held the second major meeting -- or Conference of the Parties -- in Geneva. As requested
in your letter of invitation, I would like to discuss the rationale for the position articulated by the United
States in Geneva and to answer any questions that members of the Committee have.
The United States had four primary objectives for the Geneva meeting: 1) we wanted to put our shoulder
behind the outstanding and unparalleled science that has been developed by the world's best scientists
through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2) we wanted to shift the negotiations toward
strategies that will achieve environmental results in an economically sensible manner so we rejected
unrealistic proposals by some countries, and proposed that future commitments be realistic, verifiable
and binding; 3) we wanted to ensure that national and international flexibility were preserved, allowing
for the use of the most innovative and cost-effective mechanisms here and abroad, such as joint
implementation and international emissions trading; and 4) we wanted to make sure that all nations,
including developing nations, are involved in these negotiations and next steps that will be reached
through them.
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with the issue of science -- for it is scientific research, and broad
consensus among the world's leading experts, that form the foundation for our concern and proposed
strategies on this issue. As you know, this Committee has a long history of engagement with scientific
experts involved in this issue -- and I remember well a long series of hearings between 1987 and 1992
that I had the privilege of working on from your side of the dais during my term in the Senate, under the
leadership of then Chairman Johnston.
One of the most memorable of those hearings occurred right here in this room in June of 1988. You will
recall that that was the day that a brave and pioneering NASA scientist named Jim Hansen -- a leading
authority on climate change told this Committee and the world that he believed that the scientific
evidence was ever more apparent that global climatic changes were occurring outside the range of
natural variability and that he believed global warming was underway. That was a bold assertion at that
time and there were few scientists at that time who were willing to go as far as Dr. Hansen.
Almost a decade later, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of scientific progress has been made. At the behest of
the Bush Administration, the international community set about to establish an inclusive international
scientific body to answer questions about global climate change. Accordingly, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established as a partnership of the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. Over the past five years, the IPCC has
emerged as the world's preeminent scientific and technical body concerned with the threat of global
climate change. The IPCC involves more than 2000 scientists from more than 100 countries and uses
recognized standards of peer-review in its scientific method.
In December of last year, the IPCC finalized its Second Assessment Report -- representing the most
recent, authoritative and comprehensive scientific analysis we have available to us on this issue. The
second assessment was the result of years of effort, extensive peer review and exhaustive analysis and
consultation. The most important of the IPCC's scientific findings are as follows:
- The chemical composition of the atmosphere is being altered by anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases.
:
The continued buildup of these gases will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and cause the
I of 5
10/21/97 13:54:23
global climate to change.
Based on these facts and additional underlying science, the second assessment reported that "the
balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
This last finding represents the first time that a consensus has emerged among leading climate scientists
that the world's changing climatic conditions are more than the natural variability of weather. In short,
the IPCC's results have further underscored the compelling nature of scientific understanding of this
issue.
Nonetheless, uncertainty remains. The scientific community cannot yet tell us precisely how much,
when or at what rate the Earth's climate will respond to greenhouse gas buildup. However, making the
best possible estimate based on what is known about the complex climate system, the scientific
community believes that current emissions trends (resulting over the next several decades in the
effective doubling from pre-industrial concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will lead to
global temperatures which, on average, are 2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, increasing at
a rate greater than any known for the past 10,000 years.
Based on these estimates, the best scientific evidence indicates that human-induced climate change, if
allowed to continue unabated, could have profound consequences for the economy and the quality of life
of future generations:
Human health is at risk from projected increases in the spread of diseases like malaria, yellow fever and
cholera;
Food security is threatened in certain regions of the world;
Water resources are expected to be increasingly stressed, with substantial economic, social and
environmental costs in regions that are already water-limited, and perhaps even political costs where
there is already conflict over limited resources.
Coastal areas -- where a large percentage of the global population lives -- are at risk from sea level rise.
In our opinion, the IPCC has clearly demonstrated to policymakers that further action must be taken to
address this challenge. We are not swayed by and strongly object to recent allegations about the integrity
of the IPCC's conclusions. These allegations were raised not by the scientists involved in the IPCC, not
by participating governments, but rather by naysayers and special interests bent on belittling, attacking
and obfuscating climate change science. It is our strong belief that the IPCC's finding meet the highest
standards of scientific integrity. This is the best science we have and it is the responsibility of policy
makers to consider the panel's findings and respond with corresponding thoughtfulness.
Unhappily, while the established international scientific process is working well, the international policy
process has not been as successful. While an important first step, there a number of shortcomings in the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Perhaps most important, the current Convention
structure has not achieved its primary aims; few nations in either the developed or developing world
have been fully successful in meeting their objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have to
do better.
Last year, at the first Conference of the Parties in Berlin, treaty participants agreed to launch a new
round of negotiations aimed at defining steps that would be taken after the year 2000. The so-called
"Berlin Mandate" defined the broad terms by which next steps under the Convention would be
negotiated. The Berlin Mandate directed the negotiations toward 1) defining emissions limitations
objectives for Annex I nations in the post-2000 period; and 2) advancing implementation of
commitments by developing nations.
In Berlin, as today, it was our belief that the final consensus reflects our belief that this is a global
problem requiring global solutions: all countries must work together to do more to guard against harmful
climate changes. While the Berlin agreement specifies that there will be no new commitments for
developing country Parties, it calls for advancing the implementation of the existing treaty commitments
of 5
10/21/97 13:54:27
agreed to by developing countries and allows for negotiations on new commitments to begin as soon as
work under the Berlin agreement is complete. Under the existing treaty, developing countries are
required to adopt policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are working now to
develop specific proposals for advancing implementation of these existing commitments by the
developing countries.
Over the past year, the United States has been engaged at home and abroad in serious analysis of the
successes and failures of the current Convention structure in preparation for the negotiations that have
been underway since Berlin. Based on these extensive efforts, the United States articulated in Geneva a
proposed structure for next steps that we think should form the basis for negotiations over the next 16
months. We call this a "framework"; it has yet to be fleshed out with specific numbers and we have work
to do to further develop several issues associated with this approach. In the months ahead, our ongoing
analysis and assessment will allow us to more precisely articulate the specific contents that the United
States could support.
Now, before discussing the elements of our proposal, let me touch on the underlying rationale for the
approach we recommended in Geneva. The new U.S. approach is based most fundamentally on a desire
to ensure that the negotiations focus on outcomes that are real and achievable. We believe that sound
policies pursued in the near term will allow us to avoid the prospect of truly draconian and economically
disruptive policies in the future. The old adage, so appropriate to much of public policy applies here: an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure the cost of action in the medium-term is less than the
cost of inaction in the long-term.
Second, our approach was formulated on the premise that prospective solutions must be flexible and
cost-effective. We do not view favorably a cookie cutter approach to the actions nations might take, and
we certainly will not accept proposals that are offered for competitive advantage, not environmental
progress.
And third, our approach is based on the belief that the agreement being negotiated should lay the
foundation for continuing progress by all nations in the future. The United States is immovable in its
belief that international cooperation on this challenge remains critical to any effective response and that
all nations -- developed and developing will have to become more ambitious in contributing to the
solution to this challenge as we move forward.
Based on these principles environmental protection, economic prosperity, flexibility, fairness and
comprehensiveness the United States recommended in Geneva that future negotiations focus on an
agreement that sets a realistic, verifiable and binding medium-term emissions target. We believe that the
medium-term target must be met through maximum flexibility in the selection of implementation
measures, including the use of measures such as reliable joint implementation and trading mechanisms.
The proposal we made in Geneva represents a departure from the treaty's current approach, which has
relied on non-binding "aims" for emissions reductions in the year 2000. Unfortunately, this approach is
not working few nations in either the developed or developing world have been fully successful in
meeting their commitments under articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Convention. In our view, continued use of
non-binding targets that are not met would make a mockery of the treaty process. It leaves the
impression that rhetoric is what counts rather than real emission reductions an outcome that is both
unacceptable and counterproductive.
Similarly, we think that the current treaty needs to be strengthened through consideration of certain
long-term objectives. Our view is that it will be necessary to continue working toward a longer-term
concentration goal (e.g. for the next 50-100 years). as set out in the Convention's objective, recognizing
that scientific understanding and technology will improve over time. Working toward such a goal would
better establish the long-term. global nature of the problem.
Taken together, we believe that the U.S. recommendations related to binding medium-term targets and a
longer-term concentration goal will help ensure that the international community focuses on more
sensible emissions reduction goals (knowing that the goal must be met), and on the need for all nations
to contribute to the solution over the long-term. In addition, these two ideas are critical prerequisites to
of 5
10/21/97 13:54:29
enabling important and cost-effective joint implementation and international emissions trading
opportunities, which we believe are essential. Finally, in response to consultations with key
stakeholders. these efforts are intended to make it clear over the long-term where we are going and
therefore to help guide corporate planning and investments.
Having defined in broad terms the basic components or "framework" of an agreement we could support,
as outlined in Geneva, I want to mention what we did not say and what we will not support.
First and foremost, we have not come to any conclusions about a specific target or set timetable for
emissions reductions. We have established a comprehensive interagency process, led by the Department
of Commerce, to undertake the necessary economic analysis that will be required to determine an
approach that the United States believes is realistic and achievable. We believe strongly that this analysis
and assessment is a necessary prerequisite to identifying a target that is realistic, achievable and
consistent with the national interest and national prosperity.
Second, we did not in any way repudiate the growing number of successful voluntary programs that U.S.
industry has launched to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, there has been some misunderstanding
regarding the distinction between non-binding emissions reduction targets and voluntary programs. Our
belief that the non-binding emissions reduction aim has not worked internationally in no way diminishes
our enthusiasm for the outstanding voluntary programs that U.S. industry, state and local governments,
schools and churches has embarked upon nationally to reduce emissions. Voluntary programs have
played a central role in the Administration's Climate Change Action Plan, have helped us to reduce
emissions significantly simultaneously saving millions of dollars in avoided energy costs and we
expect them to continue to play an important role far into the future.
At Geneva, we rejected certain proposals for targets that have been proposed by other countries or
groups of countries. Our preliminary analysis before Geneva made clear that many of these proposals
were neither realistic nor achievable either because they would compromise other important
principles, such as the need for flexibility in time and place of implementation (in the case of proposals
or binding policies and measures), or because they involve timeframes and objectives that are not
consistent with national and international prosperity (for example, in the case of the proposal by the
Alliance of Small Island States calling for a 20 percent reduction in the year 2005).
We also rejected in Geneva proposals by some nations that the negotiations move toward consideration
of some ambitious mandatory, internationally coordinated policies and measures. We believe that the
significant differences in national circumstances suggest that few, if any individual measures are likely
to be applicable to all countries.
The framework proposed by the United States won remarkable support in Geneva. Based on our
presentation, we were able to obtain broad acceptance for the U.S. framework in the Ministerial
Declaration that was issued at the meeting's end a testament not only to the soundness of our
proposals, but also to the expectations the international community has for U.S. leadership in the most
important and difficult tasks facing the world. Our job in the months ahead is to search for agreement on
next steps that will produce results that are consistent with our environmental and economic aspirations.
This, leads me to the final area I want to touch upon the ambitious calendar that exists for the next
year and a half, and the need for extensive public discussion and consultation on these matters in the
months ahead.
The Administration's plans for engaging the public. industry and non-governmental experts included a
major workshop on analysis and assessment where presentations were made by more than 50 experts
from inside and outside of government about technical issues associated with our emissions trends and
capability to reduce emissions in the next century. We have also engaged in a broad series of roundtable
discussions with industry and non-governmental organizations to scope out common ground and identify
key issues. In June, the State Department hosted a major conference on the market opportunities that are
emerging as nations begin to tackle the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are a
lange of technologies and business interests that American firms are superbly positioned to take
advantage of as nations all over the world seek to enhance efficiency and deploy new technology in
1 of 5
10/21/97 13:54:30
mothy wirth restimony on Climate Change, 9/17/96
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/960917.htm
service of economic and environmental goals.
To advance our preliminary work and follow-up on the framework outlined in Geneva, the
Administration has established an unprecedented and comprehensive interagency process, under the
direction of the Department of Commerce and including DOE, EPA, CEA, and all other appropriate
agencies and Administration representatives. When the process is completed, this team will have created
an analytic "toolbox" capable of assessing the economic effects of a broad range of climate change
policies, in terms of growth, employment, sectoral and industry effectives, competitiveness and other
issues. In addition, as preparation for the negotiations ahead, we are considering approaches to a number
of the elements of the framework we proposed in Geneva, such as options for advancing the
commitments of developing countries and similar issues that will discussed in the months ahead.
As always, we will work closely with the Congress, industry and the public at large. We have already
begun some of this work, through these hearings and in a wide variety of meetings over the past several
months. Together, I believe we can ensure that United States plays a lead role in fashioning an
agreement next year that is comprehensive, flexible, fair and certain. In this way, we hope to outline an
agreement that will help prepare our country and the world -- environmentally and economically -- for
the 21st century.
[end of document]
Return to the DOSFAN Home Page.
This is an official U.S. Government source for information on the World Wide Web. Inclusion of
non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.
of 5
10/21/97 13:54:31
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
C
Divider Title:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
THE CHAIRMAN
Statement before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Dr. Janet Yellen
Chair, Council of Economic Advisers
Tuesday, July 15, 1997
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss with you today the economics of global climate change.
Introduction
In his speech to the United Nations Special Session on Environment and Development in
June, President Clinton emphasized that the risks posed by global climate change are real and
that sensible preventive steps are justified. This assessment accords with the views of the more
than 2300 economists, including 8 Nobel laureates, who signed a statement supporting measures
to reduce the threat of climate change. The economists endorsed the conclusions from last year's
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said that governments
should take steps to reduce the threat of damage from global warming, and went on to argue that
market-based policies can slow climate change without harming the American economy.
At this time the Administration has not settled on a particular set of new policies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the President indicated in his U.N. speech that he
intends to engage in a discussion with all interested parties about the problems posed by
greenhouse gas accumulations and the costs and benefits of corrective action. To this end, the
President will hold a White House conference on climate change later this year, and Members of
his Cabinet and other senior Administration officials will meet with Members of Congress,
scientific and economic experts, environmentalists, local government officials, and business and
labor leaders on a regular basis over the next several months to discuss issues related to climate
change. This process is intended to inform the Administration's decision-making process, which
will culminate in a U.S. policy position in the international negotiations in Kyoto in December
of this year.
An important step in this -- and any -- policy process is determining the impact it will
have on the American economy. President Clinton's top priority, since his first days in office,
has been revitalizing the U.S. economy, creating jobs and investing in people and technology to
enhance long-term growth. And, we have made tremendous progress. The President is not
going to jeopardize that progress. Any policy he ultimately endorses on climate change will be
informed by his commitment to sustaining a healthy and robust economy.
In my testimony today, I would like to describe some of the principal lessons that emerge
from the voluminous literature, much of it relatively recent, on the economic impacts of policies
to address global climate change.
2
Underlying Uncertainties
Before I begin my discussion of the economic literature, I would like first to acknowledge
the uncertainties associated with estimating both the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. To provide some perspective: as you all know, it is difficult to gauge exactly
what impact the balanced budget agreement will have on the U.S. economy's growth rate, levels
of employment, interest rates and consumption over the next five years. But with global climate
change, it is orders of magnitude more difficult to gauge the effects on the economy: we are
concerned with not just the next five years and not just the American economy, but, rather, we
are dealing with economic and physical processes that operate globally and over decades, if not
centuries.
Although a great many scientists believe that global climate change is already underway,
the more serious potential damages associated with increasing concentrations of greenhouse
gases are not predicted to occur for decades. This means that the benefits of climate protection
are very difficult to quantify. And, while the potential costs of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions may be more immediate, they too, as I will discuss below, are difficult to predict with
any certainty. Many unanswered questions exist about the biophysical systems, potential
thresholds, and economic impacts. In short, if anybody tells you that he or she has the definitive
answer as to the costs and benefits of particular climate change policies, I would suggest that
you raise your collective eyebrows.
3
Lessons from the Economic Literature
Let me now turn to the economic literature and try to summarize what I think we know so
far about this difficult topic. Most economists have not addressed the benefits of climate
protection, but rather have focused on the costs associated with alternative paths for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The economic literature includes estimates using many different
models to evaluate numerous alternative emission reduction strategies. In fact, because there are
so many different models, economists initially faced difficulties in comparing results: they could
not sort out the extent to which differences in results stemmed from differences in models and
assumptions versus differences in baseline emission paths and policies. To solve this problem,
thereby enabling meaningful comparisons, many economists have calibrated the various models
by performing a standardized simulation. Specifically, they have assessed the consequences of
stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 or 2020.
Within the Administration, a staff level working group -- the Interagency Analysis Team
(IAT) -- has attempted to estimate some of the economic implications of climate change policies.
They took the emissions scenario most often used in academic literature - that is, stabilizing
emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 -- as the starting point for their own analysis. I would
emphasize that this scenario is not Administration policy; instead, it was picked to make
comparisons with other models easier. The staff group employed 3 different models -- the DRI
model, the Second Generation Model (SGM) and Markal-Macro model, all commonly available
in the public sphere. In running these models, the staff adopted a common baseline and, to the
maximum extent possible, similar economic assumptions. This modeling effort produced some
+
useful lessons, but as we found from the peer reviewers' comments, it also suffered from some
serious shortcomings. Both the lessons and the shortcomings point to one clear conclusion: the
effort to develop a model or set of models that can give us a definitive answer as to the economic
impacts of a given climate change policy is futile. Rather, we are left with a set of parameters
and relationships that influence estimates of the impacts. In my view, it is more productive to
employ a broad set of economic tools to analyze policy options than to seek to develop a single
definitive model.
I understand that a draft of the staff analysis was given to the Subcommittee this morning,
along with the reviewers' comments. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have
about this modeling effort.
The Lessons. Modeling efforts both inside and outside the Administration clearly
indicate that economic analysis can do no more than estimate a range of potential impacts from
particular policies and highlight how outcomes depend on underlying assumptions about how the
economy works and the ways in which policy is implemented. However, the economics
literature on climate change does point to several important lessons:
How the economy works. First, the magnitude of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the various models depends crucially on a number of key assumptions about
how the economy works. For instance:
If firms in the economy can shift from high-carbon to low-carbon energy sources
quickly, the costs of climate protection will be lower.
If the economy has significant opportunities, even now, to employ energy-saving
technology at low costs, the costs of climate protection will be lower.
If technological change occurs at a rapid rate, or is highly responsive to increases
in the price of carbon emissions, the costs of climate protection will be reduced.
If the Federal Reserve pursues a monetary policy oriented toward keeping the
economy at full employment, transitional output costs will be lower.
In short, the greater the substitution possibilities and the faster the economy can adapt,
the lower the costs.
How the plan is implemented. Second, costs depend critically on how emission
reduction policies are implemented. It boils down to this: if we do it dumb, it could cost
a lot, but if we do it smart, it will cost much less and indeed could produce net benefits in
the long run. The over 2300 signatories of the economists' statement argued that any
global climate change policy should be rely on market-based mechanisms. Such
mechanisms allow for flexibility in both the timing and location of emission reductions,
thereby minimizing the costs to the U.S. economy. The economists concluded 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."
6
The speed at which emissions reductions are required can have large effects on the
estimated costs. It is important to allow sufficient lead-time for orderly
investment in new equipment and technology. Alternatively, if emission
reduction requirements are too far off in the future, the incentives to adopt energy
efficient technologies are weakened because people may not view the policy as
credible.
A "cap and trade" system in which emission permits are issued and then traded
among firms can substantially reduce the cost of meeting an emissions target by
creating incentives for emissions to be reduced by those firms and in those
activities where costs are lowest.
International emission permit trading substantially lowers costs by applying the
same cost-minimizing principle globally.
So-called "banking" and "borrowing" of permits increases flexibility and lowers
costs by allowing firms to change the timing of their emission reductions.
Joint implementation, whereby US firms would receive credit for undertaking
emission reductions in countries with low abatement costs, would also lower the
domestic burden.
An additional aspect of implementation that profoundly affects the costs of
reducing emissions concerns "revenue recycling." In many model simulations, emissions
are reduced by using various market mechanisms. For many of these scenarios, the
Federal government realizes an increase in revenues. Economic growth can receive a
7
long-term boost if these revenues are used to reduce distortionary taxes that diminish the
incentives to invest, save or work, or if the revenues are channeled into deficit reduction,
thereby lowering interest rates and boosting investment. In fact, in some models and
scenarios, emissions reduction generates a net economic benefit when the revenues are
recycled in a growth-promoting fashion.
Which countries participate. The third lesson that emerges from a study of the
economics of climate protection is that developing, as well as developed, countries must
be part of the process. While developed countries are responsible for most of the
greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere, developing countries are starting to catch up.
By 2040, the largest fraction of emissions is estimated to come from developing
countries. Thus, any comprehensive plan to deal with this global problem must include a
mechanism to bring developing countries into the process.
The timetable for the inclusion of developing countries is also important. The sooner that
developing countries face incentives to move away from carbon intensive energy sources,
the less likely it is that they will become dependent on those types of fuels to spur their
economic growth. In short, global problems require global solutions. We must find the
technologies and solutions to lead the way.
8
Conclusion
Let me conclude. Policies to promote economic growth, create jobs, and improve the
living standards and opportunities of all Americans have been and always will remain the top
priority of the President and his Administration. In his remarks to the Business Roundtable on
global climate change, the President said "[l]et's find a way to preserve the environment, to meet
our international responsibilities, to meet our responsibilities to our children, and grow the
economy at the same time."
Some of the key economic lessons we have learned that will help us achieve the
President's goal include:
Inherent uncertainty dictates that models should be expected to generate only a range of
economic impacts, not definitive answers.
Key assumptions about how the economy works directly influence the estimated costs of
climate protection.
Implementation of any policy needs to be market-based and flexible over time and space
to achieve the lowest cost reductions.
All nations, both developed and developing, need to participate.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
9
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
D
Divider Title:
Testimony of Eileen Claussen
Administration Statement
before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
September 26, 1996
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
It is a pleasure for us to be here today to share with you
the results of the recently held Second Conference of the
Parties (COP-2) to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. We would also like to discuss the process -
through which we reached the U.S. position, and where we expect
to go from here.
Most importantly, the U.S. position at COP-2 reflects our
increased concern about climate change as reflected in the
latest international assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Prepared by over 2,500 of the world's
2
leading experts, this report concluded that the balance of
evidence suggests that human actions are influencing the
climate system and that many of the possible impacts will be
adverse to human health and to our environment.
The U.S. delegation to COP-2 was led by Undersecretary for
State for Global Affairs, Timothy E. Wirth, for the Ministerial
portion of COP-2. In his July 17 statement to the Parties to
the Convention, the United States called for next steps under
the Climate Convention for the post-2000 period to include
realistic and achievable, legally binding targets that would be
implemented through flexible national programs and produce real
environmental benefits. The U.S. position also underscored the
need for all nations, including developing nations, to take
actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, we called
for work on a longer-term goal (e.g. 50-100 years) so that we
have a clearer pather for the future that allows the private
sector to expand sensibly as it plans and makes investment
decisions.
We arrived at this basic framework for a number of
reasons. It was clear that the Convention's existing framework
of a non-binding "aim" was not working. Most developed
countries, including the United States, will not achieve the
goal of stabilization in 2000 at 1990 levels. A binding
commitment will create a stronger incentive for nations to be
realistic in deciding on a target to make the effort required
and ensure a level playing field. In addition, from the
3 --
analyses completed to date, we determined that more flexible
approaches offer significant cost-saving opportunities that
should be brought into the Convention's basic framework.
Equally important, the U.S. statement at COP-2 specifically
rejected existing proposals by other countries because they
called for inflexible, one-size-fits-all, policies and measures
that would harm U.S. competitiveness; because they contained
unrealistic short-term cuts in emissions; or because they
failed to provide for cost-effective, flexible implementation.
Finally, the U.S. position fully recognized the need for
global climate change to be addressed on a global basis. As a
result, we called for a continued commitment by developing
nations to enact policies and measures aimed at reducing their
emissions of greenhouse gases. While recognizing that
developed countries must show leadership in addressing this
problem, we also made it very clear that all nations must be
part of the solution.
Ultimately, the U.S. statement helped energize Ministers
and other heads of delegation to issue a Ministerial
declaration, now called the "Geneva Declaration." Ministers
from nearly all Parties to the Convention endorsed this
statement. The only countries that opposed this Declaration in
its entirety were the OPEC countries; limited issues were
raised by Russia, Australia and New Zealand.
-- 4
The Geneva Declaration endorses an approach to next steps
that includes a legally binding target for developed countries,
in conjunction with advancement and implementation of
commitments of developing countries. It affirms the Ministers'
intent to complete negotiations on an agreement in time for
adoption by the Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3). COP-3
will take place in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.
Let us briefly review what is contained in the Geneva
Declaration, and perhaps equally importantly, what is not.
The Geneva Declaration:
-- endorses the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stating that the
Report provides the scientific basis for urgently
strengthening action at the global, regional and national
levels;
-- adopted the U.S. call for legally binding medium-term
targets by instructing negotiators to pursue
legally-binding targets and timetables in the final agreed
instrument;
-- calls for continuing to advance the implementation of
existing commitments for all Parties, including developing
country Parties;
-- 5 --
-- directs negotiators to include in the agreement a mechanism
for reviewing and, where necessary, strengthening whatever
commitments are set; and
-- calls for commitments to speed- up the development,
application, diffusion and transfer of climate friendly
technologies.
Unfortunately, there has been some confusion in the popular
and trade press about the Declaration. Let us clarify some of
this confusion by explicitly telling you what is not included
in the Geneva Declaration:
-- it does not set either the level or the timetable for
greenhouse gas reductions that are to be negotiated over
the next 16 months;
-- it does not support any proposed target or timeframe tabled
in the negotiations by others;
-- it did not adopt the call by some Parties for "harmonized"
policies and measures, so Parties are able to use flexible
and cost-effective measures to achieve whatever target is
agreed to;
-- it does not reject voluntary programs;
6
-- it does not in any way close the door on emissions trading
or joint implementation; and
-- it calls for advancing the implementation of existing
obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for all
countries, including developing countries.
While the Administration believes the declaration language
is clear on the role of emissions trading and joint
implementation, the U.S. delegation wanted to leave no doubt.
In a clarifying statement, we noted that meeting a target must
allow for maximum national flexibility, including the use of
joint implementation and international emissions trading.
with the core elements of the U.S. framework included in
the Geneva Declaration, we believe that we have successfully
shifted the negotiating process away from rhetorical positions
to more meaningful and realistic objectives about what can and
needs to be accomplished. Within this framework, the United
States will be in a far better position to discuss the
environmental challenges and economic consequences of possible
actions leading up to COP-3.
The U.S. proposed framework, based on a flexibly
implemented, binding target and timetable was arrived at
following an extensive and careful consultation process with
the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and
-- 7
Congress. Since the last meeting of the Ad-Hoc Group on the
Berlin Mandate in March, the Administration has been outlining
the broad themes of what we would like to see come out of the
Berlin Mandate process. These themes were explicitly stated in
our testimony before the Committee last June. They included:
a realistic goal leading to real and achievable reductions;
flexibility in implementation (i.e., a rejection of the notion
that a single policy option or set of measures can be
harmonized to apply uniformly to all Parties); and an agreement
that lays the foundation for continuing progress by all nations
in the future. While no formal position had yet been cleared
at the time of the June hearing, the above principles presented
at the hearing served as the basis for that position.
In preparation of our position in Geneva, the
Administration held a number of roundtables and briefings to
consult with interested parties -- on this issue, on the array
of other questions surrounding the implementation-of-the
Convention, and on the course of negotiations on next steps.
For example, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans,
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Eileen
Claussen, hosted three roundtables designed to bring together
high level industry and environmental NGO representatives to
discuss the international negotiating process and to explore
possible U.S. positions. Senior representatives from
approximately 30 leading corporations representing the gas,
oil, coal, chemical, automotive, insurance and electric utility
-- 8 --
industries attended two of those gatherings, while more than a
dozen top officials from environmental organizations attended
the third.
The individuals invited were asked to consider five topics
and to come to the roundtable prepared to discuss them. The
topics were 1) targets and timetables; 2) policies and
measures; 3) developing country commitments; 4) further actions
under the Convention after 1997; and 5) the value of
multilateral agreement under the Convention and under separate
bilateral or regional efforts.
The roundtables were useful and informative. Some
participants expressed a number of concerns about the negative
impact which mandatory, sector-specific, policies and measures
could have on the competitiveness of industry. Other business
participants acknowledged global warming as a problem and sent
a message loud and clear: create a system that gives a
consistent, long-term signal to industry to allow for
cost-effective implementation; preserve industrial
competitiveness; and don't hurt the economy through
ill-considered actions calling for substantial near-term
reductions by the 1990 baseline.
Many in this latter group also endorsed the value of
continuing the voluntary programs that have already been
implemented under the President's Climate Change Action Plan to
-- 9
begin to address greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration
remains committed to working with all our partners in the
private sector to continue and enhance voluntary approaches.
In addition to these roundtables, a number of additional
briefings with industry and environmental organizations took
place before and during the COP-2 meetings. Congressional
staff were also briefed, formally and informally, prior to,
throughout, and following the COP-2 meetings. Staff from key
agencies involved in the climate change issue have been holding
regular meetings with interested parties to learn about their
objectives and concerns.
These meetings and the analyses presented to date have
shaped key elements of the proposed U.S. framework. For
example, preliminary analyses demonstrated the high costs and
impacts on competitiveness of significant short-term reductions
while also demonstrating the substantial cost-savings from
flexible implementation approaches such as emissions trading
and joint implementation. Stakeholder meetings underscored the
need to avoid sector-specific harmonized policies and measures
and the desirability of working toward a long-term
concentration goal to help guide corporate planning and
investments.
The Administration continues to develop a reasoned and
transparent economic análysis to support our approach in the
-- 10 --
international climate change negotiations. We intend to
understand better the effects on economic growth before
formally presenting specific proposals in future negotiations.
It is to this end that the Administration is building a
strong analytic capability. A number of departments and
agencies, principly among them the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency, have been involved in an
Interagency Analysis Team charged with developing the
capability to analyze climate change proposals. Sound analysis
requires common approaches to models, underlying assumptions,
and the like.
To that end, Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Affairs Everett Ehrlich has agreed to lead this interagency
team and bring the process to closure. In this role, Mr.
Ehrlich is meeting regularly with DOE, EPA, Treasury, Commerce,
and other agency representatives to discuss analytic approaches
and to set in motion a process that leads to conclusions. When
the process is concluded, we will have constructed an analytic
"toolbox" capable of better assessing the economic effects of a
broad range of climate change policies, in terms of growth,
employment, sectoral and industry effects, and other issues.
Two of the witnesses here today testified at the Subcommittee's
June hearing regarding the analytical workshop in June where
over 50 papers were presented. Our current efforts are an
extension of that process; we commit to involving stakeholders
extensively in the review of additional analyses prior to
(
decisions on specific policies.
-- 11 --
The United States has not yet proposed a specific target
and timetable, nor have we yet defined a structure for such a
binding target. We have rejected the proposals tabled to date,
including the proposal supported by several small island
countries for a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by Annex
I Parties by 2005. We are considering a variety of alternative
structures for targets and timetables to maximize flexibility
and minimize costs (for example, using a multiyear rolling
average). We are working, through our analysis and assessment
process, to determine the appropriate target from an economic
and environmental perspective. We seek a range of options that
can meet our environmental goals while safeguarding economic
growth and U.S. competitiveness.
Undersecretary Wirth's July statement specifically called
for negotiations to focus on a medium-term target and to
continue working toward a longer-term concentration goal. We
rejected any target which called for an unrealistic near term
goal. We have heard repeatedly from many in industry that the
government should send a consistent and long-term signal that
allows industry to implement whatever policy is chosen
prudently and cost-effectively. We heard that message and
incorporated that goal in our decision to call for a binding
target. This will give a decade or more of planning lead time
to those who may be affected to internalize the target into
their decisionmaking, and to begin working now to plan the most
12
effective way to get there, and speed the development and
deployment of the technologies that are needed in a longer-term
response to climate change.
We are still in the process of resolving some of the
critical issues related to future actions to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. We are continuing to work on the following
areas: the type of medium-term target; an emissions
trading/joint implementation scheme; questions of compliance
and enforcement; and options for advancing the commitments of
developing countries. By early next year, we will develop more
specific proposals on each of these areas.
We would like to reiterate that the Administration believes
that any future commitment must be predicated on ensuring that
the U.S. economy remains robust and internationally
competitive. We also want to recognize and build on the
successes of our partners in the private sector whose early
efforts have significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and
saved consumers and businesses millions of dollars in energy
costs through actions taken under the Climate Change Action
Plan. We will ensure that partners making voluntary reductions
get proper credit for their efforts in any future regime.
We look forward to working with you here in Congress, and
with other interested parties, to frame an arrangement that is
legitimate, credible, consistent with U.S. economic objectives,
and environmentally appropriate.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
E
Divider Title:
In The Matter Of:
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-6666 FAX: (202) 546-1502
Original File 1006glob.asc, 255 Pages
Min-U-Script File ID: 0145710872
Word Index included with this Min-U-Script®
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 1
Page 4
[1]
THE WHITE HOUSE
[1]
PROCEEDINGS
[2]
Washington, D.C.
[2]
MODERATOR: Good morning. Welcome to
[3] WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
[3] Georgetown University and the White House
I
THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL WARMING
[4] Conference on Climate Change. Before we start our
Monday, October 6, 1997
[5] program this morning, we ask that you please note
10:00 a.m.
[6] the nearest emergency exit. In addition to the
E
Georgetown University
[7] third and fourth floor main entrances, there are
(8)
Washington, D.C.
[8] also two emergency exits at the rear of the stage
[9] [TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FROM A TAPE RECORDING.)
[9] behind the large screen TVs. Also, please exercise
Page 2
[10] extreme care around the lighting equipment
[1]
CONTENTS
[11] upstairs, and be mindful of cables.
[2] SPEAKERS
PAGE
[12]
Now, please welcome Georgetown
(3) Father Leo O'Donovan
[13] University's Women's A Capella Group, The Grace
[4] Georgetown University
5
[14] Notes.
[5] The Honorable AI Gore
[15]
[Applause, followed by vocal selections.]
[6] Vice President of the United States
9
[16] ["Hail To The Chief played."]
[7] The Honorable Bill Clinton
[17] MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the
[8] President of the United States
19
[18] President and Vice President of the United States,
[9] PANEL I: THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
[19] accompanied by Georgetown University President
[10]
AND CLIMATE CHANGE
[20] Father Leo J. 'Donovan.
[11] Dr. John Holdren, Harvard University 33
[21]
[Applause. "Hail To The Chief" played.]
[12]
Dr. Thomas Karl, NOAA
48
[22] MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, please
[13]
Dr. Diana Liverman, University of
Page 5
[14]
Arizona
54
[1] remain standing for the singing of our national
[15]
Dr. Donald Wilhite
[2] anthem.
[16]
University of Nebraska
64
[3]
[Anthem not on audio.]
[17]
Dr. Robert Watson, Chairman, IPCC 70
[4] FATHER O'DONOVAN: Mr. President, Mr. Vice
[18] PANEL II: THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN REDUCING
[5] President, members of the Cabinet. It's a little
[19]
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
[6] bit like welcoming an ocean wave as you all sit
[20]
Federico Pena,
[7] down. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, members
[21]
Secretary of Energy
88
[8] of the Cabinet, members of Congress, distinguished
[22] Tom Casten, Trigen Energy Corporation 97
Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research
[9] guests, faculty and students of Georgetown
Institute
103
[10] University, good morning and welcome.
Mary Good, Venture Capital Investors 111
[11]
Since half the United States Government,
Michael Bonsignore, Honeywell
[12] or more, is here this morning, I want you to know
[26]
118
[13] that I have asked several Jesuits to stay in the
[27]
Corporation
[28]
Mason Willrich, EnergyWorks 127
[14] chapel to play [sic] for your welfare.
Page 3
[15]
Georgetown is deeply honored to host the
PANEL III: THE KYOTO CONFERENCE AND
[16] White House Conference on Global Warming.
[1]
[2] U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS
[17]
Throughout this day, our President, Vice
(3) Madeleine Albright, Secretary
[18] President, First Lady, Cabinet secretaries, will
[4] of State 165
[19] engage us in their ongoing national dialogue about
[5] James D. Wolfensohn, President,
[20] one of the most significant challenges before us
[6] The World Bank 173
[21] today. We will consider, too, the opportunities
[7] Richard Schmalensee, Professor,
[22] inherent in addressing that challenge.
[8] Massachusetts Institute of Technology 179
Page 6
[9] Daniel Yergin, President, Cambridge
[1]
As the President and Vice President have
[10] Energy Research Associates 183
[2] noted since the earliest days of their
[11] E. Linn Draper, Chairman, American
[3] administration, attention to global warming is
[12] Electric Power 194
[13] Fred Krupp, Executive Director
[4] imperative. We now know that for the first time in
[14] Environmental Defense Fund 198
[5] the history of our species, we are changing the
[15] Mae Jemison, President,
[6] environment that supports us more quickly than we
[16] Jemison Group, Inc. 189
[7] are acting to adapt to those changes.
[17] Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President,
[8]
This knowledge brings with it profound
[18] Carnegie Endowment for International
[9] implications. If we continue on this course, we
[19] Peace 203
[10] face the prospect of a world that does not foster
[20] PANEL IV: CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND
[11] and sustain life but perhaps threatens it.
[21] THE U.S. ECONOMY
[12]
At the United Nations special session on
[22] Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary
[13] environment and development this summer, the
[23] of the Treasury 215
[14] President exhorted us, Government, universities,
[24] Robert Repetto, Vice President,
[15] business, labor, citizens, to work together to
'25] World Resources Institute 218
[16] address this problem. He challenged us to direct
is
William Nordhaus, Yale University 222
[17] the same ingenuity and determination that has made
Robert Stavins, Professor,
[18] the United States the world's leading nation toward
Harvard University 228
[19] developing the technologies that will conserve
[29] John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO 235
[20] energy, renew resources, and dramatically reduce
[30] Richard Sandor, Chairman & Chief
[21] the greenhouse emissions that induce global
[31] Executive, Centre Financial Products 238
[22]
warming.
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script©
(3) Page 1 Page 6
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 7
Page 10
[1]
He has suggested that such efforts can
[1] Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen,
[2] bring both the long-term benefit of preserving our
[2] thank you.
[3] environment and the immediate benefits of creating
[3]
And, Leo, thank you, for your kind words,
(4) new jobs, and positioning us as the world's leader
[4] we are very grateful for the hospitality and for
[5] in an emerging technological enterprise.
[5] your leadership on so many important matters. And
[6]
Georgetown has had firsthand experience
[6] on behalf of the President, who I will present to
[7] with this possibility. We are very proud of our
[7] you in just a moment, I want to acknowledge some of
[8] ongoing work with the Department of
[8] the distinguished guests who are here and, please,
[9] Transportation's Fuel Cell Bus Project, which has
[9] forgive me in advance for overlooking some because
10] resulted in the development of quieter, cleaner,
[10] I look around here and I see that this is an
11] more efficient vehicles.
[11] audience filled with distinguished individuals.
12] And we look forward to continuing to
[12]
But I want to start by noting that
13) contribute to the dialogue on global warming and
[13] practically the whole Cabinet is here, with the
14] other pressing environmental issues through the
(14) Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright and the
15] Georgetown Center for the Environment.
[15] Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. Secretary
16]
To spur further common work toward the
[16] of Agriculture Dan Glickman the Secretary of Energy
17] goals the President has outlined, he has brought
[17] Federico Pena, the Secretary of Transportation
18] together here industry leaders, scientists and
[18] Rodney Slater, the Administrator of the
(19) scholars, economists, environmental policy makers,
[19] Environmental Protection Agency Carol Browner, the
[20] and authorities on international affairs to
[20] Director of FEMA James Lee Witt, our UN Ambassador
21] exchange ideas and to explore solutions.
[21] Bill Richardson.
22] In anticipation of the international
[22]
Also, we are joined by the Chair of the
Page 8
Page 11
[1] conference on the reduction of greenhouse gases to
[1] Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty, the
[2] be held in Kyoto in December, we will consider not
[2] head of USAID Brian Atwood, the President of OPIC
[3] only our potential and obligations as a nation, but
[3] George Munoz, the head of USIA Joe Duffy and others
[4] also the ways in which we can-and must-join
[4] and some members of Congress, who are here,
[5] forces with all the nations of the world to find a
[5] including Senator Pat Leahy, and Congressman George
[6] global solution to this global problem.
[6] Miller and Congressman Sam Farr and there may well
[7] Around the world, we must define ourselves
(7) be others. Again, I apologize for overlooking
[8] more broadly than we may be accustomed to doing-thinking of
[8] anyone.
[9] ourselves not just as individual
[9]
Also, the Chair of the Council for
[10] nations, but truly as part of the human community.
[10] Economic Advisors Janet Yellen; Jack Gibbons, the
(11] And we must accept our collective responsibility as
[11] President's Science Advisor, Tim Wirth at the State
[12] custodians of the earth.
[12] Department, a lot of other individuals who are here
[13] As a Jesuit university, Georgetown has a
[13] including leaders of environmental organizations
[14] special interest in today's dialogue. Since the
[14] and business groups, and many others.
[15] days of Ignatius, Jesuits have "sought God in all
[15]
Well, it is an honor to open this White
[16] things"-in our fellow human beings and the
[16] House Conference on Climate Change and to welcome
(17) elements of our existence, in the plants giving us
[17] such a large and diverse and distinguished group to
[18] life and the creatures of our fields and forests.
[18] address the challenge of global climate disruption.
[19] As Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins put it, for us
[19]
I want to begin by thanking President Bill
[20] "the world is charged with the grandeur of God."
[20] Clinton for conceiving of and hosting this
21)
When the Society of Jesus came together at
[21] conference, and for his outstanding leadership in
(22) our 34th Congregation in 1995 we, of course,
[22] shining the public spotlight on the risks of global
Page 9
Page 12
(1) renewed our commitment to the promotion of justice
[1] warming, and for helping focus national and
[2] as a fundamental part of our mission.
[2] international attention on this growing problem.
[3]
In doing so, we thought about some of
[3]
I am not the only one who has come to
[4] justice's "new dimensions," such as a concern for
[4] expect this kind of leadership from a person who,
[5] the environment arising from a commitment to
[5] in the last five years, has earned the right to be
[6] "preserving the integrity of creation" for the
[6] called the Environmental President. He has led
(7) generations to come.
[7] landmark initiatives to protect the quality of our
[8]
And so, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President,
[8] land, and our air and our water and preserve our
[9] we are deeply grateful to you for your remarkable
[9] natural resources. Doing it while, at the same
[10] leadership and vision on this issue. And we are
[10] time, launching an American economic renaissance.
[11] delighted that this extraordinary group gathers in
[11]
No future leader of this country will ever
(12) this hall today, named after Georgetown's first
[12] again be able to say to America, we have to choose
[13] student, bringing remarkable specialized knowledge
[13] between building the economy and preserving the
[14] and abilities to our shared interest in the well-being of
[14] environment because this President has proved that
[15] humankind.
[15] you can do both and that both reinforce each other.
[16]
Welcome, again, and it's a very great
[16] And we thank you, Mr. President, for that
(17) pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, to introduce to you
(17) leadership.
[18] the Vice President of the United States.
[18]
[Applause.]
[19]
[Applause.]
[19] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Global climate
[20] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much,
[20] disruption represents one of the single greatest
(21] thank you, thank you.
[21] threats to our future. This view, which I have
22]
Thank you very much.
[22] just expressed, is based on a mounting body of data
Page 7 - Page 12 (4)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 13
Page 16
[1] which establishes beyond any reasonable scientific
[1] that why didn't you do something about it?
[2] doubt that emissions of greenhouse gases are
[2]
Well, I don't want to hear that question
[3] changing our climate.
[3] years from now and we can prevent this by taking
This morning you will hear evidence from
[4] the right steps now.
some of the world's leading scientific experts on
[5]
Because solving global climate disruption
the global climate. You will hear also from
[6] is not only an environmental imperative, it is also
[7] experts on other important aspects of climate
(7) an economic imperative. We understand that if we
[8] change who will tell us how technology can help us
[8] approach the global climate change problem in the
[9] reduce emissions, how we need to take a global
[9] wrong way we could hinder economic growth. We
[10] approach and how various policy options have the
[10] will not do that. We want sustainable growth and
[11] potential to affect our economy.
[11] the kind of progress that can result from
[12]
My role in these few minutes of welcome is
[12] approaching the problem in the right way. That
[13] not to summarize or foreshadow their findings but
[13] means taking concrete steps that reduce emissions
[14] to set this issue in its appropriate historical
[14] without jolting the economy.
[15] context. Those who have dealt with the issue of
[15]
We will hear today about some different
[16] global climate disruption over the years have had
[16] options and ideas and I am confident that working
[17] to battle the first obstacle which is a feeling on
[17] together we can find a sensible approach. One of
[18] the part of many that since the earth is so large
[18] the answers will involve new technologies. Already
[19] and we are so small, how could we possibly alter
[19] we are developing and accelerating the use of clean
[20] the fundamental composition of the global
[20] energy. We have a Partnership for a New Generation
[21] atmosphere?
(21) of Vehicles, for example, that will triple the
[22]
But, as the facts come rolling in, it is
[22] efficiency of today's cars while preserving their
Page 14
Page 17
(1) abundantly obvious that there are new realities we
[1] current performance, comfort and safety.
[2] face. We are adding a billion new people every ten
[2]
We are working to produce low-cost
[3] years now, a China's worth every decade. That is
[3] transportation fuels using new energy crops. We
[4] something fundamentally new in human history. And
[4] are working with the building industry to build
[5] the powerful new technologies that have come out of
[5] structures that are 50 percent more energy
[6] the still accelerating scientific and technological
[6] efficient. And, of course, an important part of
[7] revolution have vastly magnified the average
(7) the longer term answer lies in the more rapid
[8] ability of each one of those new billions of people
[8] development of low-carbon energy sources such as
[9] to have an impact on the environment.
[9] solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen and fusion.
Those technologies have brought us many
[10]
While these new fuels may, in some
] blessings, but they have also brought some
[11] instances, sound like they are far-off, some are
2] unintended consequences that we didn't think about
[12] nearly cost-effective today and all offer
[13] very much in advance. If the growth in population
[13] tremendous promise for tomorrow.
[14] had not been accompanied by the advances in
[14]
To make these new technologies a reality
[15] technology it might not have changed the
[15] for our children requires that we make the right
[16] fundamental relationship between human kind and the
[16] kinds of investments today.
[17] earth but these two factors together, coupled with
[17]
Welcome, then, to the White House
[18] our approach to them, have now really altered the
[18] Conference on Climate Change. Our purpose is
[19] effect that human kind can have on the earth's
[19] clear: We are facing a global threat that demands
[20] environment.
[20] a global response. And while no one country can
[21]
And, of course, the atmosphere is the most
[21] solve the problem on its own, no coalition of
[22] vulnerable part of the earth's environment because
[22] countries can solve the problem without the active
Page 15
Page 18
[1] it is so thin, relatively speaking, and we are now
[1] participation and leadership of this country.
[2] able to alter its composition.
[2]
So, let us launch the great resources of a
[3]
We cannot turn back; we must look ahead.
[3] great country on behalf of the children of our
[4] And in looking ahead we must take steps that can
[4] nation and the world. Let us summon America's
[5] soften our impact on the earth's environment and
[5] scientific genius, economic might, commercial
[6] quicken our progress toward a more prosperous
[6] ingenuity and history of leading large coalitions
[7] world. And, yet, we must be realistic: Solving
[7] against threats to our common future.
[8] this problem will take time. It has been created
[8]
Now is the time to cut back emissions,
[9] over a period of time. We are now, of course,
[9] design 21st Century solutions, and begin the steps
[10] accelerating the process by which climate change is
[10] necessary to return our planet to the stable
[11] being created, but we have to begin to reverse the
[11] climate balance that has been enjoyed by our
[12] trends that created and problem and, in doing so,
[12] ancestors throughout the entire history of
[13] recognize that it will take some time.
[13] civilization, to preserve the future of life as we
[14]
If we ignore the scientific warnings and
[14] know it and as we would like our children to know
[15] continue stubbornly on our current course we had
[15] it.
'16] better begin to prepare what we would like to say
[16]
To all of you, thank you for your
1 to our children and grandchildren. Because if they
[17] participation, and welcome and, please, participate
3) encounter the terrible consequences the scientific
[18] actively throughout the day.
[19] community is saying now come as a result of global
[19]
Now, it is my great pleasure and honor to
[20] climate disruption, and then look back at the
[20] introduce a friend, someone who stands up and
[21] evidence that was clearly laid out for us and our
[21] provides leadership when it is most needed; a
[22] generation they might fairly ask, if you knew all
[22] person whose own optimism, inventiveness and
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Scripto
(5) Page 13 - Page 18
winte nouse comerence on Cimare Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 19
Page 22
(1) exuberance has helped to give us an expansive and
(1) to stand as we take on the remaining challenges to
2) accurate view of America's options and
[2] build that bridge to the 21st century.
3] possibilities; a man committed to a surging
(3)
We are back here at Georgetown today
[4] economy, a stable climate and a healthy environment
[4] because global climate change clearly is one of the
(5) and a bright future for all of our people,
[5] most important of those challenges, and also one of
[6] President William Jefferson Clinton.
[6] the most complex, crossing the disciplines of
E
[Applause.]
(7) environmental science, economics, technology,
[8] PRESIDENT CLINTON Thank you. Thank you
[8] business, politics, international development, and
[9] very much.
[9] global diplomacy, affecting how we and all others
10]
Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for your
(10) on this planet will live, support our families,
11] remarks and your remarkable leadership to help us
[11] grow our food, produce our energy and realize our
12] keep our earth in the balance.
[12] dreams in the new century. That is why we put
13]
Thank you, Father O'Donovan, for letting
(13) together this White House Conference on Climate
14] me come home to Georgetown one more time to discuss
[14] Change, bringing together experts and leaders with
15] a matter of immense importance to America and its
[15] a wide range of knowledge and a wide range of
16] future.
[16] views.
17]
I thank the members of Congress and the
[17]
People of goodwill bring to this
18] members of Cabinet and the administration who are
[18] conference many honest disagreements about the
19] here, all those who have agreed to serve on the
[19] nature of the threat we face and how we should
20] panels, and all of you who have come to be a part
[20] respond. That is healthy in a democracy like ours.
21) of this important day.
[21] My hope is that we will take advantage of this
22]
Six years ago last Friday-I can hardly
[22] forum to actually talk with each other, rather than
Page 20
Page 23
[1] believe it, but it was six years ago last Friday
[1] past each other, for it is our responsibility to
[2] that I announced my intention to run for President,
[2] work together to achieve two vital and compatible
[3] challenging America to embrace and to vigorously
[3] goals, ensuring the continued vitality of our
(4) pursue a vision of our country for the 21st century
[4] planet and expanding economic growth and
[5] to make the American dream alive for every person
[5] opportunity for our people.
[6] responsible enough to work for it, to keep our
[6]
Despite the complexities of these
(7) country, the world's strongest force, for peace and
[7] challenges, we have good reason to be optimistic,
[8] freedom and prosperity, to bring our people
[8] beginning with our 220-year record of making all
[9] together across all the lines that divide us into
[9] manner of difficult problems solvable, and
10) one America.
[10] importantly, a very good record in the last
(11] Shortly afterward, I came here to
[11] generation of environmental progress. In the last
12] Georgetown to this great hall to outline specific
[12] generation alone, we came together to heed Rachel
[13] strategies and new policies, to achieve that
[13] Carson's warnings, and ban DDT and other poisons.
[14] vision, rooted in our values of opportunity and
[14] We cleaned up rivers so filthy, they were catching
[15] responsibility, faith and family and community,
[15] on fire, phased out lead in gasoline and chemicals
[16] designed to help Americans seize the opportunities
[16] that were eating a hole in the ozone layer. We
[17] and solve the problems of this new age.
[17] have worked with citizens to conserve the
18]
It was clear to me that our new direction
[18] Headwaters Forest of Northern California, restore
19] had to be rooted in some basic guidepost, that we
[19] the Florida Everglades, protect Yellowstone
20] had to be oriented toward the future, not the past,
[20] National Park from the assaults of mining, in each
21] toward change, not the status quo, toward
[21] case proving that environmental stewardship does
22] partnership, not division, toward giving all a
[22] not have to hamstring economic growth.
Page 21
Page 24
[1] chance, not just a few, and finally toward making
[1]
Indeed, in tackling the difficult task of
[2] sure America leads, not follows.
[2] cutting sulfur dioxide emissions with an innovative
[3]
We tried to develop a new approach to
[3] system of permit trading, the United States is well
(4) Government where we didn't claim to do everything
[4] ahead of the schedule we set for ourselves and well
[5] and we wouldn't tolerate doing nothing, but
[5] below the projected cost in cleaning the
[6] instead, we focused on giving people the tools to
[6] environment. I believe we can find that same
[7] make the most of their own lives and creating the
[7] common ground as we address the challenge of
[8] conditions that would allow them to succeed, and we
[8] climate change.
[9] had new policies, economic policies and trade
[9]
Before we begin our discussion today, I
10] policies, education policy, crime and welfare,
[10] think it is important for me to explain the four
[11] policies toward the working poor, policies to
(11) principles that will guide my approach to this
12] bolster families and help them balance work and
[12] issue.
13] child-rearing, policies in health care and foreign
[13]
First, I am convinced that the science of
(14] policy, and, yes, policies in the environment.
[14] climate change is real. We will hear more about
15]
In the last four years and eight months, I
[15] this today from our first panel, but for me, the
16] think it is fair to say that together we have made
[16] bottom line is that although we do not know
17] real progress toward that vision of the 21st
(17) everything, what we do know is more than enough to
18) century. We stand at the threshold of that century
[18] warrant responsible action.
19] stronger than most people thought was possible back
[19]
A great majority of the world's climate
20] in 1991, With our economy thriving, our social
[20] scientists have concluded if we don't cut our
21] fabric mending, our leadership in the world strong,
[21] emission of greenhouse gases, temperatures will
22] we have a solid foundation of achievement on which
[22] rise and will disrupt the global climate. In fact,
Page 19 Page 24 (6)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 25
Page 28
(1) most scientists say this process has already begun.
[1] development traditionally have meant large
[2] I might add that I had nothing to do with
[2] increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
3] scheduling this conference on the day which is
[3]
In fact, if current trends continue,
I
predicted to be the hottest October the 6th that we
[4] emissions from the developing world will likely
have ever had in Washington, D.C.
[5] eclipse those from the developed world in the next
[Laughter.]
[6] few decades, but they have an opportunity to pursue
(7) PRESIDENT CLINTON: I know not everyone
[7] a different future without sacrificing economic
[8] agrees on how to interpret the scientific
[8] growth.
[9] conclusions. I know not everyone shares my
[9]
The industrialized world alone cannot
[10] assessment of the risks, but I think we all have to
[10] assume responsibility for reducing emissions.
[11] agree that the potential for serious climate
[11] Otherwise, we will wind up with no reduction in
[12] disruption is real. It would clearly be a grave
[12] emissions within a matter of a few decades. In
[13] mistake to bury our heads in the sand and pretend
[13] Kyoto, therefore, we will ask for meaningful, but
[14] the issue will go away.
[14] equitable commitments from all nations.
[15]
The second principle is that when the
[15]
Second, we must explore new ways for
[16] nations of the world meet in December in Kyoto,
[16] American businesses to help these rapidly growing
[17] Japan, we must be prepared to commit to realistic
[17] countries to meet their developmental needs with
[18] and binding goals on our emissions of greenhouse
[18] cleaner and more efficient energy technologies.
[19] gases. With 4 percent of the world's population,
[19]
Today, I hope we can take a step forward
[20] we enjoy more than 20 percent of the world's
[20] in putting all four of these principles into
[21] wealth, which helps to explain why we also produce
(21) effect. We have studied this issue long enough to
[22] more than 20 percent of the world's greenhouse
[22] know that there are sensible options for action.
Page 26
Page 29
[1] gases. If we expect other nations to act on the
[1] It is our job now to pull them together into a
(2) problem, we must show leadership.
[2] coherent plan.
[3]
The third principle is that we must
[3]
Nearly three decades ago when the Apollo
[4] embrace solutions that will allow us to continue to
[4] astronauts first went to the moon, we gained an
[5] grow our economy as we honor our global
[5] entirely new perspective on the global challenge we
[6] responsibilities and our responsibilities to our
[6] face today. For looking down on earth from the
[7] children. We have worked far too hard to
[7] vantage point that revealed no political boundaries
(8) revitalize the American dream to jeopardize our
[8] or divisions, the astronauts had the same chilling
[9] progress now. Therefore, we must emphasize
[9] sensation. They were simply awestruck by how tiny
flexible market-based approaches. We must work
[10] and fragile our planet is, protected from the harsh
with business and industry to find the right ways
[11] void of space by an atmosphere that looked as thin
[12] to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must
[12] and delicate as the skin of an onion.
[13] promote technologies that make energy production
[13]
Every astronaut since has experienced the
[14] and consumption more efficient.
(14) same insight, and they have even given it a name,
[15]
There are many people here today from
[15] "the overview effect." It is instilled in each new
[16] companies that are addressing the climate change in
[16] astronaut a passion to convince people we must work
[17] innovative ways, taking steps that will save money
[17] together on earth's behalf.
[18] for American families even as we reduce the threat
[18]
Rusty Swikert has said, "You realize that
[19] of global warming.
[19] on that little blue-and-white thing, there is
[20]
For example, a number of leading electric
[20] everything that means anything to you, all history
[21] utilities, including AEP, Southern Company, Niagara
[21] and music and poetry and art and death and birth
[22] Mohawk, and Norther States Power, are working with
[22] and love, all of it on that little spot out there
Page 27
Page 30
[1] homeowners to promote a new technology called
[1] you can cover with your thumb."
[2] geo-exchange, using geothermal pumps to heat and
[2]
To the best of my knowledge, only one
[3] cool homes far more cheaply than traditional
[3] person here has actually experienced the overview
[4] systems, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
[4] effect firsthand, Dr. Mae Jemison, a former Shuttle
[5] 40 percent or more.
[5] astronaut and current international development
[6]
Ballard Power and United Technologies are
[6] expert who will participate in our third panel
[7] leading pioneers in developing fuel cells that are
[7] discussion this afternoon. Nonetheless, I
[8] so clean, their only exhaust is distilled water.
[8] challenge everyone in this room to rise to a
[9]
Right now Ballard is working with
[9] vantage point high enough to experience the
[10] Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota to introduce
[10] overview effect. It will enable us to reach common
[11] fuel cells into new cars. Both of these
[11] ground.
[12] technologies represent the kind of creative
[12]
Let me say when the Vice President was
[13] solutions that will make our job much easier.
[13] talking and Father O'Donovan was talking, I was
[14]
The fourth principle is that we must
[14] looking around this old hall that I have loved for
[15] expect all nations, both industrialized and
[15] so long, and I found it utterly amazing that I
'16] developing, to participate in this process in a way
[16] first came here 33 years ago.
1 that is fair to all. It is encouraging that so
[17]
I was reading this morning up at Camp
d] many nations in so many parts of the world are
[18] David the list of people who were going to be here
9] developing so rapidly. That is good news for their
[19] today, and I found it utterly amazing that a few of
[20] people, and it is good for America's economic
[20] you, I first talked to as long as 20 years ago
[21] future, but as we have seen right here at home,
[21] about the need to build an alternative energy
[22] rising energy demands that accompany economic
[22] future for America. And I found it completely
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(7) Page 25 Page 30
)ctober 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 31
Page 34
[1] amazing that five-eighths of my Presidency is
[1] disruption of human health and well-being over
2] behind me.
[2] substantial parts of this planet.
3]
I make these points for this reason. If
[3]
In talking about the key elements of this
(4) you think about the benchmarks in your own life, it
[4] scientific consensus this morning, I'm going to
[5] does not take long to live your life, and what
[5] rely rather heavily on the findings of the
[6] seems at the beginning of your life a very long
(6) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which has
7] time, seems to have passed in the flash of an eye
(7) been mentioned a couple times, here, this morning.
(8) once you have experienced it.
[8] It's the international body that has drawn on the
[9]
These great developments, such as the one
[9] expertise of some 2,000 of the world's leading
.0] we are here to talk about today, occur over many
[10] analysts of these matters to develop authoritative
:1] life spans, and popular democracies are far more
[11] assessments to serve as the basis for decision
2] well organized to take advantage of opportunities
[12] making by policy makers and governments about how
¹³] or deal with immediate crises than they are to do
[13] to react to this problem.
14] the responsible thing which is to take a moderate,
[14]
Dr. Bob Watson, who, as the Vice President
'5] but disciplined approach far enough in advance of a
[15] just mentioned, is the head of the IPCC, will say a
:6] train coming down the track to avoid leaving our
(16) little more about it later this morning.
7] children and our grandchildren with a catastrophe.
(17)
18]
So I ask you to think about that. We do
The problem we're dealing with, of course,
(18) is the problem that is popularly called global
19] not want the young people who sat on these steps
20] today, for whom 33 years will also pass in the
[19] warming because it does entail raising the average
21] flash of an eye, to have to be burdened or to
[20] temperature of the Earth's surface.
22] burden their children with our failure to act.
[21]
It also entails a lot more than that, as
[22] we're going to talk about, but the place to start
Page 32
[1]
Thank you.
Page 35
2) [Applause.]
[1] in discussing it is with why the Earth's
[3] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Mr. President, while
[2] temperature is what it is.
[4] they're removing the podium, I'm going to go ahead
[3]
It turns out that just a few gases, which
[5] and begin the introduction of this panel. It gives
(4) are naturally present in the Earth's atmosphere in
[6] me great pleasure to introduce some very
(5) quite small concentrations are responsible for
(7) distinguished individuals who are members of our
[6] keeping the surface of the Earth about 60 degrees
[8] first panel.
[7] Fahrenheit warmer than it would otherwise be.
la
Dr.John Holdren, a professor of
[8] They're called greenhouse gases because they work
of Environmental Science and Public Policy at Harvard
[9] in a way analogous to one of the functions of glass
11] University, is also a member of the President's
[10] in a greenhouse; namely, they let incoming sunlight
12) Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
(11) through but they trap some of the outgoing heat and
:3] and chair of the Task Force on U.S. Energy Research
[12] send it back toward the ground.
4] and Development Needs in the 21st Century.
[13]
The largest contributors to that natural
[s]
Tom Karl is a senior scientist at the
[14] greenhouse effect are water vapor, carbon dioxide,
'6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
[15] methane, and nitrous oxide. And without those
:7] Administration and has recently done some path-breaking
[16] trace greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth
work
[17] would in fact be too cold for life as we know it.
:8] that he will present here.
[18]
The problem we're talking about here is
19]
Dr. Diana Liverman is a professor at the
[19] that for hundreds of years human activities have
20] University of Arizona and the chair of the National
[20] been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,
21] Academy of Sciences Committee on the Human
[21] mainly, at first, carbon dioxide from
22] Dimensions of Climate Change.
[22] deforestation. Later, carbon dioxide from fossil
Page 36
Page 33
[1]
Dr. Don Wilhite, the director of the
[1] fuel burning, methane, and nitrous oxide from land
2] National Drought Mitigation Center, is a
[2] use changes, and finally, chlorofluorocarbons and
(3) climatologist at the University of Nebraska, in
[3] their relatives from a variety of industrial
[4] Lincoln.
[4] processes, all of them greenhouse gases.
[5]
And Dr. Robert Watson, the director of
[5]
And in the last century, in particular,
[6] Environment for The World Bank, is also head of the
[6] the huge growth of fossil fuel use as a result of
7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[7] industrialization has been the main factor, the
[8]
I think that we're going to start with Dr.
[8] main driver in lifting the carbon dioxide content
[9] John Holdren, and then move from there.
[9] of the atmosphere to about 30 percent above its
10] DR. HOLDREN: Thank you very much. Mr.
[10] pre-industrial value.
¹ President, Mr. Vice President, as you know, there
[11]
The concentrations of the other greenhouse
'2] is a growing scientific consensus on three critical
[12] gases have also been growing in this period. On
13] points about global climate change. The first
[13] the other hand, the atmospheric concentrations of
'4] point is that the climate is changing in ways that
[14] particles put there by human activities have also
'5] are not explainable by natural causes.
[15] been increasing.
'6]
The second point is that emissions of
[16]
Those extra particles in the atmosphere
:7] greenhouse gases from human activities, above all,
[17] screen out some sunlight. They help form clouds
8] from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation are
[18] that screen out even more, and so they've partly
9] the main causes of those changes.
[19] offset the warming effect of the greenhouse gas
:0]
And the third point is that the
[20] additions. But all in all, the net manmade
21] consequences of those changes in climate in the
[21] addition to the greenhouse effect, from all of the
2] next century are likely to include significant
[22] greenhouse gases combined, minus the effect of the
Page 31 - Page 36 (8)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 37
Page 40
[1] particles, is about what it would be from the
[1] greenhouse gas concentrations, with the increases
(2) carbon dioxide additions alone.
[2] in atmospheric particulate matter, and with the
3)
And that's enough to cause changes in
(3) estimated variations in the output of the sun.
climate that have started to become measurable, and
(4)
Now to help think about where this
hat threaten to grow in the future to levels that
[5] situation is headed in the future, the IPCC has
are highly disruptive of human well-being.
[6] developed a set of scenarios for emissions of
(7)
Now, up until now, the industrialized
M greenhouse gases for atmospheric concentrations and
[8] countries have accounted for most of the human
[8] for the likely associated temperature changes
[9] additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
[9] extending over the next century, out to the year
[10] The United States, with about 4 percent of the
[10] 2100. These are shown on the current graphic.
[11] world's population, has been responsible for more
[11]
The carbon dioxide concentrations on the
[12] than 25 percent of the emissions of greenhouse
[12] top, the temperatures likely to be associated with
[13] gases into the atmosphere over the last 45 years.
[13] that on the bottom, and the lines through the
(14)
The less developed countries altogether,
[14] middle of that are the so-called business as usual
[15] with about 80 percent of the population, have been
[15] energy future, where we're headed if we don't
[16] responsible for less than 25 percent, that is less
[16] change very much from what we're doing now.
[17] than the United States alone, of the greenhouse gas
(17)
Where that is, where that business as
[18] emissions into the atmosphere over that period.
[18] usual is taking us is toward atmospheric
[19]
Their per capita emissions are typically
[19] concentrations of carbon dioxide near 700 parts per
[20] 1/10th or less the per capita emissions of carbon
[20] million of carbon dioxide by the year 2100. That's
[21] dioxide in the industrialized nations like the
[21] about two and a half times the pre-industrial
[22] United States.
[22] concentration of carbon dioxide.
Page 38
Page 41
[1]
But 90 percent of the world's population
[1]
The accompanying further temperature
[2] growth over the next several decades is expected to
[2] changes beyond what has already occurred are
[3] occur in the less developed countries, and much of
[3] estimated to be between 2 and 6 degrees Fahrenheit,
[4] the economic growth over that period is expected to
[4] associated with that carbon dioxide change. And as
[5] grow there, too, and that means that their
[5] I mentioned before, those temperature increases
[6] greenhouse gas emissions, along with the fossil
[6] would not be uniform because higher latitudes will
[7] fuel use that they plan to use to drive much of
[7] warm more than the equatorial regions. The United
[8] that economic growth are going to go up.
[8] States would face a warming in 2100, and after, of
In fact over the next century, under
[9] 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, on the average.
business as usual, we would expect the emissions
[10]
Now, let me put this in perspective by
I
from the less developed countries to pass those of
(11) showing one of the Vice President's favorite
2] the industrial nations around 2030 or 2035, as this
[12] graphics, which shows carbon dioxide and
[13] particular graphic shows. Although it is important
[13] temperature changes over the last 160,000 years,
[14] to note that their per capita emissions at the time
[14] based on analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice
[15] they pass us will still be only about 1/6th of
[15] cores in the Antarctic ice.
[16] ours, and that it will take a considerable time
[16]
What you see when you look at this picture
[17] thereafter before their cumulative contributions to
[17] is that today's atmospheric carbon dioxide
[18] the atmospheric build-up of these gases equal ours.
[18] concentrations are already well outside the range
[19]
Now, over the last 100 years, while
[19] of natural variations that occurred over the
[20] atmosphere carbon dioxide has been increasing, so
[20] preceding 160,000 years, and by 2100, under
[21] has the Earth's temperature. The mean global air
[21] business as usual, we'll reach carbon dioxide
[22] surface temperature on the planet has increased by
[22] concentrations that haven't been seen on this
Page 39
Page 42
[1] about one degree Fahrenheit over this period.
[1] planet in the last 50 million years.
[2]
The surface temperature, this century, is
[2]
We'll be heading in the business as usual
[3] as warm or warmer than in any century since 1400,
[3] scenario toward a tripling of the pre-industrial
[4] and the last two decades of this century have been
[4] concentrations of carbon dioxide, and we will have
[5] the warmest ones in the century. Eleven of the
[5] achieved that in the geological blink of an eye,
[6] hottest years in the last 100 years have occurred
[6] exposing, as we do it, natural systems to a rate of
[7] since 1980, and 1995 was the hottest single year on
[7] temperature change faster than at any time in the
(8) record.
[8] last 10,000 years.
[9]
Those temperature changes have been
[9]
But of course it's not just the change in
[10] greater at high latitudes than near the equator.
[10] temperature that we're worried about. That
[11] Ocean surface temperatures have increased along
[11] temperature change is, in a way, just an indicator
[12] with air temperatures over land. Day/night
[12] of a whole array of changes in the conditions that
[13] temperature differences have shrunk, and the way
[13] make up the climate. The patterns of hot and cold,
[14] temperature varies with height in the atmosphere
[14] of wet and dry, of winds and ocean currents, which,
[15] has also changed in this period.
[15] in turn, affect ecological systems and human well-being in
1
And the point about all of this is that
[16] hundred different ways.
1 all of these observed changes are consistent with
[17]
Particularly important in that is that
,) what basic climate science predicts will result
[18] global warming causes the planet's cycle of
[19] from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, and
[19] evaporation and precipitation, the so-called
[20] they are consistent also with the numerical results
(20) hydrologic cycle, to speed up. More heat means
[21] of the best computer models of global climate, when
(21) more evaporation, which means more water going into
[22] those are run with the observed increase in
[22] the atmosphere, and therefore, more water coming
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(9) Page 37 Page a ?
me nouse Comerence on Cimate Change:
)ctober 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 43
Page 46
11 out as rain and snow.
[1] citizens and policy makers need to think more about
2]
But the greater evaporation, an earlier
[2] the impacts that would be likely at those higher
3] snow melt that go with warming, can also mean,
[3] concentrations.
4] almost paradoxically, reduced soil moisture and
[4]
In this spirit, I want to close by showing
5] less water availability in the growing season in
[5] you two computer model projections of the evolution
6] regions where that's already a problem.
[6] of temperature over the next few centuries under
7] Warming will also cause sea level to rise,
[7] twofold and fourfold increases in the pre-industrial carbon
[8] mostly from the thermal expansion of ocean water,
[8] dioxide concentration.
[9] but some from melting of the Antarctic and
[9]
The first one that's being shown now is
01 Greenland ice sheets, and from mountain glaciers,
[10] for a doubled carbon dioxide concentration. The
:1] and that melting process, by the way, is expected
[11] greenish colors denote increases of less than 5
12) to continue for centuries, even after the
[12] degrees Fahrenheit. The yellow colors from 5 to 10
'3] atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
[13] degrees Fahrenheit. The oranges and reds from 10
14] stabilizes.
[14] to 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
51
Now sea level has increased from 4 to 10
[15] You can see in the picture how the warming
:6] inches in the last 100 years. It's expected to
[16] is greatest at the high latitudes, but the whole
:7] increase by another 6 to 40 inches in the next 100
[17] United States is in the 5 to 10 degree increase
18] years. The uncertainty in that amount is large.
[18] range in this doubling scenario.
19] But it should be clear that near the upper end of
[19]
Now the next clip, which is showing now,
20] the range, the damage would be immense.
[20] is of a world with four times the pre-industrial
21]
The map that's on the screen shows that a
[21] carbon dioxide level. Now the whole globe is
22] sea level rise of one meter, 39 inches, would
[22] getting yellow and orange, with increases of more
Page 44
Page 47
(1) inundate the whole southern tip of Florida, with it
[1] than 15 degrees Fahrenheit over most of the United
[2] all of the Everglades. Of course a number of low
[2] States, and a new brown color that denotes
3] lying island nations would disappear altogether
[3] increases of more than 25 degrees Fahrenheit
[4] under these circumstances.
[4] showing up over the Arctic.
5]
It's just clear that these kinds of
[5]
Soil moisture deficits in the growing
[6] changes in climate could in fact damage human well-being in
[6] season would be in the range of 30 to 50 percent
a very wide variety of ways. Increased
(7) for this fourfold CO2 increase, compared to 10 to
[8] deaths from heat stress on hot summer days and
[8] 30 percent in the doubled CO2 case.
9] nights could be expected, along with even bigger
[9]
Now Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, I
10] impacts on human health from expanded geographic
[10] submit that avoiding climate changes of this
11) range of vector borne diseases like malaria and
[11] magnitude is clearly in our national interest.
:2] yellow fever.
[12]
[Applause.]
13)
Many regions would experience more
(13) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Before calling on
14] frequent and more damaging floods and drought.
[14] Tom Karl, let me just ask one brief question.
15] With large efforts to adapt agriculture, world food
[15]
You talked about the figure of 700 parts
'6] production might be maintained overall, but
[16] per million in CO2 concentrations. doubling of
17] reductions in parts of the tropics and subtropics,
[17] the pre-industrial level would be 550. Correct?
:8] where food production is already inadequate, are
[18] DR. HOLDREN: That would be 550, and we're
'9] likely.
[19] going to talk more about that as the morning goes
20]
The impacts are also likely to include
[20] on.
21] increased damage to coastal property by storms as a
[21] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, somebody said
?2] result of the increase in sea level, as well as the
[22] that under the current projections it will reach
Page 45
Page 48
[1] inundation of low lying wetlands like the
[1] 550 between 2040 and 2060. Is that correct?
[2] Everglades.
(2) DR. HOLDREN: We'll show all those curves.
(3) And shifts in the ecological life zones,
(3) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Okay; all right.
(4) that determine at what latitudes and altitudes
[4] all right.
[5] different kinds of plants can flourish are going to
[5] DR. HOLDREN: That's the ball park, where
[6] affect forestry and tourism in a great many
[6] we're headed under business as usual. Absolutely.
(7) different places.
(7) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: All right.
[8] You'll hear more about all of these
[8] Well, the reason I asked that is, you
[9] impacts, shortly, from Drs. Karl, Liverman, and
[9] know, I've got a different category of things, for
10] Wilhite.
[10] things that happen in what I hope will be my
11]
Now it's important to point out that most
[11] lifetime, and-in any event-
12] of the studies of these potential impacts of global
[12] [Laughter.]
:3] warming are focused for purposes of comparability
[13] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Tom Karl. Tom Karl
' 4] on the consequences just of doubling the pre-industrial
[14] is senior scientist with NOAA and has studied
15] concentrations of carbon dioxide.
[15] precipitation patterns worldwide. What evidence is
'6} But as we've already seen, anything like
[16] there that changes are taking place, Dr. Karl?
17] business as usual and we're not going to stop at a
[17] DR. KARL: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
'8] doubling. Quite possibly the concentration will go
[18]
We've prepared a number of charts to help
'9] to triple or even quadruple the pre-industrial
[19] guide us in our explanation of these changes On
10] levels. To help decide whether to take action to
[20] the first chart we see what's happened to
21] get off of that business as usual emissions path,
[21] precipitation over the course of the 20th Century
:2] scientists need to look more carefully, and
[22] across much of the globe, and in this particular
Page 43 Page 48 (10)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 49
Page 52
[1] chart you see a number of different colored dots.
[1]
But this is really only half the story.
[2]
The blue dots represent increases of
[2] On the next viewgraph we try and articulate our
3) precipitation and the yellow dots or orange dots
[3] understanding of what happens when we have this
reflect decreases of precipitation. And what
[4] excess energy at the surface of the Earth because
you'll notice is a pattern of change where the mid
[5] of the greenhouse effect.
and high latitudes have increased their
[6]
That excess energy can do two things.
(7) precipitation, and the subtropics and tropics have
M One, it can go to raise the temperature, but in
[8] actually decreased their precipitation.
[8] fact only about 20 percent of that additional
[9]
Now the size of these changes are up to
[9] energy goes into raising the surface temperature.
[10] and exceeding 50 percent, that is, 50 percent more
[10] The other 80 percent goes into evaporating water
[11] precipitation now falls in the mid and high
(11) from the surface.
[12] latitudes than did earlier in the century.
[12]
This then provides more water vapor into
[13]
Seasonally, we're finding more
[13] the atmosphere and this water vapor is what storms
[14] precipitation occurring in mid and high latitudes
[14] feed on. That's where we end up getting these very
[15] in the cold part of the year.
[15] heavy and intense precipitation events, and in fact
[16]
Now, what does this mean? Actually, in
[16] storms actually become more intense when there's
[17] terms of snow, we actually find that snow in the
[17] ample water available to release the heat to
[18] high latitudes, where it's already cold enough to
[18] provide the fuel for them.
[19] snow, is also increasing, despite the fact that
[19]
Now, we've prepared another viewgraph to
[20] temperatures have warmed.
[20] show you what's happening to intense precipitation
[21]
Now, all these changes are consistent with
[21] events in the U.S.
[22] model projections that we anticipate to occur with
[22]
This particular graph shows that that 5 to
Page 50
Page 53
[1] increased global temperatures.
[1] 10 percent increase in precipitation we talked
[2]
Now, the changes that we've already seen
[2] about has been disproportionate in a sense that
[3] have already produced a number of important
[3] most of that increase is coming from the very heavy
[4] impacts, and I'll just highlight a few for you.
[4] and extreme precipitation events, those events that
[5]
For example, in 1996, China experienced
[5] give us these inundating rains in 24 hours.
[6] some devastating floods. 20 million people were
[6]
If we look at the more moderate and light
(7) affected. 2 million people were homeless. Costs
(7) events, we see little or no change. Those are the
[8] were estimated to exceed $20 billion. Just in the
[8] types of events that we often think of as being
91 past five years, in Europe, we've had a number of
[9] fairly beneficial.
catastrophic floods. Five catastrophic floods in
[10]
Now, actually, storms, when we look at the
I the last five years.
[11] intensity of storms in the North Pacific and North
[12]
And of course, here, in North America, few
[12] Atlantic in the last two decades, we do see an
[13] of us can forget the Mississippi-I'm sorry-the
[13] increase in storm intensity as well, consistent
[14] floods in the Northern Plains, the Ohio River
[14] with that viewgraph we showed you previously.
[15] Valley floods, the flood we experienced in the
(15)
So, by and large, there's ample evidence
[16] Pacific Northwest.
[16] for significant climate changes just in the past
[17]
Now, worldwide, in the last two decades
[17] century, and particularly the last couple of
[18] we've had ten times the number of catastrophic
[18] decades.
[19] floods than we had the previous two decades. So
[19]
[Applause.]
[20] clearly, these changes we're seeing are having an
[20] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Dr. Liverman, I wonder
[21] impact, and if we bring it a little closer to home,
[21] if you would like to say a little more about how
(22) we have another chart similar to this DOT chart for
[22] climate change is now, or is likely to affect
Page 51
Page 54
[1] the globe, showing changes of precipitation that
[1] average Americans.
[2] have occurred in the U.S.
[2]
DR. LIVERMAN: Well, it's still quite
[3]
And on average, we've had a 5 to 10
[3] difficult to say exactly what's going to happen at
[4] percent increase in precipitation over the course
[4] the regional level, because particularly the
[5] of the 20th Century. But this is significantly
[5] patterns of how rainfall will change are still a
[6] greater in some areas because the increase has not
[6] little uncertain. But we know from some of the
(7) been uniform. Actually, there are some areas that
[7] information that John Holdren and Tom Karl have
[8] have a small decrease.
[8] given us, that temperatures are increasing and are
[9]
Now, this 5 to 10 percent increase in
[9] likely to increase.
[10] precipitation may not seem like much, but that's
[10]
So what I'd like to do is to talk
[11] equivalent to about the annual discharge of water
[11] particularly about how that temperature change
[12] out of the mouth of the Mississippi River every;
[12] might affect ecosystems and human health, and then
[13] year. That's a lot of water.
[13] I think Don Wilhite will talk more about
[14]
And again, these have had important
[14] agriculture and water resources.
[15] impacts. In the 1980's, we had record levels along
[15]
Now, as most of us know the distribution
'6] the Great Lakes. The Great Salt Lake exceeded its
[16] of plants and animals is largely controlled by
1 bank in the 1980's. The 1990's, in addition to the
[17] climate. In Alaska, For example, the cold, dry
d] events just mentioned a minute ago, we had the
[18] climate gives the tundra upon which the large
(19) Mississippi River Valley floods. In October of
[19] caribou herds graze.
[20] '94, Texas was inundated by flood waters.
[20]
In Florida, the warm, wet climate gives us
[21] California, in the winter of '95, again a
[21] tropical trees and tropical birds.
[22] tremendous number of flooding had taken place.
[22]
In Arizona, where I live, the warm, dry
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(11) Page 49 - Page 54
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 55
Page 58
[1] climate gives us the saguaros that we love to
[1] there are other populations who are very
[2] visit.
[2] vulnerable, like the elderly and children, who
[3]
The increasing temperatures that we're
[3] would be particularly affected by this type of
[4] likely to see with climate change are going to
[4] stress.
[5] cause species in the United States to move
(5)
Now, the other thing about increased
[6] northwards and to move upwards in elevation.
[6] temperatures is that it's going to exacerbate air
(7)
Let's take the example of the sugar
[7] quality problems.
[8] maples, and I have a couple of graphics here to
[8]
You're going to get higher levels of smog,
(9) illustrate it. The sugar maples give us those
[9] and there are certain diseases, respiratory
10] beautiful fall colors that bring millions of
[10] diseases, asthma, allergies, that could also
11] tourists to New England, and of course that
(11) increase with higher temperatures.
12] breakfast pleasure, maple syrup.
[12] Here, again, children and the elderly
13]
Now, some of the studies that have been
[13] would be particularly vulnerable.
14] done on how sugar maple distributions may change,
[14] And then, finally, those of us in the
15] based on historical pollen analysis, suggests that
[15] Southwest are particularly concerned about the
16] the sugar maples, as a result of climate change,
[16] changes in some of these vector borne and water
17] could move north totally out of New England, where
(17) borne tropical type diseases that John Holdren
[18] they're so important to tourism and to the regional
[18] talked about.
19] economy.
[19] Now, we've already made ourselves
[20]
In fact, the sugar maples aren't unique.
[20] vulnerable through our irrigation systems that
21] About a third of the world's forests could change
[21] create breeding sites for mosquitoes. But one of
22] as a result of global warming. In the Western
[22] the things we're particularly concerned about in
Page 56
Page 59
(1) U.S., our models show that gambol [ph] oak, pinyon
[1] Tucson, and along the border, are possible
(2) pine, Douglas fir, and the saguaros could disappear
[2] increases in diseases like dengue fever, cholera,
(3) from large regions of the Southwest.
[3] and malaria, as shown on this map, which shows the
[4]
Now, those trees could move somewhere
[4] change in the area that would be subject, or
[5] else, but the problem is that we've got a lot of
[5] vulnerable to malaria in a warmer world.
[6] human development out there, we can't tell people,
[6] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Isn't there some
[7] "Oh, sorry, Saguaro National Park has moved. We
[7] evidence already that malaria, in nations, in areas
[8] need to move it up into your area." It's very
[8] where it presently exists, is becoming more
[9] difficult to do that.
[9] prevalent and moving to higher climates?
to:
[Laughter.]
[10] DR. LIVERMAN: Yeah, there is some
11) I think the Vice President used the term,
[11] evidence that, For example, there is more malaria
12] and I would like to appropriate it: I don't want to
[12] at higher elevations in some developing countries,
:3] live next to the park formerly known as Saguaro
[13] and certainly, there's some more anecdotal evidence
14] National Park.
[14] of malaria moving into the United States. That's
15] Another concern of course is that climate
(15) partly climate, but it's also because we have a
16] changes much faster than most tree species can
[16] much more mobile population today than we had in
17] move. Climate changes, if you're going to have a 3
(17) the past.
18) degree temperature increase, that's going to move
[18] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me ask you one
19] many of these boundaries about 300 miles north.
[19] other question. Let me go back to what I said in
20] Tree species usually only migrate at about 3 to a
[20] the beginning. This is one of the most difficult
21] 100 miles per century. So it's going to be hard
[21] problems of democracy because if we get a 100
22] for them to keep up with this climate change.
[22] percent of the people to agree that it exists, and
Page 57
Page 60
[1]
The second thing I'd like to talk a bit
[1] only 10 percent of the people have experienced it,
[2] about is human health, that's a concern to all of
[2] and another 10 percent of the people can imagine it
[3] us, and John Holdren mentioned the problem of heat
[3] and therefore are willing to deal with it, you
[4] stress. I'd like to give you one example. In July
[4] still have to have 51 percent in order to develop
[5] 1995, 465 people died in Chicago when a heat wave
[5] any kind of political consensus for doing anything,
[5] caused 98 degree Fahrenheit temperatures, both day
[6] I think, commensurate with the need.
(7) and night.
E
So would you say-I had, and I know this
[8] Now, today, that happens about once every
[8] happens to a lot of people-but I had a number of
[9] 150 years. As we can see in some of these
[9] people, I had a young congressman in to see me the
10] graphics, this map here that shows how heat stress
[10] other day who's a member of the Republican Party.
11] would change, under a doubled carbon dioxide world,
[11] He said that, "You know, in my state we've had 300
¹²] that could be six times more frequent.
[12] year floods in 10 years."
13]
Now, with the urban temperature increases
[13] I met a man over my vacation who said that
14] you've also got problems with increased air
[14] he was moving away from the place he had lived for
15] conditioning costs, and I'm sure that most of you
[15] a decade because it was a completely different
16] don't want to pay the sort of air conditioning
[16] place than it had been just 10 years ago. It was
17] bills that we pay in Tucson right now.
[17] hotter. There were more mosquitoes. It was a very
18]
Now, there is a flip side to that. We
[18] different and difficult place.
19] could reach these energy costs in the northern part
[19] Do you believe that these anecdotal
20] of the United States. But there are many people in
[20] experiences are likely related to climate change,
21) the southern part of the United States who can't
[21] or are they just basically people's imagination?
[2] afford the air conditioning, particularly-and
[22] DR. LIVERMAN: No, I actually think
Page 55 Page 60 (12)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 61
Page 64
[1] there's a scientific basis for these perceptions of
(1) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, we'll get some
[2] climate change. That's actually an area I do some
(2) more on that.
(3) research in, and you can do-we've done very
[3] PRESIDENT CLINTON: We certainly will.
carefully structured scientific surveys of farmers
[4]
One reason I believe this is occurring is
nd of city dwellers, that show that many people do
[5] that James Lee Witt is the only member of my
believe that the climate is changing, whether it's
[6] Cabinet who is actually disappointed when his
(7) a farmer in Mexico or a resident of Los Angeles.
[7] budget goes up, and he's had a lot of
[8]
We have a lot of studies where people do
[8] disappointment these last five years.
(9) believe it's changing, and in many cases it
[9]
I'd like to now call on Donald Wilhite to
(10) correlates with the type of observed temperature
[10] talk about the relationship-because we've heard
[11] changes that Tom Karl talks about.
[11] about, increased precipitation-now I'd like to ask
[12] So my feeling, from my own work,
[12] him to talk about drought, and the apparent paradox
[13] interviewing people, is that many people in this
[13] in drought patterns and increased precipitation
[14] country do think that the climate is changing and
[14] patterns, and what implications this might have for
[15] are concerned about it.
[15] American agriculture, which is a terribly important
[16] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Dr. Karl, you want to
[16] part of our economy, and we have all been counting
[17] say something?
[17]-on it being a very important part of our expert
[18] DR. KARL: Yeah. Actually, I think the
[18] economy for the indefinite future.
[19] anecdotal evidence is consistent with the notion
[19] DR. WILHITE: Thank you, Mr. President,
[20] that although no single event is the basis for
[20] Mr. Vice President. I was asked to talk a little
(21) saying global warming's taking place, if you look
[21] bit about the-give the "dry talk" I guess in this
[22] at many of them-in fact I have a number of
[22] presentation.
Page 62
Page 65
[1] statistics you might find of some interest here.
[1]
[Laughter.]
(2)
Just during 1996, we had six states that
[2] Each drought event I think is a vivid
[3] set their all-time annual precipitation amount.
[3] reminder of our nation's continuing vulnerability
[4] Not to belabor it, but totals like 16 feet of
[4] to climatic variations. If one can remember the
[5] rainfall in Oregon during the year 1996. Over 8
[5] severe droughts of the late 1980's and the early
[6] feet of precipitation at Mount Mansfield in
[6] 1990's, those resulted in severe economic and
(7) Vermont. And there's a number of other records
[7] environmental consequences in many parts of the
[8] like this. These are the types of things that
[8] country.
certainly have an impact, and I think people
[9]
In 1988, For example, nearly 50 percent of
remember.
[10] this nation was affected by severe drought, and
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: If I could add a
[11] resulted in excesses of $15 billion in agricultural
..2] word to this, I noted earlier, James Lee Witt,
[12] losses in this country, a very dramatic number.
[13] who's the head of FEMA, is here. He and I have
[13]
In 1996, we had a reoccurrence of drought
[14] gone out, as he and the President have gone out,
[14] in the southwestern United States, and this also
[15] frequently, to the sites of these disasters, and
[15] resulted in severe economic and environmental
[16] the budget for the consequences of the flooding
[16] losses, a higher incidence of forest fires, and so
[17] events and the other disaster evénts as well-it
(17) forth. This also is of concern.
[18] now reaches an average of a billion dollars a week
[18]
In the State of Texas, alone, impacts were
[19] in the United States.
[19] in excess of $5 billion.
[20]
And you mentioned, Doctor, about malaria.
[20]
Now American agriculture, while
(21) One scientist was telling us, recently, about a
[21] technologically advanced, is still subject to the
[22] case of malaria that showed up in Detroit during a
[22] sensitivity of weather conditions, or the vagaries
Page 63
Page 66
[1] month when the average temperature was a full 6
[1] of weather.
[2] degrees warmer than the 30 year average, and while
(2)
The slide that's up on the screen now
[3] of course you can't, again, say that's the cause
[3] shows a dramatic upward trend in corn yields since
[4] and that's the effect, the odds of diseases of that
[4] 1950 in the United States, but note the deviations
[5] kind, as Secretary Donna Shalala, who's here, has
[5] on that trend. Those deviations are largely the
[6] told us, increase quite dramatically.
[6] result of variations in climate, or extreme weather
[7]
The other thing I wanted to ask, just
[7] conditions. Most of those are the result of
[8] briefly, is in terms of the effects on human
[8] drought events. Some of those are the result of
[9] beings.
[9] excessively wet events which delayed or hampered
[10]
The weather forecasters who were at the
[10] spring planting.
[11] White House last week talked about the heat index,
[11]
Drought also is of high incidence and a
[12] the combination of temperatures and humidity, and
[12] normal part of the climate in virtually all
[13] your presentation followed right on Dr. Tom Karl's,
[13] portions of the country.
[14] and somebody was saying that the heat index, here,
[14]
This next diagram shows the incidence of
[15] in Washington, D.C., by the middle of the next
[15] drought in the United States over the last 10
'6] century is predicted to go from-do you know the
[16] years. So while it's true, we've had maybe an
7] numbers, Dr. Karl?
[17] increase in precipitation, I think it's interesting
3)
DR. KARL: I think it's up to 105 or 110.
[18] to note from this slide which shows the number of
[19] I don't know the exact numbers but significant-
[19] years experiencing moderate, severe, or extreme
[20] DR. LIVERMAN: It's under a 100 now, and
[20] drought in the last ten, that while you have a
[21] it's going to go to about 105, on average, they
[21] rather surprisingly large area in the western
[22] think, during the summer months.
[22] United States that shows a high incidence of
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Scripto
(13) Page 61 Page 66
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 67
Page 70
(1) drought, we are also demonstrating the high
[1] of them, and farmers lose a lot of top soil.
[2] incidence of drought in the Great Plain States, in
[2] DR. WILHITE: Exactly.
[3] the Southwest, in the Midwest, and also along the
[3] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, thank you very
(4) Eastern coast states.
[4] much, and now we'll move to Dr. Robert Watson who
[5]
So drought is clearly a phenomena that
[5] is the chair of the leading international
[6] affects all portions of the nation, not just the
[6] scientific body on the science of climate change.
[7] western United States.
[7] Dr. Watson, how do you respond to those who say
[8]
So that projected increases in
[8] this is not a real problem?
[9] temperature, and a possible accelerated water cycle
[9] DR. WATSON: Mr. Vice President, Mr.
10] that we've been hearing about this morning, may
[10] President, let me assure you that the large
11] lead to changes in both the amount and the
[11] majority of scientists do believe that global
12] seasonable distribution of precipitation which may
[12] warming is a serious environmental issue. Over
13] alter, then, the incidence of drought events and
[13] 2,500 scientists participated in the second
[14] also flood events in this country.
[14] assessment report of the IPCC.
15]
So while we don't know precisely what the
[15] These scientists came from government,
16] regional impacts of climate change may be, as Dr.
[16] industry, environmental organizations, and
(17) Liverman was speaking about a few moments ago, we
[17] universities, from nearly a 100 countries around
18) do know the impacts associated with these extreme
[18] the world.
19] weather events.
[19]
And indeed, at the second conference of
[20] And we also know where our vulnerabilities
[20] parties, literally all ministers, except from the
21] are as a result of this, and I think it's prudent
[21] oil-producing countries, argued that the IPCC was
[22] that we sort of assess what our vulnerabilities
[22] and is the most single comprehensive report on the
Page 68
Page 71
(1) are, and use these as a way to reduce the impacts
[1] state of knowledge, the science, the technology and
[2] of drought events and flood events today that will
[2] the economics, and it should be used as the basis
[3] help us in the future.
[3] for international negotiations in Kyoto this year.
[4] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to ask a
[4]
But let me be clear. There are
[5] question and try to make sure that we are all as
[5] uncertainties in our science. We don't know all
[6] clear as we can be based on what is known, about
[6] the real facts. But these skeptics are in a clear
[7] two apparently contradictory things.
[7] minority. The vast majority of scientists do
[8]
That is, that the total volume of
[8] believe, in spite of the uncertainties, that we
[9] precipitation has increased virtually everywhere,
[9] need to take heed of our current scientific
10] and the number and severity of droughts has
[10] knowledge.
[11] increased across the country.
[11] There are three or four lines of arguments
(12) Now, Dr. Karl said earlier that part of
[12] they use to try and undermine the science. First,
13] the explanation is that the precipitation we're
[13] they argue, are we sure that the increases in
[14] getting is coming in bigger bursts. But what I
[14] atmospheric carbon dioxide are really due to human
[15] would like to do is to have somebody offer
[15] activities, not changes in nature?
[16] basically a line of explanation that everyone in
[16] There's three lines of evidence that
(17) the audience and hopefully those who will be
[17] convinced me, and nearly everybody else, that it's
[18] following these proceedings can understand.
[18] human activities causing these increases. First,
[19]
Why did it happen at the same time that we
[19] the natural variability in carbon dioxide is only a
20] had more droughts and more floods? How could we
[20] few parts per million. Since the pre-industrial
(21) have more droughts when the aggregate amount of
[21] revolution we've seen an increase of 80 parts per
22] precipitation on an annual basis was increased?
[22] million, way outside any natural variability.
Page 69
Page 72
(1)
And I think it's important that people
[1]
Secondly, the atmospheric concentrations
[2] kind of get why that happened.
[2] have gone up absolutely at the same time that we
[3] DR. WILHITE: Well, I'll take a first shot
[3] started to emit these large amounts of carbon
[4] at that. First of all, the increased precipitation
[4] dioxide from deforestation and from the burning of
[5] amount that Tom Karl was referencing earlier, a lot
[5] fossil fuels-coal, oil, and gas.
(6) of this increased precipitation is coming in the
[6]
And thirdly, when you burn fossil fuels,
[7] form of short-term intense precipitation events,
[7] they have a special fingerprint called the isotopic
[8] which leads to a very high run-off. So there's not
[8] ratio. We've actually looked at this fingerprint
[9] a lot of moisture that goes into the soil.
[9] in the atmosphere and we can show quite
[10]
Secondly, increasing temperatures tends to
[10] definitively, that the increase in carbon dioxide
11] increase evaporation and therefore ,the resulting
[11] is not due to a change in natural variability but
[12] impact of that is soil drying.
[12] due to burning fossil fuels.
(13]
So you have a combination of these things
[13]
Then the skeptics say, "Are we really sure
[14] going on that help to explain this paradox.
[14] the temperature's increased?" "Isn't our data
15] PRESIDENT CLINTON: And I think that's
[15] record contaminated by the so-called urban heat
[16] important. When the temperature is warm, they dry
[16] island, in effect?" The answer is no. We've
(17) the soil and create the conditions for the floods,
[17] measured temperature three ways. The air above the
[18] simultaneously?
[18] land, the air above the ocean, and the surface
19] DR. WILHITE: That's correct.
[19] water of the ocean. All three data sets show
20] PRESIDENT CLINTON: And because these
[20] exactly the same trend.
21] floods don't wash away the soil, rather than sink
[21] There's no way all three data sets could
22] down into the soil, you get very little benefit out
[22] be equally contaminated.
Page 67 Page 72 (14)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Change.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 73
Page 76
[1]
The skeptics then argue that in the last
[1] cannot explain the observed changes on natural-
(2) 18 years we've got a satellite data record, clearly
[2]
I believe that while the skeptics are
(7) the best thing around, but it doesn't show a
[3] right in saying there are uncertainties, there is a
significant increase. What we've got to recognize
[4] lot we do know, and the large majority of
Is the satellite data measures the temperature of
[5] scientists do believe this is a very serious
the atmosphere from 5,000 feet to 30,000 feet above
[6] environmental issue.
(7) the Earth's surface. It doesn't measure it where
E
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me ask you a
[8] we live, on the Earth's surface.
[8] follow-up question, and perhaps someone else would
[9]
And the atmospheric temperature is very
[9] like to answer, but I think it's important. Again,
[10] sensitive to ozone depletion, which is caused by
[10] I-and forgive-for those of you in the audience
[11] human activities, and natural phenomena such as
[11] who know a lot more about this than I do, you will
[12] volcanic activity and changes such as El Nino.
[12] have to forgive me, but I am also trying to imagine
[13]
When you allow for the ozone depletion and
[13] how this is going to be absorbed by our Nation and
[14] the natural variability, even the satellite record
[14] by people who will be following this.
[15] shows an increase with temperature. It's a little
[15]
It appears that we are headed into a
[16] bit less than the ground-based record and it's a
[16] powerful El Nino, and I wonder if one of you would
[17] little bit less than theory, but it is not really
[17] just simply, very briefly, explain what that is and
[18] inconsistent.
[18] whether you believe there is a link between the
[19]
Secondly, the temperature of record is
[19] power of the El Nino and the climate change.
[20] only 18 years, from the satellite, and it's natural
[20]
DR. WATSON: Yes. Every two to seven
(21) variability in climate which means any short record
[21] years, we have a phenomenon called the El Nino
[22] is very, very difficult to use for a long-term
[22] phenomenon. The ocean temperatures of South
Page 74
Page 77
[1] trend.
[1] America, in the Pacific, warm up, and they
(2)
Third, the question is, Are we really sure
[2] effectively have a large-scale effect on
[3] it's due to greenhouse gases, or could it be
[3] temperature patterns and precipitation patterns
[4] changes in the sunlight? There's absolutely no
[4] throughout the world.
[5] question, changes in solar output do affect
[5]
You get heavy rainfall in Peru, a draught
[6] climate.
[6] in northeast Brazil, a drought in Zimbabwe, and
E
But we have very, very few measurements
[7] major effects in countries such as Australia.
[8] that directly measure the output of the sun. We
[8]
One of the questions we have to ask
have satellite records from 1979. They show a
[9] ourselves is: Are these El Nino events changing?
very, very small variation in solar output,
[10] What we have observed in the last 20 years is we
correspondingly, a very small variation in climate.
[11] have now had the largest, the most intense El Nino
..2]
The indirect measurements over the last
[12] in 1982, and it is looking like the one we have now
[13] 100 years, or so, are indirect. In IPCC, we try to
[13] may well be the most intense of the last 200 years.
[14] allow for the change in solar output and how it
[14]
The question is:Are we changing the
[15] affected the Earth's climate.
[15] frequency and the magnitude of these so-called El
[16]
We do believe the Earth's climate has been
[16] Nino events because of global warming? We don't
[17] affected by change in solar output, but only a few
[17] know, but, just like there are more floods at the
(18) percent of the observed change can be attributed to
[18] moment and more droughts throughout the world, it
[19] solar output. The large majority must be
[19] is interesting to note that as the greenhouse gas
[20] effectively attributed to greenhouse gases.
[20] concentrations are increasing, it does appear that
[21]
And in fact if it's the warming effect of
[21] the frequency and magnitude of these El Nino events
[22] the sun, that affects the Earth's climate,
[22] also seems to be changing, and they have profound
Page 75
Page 78
(1) greenhouse gases have exactly the same fate. They
[1] effects, as I said earlier, both on temperature and
[2] warm the Earth by a small change in the heat
[2] precipitation, truly around the globe.
[3] content. Hence, if the sun can warm the
[3]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE:I would just like to
[4] atmosphere, so can effectively greenhouse gases.
[4] comment on your remarks concerning the skeptics. I
[5]
Lastly, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President,
[5] personally believe we have had experience with a
[6] many people say our general circulation models are
[6] form of skepticism that I think is similar to this
[7] not very accurate, and they're not very reliable.
[7] before.
[8] They are right; we have uncertainties.
[8]
In 1964, the scientific community, through
[9]
Let me make absolutely clear-we do not
[9] the Surgeon General's report, said that smoking
[10] know everything. But at the same time, these
[10] cigarettes causes lung cancer, and for the last 33
(11) models simulate most of the large-scale effects
[11] years, up until this summer, the CEOs of the
[12] that we see.
[12] tobacco companies said with a straight face and
[13]
In fact when we look at the observational
[13] seemingly no embarrassment, there is no link
[14] record for the last 100 years, and we look at what
[14] between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer.
[15] theory shows, when you take into account both the
[15]
Some scientists say, even today, the exact
i] increases in the greenhouse gases and the increases
[16] causal relationship is very difficult to pin down
in the aerosols, there's a very good correspondence
[17] because science can't answer all of the questions,
3} between the observed temperatures and the predicted
[18] but it is abundantly obvious that it does, and the
(19) temperatures.
[19] President has been leading our country's fight on
(20)
The changes in rainfall that Tom Karl
[20] that issue, and thank goodness, eventually, the
[21] said, are also consistent between theory and
[21] weight of opinion got to be such that most
[22] observation. The other way of saying it is we
[22] everybody, except this very, very tiny band, became
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(15) Page 73 - Page 78
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 79
Page 82
(1) embarrassed to parrot that line anymore. And I
(1) dangerous. That would be about 550 parts per
(2) think that the weight of evidence here is in the
[2] million, compared to 365 parts per million today,
(3) same category.
[3] 280 pre-industrial, and you saw earlier a
(4) PRESIDENT CLINTON: We have got to wrap up
[4] simulation of the considerable temperature changes
[5] the first panel and get on to the next one, but I'd
[5] that that would entail.
[6] like to ask-I think I'd like to ask, John, for you
[6]
Now, the problem is that stopping even at
[7] to respond to this. If anyone else wishes to,
[7] that 550-part-per-million level, twice
(8) you're welcome to.
(8) pre-industrial, it is not going to be easy. The
(9)
I think there's a more sophisticated
[9] curves that are on the screen now show future world
10] question to be asked, although the Vice President
[10] emissions of carbon dioxide under business as
(1) is right, there still are some people who claim
[11] usual, which is the reddish line at the top, and
:2] that this scientific case, that I have been
[12] then under three trajectories that would stabilize
13] completely persuaded by, has not been made.
[13] the concentration, at levels ranging from 350 parts
14]
I think the more difficult argument, John,
[14] per million on the bottom, a little less than
:5] goes something like this. Look, you put all this
[15] today's, to 750 on the top of the line, the highest
16] stuff in the atmosphere, and it says there for a
[16] of the lines that bend over, another orange one,
17] hundred years at least, and maybe longer. So
[17] the green one in the middle is the
18] what's the hurry? And in a democracy, it's very
[18] 550-parts-per-million trajectory, the trajectory
19] hard to artificially-impose things on people they
[19] that stabilizes at twice pre-industrial CO2.
20] can't tangibly feel, and so why shouldn't we just
[20]
Now, that lowest trajectory might be the
21] keep on rocking along with the kind of
[21] most desirable from the standpoint of giving us the
22] technological progress we're making now until there
[22] greatest assurance of avoiding climatic changes
Page 80
Page 83
(1) really is both better scientific information and
[1] that we really won't like, but it is virtually not
[2] completely painless technological fixes that are
[2] practical to get to that. We are already past the
(3) apparent to all? Why shouldn't we just wait until
[3] point where we can get to that trajectory.
[4] all doubt has been resolved and, hopefully, we have
[4]
In fact, if you could see the scale more
[5] even better technology? Because, after all, the
[5] clearly, you would see that that one requires the
[6] full impact of whatever we do, if we start
[6] emissions to go negative early in the next century,
[7] tomorrow, won't be felt for decades, and maybe even
[7] which is particularly difficult to manage.
[8] for a century.
[8]
Now, the green trajectory that stabilizes
la
Number one, is that true? How quickly
[9] at a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide
10] could we lower the temperature of the planet below
[10] concentrations require that global
11] what it otherwise would be? And number two, what
[11] emissions-global emissions, not U.S., but
12] about the argument on the merits?
[12] worldwide, including the developing
13] DR. HOLDREN: Mr. President, let me take a
[13] countries-start to decline already in about the
14] try at addressing that.
[14] year 2030, and they do that from a peak in which
15]
It is clear that the task that you and
[15] average-per-capita emissions worldwide would be
16] other policy-makers face in this situation is a
[16] only one-fifth of U.S. per-capita emissions today.
17] tough one. Business as usual is what most people
[17]
That is going to be very hard to do, and
18] are comfortable with.
[18] if we are going to do it, we need to start working
19)
The difficulty is that our health and our
[19] on it today.
20] economic well-being are more dependent on climate
[20]
The problem, basically, is that the world
21] than most people think. Human disruption of
[21] energy economic system is a lot like a super-tanker
22] climate by greenhouse gas emissions is almost
[22] under full power. It's got huge momentum in the
Page 81
Page 84
[1] certainly further along than most people think, and
[1] direction it's heading. It's very hard to steer.
[2] directly addressing the point you were just making,
[2] It's got very bad brakes.
[3] reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert
[3]
The science that has been summarized here
[4] much larger disruption than experienced so far is
[4] this morning is telling us that the super-tanker is
[5] going to be more difficult than most people think.
[5] headed for a reef. We can tell the water is
[6]
And the longer we wait, the more we coast
[6] getting shallower under the hull, even if we can't
[7] up that business-as-usual trajectory, the more
[7] say exactly how far we can go before the reef rips
(8) old-style technologies are going to be in place in
[8] the bottom out of that tanker.
(9) this country and around the world, and the harder
[9]
Now, in that situation, full speed ahead
10] it is going to be to get off of that track.
[10] is clearly the wrong course. We need to start
:1]
The goal of the Framework Convention on
[11] slowing and steering away from the reef of
¹²] Climate Change, to which the United States is a
[12] unmanageable degrees of climate change now, and
13] party-it was ratified by the United States Senate
[13] since we are all in the same super-tanker,
14] in 1992-is to stabilize greenhouse gas
[14] industrialized and less-developed countries
15] concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous
[15] together, we had better find ways to slow and to
16] human interference in the climate system.
[16] steer cooperatively, rather than bickering over who
¹⁷]
Now, there is no formal agreement yet
[17] is holding the wheel.
:8] about what constitutes dangerous interference, but
[18]
We have got a lot of tools available to
19] I know very few analysts who have looked seriously
[19] help us with that steering effort. There are
20] at the impacts side of this question, who think
[20] advanced technologies already on the shelf that can
21) that going beyond twice the pre-industrial carbon
[21] help us dramatically increase the efficiency of
22] dioxide concentration is anything other than very
[22] energy end use and can reduce sharply the emissions
Page 79 Page 84 (16)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 85
Page 88
[1] of carbon dioxide from energy supply. We need only
[1]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Ladies and
[2] some sensible attention to reducing the barriers to
[2] gentlemen, could you please take your seats? We're
3] the more rapid and widespread diffusion of those
[3] going to start the second panel, and on behalf of
advanced technologies already on the shelf, and
[4] the President, I'd like to call first on Secretary
here are new technologies that could be brought to
[5] of Energy Federico Pena, and Mr. Secretary, if you
the point of applicability, with expanded research
[6] could introduce your colleagues on this panel and
[7] and development, that would make increased energy
[7] kick it off, we'd appreciate it.
[8] efficiency and reduced carbon emissions even more
[8] SECRETARY PENA: I will, Mr. Vice
[9] cost effective, but now I am basically getting into
[9] President. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[10] parts of the story that other panels are going to
[10]
This panel will, I hope, make the point
[11] deal with later today, and I'll leave that to them.
[11] that technologies that exist today, or will soon be
[12] PRESIDENT CLINTON: But I do want to make
[12] available, will allow us to have a smooth
[13] the following points. Number one, we can't get to
[13] transition to a new economy where we will see
[14] the green line unless there is a global agreement
[14] greater energy efficiency help us reduce greenhouse
[15] that involves both the developing and the developed
[15] gas emissions. That is the message I hope we can
[16] countries.
[16] provide in this panel.
(17)
Number two, however, that is not an excuse
[17]
Before I introduce the panelists, Mr. Vice
(18) for us to do nothing because, if we do something,
[18] President and Mr. President, let me make a few
[19] it will be better than it would have been otherwise
[19] comments which I hope will put the technology
[20] because we are still the biggest contributor and
[20] discussion in broader perspective.
[21] will be until sometime well into the next century.
[21]
Mr. President, a couple a weeks ago, your
[22]
And, number three, based on everything we
[22] science advisors, the PCAST Council, issued a
Page 86
Page 89
[1] know, it will be easier in some ways, particularly
[1] report to you, making it very clear that we need to
[2] if they get the financial help they need, for
[2] invest more in research and development in the area
[3] developing countries to choose a different energy
[3] of energy, and it was interesting that Dr. Holdren,
(4) future in the first place than it will be for the
[4] who was on the first panel, chaired that committee
[5] developed countries to make the adjustments, which
[5] for you.
[6] is not to say we don't have to make the
[6]
Secondly, there were a group of scientists
[7] adjustments, but to say that I have read a lot of
[7] who come from our five national laboratories, who
(8) the press coverage and people saying, "Oh, well, we
[8] also issued a report demonstrating that we can
are just using this for an excuse," or "We're not
[9] apply technologies and reduce greenhouse gas
being fair to them," or "We don't want them to have
[10] emissions without having a very significant impact
I
a chance to grow." That is not true.
[11] on our economy, or the cost to our economy. And
..2]
The United States cannot maintain and
[12] that has been one of the big debates raging in this
[13] enhance its own standard of living unless the
[13] discussion.
[14] developing nations grow, and grow rapidly. We
[14]
Let me put this discussion in context by
[15] support that, but they can choose a different
[15] first referencing Chart No. 1, which is now on the
[16] energy future. And that has to be a part of this,
[16] screen. There. If you look at the sources of
[17] but it is not an excuse for us to do nothing
[17] greenhouse gas emissions, this chart demonstrates
[18] because whatever we do, we are going to make it
[18] that about one-third of the carbon dioxide
[19] better for ourselves and for the rest of the world
[19] emissions come from buildings, and by "buildings" i
[20]. than it otherwise would have been.
[20] mean commercial buildings, homes, apartment
[21]
I think it is important to point out what
[21] complexes. About one-third comes from
[22] John showed us there on the green line. The green
[22] transportation, and I'll talk about that,
Page 87
Page 90
[1] line-it requires-to reach the green line. We
[1] momentarily. And about one-third comes from
[2] have to have a worldwide action plan.
[2] industry.
[3] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And, Mr. President,
[3]
If you consider, as the Vice President
[4] if you will allow me to offer a footnote to that,
[4] said in his opening remarks, that it is fossil
[5] another lesson that I heard from Dr. Holdren's
[5] fuels which produce energy which are largely the
[6] presentation is that not only does the agreement
[6] reason for greenhouse gas emissions, we can
[7] have to include the developing countries in some
(7) understand why it is that power plants that produce
[8] way, along with the developed nations, but, also,
[8] electricity account for so much of greenhouse gas
[9] if we wait-if we wait before we start, then we
[9] emissions, particularly when coal or natural gas,
[10] will lose the opportunity to hit that green line
[10] in some cases, is being used.
[11] for another century or more, and so time is of the
[11]
What I think most Americans don't
[12] essence.
[12] appreciate is the fact that when power plants
[13]
Mr. President, they have asked me to
[13] produce electricity for our homes, it takes three
[14] announce that that is the close of Panel I. We are
[14] units of energy to produce one unit of energy for
[15] going to stay here while the second panel members
[15] electricity.
S] come here, but ladies and gentlemen, if you would,
[16]
Let me put that in a different way. If
] please join the President and me in expressing
[17] you had three lumps of coal being used to burn in a
3] thanks to the members of this great panel.
[18] power plant, the electricity generated from that
[19]
[Applause.]
[19] power plant would represent only one-third of the
[20] MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, please
[20] energy in those three lumps of coal and two-thirds
[21] remain seated during the panel change.
[21] of it is lost, either in hot water or steam, or
[22]
[Pause.]
[22] other sources. So our challenge is to find a way
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(17) Page 85 Page 90
me nouse comerence on Cimate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 91
Page 94
[1] to make those power plants more efficient with new
[1] there, 80 percent of the emissions come from
(2) technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[2] petroleum refinery, chemicals, paper, forest
[3]
Now as respects the three categories that
[3] products, metal production, and you, in your
[4] were on the screen, and are still on the screen,
[4] comments, Mr. President, alluded to the fact that a
(5) let me break that down a little further so we can
[5] number of industries have voluntarily started to
[6] better understand how technologies will help us
[6] reduce their energy use.
[7] address this problem.
[7]
And we're very pleased, For example, that
[8]
If you look at the buildings sector, For
(8) the metal casting industry has set a goal of a 20
[9] example, electricity and natural gas supply most of
[9] percent reduction in energy use over a certain time
[10] the energy used in the building sector. Heating
[10] frame.
(11] and cooling are responsible for more than half of
[11] So technologies, we believe, can make a
[12] the emissions for buildings.
[12] significant difference in reducing greenhouse gas
[13] Appliances, whether they're computers or
[13] emissions, they are good for our economy, good for
[14] faxes or other appliances, are responsible for 20
[14] U.S. companies, and good for our environment.
[15] percent, and lighting accounts for 14 percent. So
[15]
In closing, Mr. President, when you made
[16] what can we do about that? I brought with me, Mr.
[16] your address before the United Nations, you
(17) President, a technology. This is a solar shingle.
[17] challenged all of the laboratories of the Federal
[18] These are available. Over time, we think they'll
[18] Government to come together and put together a
(19) be more available in terms of cost.
[19] strategic plan on how we can support, working very
(20)
But by putting these in your home, or a
[20] closely with the private sector, new technologies
(21) building, you can substantially reduce the use of
[21] to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[22] electricity and use the sun to bring power into
[22] And we are already working with our
Page 92
Page 95
[1] your home, or your building, and I hope that
[1] scientists, they are quickly putting that report
[2] perhaps we'll have further discussion from our
[2] together, and we'll present it to you very shortly.
[3] panelists about that.
[3]
To help us have I think a very good
[4] Secondly, to my far right is a lamp, Mr.
(4) discussion on technology, we have an outstanding
[5] President, which I think you may have trouble
[5] group of panelists today.
[6] seeing. It's a torchiere lamp; it's a little dark.
[6]
First, let me introduce Mr. Tom Casten,
(7) But I want to point that out, because, right now,
[7] who is CEO of Trigen Energy Corporation, who
[8] we use halogen lamps, and you can find them in our
[8] understands, very well, how business can more
[9] homes all the time.
[9] effectively make use of energy that currently is
[10]
But they burn very brightly and they're
[10] wasted.
(11) very hot, and so they use a lot of energy. These
[11] Also with us today is Kurt Yeager, to my
[12] new torchiere lamps use fluorescence and are 80
[12] left, who is the president of the Electric Power
[13] percent more efficient.
[13] Research Institute, an expert on electric
[14] And I want to point out that Stanford
[14] utilities, and the potential in that industry for
[15] University is going to be using these in the dorms
[15] increased efficiencies in generation and
[16] because the halogen lamps are not only dangerous,
[16] transmission.
(17) because they create fires-
[17] Over here is Mary Good, former Under
[18]
[Laughter.]
[18] Secretary of Commerce for Technology and now
[19] -he's paying attention now-and they are
[19] Managing Member of the Venture Capital Investors,
[20] more energy efficient.
[20] who will discuss the new supercar of the new
(21) [Laughter and applause.]
[21] century.
[22] PRESIDENT CLINTON: It was in the parent's
[22]
Also with us today is Michael Bonsignore,
Page 93
Page 96
[1] instruction manual.
[1] chairman and CEO of Honeywell, who will discuss how
[2]
[Laughter.]
[2] business can adopt cost-effective energy saving
[3] SECRETARY PENA:The message is these
[3] technologies in the building and industry sectors.
[4] technologies can make a big difference. If you
[4]
Also with us is Mason Willrich, CEO of
[5] look at transportation. We know that oil supplies
[5] EnergyWorks, an expert in renewable energy sources,
[6] virtually all of the energy used in the
[6] who will discuss the potential that renewables such
[7] transportation sector. In transportation, 35
[7] as wind and solar and biomass can be used in
[8] percent of the emissions come from automobiles, 23
[8] reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and then Mr.
[9] from light trucks, including vans, minivans, and
[9] Larry Papay, a member of your PCAST task force on
[10] sport utility vehicles, about 13 percent from
[10] R&D, who knows a lot about the potential for
[11] airplanes, et cetera. What can we do about that?
[11] technologies that are still on the drawing board,
[12]
And I hope Mary Good will address this
[12] but which I think are very exciting for the future.
[13] subject in a second. As you know, we have this
[13]
So Mr. President, Mr. Vice President,
[14] Partnership for New Generation Vehicle. This is a
[14] these are our panel members, and I think at this
[15] lithium ion battery, which can be used in a dual
[15] point I'll turn it back over to you and the Vice
[16] fuel vehicle with electric and natural gas use. We
[16] President.
(17) can, with these batteries, take the energy that is
[17] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you.
[18] lost when you break your vehicle, capture that
[18]
I'd like to start with Mr. Casten and ask
[19] energy and use it to accelerate your car.
[19] him to describe his company's work in recapturing
[20] And so with this new technology we can
[20] waste energy to heat houses and buildings, and
[21] make our automobiles more efficient. It exists.
(21] discuss the potential market for the technology in
[22] The last sector is the industrial sector, and
[22] the country.
Page 91 Page 96 (18)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 97
Page 100
(1)
MR. CASTEN: Thank you, Mr. President.
[1]
In Golden, Colorado, in partnership with
[2]
The Secretary's given my speech already.
[2] Tucson Electric, we burn coal to make electricity
[3] I'd like to focus on where 70 percent of
[3] and then sell the left-over heat to Coors to make
the emissions of CO2 come from, which is in the
[4] beer, and also to heat the Colorado School of
production of heat and power, and my message is
[5] Mines.
simple.
[6]
The potential for CO2 reduction is huge.
(7)
At present we make heat in one plant and
[7] Increasing the average U.S. electric generation
[8] electricity in another plant, and as a result U.S.
[8] efficiency to just what we're achieving today would
[9] power plants waste a lot of fuel.
[9] reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by 23 percent, and save
[10]
Regulation protects this waste from market
[10] money.
[11] forces. Now to reduce CO2 emissions we could leave
[11]
Mr. President, doubling U.S. power plant
[12] the monopolies intact, and force the country to
[12] efficiency is feasible, and in my view, essential.
[13] deploy some exotic and expensive technologies and
[13] America's entrepreneurs will eliminate energy waste
[14] maybe force them to switch from coal to natural gas
[14] if they're given a chance to compete. Then they
(15) and this would disrupt the economy.
[15] will sell their efficiency all over the world.
[16]
People who think this is the plan respond
[16]
When you go to Kyoto, I hope you'll play
[17] to your call for climate change mitigation as if
(17) to our strength. Tell the other nations that we
[18] they were told they've got a terminal illness.
[18] will open our electric markets to competition, that
[19] They want a second opinion. They want to quibble
[19] we will unleash our entrepreneurial strength to
[20] about the science.
[20] improve power plants worldwide. Thank you.
(21)
But using one power plant to produce
(21) [Applause.]
[22] electricity and another one to produce heat is just
[22] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mr. Casten, for the
Page 98
Page 101
[1] not efficient. As the Secretary said today, when
[1] benefit of-if there's anybody here that doesn't
[2] we burn three units of fossil fuel-coal, oil or
[2] understand the intricacies of the electric utility
[3] natural gas-only one ends up as electricity. Two
(3) regulation-and there will doubtless be people out
[4] end up as waste up the chimney or out in the
[4] in the country that don't, even people who pay big
[5] harbor. Gone.
[5] electric bills-why don't you, just very briefly
[6]
That heat could be used for buildings in
[6] explain, so we can follow this chain of thought all
[7] industry. We have two fires when one would do.
[7] the way through, the people who are reporting on
[8] The heat that we waste in U.S. electric production
[8] this, what the present state of the law is, and
[9] alone is equal to the total energy use in Japan.
(9) what the proposals are, and specifically what you
b] Unfortunately, our outmoded laws forbid
[10] think ought to be done by whom.
] competition, thus discourage innovation and
[11]
Just don't assume that everybody knows
..2] efficiency. The result is waste of fuel.
[12] this. Keep in mind, we're doing this for the
[13]
Let me illustrate this with a local
[13] general public, too. So just very briefly, say
[14] example. Two miles south of here, there is a coal-fired
[14] that.
[15] electric generating plant. Like hundreds of
[15]
MR. CASTEN: Mr. President, we began in
[16] others, it produces 400 megawatts of electricity
[16] about 1930 to make electric a monopoly, and we set
[17] and dumps 800 megawatts of heat into the Potomac
[17] up state laws in every state that said you get a
[18] River. At the same time, Georgetown, the Pentagon,
[18] territory and you get to sell electricity to
[19] National Airport, Howard University, and GSA all
[19] everybody in that territory, and nobody else can
[20] burn more fuel in order to make the heat that was
[20] sell it.
[21] just thrown away. The electric plants' waste heat
(21)
We later on added Federal laws that
[22] could replace all of these boilers, and this would
[22] prevented the electric utilities from buying each
Page 99
Page 102
[1] of course reduce CO2 emissions, dramatically,
[1] other or becoming more efficient.
[2] improve Washington, D.C. air quality, and I think
[2]
We then wove a tapestry of regulations
[3] save a lot of money.
[3] that-just full of little black threads that stop
[4]
Using electric plant waste heat is not
[4] efficiency. Every place you turn, somebody has,
[5] just theory. Trigen Energy Corporation heats 6,000
[5] based on this paradigm of electric only, and put a
[6] buildings and numerous industrial plants in 14
[6] regulation in place that stops it. Our
[7] cities with combined heat and power.
[7] environmental regulations don't really focus on
[8]
We recover normally wasted heat from
[8] efficiency and reward it.
[9] electric generation to feed our steam and chilled
[9]
What needs to happen-it's about the only
[10] water systems. Customers save money, pollutants
[10] industry that's left as a protected monopoly-is
(11) drop by 90 percent, and we have the CO2 emissions,
[11] that we need to end the monopoly, work through a
[12] and we save money.
[12] transition. Remember that billions of dollars were
[13]
Here's three examples of where we're doing
[13] invested by our utilities relying on those rules,
[14] that. In Philadelphia, our steam system heats
[14] so we've got to find a way to move through and give
[15] downtown buildings and the University of
[15] them some incentive to move to a more efficient and
¹⁶] Pennsylvania.
[16] a modern world, and I think we can do it.
7
With partners PECO and NRG [ph], we are
[17] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Very good. I think
d] installing a gas turbine that will make 150
[18] that we're going to Kurt Yeager next, right?
[19] megawatts of electricity and 250 megawatts of heat.
[19] SECRETARY PENA: That's correct, Mr. Vice
[20]
In Chicago, we heat and cool the McCormick
[20] President.
(21) Place Convention Center with combined heat and
[21] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Do you want to-well, Kurt
[22] power.
[22] Yeager is president of the Electric
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(19) Page 97 - Page 102
winte House comerence on Chinate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 103
Page 106
(1) Power Research Institute, which is formed by,
[1] platform.
[2] funded by electric utilities, and Mr. Yeager, how
[2]
And I believe the result would be both
[3] can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
[3] environmental progress as well as increased global
(4) facilities like power plants that use so many
(4) security and new markets for U.S. goods and
[5] fossil fuels?
[5] services.
[6] MR. YEAGER: Well, thank you, Mr.
[6]
And this portfolio would include four
[7] President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Secretary. It's
[7] primary dimensions. First, clean coal and biomass
[8] important to begin by recognizing that these plants
[8] technologies that we have spent a great deal of
[9] today produce about two-thirds of the nation's
[9] effort through the national economy in developing,
10] electric power, and the paradox in that is that the
[10] and to reduce the world's dependence on those
11] electricity that they produce eliminates far more
[11] fuels. Particularly important is the gassification
12] carbon in our economy than the plants themselves
[12] of those, to move them from high carbon fuels to
13] emit.
[13] lower carbon, and also more efficient fuels.
14] Now within the context of that paradox
[14] Second, to bring forward solar-based
15] there are a number of things that we can do, and I
[15] renewable energy, particularly in the developing
16] would begin by reporting that technological
[16] parts of the world that have low energy
17] innovation is steadily reducing, not only the U.S.
(17) requirements today. To expand the use of safe
18] but the world's carbon diet, by substituting less
[18] carbon-free nuclear power, led by U.S. leadership
19] carbon-intensive energy sources and by steadily
[19] in this area. And finally, new transportation
20] promoting the more efficient use of all our energy
[20] systems which both move away from carbon and
21] forms.
[21] imported oil.
22]
This progress is very important because on
[22] In conclusion, I must also stress,
Page 104
Page 107
[1] a worldwide basis, 90 percent of all the energy
[1] however, that this progress will depend on re-energizing
[2] that the world uses contains carbon.
[2] what has been our lagging U.S.
[3] The challenge we face is continuing that
[3] investment structure, both public and private,
[4] progress by wisely deploying the technology
[4] domestic and international.
[5] opportunities that are becoming available on a
[5] And this urgent investment includes both
[6] global scale. And a key enabling factor in this
[6] the R&D engine in which technical progress and
[7] sustainability of decarbonization is electricity,
[7] innovation depend, and for commercializing and
[8] and its growing role in our global energy system.
[8] deploying the results on a global scale.
[9]
First-and I just underscore three
[6]
With the end of the Cold War, we're on the
10] observations in that regard-first, it enables the
[10] brink of a period of great technological
11] use of carbon-free energy sources, such as
[11] opportunity in service to mankind. We must,
12] renewable energy, nuclear power.
[12] however, invest wisely and persistently if we're to
13] Second, it enhances the efficiency with
[13] achieve a truly sustainable energy foundation for
14] which we use energy throughout our economy.
[14] the world. This foundation must support both the
15] And I'd say third, and most importantly,
[15] environmental and economic aspirations of our
16] it is the engine of innovation. It is the basis on
[16] rapidly growing and increasingly interdependent
17] which technological progress has evolved in this
[17] global society. Thank you.
18] last century. Witness the computer revolution
[18] [Applause.]
19] today, and the efficiency of productivity that it
[19] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me just say before
20] brings to every part of our economy. as a
[20] we go on to the transportation sector, these
21] result we can realistically envision, as we look
[21] presentations have been quite important. I
22] forward into the future, creating an energy economy
[22] remember, 20 years ago, more or less-maybe a
Page 105
Page 108
[1] on a global scale that depends on electricity and
[1] little less than that, I can't remember exactly
[2] hydrogen, based on efficiency and free of carbon.
[2] when-that the Congress voted, or the Federal
[3]
The essential factor in promoting this
(3) Government at least required-it might have been a
(4) progress, which is shown in the figure on the
[4] regulatory action-that the new power plants not
[5] board, rather than limiting this global de-carbonization is
[5] use natural gas anymore, and that we phase out of
[6] providing flexibility, and that is
[6] them because we grossly underestimated how much
[7] the ability to take best advantage of technology
[7] natural gas we had, and we thought we could go to
(8) progress and knowledge.
[8] clean coal because we didn't want to build nuclear
(9)
And to avoid counterproductive costs which
[9] plants, for all the reasons that were clear.
10] could both prejudice our economic vitality and the
[10]
And one of the biggest problems we face,
11] very jobs on which sustainable progress also
(11) now, in trying to make a reasoned judgment about
:2] depends.
[12] how quickly we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
13]
And in this regard, U.S. technology, I
[13] and by how much, is the need not to be unfair to
14] believe, is uniquely positioned for two-pronged
[14] electric utilities that have billions of dollars
15] leadership in emerging innovations. First, by
[15] invested in government approved power plants that
16] accelerating global electrification as the
[16] they have not yet fully amortized.
¹⁷] essential foundation for de-carbonization, and for
[17]
So that it's-now, there are-therefore,
¹⁸] eliminating the poverty and hopelessness that now
[18] in so far-and this applies both to buildings and
'9] plagues some 2 billion people on this planet who
[19] to the utilities themselves, about which these two
20] are now without electricity. And second, by
[20] speakers have spoken. You can either conserve more
21] developing and deploying a portfolio of cleaner
[21] in the production of electricity, or you can have
2] energy alternatives, using that electricity
[22] the people who consume it conserve more, or you
Page 103 - Page 108 (20)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 109
Page 112
(1) could change the basis on which the plants work,
[1] one bundle, in a sense, in transportation.
[2] which is the most expensive way to do it.
[2]
So if you look at that, the short-term
[3]
Therefore, in so far as we can do more in
[3] fixes have to be focused on efficiency. We've got
terms of how much electricity people use, or how
[4] to get better efficiency out of the systems, and
nuch waste heat you recover, either one of those
[5] programs like the Partnership for a New Generation
things is a far preferable, far preferable
[6] Vehicle are clearly the way to go.
[7] alternative than to change the basis on which
[7]
Not only that, but it's the way to go for
[8] plants that have already been built are being
[8] lots of reasons. The goal here was to reduce the
[9] amortized, and will generate huge amounts of
(9) ability of the fleet of automobiles to use a third
(10) savings at lower cost, if we can do it.
[10] of the fuel they presently use. That's a huge
[11] At the end of this session, we'll get
[11] reduction.
[12] around to the, sort of the skeptical economist take
(12)
But it was a partnership between the
[13] on the technological fix. We'll get around to that
[13] government and between the private industry and it
[14] later. But I just think it's important that we
(14) required a lot of trust on both sides, still does,
[15] focus on this specific issue, because if our goal
[15] and one of the biggest issues of trying to get it
[16] is to minimize economic dislocation, then having
[16] done is to keep that trust going on both sides, to
[17] conservation by the end-users, the people who have
[17] really move it and to do it well.
[18] the buildings, For example, whether they're
[18]
But this was an example of where you've
[19] manufacturers or residential buildings, are other
[19] involved not only the Big Three auto companies, but
[20] business buildings, and having recovery of waste
[20] we've also involved a lot of people out of the
[21] heat, are clearly, I think, the preferable
[21] universities and the technology there. We've
[22] alternatives, and clearly, the less expensive
[22] involved over 300 other industry partners, which
Page 110
Page 113
[1] alternative.
[1] people really don't understand.
[2]
I'd like to call on Mary Good, now, who
[2]
These are all of the suppliers to the
[3] was the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology
[3] automobile industry. The people who make the low
[4] in our administration for four years, and now is
[4] weight materials, the people who make flywheels,
[5] the Managing Member of Venture Capital Investors.
[5] that will hopefully make some of these hybrid cars
[6]
I want her to talk a little bit about the
[6] possible.
[7] potential for technological advances to reduce
[7]
So you've involved a lot of people on a
[8] emissions in the transportation sector, and to
[8] very focused program to get it in a relatively
91 focus particularly on the Partnership for New
[9] short time frame, because we asked them to have a
Generation Vehicle that we've been working on with
[10] manufacturable prototype in ten years. That is
the auto companies and the UAW since this
[11] really asking a lot in an industry which makes
2] administration took office, and Mary had a lot to
[12] incremental improvements over fairly large periods
[13] do with it.
[13] of time.
[14]
There is also a huge debate here about how
[14]
I think they've made a lot of progress.
[15] much we can do, how quickly, and we have to make
[15] It remains to be seen whether they're actually meet
[16] the best judgment about this in determining what to
[16] that goal, but that model for getting the industry
[17] say about it when we are in Kyoto, because
[17] to work on these efficiencies, I think, clearly,
[18] transportation, as Secretary Pena said, occupies
[18] has to happen, and has to happen in a much more
[19] such a large part of this whole equation. So Mary,
[19] focused way, and much more rapidly than we've done
[20] have at it.
[20] in the past.
[21] DR. GOOD: Thank you very much, Mr.
[21]
For example, let me just talk about a
[22] President.
[22] couple of other things in my couple of minutes. We
Page 111
Page 114
[1] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Tell me what I should
[1] need also to begin to look at some new technologies
[2] say in Japan about this.
[2] in the rail industry as well. The railroads today,
[3] DR. GOOD: Well, thank you very much, Mr.
[3] if you want to understand the problem, if you
[4] President, and Mr. Vice President. You have sort
[4] looked at the news last week on this problem with
[5] of set the stage for transportation because the
[5] the railroad right now, where they are so confused
[6] infrastructure problem is very big and very real in
[6] they can't get products to where they need to be,
[7] transportation.
[7] this really has a huge negative impact on the
[8]
The issue about the use of transportation,
[8] economy.
[9] of a third of the energy, is real. That means it's
[9]
And you look at what we have done in
[10] a big piece of the whole issue. It is also, at the
[10] research on new efforts in railroads, and I look at
[11] same time, absolutely vital to have efficient low-cost
[11] what the Japanese announced last week. They just
[12] transportation because the economy depends on
[12] announced, last week, a new demonstration of their
[13] it as well.
[13] levitated train that runs 295 miles an hour with
[14] And then you're saddled with an
[14] the kind of energy efficiency you wouldn't believe.
[15] infrastructure that we poured trillions of dollars
[15] We have no research program, even, anymore, in
'16] into over the last 100 years, in roads and
[16] levitation.
7 waterways, and railroads, and what have you, which
(17)
So those are the kinds of things, on the
) are there, and we have them.
[18] longer range, we need to look at as well.
[19]
And so the issue-and not only that. But
[19]
And one last piece. With respect to the
[20] we've built a whole transportation system based on
[20] fuel issue, to change from petroleum based, the
[21] the use of petroleum products. So you have all of
[21] only other source we have is biomass, frankly, when
[22] the problems that you put on the table, sort of in
[22] you really look at all the other options.
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(21) Page 109 Page 114
Change:
)ctober 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 115
Page 118
(1)
And the problem is we've been talking
(1) Mr. Vice President, Mr. Secretary. It's an honor
(2) about biomass, using up useable farmland, and in
[2] for Honeywell to be a part of this discussion on
3] today's world, across the world, that's not very
[3] global warming and the application of technology to
4) feasible, frankly. To grow enough biomass to phase
[4] mitigate it.
[5] out petroleum for transportation is just not very
[5]
We do see a very healthy climate,
[6] feasible. We need that for something else.
[6] worldwide, for the export of these energy
(7) But we've learned a lot about plant
[7] efficiency technologies.
[8] biology in the last 20 years. We've put a lot of
[8]
Honeywell's point of relevance here, and
(9) money in basic research.
[9] point of reference is we've been in the energy
10]
We know now how to actually translate
[10] efficiency business for 112 years. We operate in
11] plants that can be much more CO2 absorption
[11] 95 countries around the world and about 40 percent
:2] efficient. One of these turns out to be algae, and
[12] of our sales come from outside the United States.
13] there's some technology right now that's ready for
[13] So we see this energy efficiency issue up
14] demonstration, which is ocean-grown algae, where
(14) close in the developed and the developing world,
:5] you actually farm the ocean, grow these things most
[15] really, across the globe.
:6] people don't want because they grow fast, and they
[16] The first point I would like to stress is
'7] use up so much CO2. You could harvest those,
[17] that there are many existing technologies that
18] process them on the ocean, make methanol and tank
[18] could be deployed immediately to reduce energy use
19) it like we do all other liquid fuels.
[19] and the related emissions that come along with it.
20]
So there's really major opportunities.
[20] There's no question that the United States
21] The short term is efficiency. The longer term has
[21] leads in environmental technology and this is
22] to be willing to look at some really new ways of
[22] really a time in the world when the demand for that
Page 116
Page 119
[1] looking at how to get fuel. Thank you; appreciate
[1] technology is growing every day.
[2] it very much.
[2]
There's a great social awareness in the
[3] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I just might add that-yeah,
[3] developing world for the quality of life, for the
[4] give her a hand.
[4] quality of the atmosphere, for what the industrial
[5] [Applause.]
[5] infrastructure increase is going to do, ultimately,
[6] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I just want to make
[6] to the quality of life in these developing
[7] two brief points. The leaders of the Big Three
[7] countries.
[8] auto companies and the UAW came in to see us last
[8] I would also like to say that energy
[9] week, and they said they're going to meet their
[9] efficiency is currently the cheapest and the
10] Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle goal.
[10] fastest to deploy and that provides us with a
11]
The real problem is once they develop a
[11] tremendous export opportunity as a function of the
12] prototype, how quickly can it be mass produced and
[12] technology leadership that we demonstrate in so
13) how will people buy it? And will they buy it at
[13] many different areas.
14) present fuel prices?
[14] You talked about some of the automotive
15] We'll come back to that in the end, but,
[15] innovation in your comments this morning, and the
16] you know, one related question to that is given
[16] low wattage lighting we talk about, lighting
17) Americans' buying habits and consumer preferences,
[17] controls. Simple things like insulation, that can
:8] don't we have to include these light trucks, and
[18] make a tremendous difference in terms of energy
19] even heavy trucks in this Partnership for the Next
[19] loss. Air quality control. Programmable
20] Generation Vehicle? Don't we have to achieve
[20] thermostats that can make a big difference in terms
21] significant fuel efficiencies there as well, if we
[21] of reducing energy consumption over a 24 hour
22] have any hope of succeeding here?
[22] period. Energy recovery systems that allow
Page 117
Page 120
(1)
The only other point I want to make, Mary,
[1] ventilation to occur without the waste of the
[2] is, you know, I'm big on all kinds of fast rail
(2) energy that's been applied to either heat the air
[3] research, but I hope tomorrow's headline isn't
[3] or cool the air, before the air is exchanged in the
[4] "Clinton Advocates More Research On Levitation."
[4] building.
[5]
[Laughter.]
[5] Real time pricing controls that allow
[6] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Oh, yeah. I don't
[6] large hotels, For example, to schedule their energy
(7) need that!
[7] consumption at a time when it is the least
[8] DR. GOOD: We'll have to explain it to
[8] expensive as a function of the power generation
[9] them better.
[9] available. Doing the laundry at 2:00 in the
10] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd like to call on
[10] morning as opposed to doing it at 6:00 o'clock in
11] Michael Bonsignore, now, to talk about the energy
[11] the evening when there's high demand.
12] savings available through the use of more high-efficiency
[12]
There is software available now for us to
:3] products and systems, and also the
[13] be able to manage the consumption of the energy on
14] potential for environmental technology exports.
[14] a demand profile which makes it most cost-efficient.
15]
What he has to say about how applicable
16] and expandable you believe it is, has a lot to do
[15]
The boiler controls we talked about
:7] with whether this transition we're going through
[16] earlier. Process controls to allow us to produce
18] will be an economic plus, a drag, or a wash. I
[17] gasoline, pulp and paper, chemicals, steel and
19] personally have always believed it would be a plus,
[18] aluminum products with less energy. I think all
20] if we did it right. But I'd like to ask Michael to
[19] examples of technology that can be exported.
21] talk about that.
[20]
The second point I'd like to stress is
nj MR. BONSIGNORE: Thank you, Mr. President,
[21] that the developing world is a major element in
Page 115 Page 120 (22)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 121
Page 124
(1) this overall global warming equation and it must be
[1] there's waste in the form of pollution and waste in
[2] included in whatever policy gets made, ultimately.
[2] the form of CO2, that that almost always represents
3)
We're talking about two-thirds of the
[3] economic waste as well. If you're burning raw
world's population here, and soon, 50 percent of
[4] materials to produce your product, plus a waste
the emissions that will be produced in the world
[5] stream, if you can figure out a way to reduce the
will be produced from the developing countries.
[6] waste stream, whether it's CO2 or some other form
E
They have the most to gain from the
[7] of pollution, and put a higher percentage of your
[8] technical assistance and the related financial
[8] raw materials into the production of your product,
[9] support that the developed countries can provide,
[9] that's going to benefit you, economically, at the
[10] and I'd like to use one very vivid example that I
[10] same time it benefits the environment. Correct?
[11] followed personally, since it came to pass. This
[11] MR. BONSIGNORE: Correct.
[12] was in the city of Cracow, in Poland, where the
[12] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Now a lot of
[13] city was quite concerned about the cost of energy,
[13] economics analysts will say, you know, if it's as
[14] the inefficiency of the energy use, and the impact
[14] easy as you say, then since this information about
[15] of that inefficiency on the atmospheric conditions
[15] this opportunity is available to people, why
[16] in the city.
[16] haven't they done it already? You've been in the
[17]
Without the assistance of the Department
[17] business of trying to turn on the light bulb for
[18] of Energy to put together a seed demonstration
[18] potential customers and tell them this. Why hasn't
[19] project, this project would probably never have
[19] it happened more quickly already?
[20] occurred because the city of Cracow was clearly
[20]
We heard earlier from Mr. Casten about the
[21] unqualified for any kind of standard commercial
[21] role monopolies have played in holding it back, but
[22] financial terms.
[22] what are some of the other obstacles?
Page 122
Page 125
[1]
And by getting this seed money available
[1] MR. BONSIGNORE: Well, I think, my sense
[2] from the Department of Energy, we were able to get
[2] is in the United States that we still have not been
[3] the Cracow city modernized. It was very
[3] able to raise the level of awareness for the
[4] significant, a 23 percent reduction in the energy
[4] consumer of the real cost of energy-the real cost
[5] requirements, the emissions in the city,
[5] of energy in its total dimension.
[6] significant reductions in CO2, and other related
[6]
One only has to go into a gas pump in
(7) emissions.
[7] Belgium-and I lived in Europe for five years-and
[8]
And I think it was a really good example
[8] pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, to really understand
9] of the need to look for clever and creative ways to
[9] the real cost of energy.
] bring financing support into the developed world as
[10]
So I think there's a public awareness
] well as the energy efficiency technology
[11] issue in the United States that needs to be dealt
[12] themselves.
[12] with and my feeling is that this whole debate about
[13]
I'd like to make just two other points
[13] global warming, regardless of where it goes,
[14] before I close. One is that I think we should do
[14] ultimately, may serve to heighten the awareness in
(15] everything possible to develop some kind of a
[15] the American public of what the real cost of energy
[16] system of credits that encourages people to make
[16] in its total dimension is.
[17] these energy efficiency investments early rather
[17]
But I would also say that we're quite
[18] than late.
[18] encouraged by the degree to which this energy
[19]
When one looks at these curves, and sees
[19] efficiency technology is being embraced now.
[20] these curves constantly getting higher and higher
[20]
A very poignant example in Beijing, where,
[21] in terms of the demand, there may be a resistance
[21] as the quality of life in Beijing comes up as the
[22] to invest now because the future would just require
[22] Chinese economy accelerates, the Chinese people
Page 123
Page 126
[1] even more investment.
(1) living in Beijing don't want to breathe dirty air,
[2]
And I think there needs to be a system of
[2] and they apply a tremendous amount of pressure on
[3] credit for these people who are willing to take
[3] their officials and on the government to do
[4] early initiative to reduce emissions.
[4] something about the quality of air in Beijing. And
[5] And the second point, and last point I'd
[5] so there's a real social motivation, far beyond the
[6] like to make is the Federal Government really needs
[6] economic motivation, to really do something with
[7] to "walk the talk" and take the leadership here.
[7] some of these technologies.
[8] It's the largest consumer of energy in the United
[8]
And I think at the end of the day, those
[9] States. I think the Alliance To Save Energy
[9] are the incremental steps that will help us embrace
[10] demonstrated that the Federal Government wastes
[10] these opportunities.
[11] one-quarter of the energy it purchases.
[11]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
That relates to about a billion dollars in
[12] I think next on our program is Mason Willrich.
[12]
[13] annual savings to the Treasury, and millions of
[13] Have I pronounced your name correctly?
[14] tons of CO2 emissions avoided, and I think in the
[14] MR. WILLRICH: That's right.
[15] spirit o this whole debate, it's really an
[15] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And he is the CEO of
*6] opportunity for the Federal Government to step up
[16] EnergyWorks, which is a joint venture involving
7} and take a real position of leadership in this
[17] Bechtel, the famous international engineering firm,
[18] whole area of energy efficiency.
[18] and Pacific Corp., a major electric utility of
[Applause.]
[19] course. And Energy develops alternative
[19]
[20] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Let me ask a brief
[20] energy projects, domestically, and internationally.
[21] question, if I could, Mr. Bonsignore.
[21]
What do you see as the potential for these
[22]
What you've said makes it clear that when
[22] new alternative energy sources?
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(23) Page 121 Page 126
wine nouse Comerence on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 127
Page 130
[1] MR. WILLRICH: Mr. Vice President, Mr.
(1) to lay the basis for the kind of leapfrog in the
[2] President, it's a pleasure for me to be here, and
[2] developing countries where they can put in the
[3] to talk to you a bit about renewable energy
[3] infrastructure in the first instance in an
[4] sources.
[4] efficient way and in a way in which it will have
[5] Let me start with just reminding ourselves
[5] small modular electric generation and ultimately
[6] that fossil fuels do, today, account for 85 percent
(6) the basis for moving heavily into the renewable
[7] of world energy consumption, and unless we change
[7] energy area.
[8] dramatically, as the amount of energy consumed
(8)
Finally, Mr. President, I am not running
[9] overall in the world goes up, we are going to have
[9] for office. I have no intention of running for
[10] that same fraction for the indefinite future.
[10] office. However, I believe that we should reform
(11) I think a major alternative is to expand
[11] energy prices through charges on carbon emissions.
[12] our use of renewable energy from a few percent
[12] The use of various forms of fossil energy now
[13] today to a large fraction of the world's energy
[13] imposes large health and environmental costs on all
(14] consumption in the 21st century. Let me give some
[14] societies, and these are not reflected in the
[15] examples of expansion.
[15] prices that consumers currently pay. So we are
{16} Take wind, where there are now an array of
[16] underpricing fossil energy, and that is perhaps the
[17] modern turbines available, we have large wind farms
[17] largest barrier to a transition to these
[18] in California. One of the best resources in the
[18] alternatives that we all want to achieve.
[19] United States for wind energy on a large scale is
[19]
I think that these that are initially low
[20] in the Middle West. Outside the United States,
[20] should be part of the proposal that we carry with
(21) there are excellent wind regimes in Europe, in
[21] us as a leader in the Kyoto conference.
[22] Spain, off of Germany and the North Sea, also in
[22]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 128
Page 131
[1] China and Argentina. So we needed to expand wind.
[1] [Applause.]
[2]
We need to expand the use of solar energy.
[2] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to respond to
[3] Solar photovoltaic panels, Mr. President, these
[3] that, but, first, I want Larry Papay to talk about
[4] convert sunlight directly into electricity. They
[4] some of the long-range technologies that are on the
[5] are now used for telecommunications from remote
[5] drawing board now and what he thinks the
[6] areas, also telecommunications from our freeways.
[6] Government's role should be, what else should we
[7] We need to expand, wherever cost effective, the use
[7] do, how much more should we spend on R&D, how
[8] of solar photovoltaics, not just 1 million roofs in
[8] should we spend it, how should we target it, and
[9] the United States, but, rather, throughout the
[9] what are the likely returns going to be, and what
[10] world, and I believe that this would enable us for
[10] contribution can they make to any-to fulfilling
[11] the first time to play a major role in bringing
[11] any commitment we might make in Kyoto.
[12] electricity to the 2 billion people out there that
[12] MR. PAPAY: Thank you, Mr. Vice President
[13] do not have access to electricity, and in a form
[13] and Mr. President.
[14] that would not contribute to greenhouse gas
[14]
Back in January when you asked your
[15] emissions, and this is in the continents of Asia,
(15) Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to
[16] Latin America, and, of course, Africa.
[16] look at energy R&D, specifically looking to the
[17] Thirdly, biomass. We are using,
[17] 21st century, a panel was formed, and as was
[18] increasingly, the waste products from agricultural
[18] mentioned, John Holdren chaired that, 21 people on
[19] for our forest products industry, sugar cane,
[19] the panel, people from industry, people from the
[20] walnut shells, wood chips. We need to move through
[20] national labs and other parts of Government, people
[21] the adoption of gassification technologies into a
[21] from academia, people on sort of the hard side of
[22] more efficient use of our biomass resources, and we
[22] technology and the soft side.
Page 129
Page 132
[1] can at that point establish energy plantations on
[1]
There are several energy challenges in the
[2] the marginal agricultural lands in the U.S. and
[2] slide that is up that lists these, and, of course,
[3] also bring in biomass in several developing
[3] we are here today speaking about global warming,
[4] countries such as South China, India, and Brazil.
[4] but it should be pointed out that in solving one
[5]
To begin a transition, I would suggest a
[5] problem, you can solve several.
[6] goal of 10 percent annual additions to electricity
[6]
Take energy security, for example. In an
[7] generation coming from renewable energy
[7] unconstrained oil economy, going from about 8-1/2
[8] technologies, aside from large hydro projects, and
[8] million barrels per day of imports probably to
[9] I suggest we reach that goal within the next 10
[9] about 16 million barrels per day in 2030, if you
[10] years. We should do it by providing our consumers
[10] were to introduce the technologies which also
[11] in the United States, electricity consumers, with a
[11] reduce carbon emissions, as well as reduce the
[12] choice of who they wish to buy their electricity
[12] importation of oil, you could probably cut that by
[13] from in a more competitive industry. I believe
[13] more than half. And one of the projections in the
(14) that that will create a circumstance where our
[14] PCAST report talks about reducing it by more than
(15) consumers will pay premiums prices for energy
[15] 10 million barrels of oil.
[16] derived from so-called green energy resources, and
[16]
There is a point up there on U.S. science
[17] it will provide a market-driven renewable energy
[17] and technology leadership, which is also extremely
:8) industry.
[18] important. About 7 or 8 percent of the gross
is.
In the developing countries, I suggest
[19] economy, not only in this country, but around the
CO] that we need to continue to support the
[20] world, deals with energy, and as mentioned by prior
21] restructuring of the electricity industries in
[21] speakers, there is an awful lot of growth occurring
22] those countries. That will provide an opportunity
[22] because energy drives the economic engine in these
Page 127 Page, 132 (24)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 133
Page 136
(1) countries.
(1)
It is an exciting time. Energy technology
[2]
Over several hundred billions of dollars
[2] is an exciting area, and for the students in the
3) annually are spent for the introduction of energy
[3] audience, look forward to it as a career.
technologies in countries around the world, and
(4)
Thank you.
here is no reason why the United States can't have
[5] [Applause.]
leadership position in that. And it also will go
[6] PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me-we need to
[7] to help stabilize these economies.
[7] wrap up. We are running a little bit late, but I
[8]
The next slide speaks about-a little bit
[8] wanted to just give everyone an opportunity to
[9] about the technologies that we examined in the
[9] comment on this.
[10] PCAST panel review. We looked at efficiency
[10]
Mason was the only person who I think
[11] renewables, fossil and nuclear. We talked about a
[11] explicitly said that, in order to make this
[12] PNGV-2, to push the limits there even further. We
[12] transition, we need to raise the price of
[13] talked about heavy trucks. We talked about light
[13] carbon-based products.
[14] trucks. We have got programs in there for
[14]
One of the difficulties we are having
[15] photovoltaics and wind, and zero-net-energy houses.
[15] within the administration in reaching a proper
[16]
On the fossil side, we have got a Vision
[16] judgment about what position to stake out in Kyoto
[17] 21, which the Department has come up with for coal,
[17] relates to how various people are responding,
[18] because coal is a resource that is going to be used
[18] frankly, to the recommendations and the findings of
[19] around the world simply because it is a resource
[19] the people-coming out of the energy labs because
[20] that exists around the world, and the point there
[20] they say, hey, look, what we know already shows you
[21] is, make it as efficient as possible and use it in
[21] that we have readily available technologies and
[22] a cogeneration application, as Michael has
[22] courses of action, which would take a huge hunk out
Page 134
Page 137
[1] mentioned earlier.
[1] of-right now, with no great increased cost-a huge
[2]
And in nuclear, both on the fission and
[2] hunk out of any attempt to, let's say, flatten our
[3] the fusion side, we talk about aggressive programs.
[3] greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels.
[4] Fusion has got a longer time frame, but, even with
[4]
We just heard about it today. Look at
[5] fission, we need to look about-we need to look at
[5] what you can do. The powerplants, you can
[6] advanced systems, systems which are
[6] recapture the waste, two-thirds of that. You can
[7] proliferation-resistant because, let's face it,
[7] make buildings and manufacturing facilities and
[8] fission reactors are zero carbon emitters.
[8] residences much more energy efficient. You can
There is one last point about how you
[9] make transportation much more energy efficient.
(omplement the program, and the program that is in
[10] Besides that, we have got all of these alternative
the PCAST report talks about an increase of about a
[11] sources of fuel for electricity and transportation.
2] billion dollars annually in the R&D budget, small
[12] I mean, it is all out there. This is what we know
[13] potatoes from an insurance policy point of view,
[13] now. Then, sooner or later, we are going to have
[14] but there is a complement to that, and that is the
[14] the Partnership for a Next Generation Vehicle.
[15] commercialization aspect.
[15]
So the question is always, though, who
[16]
Most R&D programs have a little triangle
[16] will buy this stuff. I mean, right now you can buy
[17] in the lower right which says it has now been
(17) light bulbs. Every one of us could have every
[18] proven, now just go out and commercialize. There
[18] light bulb in our home right now, every single one
[19] is still a small hill to climb there, whether it is
[19] of them. We would have to pay 60-percent more for
[20] by Federal buy-down, cap and trade systems,
[20] the light bulb, but it.would have three times the
[21] auctions, renewable portfolio standards, things of
[21] useful life. Therefore, you just work it out. It
[22] these sorts, which will help buy down that initial
[22] would literally-we'd pay-more up front. We'd save
Page 135
Page 138
[1] high-priced energy technology and bring it into the
[1] more money in the long run, and we'd use a whole
[2] commercial marketplace.
[2] lot less carbon.
[3]
The last slide talks about what some of
[3]
And why don't we do it? Why do we have
[4] the impacts could be in the mid to long term for
[4] any other kind of light bulbs in our homes? And
[5] selected energy technologies that we examined in
[5] that is the simplest example of the nature of the
[6] the PCAST report.
[6] debate we are now having. That is, in order to get
3
I apologize to all of you. You need to
[7] from here to where we want to go, do we have to
[8] get a copy of the PCAST report, which will help
[8] either raise the price of the product-there are
[9] reduce budget deficits, and you can look at in
[9] only three or four things you can do. You can
[10] detail what we are talking about.
[10] raise the price of the product to the consumers.
[11]
What we have here on the bottom are what
[11] You can lower the price of the alternative thing
[12] the costs would be on a net-present-value basis for
[12] you wish to be bought by the consumers. You can
[13] selected technologies. The wedge is going up.
[13] create some new business opportunity through some
[14] Look at the potential impact, and it is a rather
[14] market-permit-trading, other market option, or
[15] simplistic approach, but the potential impact in
[15] otherwise change the business environment, the way
S} savings that could be realized by the introduction
[16] we do electric deregulation, for example, or you
of those technologies, it is simplistic because it
[17] can somehow increase the awareness of consumers of
doesn't look at cross-competition from one
[18] what their options are and the consequences of that
technology to another. But it does show you that
[19] and hope that they will behave in a different way.
[20] there can be significant reductions in CO2
[20]
I think those are the four categories of
[21] emissions by the introduction of these advanced
[21] possibilities, and if you choose an ambitious
[22] technologies.
[22] target, then if the requirement is almost-to reach
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Scripto
(25) Page 133 Page 138
white nouse Comerence on Cimate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 139
Page 142
(1) the target, it is almost exclusively on the front
[1] Does anybody else want to say anything else about
(2) end, that is, you have to raise the price to the
[2] this?
[3] consumer or to the business involved-the
[3] MR. CASTEN: Yes sir, Mr. President, I
(4) businesses may be a consumer-if it happens too
[4] think we have a model that has worked. We decided
[5] quickly, you're going to do economic damage on the
[5] no more sulfur, we set caps, and if you wanted to
[6] one hand, and on the other hand, there's no way in
[6] burn any more sulfur you had to buy permits. The
[7] the world this Senate will ratify our participation
[7] market dropped the price of those permits from 1500
[8] in Kyoto. So it will be out there to create it.
[8] down to 100 dollars and it created a whole market
(9) It will be a grand gesture, but it won't happen.
[9] to figure out how to do it.
10]
Therefore, we have got to know how much we
[10]
I think we can come up with a way to say
11] can do through a combination of price. You might
[11] no more carbon and it's going to ratchet down.
12] be able to get some price changes, particularly
[12] Then just let the market figure out ways to trade
13] going back-Mike said this, too, on the real price
[13] permits to get there. The model worked with
14] of energy-particularly if it was not a net tax
[14] sulfur. I think it can work here.
15] increase. You wouldn't have to have a net. There
(15) PRESIDENT CLINTON: It worked superbly
16] are a lot of other ways to do this, but we have to
[16] with sulfur.
17] be able to get something out of either lowering the
[17]
What do you say to the people who-we had
18) cost to the alternative, creating new business
[18] a great debate. We argued this for an hour and a
19] markets, or increasing consumer awareness of what
[19] half in the Oval Office the other day. I probably
20] is right there for them now and what the
[20] shouldn't admit that. We did.
21) consequences are.
[21] [Laughter.]
22]
We can't do it all on the front end and
[22] PRESIDENT CLINTON:Anyway,you should
Page 140
Page 143
[1] expect realistically-if all we do on the consumer
[1] feel good that we argue these things in good faith.
[2] price index, raising the price of coal, raising the
[2] That should give you confidence. You should feel
[3] price of oil to the real consumer, and that is all
[3] good about this.
[4] we do, we are not going to get what we want to do
[4]
[Applause.]
[5] in the time allotted to get it because it either
[5] PRESIDENT CLINTON:What is your answer to
[6] won't pass the Senate or it won't pass muster with
[6] the attack on that or, at least, the counter that,
(7) the American people.
[7] sulfur was this big a problem and carbon was this
[8]
So we have to be able to access what the
[8] big a problem and you're talking about a huge
[9] Energy Department tells us is there for all to see
[9] section of the economy and it will be much more
10] in other ways, and I don't know if any of you want
[10] difficult to construct and administer and see it
[11] to comment on that, but this is not a question of
[11] work, a marketing system, a permeating system with
12) whether you are brave or not. It is really a
[12] carbon than it was with sulfur?
[13] question of what we can get done and what
[13] MR. CASTEN: As an entrepreneur,
(14] realistically is going to happen in America, but I
[14] Mr. President, I'm delighted because it's such a
[15] am plagued by the example of the light bulb I have
[15] much bigger sector, that there's many more
[16] in my living room at the White House that I read
[16] opportunities to find ways to block it.
(17) under at night, and I ask myself why isn't every
[17] [Applause and laughter.]
[18] light bulb in the White House like this.
(18) PRESIDENT CLINTON:That's what I said. I
[19]
I use this one. I am pleased. I get so
[19] wish you had been there with us.
[20] tickled. I go in and turn it on, and I measure how
[20] [Laughter.]
[21] much longer it takes to really light up, but I know
[21] PRESIDENT CLINTON:Anybody else want to
22] it's going to be there long gone, you know.
[22] comment on this?
Page 141
Page 144
[1]
[Laughter.]
[1] DR. PAPAY: No, I tend to agree with what
[2] PRESIDENT CLINTON:All of a sudden, it's
[2] Tom said. It does not have to be that large. I
[3] a great thing, and I say why am I so irresponsible
[3] think the fear is that, you need hundreds and
[4] that I have not put this in every light bulb. Why
[4] hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon. Actually,
[5] are we not all doing this?
[5] in fact, if you introduce it, you begin to send a
[6]
So, when you get right down to it, now,
[6] signal and the fact is, the market will, although
[7] this is where the rubber meets the road. We have
[7] imperfect, will begin to work. You begin to see
[8] to make a decision, a commitment. It has to be
[8] these advance technologies begin to come in behind.
[9] meaningful. I am convinced that the Energy
[9]
If there is no signal given, the market
(10) Department and lab people are absolutely right, but
[10] will be indifferent to it.
11] the skeptics on my economic team said there will
[11] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: If I could just add
[12] not be perfect substitution. They are not going to
[12] a brief point.
[13] do it.
[13]
We have all been struck by what has
[14]
So, if you want to say anything about
(14) happened in the information industries with the
[15] that, you can, but, when you get right down to it,
[15] introduction of microprocessors and the better
[16] that's where all of these decisions are going to be
[16] understanding of how systems operate with the cost
(17) made, based on our best judgment about what kind of
[17] of microchips being cut in half and the power of
[18] markets we can create for the private sectors, what
[18] microchips doubling every 18 months. And, of
[19] kind of substitution there is, and whether we
[19] course, there was an announcement a few weeks ago
[20] can-how quickly we can move to alternative energy
[20] where they now say, well, they think maybe it will
[21] sources that people will actually access.
(21) go faster than that.
[22]
So you commented, and, Michael, you did.
[22]
There are lots of companies where large
Page 139 Page 144 (26)
Min-U-Script©
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 145
Page 148
[1] groups of people who were organized just for the
[1]
Well, this has been fascinating. You guys
[2] purpose of moving information around have been
[2] have been great and I thank you a lot.
[3] greatly affected by the fact that, now, with
(3)
[Applause.]
I microprocessors, we can use information so much
[4] MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the
more efficiently that everything is different.
[5] breakout sessions will begin immediately in the
Why isn't the same thing going to happen
[6] Leary Center. Ushers will be downstairs and
[7] with energy that has happened with information?
[7] outside to direct you to the center. Your
[8] With the better understanding of systems, with the
[8] individual breakout groups are listed in your
[9] use of microprocessors in the flows of fuel and the
[9] program. We will resume the afternoon session
[10] flows of electricity-yes, sir?
[10] here, in Gaston Hall, at 2:10 p.m.
[11] DR. PAPAY: The problem-and John
[11]
[Recess.]
[12] mentioned it in the first panel. There is such an
[12] MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, please
[13] infrastructure built out there, buildings and
[13] take your seats at this time.
[14] industries and power plants and et cetera, even
[14]
Ladies and gentlemen, the First Lady of
[15] automobiles, what is the lifetime? We change out
[15] the United States, accompanied by Ambassador Robert
[16] the information infrastructure in a three to five-year
[16] Gallucci, Dean of Georgetown's School of Foreign
[17] period. The energy infrastructure tends to
[17] Service.
[18] work on a much longer time frame. So, if you don't
[18]
[Applause.]
[19] affect it today, the ability to affect it in the
[19] MR. GALLUCCI: Mrs. Clinton, distinguished
[20] future will be impeded simply because it becomes
[20] guests, distinguished panelists, ladies and
[21] much more massive with time. It takes time to do
[21] gentlemen, good afternoon. I'm Bob Gallucci, Dean
[22] it. So, if you don't start now, if you delay, you
[22] of the Edmond A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at
Page 146
Page 149
(1) delay and you're dealing with a larger problem
[1] Georgetown University. On behalf of the faculty
[2] because the rest of the world will continue to
[2] and the staff and the students, I'd like to welcome
[3] build using existing technologies.
[3] you this afternoon to Georgetown for the second
(4) DR. YEAGER: If I might just add that, I
[4] session of the White House Conference on Global
[5] think in what has been noted as an increasingly
[5] Climate Change.
[6] competitive environment, we need incentives or the
[6]
It is fitting, I think, that this
[7] prompt turnover of this capital stock rather than
[7] conference would take place at Georgetown.An
[8] to necessarily let it run on indefinitely. Right
[8] issue of this importance demands research,
an now, the incentives are to run it indefinitely
[9] education, dialogue and that is what this
rather than to turn it over.
[10] university is all about. The school of Foreign
Secondly, I think he have to remember that
[11] Service is particularly about interdisciplinary
[12] this problem needs to be done in a global context.
[12] study and the application of theory to practical
[13] We are really trying to solve what I call the
[13] problems, to the world of policy.
[14] trilemma of population, poverty and pollution on a
[14]
Our Science and Technology in
[15] global scale. It is a joint implementation, the
[15] International Affairs Program seeks to prepare our
[16] ability to invest what are always going to be
[16] students for the challenges and opportunities that
[17] limited resources where we get the biggest bang for
(17) await the next generation of leaders in the global
[18] the buck, make the biggest difference in terms of
[18] community. Some of those students are here today
[19] improving quality of life create markets on a
[19] and some of them, no doubt, will be called upon to
[20] global scale. In short, to do well by doing good
[20] confront the issues we are here today to discuss.
[21] seems to me to be an important principle that we
[21]
If this morning's first panelist, John
[22] ought to be carrying to the world.
[22] Holdren, is right, then the world community faces a
Page 147
Page 150
[1] PRESIDENT CLINTON: I strongly agree with
[1] monumental challenge. Ultimately, what we are
[2] that and we're pushing that. Again, I say that
[2] discussing here today is the issue of global
[3] does not let us off the hook to do things here at
[3] security. Global security, when we used that term
[4] home. It just makes good sense. It's easier for
[4] in the past, we could identify the enemy clearly.
[5] these other-we should give these other countries a
[5] It was the other super power. Now, we fear that we
[6] chance to choose an alternative path.
[6] may be dealing with a far less coherent threat.
[7]
I never will forget. couple of years
E
The immortal words of Pogo about an
[8] ago-and I know we have to wrap up. I had a
[8] unpopular war in a far off land a long time ago
[9] fascinating conversation with the President of
[9] have a haunting sound. "We have met the enemy," he
[10] China a couple of years ago and we were discussing
[10] said, "and they are us."
[11] what our future would be and whether we wished to
[11]
I understand there has been a shift in the
[12] contain China. I said, I don't wish to contain
[12] balcony and many of you were not here for the two
[13] China. I said, the biggest security threat that
[13] panels this morning. I can assure you that, aside
[14] China presents to the United States is that you
[14] from remarks by President Clinton and Vice
[15] will insist on getting rich the same way we did.
[15] President Gore and presentations by some of the
'6}
[Laughter.]
[16] leading experts in the world on the subjects, you
PRESIDENT CLINTON: He looked at me and I
[17] didn't miss much.
could tell that he had never thought of that. I
[18]
[Laughter.]
said, you have to choose a different future and we
[19] MR. GALLUCCI: The panels this morning
[20] have to help. We have to support you. That does
[20] were excellent and I think they have added much to
[21] not in any way let us off the hook, but it just
[21] the discussion about what may be one of the most
[22] means that we have to do this together.
[22] important issues facing humankind today, global
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(27) Page 145 - Page 150
White House Conterence on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 151
Page 154
(1) warming. This afternoon's program is just as
[1] Children's Health Day, in the context of this
[2] impressive. We will start with a presentation by
[2] conference is to put an even brighter spotlight on
[3] one of America's most astute analysts and most
[3] what is happening and could happen to our children
(4) effective advocates of social policy, the First
[4] if we refuse or fail to act appropriately, for how
(5) Lady of the United States.
[5] we act in response to global warming will have a
[6]
After almost five years in the White House
[6] profound impact on the safety and well-being of
[7] and 12 years as First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary
[7] children not only here in our country, but the
(8) Rodham Clinton has proven herself to be a tireless
[8] world over.
[9] advocate for the less fortunate in society. She
[9]
One of the biggest threats children face
:0] has fought for better treatment and cared for
[10] is disease, particularly disease rooted in
11] children with AIDS. She has helped developed
[11] environmental causes. Millions of children under
12] pioneering in-home instruction programs for
[12] the age of five die every year from preventable,
13] preschool youth. She has worked for better health
[13] easily treated conditions like pneumonia, diarrhea,
14] coverage for all Americans. In these and many
[14] malaria and malnutrition. Thousands more are made
15] other initiatives, the First Lady has assumed a
[15] sick from air pollution.
¹⁶) leading role in the struggle to improve the
[16]
In recent years, I have seen the
17) standards of living and the futures of children in
[17] individual faces behind these statistics, a boy
18) the United States and throughout the world. That
[18] feverish with malaria in Africa, a girl perilously
19] is why it is so important that she is here today as
[19] malnourished in Asia, an infant dehydrated from
20] part of this forum.
[20] cholera dying in South America, children in our own
21)
History teaches us that in times of pain
[21] cities, suffering from asthma, struggling to
22] and want, children usually suffer first and suffer
[22] breathe. There is no escaping the fact that
Page 152
Page 155
[1] greatest.
[1] growing bodies are more susceptible to disease,
(2)
Once again, the First Lady is taking a
[2] pollution and environmental changes than the rest
[3] leading role in protecting the interests of
[3] of us.
(4) children by participating in the discussion of
[4]
And so, in a real way, it is for these
[5] global climate change. We must study and
[5] children and millions more like them and those to
[6] understand this issue, work together and make
[6] come that bring us to this conference today
[7] decisions to preserve a healthy world for the
[7] because, as we have heard this morning from some of
[8] generations that will inhabit this planet long
[8] the world's leading scientists, the health problems
[9] after we are gone. The First Lady, through her
[9] that fall disproportionately on children are only
10] courage, tenacity and grace, serves as a model for
[10] going to get worse if we do not do something about
11] us all.
[11] climate change. So, I want to talk to you briefly
12]
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure
[12] this afternoon, not as a scientist or as someone
13) and my privilege to introduce the First Lady of the
[13] prepared to recommend any specific policies,
14] United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[14] targets or timetables, but as a mother and a
15]
[Applause.]
[15] citizen with a longstanding concern for the health
16] MRS. CLINTON: Thank you, thank you very
[16] and safety of children.
17] much. Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Father O'Donovan
[17]
While uncertainties about the particulars
18] for once again welcoming all of us to Georgetown,
[18] of climate change remain, while we do not know
19] which just happens to be my husband's alma mater.
[19] exactly, for instance, how much and how fast
20]
[Applause.]
[20] temperatures will rise, this much is clear. Global
21] MRS. CLINTON: I particularly want to
[21] warming has the power to put more children at risk.
22] thank all who are gathered here as participants and
[22] Let me focus on three health flashpoints, air
Page 153
Page 156
[1] observers of this important conference. I am
[1] quality, the spread of disease and food security.
(2) delighted that there are so many students and young
[2]
One reason we should be increasingly
[3] people, because certainly there is no member in the
[3] concerned about global warming has to do with
[4] audience with more at stake than those who are just
[4] respiratory illnesses. Already as many as 40
[5] beginning to look into their own futures and chart
[5] percent of children seen in health clinics around
[6] their own courses.
[6] the world are suffering from acute respiratory
(7)
I can think of no more fitting day for us
[7] infections. It is likely that an increase in
[8] to come together to discuss climate change than
[8] global temperatures will deepen this problem.
[9] today, which has been designated as Children's
[9]
High pollution levels in many urban areas
10] Health Day in the United States since 1928. For
[10] result in high levels of ozone and fine particulate
11] all of those years, we have met every year, as I
[11] matter. Studies tell us that, when these
12] did again this morning at the White House, with
(12) pollutants increase, the number of respiratory
13] people charged with the responsibility for looking
[13] illnesses tend to rise, too. These pollutants can
14] after our children's health. Every year, we have
(14) aggravate conditions like asthma. Over the last
15] evaluated how well we have done in dealing with
[15] decade, the number of cases in asthma in the United
16] those issues that most affect the well-being of our
[16] States has jumped by 29 percent. Hospitalization
17] children.
[17] rates have increased by six percent. The largest
18)
Our grade as a country went up this year
[18] increases have been among children and young
19] from a C minus to a C. That's not much to brag
[19] adults.
20] about, but we are making progress and, at least,
[20]
Today, asthma affects nearly five million
[21] the trend line is in the right direction.
[21] American children. Last year, it led to more than
22]
But, certainly, to meet today, on
[22] 300 deaths. Children in urban areas are hit
Page 151 - Page 156 (28)
Min-U-Scripto
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 157
Page 160
[1] hardest. In New York City, for example, children
[1]
The spread of water-borne disease could
[2] are hospitalized at four times the national rate.
[2] also be hastened by climate change. Warmer water
r3] Within the city itself, rates are three to five
[3] temperatures breed and sustain infectious bacteria.
times higher for African-Americans and Latinos. A
[4] Flooding that results from rising sea levels could
rise in temperature, it is thought, will likely
[5] put water supplies at risk. This could make a bad
hasten this trend.
[6] problem worse. 1.3 billion people already lack
[7]
Children in disadvantaged neighborhoods,
[7] access to safe water; 1.9 billion lack access to
[8] those least likely to seek quality medical care,
[8] sanitation. Again, children are most imperiled.
[9] will be affected the most, but not child will be
[9]
Unsafe water is the prime cause of the
[10] entirely safe. I notice the increase in asthma as
[10] approximately three million childhood deaths
[11] I travel from children's hospital to children's
[11] annually, worldwide from diarrheal disease and the
[12] hospital and meet with long time pediatricians who
[12] four million childhood deaths annually from
[13] tell me with concern about the numbers of children
[13] pneumonia. In the developing world, diarrheal
[14] they now see and how difficult it is often to
[14] disease is the number one killer of children. Yet,
[15] monitor their illness.
[15] I have visited some of the diarrheal clinics, most
[16] Another reason we should be concerned with
[16] notably in Dakar and met American doctors there
[17] climate change has to do with the spread of
[17] studying how low tech, cost-effective means could
[18] infectious diseases. In 1995, infectious diseases,
[18] be used to treat diarrhea because they have seen it
[19] like malaria, cholera, dengue and yellow fever,
[19] beginning to spread in places like Louisiana.
[20] killed more than 17 million people worldwide. Nine
[20]
Third and finally, climate change can put
[21] million of these deaths were children.
(21) food security at risk. Scientists predict that, as
[22]
Increases in temperature hasten the spread
[22] carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere, one
Page 158
Page 161
[1] of infectious diseases for two reasons. First,
[1] of the consequences will be a shift in the zones of
[2] they shorten incubation periods. That means that
[2] agricultural productivity. That could result in
[3] the viruses, bacteria and parasites that cause
[3] changes in crop, livestock and fish farming
[4] these diseases can reproduce and spread a lot
[4] productivity, reduced availability of water for
[5] faster. Second, cool temperatures protect parts of
[5] irrigation and loss of arable land.
[6] the world from certain diseases. They serve as an
[6]
These disruptions would likely cause local
[7] important line of defense. Diseases that can
[7] shortages of food supplies and the result would be
[8] survive in hot, humid Calcutta just aren't going to
[8] hunger and malnutrition which would harm, in turn,
make it in Cleveland unless temperatures rise.
[9] children and pregnant women especially. To
Take a disease like malaria, which is
[10] complicate matters, the countries most vulnerable
spread primarily by mosquitoes. There are a half
[11] to droughts and pest outbreaks and other factors,
..2] billion cases of malaria every year. IN 1995, 2.1
[12] restricting food production are among the poorest
[13] million of these resulted in death, most of them of
[13] in the world, places where widespread famine
[14] children under the age of five. Moreover, the
[14] already takes a terrible human toll.
[15] threat of malaria is increasing with the emergence
[15]
In short, climate change, as you are
[16] of strains are resistant to drugs. In Africa, for
[16] discussing today, has the potential to deepen
(17) example, the spread of Chloroquine-resistant
[17] problems we already face, problems that fall
[18] malaria has contributed to an estimated two to
[18] disproportionately on our youngest citizens. For
[19] threefold increase in malaria-related deaths since
[19] this reason, we should address climate change, not
[20] 1984.
[20] just as a scientific or economic issue, but also as
(21)
Those of you in business or government who
[21] a health and safety one that should concern all of
[22] travel to Africa and Asia regularly, have been
[22] us.
Page 159
Page 162
[1] told, I am sure as I have by my doctor, that now
[1]
I know that, as parents, we think about
[2] taking malaria medication is absolutely a
[2] our children. I believe that part of our
[3] necessity, but whether or not it is good enough to
[3] obligation is to think not only about our children
[4] withstand whatever strain is out there is an open
[4] and grandchildren, but about all children. That
[5] question.
[5] certainly is how my husband sees it and part of his
[6]
For this reason, higher temperature should
[6] efforts to respond to global warming grow out of
[7] be a matter of real concern. Areas that were
[7] his overall agenda to build a strong foundation for
[8] previously free of malaria mosquitoes, such as
[8] the well-being of children.
[9] mountainous regions in Rwanda and Kenya, are now
[9]
We have made real progress toward that
[10] reporting an influx of the insects. In Costa Rica
[10] end, with a balanced budget that will help extend
(11) and Colombia, mosquitoes that were never seen above
[11] heath insurance to five million children, with a
[12] one thousand meters have been spotted at twice that
[12] Medicaid program and active legislation like the
[13] altitude.
[13] Family and Medical Leave and the Kennedy and
[14]
The United States is not immune, as you
[14] Kassebaum Acts, raising immunization rates, trying
[15] saw from Diana Liverman's maps this morning. In
[15] to shield our children from tobacco and drugs.
6] fact, according to research by the United States
[16]
The President has acted to see to it that
Agency for International development, as a
[17] our air, water and food are safe, by putting new
consequence of climate change, the percentage of
[18] standards on meats, seafood and poultry and signing
the world's population at risk to malaria could
[19] a law to keep harmful pesticides off our fruits and
[20] increase from 45 percent to 60 percent, increasing
[20] vegetables. This summer, he put in place tough new
[21] the annual number of malaria cases by 50 to 80
(21) air quality safeguards which will protect millions
[22] million people per year.
[22] of American children from the health effects caused
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(29) Page 157 Page 162
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 163
Page 166
1] by ozone and small particulates. Today's
[1] and would be, I used to say, when the last time I
2) conference is part of the ongoing effort, not only
[2] looked, the United States was still behind two
[3] of the President, but of all of us to safeguard the
[3] oceans, safely protected from missiles and various
(4) future of our youngest citizens.
[4] armed attacks, but there were other threats that we
[5]
The Bible asks if your child asks for
[5] were less aware of and less capable of dealing
[6] bread, would you give him a stone? If he asks for
[6] with.
(7) fish, would you give him a serpent? If he asks for
E
We had the most porous borders to the
[8] an egg, would you give him a scorpion? These are
[8] north and south and also porous borders from top
9] the oldest questions in the world and they remind
[9] and bottom and that we really did have to be
101 us of the duties faced by every generation to see
[10] concerned about what were threats to American
1] to it that, when our children, even before they're
[11] national security from climate. It was kind of
2] able to ask for themselves, are really asking us to
[12] weird thing to say in the 1980s and a lot of
13] make sure they have as healthy and safe an
[13] students wondered what I was talking about.
14) upbringing as possible by enabling them to inherit
[14]
We did begin to think about how the
15] a world at least as good if not better than the one
[15] curriculum here could be changed so that students
16) they came into.
[16] would become more aware of how to deal with these
&
Those questions also need to be on the
[17] kinds of threats and how to study about them and
:8] agenda in discussing climate change, because the
[18] how to work with them and to protect the United
19] people who will be most affected are not here.
[19] States. So, it seems particularly appropriate to
20) They will not be in any of the rooms or any of the
[20] be here with this very illustrious group talking
21) breakout sessions. They won't be able to follow
[21] about climate change and disruptions and how it
22] the very detailed discussions led by our panelists.
[22] affects the United States and the entire world.
Page 164
Page 167
[1] They have a lot at stake and we should be sure that
[1]
We do know from your various speakers this
2) the questions they ask us are ones that we will be
[2] morning what is going on. I won't repeat that in
[3] proud to answer in the future.
[3] my non-scientific way, but clearly the impact of
(4) Thank you very much.
[4] what is happening is global and it must be
[5] [Applause.]
[5] addressed on a global basis and we must act and so
[6] MODERATOR:We will now have a very short
[6] must others. But to do so effectively, we need to
(7) hold while the Vice President comes back into the
[7] develop a consensus on what to do, how and when to
[8] building.
[8] do it and by whom it should be done.
la'
[Pause.]
[9]
Our efforts begin with the United Nations'
10] [Applause.]
[10] Framework Convention on Climate Change open for
11] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
(11) signature at the 1992 Rio Summit, a convention that
12) Thank you so much.
[12] the United States was the fourth country and first
13]
I hope everyone had a good lunch and I
[13] developed nation to ratify. Two years ago in
14] want to thank the First Lady for her comments. I
[14] Berlin, the parties to that convention recognized
15] want to move right into the third panel.
[15] that we were not doing enough under the Framework
16] It is my great honor to introduce for the
[16] Convention to meet its goal of stabilizing the
:7] first comments, my colleague in the President's
[17] emission of greenhouse gases.
18) cabinet who, in my opinion, is a real superstar
[18]
In Berlin, we adopted a mandate for talks
19] around the world and in our country. It is a great
[19] that would lead to tangible steps taken by
20] joy to work with Secretary of State. On this
[20] developed countries and continued consideration by
21] issue, it has been particularly enjoyable to have
[21] developing countries. A year later, in Geneva, the
22] someone with her commitment and understanding
[22] United States led an achieving agreement that such
Page 165
Page 168
(1) involved in this, as she has been.
[1] commitments be binding. The talks will reach their
[2]
We will introduce the other members of
[2] conclusion in Kyoto, Japan this December.
[3] this panel after the Secretary of State makes her
[3] Although this process has generated
(4) comments.
[4] momentum toward concerted international action and
(5) Madam Secretary, thank you very much and
[5] created a greater level of public awareness, the
[6] please proceed.
[6] job of building a consensus is far from complete.
[7] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much,
(7) The consensus we need must be domestic. It must
[8] Mr. Vice President and it is a real pleasure to be
[8] extend to others in the industrialized world and it
[9] here with you on this occasion, on a subject that
[9] must become the basis for a common approach between
10] you have been talking about for a very long time
[10] developed and developing nations. The consensus at
:1] and that we are all more and more aware of as the
[11] home must be founded on a recognition of strong
:2] hours progress.
[12] scientific evidence that global climate change is
13] Let me just say, when I was a professor
[13] occurring and will have harmful effects. It must
14] here in the '80s, which I dearly loved and sat in
[14] rest on confidence that our leadership is high
15] this room-
[15] technology and industrial innovation will allow us
16]
[Applause.]
[16] to adjust to emission limits without losing our
17] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Maybe you all will
[17] competitive edge, and it is dependent on an
18] have me back.
[18] assurance that other countries, including those in
li:
Let me say that, the students that I had
[19] the developing world will do their fair share in
20] used to listen to me on a regular basis make the
[20] meeting the challenge.
21) following kind of statement, which was that as we
[21]
The consensus among the industrialized
22] were looking at what national security threats were
[22] nations must grow from the understanding that this
Page 163 Page,168 (30)
Min-U-Script©
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 169
Page 172
[1] is a serious issue, requiring a serious response.
[1] Endowment for International Peace; Richard
[2] Solutions will come through a long term process,
[2] Schmalensee, Director of MIT's Center for Energy
m] not a popularity contest. It does no good to pay
[3] and Environmental Policy Research and former member
lip service to unreachable targets. At the end of
[4] of the Council of Economic Advisors; James
the day, we will be judged not by the targets we
[5] Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank; Daniel
set, but by the standards we reach.
[6] Yergin, President of the Cambridge Energy Research
[7]
The consensus between developed and
M Associates and Pulitzer Prize winning author; Mae
(8) developing nations will be the most difficult to
[8] Jemison, head of the Jemison Institute of Advancing
[9] achieve. We're not there yet. We must begin with
[9] Technology in Developing Countries and a former
[10] the understanding that responsibilities are mutual
[10] astronaut; E. Linn Draper, Chairman and CEO of
[11] even if not identical. The United States, as we
(11) American Electric Power and Fred Krupp, Executive
[12] have now heard many times, has four percent of the
[12] Director of the Environmental Defense Fund.
[13] world's population and we do emit 20 percent of the
[13]
Now, let me turn to a fellow panelist, who
[14] greenhouse gases. Clearly, we and other major
[14] is a person, as I have said earlier, who is the
[15] emitters must take the first step. But if the
[15] driving force of those of us that have cared about
[16] major emerging economies of the developing world do
[16] climate change and someone who is the embodiment of
[17] not accept their responsibility to follow, we will
(17) what needs to be done as we move into the 21st
[18] not achieve consensus and we will never solve our
[18] century, my very good friend, the Vice President of
[19] shared problem.
[19] the United States.
[20]
To move toward this triple consensus, we
[20] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
(21) need proposals that are unifying, not divisive,
[21] Good job, Madam Secretary.
[22] both within the United States and in the community
[22] [Applause.]
Page 170
Page 173
[1] of nations. The administration's approach is based
[1] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you, Madam
[2] on the view that all countries have the same
[2] Secretary, thank you very much for that very
(3) interests because we're all in the same boat in
[3] concise overview of where we stand now on the eve
[4] minimizing the harmful impact of global climate
[4] of this international negotiation.
[5] change. Every nation contributes to the problem.
[5]
I'm going to turn right now to Jim
[6] Every nation will benefit from a strong response.
[6] Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank.
E
Accordingly, an agreement should bind each
[7]
As we heard this morning and as was clear
[8] to terms that are effective, appropriate and fair.
[8] from the Secretary of State's comments, one of the
[9] We have already proposed and will work to put in
[9] central questions the world has to deal with in
place measures that support innovation such as
[10] grappling with this issue is the relationship
trading or selling emission rights, measures that
[11] between the developed countries and the developing
[12] encourage technological development and measures
[12] countries.
[13] that reward a country for the assistance it
[13]
In your comments, Jim, if you could touch
[14] provides to another.
[14] on what the developing countries have at stake in
[15]
Finally, we're looking for a time frame
[15] solving this or not solving it and what it means to
[16] that is not so short as to be unachievable and not
[16] them to have it done in a way that does not
(17) so long as to dilute effectiveness. We want the
[17] threaten the economic vitality of the developed
[18] flexibility to develop strategies for
[18] countries.
[19] implementation that will allow us to take advantage
[19]
MR. WOLFENSOHN: Thank you very much,
[20] of technological advances and new insights into the
[20] Mr. Vice President and Madam Secretary.
[21] science of global climate change.
[21]
I think I have three minutes to represent
[22]
So, in response to some of the television
[22] 4.7 billion people.
Page 171
Page 174
(1) commercials that have aired recently let me say
[1]
[Laughter.]
[2] that the United States is interested in a proposal
[2] MR. WOLFENSOHN:Th doesn't give me a
[3] that will be global and that will work. This
[3] lot of time per person.
[4] afternoon, we have brought together seven
[4]
Let me say, first of all, that I think
[5] distinguished panelists to spur new exchanges and
[5] everybody agrees in the developing world on the
[6] creative thinking on three aspects of the challenge
[6] science, that there is a problem and it needs to be
[7] we face in building U.S. leadership for an
[7] solved and the developing world is the place it
[8] effective response to climate change.
[8] gets hit most. Climate change affects the poor the
[9]
How do we insure meaningful and equitable
[9] most. As the First Lady said earlier, vector-borne
[10] and participation from a range of countries in the
[10] diseases affect the poor. Water affects the poor.
[11] face of growing energy needs and expanding
[11] I won't chronicle those issues which affect those
[12] technological possibilities? What challenges will
[12] in marginal areas, but let me say that it affects
[13] developing countries face in attempting to limit
[13] very much our thinking on development.
[14] greenhouse gas emissions and how we can work with
[14]
The issue of development is an issue which
[15] them to meet those challenges and what steps can we
[15] is of importance to the developing world, but let
6] take to build the kind of consensus that I have
[16] me respond, Mr. Vice President and say, it's an
discussed between developed and developing
[17] issue for all of us. It represents 40 percent of
countries regarding the need for addressing this
[18] our exports. In just a few years, the five major
problem on the basis of mutual interests and mutual
[19] countries in this world, India, Indonesia, Brazil
[20] responsibilities?
[20] and China, will represent not eight percent but 18
[21]
And now let me introduce our panelists.
[21] percent of the world's GDP and that is integral to
[22] Jessica Mathews, President of the Carnegie
[22] our own activities.
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(31) Page 169 - Page 174
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 175
Page 178
(1)
It is not something which is separate, so
[1] is an issue of leadership by the developed world to
[2] when I talk about the developing world, let us not
[2] take the steps that will allow the developing world
[3] think this is something we can decide on separate
[3] to certainly conform as they go down the line, to
[4] from our own thinking. It is a problem that is
[4] participate as they go down the line, but be given
(5) integral to ourselves. We breathe the same air.
[5] the necessary breathing space in which they can get
[6] We have the same problems. We have the same
[6] their house in order and where they can reach a
[7] immigration issues. We have the same trade issues.
[7] certain minimum level of viability. That is an
[8] What happens in the developing world is an issue
[8] issue that the World Bank is assisting in, and
[9] for us. It is not just an issue for the developing
[9] which the United States is assisting in and other
(10) world.
[10] donor governments are working.
[11]
Looking at the developing world, what we
[11]
This is an issue of development. It's an
[12] see is a world that has not created this problem.
[12] issue of poverty. It's an issue of equity. It's
13] It is a problem that has been created by the
[13] an issue of morality. I believe that, by having
(14) developed world. And so, from the point of view of
[14] this conference, we are focusing on an issue that
[15] our clients, they look at this issue and say, yes,
[15] is not just of importance to those 4.7 or three
[16] it's a real problem, but why is it a problem that
[16] billion or 1.2 billion people. It is a problem
:7] we have to solve. Well, the answer that they come
[17] that is of importance to every one of us.
18] up with and that they have come up with repeatedly
[18] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
[19] in all the international arrangement is that, they
[19] [Applause.]
[20] are happy to have common but differentiated
[20] VICE PRESIDENT GORE:Thank you very much,
[21] responsibilities. That is the phrase that has been
(21) Jim. Really good comments. I am hoping that at
[22] used in all the treaties.
[22] the end of this panel, we will have time to come
Page 176
Page 179
[1]
So, the developing world is not seeking to
[1] back and explore some further questions.
[2] exclude itself from responsibilities. It is a
[2]
Yet, I want to turn right now to Professor
[3] question, as the President said this morning, of
[3] Richard Schmalensee, Professor of Economics at MIT,
[4] when and how. That is an issue of equity. That is
(4) former member of the Council of Economic Advisors.
[5] an issue which we need to face in terms of
[5]
On this question of developing country
[6] development, because we're already facing up to the
[6] participation, what are your views?
[7] problem of how can we assist the developing world
E
PROFESSOR SCHMALENSEE: Mr. Vice President
[8] reach a level where it can be an economic force and
[8] and Madam Secretary, I think the developing
[9] where we can have both peace and stability.
[9] countries have a critical role to play,
[10]
I remind you that, there are two billion
[10] particularly if you think about this problem in its
(11) people that live under two dollars a day. There
[11] long run aspect. A couple of slides that John
[12] are a billion, three hundred million people that
[12] Holdren used this morning, I think, illustrate that
(13) live under a dollar a day. There are two billion
[13] point nicely and one of them will appear, I'm sure.
[14] people who don't have access to electric power and,
[14] [Laughter.]
[15] therefore, burn fossil fuels which themselves
[15] PROFESSOR SCHMALENSEE: Maybe not.
(16) affect the atmosphere. This is not a trivial
[16] If you recall the slide contrasting
[17] issue. Ninety million people are being added to
[17] business as usual emissions with the global
[18] that number every year.
[18] emissions, with global emission levels necessary to
[19]
So, it is an issue which is of importance,
[19] stabilize atmospheric concentrations, the one
[20] somewhere where there are already inadequate
[20] before that, actually, stabilizing atmospheric
[21] resources to bring that group into a level of
[21] concentrations called for a dramatic reduction in
[22] equity in the world. Without a level of equity,
[22] global CO2 emissions, the green path versus the
Page 177
Page 180
[1] you cannot have peace and stability. And you
[1] ascending path.
[2] cannot have trade and you cannot have a world that
[2]
The ascending path has in it improvements
(3) for your children is going to be viable and stable.
[3] in energy efficiency at sort of historic rates.
[4]
Now, let me respond to one other aspect.
[4] The green path calls for a dramatic transformation.
[5] We talk about the cost, the cost we are looking at
[5] That will require new technology. That will
[6] in terms of the morning advertisements, in terms of
[6] require, I believe experience makes clear, sharp
[7] generally accepted accounting principles.
[7] increases in the price of energy.
[8]
But what is not included in the cost is
[8]
The second slide that John used this
[9] the cost in terms of future costs, the cost in
[9] morning, makes clear that developing countries will
[10] terms of the erosion of our environment, the cost
[10] have to participate and play a central role in any
[11] to our children. What use is it to have a profit
[11] such transformation, simply because they are the
[12] today if our children and our grandchildren will
[12] locus-there is the slide-of emissions growth.
[13] not have an environment in which they can live?
[13] Even cutting developed country emissions to zero
[14]
And so, the decision for us as leaders is
[14] will not suffice to follow that green path, unless
[15] a decision of how it is in both the developed and
[15] the developing world also acts.
[16] developing world that we can confront the issue of
[16]
The third factor is, it is unrealistic, I
(17) carbon emissions and a global environment. That is
[17] believe, to expect developing countries to devote
[18] not something that can be dealt with by simple
[18] significant resources of their own to this issue,
[19] current accounting principles. It is a question
[19] given all of the immediate problems they face. We
[20] which the President and the Vice President are
[20] need to think about separating what is done where
[21] focusing on. It's a question of leadership.
[21] from who pays for it.
[22]
What the developing world is looking for
[22]
Now, with this sort of long run
Page 175 Page.180 (32)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 181
Page 184
[1] perspective, obviously investment in technology has
[1] haze in Southeast Asia really makes it clear. The
[2] a critical role to play, but so, I believe does
[2] media calls it a haze, but it's really like being
my strategic choice and investments in institutions.
[3] next door to a burning house. It's terrible.
As I look at, at least, some of the
[4]
But the developing countries do see the-
thetoric in the current negotiations, it envisions
[5]
DR. YERGIN: [In progress] environmental
sequence where the developed world makes sharp
[6] policies is markets. Markets work, market-oriented
(7) reductions in emissions and the developing world
[7] systems bring things faster in surprising ways,
[8] then follows, a deep then broad architecture, if
[8] more innovation, solutions, they deliver results.
[9] you will. The problem with that-there are two
[9] And I think there has been a recurrent tendency to
[10] problems. First, it doesn't attend to the problem
[10] underestimate the possibilities of technological
[11] of resource transfer, the problems of institutional
(11) change.
[12] development necessary to include the developing
[12]
We can look at what is happening in the
[13] world fully. It postpones those difficult issues.
[13] energy field and we see it's happening: Highly
[14]
Secondly and, perhaps more importantly,
[14] efficient natural gas use, dispersed power, more
[15] reducing emissions in the developed world,
[15] efficient combustion of coal and, of course, lots
[16] particularly by raising the price of energy in the
[16] of things in terms of efficiency.
[17] wealthy countries, will induce migration of energy-intensive
[17]
But the challenge, of course, is how to
[18] industry to the developing world. It
[18] bring about cost-effective development and
[19] will tend to lower world energy prices faced by
[19] dispersion in a sensible way but I think we can say
[20] developing countries. It will, therefore, tend to
[20] there that the developing countries certainly want
[21] make it more difficult later for those countries to
[21] to have 21st century technology rather than 20th
[22] join in any global effort if, indeed, we need to
[22] century technology if the can afford it.
Page 182
Page 185
[1] make significant transformations of the global
[1]
The other thing that can make a big impact
[2] economy.
[2] soon is here today. That is natural gas which has
[3]
Therefore, I applaud all the discussion
[3] a lot of, does much better in terms of carbon
[4] today of including the developing world initially
[4] emission than other fuels. The trends are very
[5] and I think it's strategically critical that the
[5] favorable.
[6] developing world be on the train as it leaves the
[6]
You have a big resource base that is
[7] station; that we worry more about that than about
[7] growing, you have a global gas business, technology
[8] how fast the train departs the station.
[8] is having a big impact but we have to think
Thank you.
[9] differently. We have to see the potential and the
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
[10] potential is very large in terms of the growth of
[Applause.]
(11) electric power in Asia and Latin America.
2] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, let me now carry
[12]
When we look at it we see that the
[13] on from the question of how the developing world
[13] potential is much greater than people think but it
[14] grows. We have heard an awful lot about how
[14] involves large cross-border projects. So, you need
[15] developing countries have to take our commitments.
[15] to strive to overcome the obstacles, build
[16]
Dr. Yergin, I wanted to address this to
[16] confidence, conviction and mutual dependence.
[17] you, to find out how we can allow the developing
[17] here is where you can have an impact at the very
[18] world to grow and what are their energy needs. Of
[18] heart of growing world energy demand.
[19] the energy options open to them, which are the most
[19]
You know, when you get to Kyoto, you are
[20] likely to help them reduce greenhouse gases?
[20] going to hear from the Europeans who will be
(21) Because if they are going to grow, they clearly
[21] speaking from a very high moral ground about what
[22] will in some way have to be able to fuel their
[22] they are achieving. How have they done it?
Page 183
Page 186
[1] growth.
[1] They've done it by creating this great natural gas
[2] DR. YERGIN: Madam Secretary, Mr. Vice
[2] system that takes gas from Siberia, from the North
[3] President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Thank
[3] Sea and North Africa and moves it into Europe.
[4] you for the question.
[4]
Well, if we want to see an impact in the
[5]
Listening to the superb and very
[5] region of fastest growing energy consumption we
[6] thoughtful discussion this morning, I really come
[6] have to envision another system that takes the
[7] away with the sense that the essential challenge
[7] Caspian, Central Asia, South Asia, India, Southeast
[8] is, how do you integrate these global climate
[8] Asia up into China, Korea, Japan, Siberia, a new
(9) change questions with rapidly growing energy
[9] natural gas system. And in terms of global climate
[10] consumption. And it is going to grow fast. By the
[10] change, the type of things we've been looking at on
[11] year 2010, 13 years away, we're looking at
[11] those screens, the sooner we do that, the better.
[12] consumption that may be 35 percent higher than it
[12] There will be many benefits from an integrated
[13] is today, most of that growth coming from the
[13] energy Asian natural gas system that will respond
[14] developing countries, Asia and Latin America.
[14] to your question from tying economies together,
(15)
As the President said, it is the result of
[15] building cooperation, affording a platform for
1 good things, higher economic growth, higher
[16] growth, helping to assure electricity for
standards of living, free markets, freer trade.
[17] hospitals, schools and factories and addressing
That then puts a question for the developing
[18] directly and in a very positive way the issue of
countries. I think that there is no question that
[19] global climate change.
[20] they are environmental conscious. They can't avoid
[20] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you.
[21] it. It's brought home to them.
[21] [Applause.]
[22]
You know, the devastating impact of the
[22] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Could I just, before
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(33) Page 181 - Page 186
on Cimate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 187
Page 190
(1) you call on the next speaker, I just wanted to make
[1] her granddaughter is coughing.
[2] a brief comment. When you talked about the
[2]
And then if we go to Houston, Texas, where
[3] Europeans speaking from a high moral platform and
[3] Iam from, we see Jed fueling up his new super-duper,fo
[4] you referred to the Siberian gas and North Sea gas,
[4] wheel drive vehicle with 23-gallons of
[5] it's also the fact, is it not, that the common
[5] gasoline that costs $1.32. The commonalities here
[6] reference to the 1990 base year means that
(6) are striking because we are looking at
(7) countries such as Germany anticipate being measured
(7) unsustainable development and innovative or new
[8] against the last year when the most inefficient,
[8] technologies, the technologies that individuals
[9] most highly-polluting industrial plants in the
[9] have acquired, and they acquired this technology
10] entire world were spewing out CO2 and other
[10] because it was their aspiration. They were
11) pollutants from East Germany. And when they were
[11] fulfilling their own individual needs and desires.
12] shut down and newer technologies were adopted
[12]
So, what we have to understand is when we
13] instead, it's very easy for them to meet that base.
[13] talk about sustainable development we have to take
14]
I mean they've also done some things that
[14] into account and address not just public policy and
15] we haven't been willing to do and it's not all
[15] national policy but what individuals want to do
16] attributable to that. But it is kind of a freebie
[16] because that's going to be the driving force for
17) for them in some respects.
[17] development.
18] DR. YERGIN: Yes, it's a big bonus.
[18]
We have already heard this morning quite a
19] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And similarly, the
[19] bit about emission standards for developing
20] base year for Great Britain includes the period
[20] countries versus developed countries. But let me
21] just before the great upheaval that former Prime
[21] add a little additional context. More than 3
22] Minster Thatcher brought about in the British coal
[22] billion people worldwide live in the rural areas of
Page 188
Page 191
[1] industry and just before the big substitution of
[1] developing countries and 75 percent of the energy
[2] natural gas for coal. So, to some extent, it's a
[2] use in these areas come from noncommercial sources
[3] freebie for them, too, isn't that right?
[3] of fuel, which means firewood, animal manure and
[4] DR. YERGIN: Absolutely. And they moved
[4] agricultural byproducts.
(5) in gas to fill the void of coal.
[5]
These are not counted in the market place,
(6) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And, again, they've
[6] yet, this is what is providing the energy source
[7] done some things, in addition to that, that we have
[7] for around 70 percent of the world's population.
[8] not been willing to do, so, they deserve credit for
[8] And, so, yes, providing sustainable energy
[9] what they have done. But the degree of difficulty
[9] could have a very strong effect on their lives as
10] for them is different. If this were an Olympic
[10] well as ours here in the United States and around
[11] diving event, they would not have a high degree of
[11] the world. How can sustainable energy development
12) difficulty assigned to their performance.
[12] help? It can help, first of all, by increasing
13]
[Laughter.]
[13] agricultural production, through water pumps and
14] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: But, anyway, excuse
[14] irrigation. It can help by enhancing
15] me.
(15) telecommunications because now you can get
[16]
[Laughter.]
[16] information back and forth, whether it is
17] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We've all watched
(17) information on when to take goods to the market
18] those.
(18) place or if it's information on distance learning.
[19]
Dr. Jemison, you have done a lot of work
[19] We can improve transportation in getting goods to
20] on getting sustainable technologies to developing
[20] markets. We can improve clean water and, thereby,
(21] countries. Can these economies grow sustainably
[21] limit the number of diarrheal diseases and other
[22] and how can sustainable energy programs help the
[22] water-borne diseases. We can bring support
Page 189
Page 192
[1] world's poorest inhabitants?
[1] services into the area by health clinics, education
[2] DR. JEMISON: Thank you, Secretary
[2] and we can slow rural to urban migration.
[3] Albright and Vice President Gore. That's a great
[3]
And the way that this happens and what we
[4] question for me because the first thing I want to
[4] can do to help this is by changing the paradigm in
[5] say is, yes, the economies can grow and in a
[5] which we are trying to supply power, not looking at
[6] sustainable way. But to put that in a framework, I
[6] centralized power production but rather looking at
[7] think the first thing I need to do is just say that
[7] decentralized power production and alternative
[8] sustainable development is improving the quality of
[8] types of energy.
[9] human life now in such a way that the ability of
[9]
So, if you can take a solar photovoltaics
10] future generations to grow and develop are not
[10] panel into rural areas then you can use that and if
11] compromised. So, that's what we are looking at.
[11] you can also use mini-hydro power. There are a
12]
And let me put a face also on development
[12] number of ways to do it but the most important
¹³] in several different countries. We first go to
[13] thing is to decentralize power production because
14] Thailand where a photovoltaics plant has been
[14] it allows rural areas to grow and develop.
15) providing energy to a rural area but, yet, next to
[15]
The last thing I want to add is we have
[16] it is a growing stack of car batteries, lead-acetate car
[16] been talking about why we should be doing
(17) batteries because that's the only way
[17] sustainable development, sustainable energy
18) energy is stored.
[18] production, and most of the time we have talked
19]
We go to South Africa where a grandmother
[19] about economies and whether it is good for health
20] is preparing a meal inside her house in a shanty-town; yet,
[20] and safety but the one area I think we have left
21] there's a cooker, an electric cooker
[21] out is our human responsibility to each other and
2] that has recently been connected next to it where
[22] to our future. That's the reason to do it, as
Page 187 Page (34)
Min-U-Script©
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 193
Page 196
[1] well.
[1] can devise a system that will give assurance that
[2]
[Applause.]
[2] credit will be given for these early actions,
(3) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you, Dr.
[3] wherever they occur in the world, then I can assure
I] Jemison, very, very impressive presentation.
[4] you that more than 26 projects will soon exist.
I would like to call now on two panelists
[5]
These 26 projects have been quite
back-to-back, Dr. E. Linn Draper, who is President
[6] successful. They will sequester 180 million metric
[7] of American Electric Power, one of the largest U.S.
[7] tons of carbon dioxide at a cost of $515 million.
[8] power utilities and also, Fred Krupp, who is
[8] That is very cost effective compared to what could
[9] President of the Environmental Defense Fund.
[9] be done in the United States.
[10]-
And I would like both of you, if you
[10]
My company and a number of others are
[11] would, to discuss flexibility measures, including
[11] involved in one in Bolivia. It is the largest
[12] some of the ones that have been touched upon
[12] joint implementation project in the world and, Mr.
[13] already like emissions trading rights nationally
[13] Vice President, you will recall about a year ago
[14] and internationally, and the subject of joint
[14] you were in Bolivia to participate in that signing
[15] implementation where countries enter into
[15] ceremony. It is called the Noel Kemoff Mercado
[16] partnerships and reductions in one place are the
[16] Climate Action Project.
[17] result of combined work by companies and others in
(17)
It is a program to sequester carbon
[18] different countries.
[18] dioxide in the forests of Bolivia. The money was
[19]
We often talk about getting an agreement
[19] used to expand a national park. The expansion,
[20] at Kyoto that includes flexible market-based
[20] alone, is bigger than the Yellowstone National
(21) mechanisms such as joint implementation and
[21] Park. It is a huge geographic area. Over its
[22] trading. So, maybe we ought to spend a little time
[22] lifetime of 30 years it will sequester 53 million
Page 194
Page 197
[1] talking about how they work.
[1] metric tons of carbon dioxide at a cost of 37 cents
(2)
If you could go first, Mr. Draper, and
[2] a ton. It is incredibly cost effective.
(3) then you, Fred Krupp.
[3]
If we could duplicate projects like that
[4] DR. DRAPER: Thank you, Mr. Vice
[4] around the globe we would take a long step toward
[5] President, and you, Madam Secretary. We heard a
[5] solving the problem that we are discussing, but it
[6] lot this morning about the potential consequences
[6] requires a system to be constructed that will give
[7] of global climate change and we heard some about
[7] credit for early action and credit regardless of
[8] the technologies that could be used to reduce those
(8) where that action is taken.
[9] effects. It seems to me that what we really need
[9]
Many of these projects, such as the one
to talk about is what actions can be taken to
[10] that I described that my company participates in,
ensure that these techniques are deployed.
[11] has other benefits as well. This particular area
[12]
It seems to me there are two relatively
[12] is one of unusual flora and fauna. It will
[13] simple things at least in concept that need to be
[13] preserve the natural habitat for exotic species,
[14] done. One is to devise a system that encourages
[14] both of plants and animals. So, you not only get
[15] early action and the second, recognizing that this
[15] the benefit of reduction of carbon in the
[16] is a global problem, encourages action to be taken
[16] atmosphere but there are clearly ancillary benefits
[17] where it can be done most cost effectively, whether
[17] such as eco-tourism, preservation of wildlife and
[18] it is in the country in which the business normally
[18] the like.
[19] resides or whether it can be done somewhere else.
[19]
And it seems to me that if we are smart
[20]
It is quite clear that the cost of
[20] enough to devise the right scheme to allow early
[21] implementation and deployment of these various
[21] credit to be taken and credit taken wherever we
[22] technologies is not the same around the globe and
[22] take the action in the globe, you will see an
Page 195
Page 198
[1] if we can deploy the technologies in other
[1] enormous outpouring of voluntary activity.
[2] countries more cheaply than we can in the United
[2] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Great. Thank you
[3] States then it seems to me that it is in everyone's
[3] very much.
[4] best interest to do that. It is good for the
[4]
[Applause.]
[5] globe, it is good for the country to which the
[5] MR. KRUPP: Well, Mr. Vice President, I
[6] technology is transferred and it is good for the
[6] couldn't agree more with Linn Draper on the
(7) United States whose technology is being used
(7) importance of early action. It is refreshing to
[8] elsewhere, it will provide employment both here and
[8] have the head of an environmental group and the
[9] abroad.
[9] head of a major utility agreeing on that point.
[10]
We have at the moment some 26 projects
[10] It's critically important for the environment and
[11] that are approved joint implementation projects.
[11] also important for the economy.
[12] Joint implementation, as the Vice President said,
[12]
You know, Madam Secretary, you said at the
[13] is a project that is deployed in another country
[13] outset that we have to make sure that we have
[14] for which credit will ultimately be given. These
[14] targets that are not just lip-service and they have
[15] 26 projects are of a variety of types. They
[15] to be combined with a workable plan. And the plan
'6] include renewable energy, fuel switching, energy
[16] that the United States has come up with provides
efficiency, land use projects and the like, and
[17] for a very effective way to cut greenhouse gases
it's clear that they are effective.
[18] because what it does is it incorporates a lot of
One of things that people are concerned
[19] things that we heard this morning.
[20] about is that early actions before the rules are
[20]
For one it is a plan that allows us to
[21] established will not be given credit and if things
[21] save money. It's a plan that will spur new
[22] are done abroad, adequate will not be given. If we
[22] technology and the third thing it will do, that we
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(35) Page 193 Page 198
White House Conterence on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 199
Page 202
[1] have all agreed is important, is it is a way to
[1] the President and myself, this concept of credit
[2] draw in developing countries.
[2] for early voluntary actions is one that we support.
[3]
Let me explain. The Administration's
[3] Now, working it through the system and working it
(4) proposal would achieve these goals by creating a
[4] in Kyoto and all of that, that's another matter.
[5] market for greenhouse gas cleanup. It would
[5] But I would hope that the final result definitely
[6] provide incentives, therefore, for cost reductions,
[6] does include credit for early voluntary actions.
[7] for new technologies, and for the developing
E
I know there is opposition to it and maybe
[8] countries to participate.
[8] there are some disadvantages to it, but the
[9] It would do this by setting up a budget
[9] advantages far outweigh the disadvantages in my
10] for each nation. Each nation could emit a certain
[10] opinion.
11] amount of pollution over a certain budget period,
[11] Madam Secretary.
12] let's say, ten years. Any country that emits less
[12] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me address a
13] would earn a savings that it could then sell to
[13] question to Dr. Mathews. I can just say, Jessica
14] other countries who could emit more.
[14] and I worked together in the Carter Administration
15]
Overall, though, the total greenhouse gas
[15] and it was really thanks to her that I was smart
16] emissions would be limited to the budget amounts.
[16] enough to even talk about climate change when I
[17] And what this would do would be to give countries
[17] taught here.
[18] and individuals the financial reasons to reduce
[18]
So, Jessica, you have studied this a long
[19] emissions so that.they would be earning credits.
[19] time from the perspective of both science and
[20]
During a budget period, companies that
[20] foreign policy considerations. Could you elaborate
(21] invest in pollution control opportunities in
[21] for us what you see are the broader national
[22] another nation where the costs, as Linn said, of
[22] security interests that the United States has in
Page 200
Page 203
[1] control are lower, would be earning credits that
[1] seeking this kind of a global agreement?
[2] they could sell to other companies or other
[2] DR. MATHEWS: Madam Secretary, it is a big
[3] countries or else apply them to their own future
[3] question to get at. I see that we are facing
[4] emissions control obligations. That is what we
[4] basically in these negotiations three questions:
[5] mean by the, joint cooperative approach or joint
[5] How, who and when, as you have suggested in your
[6] implementation.
[6] opening remarks.
(7) What it would do is it would create new
E
The most important issue, I think, to
[8] export markets for U.S. greenhouse-friendly
[8] understand about the how question is that this is,
[9] technologies and it would be important in the
[9] in my view, the most difficult issue that has ever
10) international context, as Mr. Wolfensohn has said,
[10] been negotiated internationally, period. In terms
[11] because it would allow a transfer of technologies
[11] of the breadth of involvement of these gases in the
[12] to the developing nations and a transfer of
[12] entire economy, the breadth and variety of impacts,
[13] capacity that they will need to protect critical
[13] the persistent uncertainties, the long time scales,
[14] resources like rain forests which are important
[14] no negotiation that I know of approaches it in
[15] absorbers of carbon in the atmosphere.
[15] complexity and difficulty.
[16]
Lastly, I would say that as the President
[16]
Moreover, all the mechanisms that are
[17] mentioned, under the acid rain system we are well-ahead of
[17] going to be needed are going to have to be
18] schedule in reducing sulphur emissions at
[18] invented. Even the sulphur model that is employed
[19] well below the projected costs.
[19] domestically is a pale shadow of what is going to
20] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: One-tenth of the
[20] be needed internationally.
(21) costs.
[21] The design, the accounting, the
22] MR. KRUPP: One-tenth of the costs that
[22] monitoring, the enforcement, all of these things
Page 201
Page 204
[1] many in industry estimated and that's why I so
[1] have to be done for the first time and we know when
[2] agree with the point that Linn has just made and
[2] we do things for the first time you always make
[3] the point that was made this morning that we need
[3] mistakes. So, it puts an added difficulty on this
[4] to find a way to give companies and countries
[4] regime that it be extraordinarily adjustable.
[5] incentives to reduce early because we will see,
[5]
On the who question, as much as this is
[6] then, early reductions.
[6] the most difficult negotiation that has ever been
E
The costs of delay to the environment will
[7] attempted, I think it is also, it is potentially as
[8] be very real. And those are not only environmental
[8] divisive a one as has ever been attempted.
(9) costs but, I think, economically the best thing we
[9]
In terms of the difference between past
(10) can do to assure a soft economic landing, if you
[10] and future contributions, in terms of the
[11] will, is to make sure that the steepness of the
[11] differential impacts between countries and regions,
12] curve of reduction does not end up having to be so
(12) and the interconnectedness of every country, the
13] dramatic. And, so, to avoid the dramatic and
[13] word adaptation has virtually not been mentioned
[14] draconian reductions later, I would urge that we
[14] today. I think I have not missed it.
(15) begin on a path of reductions as soon as eight
[15] One thing we do know for sure is that the
16] years from now, in other words, by 2005. I think
[16] climate, while we are negotiating all of this and
17] we can do better than 1990 levels.
[17] implementing, is going to be changing. And there
18]
[Applause.]
[18] is going to be a lot of very expensive adaptation
(19) VICE PRESIDENT GORE:Thank you very much.
[19] that is going to have to be done willy-nilly and
20] Thank you very much, Fred, and thank you
[20] the developing countries are perfectly well aware
21] for your great work on this issue.
[21] that they are the most vulnerable to this change
22]
I just wanted to briefly say, on behalf of
[22] that will have to be adapted to. That in terms of
Page 199 Page.204 (36)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 205
Page 208
[1] money and technology and human capital, they are
(1) not very transparent process. And the reason we've
[2] the least equipped to do it. They are not blind to
[2] needed it is because it is so hard to negotiate and
'3] that reality.
[3] then ratify something with this many economic
On the question of when, this one is in
[4] impacts.
some ways the toughest I think. It is ironic that
(5)
So, the how question on the back-end, what
after 25 years of very hard work on the science we
[6] we can swallow once we have bitten it off
[7] are now 66 days from Kyoto and if you think that
(7) politically, is just as important as what we can go
[8] our understanding of the physical science, despite
[8] to negotiate.
[9] all the uncertainties, is somewhere up here and our
[9]
What I think-those are some of the
[10] understanding of the natural science is somewhere
[10] parameters to answer the question of the national
[11] down here, our understanding of the social science
[11] interest here. I would simply say that the
[12] is way down to the floor.
[12] engagement of our national security interests in
[13] And the policy-
[13] this issue measure up to the complexity that I have
[14] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Where is the
[14] just described.
(15) political science on that?
[15] [Applause.]
[16]
[Laughter.]
[16] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Jessica, if I could
(17) DR. MATHEWS: Well, I'm including the
[17] just ask you, as you raised the political dimension
[18] political science down there with the social
[18] of this, one of the problems that one deals with as
[19] science. We do have to, we don't really have as
[19] there are critics of this whole concept is, are we
[20] good a grasp-and I don't mean we, Americans, I
[20] giving up American sovereignty when we sign on to a
[21] mean anybody-on all these mechanisms.
[21] climate change treaty.
[22] Whether we should be measuring
[22]
How do you deal with that question when
Page 206
Page 209
{1} concentrations, emissions, whether we should be
[1] you are talking to the American public on this?
(2) using taxes or tradable permits or in what
[2] DR. MATHEWS: Every international
[3] combination, how joint implementation would work,
[3] agreement you give up a little piece of sovereignty
(4) if it would work, all these things, our readiness
[4] in order to get something more back, well-being and
[5] to act on this is nowhere near the level of our
[5] security. This issue was raised with the
[6] understanding of the science.
[6] ratification of the GATT treaties, as well.
E
I would say that probably the only thing
E
I think the reality is that in the world
[8] we know for absolute certain on this is what has
[8] that we live in ceding tiny bits of sovereignty
been proved in the five years since the Rio Summit
[9] bite after bite is the name of the game.
which is that voluntary actions won't work and that
[10] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Let me just mention
is progress. It was probably a stage that we had
(11] one thing about your comments concerning the
(12) to go through.
[12] multilateral trade agreements. I agree that this
[13]
So, what to expect out of Kyoto? First of
[13] is so pervasive in its relationship to the U.S.
(14) all, don't expect instant regime. It generally
[14] economy, there is really nothing else like it in
[15] takes more than a decade to negotiate and implement
[15] the environmental field.
[16] a global regime. The record is the nuclear
[16]
But I think that in some respects we can
[17] nonproliferation treaty took seven years under the
[17] learn from what happened in the Montreal Protocol,
[18] threat of nuclear holocaust. This one began in
[18] the international treaty by which the world
[19] about 1990, so, we're doing not so bad.
[19] community began to address these emissions into the
[20] And Kyoto, this round of negotiations is
[20] atmosphere that were found by the scientists to
[21] the beginning of a very long process. So, that's
[21] destroy the stratospheric ozone layer.
[22] the first thing.
[22]
And many years after the scientists,
Page 207
Page 210
[1]
A key point then is to ask ourselves what
[1] Sherwood Roland [ph] and Marion Malina [ph] leading
[2] defines success and failure in Kyoto. For my
[2] the way, for many years after they laid out the
(3) money, success in Kyoto-I think I have a pretty
[3] scientific evidence, finally the nations of the
[4] low threshold here-would be a commitment on the
[4] world got their act together enough to enter into
(5) part of the developed countries to go first with
[5] this agreement that had sort of broad goals and
[6] some specificity as to how fast and when-not
[6] started moving us in the right direction and that
[7] necessarily the full answer on target, some
[7] was in 1987.
[8] timetables-and a promise by the developing
[8]
We just had the tenth anniversary of it.
[9] countries to go second.
[9] But then, after those broad goals and
(10)
If we could come home from Kyoto with
[10] mechanisms were put into place, the evidence became
[11] that, that in my book anyway, would be success.
[11] ever clearer and the support among peoples around
[12] Finally, the President had mentioned this
[12] the world for taking stronger action began to grow
[13] morning, made a passing reference to something that
[13] significantly.
[14] is terribly important and that is that we have got
[14]
And the fact that we were beginning to
[15] to ratify whatever we ultimately come home with.
[15] make progress and move in the right direction
*6] The only international agreements that have ever
[16] elevated the confidence level that we could solve
been attempted that have required congressional
[17] the problem and then all of a sudden there were
approval that are as broadly, have as broad an
[18] follow-on treaties that had the world speed up
impact on our economy as this one will, are the
[19] dramatically and it ended up like the case was with
[20] multilateral trade agreements and for Congress to
[20] the sulphur emissions trading, it ended up being
[21] deal with those we have needed fast track.
[21] only a tiny fraction of the cost projected by some
[22]
We have needed an admittedly undemocratic,
[22] of the economic studies, and we are now well on our
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(37) Page 205 Page 210
write House Conference on Cumate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 211
Page 214
[1] way toward solving that problem.
(1) by engaging the interagency process in this we are
[2]
We have got a long way to go, we have got
[2] learning a great deal more about our own economy,
[3] some tough problems to handle, still, but we are
(3) about climate, about the way we work with
[4] way down the road toward solving that problem. I
[4] developing countries, how we relate to developed
[5] think that is an analogy also. Because I think
[5] countries so that it is a massive project which I
[6] that if we can get the right kind of agreement in
[6] think ought to be seen as a challenge in the way
[7] Kyoto then as the evidence builds to make a
[7] that we are going to do foreign policy in the 21st
[8] broader, stronger consensus possible, we will be
[8] century.
[9] able to move much faster in the years ahead.
[9]
So, I find it a very important and
[10] DR. MATHEWS: I think, Mr. Vice President,
[10] challenging goal for all of us to work this out and
(11] that that's exactly right. And one hears the
[11] I am very grateful that we have had this particular
(12) argument made about chlorofluorocarbons, the same
[12] day. Because I think it is a way that we are going
[13] one that is made about sulphur, well, that is a
[13] to be looking at lots of problems in the future.
[14] much tinier bit of the economy.
[14]
And I thank you all very much.
[15] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Smaller, much
[15] [Applause.]
[16] smaller.
[16] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you.
[17] DR. MATHEWS: But I think it is also true
[17] You know, as President of the Senate, I
[18] that Mr. Casten's answer this morning was exactly
[18] often have the responsibility of presiding over the
[19] right, which was that where somebody else saw
[19] Senate and one of the common phrases used by the
[20] difficulty, he saw-opportunity.
[20] presiding officer there is, will those please
[21] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Right.
[21] engaged in conversations in the aisles, please,
[22] DR. MATHEWS: It is true that what
[22] take their seats and cease all audible
Page 212
Page 215
[1] happened with the CFCs was that it looked
[1] conversation. I never thought I would use that
[2] impossible, there was even a very famous study that
[2] anywhere outside the Senate Chamber.
[3] concluded that the cost of CFC substitution was
[3]
I want to thank all of you for joining us
[4] infinite because there were some uses for which
[4] for this fourth and final panel today. I am very
(5) there was no conceivable substitutes.
[5] pleased to be joined by my colleague, the Deputy
[6]
Well, it turned out that there were plenty
[6] Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers. I am
[7] but there had never been a reason to try, right?
[7] going to call on Secretary Summers for the first
[8] These were cheap, they were useful, they were
[8] presentation and I am going to ask him to introduce
[9] benign, down here on the earth. And, so, who knew?
[9] our colleagues on the panel here and then he and I
[10] There was never a reason to look. So, it looked
[10] will share the moderating responsibilities. But,
[11] like there were no substitutes.
[11] Secretary Summers, please, lead off.
[12]
In the energy field we know that there are
[12] DEPUTY SECRETARY SUMMERS: Thank you very
[13] a whole closet-full of technologies sitting out
[13] much, Mr. Vice President.
[14] there, many of which cannot get in the market place
[14]
As a member of the President's Economic
[15] because energy is just too cheap. And, so, we know
[15] Team I am glad to be here to discuss this critical
[16] there are, I think you said it and pointed the way
[16] issue. I think it's very clear that the global
[17] before, the political science of this is tougher
[17] warming threat is real. There is now a consensus
[18] than either the economics or the energy side.
[18] that if we fail to limit global emissions of
[19] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, thank you very
[19] greenhouse gases there are likely to be real
[20] much.
[20] effects in the form of higher temperatures, a
[21] And before we close this panel and invite
[21] disruptive climate and potentially very important
[22] the members of the fourth panel to come out, I want
[22] disruptions in the functioning of the global
Page 213
Page 216
[1] to ask the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,
[1] economy.
[2] if you have any concluding comments?
[2]
Anyone who doubts that climate has
[3] SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Yes, thank you very
[3] important economic implications need only look at
[4] much, Mr. Vice President.
[4] the impact of El Nino. Droughts and other El Nino
[5]
Thank you to all the panelists. Let me
[5] effects have already prompted several governments
[6] say that I have looked at this from the perspective
[6] to declare a state of emergency and have put a
(7) of the State Department as a brand new and
[7] severe dent in the production of many of the
[8] interesting challenge in the following way. As we
[8] world's most important foodstuffs.
[9] have begun to study it, it is evident to me more
[9]
The world's commodity traders now monitor
[10] than any other subject that I have ever dealt with
[10] El Nino almost as closely as they monitor the Fed.
[11] that it includes everybody in the United States
[11] And the catastrophic insurance industry has been
[12] Government.
[12] paying very close attention indeed, because of its
(13) And when Jessica says it is the most
[13] concern with the effects of hurricanes, to the
[14] complicated negotiation ever internationally, if
[14] threat of global warming.
(15) you consider that it has so many internal
[16] dimensions in the United States, it obviously has
(15)
The question is not whether we can respond
[17] those same dimensions in other countries. And,
[16] effectively to that threat. We can and I believe
[18] therefore, it is a tick-tack-toe game of all kinds
[17] we must. More than 2,000 economists, including
[19] of dimensions that we have to work with that is a
[18] eight Nobel Laureates, several members of this
[20] huge challenge to all of us as we look at the
[19] panel, have concluded that there are policy options
(21) domestic and international aspects of this.
[20] that would slow climate change without harming
22]
And we have found that in the government
[21] American living standards and that these measures
Page 211 - Page.216 (38)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 217
Page 220
[1] may, in fact, improve productivity in the long run.
[1] credible, consistent policy signals as early as
(2)
Economists can contribute to the effort to
[2] possible to reduce uncertainty in the economy and
my combat global warming by helping us to answer two
[3] allow business and the public enough time to make
central questions. First, they can help us decide
[4] appropriate plans and investment decisions will
on the goals that we should set for ourselves, on
[5] reduce short-run dislocations.
what path can we best achieve our environmental
[6]
If this approach is taken, carbon
[7] objective and our economic objective, as well.
(7) emissions can be reduced without damaging the
[8]
Second, and perhaps more important,
[8] economy. Well over a dozen economic modeling
[9] certainly as important economic analysis can inform
[9] studies have analyzed the issue. Even the most
[10] our search for the best way forward to meet our
[10] pessimistic find that emissions can be stabilized
[11] given goals of choosing the best way forward, which
[11] at 1990 levels by the year 2010 while the economy
[12] I think several of our panelists will suggest is
[12] continues to grow at almost its long-run trend
[13] based on a flexible market-based approach. It is
[13] rate.
[14] important for the economy and it is important for
[14]
Under the worst case assumptions, the
[15] the environment as well, because if we act in as
[15] growth the United States economy is likely to
[16] inexpensive a way as possible we will be able to
[16] expand over the next 20 years, about a 50 percent
[17] act to the maximum extent.
(17) rise in real GDP, would instead take 21 years to
[18]
We have with us to discuss these issues a
[18] achieve. That is essentially the worst-case
[19] distinguished panel of experts including Robert
[19] scenario.
[20] Repetto, from the World Resources Institute; Rob
[20]
However, if these elements are adopted in
[21] Stavins, from the Kennedy School of Government;
[21] an optimal approach, these analyses find that-adopting
[22] John Sweeney, Chairman of the AFL-CIO, perhaps an
[22] these policies would allow American living
Page 218
Page 221
(1) honorary economist for this occasion; William
[1] standards to rise more rapidly over the next 25
(2) Nordhaus, from Yale University; and Richard Sandor,
[2] years than if we do nothing.
[3] the Vice Chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade.
[3]
Mr. Vice President, in closing, I would
(4) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, thank you very
[4] like to mention the impact of these policies on the
[5] much, Mr. Secretary, and I will now turn to Bob
[5] competitive position of U.S. industry abroad. Of
[6] Repetto for the next comments.
[6] course, our main trading and investment partners in
E
And in your comments, Bob, please, address
[7] the OECD countries have already indicated their
[8] this question: What is the optimal approach in
[8] willingness to do as much as the United States will
your view that would allow us to act aggressively
[9] in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, so,
to reduce emissions without damaging the economy in
[10] competitive impacts within the OECD will be
the process and how would a policy along these
[11] negligible.
[12] lines be structured?
[12]
It is also important to recognize that the
[13] MR. REPETTO: Mr. Vice President, thank
[13] largest industrializing countries, including
[14] you.
[14] Russia, China, India, Brazil, Poland and others,
[15]
You know, there has been a great deal of
[15] since 1990 have taken significant steps to reduce
[16] analysis on this issue. There have been hundreds
[16] energy subsidies. A World Bank report indicates
(17) of simulations with dozens of economic models and
[17] that they have gone down by 50 percent, they have
[18] as I read it, five essential elements come out of
[18] raised energy prices already relative to prices in
[19] this.
[19] the United States and have opened up and reformed
[20]
First, as others have said and as Larry
[20] their energy sectors to make them more efficient.
[21] Summers just said, using market-friendly economic
[21] They have done so not to protect the climate but to
[22] instruments such as selling carbon permits that
[22] restructure their faltering economies, but in the
Page 219
Page 222
[1] firms can trade in the market place or phasing in
[1] process, have already contributed to the solution
[2] carbon taxes will be much more efficient than
[2] of the climate problem.
[3] command and control regulatory systems.
[3]
If they go second, these energy sector
[4]
Second, using revenues from these policies
[4] reforms are likely to continue because their
[5] to reduce business tax rates can stimulate
[5] motivation is economic self-interest and
[6] employment and investment without increasing the
[6] sustainable development in their own economies.
[7] budget deficit. Offsetting the effects of higher
[7] For these and other reasons, I believe that U.S.
[8] energy prices with tax cuts can substantially
[8] emissions can be reduced without a flight of
[9] improve economic outcomes.
[9] factories and jobs to other countries.
[10]
Thirdly, as many people have said,
[10]
Thank you.
[11] creating an international system of joint
[11] [Applause.]
[12] implementation or carbon permit trading that
[12] VICE PRESIDENT GORE:Thank you very much,
[13] involves Eastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union
[13] Bob. I hope we will have time to come back and
(14) and important developing countries can lower the
[14] explore some of this.
[15] cost substantially and provide important economic
[15] DEPUTY SECRETARY SUMMERS: Bill Nordhaus,
S] gains for all parties.
[16] you have done some of the most widely cited
Fourth, an active technology policy
[17] analyses of the economic implications of policies
program to accelerate the development and diffusion
[18] to impact on global warming. What are your
of renewable energy and energy saving technologies,
[19] thoughts about the best way forward to go in terms
[20] if supported by appropriate market price signals,
[20] of reducing emissions?
[21] can substantially reduce the long-run costs.
[21]
PROFESSOR NORDHAUS: Well, I guess at the
[22]
And fifth and finally, providing clear,
[22] end of a day talking about the future it is time to
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(39) Page 217 Page 222
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 223
Page 226
(1] call out the economists and ask, how much is it all
[1] price of carbon in the order of $10 a ton for
[2] going to cost?
[2] carbon, plus or minus whatever sensible margin
3]
As I listen to this and have read this, I
[3] seems necessary.
(4) am concerned that we are greatly underestimating
[4]
And this would compare with numbers of
[5] the size and complexity of the undertaking and my
[5] about $100 a ton of carbon which are the ones that
[6] message is that we must move cautiously so that we
[6] would be involved in current proposals.
(7) protect our economy as well as our environment.
E
So, in summary, we do need to slow the
[8]
Let me start with costs. What people are
[8] greenhouse express. If we do nothing there is a
[9] urging is to reduce emissions in the United States
[9] risk that we are going to crash into the reefs.
10] to 1990 levels by the year 2010. Just to be clear,
[10]
But at the same time if we step on the
11] this according to most studies, this involves
[11] brakes too quickly we may crash through the
12] reducing emissions by about 30 percent relative to
[12] windshield. So, what we need is a kind of middle
13] business as usual.
[13] ground which raises energy prices gradually to give
14] Now, from an economic point of view, that
[14] the proper signals to consumers, producers and
15] is a very large cut. I looked at the studies,
[15] technologists and to put us on a more sustainable
16] including the Government Interagency Task Force,
[16] and sensible path.
17] and I was struck by the close similarity of the
[17]
Thank you very much.
18] projected economic impacts there to the energy
(18) [Applause.]
19] price shocks of the 1970s.
[19] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, thank you very
20]
If you look at the studies, most of them
[20] much. In other words, avoid shocks to the economy.
21] find that these targets will involve raising energy
[21] In 1973 and then again in 1978 and 1979, the
22] prices sharply, approximately a doubling of
[22] increases were immediate, dramatic and sudden. In
Page 224
Page 227
[1] wholesale energy prices and approximately a 300
[1] this case, whether prices are involved or not,
[2] percent increase in the price of coal. And this is
[2] whether it is trading regimes, joint implementation
(3) actually larger than the price increase during
[3] or whatever it should be over a long enough period
4] either of the oil price shocks of the 1970s.
[4] of time and in a gradual enough process to allow
5]
And, so, I think the thing we have to be
[5] the forces of the market place to help us
[6] concerned about is to make sure that we don't bring
[6] accomplish our goals as efficiently as possible.
(7) an energy price shock upon ourselves because this
[7] PROFESSOR NORDHAUS: I would emphasize
[8] was, after all, the worst economic period in the
[8] that point. It's very important, as people look
[9] United States since the Great Depression.
[9] out and they ask how are we going to build these
10)
Now, you might ask, will technology bail
[10] new buildings, what kind of power plants are we
11] us out? And I have no doubt and I think there has
[11] going to build, what are we going to equip them
12] been a lot of evidence for this for many years,
[12] with, what kind of cars are we going to buy, that
13] that there's great potential for technological
[13] people look out and expect that things are going to
[14] savings, from the light bulbs we talked about this
[14] get a little tighter and we ought to move a little
15] morning, to the fuel cells and on to advanced power
[15] away from the fossil fuels that we are using.
:16] systems.
[16]
And, of course, the way, as unhappy as it
[17]
But I think the evidence of the last
(17) is, as unpleasant as it is, the real way people see
(18) quarter century, as well, is that we are not going
[18] that signal is when they see they see the prices
19] to introduce these wondrous technological miracles
[19] rising or they expect them to rise. But the
20] unless people face higher energy prices. As we
[20] message is, gradual is much less costly.
(21) heard in the last session, energy is too cheap, too
[21] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
22] cheap to get us out of our utility vans, too cheap
[22]
I want to turn now to Robert Stavins, who
Page 225
Page 228
[1] to make us look at all our systems.
[1] is Professor of Public Policy and Chair of
[2]
When will we change the light bulbs? When
[2] Environment and Natural Resources of that Program
[3] it is economically imperative to do so.
[3] at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard.
(4)
Now, I want to say a word about risks and
[4]
Professor Stavins, what are your thoughts
[5] damages because there's been a great deal of
[5] on this?
[6] economic work on this. Most economists who have
[6] PROFESSOR STAVINS: Well, Mr. Vice
[7] looked at this believe there are major long-run
[7] President, and Mr. Secretary, I think we can safely
[8] environmental, economic and political risks
[8] say that no one in this room is interested in just
[9] involved in global warming and there have been
[9] paying lip service to what is obviously a very
10] dozens of studies on the impacts on such sectors as
[10] important global problem. So, the first thing I
11) agricultural, sea-level rise, health and energy.
[11] would like to state is to note that voluntary
12]
And, so, economic studies have tried to
[12] initiatives or wishful thinking are simply not
13] ask, what is a sensible balancing of the economic
[13] going to be able to do the job of meeting the kind
14] costs and the costs of adaptation, on the one hand,
[14] of CO2 emission targets that have been discussed in
¹⁵] with the climate risks on the other? The answer
[15] the United States and other countries.
:6] is, we should move ahead, we should strive for
[16]
If the targets are, themselves, serious,
¹⁷] slowing the growth in emissions, we should move to
[17] if they are aggressive then either very serious
18] increase the prices of fossil fuels.
[18] command and control standards or very serious and
19]
I think a very attractive model that comes
[19] meaningful price signals are going to be required.
20] out of these studies that would be something that
[20] At this point, we have 30 years of experience that
21] marries the U.S. proposal of tradeable permits that
[21] has taught us something. It has taught us that
22] we heard about in the last session with a target
[22] market-based instruments, in this case essentially,
Page 223 Page (40)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 229
Page 232
[1] energy taxes or tradable carbon permits can
[1] climate change, and again I'm assuming that no one
[2] transmit those price signals and they can bring
[2] in this room is, then I think the only option that
(3) about the changes that are needed. Changes in fuel
[3] is really credible is for the United States to use
use, in the short-term movements from coal to
[4] market-based instruments.
natural gas in established facilities; changes in
(5)
Thank you.
technology, by which I mean commercialization and
[6] [Applause.]
[7] diffusion throughout the economy of those
[7] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Very good, thank you
[8] technologies that the Department of Energy study
[8] so much.
[9] has identified as being technically feasible; and
[9]
I wanted to ask a brief follow-up
[10] also energy conversation to lower overall energy
[10] question. You were quoted last week in the New
[11] demand.
[11] York Times as supporting a kind of economic safety
[12]
Price signals can do that and the studies
[12] valve mechanism whereby we would cap the cost of a
[13] that have been carried out by Bill Nordhaus and by
[13] given policy so that if there were some kind of
(14) others, indicate that they can do it at a savings
[14] miscalculation then there would be a safety valve.
[15] of 90 percent or more of the overall cost of
[15] Can you explain this idea?
[16] abatement compared to a conventional or let's call
[16] PROFESSOR STAVINS: Certainly, Mr. Vice
(17) it old-fashioned way of doing the job.
[17] President.
[18]
Now, both Bob Repetto and Bill spoke of
(18)
This approach addresses a fundamental
[19] taxes so I'm going to turn instead and focus on
[19] dilemma. The dilemma is, on the one hand, some
[20] that other market-based instrument tradeable
[20] people, including many in the business community
(21) permits. Because something else we have learned is
[21] but many others as well, fear that meeting
[22] that tradable permit systems can be designed well
(22) specified targets is going to be exceptionally
Page 230
Page 233
[1] or they can be designed poorly.
[1] costly. They might be right, I don't know.
[2]
And in the United States we have the
[2]
On the other hand, many others, including
[3] experience of doing both. So, I want to make a few
[3] many in this room and many in the environmental
[4] suggestions. The first one is if there is a model
[4] community, predict that it is going to be very
[5] for carbon trading and I hesitate to say that there
(5) cheap and, indeed, some early panels would say,
[6] is, it is not necessarily the highly successful
[6] costless, to achieve these targets. And, again, I
[7] sulphur dioxide allowance trading program but it
[7] don't know. I will be agnostic on that and I don't
[8] just might be EPA's phenomenally successful phase-out of the
[8] think any of us really knows.
lead in gasoline in the 1980s which was
[9]
A compromise that would address the
also accomplished by a tradeable permit system
[10] interests then of both of these groups of their
among refineries.
[11] concerns would be a system that essentially links
[12]
My point is that we should not be captured
[12] an emission target with a safety valve for the case
[13] by the notion of thinking of CO2 emission permits
[13] of unexpectedly high costs. Now, this approach has
[14] but by thinking of upstream carbon content permits
[14] been proposed by a number of researchers, the
[15] traded among primary producers of fossil fuels and
[15] University of Texas, the World Bank, and Resources
[16] among importers.
[16] for the Future.
[17]
Secondly, if these permits are auctioned
[17]
And it would work essentially like this.
[18] and there are arguments economically of why they
[18] The government will allocate permits, enough
[19] ought to be, those revenues ought to be fully
[19] permits in order to meet the precise targets that
[20] rebated to the economy through cuts in taxes, on
[20] the government chooses and, at the same time, the
[21] labor and taxes on capital.
(21) government will state up-front that it will offer
[22]
Third, despite, again, the great success
[22] for sale additional permits at a given price, for
Page 231
Page 234
[1] of the tradeable permit program for sulphur
[1] example, $10 per ton of carbon content of fossil
[2] dioxide, and I think it is a success that anyone
[2] fuels.
[3] who has cared about these instruments applauds, we
[3]
If the optimists on this-I will call them
(4) shouldn't misread the evidence. Careful analysis
(4) the environmental advocates-are right, if it turns
[5] of the fact that the prices have come down as much
[5] out to be exceptionally cheap to reach that
[6] as they have tells us there is nothing there,
[6] emission target, we will reach the target, we will
[7] unfortunately, to suggest that carbon trading is
[7] do it at low cost and we will all be exceptionally
[8] going to be miraculously cheap.
[8] happy.
[9]
Fourth, I want to emphasize something the
[9]
On the other hand, if it turns out that
(10] Vice President said that is exceptionally important
[10] the pessimists on this issue, the cost pessimists,
[11] and that is that time matters. It is not just the
[11] are correct and it costs more than that to reach
[12] flexibility of allowing the control to take place
[12] the targets then, in fact, we will be capping the
[13] in appropriate locations but allowing it to be
[13] permit price at $10 per ton, we will be capping
[14] spread out over time as with the case of banking of
[14] marginal abatement costs, we will be capping the
[15] permits.
[15] costs to private industry at $10 a ton as well.
6)
Finally, the cost with any domestic
[16]
So, this kind of hybrid policy instrument
instrument is going to be much lower if it is
[17] which combines features of what is normally thought
combined with broad-based, international allowance
[18] of as a tax but works completely through a tradable
trading. Not simply what is currently described as
[19] permit system works because what it does is make
[20] joint implementation.
[20] the target, itself, sensitive to the costs. And I
(21)
So, in conclusion, if we are not
[21] think this is the kind of instrument that could
[22] interested in simply paying lip service to global
[22] really set us on the path to taking what the
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Scripto
(41) Page 229 Page 234
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 235
Page 238
[1] President described earlier this morning as
[1] price for an uncertain outcome.
(2) moderate but disciplined first steps. In other
[2]
Every nation must participate on an
[3] words, a good beginning.
[3] equitable basis. We must not create incentives for
(4) VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Great, thank you
[4] job and investment to move elsewhere. We must put
(5) very much.
[5] in place and assure adequate funding for a just
[6]
I want to call now on my friend John
[6] transition regime that forces us to plan ahead and
(7) Sweeney. And, John, I know that organized labor
[7] create the sort of environment and economy that we
[8] has serious concerns about how a policy to deal
[8] all can have.
[9] with climate change might affect working men and
(9)
Thank you.
10] women in this country and, particularly, how it
[10] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much.
(11) might affect the number of jobs and the nature of
[11] [Applause.]
(12) the job market.
[12] MR. SUMMERS: Richard, you are a man who
(13) However, I know from my discussions with
[13] operates in markets where there is trading every
[14] the folks who are working on this in the AFL-CIO,
[14] minute of the day, 365 days a year. We've heard a
[15] that there is widespread recognition that this is a
[15] lot about the concept of trading emissions as well
[16] real issue that must be dealt with. So, what kind
[16] as pork bellies.
(17) of policy would you recommend to address the
(17) Maybe you could give us a feel for your
[18] environmental problem we face while protecting our
[18] experience with the acid rain trading program and
[19] economy and our workers?
[19] discuss the lessons of your experiences in trading
[20] MR. SWEENEY: Well, first of all, I want
[20] for policy in this area.
[21] to thank you and the President for your leadership
[21] MR. SANDOR: Thank you, Mr. Vice President
[22] on this and for this conference today and I am
[22] and Mr. Secretary, and I, too, would like to
Page 236
Page 239
[1] happy to be with Secretary Larry Summers, as well.
[1] commend the White House and all of you for giving
[2] We, in the labor movement, feel that regardless of
[2] us the opportunity to hear this private sector
[3] which study you examine the economic stakes for the
[3] viewpoint.
[4] United States are enormous. And we really feel
[4]
I will take a contrary opinion. I'm very
[5] that it is essential that we do whatever we do
[5] excited about the possibility of market-based
[6] carefully.
[6] solutions for the environment. While I do see a
(7)
Our share of global carbon emissions is so
[7] difference between the SO2 market and the carbon
[8] large that even modest reduction measures, if not
[8] market and I do recognize the very intelligent
[9] done carefully and with enough time to manage
[9] viewpoint of Dr. Nordhaus and Stavins and my other
[10] difficult adjustment questions, could have
[10] colleagues, here at the panel, I think there are
(11) catastrophic economic effects. In any event, the
[11] more similarities than there are differences.
(12) magic of the market is not a sufficient tool. We
[12]
I think in the early days of debate and
[13] must plan and plan carefully. We must begin to
[13] the policy opinions, the questions that were asked
[14] make the investment in new technology and new
[14] at that particular time people said, let's set
[15] carbon suppression measures now.
[15] fines at $2,000, let's have auctions at $1,500, the
[16] The keys to doing this and doing it the
[16] best minds said $600. The auctions started five
[17] right way are taking enough time and being clear as
[17] years ago, prices went from $300 to $250 to $200 to
[18] to our ultimate objectives. There is nothing magic
[18] $150 to $100 down to $70 a ton. We went slowly, we
(19] about 2010 or any other target date and there's
[19] learned, we implemented.
[20] nothing magic about 1990 emissions levels.
[20] There was a big debate at that time. Some
[21] Rather the decision about a target date
(21] of it was it was too large and too comprehensive
[22] should really be based on taking enough time to
[22] and the other was there were too few sources to
Page 237
Page 240
[1] manage the economic transition and the emissions
[1] make a difference. In fact, we did cut a middle
[2] target must follow not precede a discussion about
[2] ground.
[3] the global concentration level that the entire
[3]
People worried about quasi-property
[4] world community seeks to achieve.
[4] rights, how would they fit in the securities
[5] None of this is to say that we should not
[5] markets. Would we accept quasi-property rights and
[6] act. We should. But we must act thoughtfully and
[6] liens and things of that nature. Could we adapt
[7] with a clear intent. With a clear intent of
[7] arcane swap documentation which is used to hedge
[8] protecting our economy, and the women and the men
[8] interest rates to trade sulphur dioxide? And the
[9] who have made that economy successful, the most
[9] answer to all of those questions was a very simple
[10] productive in the world.
[10] and a very dramatic, yes.
(11]
We think the American people will
[11] The question now going forward is what are
[12] understand and appreciate the sacrifices that are
[12] the steps that we should take to mitigate carbon
[13] asked of them if we speak to them rationally about
[13] emissions? I am concerned about the problem, I
(14) sensible solutions to carbon reduction. Loose talk
[14] think the problem is one that we all have to be
[15] about more jobs sometime in the future is not an
[15] concerned about and I'm particularly concerned
16] adequate response to those who face job loss now
[16] about its irreversibility.
17) and those who will see entire industries, entire
[17]
Right now the market is already taking
[18] communities disrupted if we do not get this right.
[18] some actions as we speak. It is an inchoate market
[19]
We ought to be guided by some core
[19] right now. Arizona and New England trades are
[20] principles. Whatever we do, we must assure global
[20] occurring between sulphur dioxide and carbon. In
[21] environmental repair. If it does not, we cannot
[21] May, the company that I represent and who I am
22] and should not ask American workers to pay a known
[22] speaking on behalf of, Centre Financial, did a very
Page 235 Page 240 (42)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 241
Page 244
[1] small trade in Costa Rica, monetizing 1.1 million
[1] market.
[2] acres or the first of it.
[2] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, we were
[3]
We have a mandate from the government of
[3] speculating what, how long it would be before we
Costa Rica to create 1.1 million acres, 4 million
(4) had carbon derivatives and you've already got
tons of rain forest protection credits which have
[5] sulphur dioxide derivatives.
been certified by the Department of Energy as CTOs.
[6]
DR. SANDOR: Yes. And they are in effect
3
We have something and I believe social
[7] with these trades I mentioned now carbon
[8] scientists call it the demonstration effect. I
[8] derivatives. Environmental derivatives is what we
[9] think in Washington you call it flying a balloon
[9] like to call them, Mr. Vice President.
[10] and seeing what's happening.
[10] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Excuse me, I'm
[11] DEPUTY SECRETARY SUMMERS: Trial balloon,
[11] sorry, environmental derivatives.
[12] yeah.
[12]
You said that these sulphur dioxide
[13] DR. SANDOR: Trial balloons. Well, the
[13] instruments are now selling for $70 roughly?
[14] demonstration effect is throw up a price and see
[14]
DR. SANDOR: They bottomed at $70 and are
[15] what happens. We threw up a price of $20 and
[15] now trading at roughly $90.
[16] people came to us and said, we can basically take
[16] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: $70 to $90 is the
[17] landfills, co-generate power and reduce methane.
[17] current range?
[18] Other people came to us and said, we can, in
[18] DR. SANDOR: Yes.
[19] effect, take solar power which is being used in
[19] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And at the beginning
[20] Arizona and if you can monetize, just give us a
[20] the predictions were that they would be at how many
[21] small amount of credit for dollar reductions, that
[21] hundreds of dollars?
[22] makes it viable.
[22]
DR. SANDOR: In 1990, the predicted levels
Page 242
Page 245
(1)
Top soil, if you could plant vegetation
[1] ranged from 4 to 800 tons. The EPA was pretty
[2] and get paid for the carbon created. That is not
[2] aggressive at $600 and some private sources were as
[3] only good for the farmers but it also might have
[3] high as $1,000 a ton.
[4] some monetization value.
[4] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Why do you think
[5]
All of these are signals and the $20 a ton
[5] they were so wrong?
(6) which is the highest cost, unlike Mr. Draper's of
(6) DR. SANDOR: For several reasons. There
[7] $1 or $2, that turns out to be at today's price,
[7] were some unintended consequences. Part of it was
[8] and it is the only price I know and Mr. Secretary
[8] due-and we have to look at it realistically and
the one only a trader can act under, is a penny and
[9] candidly-was reduction in rail rates that came
a half per gallon of gasoline. That is the market
[10] about, deregulation. So, that Western low-sulphur
price right now to get some carbon emissions from
[11] coal was substituted.
..21 now for the next 20 years on land that goes in
[12]
The second part was scrubbers and
[13] perpetuity in Costa Rica.
[13] technology by the GEs and the Sea Brown Brevares.
[14]
Price signals are very important. And I
[14] [ph], the others were fuel switching and the
[15] never underestimate inventive activity or the role
[15] flexibility.
[16] of entrepreneurs who take on bold tasks whether it
[16]
I think what all of us will believe is the
[17] is in chips or communication or in markets, or the
[17] flexibility that a market-based system made
[18] ability to trade not only pork bellies, but
[18] compliance basically be able to be implemented in a
[19] mortgage-backed securities, other devices which
[19] cost-effective way and over a longer period of
[20] make us the envy of all capital markets.
[20] time.
[21]
In conclusion, I would like to say we
[21]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I'm going to offer
[22] think a limited voluntary program, voluntary in the
[22] an additional hypothesis as to why the projections
Page 243
Page 246
[1] sense that nations opt-in to participate, voluntary
[1] were so high. And I do so as a non-economist and
[2] in that sectors, in the second sense, may opt-in to
[2] with apologies and appropriate humility and I will
(3) help generate price transparency would give us a
[3] ask for comments if anybody thinks I'm way off base
[4] better idea to slowly move toward this goal.
[4] here.
[5]
I think Dr. Mathews is right, we need a
[5]
I have long felt that just as in any
[6] framework, we need a slow framework and if we can
[6] profession there are certain conventions in the
[7] move into that and if the policy makers can give us
[7] economics profession that are necessary and highly
[8] the infrastructure for markets, let some of us
[8] valuable in order to make the profession operate
[9] practitioners try to bring that price down so there
[9] the way it does. But one of those conventions that
[10] are no effects on the economy.
[10] I think sometimes causes problems is the assumption
(11)
[Applause.]
[11] of perfect information.
[12] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very much,
[12]
The idea that all other things being
[13] Richard, that is very intriguing.
[13] equal, the information about what choices are
[14]
Is there a separate trading pit for
[14] available and what the best courses of action might
(15) sulphur dioxide?
[15] be are readily apparent or will shortly be readily
5]
DR. SANDOR: Unfortunately, we are at the
[16] apparent to anybody who looks for them and,
point where we conduct the auctions outside of a
[17] therefore, the economy is operating at or near the
pit environment but we are and have had approved by
[18] optimum allocation of the resources that are
9] the Commodities Futures Trading Commission both a
[19] available. You understand the point I'm getting
[20] future for SO2 and options on SO2. So, we may, in
[20] at?
[21] effect, have them pit-traded.
[21]
DR. SANDOR: Yes.
[22]
Now, they are just traded by an auction
[22]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And that's a
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(43) Page 241 Page 246
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Page 247
Page 250
(1) necessary assumption but it is not always accurate.
[1]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: They were only off
(2) The classic joke is about the economist who walks
[2] by a factor of 300 percent.
(3) down the street and a $20 bill is laying there and
[3] DR. STAVINS: No, but I haven't-
(4) he does not stoop over to pick it up because it
[4] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Okay, I'm sorry.
[5] wouldn't be there, it is obviously not there
[5] DR. STAVINS: I'm going in the direction.
[6] because if it was somebody would have already
[6] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: All right.
[7] stooped over to pick it up.
(7) DR. STAVINS: You're right. So, so far,
[8]
[Laughter.]
[8] so where you are left then with this gap of $70 to
[9] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And I think that
[9] $100. And Dr. Sandor has correctly pointed out
[10] some of the options for squeezing sulphur dioxide
[10] that the deregulation of railroads which brought
11] out of the environment at much lower levels of cost
[11] down freight costs for Powder River Basin ow-sulphur coal
[12] than turned out to be possible were assumed not to
[12] to move it to the east, played an
13] be there because if they were there they would have
[13] enormous part of that. And in addition to that,
[14] already been picked up.
[14] there are several other factors that suggest that
[15] And similarly, I think that sometimes when
[15] it could be that the abatement costs are actually
[16] we are on the verge of a new set of assumptions
[16] higher than what the permits are reflecting.
[17] about how things are going to operate we, for the
(17)
Public Utilities Commissions are possibly
18] purposes of common sense, we say, well, we need to
[18] restraining the trade in these permits as
19] calculate these costs on the assumption that the
(19) economists and I think most people would desire
[O] low-hanging fruit or the easy choices if they were
[20] that that permit trading is free. There is the
21] actually that profitable they would already be
[21] property rights issue because the Congress said
22] showing up somehow.
[22] this is not a property right.
Page 248
Page 251
[1]
But just as a pump needs to be primed, the
[1]
So, my suggestion is that we learn from
[2] perception of and selection of the most cost-effective
[2] those lessons, the property rights and all the
[3] options needs to be lubricated by the
[3] other ones, to design a better tradable permit
[4] liquidity of trading in the new ideas that have not
[4] system, a credible one for global climate change.
[5] even been looked at previously because they haven't
[5] DR. SANDOR: And I would agree with that
[6] been examined. There is a, I don't know,
[6] hypothesis. I do question or having been involved
(7) stickiness is a word that economists use. There's
[7] in making some of the first trades in the SO2
[8] a certain stickiness that people have that keeps
[8] market, and having debated bid and offer prices,
[9] them stuck in the old way of looking at what is
[9] looking at that inefficient market, I found a much
[10] available and what is not available.
[10] higher estimate just on one person's experience.
(11] And, therefore, when we start priming this
[11]
I do think the Vice President is 100
[12] particular pump and moving into a carbon emissions
[12] percent spot on that this is an il-liquid,
[13] trading, I think that it is much more reasonable to
[13] inefficient market.
[14] assume that we don't have perfect information at
[14] And right now somebody will make an
(15) all. We have no idea how many opportunities are
[15] argument that it is a $100 ton and as a market
[16] out there to have very large savings at much lower
[16] practitioner I would like to ask them, could I sell
[17] costs because we haven't really felt the need to
[17] that to you at that and the answer is often, no, I
18] break out of our old way of looking at it and look
(18) would like to buy at $4 or $5.
(19) in a new way.
[19]
So, now, we have a market, $5 bid, $100
[20] Now, if you would like to comment or
[20] offered and somewhere in between-
21] Professor Stavins?
[21]
[Laughter.]
22] DR. STAVINS: Far be it from me to take on
[22] DR. SANDOR:-somewhere in between it
Page 249
Page 252
[1] defending the 22,000 members of the American
[1] trades, Mr. Vice President and I think that is far
[2] Economic Association. So, I will focus a little
[2] lower than what people think.
[3] more on what I think is an important point you are
[3] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: And it is more fun
[4] raising, Mr. Vice President. And certainly I
[4] when there is a pit, isn't there?
[5] should not be interpreted and I think most
[5] DR. SANDOR: Yes.
[6] economists should not be interpreted as slamming
[6] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: If we do carbon,
[7] the SO2 tradable permits program. I worked very
[7] there is going to be a pit for carbon.
[8] hard with Secretary Wirth at the time to coax the
(8) DR. SANDOR: We like the hand waving and
[9] Bush Administration into developing and proposing
[9] open outcry.
10] that program to the Congress which enacted it.
[10] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: There's got to be a
11)
But I think it is very important that we
[11] pit for carbon.
12] learn correctly from the lesson so that we design
[12]
Bill, did you want to comment?
13] better and better systems for global climate
[13] PROFESSOR NORDHAUS: Yes. I just wanted
14] change. And the reality is that although it is
[14] to say I think there are a couple of lessons here.
[15] true that very, very early on in the history there
[15] The first is if the best minds in this area, and
16] were numerical estimates of $1,000 a ton trading,
[16] these are not just economists, these are utility
17] that if you look at the final estimates for the
[17] executives, these are people who do estimates in
18] final legislation that was enacted that included
(18) the environmental community, are off by a
19] something like a $3.5 million bonus allowances
[19] significant amount, whether it is 100 percent or
20] given out to utilities that, in fact, the
[20] 500 percent, then I think the lesson there is there
21] predictions were about $170 to $200 a ton.
[21] are really great uncertainties.
22]
You combine that with what Dr.-
[22]
And I think we ought to carry that over
Page 247 Page 252 (44)
Min-U-Scripto
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
me House Comerence on Cumate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
Page 253
(1) here and say there really are large uncertainties.
[2] Whether it is a $1 a ton or five cents a ton or
(3) $100 a ton, I don't think I want to stake my
reputation on one particular number.
I think we need to design our policies
with the idea that there are large uncertainties
[7] here.
[8] VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I think that's
[9] another argument in favor of the kind of safety
(10] valve approach that Mr. Stavins mentioned before. We have
[11] run out of time but if any of the panelists
[12] here want to make any other comments, I will
[13] certainly-
[14]
Well, if not, let me just mention briefly
[15] that two members of our Administration's economic
[16] team who were not recognized earlier due to an
[17] oversight, include the Chairman of the National
[18] Economic Council Gene Sperling [ph], who has been
(19) integral to this entire process and who has been a
[20] Co-Chair of the President's process, along with
[21] Katie McGinty and Dan Tarullo, also with the
[22] National Economic Council.
Page 254
(1)
And earlier, when Secretary Albright was
[2] here, I wanted to acknowledged the members of her
[3] team, my long-time colleague, Tim Wirth, who is
[4] here, also, Stew Eizenstat and others.
[5]
And I want to thank everybody who has been
[6] a part of today's panels. It has been a very,
(7) interesting experience for those of us who have
[8] been able to participate in it. Many of you will
[9] be attending the reception a little bit later at
[10] the White House and I will look forward to seeing
(11) you there.
Just in closing, let me express the hope
hat by listening to the evidence brought forward
by the experts and the practical perspectives of
5] non-experts we have all learned about the risks of
[16] global warming, as well as some of the approaches
[17] that will help us reverse it.
[18]
As you take these thoughts home with you,
[19] please, continue to consider how you might manage
[20] the problem from your own perspective.
[21]
President Clinton and I strongly believe
[22] that we must build our economy and protect our
Page 255
[1] environment all at the same time and that we can do
[2] that best by tapping the inventive ideas that arise
(3) in the minds of the American people.
[4]
On behalf of the President, I want to
[5] thank Todd Stern and the team of people who have
[6] helped him in coordinating this. I think they have
(7) done an outstanding job. I want to thank all of
[8] you for coming and in closing would like to ask all
[9] of you to join me in thanking the members of our
[10] final panel.
[11]
[Applause.]
(12)
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(45) Page 253 Page 255
Lawyer's Notes
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
173 3:6
21st 18:9; 20:4; 21:17;
550 47:17, 18; 48:1; 82:1
Absolutely 48:6; 72:2;
$
179 3:8
22:2; 32:14; 127:14;
550-part-per-million
74:4; 75:9; 111:11;
18 73:2, 20; 144:18;
131:17; 172:17; 184:21;
82:7
141:10; 159:2; 188:4
214:7
242:7; 253:2
174:20
550-parts-per-million
absorbed 76:13
180 196:6
22,000 249:1
82:18
absorbers 200:15
000 245:3; 249:16
500 239:15
183 3:10
220-year 23:8
absorption 115:11
$1.32 190:5
189 3:16
222 3:26
6
abundantly 14:1; 78:18
228 3:28
academia 131:21
$10 226:1; 234:1, 13, 15
1928 153:10
1930 101:16
23 93:8; 100:9; 122:4
$100 226:5; 239:18;
6 41:3; 43:17; 63:1
Academy 32:21
250:9; 251:15, 19; 253:3
1943:12
23-gallons 190:4
6,000 99:5
accelerate 93:19; 219:18
$15 65:11
1950 66:4
235 3:29
60 35:6; 159:20
accelerated 67:9
$150 239:18
238 3:31
accelerates 125:22
1964 78:8
60-percent 137:19
$170 249:21
1970s 223:19; 224:4
24 53:5; 119:21
66 205:7
accelerating 14:6; 15:10;
$2 242:7
25 37:12, 16; 47:3; 205:6;
16:19; 105:16
1973 226:21
6:00 120:10
$2,000 239:15
221:1
accept 8:11; 169:17;
1978 226:21
6th 25:4
$20 50:8; 241:15; 242:5;
250 99:19
240:5
1979 74:9; 226:21
198 3:14
26 195:10, 15; 196:4, 5
accepted 177:7
247:3
7
access 128:13; 140:8;
$200 239:17; 249:21
1980 39:7
280 82:3
141:21; 160:7, 7; 176:14
$250 239:17
1980's 51:15, 17; 65:5
29 156:16
7 132:18
accompanied 4:19;
$3.5 249:19
1980s 166:12; 230:9
295 114:13
70 97:3; 191:7
14:14; 148:15
$300 239:17
1982 77:12
2:00 120:9
700 40:19; 47:15
accompany 27:22
125:8; 251:18
1984 158:20
2:10 148:10
75 191:1
accompanying 41:1
65:19; 251:18, 19
1987 210:7
750 82:15
accomplish 227:6
$515 196:7
1988 65:9
3
accomplished 230:10
$600 239:16; 245:2
1990 137:3; 187:6;
8
according 159:16;
$70 239:18; 244:13, 14,
201:17; 206:19; 220:11;
223:11
3 56:17, 20; 190:21
16; 250:8
221:15; 223:10; 236:20;
30 36:9; 47:6, 8; 63:2;
Accordingly 170:7
$90 244:15, 16
244:22
8 62:5; 132:18
196:22; 223:12; 228:20
account 75:15; 90:8;
1990's 51:17; 65:6
8-1/2 132:7
30,000 73:6
127:6; 190:14
1
1991 21:20
80 37:15; 52:10; 71:21;
accounted 37:8
300 56:19; 60:11; 112:22;
1992 167:11
92:12; 94:1; 159:21
156:22; 224:1; 250:2
accounting 177:7, 19;
1992-is 81:14
800 98:17; 245:1
203:21
89:15; 128:8
33 30:16; 31:20; 78:10
1.1 241:1, 4
1995 8:22; 39:7; 57:5;
80s 165:14
accounts 91:15
34th 8:22
157:18; 158:12
85 127:6
accurate 19:2; 75:7;
1.2 178:16
35 93:7; 183:12
1996 50:5; 62:2, 5; 65:13
247:1
1.3 160:6
350 82:13
1.9 160:7
365 82:2; 238:14
9
accustomed 8:8
2
achieve 20:13; 23:2;
1/10th 37:20
37 197:1
107:13; 116:20; 130:18;
1/6th 38:15
39 43:22
90 99:11; 104:1;
169:9, 18; 199:4; 217:6;
2 41:3; 50:7; 105:19;
229:15
10 41:9; 43:15; 46:12, 13,
220:18; 233:6; 237:4
17; 47:7; 51:3, 9; 53:1;
128:12
4
94 51:20
achieved 42:5
60:1, 2, 12, 16; 66:15;
2,000 34:9; 216:17
95 51:21; 118:11
achievement 21:22
129:6, 9; 132:15
2,500 70:13
98 57:6
2.1 158:12
4 25:19; 37:10; 43:15;
achieving 100:8; 167:22;
10,000 42:8
241:4; 245:1
185:22
100 38:19; 39:6; 43:16,
20 25:20, 22; 30:20;
A
17; 56:21; 59:21; 63:20;
46:14; 50:6; 52:8; 77:10;
4.7 173:22; 178:15
acid 200:17; 238:18
91:14; 94:8; 107:22;
40 27:5; 43:17; 118:11;
acknowledge 10:7
70:17; 74:13; 75:14;
111:16; 142:8; 251:11;
115:8; 169:13; 220:16;
156:4; 174:17
abatement 229:16;
acknowledged 254:2
252:19
242:12
400 98:16
234:14; 250:15
acquired 190:9, 9
105 63:18, 21
200 77:13
45 37:13; 159:20
abilities 9:14
acres 241:2, 4
110 63:18
2005 201:16
465 57:5
ability 14:8; 105:7; 112:9;
across 20:9; 48:22;
112 118:10
2010 183:11; 220:11;
145:19; 146:16; 189:9;
68:11; 115:3; 118:15
12 151:7
5
242:18
223:10; 236:19
act 26:1; 31:22; 154:4, 5;
able 12:12; 15:2; 120:13;
167:5; 206:5; 210:4;
13 93:10; 183:11
203 3:19
122:2; 125:3; 139:12, 17;
217:15, 17; 218:9; 237:6,
14 91:15; 99:6
2030 38:12; 83:14; 132:9
5 41:9; 46:11, 12, 17; 51:3,
140:8; 163:12, 21; 182:22;
6; 242:9
1400 39:3
2035 38:12
52:22
211:9; 217:16; 228:13;
acted 162:16
15 47:1
2040 48:1
5,000 73:6
245:18; 254:8
acting 6:7
150 57:9; 99:18
2060 48:1
50 17:5; 42:1; 47:6; 49:10,
about-a 133:8
action 24:18; 28:22;
500 142:7
20th 48:21; 51:5; 184:21
10; 65:9; 121:4; 159:21;
about-we 134:5
45:20; 87:2; 136:22;
62:4; 132:9
21 131:18; 133:17; 220:17
220:16; 221:17
above 33:17; 36:9; 72:17,
168:4; 194:15, 16; 196:16;
160,000 41:13, 20
2100 40:10, 20; 41:8, 20
500 252:20
18; 73:6; 159:11
197:7, 8, 22; 198:7;
165 3:4
215 3:23
51 60:4
abroad 195:9, 22; 221:5
210:12; 246:14
17 157:20
218 3:25
53 196:22
absolute 206:8
action-that 108:4
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(1) $1 action-that
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
actions 194:10; 195:20;
adults 156:19
ago 19:22; 20:1; 29:3;
alone 23:12; 28:9; 37:2,
ample 52:17; 53:15
196:2; 202:2, 6; 206:10;
advance 10:9; 14:13;
30:16, 20; 51:18; 60:16;
17; 65:18; 98:9; 196:20
analogous 35:9
240:18
31:15; 144:8
67:17; 88:21; 107:22;
along 38:6; 39:11; 44:9;
analogy 211:5
active 17:22; 162:12;
advanced 65:21; 84:20;
144:19; 147:10; 150:8;
51:15; 59:1; 67:3; 79:21;
219:17
85:4; 134:6; 135:21;
167:13; 196:13; 239:17
analyses 220:21; 222:17
81:1; 87:8; 118:19;
actively 18:18
224:15
ago-and 147:8
218:11; 253:20
analysis 41:14; 55:15;
217:9; 218:16; 231:4
activities 33:17; 35:19;
advances 14:14; 110:7;
agree 25:11; 59:22;
Already 16:18; 25:1;
36:14; 71:15, 18; 73:11;
170:20
144:1; 147:1; 198:6;
41:2, 18; 43:6; 44:18;
analysts 34:10; 81:19;
174:22
201:2; 209:12; 251:5
124:13; 151:3
Advancing 172:8
45:16; 49:18; 50:2, 3;
activity 73:12; 198:1;
advantage 22:21; 31:12;
agreed 19:19; 199:1
58:19; 59:7; 83:2, 13;
analyzed 220:9
242:15
84:20; 85:4; 94:22; 97:2;
ancestors 18:12
105:7; 170:19
agreeing 198:9
Acts 162:14; 180:15
109:8; 124:16, 19; 136:20;
advantages 202:9
agreement 81:17; 85:14;
ancillary 197:16
87:6; 167:22; 170:7;
156:4; 160:6; 161:14, 17;
actually 22:22; 30:3;
and-in 48:11
advertisements 177:6
170:9; 176:6, 20; 190:18;
49:8, 16, 17; 51:7; 52:16;
193:19; 203:1; 209:3;
anecdotal 59:13; 60:19;
Advisor 11:11
210:5; 211:6
193:13; 216:5; 221:7, 18;
53:10; 60:22; 61:2, 18;
61:19
64:6; 72:8; 113:15;
Advisors 11:10; 32:12;
222:1; 240:17; 244:4;
agreements 207:16, 20;
Angeles 61:7
115:10, 15; 141:21; 144:4;
88:22; 131:15; 172:4;
247:6, 14, 21
209:12
animal 191:3
179:20; 224:3; 247:21;
179:4
alter 13:19; 15:2; 67:13
agrees 25:8; 174:5
animals 54:16; 197:14
250:15
advocate 151:9
altered 14:18
agricultural 65:11;
anniversary 210:8
acute 156:6
Advocates 117:4; 151:4
128:18; 129:2; 161:2;
alternative 30:21; 109:7;
announce 87:14
adapt 6:7; 44:15; 240:6
advocates-are 234:4
191:4, 13; 225:11
110:1; 126:19, 22; 127:11;
adaptation 204:13, 18;
AEP 26:21
137:10; 138:11; 139:18;
announced 20:2;
Agriculture 10:16;
141:20; 147:6; 192:7
114:11, 12
225:14
aerosols 75:17
44:15; 54:14; 64:15; 65:20
adapted 204:22
ahead 15:3, 4; 24:4; 32:4;
alternatives 105:22;
announcement 144:19
affairs 7:20; 149:15
affect 13:11; 42:15; 45:6;
84:9; 211:9; 225:16; 238:6
109:22; 130:18
annual 51:11; 62:3;
add 25:2; 62:11; 116:3;
68:22; 123:13; 129:6;
144:11; 146:4; 190:21;
AIDS 151:11
although 24:16; 38:13;
53:22; 54:12; 74:5;
61:20; 79:10; 144:6;
159:21
192:15
145:19, 19; 153:16;
air 12:8; 38:21; 39:12;
168:3; 249:14
annually 133:3; 134:12;
added 101:21; 150:20;
174:10, 11; 176:16; 235:9,
41:14; 57:14, 16, 22; 58:6;
altitude 159:13
160:11, 12
176:17; 204:3
11
72:17, 18; 99:2; 119:19;
120:2, 3, 3; 126:1, 4;
altitudes 45:4
Antarctic 41:15; 43:9
adding 14:2; 35:20
affected 50:7; 58:3;
addition 4:6; 36:21;
154:15; 155:22; 162:17,
altogether 37:14; 44:3
anthem 5:2,3
65:10; 74:15, 17; 145:3;
21; 175:5
aluminum 120:18
anticipate 49:22; 187:7
51:17; 188:7; 250:13
157:9; 163:19
additional 52:8; 190:21;
aired 171:1
affecting 22:9
always 117:19; 124:2;
anticipation 7:22
233:22; 245:22
airplanes 93:11
137:15; 146:16; 204:2;
any-to 131:10
affects 67:6; 74:22;
additions 36:20; 37:2, 9;
156:20; 166:22; 174:8, 10,
Airport 98:19
247:1
anybody 101:1; 142:1;
129:6
12
aisles 214:21
amazing 30:15, 19; 31:1
143:21; 246:3, 16
address 6:16; 11:18;
afford 57:22; 184:22
Alaska 54:17
Ambassador 10:20;
anybody-on 205:21
24:7; 91:7; 93:12; 94:16;
148:15
affording 186:15
Albright 3:3; 10:14;
anymore 79:1; 108:5;
161:19; 182:16; 190:14;
AFL-CIO 3:29; 217:22;
165:7, 17; 182:12; 186:20;
ambitious 138:21
114:15
202:12; 209:19; 218:7;
235:14
188:17; 189:3; 202:12;
America 12:12; 19:15;
anyone 11:8; 79:7; 216:2;
233:9; 235:17
208:16; 213:1, 3; 254:1
20:3, 10; 21:2; 30:22;
231:2
addressed 167:5
Africa 128:16; 154:18;
algae 115:12, 14
50:12; 77:1; 128:16;
Anyway 142:22; 188:14;
158:16, 22; 186:3; 189:19
addresses 232:18
alive 20:5
140:14; 154:20; 183:14;
207:11
African-Americans
185:11
addressing 5:22; 26:16;
157:4
all-time 62:3
anywhere 215:2
80:14; 81:2; 171:18;
America's 18:4; 19:2;
allergies 58:10
apartment 89:20
afternoon 30:7; 148:9,
186:17
27:20; 100:13; 151:3
21; 149:3; 155:12; 171:4
Alliance 123:9
Apollo 29:3
adequate 195:22;
American 3:11; 12:10;
afternoon's 151:1
allocate 233:18
apologies 246:2
237:16; 238:5
20:5; 26:8, 18; 28:16;
afterward 20:11
allocation 246:18
adjust 168:16
64:15; 65:20; 125:15;
apologize 11:7; 135:7
adjustable 204:4
again 9:16; 11:7; 12:12;
allotted 140:5
140:7; 156:21; 160:16;
apparent 64:12; 80:3;
51:14, 21; 58:12; 63:3;
allow 21:8; 26:4; 73:13;
162:22; 166:10; 172:11;
246:15, 16
adjustment 236:10
76:9; 147:2; 152:2, 18;
74:14; 87:4; 88:12;
193:7; 208:20; 209:1;
apparently 68:7
adjustments 86:5, 7
153:12; 160:8; 188:6;
119:22; 120:5, 16; 168:15;
216:21; 220:22; 237:11,
appear 77:20; 179:13
administer 143:10
226:21; 230:22; 232:1;
170:19; 178:2; 182:17;
22; 249:1
appears 76:15
administration 6:3;
233:6
197:20; 200:11; 218:9;
Americans 20:16; 54:1;
applaud 182:3
19:18; 32:17; 110:4, 12;
against 18:7; 187:8
220:3, 22; 227:4
90:11; 116:17; 151:14;
age 20:17; 154:12;
allowance 230:7; 231:18
205:20
applauds 231:3
136:15; 202:14; 249:9
allowances 249:19
among 156:18; 161:12;
Applause 4:15, 21; 9:19;
administration's 170:1;
158:14
199:3; 253:15
Agency 10:19; 159:17
168:21; 210:11; 230:11,
12:18; 19:7; 32:2; 47:12;
allowing 231:12, 13
Administrator 10:18
15, 16
53:19; 87:19; 92:21;
agenda 162:7; 163:18
allows 192:14; 198:20
100:21; 107:18; 116:5;
admit 142:20
amortized 108:16; 109:9
aggravate 156:14
alluded 94:4
123:19; 131:1; 136:5;
admittedly 207:22
amount 43:18; 62:3;
aggregate 68:21
143:4, 17; 148:3, 18;
alma 152:19
67:11; 68:21; 69:5; 126:2;
adopt 96:2
152:15, 20; 164:5, 10;
aggressive 134:3;
almost 43:4; 80:22;
127:8; 199:11; 241:21;
165:16; 172:22; 178:19;
adopted 167:18; 187:12;
228:17; 245:2
124:2; 139:1; 151:6;
252:19
182:11; 186:21; 193:2;
220:20
aggressively 218:9
216:10; 220:12
amounts 72:3; 109:9;
198:4; 201:18; 208:15;
adoption 128:21
agnostic 233:7
almost-to 138:22
199:16
214:15; 222:11; 226:18;
actions Applause (2)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
on
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
232:6; 238:11; 243:11
art 29:21
attempt 137:2
96:15; 116:15; 124:21;
8; 148:5; 166:14; 167:9;
Appliances 91:13, 14
articulate 52:2
attempted 204:7, 8;
131:14; 164:7; 165:18;
169:9; 201:15; 236:13
applicability 85:6
artificially 79:19
207:17
179:1; 191:16; 209:4;
beginning 23:8; 31:6;
attempting 171:13
222:13
pplicable 117:15
59:20; 153:5; 160:19;
ascending 180:1, 2
plication 118:3;
Asia 128:15; 154:19;
attend 181:10
back-Mike 139:13
206:21; 210:14; 235:3;
back-end 208:5
244:19
3:22; 149:12
158:22; 183:14; 184:1;
attending 254:9
185:11; 186:7, 7,
back-to-back 193:6
begun 25:1; 213:9
applied 120:2
attention 6:3; 12:2; 85:2;
92:19; 216:12
bacteria 158:3; 160:3
behalf 10:6; 18:3; 29:17;
applies 108:18
Asian 186:13
apply 89:9; 126:2; 200:3
aside 129:8; 150:13
attractive 225:19
bad 84:2; 160:5; 206:19
88:3; 149:1; 201:22;
240:22
appreciate 88:7; 90:12;
ask-I 79:6
attributable 187:16
bail 224:10
behave 138:19
116:1; 237:12
aspect 134:15; 177:4;
attributed 74:18, 20
balance 18:11; 19:12;
behind 4:9; 31:2; 144:8;
approach 13:10; 14:18;
179:11
Atwood 11:2
21:12
154:17; 166:2
16:8, 17; 21:3; 24:11;
aspects 13:7; 171:6;
balanced 162:10
auction 243:22
Beijing 125:20, 21;
31:15; 135:15; 168:9;
213:21
auctioned 230:17
balancing 225:13
126:1, 4
170:1; 200:5; 217:13;
aspiration 190:10
auctions 134:21; 239:15,
balcony 150:12
beings 8:16; 63:9
218:8; 220:6, 21; 232:18;
aspirations 107:15
ball 48:5
233:13; 253:10
16; 243:17
belabor 62:4
approaches 26:10;
assaults 23:20
audible 214:22
Ballard 27:6, 9
Belgium-and 125:7
203:14; 254:16
assess 67:22
audience 10:11; 68:17;
balloon 241:9, 11
believe 20:1; 24:6; 60:19;
approaching 16:12
assessment 25:10;
76:10; 136:3; 153:4
balloons 241:13
61:6, 9; 64:4; 70:11; 71:8;
70:14
audio 5:3
ban 23:13
74:16; 76:2, 5, 18; 78:5;
appropriate 13:14;
56:12; 166:19; 170:8;
assessments 34:11
band 78:22
94:11; 105:14; 106:2;
Australia 77:7
114:14; 117:16; 128:10;
219:20; 220:4; 231:13;
assigned 188:12
author 172:7
bang 146:17
129:13; 130:10; 162:2;
246:2
assist 176:7
authoritative 34:10
Bank 3:6; 33:6; 51:17;
178:13; 180:6, 17; 181:2;
appropriately 154:4
assistance 121:8, 17;
authorities 7:20
172:5; 173:6; 178:8;
216:16; 222:7; 225:7;
approval 207:18
221:16; 233:15
170:13
auto 110:11; 112:19;
241:7; 245:16; 254:21
approved 108:15;
assisting 178:8, 9
banking 231:14
116:8
believed 117:19
195:11; 243:18
barrels 132:8, 9, 15
associated 40:8, 12;
automobile 113:3
bellies 238:16; 242:18
approximately 160:10;
41:4; 67:18
barrier 130:17
automobiles 93:8, 21;
below 24:5; 80:10;
223:22; 224:1
Associates 3:10; 172:7
112:9; 145:15
barriers 85:2
200:19
arable 161:5
Association 249:2
automotive 119:14
base 185:6; 187:6, 13, 20;
benchmarks 31:4
cane 240:7
246:3
assume 28:10; 101:11;
availability 43:5; 161:4
bend 82:16
chitecture 181:8
248:14
based 12:22; 41:14;
available 52:17; 84:18;
beneficial 53:9
Arctic 47:4
assumed 151:15; 247:12
55:15; 68:6; 85:22; 102:5;
88:12; 91:18, 19; 104:5;
benefit 7:2; 69:22; 101:1;
are-therefore 108:17
105:2; 111:20; 114:20;
assuming 232:1
117:12; 120:9, 12; 122:1;
124:9; 170:6; 197:15
141:17; 170:1; 217:13;
area 56:8; 59:4; 61:2;
assumption 246:10;
124:15; 127:17; 136:21;
236:22
benefits 7:3; 124:10;
66:21; 89:2; 106:19;
247:1, 19
246:14, 19; 248:10, 10
186:12; 197:11, 16
basic 20:19; 39:18; 115:9
123:18; 130:7; 136:2;
assumptions 220:14;
average 14:7; 34:19;
189:15; 192:1, 20; 196:21;
basically 60:21; 68:16;
benign 212:9
247:16
41:9; 51:3; 54:1; 62:18;
197:11; 238:20; 252:15
63:1, 2, 21; 100:7
83:20; 85:9; 203:4;
Berlin 167:14, 18
assurance 82:22;
241:16; 245:18
Besides 137:10
areas 51:6, 7; 59:7;
168:18; 196:1
average-per-capita
119:13; 128:6; 156:9, 22;
83:15
Basin 250:11
best 30:2; 39:21; 73:3;
159:7; 174:12; 190:22;
assure 70:10; 150:13;
avert 81:3
basis 34:11; 61:1, 20;
105:7; 110:16; 127:18;
186:16; 196:3; 201:10;
68:22; 71:2; 104:1, 16;
141:17; 195:4; 201:9;
191:2; 192:10, 14
237:20; 238:5
avoid 31:16; 105:9;
Argentina 128:1
109:1, 7; 130:1, 6; 135:12;
217:6, 10, 11; 222:19;
asthma 58:10; 154:21;
183:20; 201:13; 226:20
165:20; 167:5; 168:9;
239:16; 246:14; 252:15
argue 71:13; 73:1; 143:1
156:14, 15, 20; 157:10
avoided 123:14
171:19; 238:3
better 15:16; 80:1, 5;
argued 70:21; 142:18
astronaut 29:13, 16;
avoiding 47:10; 82:22
batteries 93:17; 189:16,
84:15; 85:19; 86:19; 91:6;
argument 79:14; 80:12;
30:5; 172:10
await 149:17
17
112:4; 117:9; 144:15;
211:12; 251:15; 253:9
astronauts 29:4, 8
aware 165:11; 166:5, 16;
145:8; 151:10, 13; 163:15;
battery 93:15
arguments 71:11;
185:3; 186:11; 201:17;
astute 151:3
204:20
battle 13:17
230:18
243:4; 249:13, 13; 251:3
Atlantic 53:12
awareness 119:2; 125:3,
beautiful 55:10
arising 9:5
10, 14; 138:17; 139:19;
beyond 13:1; 41:2;
atmosphere 13:21;
became 78:22; 210:10
Arizona 32:20; 54:22;
81:21; 126:5
14:21; 29:11; 35:4, 16, 20;
168:5
240:19; 241:20
Bechtel 126:17
Bible 163:5
36:9, 16; 37:9, 13, 18;
away 25:14; 60:14; 69:21;
Arkansas 151:7
38:20; 39:14; 42:22;
84:11; 98:21; 106:20;
become 37:4; 52:16;
bickering 84:16
armed 166:4
183:7, 11; 227:15
166:16; 168:9
52:13; 72:9; 73:6; 75:4;
bid 251:8, 19
79:16; 119:4; 160:22;
awestruck 29:9
becomes 145:20
around 4:10; 8:7; 10:10;
big 89:12; 93:4; 101:4;
30:14; 38:12; 70:17; 73:3;
176:16; 197:16; 200:15;
awful 132:21; 182:14
becoming 59:8; 102:1;
111:6, 10; 112:19; 116:7;
78:2; 81:9; 109:12, 13;
209:20
104:5
117:2; 119:20; 143:7, 8;
118:11; 132:19; 133:4, 19,
Atmospheric 32:16;
beer 100:4
185:1, 6, 8; 187:18; 188:1;
B
145:2; 156:5; 164:19;
36:13; 38:18; 40:2, 7, 18;
began 101:15; 206:18;
203:2; 239:20
1:7, 10; 194:22; 197:4;
41:17; 43:13; 71:14; 72:1;
209:19; 210:12
bigger 44:9; 68:14;
10:11
73:9; 121:15; 179:19, 20
Babbitt 10:15
begin 11:19; 15:11, 16;
143:15; 196:20
arrangement 175:19
attack 143:6
back 15:3, 20; 18:8;
18:9; 24:9; 32:5; 103:8, 16;
biggest 85:20; 108:10;
array 42:12; 127:16
attacks 166:4
21:19; 22:3; 35:12; 59:19;
114:1; 129:5; 144:5, 7,7,
112:15; 146:17, 18;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(3) Appliances biggest
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
147:13; 154:9
bottom 24:16; 40:13;
134:12; 135:9; 162:10;
223:1; 229:16; 234:3;
capture 93:18
Bill 10:21; 11:19; 222:15;
82:14; 84:8; 135:11; 166:9
199:9, 11, 16, 20; 219:7
235:6; 241:8, 9; 244:9
captured 230:12
229:13, 18; 247:3; 252:12
bottomed 244:14
build 17:4; 22:2; 30:21;
called 12:6; 27:1; 34:18;
car 93:19; 189:16, 16
billion 14:2; 50:8; 62:18;
bought 138:12
108:8; 146:3; 162:7;
35:8; 72:7; 76:21; 149:19;
carbon 35:14, 21, 22;
65:11, 19; 105:19; 123:12;
boundaries 29:7; 56:19
171:16; 185:15; 227:9, 11;
179:21; 196:15
36:8; 37:2, 20; 38:20;
128:12; 134:12; 158:12;
254:22
boy 154:17
calling 47:13
40:11, 19, 20, 22; 41:4, 12,
160:6, 7; 173:22; 176:10,
build-up 38:18
brag 153:19
calls 180:4; 184:2
17, 21; 42:4; 43:13; 45:15;
12, 13; 178:16, 16; 190:22
building 12:13; 17:4;
46:7, 10, 21; 57:11; 71:14,
billions 14:8; 102:12;
brakes 84:2; 226:11
Cambridge 3:9; 172:6
91:10, 21; 92:1; 96:3;
120:4; 164:8; 168:6;
came 8:21; 20:11; 23:12;
19; 72:3, 10; 81:21; 82:10;
108:14; 133:2
brand 213:7
171:7; 186:15
30:16; 70:15; 116:8;
83:9; 85:1, 8; 89:18;
bills 57:17
brave 140:12
121:11; 163:16; 241:16,
103:12, 18; 104:2; 105:2;
bills-why 101:5
Brazil 77:6; 129:4;
buildings 89:19, 19, 20;
18; 245:9
106:12, 13, 20; 130:11;
bind 170:7
174:19; 221:14
91:8, 12; 96:20; 98:6; 99:6,
132:11; 134:8; 138:2;
bread 163:6
15; 108:18; 109:18, 19, 20;
Camp 30:17
binding 25:18; 168:1
142:11; 143:7, 12; 144:4;
137:7; 145:13; 227:10
can 7:1; 12:15; 13:8;
biology 115:8
breadth 203:11, 12
160:22; 177:17; 185:3;
builds 211:7
14:19; 15:4; 16:3, 11, 17;
196:7, 17; 197:1, 15;
biomass 17:9; 96:7;
break 91:5; 93:18; 248:18
built 109:8; 111:20;
17:20, 22; 19:22; 24:6;
200:15; 218:22; 219:2, 12;
106:7; 114:21; 115:2, 4;
breakfast 55:12
145:13
28:19; 30:1; 43:3; 45:5;
220:6; 226:1, 2, 5; 229:1;
128:17, 22; 129:3
breakout 148:5, 8;
bulb 124:17; 137:18, 20;
46:15; 50:13; 52:6, 7;
230:5, 14; 231:7; 234:1;
birds 54:21
163:21
140:15, 18; 141:4
56:16; 57:9; 60:2; 61:3;
236:7, 15; 237:14; 239:7;
birth 29:21
breathe 126:1; 154:22;
65:4; 68:6, 18; 72:9; 74:18;
bulbs 137:17; 138:4;
240:12, 20; 242:2, 11;
bit 5:6; 57:1; 64:21; 73:16,
175:5
75:3, 4; 83:3; 84:5, 7, 20,
224:14; 225:2
244:4, 7; 248:12; 252:6, 7,
22; 86:15; 88:15; 89:8;
17; 110:6; 127:3; 133:8;
breathing 178:5
bundle 112:1
11
90:6; 91:5, 16, 21; 92:8;
136:7; 190:19; 211:14;
breed 160:3
burden 31:22
carbon-based 136:13
93:4, 11, 15, 17, 20; 94:11,
254:9
breeding 58:21
burdened 31:21
19; 95:8; 96:2, 7; 101:6,
carbon-free 104:11;
bite 209:9, 9
Brevares 245:13
19; 102:16; 103:3, 15;
106:18
burn 72:6; 90:17; 92:10;
bits 209:8
Brian 11:2
98:2, 20; 100:2; 142:6;
104:21; 108:12, 20, 21;
carbon-intensive
bitten 208:6
bridge 22:2
176:15
109:3, 10; 110:15; 115:11;
103:19
black 102:3
burning 33:18; 36:1;
116:12; 119:17, 20;
care 4:10; 21:13; 157:8
brief 47:14; 116:7;
blessings 14:11
123:20; 144:12; 187:2;
72:4, 12; 124:3; 184:3
120:19; 121:9; 124:5;
cared 151:10; 172:15;
blind 205:2
232:9
bursts 68:14
129:1; 130:2; 131:10;
231:3
blink 42:5
bury 25:13
132:5; 135:9, 20; 137:5, 5,
career 136:3
briefly 63:8; 76:17; 101:5,
6, 8, 16; 138:9, 9, 11, 12,
block 143:16
13; 155:11; 201:22;
Bus 7:9
Careful 231:4
17; 139:11; 140:13;
blue 49:2
253:14
Bush 249:9
141:15, 18, 20; 142:10, 14;
carefully 45:22; 61:4;
bright 19:5
236:6, 9, 13
blue-and-white 29:19
business 6:15; 11:14;
145:4; 150:13; 153:7;
board 96:11; 105:5;
brighter 154:2
22:8; 26:11; 38:10; 40:14,
156:13; 158:4, 7; 160:20;
caribou 54:19
131:5; 218:3
brightly 92:10
17; 41:21; 42:2; 45:17, 21;
171:14, 15; 175:3; 176:7,
Carnegie 3:18; 171:22
boat 170:3
bring 7:2; 20:8; 22:17;
48:6; 80:17; 82:10; 95:8;
8, 9; 177:13, 16, 18; 178:5,
Carol 10:19
Bob 34:14; 148:21;
50:21; 55:10; 91:22;
96:2; 109:20; 118:10;
6; 182:17; 184:12, 19, 22;
carried 229:13
152:17; 218:5, 7; 222:13;
106:14; 122:10; 129:3;
124:17; 138:13, 15; 139:3,
185:1, 17; 188:21, 22;
carry 130:20; 182:12;
135:1; 155:6; 176:21;
18; 158:21; 179:17; 185:7;
189:5; 191:11, 12, 14, 15,
229:18
252:22
184:7, 18; 191:22; 224:6;
194:18; 219:5; 220:3;
19, 20, 22; 192:2, 4, 9, 10,
bodies 155:1
229:2; 243:9
223:13; 232:20
11; 194:10, 17, 19; 195:1,
carrying 146:22
body 12:22; 34:8; 70:6
bringing 9:13; 22:14;
business-as-usual 81:7
2; 196:1, 3; 201:10, 17;
cars 16:22; 27:11; 113:5;
boiler 120:15
businesses 28:16; 139:4
202:13; 208:6, 7; 209:16;
227:12
128:11
boilers 98:22
211:6; 216:15, 16; 217:2,
Carson's 23:13
brings 6:8; 104:20
buy 116:13, 13; 129:12;
bold 242:16
4, 6, 9; 219:1, 5, 8, 14, 21;
Carter 202:14
brink 107:10
134:22; 137:16, 16; 142:6;
220:7, 10; 222:8; 228:7;
Bolivia 196:11, 14, 18
227:12; 251:18
case 23:21; 47:8; 62:22;
Britain 187:20
229:1, 2, 12, 14, 22; 230:1;
boister 21:12
buy-down 134:20
79:12; 210:19; 220:14;
British 187:22
232:15; 238:8; 241:16, 18,
227:1; 228:22; 231:14;
Bonsignore 95:22;
broad 181:8; 207:18;
buying 101:22; 116:17
20; 242:9; 243:6, 7
233:12
117:11, 22; 123:21;
210:5,9
byproducts 191:4
can-and 8:4
cases 61:9; 90:10;
124:11; 125:1
broad-based 231:18
can-how 141:20
156:15; 158:12; 159:21
bonus 187:18; 249:19
broader 88:20; 202:21;
C
cancer 78:10, 14
Caspian 186:7
book 207:11
211:8
candidly-was 245:9
Casten 95:6; 96:18; 97:1;
border 59:1
broadly 8:8; 207:18
C 153:19, 19
cane 128:19
100:22; 101:15; 124:20;
borders 166:7, 8
brought 7:17; 14:10, 11;
Cabinet 5:5, 8, 18; 10:13;
cap 134:20; 232:12
142:3; 143:13
borne 44:11; 58:16, 17
85:5; 91:16; 171:4;
19:18; 64:6; 164:18
capable 166:5
Casten's 211:18
both 7:2; 12:15, 15;
183:21; 187:22; 250:10;
cables 4:11
capacity 200:13
casting 94:8
27:11, 15; 57:6; 67:11;
254:13
calculate 247:19
Capeila 4:13
catastrophe 31:17
75:15; 78:1; 80:1; 85:15;
brown 47:2; 245:13
105:10; 106:2, 20; 107:3,
Calcutta 158:8
capita 37:19, 20; 38:14
catastrophic 50:10, 10,
Browner 10:19
5. 14; 108:18; 112:14, 16;
California 23:18; 51:21;
Capital 95:19; 110:5;
18; 216:11; 236:11
Bruce 10:15
134:2; 169:22; 176:9;
127:18
146:7; 205:1; 230:21;
catching 23:14
177:15; 193:10; 195:8;
bubbles 41:14
call 64:9; 88:4; 97:17;
242:20
categories 91:3; 138:20
197:14; 202:19; 229:18;
buck 146:18
110:2; 117:10; 146:13;
capping 234:12, 13, 14
category 48:9; 79:3
230:3; 233:10; 243:19
budget 62:16; 64:7;
187:1; 193:5; 215:7;
caps 142:5
causal 78:16
Bill causal (4)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
cause 37:3; 43:7; 55:5;
CHANGE 3:20; 4:4;
154:1; 157:11, 11
11:16, 18; 12:19; 13:3, 6,
coalitions 18:6
63:3; 158:3; 160:9; 161:6
11:16; 13:8; 15:10; 16:8;
chilled 99:9
7, 16; 15:10, 20; 16:5, 8;
coast 67:4; 81:6
caused 57:6; 73:10;
17:18; 20:21; 22:4, 14;
chilling 29:8
17:18; 18:11; 19:4; 22:4,
coastal 44:21
162:22
24:8, 14; 26:16; 32:22;
13; 24:8, 14, 19, 22; 25:11;
chimney 98:4
coax 249:8
uses 33:15, 19; 42:18;
33:7, 13; 34:6; 40:16; 41:4;
26:16; 32:22; 33:7, 13, 14,
42:7, 9, 11; 49:5; 53:7, 22;
China 50:5; 128:1; 129:4;
21; 34:6; 37:4; 39:18, 21;
cogeneration 133:22
3:10; 154:11; 246:10
54:5, 11; 55:4, 14, 16, 21;
147:10, 12, 13, 14; 174:20;
42:13; 44:6; 47:10; 53:16,
coherent 29:2; 150:6
causing 71:18
56:22; 57:11; 59:4; 60:20;
186:8; 221:14
22; 54:17, 18, 20; 55:1, 4,
cold 35:17; 42:13; 49:15,
cautiously 223:6
61:2; 67:16; 70:6; 72:11;
China's 14:3
16; 56:15, 17, 22; 59:15;
18; 54:17; 107:9
cease 214:22
74:14, 17, 18; 75:2; 76:19;
Chinese 125:22, 22
60:20; 61:2, 6, 14; 66:6,
colleague 164:17; 215:5;
ceding 209:8
81:12; 84:12; 87:21;
chips 128:20; 242:17
12; 67:16; 70:6; 73:21;
254:3
Cell 7:9
97:17; 109:1, 7; 114:20;
chlorofluorocarbons
74:6, 11, 15, 16, 22; 76:19;
cells 27:7, 11; 224:15
127:7; 138:15; 145:15;
36:2; 211:12
80:20, 22; 81:12, 16;
colleagues 88:6; 215:9;
Chloroquine-resistant
84:12; 97:17; 118:5;
239:10
149:5; 152:5; 153:8;
Center 7:15; 33:2; 99:21;
155:11, 18; 157:17;
149:5; 152:5; 153:8;
collective 8:11
148:6, 7; 172:2
158:17
159:18; 160:2, 20; 161:15,
155:11, 18; 157:17;
Colombia 159:11
central 173:9; 180:10;
19; 163:18; 166:21;
choice 129:12; 181:3
159:18; 160:2, 20; 161:15,
color 47:2
186:7; 217:4
167:10; 168:12; 170:5, 21;
choices 246:13; 247:20
19; 163:18; 166:11, 21;
Colorado 100:1, 4
centralized 192:6
171:8; 172:16; 174:8;
cholera 59:2; 154:20;
167:10; 168:12; 170:4, 21;
Centre 3:31; 240:22
183:9; 184:11; 186:10, 19;
157:19
171:8; 172:16; 174:8;
colored 49:1
194:7; 202:16; 204:21;
choose 12:12; 86:3, 15;
183:8; 186:9, 19; 194:7;
colors 46:11, 12; 55:10
cents 197:1; 253:2
208:21; 216:20; 225:2;
138:21; 147:6, 19
196:16; 202:16; 204:16;
combat 217:3
centuries 43:12; 46:6
232:1; 235:9; 249:14;
chooses 233:20
208:21; 214:3; 215:21;
combination 63:12;
Century 18:9; 20:4;
251:4
216:2, 20; 221:21; 222:2;
choosing 217:11
69:13; 139:11; 206:3
21:18, 18; 22:2, 12; 32:14;
changed 14:15; 39:15;
225:15; 232:1; 235:9;
chronicle 174:11
combine 249:22
33:22; 36:5; 38:9; 39:2, 3,
166:15
249:13; 251:4
4, 5; 40:9; 48:21; 49:12;
changes 6:7; 33:19, 21;
Chrysler 27:10
climates 59:9
combined 36:22; 99:7,
51:5; 53:17; 56:21; 63:16;
36:2; 37:3; 39:9, 17; 40:8;
cigarettes 78:10, 14
climatic 65:4; 82:22
21; 193:17; 198:15;
80:8; 83:6; 85:21; 87:11;
41:2, 13; 42:12; 44:6;
circulation 75:6
231:18
climatologist 33:3
95:21; 104:18; 127:14;
47:10; 48:16, 19; 49:9, 21;
circumstance 129:14
combines 234:17
131:17; 172:18; 184:21,
climb 134:19
50:2, 20; 51:1; 53:16;
circumstances 44:4
combustion 184:15
22; 214:8; 224:18
clinics 156:5; 160:15;
56:16, 17; 58:16; 61:11;
CEO 95:7; 96:1, 4;
cited 222:16
comfort 17:1
192:1
67:11; 71:15; 73:12; 74:4,
26:15; 172:10
5; 75:20; 76:1; 82:4, 22;
cities 99:7; 154:21
Clinton 11:20; 19:6, 8;
comfortable 80:18
EOs 78:11
139:12; 155:2; 161:3;
citizen 155:15
25:7; 53:20; 59:6, 18;
coming 31:16; 42:22;
citizens 6:15; 23:17;
61:16; 64:3; 68:4; 69:15,
53:3; 68:14; 69:6; 129:7;
eremony 196:15
229:3, 3, 5
ertain 58:9; 94:9; 158:6;
changing 6:5; 13:3;
46:1; 161:18; 163:4
20; 76:7; 79:4; 85:12;
136:19; 183:13
city 61:5; 121:12, 13, 16,
92:22; 96:17; 100:22;
command 219:3; 228:18
178:7; 199:10, 11; 206:8;
33:14; 61:6, 9, 14; 77:9,
107:19; 111:1; 116:3, 6;
246:6; 248:8
14, 22; 192:4; 204:17
20; 122:3, 5; 157:1, 3
commend 239:1
117:4, 6, 10; 131:2; 136:6;
certainly 59:13; 62:9;
chapel 5:14
civilization 18:13
commensurate 60:6
141:2; 142:15, 22; 143:5,
64:3; 81:1; 153:3, 22;
charged 8:20; 153:13
claim 21:4; 79:11
18, 21; 147:1, 17; 148:19;
comment 78:4; 136:9;
162:5; 178:3; 184:20;
charges 130:11
classic 247:2
150:14; 151:8; 152:14, 16,
140:11; 143:22; 187:2;
217:9; 232:16; 249:4;
chart 48:20; 49:1; 50:22,
clean 16:19; 27:8; 106:7;
21; 254:21
248:20; 252:12
253:13
commented 141:22
22; 89:15, 17; 153:5
108:8; 191:20
clip 46:19
certified 241:6
charts 48:18
cleaned 23:14
close 46:4; 87:14;
comments 88:19; 94:4;
cetera 93:11; 145:14
cheap 212:8, 15; 224:21,
cleaner 7:10; 28:18;
118:14; 122:14; 212:21;
119:15; 164:14, 17; 165:4;
CFC 212:3
216:12; 223:17
173:8, 13; 178:21; 209:11;
22, 22; 231:8; 233:5; 234:5
105:21
213:2; 218:6, 7; 246:3;
CFCs 212:1
cheapest 119:9
cleaning 24:5
closely 94:20; 216:10
253:12
chain 101:6
cheaply 27:3; 195:2
cleanup 199:5
closer 50:21
Commerce 95:18; 110:3
Chair 10:22; 11:9; 32:13,
chemicals 23:15; 94:2;
clear 17:19; 20:18; 43:19;
closet-full 212:13
commercial 18:5; 89:20;
20; 70:5; 228:1
120:17
44:5; 68:6; 71:4, 6; 80:15;
closing 94:15; 221:3;
121:21; 135:2
chaired 89:4; 131:18
Chicago 57:5; 99:20;
89:1; 108:9; 123:22;
254:12
commercialization
Chairman 3:11, 30; 96:1;
218:3
155:20; 173:7; 180:6, 9;
clouds 36:17
134:15; 229:6
130:22; 172:10; 217:22;
Chief 3:30; 4:16, 21
184:1; 194:20; 195:18;
Co-Chair 253:20
commercialize 134:18
218:3; 253:17
215:16; 219:22; 223:10;
child 157:9; 163:5
co-generate 241:17
challenge 5:22; 11:18;
236:17; 237:7, 7
commercializing 107:7
child-rearing 21:13
CO2 47:7, 8, 16; 82:19;
24:7; 29:5; 30:8; 90:22;
clear-we 75:9
commercials 171:1
childhood 160:10, 12
97:4, 11; 99:1, 11; 100:6,
clearer 210:11
Commission 243:19
104:3; 150:1; 168:20;
171:6; 183:7; 184:17;
children 15:17; 17:15;
9; 115:11, 17; 122:6;
clearly 15:21; 22:4;
Commissions 250:17
123:14; 124:2, 6; 135:20;
213:8, 20; 214:6
18:3, 14; 26:7; 31:17, 22;
25:12; 47:11; 50:20; 67:5;
179:22; 187:10; 228:14;
commit 25:17
58:2, 12; 151:11, 17, 22;
challenged 6:16; 94:17
73:2; 83:5; 84:10; 109:21,
230:13
commitment 9:1, 5;
152:4; 153:17; 154:3, 7,9,
challenges 5:20; 22:1, 5;
22; 112:6; 113:17; 121:20;
coal 90:9, 17, 20; 97:14;
131:11; 141:8; 164:22;
11, 20; 155:5, 9, 16, 21;
23:7; 132:1; 149:16;
150:4; 167:3; 169:14;
100:2; 106:7; 108:8;
207:4
156:5, 18, 21, 22; 157:1, 7,
(1:12, 15
182:21; 197:16
13, 21; 158:14; 160:8, 14;
133:17, 18; 140:2; 184:15;
commitments 28:14;
fallenging 20:3; 214:10
Cleveland 158:9
161:9; 162:2, 3, 4, 8, 11,
187:22; 188:2, 5; 224:2;
168:1; 182:15
Chamber 215:2
15, 22; 163:11; 177:3, 11,
clever 122:9
229:4; 245:11; 250:11
committed 19:3
chance 21:1; 86:11;
12
clients 175:15
coal-fired 98:14
Committee 32:12, 21;
100:14; 147:6
Children's 153:9, 14;
CLIMATE 3:20; 4:4;
coalition 17:21
89:4
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(5) cause Committee
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Commodities 243:19
65:17; 155:15; 157:13;
49:21; 53:13; 61:19;
convinced 24:13; 71:17;
167:20, 21; 168:18; 170:2;
commodity 216:9
159:7; 161:21; 216:13
75:21; 220:1
141:9
171:10, 13, 18; 172:9;
common 7:16; 18:7;
concerned 58:15, 22;
constantly 122:20
cooker 189:21, 21
173:11, 12, 14, 18; 174:19;
24:7; 30:10; 168:9;
61:15; 121:13; 156:3;
constitutes 81:18
cool 27:3; 99:20; 120:3;
179:9; 180:9, 17; 181:17,
175:20; 187:5; 214:19;
157:16; 166:10; 195:19;
construct 143:10
158:5
20, 21; 182:15; 183:14, 19;
247:18
223:4; 224:6; 240:13, 15,
constructed 197:6
cooling 91:11
184:4, 20; 187:7; 188:21;
commonalities 190:5
15
189:13; 190:20, 20; 191:1;
consume 108:22
cooperation 186:15
communication 242:17
concerning 78:4; 209:11
193:15, 18; 195:2; 199:2,
consumed 127:8
cooperative 200:5
communities 237:18
concerns 233:11; 235:8
8, 14, 17; 200:3; 201:4;
consumer 116:17;
concerted 168:4
cooperatively 84:16
204:11, 20; 207:5, 9;
community 8:10; 15:19;
123:8; 125:4; 139:3, 19;
Coors 100:3
213:17; 214:4, 5; 219:14;
20:15; 78:8; 149:18, 22;
concise 173:3
140:1,
169:22; 209:19; 232:20;
copy 135:8
221:7, 13; 222:9; 228:15
concluded 24:20; 212:3;
consumer-if 139:4
233:4; 237:4; 252:18
core 237:19
countries-start 83:13
216:19
consumers 129:10, 11,
concluding 213:2
cores 41:15
country 12:11; 17:20;
companies 26:16; 78:12;
15; 130:15; 138:10, 12, 17;
18:1, 3; 20:4, 7; 61:14;
94:14; 110:11; 112:19;
conclusion 106:22;
226:14
corn 66:3
65:8, 12; 66:13; 67:14;
116:8; 144:22; 193:17;
168:2; 231:21; 242:21
consumption 26:14;
Corp 126:18
68:11; 81:9; 96:22; 97:12;
199:20; 200:2; 201:4
conclusions 25:9
119:21; 120:7, 13; 127:7,
Corporation 95:7; 99:5
101:4; 132:19; 153:18;
Company 26:21; 196:10;
concrete 16:13
14; 183:10, 12; 186:5
correctly 126:13; 249:12;
154:7; 164:19; 167:12;
197:10; 240:21
conditioning 57:15, 16,
contain 147:12, 12
250:9
170:13; 179:5; 180:13;
company's 96:19
22
contains 104:2
correlates 61:10
194:18; 195:5, 13; 199:12;
204:12; 235:10
comparability 45:13
conditions 21:8; 42:12;
contaminated 72:15, 22
correspondence 75:17
65:22; 66:7; 69:17;
country's 78:19
compare 226:4
content 36:8; 75:3;
correspondingly 74:11
compared 47:7; 82:2;
121:15; 154:13; 156:14
230:14; 234:1
couple 34:7; 53:17; 55:8;
cost 24:5; 85:9; 89:11;
196:8; 229:16
conduct 243:17
88:21; 113:22, 22; 147:7,
contest 169:3
91:19; 109:10; 121:13;
10; 179:11; 252:14
compatible 23:2
CONFERENCE 3:1; 4:4;
context 13:15; 89:14;
125:4, 4,9, 15; 128:7;
5:16; 8:1; 11:16, 21; 17:18;
coupled 14:17
compete 100:14
103:14; 146:12; 154:1;
139:18; 144:16; 177:5, 5,
22:13, 18; 25:3; 70:19;
competition 98:11;
190:21; 200:10
courage 152:10
9,9, 10; 194:17, 20;
100:18
130:21; 149:4, 7; 153:1;
continents 128:15
196:7, 8; 197:1, 2; 199:6;
course 6:9; 8:22; 14:21;
154:2; 155:6; 163:2;
continue 6:9; 15:15;
210:21; 212:3; 219:15;
15:9, 15; 17:6; 34:17; 42:9;
competitive 129:13;
178:14; 235:22
223:2; 229:15; 231:16;
44:2; 48:21; 50:12; 51:4;
146:6; 168:17; 221:5, 10
26:4; 28:3; 43:12; 129:20;
confidence 143:2;
232:12; 234:7, 10; 242:6;
55:11; 56:15; 63:3; 84:10;
complement 134:10, 14
146:2; 222:4; 254:19
168:14; 185:16; 210:16
247:11
99:1; 126:19; 128:16;
complete 168:6
continued 23:3; 167:20
confident 16:16
132:2; 144:19; 184:15, 17;
continues 220:12
cost-a 137:1
completely 30:22; 60:15;
221:6; 227:16
conform 178:3
79:13; 80:2; 234:18
continuing 7:12; 65:3;
cost-effective 17:12;
courses 136:22; 153:6;
confront 149:20; 177:16
104:3
96:2; 160:17; 184:18;
246:14
complex 22:6
confused 114:5
245:19; 248:2
complexes 89:21
contradictory 68:7
cover 30:1
Congregation 8:22
cost-efficient 120:14
complexities 23:6
contrary 239:4
Congress 5:8; 11:4;
Costa 159:10; 241:1, 4;
coverage 86:8; 151:14
complexity 203:15;
contrasting 179:16
242:13
Cracow 121:12, 20;
19:17; 108:2; 207:20;
208:13; 223:5
contribute 7:13; 128:14;
122:3
249:10; 250:21
costless 233:6
compliance 245:18
217:2
crash 226:9, 11
congressional 207:17
costly 227:20; 233:1
complicate 161:10
contributed 158:18;
create 58:21; 69:17;
Congressman 11:5, 6;
222:1
Costs 50:7; 57:15, 19;
92:17; 129:14; 138:13;
complicated 213:14
60:9
105:9; 130:13; 135:12;
contributes 170:5
139:8; 141:18; 146:19;
composition 13:20; 15:2
connected 189:22
177:9; 190:5; 199:22;
contribution 131:10
200:7; 238:3, 7; 241:4
comprehensive 70:22;
conscious 183:20
200:19, 21, 22; 201:7, 9;
239:21
contributions 38:17;
219:21; 223:8; 225:14, 14;
created 15:8, 11, 12;
consensus 33:12; 34:4;
204:10
233:13; 234:11, 14, 15, 20;
142:8; 168:5; 175:12, 13;
compromise 233:9
60:5; 167:7; 168:6, 7, 10,
242:2
contributor 85:20
247:19; 248:17; 250:11,
compromised 189:11
21; 169:7, 18, 20; 171:16;
contributors 35:13
15
creating 7:3; 21:7;
computer 39:21; 46:5;
211:8; 215:17
consequence 159:18
control 119:19; 199:21;
coughing 190:1
104:22; 139:18; 186:1;
104:18
199:4; 219:11
200:1, 4; 219:3; 228:18;
couldn't 198:6
computers 91:13
consequences 14:12;
creation 9:6
231:12
Council 11:1, 9; 88:22;
conceivable 212:5
15:18; 33:21; 45:14;
131:15; 172:4; 179:4;
creative 27:12; 122:9;
conceiving 11:20
62:16; 65:7; 138:18;
controlled 54:16
controls 119:17; 120:5,
253:18, 22
171:6
139:21; 161:1; 194:6;
concentration 40:22;
245:7
15, 16
counted 191:5
creatures 8:18
43:13; 45:18; 46:8, 10;
conservation 109:17
counter 143:6
credible 220:1; 232:3;
Convention 81:11;
81:22; 82:13; 237:3
251:4
concentrations 35:5;
conserve 6:19; 23:17;
99:21; 167:10, 11, 14, 16
counterproductive
36:11, 13; 39:19; 40:1, 7,
108:20, 22
conventional 229:16
105:9
credit 123:3; 188:8;
195:14, 21; 196:2; 197:7,
11, 19; 41:18, 22; 42:4;
consider 5:21; 8:2; 90:3;
conventions 246:6, 9
counting 64:16
7, 21, 21; 202:1, 6; 241:21
45:15; 46:3; 47:16; 72:1;
213:15; 254:19
conversation 147:9;
countries 17:22; 28:17;
credits 122:16; 199:19;
77:20; 81:15; 83:10;
considerable 38:16;
215:1; 229:10
37:8, 14; 38:3, 11; 59:12;
200:1; 241:5
179:19, 21; 206:1
82:4
conversations 214:21
70:17, 21; 77:7; 84:14;
crime 21:10
consideration 167:20
85:16; 86:3, 5; 87:7;
concept 194:13; 202:1;
convert 128:4
118:11; 119:7; 121:6, 9;
crises 31:13
208:19; 238:15
considerations 202:20
conviction 185:16
129:4, 19, 22; 130:2;
critical 33:12; 179:9;
concern 9:4; 56:15; 57:2;
consistent 39:17, 20;
convince 29:16
133:1, 4; 147:5; 161:10;
181:2; 182:5; 200:13;
Commodities critical (6)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
215:15
deal 31:13; 60:3; 85:11;
201:7
desires 190:11
died 57:5
critically 198:10
106:8; 166:16; 173:9;
delayed 66:9
Despite 23:6; 49:19;
diet 103:18
critics 208:19
207:21; 208:22; 214:2;
delicate 29:12
205:8; 230:22
difference 93:4; 94:12;
218:15; 225:5; 235:8
rop 161:3
delighted 9:11; 143:14;
destroy 209:21
119:18, 20; 146:18; 204:9;
dealing 34:17; 146:1;
ops 17:3
153:2
detail 135:10
239:7; 240:1
150:6; 153:15; 166:5
ss-border 185:14
deliver 184:8
detailed 163:22
differences 39:13;
deals 132:20; 208:18
demand 118:22; 120:11,
determination 6:17
239:11
cross-competition
dealt 13:15; 125:11;
14; 122:21; 185:18;
determine 45:4
different 16:15; 28:7;
135:18
177:18; 213:10; 235:16
229:11
determining 110:16
42:16; 45:5, 7; 48:9; 49:1;
crossing 22:6
Dean 148:16, 21
demands 17:19; 27:22;
60:15, 18; 86:3, 15; 90:16;
CTOs 241:6
Detroit 62:22
dearly 165:14
149:8
119:13; 138:19; 145:5;
cumulative 38:17
devastating 50:6; 183:22
death 29:21; 158:13
147:19; 188:10; 189:13;
democracies 31:11
current 15:15; 17:1; 28:3;
develop 21:3; 34:10;
193:18
deaths 44:8; 156:22;
30:5; 40:10; 47:22; 71:9;
democracy 22:20; 59:21;
60:4; 116:11; 122:15;
157:21; 158:19; 160:10,
differential 204:11
79:18
177:19; 181:5; 226:6;
167:7; 170:18; 189:10;
12
differentiated 175:20
244:17
demonstrate 119:12
192:14
debate 110:14; 123:15;
demonstrated 123:10
developed 28:5; 37:14;
differently 185:9
currently 95:9; 119:9;
125:12; 138:6; 142:18;
demonstrates 89:17
38:3, 11; 40:6; 85:15; 86:5;
difficult 23:9; 24:1; 54:3;
130:15; 231:19
239:12, 20
demonstrating 67:1;
87:8; 118:14; 121:9;
56:9; 59:20; 60:18; 73:22;
currents 42:14
debated 251:8
122:10; 151:11; 167:13,
78:16; 79:14; 81:5; 83:7;
89:8
curriculum 166:15
debates 89:12
20; 168:10; 169:7; 171:17;
143:10; 157:14; 169:8;
demonstration 114:12;
curve 201:12
decade 14:3; 60:15;
173:11, 17; 175:14;
181:13, 21; 203:9; 204:6;
115:14; 121:18; 241:8, 14
curves 48:2; 82:9;
177:15; 178:1; 180:13;
236:10
156:15; 206:15
dengue 59:2; 157:19
181:6, 15; 190:20; 207:5;
difficulties 136:14
122:19, 20
decades 28:6, 12; 29:3;
denote 46:11
214:4
custodians 8:12
38:2; 39:4; 50:17, 19;
difficulty 80:19; 188:9,
denotes 47:2
developing 6:19; 16:19;
12; 203:15; 204:3; 211:20
Customers 99:10;
53:12, 18; 80:7
decarbonization 104:7
dent 216:7
27:7, 16, 19; 28:4; 59:12;
diffusion 85:3; 219:18;
124:18
Department 7:8; 11:12;
83:12; 85:15; 86:3, 14;
229:7
cut 18:8; 24:20; 132:12;
December 8:2; 25:16;
121:17; 122:2; 133:17;
87:7; 105:21; 106:9, 15;
dilemma 232:19, 19
144:17; 198:17; 223:15;
168:2
140:9; 141:10; 213:7;
118:14; 119:3, 6; 120:21;
dilute 170:17
240:1
decentralize 192:13
229:8; 241:6
121:6; 129:3, 19; 130:2;
cuts 219:8; 230:20
decentralized 192:7
160:13; 167:21; 168:10,
dimension 125:5, 16;
departs 182:8
cutting 24:2; 180:13
decide 45:20; 175:3;
19; 169:8, 16; 171:13, 17;
208:17
depend 107:1, 7
217:4
172:9; 173:11, 14; 174:5,
dimensions 9:4; 32:22;
cle 42:18, 20; 67:9
dependence 106:10;
7, 15; 175:2, 8, 9, 11;
106:7; 213:16, 17, 19
decided 142:4
185:16
176:1, 7; 177:16, 22;
dioxide 24:2; 35:14, 21,
D
decision 34:11; 141:8;
dependent 80:20;
178:2; 179:5, 8; 180:9, 15,
22; 36:8; 37:2, 21; 38:20;
177:14, 15; 236:21
168:17
17; 181:7, 12, 18, 20;
40:11, 19, 20, 22; 41:4, 12,
decisions 141:16; 152:7;
depends 105:1, 12;
182:4, 6, 13, 15, 17;
17, 21; 42:4; 43:13; 45:15;
D 3:5
220:4
111:12
183:14, 18; 184:4, 20;
46:8, 10, 21; 57:11; 71:14,
D.C 25:5; 63:15; 99:2
declare 216:6
188:20; 190:19; 191:1;
19; 72:4, 10; 81:22; 82:10;
Dakar 160:16
depletion 73:10, 13
decline 83:13
199:2, 7; 200:12; 204:20;
83:9; 85:1; 89:18; 160:22;
damage 43:20; 44:6, 21;
deploy 97:13; 119:10;
decrease 51:8
207:8; 214:4; 219:14;
196:7, 18; 197:1; 230:7;
195:1
139:5
249:9
231:2; 240:8, 20; 243:15;
decreased 49:8
damages 225:5
deployed 118:18;
development 6:13; 7:10;
244:5, 12; 247:10
decreases 49:4
194:11; 195:13
damaging 44:14; 218:10;
17:8; 22:8; 28:1; 30:5;
diplomacy 22:9
deep 181:8
220:7
deploying 104:4; 105:21;
32:14; 56:6; 85:7; 89:2;
direct 6:16; 148:7
deepen 156:8; 161:16
107:8
159:17; 170:12; 174:13,
Dan 10:16; 253:21
direction 20:18; 84:1;
deeply 5:15; 9:9
deployment 194:21
14; 176:6; 178:11; 181:12;
dangerous 81:15, 18;
153:21; 210:6, 15; 250:5
82:1; 92:16
defending 249:1
Depression 224:9
184:18; 189:8, 12; 190:7,
13, 17; 191:11; 192:17;
directly 74:8; 81:2; 128:4;
Daniel 3:9; 172:5
Defense 3:14; 158:7;
Deputy 3:22; 215:5, 12;
186:18
172:12; 193:9
222:15; 241:11
219:18; 222:6
dark 92:6
deregulation 138:16;
developmental 28:17
Director 3:13; 10:20;
deficit 219:7
33:1, 5; 172:2, 12
data 12:22; 72:14, 19, 21;
73:2, 5
deficits 47:5; 135:9
245:10; 250:10
developments 31:9
dirty 126:1
define 8:7
derivatives 244:4, 5, 8, 8,
develops 126:19
date 236:19, 21
disadvantaged 157:7
David 30:18
defines 207:2
11
deviations 66:4, 5
disadvantages 202:8, 9
derived 129:16
devices 242:19
day 5:17; 18:18; 19:21;
definitely 202:5
disagreements 22:18
describe 96:19
devise 194:14; 196:1;
25:3; 57:6; 60:10; 119:1;
definitively 72:10
197:20
disappear 44:3; 56:2
deforestation 33:18;
described 197:10;
126:8; 132:8, 9; 142:19;
208:14; 231:19; 235:1
devote 180:17
disappointed 64:6
153:7, 10; 154:1; 169:5;
35:22; 72:4
176:11, 13; 214:12;
deserve 188:8
diagram 66:14
disappointment 64:8
degree 39:1; 46:17;
disaster 62:17
222:22; 238:14
56:18; 57:6; 125:18;
design 18:9; 203:21;
dialogue 5:19; 7:13;
Day/night 39:12
188:9, 11
249:12; 251:3; 253:5
8:14; 149:9
disasters 62:15
'ays 6:2; 8:15; 44:8;
degrees 35:6; 41:3, 9;
designated 153:9
Diana 32:19; 159:15
discharge 51:11
5:7; 238:14; 239:12
46:12, 13, 14; 47:1, 3;
designed 20:16; 229:22;
diarrhea 154:13; 160:18
disciplined 31:15; 235:2
DT 23:13
63:2; 84:12
230:1
diarrheal 160:11, 13, 15;
disciplines 22:6
de-carbonization 105:5,
dehydrated 154:19
desirable 82:21
191:21
discourage 98:11
17
delay 145:22; 146:1;
desire 250:19
die 154:12
discuss 19:14; 95:20;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(7) critically - discuss
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
96:1, 6, 21; 149:20; 153:8;
Donald 64:9
draught 77:5
easier 27:13; 86:1; 147:4
effective 85:9; 128:7;
193:11; 215:15; 217:18;
done 32:17; 55:14; 61:3;
draw 199:2
easily 154:13
151:4; 170:8; 171:8;
238:19
101:10; 112:16; 113:19;
drawing 96:11; 131:5
East 187:11; 250:12
195:18; 196:8; 197:2;
discussed 171:17;
114:9; 124:16; 140:13;
198:17
drawn 34:8
Eastern 67:4; 219:13
228:14
146:12; 153:15; 167:8;
effectively 74:20; 75:4;
dream 20:5; 26:8
discussing 35:1; 147:10;
172:17; 173:16; 180:20;
easy 82:8; 124:14;
77:2; 95:9; 167:6; 194:17;
150:2; 161:16; 163:18;
185:22; 186:1; 187:14;
dreams 22:12
187:13; 247:20
216:16
197:5
188:7, 9, 19; 194:14, 17,
drive 38:7; 190:4
eating 23:16
effectiveness 170:17
discussion 24:9; 30:7;
19; 195:22; 196:9; 204:1,
driver 36:8
eclipse 28:5
effects 63:8; 75:11; 77:7;
88:20; 89:13, 14; 92:2;
19; 221:21; 222:16; 236:9
drives 132:22
eco-tourism 197:17
78:1; 162:22; 168:13;
95:4; 118:2; 150:21;
Donna 63:5
driving 172:15; 190:16
ecological 42:15; 45:3
194:9; 215:20; 216:5, 13;
152:4; 182:3; 183:6; 237:2
donor 178:10
drop 99:11
Economic 11:10; 12:10;
219:7; 236:11; 243:10
discussions 163:22;
door 184:3
dropped 142:7
16:7, 9; 18:5; 21:9; 23:4,
efficiencies 95:15;
235:13
dorms 92:15
Drought 33:2; 44:14;
22; 27:20, 22; 28:7; 38:4,
113:17; 116:21
disease 154:10, 10;
DOT 50:22
64:12, 13; 65:2, 10, 13;
8; 65:6, 15; 80:20; 83:21;
efficiency 16:22; 84:21;
155:1; 156:1; 158:10;
dots 49:1, 2, 3, 3
66:8, 11, 15, 20; 67:1, 2, 5,
105:10; 107:15; 109:16;
85:8; 88:14; 98:12; 100:8,
160:1, 11, 14
doubled 46:10; 47:8;
13; 68:2; 77:6
117:18; 124:3; 126:6;
12, 15; 102:4, 8; 104:13,
diseases 44:11; 58:9, 10,
57:11
droughts 65:5; 68:10, 20,
132:22; 139:5; 141:11;
19; 105:2; 112:3, 4;
17; 59:2; 63:4; 157:18, 18;
doubling 45:14, 18;
21; 77:18; 161:11; 216:4
161:20; 172:4; 173:17;
114:14; 115:21; 118:7, 10,
158:1, 4, 6, 7; 174:10;
Drs 45:9
176:8; 179:4; 183:16;
46:18; 47:16; 83:9;
13; 119:9;122:11, 17;
191:21, 22
drugs 158:16; 162:15
201:10; 208:3; 210:22;
100:11; 144:18; 223:22
123:18; 125:19; 133:10;
215:14; 216:3; 217:7,
dislocation 109:16
doubt 13:2; 80:4; 149:19;
dry 42:14; 54:17, 22;
180:3; 184:16; 195:17
218:17, 21; 219:9, 15;
dislocations 220:5
224:11
64:21; 69:16
efficient 7:11; 17:6;
220:8; 222:5, 17; 223:14,
dispersed 184:14
doubtless 101:3
drying 69:12
26:14; 28:18; 91:1; 92:13,
18; 224:8; 225:6, 8, 12, 13;
20; 93:21; 98:1; 102:1, 15;
dispersion 184:19
doubts 216:2
dual 93:15
232:11; 236:3, 11; 237:1;
103:20; 106:13; 111:11;
disproportionate 53:2
Douglas 56:2
due 71:14; 72:11, 12;
249:2; 253:15, 18, 22
115:12; 128:22; 130:4;
disproportionately
down 5:7; 29:6; 31:16;
74:3; 253:16
economically 124:9;
133:21; 137:8, 9; 184:14,
155:9; 161:18
69:22; 78:16; 91:5;
due-and 245:8
201:9; 225:3; 230:18
15; 219:2; 221:20
disrupt 24:22; 97:15
134:22; 141:6, 15; 142:8,
Duffy 11:3
economics 22:7; 71:2;
efficiently 145:5; 227:6
11; 178:3, 4; 187:12;
disrupted 237:18
dumps 98:17
124:13; 179:3; 212:18;
effort 84:19; 106:9;
205:11, 12, 18; 211:4;
disruption 11:18; 12:20;
duplicate 197:3
246:7
163:2; 181:22; 217:2
212:9; 221:17; 231:5;
13:16; 15:20; 16:5; 25:12;
during 62:2, 5, 22; 63:22;
economies 133:7;
239:18; 243:9; 247:3;
efforts 7:1; 44:15;
34:1; 80:21; 81:4
250:11
87:21; 199:20; 224:3
169:16; 186:14; 188:21;
114:10; 162:6; 167:9
disruptions 161:6;
downstairs 148:6
duties 163:10
189:5; 192:19; 221:22;
egg 163:8
166:21; 215:22
222:6
downtown 99:15
dwellers 61:5
eight 21:15; 174:20;
disruptive 37:6; 215:21
economist 109:12;
dozen 220:8
dying 154:20
201:15; 216:18
218:1; 247:2
distance 191:18
either 90:21; 108:20;
dozens 218:17; 225:10
economists 7:19;
distilled 27:8
E
109:5; 120:2; 138:8;
Dr 30:4; 32:9, 9:33:1, 5,
216:17; 217:2; 223:1;
139:17; 140:5; 212:18;
distinguished 5:8; 10:8,
8, 10; 34:14; 47:18; 48:2,
225:6; 248:7; 249:6;
224:4; 228:17
11; 11:17; 32:7; 148:19,
5, 16, 17; 53:20; 54:2;
E 3:11; 172:10; 193:6
250:19; 252:16
Eizenstat 254:4
20; 171:5; 217:19
59:10; 60:22; 61:16, 18;
each 12:15; 14:8; 22:22;
ECONOMY 3:21; 12:13;
distribution 54:15; 67:12
63:13, 17, 18, 20; 64:19;
El 73:12; 76:16, 19, 21;
23:1, 20; 29:15; 65:2;
13:11; 16:14; 19:4; 21:20;
67:16; 68:12; 69:3, 19;
77:9, 11, 15, 21; 216:4, 4,
distributions 55:14
101:22; 170:7; 192:21;
26:5; 55:19; 64:16, 18;
10
diverse 11:17
70:2, 4, 7, 9; 76:20; 80:13;
87:5; 89:3; 110:21; 111:3;
199:10, 10
88:13; 89:11, 11; 94:13;
elaborate 202:20
divide 20:9
97:15; 103:12; 104:14, 20,
117:8; 144:1; 145:11;
earlier 43:2; 49:12; 62:12;
diving 188:11
22; 106:9; 111:12; 114:8;
elderly 58:2, 12
146:4; 182:16; 183:2;
68:12; 69:5; 78:1; 82:3;
125:22; 132:7, 19; 143:9;
Electric 3:12; 26:20;
division 20:22
184:5; 187:18; 188:4, 19;
120:16; 124:20; 134:1;
182:2; 198:11; 203:12;
93:16; 95:12, 13; 98:8, 15,
divisions 29:8
189:2; 193:3, 6; 194:4;
172:14; 174:9; 235:1;
207:19; 209:14; 211:14;
21; 99:4, 9; 100:2, 7, 18;
divisive 169:21; 204:8
202:13; 203:2; 205:17;
253:16; 254:1
214:2; 216:1; 217:14;
101:2, 5, 16, 22; 102:5, 22;
do-we've 61:3
209:2; 211:10, 17, 22;
earliest 6:2
218:10; 220:2, 8, 11, 15;
103:2, 10; 108:14; 126:18;
239:9; 241:13; 243:5, 16;
Doctor 62:20; 159:1
early 65:5; 83:6; 122:17;
223:7; 226:20; 229:7;
130:5; 138:16; 172:11;
244:6, 14, 18, 22; 245:6;
123:4; 194:15; 195:20;
230:20; 235:19; 237:8, 9;
176:14; 185:11; 189:21;
doctors 160:16
246:21; 248:22; 249:22;
196:2; 197:7, 20; 198:7;
238:7; 243:10; 246:17;
193:7
documentation 240:7
250:3, 5, 7, 9; 251:5, 22;
201:5, 6; 202:2, 6; 220:1;
254:22
electricity 90:8, 13, 15,
doing-thinking 8:8
252:5, 8
233:5; 239:12; 249:15
ecosystems 54:12
18; 91:9, 22; 97:8, 22;
dollar 176:13; 241:21
draconian 201:14
earn 199:13
edge 168:17
98:3, 16; 99:19; 100:2;
dollars 62:18; 102:12;
drag 117:18
earned 12:5
Edmond 148:22
101:18; 103:11; 104:7;
108:14; 111:15; 123:12;
dramatic 65:12; 66:3;
earning 199:19; 200:1
105:1, 20, 22; 108:21;
education 21:10; 149:9;
133:2; 134:12; 142:8;
179:21; 180:4; 201:13, 13;
109:4; 128:4, 12, 13;
earth 8:12; 13:18; 14:17;
192:1
144:4; 176:11; 244:21
226:22; 240:10
129:6, 11, 12, 21; 137:11;
19:12; 29:6; 35:6, 16; 52:4;
effect 14:19; 28:21;
domestic 107:4; 168:7;
dramatically 6:20; 63:6;
186:16
75:2; 212:9
29:15; 30:4, 10; 35:14;
213:21; 231:16
84:21; 99:1; 127:8; 210:19
electricity-yes 145:10
earth's 14:19, 22; 15:5;
36:19, 21, 22; 52:5; 63:4;
domestically 126:20;
Draper 3:11; 172:10;
electrification 105:16
29:17; 34:20; 35:1, 4;
72:16; 74:21; 77:2; 191:9;
203:19
193:6; 194:2, 4; 198:6
38:21; 73:7, 8; 74:15, 16,
241:8, 14, 19; 243:21;
element 120:21
Don 33:1; 54:13
Draper's 242:6
22
244:6
elements 8:17; 34:3;
discussed elements (8)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
me nouse
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
218:18; 220:20
enacted 249:10, 18
England 55:11, 17;
238:3
everything 21:4; 24:17;
elevated 210:16
encounter 15:18
240:19
equity 176:4, 22, 22;
29:20; 75:10; 85:22;
elevation 55:6
encourage 170:12
enhance 86:13
178:12
122:15; 145:5
levations 59:12
encouraged 125:18
enhances 104:13
equivalent 51:11
everywhere 68:9
even 39:5
encourages 122:16;
enhancing 191:14
erosion 177:10
evidence 13:4; 15:21;
Iminate 100:13
194:14, 16
enjoy 25:20
escaping 154:22
48:15; 53:15; 59:7, 11, 13;
61:19; 71:16; 79:2;
eliminates 103:11
encouraging 27:17
enjoyable 164:21
especially 161:9
168:12; 210:3, 10; 211:7;
eliminating 105:18
end 43:19; 52:14; 84:22;
enjoyed 18:11
essence 87:12
224:12, 17; 231:4; 254:13
else 56:5; 71:17; 76:8;
98:4; 102:11; 107:9;
enormous 198:1; 236:4;
essential 100:12; 105:3,
evident 213:9
79:7; 101:19; 115:6;
109:11; 116:15; 126:8;
250:13
17; 183:7; 218:18; 236:5
evolution 46:5
131:6; 142:1, 1; 143:21;
139:2, 22; 162:10; 169:4;
enough 20:6; 24:17;
essentially 220:18;
evolved 104:17
194:19; 200:3; 209:14;
178:22; 201:12; 222:22
28:21; 30:9; 31:15; 37:3;
228:22; 233:11, 17
exacerbate 58:6
211:19; 229:21
end-users 109:17
49:18; 81:3; 115:4; 159:3;
establish 129:1
elsewhere 195:8; 238:4
167:15; 197:20; 202:16;
exact 63:19; 78:15
ended 210:19, 20
210:4; 220:3; 227:3, 4;
established 195:21;
exactly 54:3; 70:2; 72:20;
embarrassed 79:1
Endowment 3:18; 172:1
233:18; 236:9, 17, 22
229:5
75:1; 84:7; 108:1; 155:19;
embarrassment 78:13
ends 98:3
ensure 194:11
establishes 13:1
211:11, 18
embodiment 172:16
enemy 150:4, 9
ensuring 23:3
estimate 251:10
examine 236:3
embrace 20:3; 26:4;
Energy 3:10; 6:20; 10:16;
entail 34:19; 82:5
estimated 40:3; 41:3;
examined 133:9; 135:5;
126:9
16:20; 17:3, 5, 8; 22:11;
entails 34:21
50:8; 158:18; 201:1
248:6
embraced 125:19
26:13; 27:22; 28:18;
enter 193:15; 210:4
estimates 249:16, 17;
example 16:21; 26:20;
emergence 158:15
30:21; 32:13; 40:15; 52:4,
252:17
50:5; 54:17; 55:7; 57:4;
9; 57:19; 83:21; 84:22;
enterprise 7:5
85:1, 7; 86:3, 16; 88:5, 14;
et 93:11; 145:14
59:11; 65:9; 91:9; 94:7;
emergency 4:6, 8; 216:6
entire 18:12; 166:22;
98:14; 109:18; 112:18;
emerging 7:5; 105:15;
89:3; 90:5, 14, 14, 20;
187:10; 203:12; 237:3, 17,
Europe 50:9; 125:7;
113:21; 120:6; 121:10;
169:16
91:10; 92:11, 20; 93:6, 17,
17; 253:19
127:21; 186:3; 219:13
122:8; 125:20; 132:6;
emission 24:21; 167:17;
19; 94:6, 9; 95:7, 9; 96:2,
entirely 29:5; 157:10
Europeans 185:20;
138:5, 16; 140:15; 157:1;
168:16; 170:11; 179:18;
5, 20; 98:9; 99:5; 100:13;
entrances 4:7
187:3
158:17; 234:1
185:4; 190:19; 228:14;
103:19, 20; 104:1, 8, 11,
230:13; 233:12; 234:6
entrepreneur 143:13
evaluated 153:15
examples 99:13; 120:19;
12, 14, 22; 105:22; 106:15,
16; 107:13; 111:9; 114:14;
entrepreneurial 100:19
evaporating 52:10
127:15
emissions 6:21; 13:2, 9;
16:13; 18:8; 24:2; 25:18;
entrepreneurs 100:13;
evaporation 42:19, 21;
exceed 50:8
117:11; 118:6, 9, 13, 18;
26:12; 27:4; 28:2, 4, 10,
119:8, 18, 21, 22; 120:2, 6,
242:16
43:2; 69:11
exceeded 51:16
33:16; 37:12, 18, 19,
13, 18; 121:13, 14, 18;
environment 6:6, 13;
eve 173:3
exceeding 49:10
38:6, 10, 14; 40:6;
122:2, 4, 11, 17; 123:8, 9,
7:3, 15; 9:5; 12:14; 14:9,
even 26:18; 29:14; 36:18;
excellent 127:21; 150:20
45:21; 80:22; 81:3; 82:10;
11, 18; 125:5, 9, 15, 18;
20, 22; 15:5; 19:4; 21:14;
43:12; 44:9; 45:19; 73:14;
except 70:20; 78:22
83:6, 11, 15, 16; 84:22;
126:20, 22; 127:3, 7, 8, 12,
24:6; 33:6; 94:14; 124:10;
78:15; 80:5, 7; 82:6; 84:6;
exceptionally 231:10;
85:8; 88:15; 89:10, 17, 19;
13, 19; 128:2; 129:1, 7, 15,
138:15; 146:6; 177:10, 13,
85:8; 101:4; 114:15;
232:22; 234:5, 7
90:6, 9; 91:2, 12; 93:8;
16, 17; 130:7, 11, 12, 16;
17; 198:10; 201:7; 217:15;
116:19; 123:1; 133:12;
94:1, 13, 21; 96:8; 97:4,
131:16; 132:1, 6, 20, 22;
excess 52:4, 6; 65:19
223:7; 228:2; 238:7;
134:4; 145:14; 154:2;
133:3; 135:1, 5; 136:1, 19;
excesses 65:11
99:1, 11; 100:9; 103:3;
239:6; 243:18; 247:11
163:11; 169:11; 180:13;
108:12; 110:8; 118:19;
137:8, 9; 140:9; 141:9, 20;
Environmental 3:14;
202:16; 203:18; 212:2;
excessively 66:9
121:5; 122:5, 7; 123:4, 14;
145:7, 17; 171:11; 172:2,
7:14, 19; 10:19; 11:1, 13;
220:9; 236:8; 248:5
exchange 7:21
128:15; 130:11; 132:11;
6; 180:3, 7; 181:16, 19;
12:6; 16:6; 22:7; 23:11, 21;
evening 120:11
exchanged 120:3
135:21; 137:3; 171:14;
182:18, 19; 183:9; 184:13;
32:10; 65:7, 15; 70:12, 16;
185:18; 186:5, 13; 188:22;
event 48:11; 61:20; 65:2;
exchanges 171:5
177:17; 179:17, 18, 22;
76:6; 102:7; 106:3;
180:12, 13; 181:7, 15;
189:15, 18; 191:1, 6, 8, 11;
188:11; 236:11
excited 239:5
107:15; 117:14; 118:21;
192:8, 17; 195:16, 16;
events 51:18; 52:15, 21;
193:13; 199:16, 19; 200:4,
exciting 96:12; 136:1, 2
130:13; 154:11; 155:2;
18; 206:1; 209:19; 210:20;
212:12, 15, 18; 219:8, 19,
53:4, 4, 7, 8; 62:17, 17;
172:3, 12; 183:20; 184:5;
exclude 176:2
215:18; 218:10; 220:7, 10;
19; 221:16, 18, 20; 222:3;
66:8, 9; 67:13, 14, 19;
193:9; 198:8; 201:8;
exclusively 139:1
221:9; 222:8, 20; 223:9,
223:18, 21; 224:1, 7, 20,
68:2, 2; 69:7; 77:9, 16, 21
209:15; 217:6; 225:8;
excuse 85:17; 86:9, 17;
12; 225:17; 236:7, 20;
21; 225:11; 226:13; 229:1,
233:3; 234:4; 235:18;
eventually 78:20
188:14; 244:10
237:1; 238:15; 240:13;
8, 10, 10; 241:6
237:21; 244:8, 11; 252:18
Everglades 23:19; 44:2;
Executive 3:13, 31;
242:11; 248:12
energy-particularly
envision 104:21; 186:6
45:2
172:11
emissions-global
139:14
envisions 181:5
every 14:2, 3; 20:5;
executives 252:17
83:11
energy-the 125:4
29:13; 51:12; 57:8; 76:20;
envy 242:20
emit 72:3; 103:13;
energy-intensive
101:17; 102:4; 104:20;
exercise 4:9
EPA 245:1
169:13; 199:10, 14
119:1; 137:17, 17, 18;
exhaust 27:8
181:17
emits 199:12
EnergyWorks 96:5;
EPA's 230:8
140:17; 141:4; 144:18;
exhorted 6:14
emitters 134:8; 169:15
126:16, 19
equal 38:18; 98:9; 246:13
153:11, 14; 154:12;
exist 88:11; 196:4
equally 72:22
158:12; 163:10; 170:5, 6;
emphasize 26:9; 227:7;
enforcement 203:22
existence 8:17
176:18; 178:17; 204:12;
231:9
engage 5:19
equation 110:19; 121:1
209:2; 238:2, 13
existing 118:17; 146:3
employed 203:18
engaged 214:21
equator 39:10
exists 59:8, 22; 93:21;
everybody 71:17; 78:22;
engagement 208:12
equatorial 41:7
133:20
mployment 195:8;
101:11, 19; 174:5; 213:11;
9:6
engaging 214:1
equip 227:11
254:5
exit 4:6
enable 30:10; 128:10
engine 104:16; 107:6;
equipment 4:10
everyone 25:7, 9; 30:8;
exits 4:8
enables 104:10
132:22
equipped 205:2
68:16; 136:8; 164:13
exotic 97:13; 197:13
enabling 104:6; 163:14
engineering 126:17
equitable 28:14; 171:9;
everyone's 195:3
expand 106:17; 127:11;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(9) elevated - expand
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
128:1, 2, 7; 196:19; 220:16
29:6; 41:8; 78:12; 80:16;
fate 75:1
fir 56:2
fluorescence 92:12
expandable 117:16
104:3; 108:10; 134:7;
Father 4:20; 5:4; 19:13;
fire 23:15
flying 241:9
expanded 44:10; 85:6
154:9; 161:17; 171:7, 11,
30:13; 152:17
fires 65:16; 92:17; 98:7
13; 176:5; 180:19; 189:12;
flywheels 113:4
expanding 23:4; 171:11
fauna 197:12
224:20; 235:18; 237:16
firewood 191:3
focus 12:1; 97:3; 102:7;
expansion 43:8; 127:15;
favor 253:9
faced 163:10; 181:19
firm 126:17
109:15; 110:9; 155:22;
196:19
faces 149:22; 154:17
favorable 185:5
firms 219:1
229:19; 249:2
expansive 19:1
facilities 103:4; 137:7;
favorite 41:11
First 5:18; 6:4; 9:12;
focused 21:6; 45:13;
expect 12:4; 26:1; 27:15;
229:5
faxes 91:14
13:17; 24:13, 15; 29:4;
112:3; 113:8, 19
38:10; 140:1; 180:17;
206:13, 14; 227:13, 19
facing 17:19; 150:22;
fear 144:3; 150:5; 232:21
30:16, 20; 32:8; 33:13;
focusing 177:21; 178:14
176:6; 203:3
feasible 100:12; 115:4, 6;
35:21; 46:9; 48:20; 69:3, 4;
folks 235:14
expected 38:2, 4; 43:11,
fact 24:22; 28:3; 35:17;
229:9
71:12, 18; 79:5; 86:4; 88:4;
follow 101:6; 163:21;
16; 44:9
38:9; 44:6; 49:19; 52:8, 15;
features 234:17
89:4, 15; 95:6; 105:15;
169:17; 180:14; 237:2
expensive 97:13; 109:2,
55:20; 61:22; 74:21;
106:7; 118:16; 128:11;
Fed 216:10
follow-on 210:18
22; 120:8; 204:18
75:13; 83:4; 90:12; 94:4;
130:3; 131:3; 145:12;
experience 7:6; 30:9;
144:5, 6; 145:3; 154:22;
Federal 94:17; 101:21;
148:14; 149:21; 151:4, 7,
follow-up 76:8; 232:9
159:16; 187:5; 210:14;
108:2; 123:6, 10, 16;
44:13; 78:5; 180:6;
15, 22; 152:2, 9, 13; 158:1;
followed 4:15; 63:13;
217:1; 231:5; 234:12;
134:20
228:20; 230:3; 238:18;
164:14, 17; 167:12;
121:11
251:10; 254:7
240:1; 249:20
Federico 10:17; 88:5
169:15; 174:4, 9; 181:10;
following 68:18; 76:14;
experienced 29:13;
factor 36:7; 104:6; 105:3;
feed 52:14; 99:9
189:4, 7, 13; 191:12;
85:13; 165:21; 213:8
180:16; 250:2
feel 79:20; 143:1, 2;
194:2; 204:1, 2; 206:13,
30:3; 31:8; 50:5, 15; 60:1;
follows 21:2; 181:8
81:4
factories 186:17; 222:9
236:2, 4; 238:17
22; 207:5; 215:7; 217:4;
food 22:11; 44:15, 18;
experiences 60:20;
factors 14:17; 161:11;
feeling 13:17; 61:12;
218:20; 228:10; 230:4;
156:1; 160:21; 161:7, 12;
238:19
125:12
235:2, 20; 241:2; 251:7;
250:14
162:17
252:15
experiencing 66:19
facts 13:22; 71:6
feet 62:4, 6; 73:6, 6
foodstuffs 216:8
First-and 104:9
expert 30:6; 64:17;
faculty 5:9; 149:1
fellow 8:16; 172:13
footnote 87:4
Fahrenheit 35:7; 39:1;
felt 80:7; 246:5; 248:17
firsthand 7:6; 30:4
95:13; 96:5
forbid 98:10
expertise 34:9
41:3, 9; 46:12, 13, 14;
FEMA 10:20; 62:13
fish 161:3; 163:7
force 20:7; 32:13; 96:9;
experts 13:5, 7; 22:14;
47:1, 3; 57:6
fever 44:12; 59:2; 157:19
fission 134:2, 5, 8
97:12, 14; 172:15; 176:8;
fail 154:4; 215:18
fit 240:4
150:16; 217:19; 254:14
feverish 154:18
190:16; 223:16
explain 24:10; 25:21;
failure 31:22; 207:2
few 13:12; 21:1; 28:6, 12;
fitting 149:6; 153:7
forces 8:5; 97:11; 227:5;
69:14; 76:1, 17; 101:6;
fair 21:16; 27:17; 86:10;
30:19; 35:3; 46:6; 50:4, 12;
five 12:5; 50:9, 10, 11;
238:6
117:8; 199:3; 232:15
168:19; 170:8
67:17; 71:20; 74:7, 17;
64:8; 89:7; 125:7; 151:6;
forecasters 63:10
explainable 33:15
fairly 15:22; 53:9; 113:12
81:19; 88:18; 127:12;
154:12; 156:20; 157:3;
foreign 21:13; 148:16,
explanation 48:19;
144:19; 174:18; 230:3;
158:14; 162:11; 174:18;
faith 20:15; 143:1
22; 149:10; 202:20; 214:7
68:13, 16
239:22
206:9; 218:18; 239:16;
fall 55:10; 155:9; 161:17
foreshadow 13:13
253:2
explicitly 136:11
field 184:13; 209:15;
falls 49:11
212:12
five-eighths 31:1
Forest 23:18; 65:16;
explore 7:21; 28:15;
94:2; 128:19; 241:5
faltering 221:22
179:1; 222:14
fields 8:18
five-year 145:16
forestry 45:6
families 21:12; 22:10;
fifth 219:22
fix 109:13
export 118:6; 119:11;
26:18
forests 8:18; 55:21;
200:8
fight 78:19
fixes 80:2; 112:3
196:18; 200:14
family 20:15; 162:13
exported 120:19
figure 47:15; 105:4;
flash 31:7, 21
forget 50:13; 147:7
famine 161:13
exports 117:14; 174:18
124:5; 142:9, 12
flashpoints 155:22
famous 126:17; 212:2
forgive 10:9; 76:12
fill 188:5
flatten 137:2
exposing 42:6
forgive-for 76:10
far 26:7; 27:3; 31:11, 15;
express 226:8; 254:12
filled 10:11
fleet 112:9
81:4; 84:7; 92:4; 103:11;
form 36:17; 69:7; 78:6;
expressed 12:22
filthy 23:14
flexibility 105:6; 170:18;
109:3, 6, 6; 126:5; 150:6,
124:1, 2, 6; 128:13; 215:20
expressing 87:17
8; 168:6; 202:9; 248:22;
final 202:5; 215:4;
193:11; 231:12; 245:15,
formal 81:17
extend 162:10; 168:8
250:7; 252:1
249:17, 18
17
formed 103:1; 131:17
extending 40:9
far-and 108:18
finally 21:1; 36:2; 58:14;
flexible 26:10; 193:20;
former 30:4; 95:17;
106:19; 130:8; 160:20;
217:13
extent 188:2; 217:17
far-off 17:11
172:3, 9; 179:4; 187:21;
170:15; 207:12; 210:3;
flight 222:8
farm 115:15
219:13
extra 36:16
219:22; 231:16
flip 57:18
extraordinarily 204:4
farmer 61:7
formerly 56:13
Financial 3:31; 86:2;
flood 50:15; 51:20; 67:14;
extraordinary 9:11
farmers 61:4; 70:1; 242:3
forms 103:21; 130:12
121:8, 22; 199:18; 240:22
68:2
farming 161:3
forth 65:17; 191:16
extreme 4:10; 53:4; 66:6,
financing 122:10
flooding 51:22; 62:16;
19: 67:18
farmland 115:2
fortunate 151:9
find 8:5; 16:17; 24:6;
160:4
extremely 132:17
farms 127:17
26:11; 49:17; 62:1; 84:15;
floods 44:14; 50:6, 10,
forum 22:22; 151:20
exuberance 19:1
Farr 11:6
90:22; 92:8; 102:14;
10, 14, 15, 19; 51:19;
forward 7:12; 28:19;
143:16; 182:17; 201:4;
60:12; 68:20; 69:17, 21;
104:22; 106:14; 136:3;
eye 31:7, 21; 42:5
fascinating 147:9; 148:1
fast 115:16; 117:2;
214:9; 220:10, 21; 223:21
77:17
217:10, 11; 222:19;
F
155:19; 182:8; 183:10;
finding 49:13
floor 4:7; 205:12
240:11; 254:10, 13
207:6, 21
findings 13:13; 34:5;
flora 197:12
fossil 33:18; 35:22; 36:6;
136:18
38:6; 72:5, 6, 12; 90:4;
faster 42:7; 56:16;
Florida 23:19; 44:1;
F 228:3
98:2; 103:5; 127:6;
144:21; 158:5; 184:7;
fine 156:10
54:20
130:12, 16; 133:11, 16;
fabric 21:21
211:9
fines 239:15
flourish 45:5
176:15; 225:18; 227:15;
face 6:10; 14:2; 22:19;
fastest 119:10; 186:5
fingerprint 72:7, 8
flows 145:9, 10
230:15; 234:1
expandable fossil (10)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
me comerence Cimate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
foster 6:10
fun 252:3
GATT 209:6
104:6, 8; 105:1, 5, 16;
223:16; 233:18, 20, 21;
fought 151:10
function 119:11; 120:8
GDP 174:21; 220:17
106:3; 107:8, 17; 118:3;
241:3
found 30:15, 19, 22;
functioning 215:22
Gene 253:18
121:1; 125:13; 132:3;
Government's 131:6
209:20; 213:22; 251:9
146:12, 15, 20; 149:4, 17;
functions 35:9
general 75:6; 101:13
governments 34:12;
150:2, 3, 22; 152:5; 154:5;
undation 21:22;
Fund 3:14; 172:12; 193:9
General's 78:9
178:10; 216:5
155:20; 156:3, 8; 162:6;
5:17; 107:13, 14; 162:7
fundamental 9:2; 13:20;
generally 177:7; 206:14
Grace 4:13; 152:10
167:4, 5; 168:12; 170:4,
founded 168:11
14:16; 232:18
generate 109:9; 243:3
21; 171:3; 177:17; 179:17,
grade 153:18
four 21:15; 24:10; 28:20;
fundamentally 14:4
generated 90:18; 168:3
18, 22; 181:22; 182:1;
gradual 227:4, 20
46:20; 71:11; 106:6;
funded 103:2
183:8; 185:7; 186:9, 19;
gradually 226:13
generating 98:15
110:4; 138:9, 20; 157:2;
funding 238:5
194:7, 16; 203:1; 206:16;
grand 139:9
160:12; 169:12; 190:3
generation 15:22; 16:20;
215:16, 18, 22; 216:14;
fourfold 46:7; 47:7
further 7:16; 41:1; 81:1;
23:11, 12; 93:14; 95:15;
grandchildren 15:17;
217:3; 222:18; 225:9;
91:5; 92:2; 133:12; 179:1
99:9; 100:7; 110:10;
31:17; 162:4; 177:12
fourth 4:7; 27:14; 167:12;
228:10; 231:22; 236:7;
112:5; 116:10, 20; 120:8;
granddaughter 190:1
fusion 17:9; 134:3, 4
212:22; 215:4; 219:17;
237:3, 20; 249:13; 251:4;
231:9
future 12:11, 21; 18:7, 13;
129:7; 130:5; 137:14;
grandeur 8:20
254:16
19:5, 16; 20:20; 27:21;
149:17; 163:10
fraction 127:10, 13;
globe 46:21; 48:22; 51:1;
grandmother 189:19
28:7; 30:22; 37:5; 40:5, 15;
generations 9:7; 152:8;
graph 52:22
210:21
78:2; 118:15; 194:22;
64:18; 68:3; 82:9; 86:4, 16;
189:10
195:5; 197:4, 22
graphic 38:13; 40:10
fragile 29:10
96:12; 104:22; 122:22;
Geneva 167:21
goal 81:11; 94:8; 109:15;
graphics 41:12; 55:8;
frame 94:10; 113:9;
127:10; 145:20; 147:11,
genius 18:5
112:8; 113:16; 116:10;
57:10
134:4; 145:18; 170:15
19; 163:4; 164:3; 177:9;
gentlemen 4:17, 22;
129:6, 9; 167:16; 214:10;
grappling 173:10
Framework 81:11;
189:10; 192:22; 200:3;
9:17; 10:1; 87:16, 20; 88:2;
243:4
grasp-and 205:20
167:10, 15; 189:6; 243:6, 6
204:10; 214:13; 222:22;
148:4, 12, 14, 21; 152:12;
goals 7:17; 23:3; 25:18;
grateful 9:9; 10:4; 214:11
frankly 114:21; 115:4;
233:16; 237:15; 243:20
183:3
199:4; 210:5, 9; 217:5, 11;
grave 25:12
136:18
futures 151:17; 153:5;
geo-exchange 27:2
227:6
243:19
graze 54:19
Fred 3:13; 172:11; 193:8;
geographic 44:10;
God 8:15, 20
196:21
great 9:16; 18:2, 3, 19;
194:3; 201:20
goes 47:19; 52:9, 10;
20:12; 24:19; 31:9; 32:6;
free 105:2; 159:8; 183:17;
G
geological 42:5
64:7; 69:9; 79:15; 125:13;
45:6; 51:16, 16; 67:2;
250:20
George 11:3, 5
127:9; 242:12
87:18; 106:8; 107:10;
freebie 187:16; 188:3
Georgetown 4:3, 12, 19;
Golden 100:1
gain 121:7
119:2; 137:1; 141:3;
freedom 20:8
5:9, 15; 7:6, 15; 8:13;
Good 4:2; 5:10; 23:7, 10;
142:18; 148:2; 164:16, 19;
gained 29:4
19:14; 20:12; 22:3; 98:18;
27:19, 20; 75:17; 93:12;
186:1; 187:20, 21; 189:3;
eer 183:17
gains 219:16
149:1, 3, 7; 152:18
94:13, 13, 14; 95:3, 17;
198:2; 201:21; 214:2;
eways 128:6
gallon 125:8; 242:10
Georgetown's 9:12;
102:17; 110:2, 21; 111:3;
218:15; 224:9, 13; 225:5;
eight 250:11
Gallucci 148:16, 19, 21;
148:16
117:8; 122:8; 143:1, 1,
230:22; 235:4; 252:21
frequency 77:15, 21
150:19
geothermal 27:2
146:20; 147:4; 148:21;
greater 39:10; 43:2; 51:6;
frequent 44:14; 57:12
gambol 56:1
Gerard 8:19
159:3; 163:15; 164:13;
88:14; 168:5; 185:13
frequently 62:15
game 209:9; 213:18
169:3; 172:18, 21; 178:21;
Germany 127:22; 187:7,
greatest 12:20; 46:16;
Friday 20:1
183:16; 192:19; 195:4, 5,
gap 250:8
11
82:22; 152:1
6; 205:20; 232:7; 235:3;
Friday-I 19:22
gas 26:12; 27:4; 28:2;
GEs 245:13
greatly 145:3; 223:4
242:3
friend 18:20; 172:18;
36:19; 37:17; 38:6; 39:19;
gesture 139:9
green 82:17; 83:8; 85:14;
goodness 78:20
235:6
40:1; 72:5; 77:19; 80:22;
86:22, 22; 87:1, 10;
gets 121:2; 174:8
81:3, 14; 88:15; 89:9, 17;
goods 106:4; 191:17, 19
from-do 63:16
129:16; 179:22; 180:4, 14
Gibbons 11:10
90:6, 8, 9; 91:2, 9; 93:16;
goodwill 22:17
front 137:22; 139:1, 22
greenhouse 6:21; 8:1;
94:12, 21; 96:8; 97:14;
girl 154:18
GORE 9:20; 12:19; 32:3;
13:2; 24:21; 25:18, 22;
fruit 247:20
99:18; 103:3; 108:5, 7, 12;
given 29:14; 54:8; 97:2;
47:13, 21; 48:3, 7, 13;
26:12; 27:4; 28:2; 33:17;
fruits 162:19
125:6; 128:14; 137:3;
100:14; 116:16; 144:9;
62:11; 64:1; 70:3; 78:3;
35:8, 10, 14, 16, 20; 36:4,
Fuel 7:9; 27:7, 11; 33:18;
171:14; 184:14; 185:2, 7;
178:4; 180:19; 195:14, 21,
87:3; 88:1; 102:17, 21;
11, 19, 21, 22; 37:9, 12,
36:1, 6; 38:7; 52:18; 93:16;
186:1, 2,9, 13; 187:4, 4;
22; 196:2; 217:11; 232:13;
123:20; 124:12; 126:11,
17; 38:6; 39:19; 40:1, 7;
97:9; 98:12, 20; 112:10;
188:2, 5; 199:5, 15; 221:9;
233:22; 249:20
15; 144:11; 150:15;
52:5; 74:3, 20; 75:1, 4, 16;
114:20; 116:1, 14, 21;
229:5
gives 32:5; 54:18, 20;
164:11; 172:20; 173:1;
77:19; 80:22; 81:3, 14;
137:11; 145:9; 182:22;
gas-only 98:3
55:1
178:18, 20; 182:10;
88:14; 89:9, 17; 90:6, 8;
191:3; 195:16; 224:15;
gases 8:1; 13:2; 24:21;
giving 8:17; 20:22; 21:6;
186:22; 187:19; 188:6, 14;
91:2; 94:12, 21; 96:8;
229:3; 245:14
25:19; 26:1; 33:17; 35:3, 8,
82:21; 208:20; 239:1
189:3; 193:3; 198:2;
103:3; 108:12; 128:14;
fuel-coal 98:2
16, 20; 36:4, 12, 22; 37:9,
200:20; 201:19; 205:14;
137:3; 167:17; 169:14;
glaciers 43:10
fueling 190:3
13; 38:18; 40:7; 74:3, 20;
209:10; 211:15, 21;
171:14; 182:20; 198:17;
glad 215:15
212:19; 214:16; 218:4;
199:5, 15; 215:19; 221:9;
fuels 17:3, 10; 72:6, 12;
75:1, 4, 16; 167:17;
169:14; 182:20; 198:17;
glass 35:9
222:12; 226:19; 227:21;
226:8
90:5; 103:5; 106:11, 12,
13; 115:19; 127:6; 176:15;
203:11; 215:19
Glickman 10:16
232:7; 235:4; 238:10;
greenhouse-friendly
Global 5:16; 6:3, 21; 7:13;
243:12; 244:2, 10, 16, 19;
185:4; 225:18; 227:15;
gasoline 23:15; 120:17;
200:8
245:4, 21; 246:22; 247:9;
230:15; 234:2
125:8; 190:5; 230:9;
8:6, 6; 11:18, 22; 12:19;
greenish 46:11
fuels-coal 72:5
13:6, 9, 16, 20; 15:19;
250:1, 4, 6; 252:3, 6, 10;
242:10
Greenland 43:10
16:5, 8; 17:19, 20; 22:4, 9;
253:8
Ifilling 131:10; 190:11
gassification 106:11;
24:22; 26:5, 19; 29:5;
Government 5:11; 6:14;
gross 132:18
I 63:1; 80:6; 83:22;
128:21
33:13; 34:18; 38:21;
21:4; 70:15; 94:18; 108:3,
grossly 108:6
64:9; 102:3; 207:7
Gaston 148:10
39:21; 42:18; 45:12; 50:1;
15; 112:13; 123:6, 10, 16;
ground 24:7; 30:11;
fully 108:16; 181:13;
gathered 152:22
55:22; 61:21; 70:11;
126:3; 131:20; 158:21;
35:12; 185:21; 226:13;
230:19
gathers 9:11
77:16; 83:10; 85:14;
213:12, 22; 217:21;
240:2
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script©
(11) foster ground
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
ground-based 73:16
205:6; 208:2; 249:8
21:12; 28:16: 36:17; 40:4;
honest 22:18
hurricanes 216:13
Group 3:16; 4:13; 9:11;
harder 81:9
45:20; 48:18; 68:3; 69:14;
Honeywell 96:1; 118:2
hurry 79:18
11:17; 89:6; 95:5; 166:20;
hardest 157:1
84:19, 21; 86:2; 88:14;
Honeywell's 118:8
husband 162:5
176:21; 198:8
hardly 19:22
91:6; 95:3; 126:9; 133:7;
groups 11:14; 145:1;
134:22; 135:8; 147:20;
honor 11:15; 18:19; 26:5;
husband's 152:19
harm 161:8
148:8; 233:10
162:10; 182:20; 188:22;
118:1; 164:16
hybrid 113:5; 234:16
harmful 162:19; 168:13;
191:12, 12, 14; 192:4;
honorary 218:1
grow 22:11; 26:5; 37:5;
hydro 129:8
170:4
38:5; 86:11, 14, 14; 115:4,
217:4; 227:5; 243:3;
honored 5:15
hydrogen 17:9; 105:2
15, 16; 162:6; 168:22;
harming 216:20
254:17
hook 147:3, 21
hydrologic 42:20
182:18, 21; 183:10;
harsh 29:10
helped 19:1; 151:11
hope 22:21; 28:19; 48:10;
hypothesis 245:22;
188:21; 189:5, 10; 192:14;
Harvard 3:28; 32:10;
helping 12:1; 186:16;
88:10, 15, 19; 92:1; 93:12;
251:6
210:12; 220:12
228:3
217:3
100:16; 116:22; 117:3;
growing 12:2; 28:16;
harvest 115:17
helps 25:21
138:19; 164:13; 202:5;
33:12; 36:12; 43:5; 47:5;
Hence 75:3
222:13; 254:12
I
hasn't 124:18
104:8; 107:16; 119:1;
hasten 157:6, 22
herds 54:19
hopefully 68:17; 80:4;
155:1; 171:11; 183:9;
113:5
185:7, 18; 186:5; 189:16
hastened 160:2
Here's 99:13
I-and 76:10
here-would 207:4
hopelessness 105:18
haunting 150:9
ice 41:14, 15; 43:10
grows 182:14
herself 151:8
hoping 178:21
haven't 41:22; 124:16;
idea 232:15; 243:4;
growth 14:13; 16:9, 10;
187:15; 248:5, 17; 250:3
hesitate 230:5
Hopkins 8:19
246:12; 248:15; 253:6
23:4, 22; 28:8; 36:6; 38:2,
4, 8; 132:21; 180:12;
haze 184:1, 2
hey 136:20
hospital 157:11, 12
ideas 7:21; 16:16; 248:4
183:1, 13, 16; 185:10;
head 11:2, 3; 33:6; 34:15;
high 30:9; 39:10; 46:16;
hospitality 10:4
identical 169:11
186:16; 220:15; 225:17
62:13; 172:8; 198:8, 9
49:6, 11, 14, 18; 66:11, 22;
Hospitalization 156:16
identified 229:9
GSA 98:19
headed 40:5, 15; 48:6;
67:1; 69:8; 106:12;
hospitalized 157:2
identify 150:4
guess 64:21; 222:21
76:15; 84:5
120:11; 156:9, 10; 168:14;
hospitals 186:17
Ignatius 8:15
guests 5:9; 10:8; 148:20
heading 42:2; 84:1
185:21; 187:3; 188:11;
host 5:15
ignore 15:14
guide 24:11; 48:19
headline 117:3
233:13; 245:3; 246:1
hosting 11:20
III 3:1
guided 237:19
heads 25:13
high-efficiency 117:12
hot 42:13; 44:8; 90:21;
il-liquid 251:12
guidepost 20:19
Headwaters 23:18
high-priced 135:1
92:11; 158:8
illness 97:18; 157:15
guys 148:1
health 21:13; 34:1; 44:10;
higher 41:6; 46:2; 58:8,
hotels 120:6
illnesses 156:4, 13
11; 59:9, 12; 65:16;
54:12; 57:2; 80:19;
hotter 60:17
122:20, 20; 124:7; 157:4;
illustrate 55:9; 98:13;
H
130:13; 151:13; 153:10,
159:6; 183:12, 16, 16;
hottest 25:4; 39:6, 7
179:12
14; 154:1; 155:8, 15, 22;
215:20; 219:7; 224:20;
hour 114:13; 119:21;
illustrious 166:20
156:5; 161:21; 162:22;
250:16; 251:10
142:18
habitat 197:13
imagination 60:21
192:1, 19; 225:11
hours 53:5; 165:12
habits 116:17
healthy 19:4; 22:20;
highest 82:15; 242:6
imagine 60:2; 76:12
Hail 4:16, 21
118:5; 152:7; 163:13
highlight 50:4
House 4:3; 5:16; 11:16;
immediate 7:3; 31:13;
half 5:11; 40:21; 52:1;
hear 13:4, 6; 16:2, 15;
highly 37:6; 184:13;
17:17; 22:13; 63:11;
180:19; 226:22
230:6; 246:7
140:16, 18; 149:4; 151:6;
91:11; 132:13; 142:19;
24:14; 45:8; 185:20; 239:2
immediately 118:18;
highly-polluting 187:9
153:12; 178:6; 184:3;
148:5
144:17; 158:11; 242:10
heard 64:10; 87:5;
189:20; 239:1; 254:10
hall 9:12; 20:12; 30:14;
124:20; 137:4; 155:7;
hill 134:19
immense 19:15; 43:20
houses 96:20; 133:15
148:10
169:12; 173:7; 182:14;
Hillary 151:7; 152:14
immigration 175:7
halogen 92:8, 16
190:18; 194:5, 7; 198:19;
Houston 190:2
hinder 16:9
immortal 150:7
224:21; 225:22; 238:14
Howard 98:19
hampered 66:9
historic 180:3
immune 159:14
hearing 67:10
huge 36:6; 83:22; 100:6;
hamstring 23:22
historical 13:14; 55:15
immunization 162:14
hears 211:11
109:9; 110:14; 112:10;
hand 36:13; 116:4; 139:6,
history 6:5; 14:4; 18:6,
114:7; 136:22; 137:1;
impact 14:9; 15:5; 50:21;
6; 225:14; 232:19; 233:2;
heart 185:18
12; 29:20; 151:21; 249:15
143:8; 196:21; 213:20
62:9; 69:12; 80:6; 89:10;
234:9; 252:8
heat 27:2; 35:11; 42:20;
hit 87:10; 156:22; 174:8
114:7; 121:14; 135:14, 15;
hull 84:6
handle 211:3
44:8; 52:17; 57:3, 5, 10;
154:6; 167:3; 170:4;
hold 164:7
63:11, 14; 72:15; 75:2;
human 8:10, 16; 14:4, 16,
183:22; 185:1, 8, 17;
happen 48:10; 54:3;
96:20; 97:5, 7, 22; 98:6, 8,
holding 84:17; 124:21
19; 32:21; 33:17; 34:1;
186:4; 207:19; 216:4;
68:19; 113:18, 18; 139:9;
17, 20, 21; 99:4, 7, 8, 19,
Holdren 32:9; 33:9, 10;
35:19; 36:14; 37:6, 8;
221:4; 222:18
140:14; 145:6; 154:3
20, 21; 100:3, 4; 109:5, 21;
47:18; 48:2, 5; 54:7; 57:3;
42:15; 44:6, 10; 54:12;
impacts 44:10, 20; 45:9,
happen-it's 102:9
120:2
58:17; 80:13; 89:3;
56:6; 57:2; 63:8; 71:14, 18;
12; 46:2; 50:4; 51:15;
happened 48:20; 69:2;
heath 162:11
131:18; 149:22; 179:12
73:11; 80:21; 81:16;
65:18; 67:16, 18; 68:1;
124:19; 144:14; 145:7;
Holdren's 87:5
161:14; 189:9; 192:21;
Heating 91:10
81:20; 135:4; 203:12;
209:17; 212:1
205:1
heats 99:5, 14
hole 23:16
204:11; 208:4; 221:10;
happening 52:20; 154:3;
heavily 34:5; 130:6
holocaust 206:18
humankind 9:15; 150:22
223:18; 225:10
167:4; 184:12, 13; 241:10
humid 158:8
happens 52:3; 57:8;
heavy 52:15; 53:3; 77:5;
home 19:14; 27:21;
impeded 145:20
50:21; 91:20; 92:1;
humidity 63:12
60:8; 139:4; 152:19;
116:19; 133:13
imperative 6:4; 16:6, 7;
137:18; 147:4: 168:11;
humility 246:2
225:3
175:8; 192:3; 241:15
hedge 240:7
183:21; 207:10, 15;
hundred 42:16; 79:17;
imperfect 144:7
happy 175:20; 234:8;
heed 23:12; 71:9
254:18
133:2; 176:12
imperiled 160:8
236:1
height 39:14
homeless 50:7
hundreds 35:19; 98:15;
implement 206:15
harbor 98:5
heighten 125:14
homeowners 27:1
144:3, 4; 218:16; 244:21
implementation 146:15;
hard 26:7; 56:21; 79:19;
held 8:2
homes 27:3; 89:20;
hunger 161:8
170:19; 193:15, 21;
83:17; 84:1; 131:21;
help 13:8; 19:11; 20:16;
90:13; 92:9; 138:4
hunk 136:22; 137:2
194:21; 195:11, 12;
ground-based implementation (12)
Min-U-Scripto
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
mic nouse Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
196:12; 200:6; 206:3;
incoming 35:10
95:14; 96:3; 98:7; 102:10;
insurance 134:13;
27:10; 32:6; 88:6, 95:6;
219:12; 227:2; 231:20
inconsistent 73:18
112:13, 22; 113:3, 11, 16;
162:11; 216:11
132:10; 144:5; 152:13;
implemented 239:19;
incorporates 198:18
114:2; 128:19; 129:13, 18;
insure 171:9
164:16; 165:2; 171:21;
15:18
131:19; 181:18; 188:1;
increase 39:22; 43:17;
intact 97:12
215:8; 224:19
plementing 204:17
201:1; 216:11; 221:5;
44:22; 46:17; 47:7; 51:4, 6,
integral 174:21; 175:5;
introduction 32:5; 133:3;
234:15
plications 6:9; 64:14;
53:1, 3, 13; 54:9; 56:18;
253:19
135:16, 21; 144:15
216:3; 222:17
58:11; 63:6; 66:17; 69:11;
inefficiency 121:14, 15
inundate 44:1
integrate 183:8
importance 19:15;
71:21; 72:10; 73:4, 15;
inefficient 187:8; 251:9,
inundated 51:20
84:21; 119:5; 134:11;
13
integrated 186:12
149:8; 174:15; 176:19;
integrity 9:6
inundating 53:5
178:15, 17; 198:7
138:17; 139:15; 156:7, 12;
inexpensive 217:16
inundation 45:1
157:10; 158:19; 159:20;
infant 154:19
intelligent 239:8
important 10:5; 13:7;
invented 203:18
224:2, 3; 225:18
17:6; 19:21; 22:5; 24:10;
infections 156:7
intense 52:15, 16, 20;
increased 38:22; 39:11;
69:7; 77:11, 13
inventive 242:15
38:13; 42:17; 45:11; 50:3;
infectious 157:18, 18;
51:14; 55:18; 64:15, 17;
43:15; 44:7, 21; 49:6; 50:1;
intensity 53:11, 13
inventiveness 18:22
57:14; 58:5; 64:11, 13;
158:1; 160:3
69:1, 16; 76:9; 86:21;
infinite 212:4
intent 237:7, 7
invest 89:2; 107:12;
68:9, 11, 22; 69:4, 6;
122:22; 146:16; 199:21
103:8, 22; 106:11; 107:21;
72:14; 85:7; 95:15; 106:3;
influx 159:10
intention 20:2; 130:9
109:14; 132:18; 146:21;
invested 102:13; 108:15
137:1; 156:17
inform 217:9
interagency 214:1;
150:22; 151:19; 153:1;
223:16
investment 107:3, 5;
158:7; 192:12; 198:10, 11;
increases 28:2; 40:1;
information 54:7; 80:1;
124:14; 144:14; 145:2, 4,
interconnectedness
123:1; 181:1; 219:6;
199:1; 200:9, 14; 203:7;
41:5; 46:7, 11, 22; 47:3;
220:4; 221:6; 236:14;
49:2; 57:13; 59:2; 67:8;
7, 16; 191:16, 17, 18;
204:12
207:14; 208:7; 214:9;
238:4
215:21; 216:3, 8; 217:8, 9,
71:13, 18; 75:16, 16;
246:11, 13; 248:14
interdependent 107:16
investments 17:16;
14, 14; 219:14, 15; 221:12;
156:18; 157:22; 180:7;
infrastructure 111:6, 15;
interdisciplinary 149:11
226:22
122:17; 181:3
227:8; 228:10; 231:10;
119:5; 130:3; 145:13, 16,
interest 8:14; 9:14;
242:14; 249:3, 11
increasing 36:15; 38:20;
17; 243:8
Investors 95:19; 110:5
47:11; 62:1; 195:4;
39:19; 49:19; 54:8; 55:3;
ingenuity 6:17; 18:6
invite 212:21
importantly 23:10;
208:11; 240:8
104:15; 181:14
69:10; 77:20; 100:7;
inhabit 152:8
involve 16:18; 223:21
139:19; 158:15; 159:20;
interested 171:2; 228:8;
importation 132:12
inhabitants 189:1
involved 112:19, 20, 22;
191:12; 219:6
231:22
imported 106:21
inherent 5:22
113:7; 165:1; 196:11;
increasingly 107:16;
interesting 66:17; 77:19;
225:9; 226:6; 227:1; 251:6
importers 230:16
128:18; 146:5; 156:2
inherit 163:14
89:3; 213:8; 254:7
involved-the 139:3
imports 132:8
incredibly 197:2
initial 134:22
INTERESTS 3:2; 152:3;
involvement 203:11
impose 79:19
incremental 113:12;
initially 130:19; 182:4
170:3; 171:19; 202:22;
poses 130:13
126:9
initiative 123:4
208:12; 233:10
involves 85:15; 185:14;
hpossible 212:2
initiatives 12:7; 151:15;
interference 81:16, 18
219:13; 223:11
incubation 158:2
mpressive 151:2; 193:4
Indeed 24:1; 70:19;
228:12
Intergovernmental
involving 126:16
innovation 98:11;
33:7;34:6
ion 93:15
improve 99:2; 100:20;
181:22; 216:12; 233:5
Interior 10:15
IPCC 34:15; 40:5; 70:14,
151:16; 191:19, 20; 217:1;
indefinite 64:18; 127:10
103:17; 104:16; 107:7;
219:9
119:15; 168:15; 170:10;
internal 213:15
21; 74:13
indefinitely 146:8, 9
improvements 113:12;
184:8
International 3:18; 7:20,
ironic 205:5
index 63:11, 14; 140:2
180:2
innovations 105:15
22; 12:2; 22:8; 30:5; 34:8;
irresponsible 141:3
India 129:4; 174:19;
improving 146:19; 189:8
innovative 24:2; 26:17;
70:5; 71:3; 107:4; 126:17;
irreversibility 240:16
186:7; 221:14
190:7
149:15; 159:17; 168:4;
irrigation 58:20; 161:5;
in-home 151:12
indicate 229:14
172:1; 173:4; 175:19;
inadequate 44:18;
insects 159:10
191:14
indicated 221:7
200:10; 207:16; 209:2, 18;
176:20
inside 189:20
island 44:3; 72:16
indicates 221:16
213:21; 219:11; 231:18
insight 29:14
isotopic 72:7
Inc 3:16
indicator 42:11
internationally 126:20;
incentive 102:15
insights 170:20
issue 9:10; 13:14, 15;
indifferent 144:10
193:14; 203:10, 20;
24:12; 25:14; 28:21;
incentives 146:6, 9;
insist 147:15
213:14
indirect 74:12, 13
70:12; 76:6; 78:20;
199:6; 201:5; 238:3
installing 99:18
interpret 25:8
individual 8:9; 148:8;
109:15; 111:8, 10; 114:20;
inches 43:16, 17, 22
154:17; 190:11
instance 130:3; 155:19
interpreted 249:5, 6
118:13; 125:11; 149:8;
inchoate 240:18
individuals 10:11; 11:12;
instances 17:11
interviewing 61:13
150:2; 152:6; 161:20;
incidence 65:16; 66:11,
32:7; 190:8, 15; 199:18
instant 206:14
into 20:9; 27:11; 28:20;
164:21; 169:1; 173:10;
14, 22; 67:2, 13
Indonesia 174:19
instead 21:6; 187:13;
29:1; 37:13, 18; 42:21;
174:14, 14, 17; 175:8, 9,
include 33:22; 44:20;
52:9, 10, 12; 56:8; 59:14;
15; 176:4, 5, 17, 19;
induce 6:21; 181:17
220:17; 229:19
87:7; 106:6; 116:18;
instilled 29:15
69:9, 22; 75:15; 76:15;
177:16; 178:1, 8, 11, 12,
181:12; 195:16; 202:6;
industrial 36:3; 38:12;
85:9, 21; 91:22; 98:17;
12, 13, 14; 180:18; 186:18;
93:22; 99:6; 119:4;
Institute 3:8, 25; 95:13;
104:22; 111:16; 122:10;
201:21; 203:7, 9; 208:13;
253:17
168:15; 187:9
103:1; 172:8; 217:20
included 121:2; 177:8;
124:8; 125:6; 128:4, 21;
209:5; 215:16; 218:16;
industrialization 36:7
institutional 181:11
249:18
130:6; 135:1; 153:5;
220:9; 234:10; 235:16;
industrialized 27:15;
institutions 181:3
163:16; 164:7, 15; 170:20;
250:21
includes 107:5; 187:20;
28:9; 37:7, 21; 84:14;
instruction 93:1; 151:12
172:17; 176:21; 186:3, 8;
issue-and 111:19
193:20; 213:11
168:8, 21
instrument 229:20;
190:14; 192:1, 10; 193:15;
issued 88:22; 89:8
ncluding 11:5, 13;
industrializing 221:13
231:17; 234:16, 21
209:19; 210:4, 10; 226:9;
issues 7:14; 112:15;
:21; 83:12; 93:9;
instruments 218:22;
243:7; 248:12; 249:9
68:18; 182:4; 193:11;
industries 94:5; 129:21;
149:20; 150:22; 153:16;
205:17; 216:17; 217:19;
144:14; 145:14; 237:17
228:22; 231:3; 232:4;
intricacies 101:2
174:11; 175:7, 7; 181:13;
221:13; 223:16; 232:20;
industry 7:18; 17:4;
244:13
intriguing 243:13
217:18
233:2
26:11; 70:16; 90:2; 94:8;
insulation 119:17
introduce 9:17; 18:20;
it's-now 108:17
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(13) implemented - it's--now
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
itself 157:3; 176:2;
Karl's 63:13
7, 15; 152:2, 9, 13; 164:14;
launching 12:10
level 43:7, 15, 22; 44:22;
234:20
Kassebaum 162:14
174:9
laundry 120:9
46:21; 47:17; 54:4; 81:15;
IV 3:20
Katie 11:1; 253:21
lagging 107:2
Laureates 216:18
82:7; 125:3; 168:5; 176:8,
keep 19:12; 20:6; 56:22;
laid 15:21; 210:2
law 101:8; 162:19
21, 22; 178:7; 206:5;
J
79:21; 101:12; 112:16;
Lake 51:16
210:16; 237:3
laws 98:10; 101:17, 21
162:19
Lakes 51:16
levels 37:5; 45:20; 51:15;
lay 130:1
keeping 35:6
58:8; 82:13; 137:3; 156:9,
J 4:20
lamp 92:4, 6
layer 23:16; 209:21
10; 160:4, 22; 179:18;
Jack 11:10
keeps 248:8
lamps 92:8, 12, 16
laying 247:3
201:17; 220:11; 223:10;
Kemoff 196:15
James 3:5; 10:20; 62:12;
land 12:8; 36:1; 39:12;
lead 23:15; 67:11;
236:20; 244:22; 247:11
64:5; 172:4
Kennedy 162:13; 217:21;
72:18; 150:8; 161:5;
167:19; 215:11; 230:9
levitated 114:13
228:3
Janet 11:10
195:17; 242:12
lead-acetate 189:16
levitation 114:16; 117:4
Kenya 159:9
January 131:14
landfills 241:17
leader 7:4; 12:11; 130:21
liens 240:6
key 34:3; 104:6; 207:1
Japan 25:17; 98:9; 111:2;
landing 201:10
leaders 7:18; 11:13;
lies 17:7
168:2; 186:8
keys 236:16
landmark 12:7
22:14; 116:7; 149:17;
life 6:11; 8:18; 18:13;
kick 88:7
Japanese 114:11
lands 129:2
177:14
31:4, 5, 6, 11; 35:17; 45:3;
killed 157:20
Jed 190:3
large 4:9; 11:17; 13:18;
leadership 9:10; 10:5;
119:3, 6; 125:21; 137:21;
killer 160:14
18:6; 28:1; 43:18; 44:15;
11:21; 12:4, 17; 18:1, 21;
Jefferson 19:6
146:19; 189:9
kind 10:3; 12:4; 14:16, 19;
53:15; 54:18; 56:3; 66:21;
19:11; 21:21; 26:2;
Jemison 3:15, 16; 30:4;
lifetime 48:11; 145:15;
16:11; 27:12; 60:5; 63:5;
172:8, 8; 188:19; 189:2;
70:10; 72:3; 74:19; 76:4;
105:15; 106:18; 119:12;
196:22
69:2; 79:21; 114:14;
110:19; 113:12; 120:6;
123:7, 17; 132:17; 133:6;
193:4
lifting 36:8
121:21; 122:15; 130:1;
168:14; 171:7; 177:21;
127:13, 17, 19; 129:8;
jeopardize 26:8
178:1; 235:21
light 53:6; 93:9; 116:18;
138:4; 141:17, 19; 165:21;
130:13; 144:2, 22; 185:10,
14; 223:15; 236:8; 239:21;
leading 6:18; 13:5; 18:6;
124:17; 133:13; 137:17,
Jessica 3:17; 171:22;
166:11; 171:16; 187:16;
18, 20; 138:4; 140:15, 18,
202:13, 18; 208:16;
203:1; 211:6; 226:12;
248:16; 253:1, 6
26:20; 27:7; 34:9; 70:5;
21; 141:4; 224:14; 225:2
213:13
227:10, 12; 228:13;
78:19; 150:16; 151:16;
232:11, 13; 234:16, 21;
large-scale 75:11; 77:2
152:3; 155:8; 210:1
lighting 4:10; 91:15;
Jesuit 8:13, 19
235:16; 253:9
largely 54:16; 66:5; 90:5
119:16, 16
Jesuits 5:13; 8:15
leads 21:2; 69:8; 118:21
Jesus 8:21
kinds 17:16; 44:5; 45:5;
larger 81:4; 146:1; 224:3
Leahy 11:5
likely 28:4; 33:22; 40:8,
114:17; 117:2; 166:17;
largest 35:13; 77:11;
12; 44:19, 20; 46:2; 53:22;
Jim 173:5, 13; 178:21
leapfrog 130:1
213:18
54:9; 55:4; 60:20; 131:9;
123:8; 130:17; 156:17;
job 27:13; 29:1; 168:6;
learn 209:17; 249:12;
193:7; 196:11; 221:13
156:7; 157:5, 8; 161:6;
knew 15:22; 212:9
172:21; 228:13; 229:17;
251:1
182:20; 215:19; 220:15;
235:12; 237:16; 238:4
knowledge 6:8; 9:13;
Larry 3:22; 96:9; 131:3;
learned 115:7; 229:21;
222:4
22:15; 30:2; 71:1, 10;
215:6; 218:20; 236:1
jobs 7:4; 105:11; 222:9;
239:19; 254:15
limit 171:13; 191:21;
105:8
last 12:5; 19:22; 20:1;
235:11; 237:15
learning 191:18; 214:2
215:18
known 56:13; 68:6;
21:15; 23:10, 11; 36:5;
Joe 11:3
Leary 148:6
limited 146:17; 199:16;
237:22
37:13; 38:19; 39:4, 6;
John 3:29; 32:9; 33:9;
41:13; 42:1, 8; 43:16;
least 79:17; 108:3; 120:7;
242:22
knows 96:10; 101:11;
54:7; 57:3; 58:17; 79:6, 14;
50:11, 17; 53:12, 17;
143:6; 153:20; 157:8;
limiting 105:5
233:8
86:22; 131:18; 145:11;
Korea 186:8
63:11; 64:8; 66:15, 20;
163:15; 181:4; 194:13;
limits 133:12; 168:16
149:21; 179:11; 180:8;
73:1; 74:12; 75:14; 77:10,
205:2
Lincoln 33:4
217:22; 228:3; 235:6, 7
Krupp 3:13; 172:11;
13; 78:10; 93:22; 104:18;
leave 85:11; 97:11;
193:8; 194:3; 198:5;
line 24:16; 68:16; 79:1;
join 87:17; 181:22
111:16; 114:4, 11, 12, 19;
162:13
200:22
82:11, 15; 85:14; 86:22;
joined 10:22; 215:5
115:8; 116:8; 123:5;
leaves 182:6
87:1, 10; 153:21; 158:7;
Kurt 95:11; 102:18, 21
joining 215:3
134:9; 135:3; 156:14, 21;
leaving 31:16
178:3, 4
KYOTO 3:1; 8:2; 25:16;
166:1; 187:8; 192:15;
joint 126:16; 146:15;
led 12:6; 106:18; 156:21;
line-it 87:1
28:13; 71:3; 100:16;
224:17, 21; 225:22;
193:14, 21; 195:11, 12;
163:22; 167:22
110:17; 130:21; 131:11;
232:10
lines 20:9; 40:13; 71:11,
196:12; 200:5, 5; 206:3;
136:16; 139:8; 168:2;
Lee 10:20; 62:12; 64:5
16; 82:16; 218:12
219:11; 227:2; 231:20
Lastly 75:5; 200:16
185:19; 193:20; 202:4;
late 65:5; 122:18; 136:7
left 95:12; 102:10;
link 76:18; 78:13
joke 247:2
205:7; 206:13, 20; 207:2,
192:20; 250:8
links 233:11
jolting 16:14
later 34:16; 35:22; 85:11;
10; 211:7
left-over 100:3
101:21; 109:14; 137:13;
Linn 3:11; 172:10; 193:6;
joy 164:20
Kyoto-I 207:3
167:21; 181:21; 201:14;
legislation 162:12;
198:6; 199:22; 201:2
judged 169:5
254:9
249:18
lip 169:4; 228:9; 231:22
judgment 108:11;
L
Latin 128:16; 183:14;
Leo 4:20; 10:3
lip-service 198:14
110:16; 136:16; 141:17
185:11
less 37:14, 16, 16, 20;
liquid 115:19
July 57:4
lab 141:10
Latinos 157:4
38:3, 11; 43:5; 46:11;
liquidity 248:4
jumped 156:16
labor 6:15; 230:21; 235:7;
latitudes 39:10; 41:6;
73:16, 17; 82:14; 103:18;
list 30:18
justice 9:1
108:1; 109:22; 120:18;
236:2
45:4; 46:16; 49:6, 12, 14,
138:2; 150:6; 151:9;
listed 148:8
justice's 9:4
18
laboratories 89:7; 94:17
166:5, 5; 199:12; 227:20
listen 165:20; 223:3
Laughter 25:6; 48:12;
labs 131:20; 136:19
K
56:10; 65:1; 92:18, 21;
less-maybe 107:22
Listening 183:5; 254:13
lack 160:6, 7
93:2; 117:5; 141:1;
less-developed 84:14
lists 132:2
Ladies 4:17, 22; 9:17;
142:21; 143:17, 20;
lesson 87:5; 249:12;
literally 70:20
Karl 32:15; 45:9; 47:14;
10:1; 87:16, 20; 88:1;
147:16; 150:18; 174:1;
252:20
literally-we'd 137:22
48:13, 13, 16, 17; 54:7;
148:4, 12, 14, 20; 152:12;
179:14; 188:13, 16;
lessons 238:19; 251:2;
lithium 93:15
61:11, 16, 18; 63:17, 18;
183:3
205:16; 247:8; 251:21
252:14
little 5:5; 29:19, 22; 34:16;
68:12; 69:5; 75:20
Lady 5:18; 148:14; 151:5,
launch 18:2
letting 19:13
50:21; 53:7, 21; 54:6;
itself little (14)
Min-U-Scripto
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
64:20; 69:22; 73:15, 17;
lose 70:1; 87:10
120:21; 126:18; 127:11;
251:8, 9, 13, 15, 19
measurements 74:7, 12
82:14; 91:5; 92:6; 102:3;
losing 168:16
128:11; 169:14, 16;
market-based 26:10;
measures 73:5; 170:10,
108:1; 110:6; 133:8;
loss 119:19; 161:5;
174:18; 198:9; 225:7
193:20; 217:13; 228:22;
11, 12; 193:11; 216:21;
134:16; 136:7; 190:21;
237:16
majority 24:19; 70:11;
229:20; 232:4; 239:5;
236:8, 15
3:22; 209:3; 227:14, 14;
losses 65:12, 16
71:7; 74:19; 76:4
245:17
measuring 205:22
9:2; 254:9
makers 7:19; 34:12; 46:1;
market-driven 129:17
ve 22:10; 31:5; 54:22;
lost 90:21; 93:18
meats 162:18
243:7
lot 11:12; 34:21; 51:13;
market-friendly 218:21
mechanism 232:12
56:13; 73:8; 176:11, 13;
makes 113:11; 120:14;
market-oriented 184:6
177:13; 190:22; 209:8
56:5; 60:8; 61:8; 64:7;
mechanisms 193:21;
69:5, 9; 70:1; 76:4, 11;
123:22; 147:4; 165:3;
market-permit-trading
lived 60:14; 125:7
203:16; 205:21; 210:10
83:21; 84:18; 86:7; 92:11;
180:6, 9; 181:6; 184:1;
138:14
media 184:2
Liverman 32:19; 45:9;
241:22
96:10; 97:9; 99:3; 110:12;
marketing 143:11
53:20; 54:2; 59:10; 60:22;
Medicaid 162:12
112:14, 20; 113:7, 11, 14;
making 21:1; 23:8; 34:12;
63:20; 67:17
marketplace 135:2
79:22; 81:2; 89:1; 153:20;
medical 157:8; 162:13
115:7, 8; 117:16; 124:12;
Liverman's 159:15
markets 100:18; 106:4;
251:7
medication 159:2
132:21; 138:2; 139:16;
139:19; 141:18; 146:19;
lives 21:7; 191:9
148:2; 158:4; 164:1;
malaria 44:11; 59:3, 5,7,
meet 25:16; 28:17;
183:17; 184:6, 6; 191:20;
livestock 161:3
166:12; 174:3; 182:14;
11, 14; 62:20, 22; 154:14,
113:15; 116:9; 153:22;
200:8; 238:13; 240:5;
living 86:13; 126:1;
185:3; 188:19; 194:6;
18; 157:19; 158:10, 12, 15,
157:12; 167:16; 171:15;
242:17, 20; 243:8
140:16; 151:17; 183:17;
198:18; 204:18; 224:12;
18; 159:2, 8, 19, 21
187:13; 217:10; 233:19
marries 225:21
216:21; 220:22
238:15
malaria-related 158:19
meeting 168:20; 228:13;
Mary 93:12; 95:17; 110:2,
local 98:13; 161:6
lots 112:8; 144:22;
Malina 210:1
232:21
12, 19; 117:1
184:15; 214:13
meets 141:7
locations 231:13
malnourished 154:19
Mason 96:4; 126:12;
locus-there 180:12
Louisiana 160:19
malnutrition 154:14;
megawatts 98:16, 17;
136:10
long 28:21; 30:15, 20;
love 29:22; 55:1
161:8
99:19, 19
mass 116:12
31:5, 6; 135:4; 138:1;
loved 30:14; 165:14
melt 43:3
man 19:3; 60:13; 238:12
Massachusetts 3:8
140:22; 150:8; 152:8;
low 44:2; 45:1; 106:16;
manage 83:7; 120:13;
melting 43:9, 11
massive 145:21; 214:5
157:12; 165:10; 169:2;
113:3; 119:16; 130:19;
236:9; 237:1; 254:19
member 32:11; 60:10;
170:17; 179:11; 180:22;
160:17; 207:4; 234:7
mater 152:19
64:5; 95:19; 96:9; 110:5;
Managing 95:19; 110:5
197:4; 202:18; 203:13;
low-carbon 17:8
materials 113:4; 124:4,
153:3; 172:3; 179:4;
206:21; 211:2; 217:1;
mandate 167:18; 241:3
low-cost 17:2; 111:11
Mathews 3:17; 171:22;
215:14
227:3; 244:3; 246:5
mankind 107:11
202:13; 203:2; 205:17;
members 5:5, 7, 8; 11:4;
low-hanging 247:20
long-range 131:4
Manley 8:19
209:2; 211:10, 17, 22;
19:17, 18; 32:7; 87:15, 18;
low-sulphur 245:10;
ng-run 219:21; 220:12;
manmade 36:20
243:5
96:14; 165:2; 212:22;
250:11
5:7
manner 23:9
matter 19:15; 28:12;
216:18; 249:1; 253:15;
lower 80:10; 106:13;
Mansfield 62:6
40:2; 156:11; 159:7; 202:4
254:2
5ng-term 7:2; 73:22
109:10; 134:17; 138:11;
long-time 254:3
181:19; 200:1; 219:14;
manual 93:1
matters 10:5; 34:10;
men 235:9; 237:8
longer 17:7; 79:17; 81:6;
229:10; 231:17; 247:11;
manufacturable 113:10
161:10; 231:11
mending 21:21
114:18; 115:21; 134:4;
248:16; 252:2
manufacturers 109:19
maximum 217:17
mention 209:10; 221:4;
140:21; 145:18; 245:19
lowering 139:17
manufacturing 137:7
may 8:8; 11:6; 17:10;
253:14
longstanding 155:15
51:10; 55:14; 67:10, 12,
mentioned 34:7, 15;
lowest 82:20
manure 191:3
look 7:12; 10:10; 15:3, 20;
16; 77:13; 92:5; 122:21;
41:5; 51:18; 57:3; 62:20;
lubricated 248:3
many 10:5; 11:14; 13:18;
41:16; 45:22; 53:6, 10;
125:14; 139:4; 150:6, 21;
131:18; 132:20; 134:1;
lumps 90:17, 20
14:10; 22:18; 26:15;
61:21; 75:13, 14; 79:15;
183:12; 217:1; 226:11;
145:12; 200:17; 204:13;
27:18, 18; 31:10; 44:13;
207:12; 244:7; 253:10
89:16; 91:8; 93:5; 104:21;
lunch 164:13
240:21; 243:2, 20
112:2; 114:1, 9, 10, 18, 22;
lung 78:10, 14
45:6; 56:19; 57:20; 61:5, 9,
maybe 66:16; 79:17;
Mercado 196:15
13, 22; 65:7; 75:6; 103:4;
115:22; 122:9; 131:16;
lying 44:3; 45:1
80:7; 97:14; 144:20;
Mercedes-Benz 27:10
118:17; 119:13; 143:15;
134:5, 5; 135:9, 14, 18;
165:17; 179:15; 193:22;
150:12; 151:14; 153:2;
merits 80:12
136:3, 20; 137:4; 153:5;
M
202:7; 238:17
156:4, 9; 169:12; 186:12;
message 88:15; 93:3;
175:15; 181:4; 184:12;
McCormick 99:20
197:9; 201:1; 208:3;
97:5; 223:6; 227:20
185:12; 212:10; 213:20;
209:22; 210:2; 212:14;
McGinty 11:1; 253:21
met 60:13; 150:9; 153:11;
216:3; 223:20; 225:1;
Madam 165:5; 172:21;
213:15; 216:7; 219:10;
me--we 136:6
160:16
227:8, 13; 245:8; 248:18;
173:1, 20; 179:8; 183:2;
224:12; 232:20, 21; 233:2,
meal 189:20
249:17; 254:10
metal 94:3, 8
194:5; 198:12; 202:11;
244:20; 248:15; 254:8
looked 29:11; 72:8;
203:2
mean 38:21; 43:3; 49:16;
meter 43:22
map 43:21; 57:10; 59:3
89:20; 137:12, 16; 187:14;
81:19; 114:4; 133:10;
Madeleine 3:3; 10:14;
meters 159:12
147:17; 166:2; 212:1, 10;
maple 55:12, 14
200:5; 205:20, 21; 229:6
213:1
methane 35:15; 36:1;
213:6; 223:15; 225:7;
maples 55:8, 9, 16, 20
meaningful 28:13; 141:9;
Mae 3:15; 30:4; 172:7
241:17
248:5
magic 236:12, 18, 20
maps 159:15
171:9; 228:19
methanol 115:18
looking 15:4; 29:6; 30:14;
margin 226:2
means 16:13; 29:20;
magnified 14:7
metric 196:6; 197:1
77:12; 116:1; 131:16;
marginal 129:2; 174:12;
38:5; 42:20, 21; 73:21;
153:13; 165:22; 170:15;
magnitude 47:11; 77:15,
234:14
111:9; 147:22; 158:2;
Mexico 61:7
21
160:17; 173:15; 187:6;
Michael 95:22; 117:11,
175:11; 177:5, 22; 183:11;
Marion 210:1
186:10; 189:11; 190:6;
main 4:7; 33:19; 36:7, 8;
191:3
20; 133:22; 141:22
221:6
market 96:21; 97:10;
2:5, 6; 214:13; 248:9,
meant 28:1
microchips 144:17, 18
138:14; 142:7, 8, 12;
251:9
mainly 35:21
measurable 37:4
microprocessors
144:6, 9; 191:5, 17; 199:5;
looks 122:19; 246:16
maintain 86:12
212:14; 219:1, 20; 227:5;
measure 73:7; 74:8;
144:15; 145:4,9
Loose 237:14
maintained 44:16
235:12; 236:12; 239:7, 8;
140:20; 208:13
mid 49:5, 11, 14; 135:4
Los 61:7
major 77:7; 115:20;
240:17, 18; 242:10; 244:1;
measured 72:17; 187:7
middle 40:14; 63:15;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(15) live middle
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
82:17; 127:20; 226:12;
modeling 220:8
156:21; 157:20; 165:11,
130:6; 145:2; 210:6;
25:16; 26:1; 27:15, 18;
240:1
models 39:21; 56:1; 75:6,
11; 166:16; 181:14, 21;
248:12
28:14; 37:21; 38:12; 44:3;
Midwest 67:3
11; 218:17
182:7; 184:8, 14; 190:21;
Mrs 148:19; 152:16, 21
59:7; 86:14; 87:8; 94:16;
might 14:15; 15:22; 18:5;
moderate 31:14; 53:6;
195:2; 196:4; 198:6;
much 9:20, 22; 10:1;
100:17; 167:9; 168:10, 22;
25:2; 44:16; 54:12; 62:1;
66:19; 235:2
199:14; 206:15; 209:4;
14:13; 19:9; 27:13; 33:10;
169:8; 170:1; 200:12;
64:14; 82:20; 108:3;
moderating 215:10
213:9; 214:2; 216:17;
38:3, 7; 40:16; 48:22;
210:3; 243:1
116:3; 131:11; 139:11;
217:8; 219:2; 221:1, 20;
MODERATOR 4:2, 17,
51:10; 56:16; 59:16; 70:4;
natural 12:9; 33:15;
146:4; 224:10; 230:8;
226:15; 229:15; 234:11;
22; 87:20; 148:4, 12; 164:6
81:4; 88:9; 90:8; 108:6, 13;
35:13; 41:19; 42:6; 71:19,
233:1; 235:9, 11; 242:3;
237:15; 239:11; 248:13;
modern 102:16; 127:17
109:4, 5; 110:15, 21;
22; 72:11; 73:11, 14, 20;
246:14; 254:19
249:3; 252:3
modernized 122:3
111:3; 113:18, 19; 115:11,
76:1; 90:9; 91:9; 93:16;
migrate 56:20
Moreover 158:14;
17; 116:2; 126:11; 131:7;
97:14; 98:3; 108:5, 7;
modest 236:8
203:16
migration 181:17; 192:2
137:8, 9; 139:10; 140:21;
184:14; 185:2; 186:1, 9,
modular 130:5
morning 4:2, 5; 5:10, 12;
143:9, 15; 145:4, 18, 21;
13; 188:2; 197:13; 205:10;
miles 56:19, 21; 98:14;
Mohawk 26:22
13:4; 30:17; 34:4, 7, 16;
150:17, 20; 152:17;
228:2; 229:5
114:13
Miller 11:6
moisture 43:4; 47:5; 69:9
47:19; 67:10; 84:4;
153:19; 155:19, 20; 164:4,
naturally 35:4
119:15; 120:10; 150:13,
moment 10:7; 77:18;
11, 12; 165:5, 7; 172:20;
nature 22:19; 71:15;
million 40:20; 42:1;
19; 153:12; 155:7; 159:15;
195:10
173:2, 19; 174:13; 178:18,
47:16; 50:6, 7; 71:20, 22;
167:2; 173:7; 176:3;
138:5; 235:11; 240:6
82:2, 2, 14; 128:8; 132:8,
momentarily 90:1
20; 182:10; 185:3, 13;
177:6; 179:12; 180:9;
near 39:10; 40:19; 43:19;
moments 67:17
198:3; 201:19, 20; 204:5;
183:6; 190:18; 194:6;
206:5; 246:17
9, 15; 156:20; 157:20, 21;
211:9, 14, 15; 212:20;
158:13; 159:22; 160:10,
momentum 83:22; 168:4
198:19; 201:3; 207:13;
nearest 4:6
213:4; 214:14; 215:13;
12; 162:11; 176:12, 17;
monetization 242:4
211:18; 224:15; 235:1
218:5; 219:2; 221:8;
nearly 17:12; 29:3; 65:9;
196:6, 7, 22; 241:1, 4, 4;
monetize 241:20
morning's 149:21
222:12; 223:1; 226:17, 20;
70:17; 71:17; 156:20
249:19
monetizing 241:1
mortgage-backed
227:20, 21; 231:5, 17;
Nebraska 33:3
millions 55:10; 123:13;
242:19
money 26:17; 99:3, 10,
232:8; 235:5; 238:10;
necessarily 146:8;
154:11; 155:5; 162:21
12; 100:10; 115:9; 122:1;
mosquitoes 58:21;
243:12; 247:11; 248:13,
207:7; 230:6
mind 101:12
138:1; 196:18; 198:21;
60:17; 158:11; 159:8, 11
16; 251:9
necessary 18:10; 178:5;
mindful 4:11
205:1; 207:3
most 5:20; 14:21; 18:21;
multilateral 207:20;
179:18; 181:12; 226:3;
minds 239:16; 252:15
monitor 157:15; 216:9,
21:7, 19; 22:5, 6; 25:1;
209:12
246:7; 247:1
10
37:8; 45:11; 47:1; 53:3;
Munoz 11:3
necessity 159:3
Mines 100:5
monitoring 203:22
54:15; 56:16; 57:15;
music 29:21
need 13:9; 30:21; 45:22;
mini-hydro 192:11
59:20; 66:7; 70:22; 75:11;
monopolies 97:12;
must 8:7, 11; 15:3, 4, 7;
46:1; 56:8; 60:6; 71:9;
minimize 109:16
77:11, 13; 78:21; 80:17,
124:21
25:17; 26:2, 3, 9, 10, 12;
83:18; 84:10; 85:1; 86:2;
minimizing 170:4
21; 81:1, 5; 82:21; 90:11;
monopoly 101:16;
27:14; 28:15; 29:16;
89:1; 102:11; 108:13;
91:9; 104:15; 109:2;
minimum 178:7
102:11
74:19; 106:22; 107:11, 14;
114:1, 6, 18; 115:6; 117:7;
115:15; 120:14; 121:7;
mining 23:20
121:1; 152:5; 167:4, 5, 6;
122:9; 128:2, 7, 20;
monopoly-is 102:10
134:16; 150:21; 151:3, 3;
168:7, 7, 9, 11, 13, 22;
129:20; 134:5, 5; 135:7;
ministers 70:20
month 63:1
153:16; 157:9; 158:13;
169:9, 15; 216:17; 223:6;
136:6, 12; 144:3; 146:6;
minivans 93:9
months 21:15; 63:22;
160:8, 15; 161:10; 163:19;
235:16; 236:13, 13; 237:2,
163:17; 167:6; 168:7;
minority 71:7
144:18
166:7; 169:8; 174:8, 9;
6, 20; 238:2, 3, 4; 254:22
169:21; 171:18; 176:5;
Minster 187:22
182:19; 183:13; 187:8, 9;
Montreal 209:17
192:12, 18; 194:17; 203:7,
must-join 8:4
180:20; 181:22; 185:14;
minus 36:22; 153:19;
monumental 150:1
189:7; 194:9, 13; 200:13;
9; 204:6, 21; 213:13;
muster 140:6
201:3; 216:3; 226:7, 12;
226:2
moon 29:4
216:8; 220:9; 222:16;
mutual 169:10; 171:19,
243:5, 6; 247:18; 248:17;
minute 51:18; 238:14
moral 185:21; 187:3
223:11, 20; 225:6; 237:9;
19; 185:16
253:5
minutes 13:12; 113:22;
morality 178:13
248:2; 249:5; 250:19
myself 140:17; 202:1
needed 18:21; 128:1;
173:21
more 5:12; 6:6; 7:11; 8:8;
mostly 43:8
203:17, 20; 207:21, 22;
miracles 224:19
15:6; 17:5, 7; 19:14; 24:14,
mother 155:14
N
208:2; 229:3
miraculously 231:8
17; 25:20, 22; 26:14; 27:3,
motivation 126:5, 6;
needs 28:17; 32:14;
miscalculation 232:14
5; 28:18; 31:11; 34:16, 21;
222:5
102:9; 123:2, 6; 125:11;
misread 231:4
36:18; 37:11; 41:7; 42:20,
Mount 62:6
name 29:14; 126:13;
146:12; 171:11; 172:17;
21, 21, 22; 44:13, 14; 45:8,
209:9
miss 150:17
mountain 43:10
174:6; 182:18; 190:11;
22; 46:1, 22; 47:3, 19;
named 9:12
248:1, 3
missed 204:14
49:10, 13; 52:12, 16; 53:6,
mountainous 159:9
namely 35:10
negative 83:6; 114:7
missiles 166:3
21; 54:13; 57:12; 59:8, 11,
mounting 12:22
nation 6:18; 8:3; 18:4;
mission 9:2
mouth 51:12
negligible 221:11
13, 16; 60:17; 64:2; 68:20,
65:10; 67:6; 76:13;
Mississippi 51:12, 19
20, 21; 76:11; 77:17, 18;
move 33:9; 55:5, 6, 17;
negotiate 206:15; 208:2,
167:13; 170:5, 6; 199:10,
Mississippi-l'm 50:13
79:9, 14; 80:20; 81:5, 6, 7;
8
56:4, 8, 17, 18; 70:4;
10, 22; 238:2
83:4; 85:3, 8; 87:11; 89:2;
mistake 25:13
102:14, 15; 106:12, 20;
negotiated 203:10
nation's 65:3; 103:9
91:1, 11, 19; 92:13, 20;
112:17; 128:20; 141:20;
negotiating 204:16
mistakes 204:3
93:21; 95:8; 98:20; 102:1,
164:15; 169:20; 172:17;
NATIONAL 3:2; 5:1, 19;
MIT 179:3
15; 103:11, 20; 106:13;
210:15; 211:9; 223:6;
12:1; 23:20; 32:16, 20;
negotiation 173:4;
203:14; 204:6; 213:14
MIT's 172:2
107:22; 108:20, 22; 109:3;
225:16, 17; 227:14; 238:4;
33:2; 47:11; 56:7, 14; 89:7;
113:18, 19; 115:11; 117:4,
243:4, 7; 250:12
98:19; 106:9; 131:20;
negotiations 71:3;
mitigate 118:4; 240:12
157:2; 165:22; 166:11;
181:5; 203:4; 206:20
12; 123:1; 124:19; 128:22;
Mitigation 33:2; 97:17
moved 56:7; 188:4
129:13; 131:7; 132:13, 14;
190:15; 196:19, 20;
neighborhoods 157:7
mobile 59:16
movement 236:2
137:8, 9, 19, 22; 138:1;
202:21; 208:10, 12;
net 36:20; 139:14, 15
model 46:5; 49:22;
142:5, 6, 11; 143:9, 15;
movements 229:4
253:17, 22
net-present-value
113:16; 142:4, 13; 152:10;
145:5, 21; 153:4, 7;
moves 186:3
nationally 193:13
135:12
203:18; 225:19; 230:4
154:14; 155:1, 5, 21;
moving 59:9, 14; 60:14:
Nations 6:12; 8:5, 10;
new 7:4; 9:4; 14:1, 2, 4, 5,
Midwest new (16)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
white House Comerence on Cumate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
8; 16:18, 20; 17:3, 10, 14;
77:19; 228:11
115:15, 18
one-quarter 123:11
70:16
20:13, 17, 18; 21:3, 9;
noted 6:2; 62:12; 146:5
ocean-grown 115:14
One-tenth 200:20, 22
organized 31:12; 145:1;
22:12; 27:1, 11; 28:15;
Notes 4:14
Oceanographic 32:16
one-third 89:18, 21; 90:1,
235:7
29:5, 15; 47:2; 55:11, 17;
nothing 21:5; 25:2;
oceans 166:3
19
oriented 20:20
:5; 88:13; 91:1; 92:12;
85:18; 86:17; 209:14;
14, 20; 94:20; 95:20,
October 25:4; 51:19
ones 39:5; 164:2; 193:12;
other-we 147:5
221:2; 226:8; 231:6;
odds 63:4
226:5; 251:3
0; 106:4, 19; 108:4;
others 11:3, 7, 14; 22:9;
236:18, 20
110:9; 112:5; 114:1, 10,
OECD 221:7, 10
ongoing 5:19; 7:8; 163:2
98:16; 167:6; 168:8;
12; 115:22; 126:22;
notice 49:5; 157:10
onion 29:12
193:17; 196:10; 218:20;
of-if 101:1
138:13; 139:18; 157:1;
noting 10:12
only 8:3; 12:3; 16:6; 27:8;
221:14; 229:14; 232:21;
notion 61:19; 230:13
of-right 137:1
233:2; 245:14; 254:4
162:17, 20; 170:20; 171:5;
30:2; 38:15; 52:1, 8; 56:20;
180:5; 186:8; 190:3, 7;
now-and 92:19
off 45:21; 81:10; 88:7;
60:1; 64:5; 71:19; 73:20;
Otherwise 28:11; 35:7;
198:21; 199:7; 200:7;
127:22; 147:3, 21; 150:8;
nowhere 206:5
74:17; 83:16; 85:1; 87:6;
80:11; 85:19; 86:20;
162:19; 208:6; 215:11;
138:15
213:7; 227:10; 232:10;
NRG 99:17
90:19; 92:16; 102:5, 9;
236:14, 14; 240:19;
246:3; 250:1; 252:18
103:17; 111:19; 112:7, 19;
ought 101:10; 146:22;
nuclear 104:12; 106:18;
247:16; 248:4, 19
offer 17:12; 68:15; 87:4;
108:8; 133:11; 134:2;
114:21; 117:1; 125:6;
193:22; 214:6; 227:14;
newer 187:12
233:21; 245:21; 251:8
206:16, 18
132:19; 136:10; 138:9;
230:19, 19; 237:19;
offered 251:20
252:22
news 27:19; 114:4
154:7; 155:9; 162:3;
number 26:20; 44:2;
office 110:12; 130:9, 10;
163:2; 189:17; 197:14;
ours 22:20; 38:16, 18;
next 28:5; 33:22; 38:2, 9;
48:18; 49:1; 50:3, 9, 18;
51:22; 60:8; 61:22; 62:7;
142:19
201:8; 206:7; 207:16;
191:10
40:9; 43:17; 46:6, 19; 52:2;
56:13; 63:15; 66:14; 79:5;
65:12; 66:18; 68:10; 80:9,
officer 214:20
210:21; 216:3; 232:2;
ourselves 8:7, 9; 24:4;
83:6; 85:21; 102:18;
11; 85:13, 17, 22; 94:5;
officials 126:3
242:3, 8, 9, 18; 250:1
58:19; 77:9; 86:19; 127:5;
175:5; 207:1; 217:5; 224:7
116:10, 19; 126:12; 129:9;
103:15; 156:12, 15;
offset 36:19
open 11:15; 100:18;
133:8; 137:14; 149:17;
159:21; 160:14; 176:18;
159:4; 167:10; 182:19;
out 14:5; 15:21; 23:15;
Offsetting 219:7
184:3; 187:1; 189:15, 22;
191:21; 192:12; 196:10;
252:9
29:22; 35:3; 36:17, 18;
233:14; 235:11; 253:4
often 53:8; 157:14;
40:9; 43:1; 45:11; 51:12;
218:6; 220:16; 221:1;
193:19; 214:18; 251:17
opened 221:19
55:17; 56:6; 62:14, 14;
242:12
numbers 63:17, 19;
Ohio 50:14
opening 90:4; 203:6
69:22; 84:8; 86:21; 92:7,
Niagara 26:21
157:13; 226:4
numerical 39:20; 249:16
oil 72:5; 93:5; 98:2;
operate 118:10; 144:16;
14; 98:4; 101:3; 108:5;
nicely 179:13
106:21; 132:7, 12, 15;
246:8; 247:17
112:4, 20; 115:5, 12;
night 57:7; 140:17
numerous 99:6
140:3; 224:4
operates 238:13
124:5; 128:12; 132:4;
nights 44:9
operating 246:17
134:18; 136:16, 19, 22;
oil-producing 70:21
137:2, 12, 21; 139:8, 17;
Nine 157:20
old 30:14; 248:9, 18
OPIC 11:2
142:9, 12; 145:13, 15;
nety 176:17
old-fashioned 229:17
opinion 78:21; 97:19;
159:4; 162:6; 182:17;
ho 73:12; 76:16, 19, 21;
o 123:15
old-style 81:8
164:18; 202:10; 239:4
187:10; 192:21; 206:13;
1:9, 11, 16, 21; 216:4, 4,
o'clock 120:10
oldest 163:9
opinions 239:13
210:2; 212:6, 13, 22;
10
O'Donovan 4:20; 5:4;
Olympic 188:10
opportunities 5:21;
214:10; 218:18; 223:1;
nitrous 35:15; 36:1
20:16; 31:12; 104:5;
224:11, 22; 225:20; 227:9,
19:13; 30:13; 152:17
once 31:8; 57:8; 116:11;
NOAA 48:14
115:20; 126:10; 143:16;
13; 229:13; 231:14; 234:5,
oak 56:1
152:2, 18; 208:6
Nobel 216:18
149:16; 199:21; 248:15
9; 242:7; 247:11, 12;
objective 217:7,
one 5:20; 12:3, 20; 14:8;
opportunity 20:14; 23:5;
248:16, 18; 249:20; 250:9;
nobody 101:19
objectives 236:18
16:17; 17:20; 19:14;
28:6; 87:10; 107:11;
253:11
Noel 196:15
obligation 162:3
20:10; 22:4, 5; 30:2; 31:9;
119:11; 123:16; 124:15;
outbreaks 161:11
non-economist 246:1
obligations 8:3; 200:4
35:9; 39:1; 41:11; 43:22;
129:22; 136:8; 138:13;
outcome 238:1
non-experts 254:15
46:9; 47:14; 52:7; 57:4;
observation 75:22
211:20; 239:2
58:21; 59:18, 20; 62:21;
outcomes 219:9
non-scientific 167:3
observational 75:13
64:4; 65:4; 76:16; 77:8, 12;
opposed 120:10
outcry 252:9
noncommercial 191:2
observations 104:10
79:5; 80:9, 17; 82:16, 17;
opposition 202:7
outgoing 35:11
None 237:5
observed 39:17, 22;
83:5; 85:13; 89:12; 90:14;
opt-in 243:1, 2
outline 20:12
Nonetheless 30:7
61:10; 74:18; 75:18; 76:1;
97:7, 21, 22; 98:3, 7;
optimal 218:8; 220:21
outlined 7:17
nonproliferation 206:17
77:10
108:10; 109:5; 112:1, 15;
optimism 18:22
outmoded 98:10
Nordhaus 3:26; 218:2;
observers 153:1
114:19; 115:12; 116:16;
optimistic 23:7
121:10; 122:14, 19; 125:6;
outpouring 198:1
222:15, 21; 227:7; 229:13;
obstacle 13:17
127:18; 132:4, 13; 134:9;
optimists 234:3
output 40:3; 74:5, 8, 10,
239:9; 252:13
obstacles 124:22;
135:18; 136:14; 137:17,
optimum 246:18
14,17,19
normal 66:12
185:15
18; 139:6; 140:19; 150:21;
option 138:14; 232:2
outset 198:13
normally 99:8; 194:18;
obvious 14:1; 78:18
151:3; 154:9; 156:2;
options 13:10; 16:16;
outside 41:18; 71:22;
234:17
obviously 181:1; 213:16;
159:12; 160:14, 22;
19:2; 28:22; 114:22;
118:12; 127:20; 148:7;
North 50:12; 53:11, 11;
228:9; 247:5
161:21; 163:15; 173:8;
138:18; 182:19; 216:19;
215:2; 243:17
55:17; 56:19; 127:22;
occasion 165:9; 218:1
177:4; 178:17; 179:13, 19;
243:20; 247:10; 248:3
outstanding 11:21; 95:4
166:8; 186:2, 3; 187:4
192:20; 193:7, 16; 194:14;
occupies 110:18
orange 46:22; 49:3;
northeast 77:6
195:19; 196:11; 197:9, 12;
outweigh 202:9
occur 31:10; 38:3; 49:22;
82:16
Norther 26:22
198:20; 202:2; 204:8, 15;
Oval 142:19
120:1; 196:3
205:4; 206:18; 207:19;
oranges 46:13
over 13:16; 15:9; 31:10;
Northern 23:18; 50:14;
occurred 39:6; 41:2, 19;
208:18, 18; 209:11;
order 60:4; 98:20;
34:1; 37:13, 18; 38:2, 4,9,
7:19
51:2; 121:20
211:11, 13; 214:19;
136:11; 138:6; 178:6;
19; 39:1, 12; 40:9; 41:13,
rthwards 55:6
occurring 49:14; 64:4;
225:14; 228:8; 230:4;
209:4; 226:1; 233:19;
19; 46:6; 47:1, 4; 48:21;
Northwest 50:16
132:21; 168:13; 240:20
232:1, 19; 240:14; 242:9;
246:8
51:4; 60:13; 62:5; 66:15;
notably 160:16
ocean 5:6; 39:11; 42:14;
246:9; 251:4, 10; 253:4
Oregon 62:5
70:12; 74:12; 82:16;
note 4:5; 38:14; 66:4, 18;
43:8; 72:18, 19; 76:22;
one-fifth 83:16
organizations 11:13;
84:16; 91:18; 94:9; 95:17;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(17) newer over
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
96:15; 100:15; 111:16;
14:22; 17:6; 19:20; 49:15;
Pause 87:22; 164:9
252:19, 20
phrase 175:21
112:22; 113:12; 119:21;
57:19, 21; 64:16, 17;
pay 57:16, 17; 101:4;
percentage 124:7;
phrases 214:19
133:2; 146:10; 154:8;
66:12; 68:12; 86:16;
125:8; 129:15; 130:15;
159:18
156:14; 196:21; 199:11;
physical 205:8
104:20; 110:19; 118:2;
137:19, 22; 169:3; 237:22
214:18; 220:8, 16; 221:1;
perception 248:2
130:20; 151:20; 162:2, 5;
pick 247:4,7
paying 92:19; 216:12;
227:3; 231:14; 245:19;
163:2; 207:5; 245:7, 12;
perceptions 61:1
picked 247:14
228:9; 231:22
247:4, 7; 252:22
250:13; 254:6
perfect 141:12; 246:11;
picture 41:16; 46:15
participants 152:22
pays 180:21
overall 44:16; 121:1;
248:14
piece 111:10; 114:19;
127:9; 162:7; 199:15;
PCAST 88:22; 96:9;
participate 18:17; 27:16;
perfectly 204:20
209:3
229:10, 15
30:6; 178:4; 180:10;
132:14; 133:10; 134:11;
performance 17:1;
135:6, 8
pin 78:16
overcome 185:15
196:14; 199:8; 238:2;
188:12
Peace 3:19; 20:7; 172:1;
pine 56:2
overlooking 10:9; 11:7
243:1; 254:8
perhaps 6:11; 76:8; 92:2;
participated 70:13
176:9; 177:1
pinyon 56:1
oversight 253:17
130:16; 181:14; 217:8, 22
peak 83:14
pioneering 151:12
overview 29:15; 30:3, 10;
participates 197:10
perilously 154:18
PECO 99:17
pioneers 27:7
173:3
participating 152:4
period 15:9; 36:12;
own 17:21; 18:22; 21:7;
participation 18:1, 17;
pediatricians 157:12
pit 243:14, 18; 252:4, 7,
37:18; 38:4; 39:1, 15;
Pena 10:17; 88:5, 8; 93:3;
11
31:4; 61:12; 86:13; 153:5,
139:7; 171:10; 179:6
107:10; 119:22; 145:17;
particles 36:14, 16; 37:1
102:19; 110:18
6; 154:20; 174:22; 175:4;
187:20; 199:11, 20;
pit-traded 243:21
180:18; 190:11; 200:3;
particular 36:5; 38:13;
Pennsylvania 99:16
203:10; 224:8; 227:3;
place 34:22; 48:16;
214:2; 222:6; 254:20
48:22; 52:22; 197:11;
penny 242:9
245:19
51:22; 60:14, 16, 18;
oxide 35:15; 36:1
214:11; 239:14; 248:12;
Pentagon 98:18
periods 113:12; 158:2
61:21; 81:8; 86:4; 99:21;
ozone 23:16; 73:10, 13;
253:4
people 14:2, 8; 19:5;
permeating 143:11
102:4, 6; 149:7; 162:20;
156:10; 163:1; 209:21
Particularly 42:17;
20:8; 21:6, 19; 22:17; 23:5;
permit 24:3; 219:12;
170:10; 174:7; 191:5, 18;
53:17; 54:4, 11; 58:3, 13,
26:15; 27:20; 29:16;
229:22; 230:10; 231:1;
193:16; 210:10; 212:14;
P
15, 22; 83:7; 86:1; 90:9;
30:18; 31:19; 50:6, 7; 56:6;
234:13, 19; 250:20; 251:3
219:1; 227:5; 231:12;
106:11, 15; 110:9; 139:12;
57:5, 20; 59:22; 60:1, 2, 9;
238:5
permits 142:6, 7, 13;
149:11; 152:21; 154:10;
61:5, 8, 13, 13; 62:9; 69:1;
206:2; 218:22; 225:21;
places 45:7; 160:19;
p.m 148:10
164:21; 166:19; 179:10;
75:6; 76:14; 79:11, 19;
229:1, 21; 230:13, 14, 17;
161:13
Pacific 50:16; 53:11;
181:16; 235:10; 240:15
80:17, 21; 81:1, 5; 86:8;
231:15; 233:18, 19, 22;
plagued 140:15
77:1; 126:18
particularly-and 57:22
97:16; 101:3, 4, 7; 105:19;
249:7; 250:16, 18
plagues 105:19
particulars 155:17
108:22; 109:4, 17; 112:20;
paid 242:2
perpetuity 242:13
Plain 67:2
113:1, 3, 4, 7; 115:16;
pain 151:21
particulate 40:2; 156:10
116:13; 122:16; 123:3;
persistent 203:13
Plains 50:14
painless 80:2
particulates 163:1
124:15; 125:22; 128:12;
persistently 107:12
plan 29:2; 38:7; 87:2;
pale 203:19
parties 70:20; 167:14;
131:18, 19, 19, 20, 21;
person 12:4; 18:22; 20:5;
94:19; 97:16; 198:15, 15,
PANEL 3:1, 20; 24:15;
219:16
136:17, 19; 140:7; 141:10,
30:3; 136:10; 172:14;
20, 21; 236:13, 13; 238:6
30:6; 32:5, 8; 33:7; 34:6;
partly 36:18; 59:15
21; 142:17; 145:1; 153:3,
174:3
planet 18:10; 22:10; 23:4;
79:5; 87:14, 15, 18, 21;
partners 99:17; 112:22;
13; 157:20; 159:22; 160:6;
person's 251:10
29:10; 34:2; 38:22; 42:1;
88:3, 6, 10, 16; 89:4;
221:6
163:19; 173:22; 176:11,
personally 78:5; 117:19;
80:10; 105:19; 152:8
96:14; 131:17, 19; 133:10;
Partnership 16:20;
12, 14, 17; 178:16; 185:13;
121:11
planet's 42:18
145:12; 164:15; 165:3;
190:22; 195:19; 219:10;
20:22; 93:14; 100:1;
perspective 29:5; 41:10;
plans 220:4
178:22; 192:10; 212:21,
223:8; 224:20; 227:8, 13,
110:9; 112:5, 12; 116:10,
88:20; 181:1; 202:19;
22; 215:4, 9; 216:19;
232:20; 237:11;
plant 90:18, 19; 97:7, 8,
19; 137:14
213:6; 254:20
21; 98:15; 99:4; 100:11;
217:19; 239:10
239:14; 240:3; 241:16, 18;
partnerships 193:16
115:7; 189:14; 242:1
panelist 149:21; 172:13
248:8; 250:19; 252:2, 17
perspectives 254:14
parts 27:18; 34:2; 40:19;
people's 60:21
persuaded 79:13
plantations 129:1
panelists 88:17; 92:3;
44:17; 47:15; 65:7; 71:20,
95:5; 148:20; 163:22;
people-but 60:8
Peru 77:5
planting 66:10
21; 82:1, 2, 13; 85:10;
171:5, 21; 193:5; 213:5;
peoples 210:11
pervasive 209:13
plants 8:17; 45:5; 54:16;
106:16; 131:20; 158:5
217:12; 253:11
pessimistic 220:10
90:7, 12; 91:1; 97:9; 98:21;
Party 60:10
per 37:19, 20; 38:14;
99:6; 100:20; 103:4, 8, 12;
panels 19:20; 85:10;
40:19; 47:16; 56:21;
pessimists 234:10, 10
party-it 81:13
108:4, 9, 15; 109:1, 8;
128:3; 150:13, 19; 233:5;
71:20, 21; 82:1, 2, 14;
pest 161:11
pass 31:20; 38:11, 15;
115:11; 145:14; 187:9;
254:6
132:8, 9; 144:4; 159:22;
121:11; 140:6, 6
pesticides 162:19
197:14; 227:10
Papay 96:9; 131:3, 12;
174:3; 234:1, 13; 242:10
passed 31:7
petroleum 94:2; 111:21;
platform 106:1; 186:15;
144:1; 145:11
per-capita 83:16
114:20; 115:5
187:3
paper 94:2; 120:17
passing 207:13
percent 17:5; 25:19, 20,
ph 56:1; 99:17; 210:1, 1;
passion 29:16
play 5:14; 100:16;
paradigm 102:5; 192:4
22; 27:5; 36:9; 37:10, 12,
245:14; 253:18
128:11; 179:9; 180:10;
paradox 64:12; 69:14;
past 20:20; 23:1; 50:9;
15, 16; 38:1; 47:6, 8;
phase 108:5; 115:4
181:2
103:10, 14
53:16; 59:17; 83:2;
49:10, 10; 51:4, 9; 52:8,
113:20; 150:4; 204:9
10; 53:1; 59:22; 60:1, 2, 4;
phase-out 230:8
played 4:16, 21; 124:21;
paradoxically 43:4
Pat 11:5
65:9; 74:18; 91:15, 15;
phased 23:15
250:12
parameters 208:10
path 45:21; 147:6;
92:13; 93:8, 10; 94:1, 9;
phasing 219:1
please 4:5, 9, 12, 22;
parasites 158:3
10:8; 18:17; 87:17, 20;
179:22; 180:1, 2, 4, 14;
97:3; 99:11; 100:9; 104:1;
phenomena 67:5; 73:11
parent's 92:22
118:11; 121:4; 122:4;
88:2; 148:12; 165:6;
201:15; 217:6; 226:16;
phenomenally 230:8
parents 162:1
127:6, 12; 129:6; 132:18;
214:20, 21; 215:11; 218:7;
234:22
156:5, 16, 17; 159:20, 20;
phenomenon 76:21, 22
254:19
Park 23:20; 48:5; 56:7,
path-breaking 32:17
169:12, 13; 174:17, 20, 21;
Philadelphia 99:14
pleased 94:7; 140:19;
13, 14; 196:19, 21
pattern 49:5
183:12; 191:1, 7; 220:16;
photovoltaic 128:3
215:5
parrot 79:1
patterns 42:13; 48:15;
221:17; 223:12; 224:2;
photovoltaics 128:8;
pleasure 9:17; 18:19;
part 8:10; 9:2; 13:18;
54:5; 64:13, 14; 77:3, 3
229:15; 250:2; 251:12;
133:15; 189:14; 192:9
32:6; 55:12; 127:2;
overall pleasure (18)
Min-U-Script
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
White House Conference on Climate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
152:12; 165:8
pork 238:16; 242:18
precipitation-now
20; 174:16; 176:3; 177:20,
problem 6:16; 8:6; 12:2;
plenty 212:6
porous 166:7, 8
64:11
20; 178:18, 20; 179:7;
15:8, 12; 16:8, 12; 17:21,
plus 117:18, 19; 124:4;
precise 233:19
182:10; 183:3, 15; 186:22;
22; 26:2; 34:13, 17, 18;
portfolio 105:21; 106:6;
26:2
precisely 67:15
187:19; 188:6, 14; 189:3;
35:18; 43:6; 56:5; 57:3;
134:21
193:3, 6, 9; 194:5; 195:12;
70:8; 82:6; 83:20; 91:7;
eumonia 154:13;
portions 66:13; 67:6
predict 160:21; 233:4
196:13; 198:2, 5; 200:16,
111:6; 114:3, 4; 115:1;
0:13
position 123:17; 133:6;
predicted 25:4; 63:16;
20; 201:19; 202:1; 205:14;
116:11; 132:5; 143:7, 8;
PNGV-2 133:12
136:16; 221:5
75:18; 244:22
207:12; 209:10; 211:10,
146:1, 12; 156:8; 160:6;
podium 32:4
positioned 105:14
predictions 244:20;
15, 21; 212:19; 213:4;
169:19; 170:5; 171:19;
poet 8:19
positioning 7:4
249:21
214:16, 17; 215:13; 218:4,
174:6; 175:4, 12, 13, 16,
poetry 29:21
positive 186:18
predicts 39:18
13; 221:3; 222:12; 226:19;
16; 176:7; 178:16; 179:10;
Pogo 150:7
preferable 109:6, 6, 21
227:21; 228:7; 231:10;
181:9, 10; 194:16; 197:5;
possibilities 19:3;
poignant 125:20
preferences 116:17
232:7, 17; 235:1, 4, 21;
210:17; 211:1, 4; 222:2;
138:21; 171:12; 184:10
238:10, 21; 243:12; 244:2,
228:10; 235:18; 240:13,
point 29:7; 30:9; 33:14,
possibility 7:7; 239:5
pregnant 161:9
9, 10, 16, 19; 245:4, 21;
14; 254:20
16, 20; 39:16; 45:11; 81:2;
possible 21:19; 59:1;
prejudice 105:10
246:22; 247:9; 249:4;
83:3; 85:6; 86:21; 88:10;
problem-and 145:11
67:9; 113:6; 122:15;
premiums 129:15
250:1, 4, 6; 251:11; 252:1,
92:7, 14; 96:15; 117:1;
problems 20:17; 23:9;
133:21; 163:14; 211:8;
prepare 15:16; 149:15
3,6, 10; 253:8; 254:21
118:8, 9, 16; 120:20;
57:14; 58:7; 59:21;
217:16; 220:2; 227:6;
123:5, 5; 129:1; 132:16;
prepared 25:17; 48:18;
President's 11:11;
108:10; 111:22; 149:13;
247:12
133:20; 134:9, 13; 144:12;
52:19; 155:13
32:11; 41:11; 164:17;
155:8; 161:17, 17; 175:6;
175:14; 179:13; 198:9;
possibly 13:19; 45:18;
preparing 189:20
215:14; 253:20
180:19; 181:10, 11;
201:2, 3; 207:1; 223:14;
250:17
preschool 151:13
presiding 214:18, 20
208:18; 211:3; 214:13;
227:8; 228:20; 230:12;
postpones 181:13
present 10:6; 32:18;
press 86:8
246:10
243:17; 246:19; 249:3
potatoes 134:13
35:4; 95:2; 97:7; 101:8;
pressing 7:14
proceed 165:6
pointed 132:4; 212:16;
potential 8:3; 13:11;
116:14
pressure 126:2
PROCEEDINGS 4:1;
250:9
25:11; 45:12; 95:14; 96:6,
presentation 63:13;
pretend 25:13
68:18
points 31:3; 33:13; 85:13;
10, 21; 100:6; 110:7;
64:22; 87:6; 151:2; 193:4;
pretty 207:3; 245:1
process 15:10; 25:1;
116:7; 122:13
117:14; 124:18; 126:21;
215:8
27:16; 43:11; 115:18;
prevalent 59:9
poisons 23:13
135:14, 15; 161:16; 185:9,
presentations 107:21;
120:16; 168:3; 169:2;
Poland 121:12; 221:14
150:15
prevent 16:3
10, 13; 194:6; 224:13
206:21; 208:1; 214:1;
presently 59:8; 112:10
preventable 154:12
218:11; 222:1; 227:4;
policies 20:13; 21:9, 9,
potentially 204:7; 215:21
10, 11, 11, 13, 14; 155:13;
prevented 101:22
253:19, 20
Potomac 98:17
presents 147:14
84:6; 219:4; 220:22;
preservation 197:17
prevents 81:15
processes 36:4
poultry 162:18
1:4; 222:17; 253:5
preserve 12:8; 18:13;
previous 50:19
produce 17:2; 22:11;
poured 111:15
OLICY 3:20; 7:19;
152:7; 197:13
previously 53:14; 159:8;
25:21; 90:5, 7, 13, 14;
13:10; 21:10, 14; 32:10;
poverty 105:18; 146:14;
preserving 7:2; 9:6;
248:5
97:21, 22; 103:9, 11;
178:12
34:12; 46:1; 121:2;
12:13; 16:22
price 136:12; 138:8, 10,
120:16; 124:4
134:13; 149:13; 151:4;
Powder 250:11
11; 139:2, 11, 12, 13;
produced 50:3; 116:12;
172:3; 190:14, 15; 202:20;
Power 3:12; 26:22; 27:6;
Presidency 31:1
140:2, 2, 3; 142:7; 180:7;
121:5,6
205:13; 214:7; 216:19;
76:19; 83:22; 90:7, 12, 18,
President 3:5, 9, 15, 17,
181:16; 219:20; 223:19;
producers 226:14;
218:11; 219:17; 220:1;
19; 91:1, 22; 95:12; 97:5,
24, 29; 4:18, 18, 19; 5:4, 5,
224:2, 3, 4, 7; 226:1;
230:15
228:1; 232:13; 234:16;
9, 21; 99:7, 22; 100:11, 20;
7, 17, 18; 6:1, 1, 14;
228:19; 229:2, 12; 233:22;
235:8, 17; 238:20; 239:13;
103:1, 4, 10; 104:12;
7:17; 9:8, 8, 18, 20; 10:6;
produces 98:16
234:13; 238:1; 241:14, 15;
106:18; 108:4, 15; 120:8;
11:2, 19; 12:6, 14, 16, 19;
product 124:4, 8; 138:10
243:7
242:7, 8, 11, 14; 243:3, 9
product-there 138:8
policy-makers 80:16
144:17; 145:14; 150:5;
19:6, 8, 10; 20:2; 25:7;
155:21; 172:11; 176:14;
30:12; 32:3, 3; 33:11, 11;
prices 116:14; 129:15;
production 26:13; 44:16,
political 29:7; 60:5;
184:14; 185:11; 192:5, 6,
34:14; 47:9, 9, 13, 21;
130:11, 15; 181:19; 219:8;
18; 94:3; 97:5; 98:8;
205:15, 18; 208:17;
48:3, 7, 13, 17; 53:20;
221:18, 18; 223:22; 224:1,
7, 11, 13; 193:7, 8; 224:15;
108:21; 124:8; 161:12;
212:17; 225:8
56:11; 59:6, 18; 61:16;
20; 225:18; 226:13; 227:1,
227:10; 241:17, 19
191:13; 192:6, 7, 13, 18;
politically 208:7
powerful 14:5; 76:16
62:11, 14; 64:1, 3, 19, 20;
18; 231:5; 239:17; 251:8
216:7
politics 22:8
68:4; 69:15, 20; 70:3, 9,
pricing 120:5
powerplants 137:5
productive 237:10
pollen 55:15
10; 75:5, 5; 76:7; 78:3, 19;
primarily 158:11
practical 83:2; 149:12;
productivity 104:19;
pollutants 99:10; 156:12,
79:4, 10; 80:13; 85:12;
primary 106:7; 230:15
254:14
161:2, 4; 217:1
13; 187:11
87:3, 3, 13, 17; 88:1, 4, 9,
prime 160:9; 187:21
practically 10:13
9, 18, 18, 21; 90:3; 91:17;
Products 3:31; 94:3;
pollution 124:1, 7;
92:5, 22; 94:4, 15; 95:12;
primed 248:1
111:21; 114:6; 117:13;
146:14; 154:15; 155:2;
practitioner 251:16
practitioners 243:9
96:13, 13, 16, 17; 97:1;
priming 248:11
120:18; 128:18, 19;
156:9; 199:11, 21
100:11, 22; 101:15;
principle 25:15; 26:3;
136:13
poor 21:11; 174:8, 10, 10
pre-industrial 36:10;
102:17, 20, 21, 22; 103:7,
27:14; 146:21
profession 246:6, 7, 8
poorest 161:12; 189:1
40:21; 42:3; 45:14, 19;
7; 107:19; 110:22; 111:1,
principles 24:11; 28:20;
Professor 3:7, 27; 32:9,
46:7, 20; 47:17; 71:20;
poorly 230:1
4, 4; 116:3, 6; 117:6, 10,
81:21; 82:3, 8, 19; 83:9
177:7, 19; 237:20
19; 165:13; 179:2, 3, 7, 15;
popular 31:11
22; 118:1; 123:20; 124:12;
precede 237:2
prior 132:20
222:21; 227:7; 228:1, 4, 6;
126:11, 15; 127:1, 2;
232:16; 248:21; 252:13
popularity 169:3
preceding 41:20
private 94:20; 107:3;
128:3; 130:8; 131:2, 12,
112:13; 141:18; 234:15;
profile 120:14
popularly 34:18
precipitation 42:19;
13; 136:6; 141:2; 142:3,
opulation 14:13; 25:19;
239:2; 245:2
profit 177:11
48:15, 21; 49:3, 4, 7, 8, 11,
15, 22; 143:5, 14, 18, 21;
7:11, 15; 38:1; 59:16;
14; 51:1, 4, 10; 52:15, 20;
144:11; 147:1, 9, 17;
privilege 152:13
profitable 247:21
121:4; 146:14; 159:19;
53:1, 4; 62:3, 6; 64:13;
150:14, 15; 162:16; 163:3;
Prize 172:7
profound 6:8; 77:22;
169:13; 191:7
66:17; 67:12; 68:9, 13, 22;
164:7, 11; 165:8; 171:22;
probably 121:19; 132:8,
154:6
populations 58:1
69:4, 6, 7; 77:3; 78:2
172:5, 6, 18, 20; 173:1, 6,
12; 142:19; 206:7, 11
program 4:5; 113:8;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script©
(19) plenty program
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
114:15; 126:12; 134:10,
119:10; 170:14; 198:16
rail 114:2; 117:2; 245:9
165:8; 175:16; 201:8;
reduce 6:20; 13:9; 16:13;
10; 148:9; 149:15; 151:1;
providing 105:6; 129:10;
railroad 114:5
215:17, 19; 220:17;
26:12, 18; 68:1; 84:22;
162:12; 196:17; 219:18;
189:15; 191:6, 8; 219:22
railroads 111:17; 114:2,
227:17; 235:16
88:14; 89:9; 91:2, 21; 94:6,
228:2; 230:7; 231:1;
proving 23:21
10; 250:10
realistic 15:7; 25:17
21; 97:11; 99:1; 100:9;
238:18; 242:22; 249:7, 10
prudent 67:21
realistically 104:21;
103:3; 106:10; 108:12;
Programmable 119:19
rain 43:1; 200:14, 17;
public 11:22; 32:10;
238:18; 241:5
140:14; 245:8
110:7; 112:8; 118:18;
programs 112:5; 133:14;
123:4; 124:5; 132:11, 11;
101:13; 107:3; 125:10, 15;
rainfall 54:5; 62:5; 75:20;
realistically-if 140:1
134:3, 16; 151:12; 188:22
135:9; 182:20; 194:8;
168:5; 190:14; 209:1;
77:5
realities 14:1
199:18; 201:5; 218:10;
progress 15:6; 16:11;
220:3; 228:1; 250:17
rains 53:5
21:17; 23:11; 26:9; 79:22;
reality 17:14; 205:3;
219:5, 21; 220:2, 5;
Pulitzer 172:7
103:22; 104:4, 17; 105:4,
raise 52:7; 125:3; 136:12;
209:7; 249:14
221:15; 223:9; 241:17
8, 11; 106:3; 107:1, 6;
pull 29:1
138:8, 10; 139:2
realize 22:11; 29:18
reduced 43:4; 85:8;
113:14; 153:20; 162:9;
pulp 120:17
raised 208:17; 209:5;
realized 135:16
161:4; 220:7; 222:8
165:12; 184:5; 206:11;
221:18
pump 125:6; 248:1, 12
really 14:18; 52:1; 71:14;
reducing 27:4; 28:10;
210:15
raises 226:13
81:3; 85:2; 94:12; 96:8;
pumps 27:2; 191:13
72:13; 73:17; 74:2; 80:1;
Project 7:9; 121:19, 19;
raising 34:19; 52:9;
103:17; 119:21; 132:14;
purchases 123:11
83:1; 102:7; 112:17;
195:13; 196:12, 16; 214:5
140:2, 2; 162:14; 181:16;
181:15; 200:18; 221:9;
113:1, 11; 114:7, 22;
projected 24:5; 67:8;
purpose 17:18; 145:2
223:21; 249:4
222:20; 223:12
115:20, 22; 118:15, 22;
200:19; 210:21; 223:18
purposes 45:13; 247:18
122:8; 123:6, 15; 125:8;
reduction 8:1; 28:11;
range 22:15, 15; 41:18;
projections 46:5; 47:22;
pursue 20:4; 28:6
43:20; 44:11; 46:18; 47:6;
126:6; 140:12, 21; 146:13;
94:9; 100:6; 112:11;
49:22; 132:13; 245:22
push 133:12
114:18; 171:10; 244:17
163:12; 166:9; 178:21;
122:4; 179:21; 197:15;
201:12; 236:8; 237:14;
projects 126:20; 129:8;
pushing 147:2
ranged 245:1
183:6; 184:1, 2; 194:9;
245:9
185:14; 195:10, 11, 15, 17;
put 8:19; 22:12; 36:14;
ranging 82:13
202:15; 205:19; 209:14;
196:4, 5; 197:3, 9
rapid 17:7; 85:3
232:3; 233:8; 234:22;
reductions 44:17; 122:6;
41:10; 79:15; 88:19;
proliferation-resistant
236:4, 22; 248:17; 252:21;
135:20; 181:7; 193:16;
89:14; 90:16; 94:18;
rapidly 27:19; 28:16;
253:1
199:6; 201:6, 14, 15;
134:7
102:5; 111:22; 115:8;
86:14; 107:16; 113:19;
241:21
rear 4:8
promise 17:13; 207:8
121:18; 124:7; 130:2;
183:9; 221:1
reef 84:5, 7, 11
promote 26:13; 27:1
141:4; 154:2; 155:21;
ratchet 142:11
reason 23:7; 31:3; 48:8;
160:5, 20; 162:20; 170:9;
64:4; 90:6; 133:5; 156:2;
reefs 226:9
promoting 103:20; 105:3
rate 42:6; 157:2; 220:13
157:16; 159:6; 161:19;
reference 118:9; 187:6;
promotion 9:1
189:6, 12; 210:10; 216:6;
rates 156:17; 157:3;
192:22; 208:1; 212:7, 10
207:13
226:15; 238:4
prompt 146:7
162:14; 180:3; 219:5;
reasonable 13:1; 248:13
referencing 69:5; 89:15
prompted 216:5
puts 183:18; 204:3
240:8; 245:9
reasoned 108:11
referred 187:4
pronounced 126:13
putting 28:20; 91:20;
rather 22:22; 34:5; 66:21;
95:1; 162:17
69:21; 84:16; 105:5;
reasons 108:9; 112:8;
refineries 230:11
proper 136:15; 226:14
158:1; 199:18; 222:7;
122:17; 128:9; 135:14;
refinery 94:2
property 44:21; 250:21,
245:6
146:7, 10; 184:21; 192:6;
reflect 49:4
22; 251:2
236:21
rebated 230:20
reflected 130:14
proposal 130:20; 171:2;
ratification 209:6
recall 179:16; 196:13
reflecting 250:16
199:4; 225:21
quadruple 45:19
ratified 81:13
recapture 137:6
reform 130:10
proposals 101:9;
Quality 11:1; 12:7; 58:7;
169:21; 226:6
ratify 139:7; 167:13;
recapturing 96:19
reformed 221:19
99:2; 119:3, 4, 6, 19;
207:15; 208:3
recent 154:16
reforms 222:4
proposed 170:9; 233:14
125:21; 126:4; 146:19;
ratio 72:8
recently 32:17; 62:21;
156:1; 157:8; 162:21;
refreshing 198:7
proposing 249:9
rationally 237:13
171:1; 189:22
189:8
refuse 154:4
prospect 6:10
raw 124:3, 8
reception 254:9
prosperity 20:8
quarter 224:18
regard 105:13
prosperous 15:6
quasi-property 240:3, 5
re-energizing 107:1
Recess 148:11
regard-first 104:10
quibble 97:19
reach 30:10; 41:21;
recognition 168:11;
regarding 171:18
protect 12:7; 23:19;
quicken 15:6
47:22; 57:19; 87:1; 129:9;
235:15
158:5; 162:21; 166:18;
regardless 125:13;
138:22; 168:1; 169:6;
recognize 15:13; 73:4;
200:13; 221:21; 223:7;
quickly 6:6; 80:9; 95:1;
197:7; 236:2
176:8; 178:6; 234:5, 6, 11
221:12; 239:8
254:22
108:12; 110:15; 116:12;
regime 204:4; 206:14, 16;
reaches 62:18
recognized 167:14;
protected 29:10; 102:10;
124:19; 139:5; 141:20;
238:6
226:11
reaching 136:15
253:16
166:3
regimes 127:21; 227:2
quieter 7:10
react 34:13
recognizing 103:8;
protecting 152:3;
194:15
region 186:5
235:18; 237:8
quite 35:5; 45:18; 54:2;
reactors 134:8
Protection 10:19; 241:5
read 86:7; 140:16;
recommend 155:13;
regional 54:4; 55:18;
63:6; 72:9; 107:21;
67:16
235:17
protects 97:10
121:13; 125:17; 190:18;
218:18; 223:3
recommendations
regions 41:7; 43:6;
194:20; 196:5
Protocol 209:17
readily 136:21; 246:15,
136:18
44:13; 56:3; 159:9; 204:11
quo 20:21
15
prototype 113:10;
readiness 206:4
record 23:8, 10; 39:8;
regular 165:20
116:12
quoted 232:10
51:15; 72:15; 73:2, 14, 16,
regularly 158:22
proud 7:7; 164:3
reading 30:17
19, 21; 75:14; 206:16
Regulation 97:10; 102:6
proved 12:14; 206:9
R
ready 115:13
records 62:7; 74:9
regulation-and 101:3
real 21:17; 24:14; 25:12;
proven 134:18; 151:8
recover 99:8; 109:5
regulations 102:2, 7
70:8; 71:6; 111:6, 9;
provide 52:18; 88:16;
R&D 96:10; 107:6; 131:7,
116:11; 120:5; 123:17;
recovery 109:20; 119:22
regulatory 108:4; 219:3
121:9; 129:17, 22; 195:8;
16; 134:12, 16
125:4, 4,9, 15; 126:5;
recurrent 184:9
reinforce 12:15
199:6; 219:15
Rachel 23:12
139:13; 140:3; 155:4;
reddish 82:11
relate 214:4
provides 18:21; 52:12;
raging 89:12
159:7; 162:9; 164:18;
reds 46:13
related 60:20; 116:16;
Programmable related (20)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
118:19; 121:8; 122:6
requirement 138:22
15; 158:13
role 13:12; 104:8; 124:21;
satellite 73:2, 5, 14, 20;
relates 123:12; 136:17
requirements 106:17;
resulting 69:11
128:11; 131:6; 151:16;
74:9
relationship 14:16;
122:5
results 39:20; 107:8;
152:3; 179:9; 180:10;
save 26:17; 99:3, 10, 12;
78:16; 173:10; 209:13
requires 17:15; 83:5;
160:4; 184:8
181:2; 242:15
100:9; 123:9; 137:22;
elationship-because
197:6
resume 148:9
rolling 13:22
198:21
4:10
requires-to 87:1
return 18:10
roofs 128:8
saving 96:2; 219:19
elative 221:18; 223:12
requiring 169:1
returns 131:9
room 30:8; 140:16;
savings 109:10; 117:12;
relatively 15:1; 113:8;
Research 3:10; 32:13;
165:15; 228:8; 232:2;
123:13; 135:16; 199:13;
revealed 29:7
194:12
233:3
224:14; 229:14; 248:16
61:3; 85:6; 89:2; 95:13;
revenues 219:4; 230:19
relatives 36:3
103:1; 114:10, 15; 115:9;
rooms 163:20
saw 82:3; 159:15; 211:19,
reverse 15:11; 254:17
release 52:17
117:3, 4; 149:8; 159:16;
rooted 20:14, 19; 154:10
20
172:3, 6
review 133:10
relevance 118:8
roughty 244:13, 15
say-I 60:7
researchers 233:14
revitalize 26:8
round 206:20
saying 15:19; 61:21;
reliable 75:7
residences 137:8
revolution 14:7; 71:21;
rubber 141:7
63:14; 75:22; 76:3; 86:8
rely 34:5
104:18
resident 61:7
relying 102:13
reward 102:8; 170:13
rules 102:13; 195:20
scale 83:4; 104:6; 105:1;
residential 109:19
107:8; 127:19; 146:15, 20
remain 5:1; 87:21; 155:18
rhetoric 181:5
run 20:2; 39:22; 138:1;
scales 203:13
resides 194:19
146:8, 9; 179:11; 180:22;
remaining 22:1
Rica 159:10; 241:1, 4;
resistance 122:21
217:1; 253:11
scenario 42:3; 46:18;
remains 113:15
242:13
run-off 69:8
220:19
resistant 158:16
remarkable 9:9, 13;
rich 147:15
scenarios 40:6
resolved 80:4
Richard 3:7, 30; 172:1;
running 130:8, 9; 136:7
19:11
remarks 19:11; 78:4;
resource 133:18, 19;
179:3; 218:2; 238:12;
runs 114:13
schedule 24:4; 120:6;
200:18
90:4; 150:14; 203:6
181:11; 185:6
243:13
rural 189:15; 190:22;
remember 62:10; 65:4;
Resources 3:25; 6:20;
Richardson 10:21
192:2, 10, 14
scheduling 25:3
12:9; 18:2; 54:14; 127:18;
right 12:5; 16:4, 12;
Russia 221:14
scheme 197:20
102:12; 107:22; 108:1;
Schmalensee 3:7;
146:11
128:22; 129:16; 146:17;
17:15; 26:11; 27:9, 21;
Rusty 29:18
176:21; 180:18; 200:14;
48:3, 4, 7; 57:17; 63:13;
172:2; 179:3, 7, 15
remind 163:9; 176:10
Rwanda 159:9
217:20; 228:2; 233:15;
75:8; 76:3; 79:11; 92:4, 7;
scholars 7:19
reminder 65:3
246:18
102:18; 114:5; 115:13;
School 100:4; 148:16,
reminding 127:5
117:20; 126:14; 134:17;
S
respect 114:19
22; 149:10; 217:21; 228:3
remote 128:5
respects 91:3; 187:17;
137:16, 18; 139:20; 141:6,
schools 186:17
removing 32:4
209:16
10, 15; 146:8; 149:22;
S 171:7
Science 11:11; 22:7;
153:21; 164:15; 173:5;
enaissance 12:10
respiratory 58:9; 156:4,
179:2; 188:3; 197:20;
sacrifices 237:12
24:13; 32:10, 12; 39:18;
enew 6:20
6, 12
70:6; 71:1, 5, 12; 78:17;
210:6, 15; 211:6, 11, 19,
sacrificing 28:7
renewable 96:5; 104:12;
respond 22:20; 70:7;
84:3; 88:22; 97:20;
21; 212:7; 233:1; 234:4;
saddled 111:14
106:15; 127:3, 12; 129:7,
79:7; 97:16; 131:2; 162:6;
131:15; 132:16; 149:14;
236:17; 237:18; 240:17,
safe 106:17; 157:10;
174:16; 177:4; 186:13;
170:21; 174:6; 202:19;
17; 130:6; 134:21; 195:16;
19; 242:11; 243:5; 250:6,
160:7; 162:17; 163:13
219:19
216:15
205:6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18,
7, 22; 251:14
responding 136:17
safeguard 163:3
19; 206:6; 212:17
renewables 96:6; 133:11
rights 170:11; 193:13;
safeguards 162:21
Sciences 32:21
renewed 9:1
response 17:20; 154:5;
240:4, 5; 250:21; 251:2
reoccurrence 65:13
169:1; 170:6, 22; 171:8;
Rio 167:11; 206:9
safely 166:3; 228:7
scientific 13:1, 5; 14:6;
237:16
safety 17:1; 154:6;
15:14, 18; 18:5; 25:8;
repair 237:21
rips 84:7
155:16; 161:21; 192:20;
33:12; 34:4; 61:1, 4; 70:6;
responsibilities 26:6, 6;
repeat 167:2
rise 24:22; 30:8; 43:7, 22;
232:11, 14; 233:12; 253:9
71:9; 78:8; 79:12; 80:1;
169:10; 171:20; 175:21;
repeatedly 175:18
155:20; 156:13; 157:5;
161:20; 168:12; 210:3
176:2; 215:10
Saguaro 56:7, 13
Repetto 3:24; 217:20;
158:9; 160:22; 220:17;
responsibility 8:11;
221:1; 225:11; 227:19
saguaros 55:1; 56:2
scientist 32:15; 48:14;
218:6, 13; 229:18
62:21; 155:12
20:15; 23:1; 28:10;
replace 98:22
rising 27:22; 160:4;
sale 233:22
scientists 7:18; 24:20;
153:13; 169:17; 192:21;
227:19
sales 118:12
214:18
25:1; 45:22; 70:11, 13, 15;
report 70:14, 22; 78:9;
risk 155:21; 159:19;
Salt 51:16
71:7; 76:5; 78:15; 89:6;
89:1, 8; 95:1; 132:14;
responsible 20:6; 24:18;
160:5, 21; 226:9
Sam 11:6
95:1; 155:8; 160:21;
134:11; 135:6, 8; 221:16
31:14; 35:5; 37:11, 16;
209:20, 22; 241:8
reporting 101:7; 103:16;
91:11, 14
risks 11:22; 25:10; 225:4,
same 6:17; 12:9; 24:6;
8, 15; 254:15
29:8, 14; 68:19; 72:2, 20;
scorpion 163:8
159:10
rest 86:19; 146:2; 155:2;
168:14
River 50:14; 51:12, 19;
75:1, 10; 79:3; 84:13;
screen 4:9; 36:17, 18;
represent 27:12; 49:2;
98:18; 250:11
98:18; 111:11; 124:10;
43:21; 66:2; 82:9; 89:16;
90:19; 173:21; 174:20;
restore 23:18
rivers 23:14
127:10; 145:6; 147:15;
91:4, 4
240:21
restraining 250:18
170:2, 3; 175:5, 6, 6, 7;
road 141:7; 211:4
screens 186:11
represents 12:20; 124:2;
restricting 161:12
194:22; 211:12; 213:17;
174:17
roads 111:16
scrubbers 245:12
restructure 221:22
226:10; 233:20
reproduce 158:4
Rob 217:20
sea 43:7, 15, 22; 44:22;
restructuring 129:21
sand 25:13
127:22; 160:4; 186:3;
Republican 60:10
Robert 3:24, 27; 33:5;
result 15:19; 16:11; 36:6;
Sandor 3:30; 218:2;
70:4; 148:15; 217:19;
187:4; 245:13
reputation 253:4
39:18; 44:22; 55:16, 22;
238:21; 241:13; 243:16;
227:22
sea-level 225:11
require 83:10; 122:22;
66:6, 7, 8; 67:21; 97:8;
244:6, 14, 18, 22; 245:6;
80:5, 6
98:12; 104:21; 106:2;
rocking 79:21
246:21; 250:9; 251:5, 22;
seafood 162:18
equired 112:14; 207:17;
156:10; 161:2, 7; 183:15;
Rodham 151:8; 152:14
252:5, 8
search 217:10
228:19
193:17; 202:5
Rodney 10:18
sanitation 160:8
season 43:5; 47:6
required-it 108:3
resulted 7:10; 65:6, 11,
Roland 210:1
sat 31:19; 165:14
seasonable 67:12
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(21) relates seasonable
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
Seasonally 49:13
send 35:12; 144:5
shingle 91:17
simply 29:9; 76:17;
3, 8; 192:9; 241:19
seated 87:21
senior 32:15; 48:14
shining 11:22
133:19; 145:20; 180:11;
solar-based 106:14
seats 88:2; 148:13;
sensation 29:9
shock 224:7
208:11; 228:12; 231:19,
solid 21:22
214:22
22
sense 53:2; 112:1; 125:1;
shocks 223:19; 224:4;
solution 8:6; 222:1
second 25:15; 28:15;
147:4; 183:7; 243:1, 2;
226:20
simulate 75:11
solutions 7:21; 18:9;
33:16; 57:1; 70:13, 19;
247:18
short 73:21; 113:9;
simulation 82:4
26:4; 27:13; 169:2; 184:8;
87:15; 88:3; 93:13; 97:19;
sensible 16:17; 28:22;
115:21; 146:20; 161:15;
simulations 218:17
237:14; 239:6
104:13; 105:20; 106:14;
85:2; 184:19; 225:13;
164:6; 170:16
simultaneously 69:18
120:20; 123:5; 149:3;
solvable 23:9
226:2, 16; 237:14
short-run 220:5
singing 5:1
158:5; 180:8; 194:15;
sensitive 73:10; 234:20
solve 17:21, 22; 20:17;
207:9; 217:8; 219:4;
short-term 69:7; 112:2;
single 12:20; 39:7; 61:20;
132:5; 146:13; 169:18;
222:3; 243:2; 245:12
sensitivity 65:22
229:4
70:22; 137:18
175:17; 210:16
separate 175:1, 3;
shortages 161:7
sink 69:21
Secondly 69:10; 72:1;
solved 174:7
243:14
73:19; 89:6; 92:4; 146:11;
shorten 158:2
sit 5:6
Solving 15:7; 16:5;
181:14; 230:17
separating 180:20
Shortly 20:11; 45:9; 95:2;
sites 58:21; 62:15
132:4; 173:15, 15; 197:5;
secretaries 5:18
sequence 181:6
246:15
sitting 212:13
211:1, 4
Secretary 3:3, 22; 10:14,
sequester 196:6, 17, 22
shot 69:3
situation 40:5; 80:16;
somebody 47:21; 63:14;
15, 15, 16, 17; 63:5; 88:4,
serious 25:11; 70:12;
shouldn't 79:20; 80:3;
84:9
68:15; 102:4; 211:19;
5, 8; 93:3; 95:18; 98:1;
76:5; 169:1, 1; 228:16, 17,
142:20; 231:4
Six 19:22; 20:1; 57:12;
247:6; 251:14
102:19; 103:7; 110:3, 18;
18; 235:8
show 26:2; 48:2; 52:20;
62:2; 156:17
somehow 138:17;
118:1; 164:20; 165:3, 5, 7,
seriously 81:19
56:1; 61:5; 72:9, 19; 73:3;
size 49:9; 223:5
247:22
17; 172:21; 173:2, 8, 20;
serpent 163:7
179:8; 182:12; 183:2;
74:9; 82:9; 135:19
skeptical 109:12
someone 18:20; 76:8;
serve 19:19; 34:11;
186:20; 188:17; 189:2;
showed 53:14; 62:22;
skepticism 78:6
155:12; 164:22; 172:16
125:14; 158:6
194:5; 198:12; 202:11, 12;
86:22
skeptics 71:6; 72:13;
something 14:4; 16:1;
serves 152:10
203:2; 208:16; 213:1, 3;
showing 41:11; 46:4, 19;
73:1; 76:2; 78:4; 141:11
61:17; 79:15; 85:18;
215:6, 7, 11, 12; 218:5;
service 107:11; 148:17,
47:4; 51:1; 247:22
skin 29:12
115:6; 126:4, 6; 139:17;
222:15; 228:7; 236:1;
22; 149:11; 169:4; 228:9;
shown 40:10; 46:9; 59:3;
slamming 249:6
155:10; 175:1, 3; 177:18;
238:22; 241:11; 242:8;
231:22
105:4
207:13; 208:3; 209:4;
Slater 10:18
249:8; 254:1
services 106:5; 192:1
shows 38:13; 41:12;
225:20; 228:21; 229:21;
slide 66:2, 18; 132:2;
Secretary's 97:2
session 6:12; 109:11;
231:9; 241:7; 249:19
43:21; 52:22; 57:10; 59:3;
133:8; 135:3; 179:16;
section 143:9
148:9; 149:4; 224:21;
66:3, 14, 18, 22; 73:15;
sometime 85:21; 237:15
180:8
225:22
sector 91:8, 10; 93:7, 22,
75:15; 136:20
sometimes 246:10;
slide--of 180:12
22; 94:20; 107:20; 110:8;
sessions 148:5; 163:21
shrunk 39:13
247:15
slides 179:11
143:15; 222:3; 239:2
set 13:14; 24:4; 40:6;
shut 187:12
somewhere 56:4;
62:3; 94:8; 101:16; 111:5;
slow 84:15; 192:2;
sectors 96:3; 141:18;
Shuttle 30:4
176:20; 194:19; 205:9, 10;
142:5; 169:6; 217:5;
216:20; 226:7; 243:6
221:20; 225:10; 243:2
251:20, 22
234:22; 239:14; 247:16
Siberia 186:2, 8
slowing 84:11; 225:17
securities 240:4; 242:19
soon 88:11; 121:4; 185:2;
Siberian 187:4
sets 72:19, 21
slowly 239:18; 243:4
196:4; 201:15
security 106:4; 132:6;
setting 199:9
sic 5:14
147:13; 150:3, 3; 156:1;
small 13:19; 35:5; 51:8;
sooner 137:13; 186:11
seven 76:20; 171:4;
sick 154:15
160:21; 165:22; 166:11;
74:10, 11; 75:2; 130:5;
sophisticated 79:9
202:22; 208:12; 209:5
206:17
side 57:18; 81:20;
134:12, 19; 163:1; 241:1,
sorry 56:7; 244:11; 250:4
several 5:13; 38:2; 129:3;
131:21, 22; 133:16; 134:3;
21
seed 121:18; 122:1
sorry-the 50:13
212:18
Smaller 211:15, 16
seeing 50:20; 92:6;
132:1, 5; 133:2; 189:13;
sort 57:16; 67:22; 109:12;
241:10; 254:10
216:5, 18; 217:12; 245:6;
sides 112:14, 16
smart 197:19; 202:15
111:4, 22; 131:21; 180:3,
seek 157:8
250:14
sign 208:20
smog 58:8
22; 210:5; 238:7
seeking 176:1; 203:1
severe 65:5, 6, 10, 15;
signal 144:6, 9; 227:18
smoking 78:9, 14
sorts 134:22
66:19; 216:7
seeks 149:15; 237:4
signals 219:20; 220:1;
smooth 88:12
sought 8:15
severity 68:10
226:14; 228:19; 229:2, 12;
seem 51:10
snow 43:1, 3; 49:17, 17,
sound 17:11; 150:9
shadow 203:19
242:5, 14
19
seemingly 78:13
source 114:21; 191:6
Shalala 63:5
signature 167:11
so-called 40:14; 42:19;
seems 31:6, 7; 77:22;
sources 17:8; 89:16;
shallower 84:6
significant 5:20; 33:22;
72:15; 77:15; 129:16
146:21; 166:19; 194:9, 12;
90:22; 96:5; 103:19;
shanty-town 189:20
53:16; 63:19; 73:4; 89:10;
195:3; 197:19; 226:3
SO2 239:7; 243:20, 20;
104:11; 126:22; 127:4;
94:12; 116:21; 122:4, 6;
share 168:19; 215:10;
249:7; 251:7
sees 122:19; 162:5
137:11; 141:21; 191:2;
135:20; 180:18; 182:1;
236:7
social 21:20; 119:2;
239:22; 245:2
seize 20:16
221:15; 252:19
shared 9:14; 169:19
126:5; 151:4; 205:11, 18;
selected 135:5, 13
significantly 51:5;
South 76:22; 98:14;
241:7
selection 248:2
shares 25:9
129:4; 154:20; 166:8;
210:13
societies 130:14
sharp 180:6; 181:6
186:7; 189:19
selections 4:15
signing 162:18; 196:14
self-interest 222:5
sharply 84:22; 223:22
Society 8:21; 107:17;
Southeast 184:1; 186:7
similar 50:22; 78:6
151:9
sheets 43:10
Southern 26:21; 44:1;
sell 100:3, 15; 101:18, 20;
similarities 239:11
soft 131:22; 201:10
57:21
199:13; 200:2; 251:16
shelf 84:20; 85:4
similarity 223:17
soften 15:5
Southwest 56:3; 58:15;
selling 170:11; 218:22;
shells 128:20
similarly 187:19; 247:15
software 120:12
67:3
244:13
Sherwood 210:1
simple 97:6; 119:17;
soil 43:4; 47:5; 69:9, 12,
southwestern 65:14
Senate 81:13; 139:7;
shield 162:15
177:18; 194:13; 240:9
17, 21, 22; 70:1; 242:1
sovereignty 208:20;
140:6; 214:17, 19; 215:2
shift 150:11; 161:1
simplest 138:5
solar 17:9; 74:5, 10, 14,
209:3, 8
Senator 11:5
shifts 45:3
simplistic 135:15, 17
17, 19; 91:17; 96:7; 128:2,
Soviet 219:13
Seasonally Soviet (22)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
space 29:11; 178:5
221:1; 228:18
stimulate 219:5
substantial 34:2
122:10; 129:20; 147:20;
Spain 127:22
standing 5:1
stock 146:7
substantially 91:21;
170:10; 191:22; 202:2;
stone 163:6
219:8, 15, 21
210:11
spans 31:11
standpoint 82:21
peak 237:13; 240:18
stands 18:20
stoop 247:4
substituted 245:11
supported 219:20
eaker 187:1
Stanford 92:14
stooped 247:7
substitutes 212:5, 11
supporting 232:11
eakers 108:20;
start 4:4; 10:12; 33:8;
stop 45:17; 102:3
substituting 103:18
supports 6:6
132:21; 167:1
34:22; 80:6; 83:18; 84:10;
stopping 82:6
substitution 141:12, 19;
suppression 236:15
speaking 15:1; 67:17;
87:9; 88:3; 96:18; 127:5;
stops 102:6
188:1; 212:3
sure 21:2; 57:15; 68:5;
132:3; 185:21; 187:3;
145:22; 151:2; 223:8;
subtropics 44:17; 49:7
71:13; 72:13; 74:2; 159:1;
stored 189:18
240:22
248:11
storm 53:13
succeed 21:8
163:13; 164:1; 179:13;
speaks 133:8
started 37:4; 72:3; 94:5;
198:13; 201:11; 204:15;
storms 44:21; 52:13, 16;
succeeding 116:22
special 6:12; 8:14; 72:7
210:6; 239:16
224:6
53:10, 11,
success 207:2, 3, 11;
specialized 9:13
State 3:4; 10:14; 11:11;
surface 34:20; 35:6;
story 52:1; 85:10
230:22; 231:2
60:11; 65:18; 71:1; 101:8,
38:22; 39:2, 11; 52:4, 9,
species 6:5; 55:5; 56:16,
straight 78:12
successful 196:6; 230:6,
20; 197:13
17, 17; 164:20; 165:3;
11; 72:18; 73:7, 8
strain 159:4
8; 237:9
specific 20:12; 109:15;
213:1, 7; 216:6; 228:11;
Surgeon 78:9
strains 158:16
sudden 141:2; 210:17;
155:13
233:21
surging 19:3
specifically 101:9;
State's 173:8
strategic 94:19; 181:3
226:22
surprising 184:7
131:16
statement 165:21
strategically 182:5
suffer 151:22, 22
surprisingly 66:21
specificity 207:6
States 4:18; 5:11; 6:18;
strategies 20:13; 170:18
suffering 154:21; 156:6
surveys 61:4
9:18; 24:3; 26:22; 37:10,
stratospheric 209:21
suffice 180:14
specified 232:22
survive 158:8
speculating 244:3
17, 22; 41:8; 46:17; 47:2;
stream 124:5, 6
sufficient 236:12
susceptible 155:1
speech 97:2
55:5; 57:20, 21; 59:14;
street 247:3
sugar 55:7, 9, 14, 16, 20;
sustain 6:11; 160:3
62:2, 19; 65:14; 66:4, 15,
strength 100:17, 19
128:19
speed 42:20; 84:9;
22; 67:2, 4, 7; 81:12, 13;
sustainability 104:7
210:18
stress 44:8; 57:4, 10;
suggest 129:5, 9, 19;
86:12; 118:12, 20; 123:9;
sustainable 16:10;
spend 131:7, 8; 193:22
58:4; 106:22; 118:16;
217:12; 231:7; 250:14
125:2, 11; 127:19, 20;
105:11; 107:13; 188:20,
120:20
spent 106:8; 133:3
suggested 7:1; 203:5
128:9; 129:11; 133:5;
22; 189:6, 8; 190:13;
Sperling 253:18
147:14; 148:15; 151:5, 18;
striking 190:6
suggestion 251:1
191:8, 11; 192:17, 17;
spewing 187:10
152:14; 153:10; 156:16;
strive 185:15; 225:16
suggestions 230:4
222:6; 226:15
spirit 46:4; 123:15
159:14, 16; 166:2, 19, 22;
strong 21:21; 162:7;
suggests 55:15
sustainably 188:21
167:12, 22; 169:11, 22;
168:11; 170:6; 191:9
ite 71:8
sulfur 24:2; 142:5, 6, 14,
swallow 208:6
171:2; 172:19; 178:9;
stronger 21:19; 210:12;
16; 143:7, 12
swap 240:7
oke 229:18
191:10; 195:3, 7; 196:9;
211:8
sulphur 200:18; 203:18;
Sweeney 3:29; 217:22;
poken 108:20
198:16; 202:22; 213:11,
strongest 20:7
210:20; 211:13; 230:7;
235:7, 20
sport 93:10
16; 220:15; 221:8, 19;
223:9; 224:9; 228:15;
strongly 147:1; 254:21
231:1; 240:8, 20; 243:15;
Swikert 29:18
spot 29:22; 251:12
struck 144:13; 223:17
244:5, 12; 247:10
230:2; 232:3; 236:4
switch 97:14
spotlight 11:22; 154:2
structure 107:3
summarize 13:13
station 182:7, 8
switching 195:16;
spotted 159:12
statistics 62:1; 154:17
structured 61:4; 218:12
summarized 84:3
245:14
spread 156:1; 157:17,
structures 17:5
summary 226:7
status 20:21
syrup 55:12
22; 158:4, 11, 17; 160:1,
19; 231:14
struggle 151:16
summer 6:13; 44:8;
Stavins 3:27; 217:21;
system 24:3; 81:16;
63:22; 78:11; 162:20
spring 66:10
227:22; 228:4, 6; 232:16;
struggling 154:21
83:21; 99:14; 104:8;
239:9; 248:21, 22; 250:3,
Summers 3:22; 215:6, 7,
111:20; 122:16; 123:2;
spur 7:16; 171:5; 198:21
stubbornly 15:15
5, 7; 253:10
11, 12; 218:21; 222:15;
143:11, 11; 186:2, 6, 9, 13;
stuck 248:9
squeezing 247:10
236:1; 238:12; 241:11
194:14; 196:1; 197:6;
stay 5:13; 87:15
student 9:13
stability 176:9; 177:1
Summit 167:11; 206:9
200:17; 202:3; 219:11;
steadily 103:17, 19
stabilize 81:14; 82:12;
students 5:9; 136:2;
summon 18:4
230:10; 233:11; 234:19;
steam 90:21; 99:9, 14
149:2, 16, 18; 153:2;
245:17; 251:4
133:7; 179:19
sun 40:3; 74:8, 22; 75:3;
steel 120:17
165:19; 166:13, 15
stabilized 220:10
91:22
systems 27:4; 42:6, 15;
steepness 201:11
studied 28:21; 48:14;
58:20; 99:10; 106:20;
stabilizes 43:14; 82:19;
sunlight 35:10; 36:17;
202:18
112:4; 117:13; 119:22;
83:8
steer 84:1, 16
74:4; 128:4
studies 45:12; 55:13;
134:6, 6, 20; 144:16;
stabilizing 167:16;
steering 84:11, 19
super 150:5
step 28:19; 123:16;
61:8; 156:11; 210:22;
145:8; 184:7; 219:3;
179:20
220:9; 223:11, 15, 20;
super-duper 190:3
224:16; 225:1; 229:22;
stable 18:10; 19:4; 177:3
169:15; 197:4; 226:10
225:10, 12, 20; 229:12
super-tanker 83:21;
249:13
stack 189:16
steps 15:4; 16:4, 13;
study 149:12; 152:5;
84:4, 13
18:9; 26:17; 31:19; 126:9;
staff 149:2
167:19; 171:15; 178:2;
166:17; 212:2; 213:9;
superb 183:5
T
stage 4:8; 111:5; 206:11
221:15; 235:2; 240:12
229:8; 236:3
superbly 142:15
stake 136:16; 153:4;
Stew 254:4
studying 160:17
supercar 95:20
table 111:22
164:1; 173:14; 253:3
stewardship 23:21
stuff 79:16; 137:16
superstar 164:18
tackling 24:1
stakes 236:3
stickiness 248:7, 8
subject 59:4; 65:21;
suppliers 113:2
talk 22:22; 31:10; 34:22;
and 21:18; 22:1; 173:3
93:13; 165:9; 193:14;
still 14:6; 38:15; 54:2, 5;
supplies 93:5; 160:5;
47:19; 54:10, 13; 57:1;
indard 86:13; 121:21
213:10
161:7
60:4; 65:21; 79:11; 85:20;
64:10, 12, 20, 21; 89:22;
standards 134:21;
91:4; 96:11; 112:14;
subjects 150:16
supply 85:1; 91:9; 192:5
110:6; 113:21; 117:11, 21;
151:17; 162:18; 169:6;
125:2; 134:19; 166:2;
submit 47:10
support 22:10; 86:15;
119:16; 123:7; 127:3;
183:17; 190:19; 216:21;
211:3
subsidies 221:16
94:19; 107:14; 121:9;
131:3; 134:3; 155:11;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(23) space talk
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
175:2; 177:5; 190:13;
Technology 3:8; 13:8;
that-yeah 116:3
157:3; 160:10; 171:6;
234:1, 13, 15; 239:18;
193:19; 194:10; 202:16;
14:15; 22:7; 27:1; 32:12;
Thatcher 187:22
173:21; 176:12; 178:15;
242:5; 245:3; 249:16, 21;
237:14
71:1; 80:5; 88:19; 91:17;
the-give 64:21
203:4
251:15; 253:2, 2,3
talked 30:20; 47:15; 53:1;
93:20; 95:4, 18; 96:21;
them-in 61:22
threefold 158:19
tons 123:14; 196:7;
58:18; 63:11; 119:14;
104:4; 105:7, 13; 110:3;
120:15; 133:11, 13, 13;
112:21; 115:13; 117:14;
themselves 103:12;
threshold 21:18; 207:4
197:1; 241:5; 245:1
187:2; 192:18; 224:14
108:19; 122:12; 163:12;
threw 241:15
took 110:12; 206:17
118:3, 21; 119:1, 12;
120:19; 122:11; 125:19;
176:15; 228:16
talking 30:13, 13; 34:3;
thriving 21:20
tool 236:12
35:18; 115:1; 121:3;
131:15, 22; 132:17; 135:1,
theory 73:17; 75:15, 21;
Throughout 5:17; 18:12,
tools 21:6; 84:18
135:10; 143:8; 165:10;
19; 136:1; 149:14; 168:15;
99:5; 149:12
18; 77:4, 18; 104:14;
top 40:12; 70:1; 82:11,
166:13, 20; 192:16; 194:1;
172:9; 180:5; 181:1;
thereafter 38:17
128:9; 151:18; 229:7
15; 166:8; 242:1
209:1; 222:22
184:21, 22; 185:7; 190:9;
thereby 191:20
throw 241:14
torchiere 92:6, 12
talks 61:11; 132:14;
195:6, 7; 198:22; 205:1;
Therefore 26:9; 28:13;
thrown 98:21
total 68:8; 98:9; 125:5,
134:11; 135:3; 167:18;
219:17; 224:10; 229:6;
42:22; 60:3; 69:11; 109:3;
thumb 30:1
16; 199:15
168:1
236:14; 245:13
137:21; 139:10; 176:15;
thus 98:11
totally 55:17
tangible 167:19
telecommunications
181:20; 182:3; 199:6;
totals 62:4
128:5, 6; 191:15
tick-tack-toe 213:18
tangibly 79:20
213:18; 246:17; 248:11
touch 173:13
television 170:22
tickled 140:20
tank 115:18
thermal 43:8
touched 193:12
telling 62:21; 84:4
thermostats 119:20
tighter 227:14
tanker 84:8
tough 80:17; 162:20;
tells 140:9; 231:6
Tim 11:11; 254:3
they'll 91:18
211:3
tapestry 102:2
temperature 34:20; 35:2;
they're 32:4; 35:8; 55:18;
times 34:7; 40:21; 46:20;
tougher 212:17
target 131:8; 138:22;
38:21, 22; 39:2, 9, 13, 14;
50:18; 57:12; 137:20;
139:1; 207:7; 225:22;
75:7; 91:13; 92:10;
toughest 205:5
40:8; 41:1, 5, 13; 42:7, 10,
151:21; 157:2, 4; 169:12;
233:12; 234:6, 6, 20;
100:14; 109:18; 113:15;
11; 46:6; 52:7, 9; 54:11;
232:11
tourism 45:6; 55:18
236:19, 21; 237:2
116:9; 163:11
56:18; 57:13; 61:10; 63:1;
timetables 155:14
tourists 55:11
targets 155:14; 169:4, 5;
they've 36:18; 97:18;
67:9; 69:16; 72:17; 73:5, 9,
timetables-and 207:8
toward 6:18; 7:16; 15:6;
198:14; 223:21; 228:14,
113:14; 186:1; 187:14;
20:20, 21, 21, 22; 21:1, 11,
15, 19; 77:3; 78:1; 80:10;
188:6
tinier 211:14
16; 232:22; 233:6, 19;
17; 35:12; 40:18; 42:3;
82:4; 157:5, 22; 159:6
234:12
thin 15:1; 29:11
tiny 29:9; 78:22; 209:8;
162:9; 168:4; 169:20;
temperature's 72:14
things"-in 8:16
210:21
Tarullo 253:21
197:4; 211:1, 4; 243:4
temperatures 24:21;
think-those 208:9
tip 44:1
Toyota 27:10
task 24:1; 32:13; 80:15;
39:11, 12; 40:12; 49:20;
96:9; 223:16
50:1; 54:8; 55:3; 57:6;
thinking 171:6; 174:13;
tireless 151:8
trace 35:16
58:6, 11; 63:12; 69:10;
175:4; 228:12; 230:13, 14
to-well 102:21
tasks 242:16
track 31:16; 81:10;
taught 202:17; 228:21,
75:18, 19; 76:22; 155:20;
third 4:7; 26:3; 30:6;
tobacco 78:12; 162:15
207:21
21
156:8; 158:5, 9; 160:3;
33:20; 55:21; 74:2;
today 5:21; 9:12; 16:15;
tradable 206:2; 229:1,
215:20
104:15; 111:9; 112:9;
17:12, 16; 22:3; 24:9, 15;
22; 234:18; 249:7; 251:3
tax 139:14; 219:5, 8;
ten 14:2; 50:18; 66:20;
160:20; 164:15; 180:16;
234:18
26:15; 28:19; 29:6; 30:19;
trade 21:9; 134:20;
taxes 206:2; 219:2;
113:10; 199:12
198:22; 230:22
31:10, 20; 57:8; 59:16;
142:12; 175:7; 177:2;
tenacity 152:10
thirdly 72:6; 128:17;
68:2; 78:15; 82:2; 83:16,
183:17; 207:20; 209:12;
229:1, 19; 230:20, 21
219:10
19; 85:11; 88:11; 95:5, 11,
218:3; 219:1; 240:8;
teaches 151:21
tend 144:1; 156:13;
team 141:11; 215:15;
181:19, 20
this-I 234:3
22; 98:1; 100:8; 103:9;
241:1; 242:18; 250:18
though 137:15; 199:15
104:19; 106:17; 114:2;
tradeable 225:21;
253:16; 254:3
tendency 184:9
127:6, 13; 132:3; 137:4;
tends 69:10; 145:17
thought 9:3; 21:19;
229:20; 230:10; 231:1
tech 160:17
145:19; 149:18, 20; 150:2,
101:6; 108:7; 147:18;
traded 230:15; 243:22
technical 107:6; 121:8
tenth 210:8
22; 151:19; 153:9, 22;
157:5; 215:1; 234:17
term 17:7; 56:11; 115:21,
155:6; 156:20; 161:16;
trader 242:9
technically 229:9
thoughtful 183:6
177:12; 182:4; 183:13;
traders 216:9
techniques 194:11
21; 135:4; 150:3; 169:2
thoughtfully 237:6
185:2; 204:14; 215:4;
trades 240:19; 244:7;
technological 7:5; 14:6;
terminal 97:18
thoughts 222:19; 228:4;
235:22
251:7; 252:1
79:22; 80:2; 103:16;
terms 49:17; 63:8; 91:19;
254:18
today's 8:14; 16:22;
trading 24:3; 170:11;
104:17; 107:10; 109:13;
109:4; 119:18, 20; 121:22;
thousand 159:12
41:17; 82:15; 115:3;
193:13, 22; 210:20;
110:7; 170:12, 20; 171:12;
122:21; 146:18; 170:8;
Thousands 154:14
163:1; 242:7; 254:6
219:12; 221:6; 227:2;
184:10; 224:13, 19
176:5; 177:6, 6, 9, 10;
230:5, 7; 231:7, 19;
technologically 65:21
184:16; 185:3, 10; 186:9;
threads 102:3
together 6:15; 7:18; 8:21;
14:17; 16:17; 20:9; 21:16;
238:13, 15, 18, 19; 243:14,
203:10; 204:9, 10, 22;
technologies 6:19; 14:5,
threat 17:19; 22:19;
22:13, 14; 23:2, 12; 29:1,
19; 244:15; 248:4, 13;
222:19
10; 16:18; 17:14; 26:13;
26:18; 147:13; 150:6;
17; 84:15; 94:18, 18; 95:2;
249:16; 250:20
27:6, 12; 28:18; 81:8;
terrible 15:18; 161:14;
158:15; 206:18; 215:17;
121:18; 147:22; 152:6;
traditional 27:3
84:20; 85:4, 5; 88:11; 89:9;
184:3
216:14, 16
153:8; 171:4; 186:14;
91:2, 6; 93:4; 94:11, 20;
terribly 64:15; 207:14
threaten 37:5; 173:17
traditionally 28:1
202:14; 210:4
train 31:16; 114:13;
96:3, 11; 97:13; 106:8;
territory 101:18, 19
threatens 6:11
told 63:6; 97:18; 159:1
182:6, 8
114:1; 118:7, 17; 126:7;
Texas 51:20; 65:18;
threats 12:21; 18:7;
tolerate 21:5
128:21; 129:8; 131:4;
trajectories 82:12
190:2; 233:15
154:9; 165:22; 166:4, 10,
132:10; 133:4, 9; 135:5,
toll 161:14
Thailand 189:14
17
trajectory 81:7; 82:18,
13, 17, 22; 136:21; 144:8;
Tom 32:15; 47:14; 48:13,
18, 20; 83:3, 8
thanking 11:19
three 29:3; 33:12; 71:11,
146:3; 187:12; 188:20;
13; 54:7; 61:11; 63:13;
190:8, 8; 194:8, 22; 195:1;
thanks 87:18; 202:15
16; 72:17, 19, 21; 82:12;
transfer 181:11; 200:11,
69:5; 75:20; 95:6; 144:2
85:22; 90:13, 17, 20; 91:3;
12
199:7; 200:9, 11; 212:13;
that-adopting 220:21
98:2; 99:13; 104:9;
tomorrow 17:13; 80:7
transferred 195:6
219:19; 229:8
that-just 102:3
112:19; 116:7; 137:20;
tomorrow's 117:3
transformation 180:4,
technologists 226:15
that-there 181:9
138:9; 145:16; 155:22;
ton 144:4; 197:2; 226:1,
11
talked transformation (24)
Min-U-Script®
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
me nouse comerence on Cimate Change:
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
transformations 182:1
turbines 127:17
242:9
20; 47:4; 49:9; 52:14; 56:8,
179:17; 223:13
transition 88:13; 102:12;
turn 15:3; 42:15; 96:15;
underestimate 184:10;
22; 62:22; 63:18; 64:7;
usually 56:20; 151:22
117:17; 129:5; 130:17;
102:4; 124:17; 140:20;
242:15
66:2; 72:2; 77:1; 78:11;
utilities 26:21; 95:14;
36:12; 237:1; 238:6
146:10; 161:8; 172:13;
underestimated 108:6
79:4; 81:7; 98:3, 4, 4;
101:22; 102:13; 103:2;
173:5; 179:2; 218:5;
101:17; 115:2, 17; 118:13;
anslate 115:10
underestimating 223:4
108:14, 19; 193:8; 249:20;
Insmission 95:16
227:22; 229:19
123:16; 125:21; 127:9;
undermine 71:12
250:17
132:2, 16; 133:17; 135:13;
transmit 229:2
turned 212:6; 247:12
underpricing 130:16
utility 93:10; 101:2;
136:7; 137:22; 140:21;
turnover 146:7
126:18; 198:9; 224:22;
transparency 243:3
underscore 104:9
142:10; 147:8; 153:18;
252:16
transparent 208:1
turns 35:3; 115:12;
understands 95:8
175:18, 18; 176:6; 186:8;
Transportation 10:17;
234:4, 9; 242:7
190:3; 198:16; 199:9;
utterly 30:15, 19
undertaking 223:5
17:3; 89:22; 93:5, 7, 7;
TVs 4:9
unexpectedly 233:13
201:12; 205:9; 208:13, 20;
106:19; 107:20; 110:8, 18;
twice 81:21; 82:7, 19;
209:3; 210:18, 19, 20;
V
unfair 108:13
111:5, 7, 8, 12, 20; 112:1;
159:12
221:19; 241:14, 15; 247:4,
Unfortunately 98:10;
115:5; 137:9, 11; 191:19
7, 14, 22
two 4:8; 14:17; 23:2; 39:4;
231:7; 243:16
vacation 60:13
Transportation's 7:9
40:21; 46:5; 50:17, 19;
up-front 233:21
unhappy 227:16
vagaries 65:22
trap 35:11
52:6; 53:12; 68:7; 76:20;
upbringing 163:14
uniform 41:6; 51:7
Valley 50:15; 51:19
trapped 41:14
80:11; 85:17; 98:3, 7, 14;
upheaval 187:21
unifying 169:21
valuable 246:8
108:19; 116:7; 122:13;
travel 157:11; 158:22
unintended 14:12; 245:7
upon 54:18; 149:19;
150:12; 158:1, 18; 166:2;
value 36:10; 242:4
193:12; 224:7
Treasury 3:23; 123:13;
167:13; 176:10, 11, 13;
Union 219:13
values 20:14
215:6
upper 43:19
181:9; 193:5; 194:12;
unique 55:20
valve 232:12, 14; 233:12;
treat 160:18
upstairs 4:11
217:3; 253:15
uniquely 105:14
253:10
upstream 230:14
treated 154:13
two-pronged 105:14
unit 90:14
vans 93:9; 224:22
upward 66:3
treaties 175:22; 209:6;
two-thirds 90:20; 103:9;
United 4:18; 5:11; 6:12,
vantage 29:7; 30:9
210:18
121:3; 137:6
18; 9:18; 24:3; 27:6; 37:10,
upwards 55:6
vapor 35:14; 52:12, 13
17, 22; 41:7; 46:17; 47:1;
urban 57:13; 72:15;
treatment 151:10
twofold 46:7
variability 71:19, 22;
55:5; 57:20, 21; 59:14;
156:9, 22; 192:2
treaty 206:17; 208:21;
tying 186:14
72:11; 73:14, 21
209:18
62:19; 65:14; 66:4, 15, 22;
urge 201:14
type 58:3, 17; 61:10;
variation 74:10, 11
67:7; 81:12, 13; 86:12;
tree 56:16, 20
urgent 107:5
186:10
variations 40:3; 41:19;
94:16; 118:12, 20; 123:8;
trees 54:21; 56:4
urging 223:9
types 53:8; 62:8; 192:8;
65:4; 66:6
125:2, 11; 127:19, 20;
USAID 11:2
tremendous 17:13;
195:15
128:9; 129:11; 133:5;
varies 39:14
:22; 119:11, 18; 126:2
typically 37:19
147:14; 148:15; 151:5, 18;
use 16:19; 36:2, 6; 38:7,
variety 36:3; 44:7;
end 66:3, 5; 72:20; 74:1;
152:14; 153:10; 156:15;
7; 68:1; 71:12; 73:22;
195:15; 203:12
84:22; 91:21, 22; 92:8, 11,
53:21; 157:6; 220:12
U
159:14, 16; 166:2, 18, 22;
various 13:10; 130:12;
167:9, 12, 22; 169:11, 22;
12; 93:16, 19; 94:6, 9;
trends 15:12; 28:3; 185:4
136:17; 166:3; 167:1;
Trial 241:11, 13
171:2; 172:19; 178:9;
95:9; 98:9; 103:4, 20;
194:21
U 171:7
191:10; 195:2, 7; 196:9;
104:11, 14; 106:17; 108:5;
triangle 134:16
198:16; 202:22; 213:11,
109:4; 111:8, 21; 112:9,
vast 71:7
U.S 3:2, 21; 32:13; 51:2;
tried 21:3; 225:12
10; 115:17; 117:12;
vastly 14:7
52:21; 56:1; 83:11, 16;
16; 220:15; 221:8, 19;
223:9; 224:9; 228:15;
118:18; 121:10, 14;
vector 44:11; 58:16
Trigen 95:7; 99:5
94:14; 97:8; 98:8; 100:7, 9,
11; 103:17; 105:13; 106:4,
230:2; 232:3; 236:4
127:12; 128:2, 7, 22;
vector-borne 174:9
trilemma 146:14
130:12; 133:21; 138:1;
trillions 111:15
18; 107:2; 129:2; 132:16;
units 90:14; 98:2
vegetables 162:20
140:19; 145:4, 9; 177:11;
triple 16:21; 45:19;
193:7; 200:8; 209:13;
universities 6:14; 70:17;
184:14; 191:2; 192:10, 11;
vegetation 242:1
169:20
221:5; 222:7; 225:21
112:21
195:17; 215:1; 229:4;
Vehicle 93:14, 16, 18;
tripling 42:3
UAW 110:11; 116:8
University 3:26, 28; 4:3,
232:3; 248:7
110:10; 112:6; 116:10, 20;
trivial 176:16
ultimate 236:18
19; 5:10; 8:13; 32:11, 20;
useable 115:2
137:14; 190:4
ultimately 119:5; 121:2;
33:3; 92:15; 98:19; 99:15;
vehicles 7:11; 16:21;
tropical 54:21, 21; 58:17
used 56:11; 71:2; 90:10,
125:14; 130:5; 150:1;
149:1, 10; 218:2; 233:15
17; 91:10; 93:6, 15; 96:7;
93:10
tropics 44:17; 49:7
195:14; 207:15
University's 4:13
98:6; 128:5; 133:18;
ventilation 120:1
trouble 92:5
UN 10:20
unleash 100:19
150:3; 160:18; 165:20;
Venture 95:19; 110:5;
trucks 93:9; 116:18, 19;
unachievable 170:16
unless 85:14; 86:13;
166:1; 175:22; 179:12;
126:16
133:13, 14
uncertain 54:6; 238:1
127:7; 158:9; 180:14;
180:8; 194:8; 195:7;
verge 247:16
true 66:16; 80:9; 86:11;
uncertainties 71:5, 8;
224:20
196:19; 214:19; 240:7;
Vermont 62:7
211:17, 22; 249:15
unlike 242:6
241:19
truly 8:10; 78:2; 107:13
75:8; 76:3; 155:17;
versus 179:22; 190:20
203:13; 205:9; 252:21;
unmanageable 84:12
useful 137:21; 212:8
viability 178:7
trust 112:14, 16
253:1,
6
unpleasant 227:17
uses 104:2; 212:4
viable 177:3; 241:22
try 52:2; 68:5; 71:12;
uncertainty 43:18; 220:2
unpopular 150:8
Ushers 148:6
Vice 3:24; 4:18; 5:4, 7, 17;
74:13; 80:14; 212:7; 243:9
unconstrained 132:7
unqualified 121:21
USIA 11:3
6:1; 9:8, 18, 20; 12:19;
trying 76:12; 108:11;
undemocratic 207:22
unreachable 169:4
using 17:3; 27:2; 86:9;
19:10; 30:12; 32:3; 33:11;
112:15; 124:17; 146:13;
162:14; 192:5
under 38:9; 41:20; 44:4;
92:15; 97:21; 99:4;
34:14; 41:11; 47:9, 13, 21;
unrealistic 180:16
105:22; 115:2; 128:17;
46:6; 47:22; 48:6; 57:11;
48:3, 7, 13, 17; 56:11;
Tuchman 3:17
Unsafe 160:9
63:20; 82:10, 12; 83:22;
146:3; 206:2; 218:21;
62:11; 64:1, 20; 70:3, 9;
icson 57:17; 59:1;
unsustainable 190:7
219:4; 227:15
75:5; 78:3; 79:10; 87:3;
84:6; 95:17; 110:3;
00:2
140:17; 154:11; 158:14;
unusual 197:12
usual 38:10; 40:14, 18;
88:1, 8, 17; 90:3; 96:13,
tundra 54:18
167:15; 176:11, 13;
up 18:20; 23:14; 28:11;
41:21; 42:2; 45:17, 21;
15; 102:17, 19, 21; 103:7;
turbine 99:18
200:17; 206:17; 220:14;
30:17; 37:7; 38:8; 42:13,
48:6; 80:17; 82:11;
111:4; 118:1; 123:20;
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script
(25) transformations Vice
White House Conference on Climate Change:
October 6, 1997
The Challenge of Global Warming
124:12; 126:11, 15; 127:1;
warmed 49:20
wealth 25:21
133:15
106:16; 107:14; 115:3, 3;
131:12; 144:11; 150:14;
warmer 35:7; 39:3; 59:5;
wealthy 181:17
winds 42:14
118:11, 14, 22; 119:3;
164:7, 11; 165:8; 172:18,
63:2; 160:2
weather 63:10; 65:22;
windshield 226:12
120:21; 121:5; 122:10;
20; 173:1, 20; 174:16;
warmest 39:5
66:1, 6; 67:19
winning 172:7
127:7, 9; 128:10; 132:20;
177:20; 178:18, 20; 179:7;
182:10; 183:2; 186:22;
Warming 5:16; 6:3, 22;
wedge 135:13
133:4, 19, 20; 139:7;
winter 51:21
187:19; 188:6, 14; 189:3;
7:13; 12:1; 26:19; 34:19;
146:2, 22; 149:13, 22;
week 62:18; 63:11; 114:4,
Wirth 11:11; 249:8; 254:3
36:19; 41:8; 42:18; 43:3, 7;
150:16; 151:18; 152:7;
193:3; 194:4; 195:12;
11, 12; 116:9; 232:10
wisely 104:4; 107:12
196:13; 198:2, 5; 200:20;
45:13; 46:15; 55:22;
154:8; 156:6; 158:6;
weeks 88:21; 144:19
70:12; 74:21; 77:16;
wish 129:12; 138:12;
160:13; 161:13; 163:9, 15;
201:19; 205:14; 209:10;
118:3; 121:1; 125:13;
weight 78:21; 79:2; 113:4
143:19; 147:12
164:19; 166:22; 168:8, 19;
211:10, 15, 21; 212:19;
132:3; 151:1; 154:5;
weird 166:12
wished 147:11
169:16; 172:5; 173:6, 9;
213:4; 214:16; 215:13;
218:3, 4, 13; 221:3;
155:21; 156:3; 162:6;
Welcome 4:2, 12; 5:10;
wishes 79:7
174:5, 7, 15, 19; 175:2, 8,
222:12; 226:19; 227:21;
215:17; 216:14; 217:3;
9:16; 11:16; 13:12; 17:17;
wishful 228:12
10, 11, 12, 14; 176:1, 7,
228:6; 231:10; 232:7, 16;
222:18; 225:9; 254:16
18:17; 79:8; 149:2
22; 177:2, 16, 22; 178:1, 2,
within 28:12; 103:14;
235:4; 238:10, 21; 243:12;
warming's 61:21
welcoming 5:6; 152:18
8; 180:15; 181:6, 7, 13, 15,
129:9; 136:15; 157:3;
18, 19; 182:4, 6, 13, 18;
244:2, 9, 10, 16, 19; 245:4,
warnings 15:14; 23:13
welfare 5:14; 21:10
169:22; 221:10
185:18; 187:10; 191:11;
21; 246:22; 247:9; 249:4;
warrant 24:18
well-it 62:17
without 16:14; 17:22;
250:1, 4, 6; 251:11; 252:1,
196:3, 12; 209:7, 18;
wash 69:21; 117:18
well-ahead 200:17
28:7; 35:15; 89:10;
6, 10; 253:8
210:4, 12, 18; 217:20;
view 12:21; 19:2; 100:12;
Washington 25:5; 63:15;
well-being 9:14; 34:1;
105:20; 120:1; 121:17;
221:16; 233:15; 237:4, 10
168:16; 176:22; 216:20;
134:13; 170:2; 175:14;
99:2; 241:9
37:6; 42:15; 44:6; 80:20;
218:10; 219:6; 220:7;
world's 6:18; 7:4; 13:5;
203:9; 218:9; 223:14
waste 96:20; 97:9, 10;
153:16; 154:6; 162:8;
222:8
20:7; 24:19; 25:19, 20, 22;
209:4
viewgraph 52:2, 19;
98:4, 8, 12, 21; 99:4;
withstand 159:4
34:9; 37:11; 38:1; 55:21;
100:13; 109:5, 20; 120:1;
West 127:20
53:14
103:18; 106:10; 121:4;
Witness 104:18
viewpoint 239:3, 9
124:1, 1, 3, 4, 6; 128:18;
Western 55:22; 66:21;
127:13; 155:8; 159:19;
Witt 10:20; 62:12; 64:5
169:13; 174:21; 189:1;
views 22:16; 179:6
137:6
67:7; 245:10
vigorously 20:3
wasted 95:10; 99:8
wet 42:14; 54:20; 66:9
Wolfensohn 3:5; 172:5;
191:7; 216:8, 9
wastes 123:10
wetlands 45:1
173:6, 19; 174:2; 200:10
worldwide 48:15; 50:17;
virtually 66:12; 68:9;
women 161:9; 235:10;
83:1; 93:6; 204:13
watched 188:17
what's 48:20; 52:20;
83:12, 15; 87:2; 100:20;
237:8
water 12:8; 27:8; 35:14;
54:3; 79:18; 241:10
104:1; 118:6; 157:20;
viruses 158:3
Women's 4:13
160:11; 190:22
42:21, 22; 43:5, 8; 51:11,
wheel 84:17; 190:4
vision 9:10; 20:4, 14;
wonder 53:20; 76:16
worried 42:10; 240:3
21:17; 133:16
13; 52:10, 12, 13, 17;
when-not 207:6
54:14; 58:16; 67:9; 72:19;
wondered 166:13
visit 55:2
when-that 108:2
worry 182:7
84:5; 90:21; 99:10; 160:2,
wondrous 224:19
worse 155:10; 160:6
visited 160:15
whereby 232:12
5, 7, 161:4; 162:17;
wood 128:20
worst 220:14; 224:8
vital 23:2; 111:11
174:10; 191:13, 20
wherever 128:7; 196:3;
197:21
word 62:12; 204:13;
worst-case 220:18
vitality 23:3; 105:10;
water-borne 160:1;
225:4; 248:7
173:17
191:22
White 4:3; 5:16; 11:15;
worth 14:3
17:17; 22:13; 63:11;
words 10:3; 150:7;
wove 102:2
vivid 65:2; 121:10
waters 51:20
140:16, 18; 149:4; 151:6;
201:16; 226:20; 235:3
wrap 79:4; 136:7; 147:8
vocal 4:15
waterways 111:17
153:12; 239:1; 254:10
work 6:15; 7:8, 16; 20:6;
wrong 16:9; 84:10; 245:5
void 29:11; 188:5
Watson 33:5; 34:14;
who's 60:10; 62:13; 63:5
21:12; 23:2; 26:10; 29:16;
volcanic 73:12
70:4, 7, 9; 76:20
who-we 142:17
32:17; 35:8; 61:12; 96:19;
volume 68:8
wattage 119:16
102:11; 109:1; 113:17;
Y
whole 10:13; 42:12; 44:1;
137:21; 142:14; 143:11;
voluntarily 94:5
wave 5:6; 57:5
46:16, 21; 110:19; 111:10,
144:7; 145:18; 152:6;
voluntary 198:1; 202:2,
waving 252:8
20; 123:15, 18; 125:12;
Yale 3:26; 218:2
164:20; 166:18; 170:9;
6; 206:10; 228:11; 242:22,
way 16:9, 12; 27:16; 35:9;
138:1; 142:8; 208:19;
171:3, 14; 184:6; 188:19;
Yeager 95:11; 102:18,
22; 243:1
39:13; 42:11; 43:11; 68:1;
212:13
193:17; 194:1; 201:21;
22; 103:2, 6; 146:4
voted 108:2
71:22; 72:21; 75:22; 87:8;
wholesale 224:1
205:6; 206:3, 4, 10;
Yeah 59:10; 61:18; 117:6;
vulnerabilities 67:20, 22
90:16, 22; 101:7; 102:14;
whose 18:22; 195:7
213:19; 214:3, 10; 225:6;
241:12
vulnerability 65:3
109:2; 112:6, 7; 113:19;
wide 22:15, 15; 44:7
233:17
year 39:7; 40:9, 20;
124:5; 130:4, 4; 138:15,
vulnerable 14:22; 58:2,
widely 222:16
workable 198:15
49:15; 51:13; 60:12; 62:5;
19; 139:6; 142:10; 147:15,
63:2; 71:3; 83:14; 153:11,
13, 20; 59:5; 161:10;
21; 155:4; 167:3; 173:16;
widespread 85:3;
worked 23:17; 26:7;
204:21
161:13; 235:15
142:4, 13, 15; 151:13;
14, 18; 154:12; 156:21;
182:22; 184:19; 186:18;
202:14; 249:7
158:12; 159:22; 167:21;
189:6, 9, 17; 192:3;
wildlife 197:17
176:18; 183:11; 187:6, 8,
W
198:17; 199:1; 201:4;
Wilhite 33:1; 45:10;
workers 235:19; 237:22
20; 196:13; 220:11;
205:12; 210:2; 211:1, 2, 4;
54:13; 64:9, 19; 69:3, 19;
working 16:16; 17:2, 4;
223:10; 238:14
212:16; 213:8; 214:3, 6,
70:2
21:11; 26:22; 27:9; 83:18;
years 12:5; 13:16; 14:3;
wait 80:3; 81:6; 87:9
12; 217:10, 11, 16; 222:19;
William 3:26; 19:6; 218:1
94:19, 22; 110:10; 178:10;
16:3; 19:22; 20:1; 21:15;
wait-if 87:9
227:16, 17; 229:17;
202:3, 3; 235:9, 14
willing 60:3; 115:22;
30:16, 20; 31:20; 35:19;
walk 123:7
236:17; 245:19; 246:3, 9;
123:3; 187:15; 188:8
works 234:18, 19
37:13; 38:19; 39:6, 6;
walks 247:2
248:9, 18, 19
willingness 221:8
World 3:6, 25; 6:10; 8:5,
41:13, 20; 42:1, 8; 43:16,
walnut 128:20
ways 8:4; 26:11, 17;
7, 20; 15:7; 18:4; 21:21;
18; 50:9, 11; 57:9; 60:12,
28:15; 33:14; 42:16; 44:7;
Willrich 96:4; 126:12, 14;
Walsh 148:22
25:16; 27:18; 28:4, 5, 9;
16; 64:8; 66:16, 19; 73:2,
72:17; 84:15; 86:1;
127:1
33:6; 44:15; 46:20; 57:11;
20; 74:13; 75:14; 76:21;
War 107:9; 150:8
115:22; 122:9; 139:16;
willy-nilly 204:19
59:5; 70:18; 77:4, 18; 81:9;
77:10, 13; 78:11; 79:17;
warm 39:3; 41:7; 54:20,
140:10; 142:12; 143:16;
wind 17:9; 28:11; 96:7;
82:9; 83:20; 86:19;
107:22; 110:4; 111:16;
22; 69:16; 75:2, 3; 77:1
184:7; 192:12; 205:5
127:16, 17, 19, 21; 128:1;
100:15; 102:16; 104:2;
113:10; 115:8; 118:10;
view years (26)
Min-U-Script©
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
The Challenge of Global Warming
October 6, 1997
129:10; 147:7, 10; 151:6,
7; 153:11; 154:16; 167:13;
174:18; 183:11; 196:22;
199:12; 201:16; 205:6;
206:9, 17; 209:22; 210:2;
1:9; 220:16, 17; 221:2;
4:12; 228:20; 239:17;
12:12
years-and 125:7
Yellen 11:10
yellow 44:12; 46:12, 22;
49:3; 157:19
Yellowstone 23:19;
196:20
Yergin 3:9; 172:6;
182:16; 183:2; 184:5;
187:18; 188:4
yields 66:3
York 157:1; 232:11
young 31:19; 60:9; 153:2;
156:18
youngest 161:18; 163:4
youth 151:13
Z
zero 134:8; 180:13
zero-net-energy 133:15
Zimbabwe 77:6
zones 45:3; 161:1
Miller Reporting Company, Inc.
Min-U-Script®
(27) years--and - zones
Lawyer's Notes
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
F
Divider Title:
Climate Change Action Plan
For public consultation and review
October 1997
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
Climate Change Action Plan
Foreword
Climate change, to those interested in
USAID and engage the broadest cross-section of
sustainable development, is not an
interests in crafting the details of our response.
environmental issue, nor is it an economic or a
social justice issue; it is, simultaneously, all
Our premise in this effort is that the future
three.
remains in our control, and that there are some
decisions about how we will engage in the future
Every challenge to sustainable development will
that are much wiser than others. As we make
be made more severe by climate change. Over
those choices, the more open, transparent and
the next 50 years human-induced changes in
broad-based the process, the more likely we are
climate have the potential to affect where we live,
to find the wisest course.
what and how much we eat, the diseases we will
suffer, what we do for a living, and myriad details
USAID would like to use this draft version of the
of our everyday lives.
Climate Action Plan as the basis for an informed
discussion of the ways the Agency can best
We are convinced that the scientific evidence
decrease the threat of climate change.
mandates a policy response. We fail to serve the
national interest of the United States if we do not
act.
The President has determined the direction of
Sr
our response and committed us to partnership
with other countries in this endeavor. This
David Hales, Director
consultation draft is intended to expand the
Global Environment Center
debate beyond development professionals in
U.S. Agency for International Development
To receive a copy of the draft, or to
submit comments please contact:
USAID's Global Environment Center
Telephone: 202-712-1750
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.info.usaid.gov
For review and consultation-cio not quote or cite
U.S. Agency for International Development
in
For review and consultation do not quote or CITE
Climate Change Action Plan
Acronyms
AC/SI
Activity Code/Special Interest
AEC
Ahmedabad Electric Company
AMC
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
ANE
Asia and Near East
ASEI
Asia Sustainable Energy Initiative
BNC
Binational Commission
CAR
Central Asian Republics
CARPE
Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment
CEFDHAC
Conference on the Ecosystems of Dense, Humid Forests in Central Africa
CGIAR
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CFC
Chlorofluorocarbon
CIFOR
Center for International Forestry
CONCAUSA
Declaracion Conjunta Centroamerica-USA
CONAE
Mexican Natural Commission for Energy Savings
CSP
U.S. Country Studies Program
CTI
Climate Technology Initiative
DAC
Development Assistance Committee
DSM
Demand-Side Management
DOE
United States Department of Energy
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ENI
Europe and New Independent States
ESCO
Energy Service Company
EU
European Union
FAO
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
G-7
Group of Seven
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
G\ENV
Global Bureau Center for Environment
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEP
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Prevention Project
GIS
Geographic Information System
GOI
Government of Indonesia
GOM
Government of Mexico
GOP
Government of the Philippines
GOU
Government of Ukraine
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning Systems
ICM
Integrated Coastal Management
ICRAF
International Center for Research in Agroforestry
ICCP
Interagency Climate Change Program
IEA
International Energy Agency
IFC
International Finance Corporation
IGAD
Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
JI
Joint Implementation
Km
Kilometer
For review and consultation 00 no: quore or cite
iii
U.S. Agency for International Development
LAC
Latin America and Caribbean
LGPP
Local Government Partnership Program
MDBs
Multilateral Development Banks
MEPNS
Minister of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPIC
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
PDOE
Philippines Department of Energy
PPC
Program and Policy Coordination
PPG-7
G-7 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Amazon
RIH
Reduced-impact Harvesting
SADC
Southern Africa Development Cooperation
SCI
Sustainable Cities Initiative
TFF
Tropical Forestry Foundation
U.N.
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
USEA
United States Energy Association
USIJI
United States Initiative on Joint Implementation
U.S.
United States
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
WEC
World Energy Council
WRI
World Resources Institute
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
IV
For review and consultation no not quote or Clif
Climate Change Action Plan
Introduction
Global climate change poses profound threats to
Speaking at the United Nations in June of this
international economic development and
year, President Clinton announced that the U.S.
ecological balance. If greenhouse gas
would provide more than $1 billion dollars over
emissions continue to grow unabated, all sectors
the next five years to help developing nations
of the global economy, all realms of the natural
and countries in transition reduce the threat of
environment and all countries of the world will be
climate change. That announcement signaled a
affected. The greatest costs, however, will be felt
renewed U.S. Government commitment to
by developing and transition countries, the
facilitate technology transfer and assist
countries least able to cope with crisis and adapt
developing and transition countries to meet the
to change. As the foreign assistance arm of the
spirit and obligations of the Framework
U.S. Government, the U.S. Agency for
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The
International Development (USAID) advances
Initiative includes three components: a minimum
U.S. national interests by promoting sustainable
$750 million in grant assistance over the next
development and providing transition assistance
five years, up to $250 million in "climate-friendly"
and humanitarian relief. Helping developing and
investment stimulated through the use of credit
transition countries balance economic growth
instruments, and a $25 million inter-agency
with environmentally sustainable development
climate change program. This Action Plan
protects the global environment and serves the
outlines a strategy for the first two components.
United States' national interest.
USAID has been given the lead on behalf of the
For many years USAID has implemented
Federal Government in implementing the
environmental programs that. though targeted on
President's Initiative. This draft Action Plan
other goals (eg. energy efficiency, forestry and
focuses on how USAID will make the President's
biodiversity conservation), have had a direct
commitment a reality and presents a framework
impact on greenhouse gas emissions. USAID
and guidelines for fulfilling the first two
also has supported efforts that implicitly help
components of the President's Initiative totalling
decrease the threat climate change poses by
$1 billion. The first section summarizes the state
promoting economic development, and
of knowledge regarding climate change and its
improving and promoting human health and
likely impact on developing and transition
nutrition.
countries. The second section discusses the
relationships between global climate change and
In 1990 when the Agency published its report.
sustainable development, and outlines the major
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Developing
issues posed by these relationships. This is
Countries: The USAID Response," USAID began
followed by a description of the Agency's
explicitly to address the threat of climate change.
strategy to combat the threat of climate change
Since then, the Agency has actively managed a
and the approach USAID will use in
portfolio of climate change-related programs
implementing the President's commitment.
focused on decreasing emissions from the
energy sector and increasing carbon
sequestration in forests. USAID progress in this
regard was documented in a report to Congress
in 1994, "Global Climate Change: The USAID
Response," which outlined the portfolio of climate
change-related programs and reviewed the
Agency strategy.
For review and consultation-do no: quote or cite
V
U.S. Agency for International Development
VI
For review and consultation - 00 not quote or City
Climate Change Action Plan
Table of Contents
Foreword
I
Acronyms
III
Introduction
V
Executive Summary
1
What We Know About Climate Change
5
The Science
5
The Causes of Emissions Growth
5
Population Growth
Economic Growth
Urbanization
Technology
Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks
7
Energy
Forestry
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
The Impact of Climate Change
9
Agriculture
Freshwater Resources
Biodiversity
Coastal Zones
Health and Nutrition
Governance
Climate Change and Development
15
Implications for Development Assistance
15
The Road Ahead
20
The USAID Climate Action Plan
21
Summary
21
The Agency Focus
22
1. Decreasing the net rate of growth in emissions
2. Increasing developing country success in achieving the goals of the FCCC
3. Decreasing developing country vulnerability
For review and consultation CIO not quote or Cite
vii
U.S. Agency for International Development
Tools and Techniques
26
Policy Reform
Private Sector Partnerships
Technology Cooperation
Institution Strengthening
Education and Outreach
Information Collection and Dissemination
Research
Partnerships with Bilateral and Multilateral Donors
Credit
Regional and Country Programs
32
Africa
33
Central Africa
South Africa
Asia and the Near East
34
India
Indonesia
Philippines
Central and Eastern Europe, and New Independent States
39
Central Asia
Poland
Russia
Ukraine
Latin America and the Caribbean
44
Brazil
Central America
Mexico
Managing the Action Plan
49
USAID Managment
Budget
Monitoring and Measuring Results
USAID Climate Change Contacts
51
Bibliography
53
viii
For review : consultation to not quote or City
Climate Change Action Plan
Executive Summary
Global climate change poses profound threats to
developing nations and transition countries,
international economic development and
because of their limited capacity to adapt and
ecological balance. The greatest costs will be
cope.
borne by poor nations least able to cope with
crisis and adapt to change.
Strategies for addressing climate change must
strive to reconcile social and economic
Speaking at the United Nations (U.N.) General
aspirations with the need to address local and
Assembly Special Session on Environment on
global environmental threats. At the same time,
June 27, 1997, President Clinton announced that
efforts to promote development need to
the U.S. would provide $1 billion over the next
incorporate programs to help nations decrease
five years to help developing nations and
vulnerability to the threats climate change poses.
countries in transition reduce the threat of
climate change. That announcement signaled
Climate change will almost certainly increase the
the United States' renewed commitment to
need for humanitarian relief around the world.
facilitate technology transfer and help developing
The challenge will be to ensure that efforts to
and transition countries to meet the spirit and
mitigate and adapt to climate change are not
obligations of the United Nations Framework
overwhelmed by the demands for emergency
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The
relief. As more and more resources are
Initiative announced by President Clinton
expended to deal with the human costs of
includes three components: a minimum $750
climate change, the ability of societies and the
million in grant assistance over the next five
international community to address root causes
years, up to $250 million in "climate-friendly"
of emissions and foster long-term adaptation will
investment stimulated through the use of credit
be compromised.
instruments, and a $25 million inter-agency
climate change program. This draft Action Plan
An Overview of the Draft Action Plan
focuses on how USAID will work to make the
USAID will concentrate resources and attention
President's commitment a reality.
on a set of key climate change countries and
regions selected because of their contribution
Climate Change and Developing
(and predicted future contribution) to net global
Nations
greenhouse gas emissions and their
Annual emissions from developed nations still
governments' receptivity to taking concrete
represent well over half of global greenhouse
action. Nine key countries and three regions will
gas emissions. The growth in emissions from
receive priority: Brazil, Central Africa (Cameroon,
developing nations is, however, accelerating. If
the Central African Republic, the Congo, the
current growth trends continue, developing
Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and
nations and transition countries will account for
Gabon), Central America (Belize, Costa Rica, El
almost half of annual emissions from industrial
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and
sources in 2010.
Panama), Central Asia (Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan.
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), India.
Changes in the climate will affect all sectors cf
Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Russia.
the global economy and all realms of the natural
South Africa and Ukraine. Although China is
environment. The impact will vary from country
another large emitter of greenhouse gases,
to country and region to region: different sections
USAID does not operate in China.
of nations will be affected differently and at
different times. It IS expected that the impacts of
All of the USAID key countries and regions will
climate change will. however. be greatest for
maintain a significant portfolio of climate change-
related activities for the duration of the Initiative.
For review and consuitation-do no: quote or cite
1
U.S. Agency for International Development
Reduced slash-and-burn (shifting) cultivation
The draft Action Plan specifies three areas of
Increased soil organic matter and decreased
emphasis:
soil erosion
Increased use of biofuels
Decreasing the rate of growth in net
greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing
2. Increasing developing and transition
greenhouse gas sources and maintaining or
country success in achieving the goals of the
increasing greenhouse gas sinks
FCCC
Increasing developing and transition country
success in achieving the goals of the United
Participation in the negotiation and
Nations' Framework Convention on Climate
implementation of the terms and spirit of the
Change (FCCC)
FCCC will be fundamental to finding a global
Decreasing developing and transitional
solution to climate change. The U.S. Country
country vulnerability to the threats posed by
Studies Program and the U.S. Initiative on Joint
climate change
Implementation have been important vehicles for
collaborating with developing nations. USAID
1. Decreasing the rate of growth in net
programs will seek to enhance further
emissions
developing country capacity to achieve the goals
of the FCCC through the following:
In the energy sector, USAID will focus on
activities that result in the following
Assistance with the development of national
improvements in the energy sector:
emissions inventories and budgets. national
action plans, and national communications
Substitution of less carbon emitting fuel
Stimulation of joint implementation projects
sources
Building local capacity to participate in
Use of non-fossil renewable energy sources
emissions trading
Increased efficiency in power generation,
Acceptance of greater developing country
transmission and distribution
commitments under the FCCC
Increased end-use energy efficiency
Enhanced capacity to track and monitor
Decreased use, increased efficiency or
greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability
substitution of less carbon-emitting fuels in
to climate change
transportation systems
Introduction of market forces and regulatory
3. Decreasing developing country
incentives for less carbon-intense energy
vulnerability to the threats posed by climate
use
change
In the land use sector, USAID will pursue
Given its broad experience in development,
activities that either increase the storage of
USAID is uniquely positioned to help increase
carbon in ecosystems or land use systems (act
the capacity of developing countries and
as carbon "sinks"), or decrease the release of
countries in transition to adapt to change and
carbon stored in biomass due to human
cope with the predicted impact of climate
activities, including the following:
change. Programs that have the following
results will be an integral part of the Agency's
The preservation, re-establishment or more
Climate Action Plan:
sustainable management and use of forests,
trees and denuded lands
Increased preparedness for natural disasters
The maintenance and preservation of
Increased adaptability and efficiency of
wetlands and mangroves
agricultural systems, municipal
Decreased burning of savannas. forests and
management, water resources management
brushland
and public health systems
2
For review and consultation ao not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Improved domestic and international
USAID will focus on the urban-climate nexus
capacities for conflict-resolution regarding
and address opportunities to meet local air
shared resources, such as water
quality concerns while decreasing net
greenhouse gas emissions.
To achieve the results outlined above: USAID
will use a range of tools and approaches,
USAID will enhance environmental
including policy reform, institutional capacity
education and outreach to involve non
building, education and outreach. and
governmental organizations, the private
information collection and dissemination. The
sector and governments in efforts to promote
draft Action Plan also will place particular
development while reducing the rate of
emphasis on four additional tools USAID
growth in net greenhouse gas emissions.
believes will be particularly critical: technology
cooperation; partnerships with the private sector,
USAID will work with the donor community to
collaboration and coordination with other bilateral
more effectively promote development that
and multilateral donors; and the use of loans and
minimizes the growth in greenhouse gas
loan guarantees to foster private trade and
emissions.
investment in "climate-friendly" technologies and
projects.
The private sector will be a key strategic partner
in the Agency's Action Plan. While the
USAID will have a wide range of public, private
commitment of $1 billion over five years is
and non-government partners in implementing
significant for the U.S. government, it will not be
the Action Plan. Collaborators will include other
sufficient to make an appreciable difference on
agencies and departments of the Federal
climate issues in developing and transition
Government, multilateral development banks.
countries. It will be critical to engage the far
other multilateral and bilateral donors, as well as
greater resources-human. technological and
public, private and non governmental
financial-of the business community.
organizations from throughout the world.
USAID activities related to global climate change
Through the Action Plan, several areas of
already involve collaboration and close
emphasis including the following will be
partnership with a variety of actors, including
highlighted:
multilateral and bilateral donors, international
organizations, and other agencies and
USAID will quantify the health and
departments of the U.S. Government. The high
productivity costs associated with the local
profile attention, however, given to climate
air pollution that fossil fuel combustion
change in preparation for the Third Conference
generates in an effort to expand the
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
definition of "win-win" efforts to decrease
Convention on Climate Change that will be held
greenhouse gas emissions.
in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan provides an
opportunity to deepen these relationships, in
USAID will undertake an analysis of the
particular with official donors. USAID will have
specific regional and local vulnerabilities
dual goals in intensifying coordination on climate
climate change poses. That study will be
change issues: multiplying the impact of its
used to identify "hot spots," areas of
programs by joining forces with other U.S.
particular vulnerability that USAID needs to
government agencies, donor nations and the
address.
private sector, and increasing the pace and
durability of policy reforms in partner nations.
USAID will facilitate private sector transfer of
clean energy technology to key countries
USAID Management
and regions; a first step in this direction is
USAID climate change programs will combine an
the promulgation of "Global Climate Change
emphasis on meeting local needs with a greater
Technology Cooperation Agreements" with
focus on global goals and objectives. Climate
key countries.
For review and consultation-(io not quote or Cite
3
U.S. Agency for International Development
change activities will be developed based upon
Congressional approval for the use of credit, at
local priorities, while effectively combating the
least two thirds of the investment USAID
growth in net emissions of greenhouse gases.
stimulates through the use of credit instruments
will also be focused on USAID key climate
USAID will form a Climate Change Committee to
change countries and regions.
make decisions over issues of policy related to
implementation of the USAID Climate Change
Monitoring and Measuring Results
Action Plan. The Committee will include
Monitoring and measuring the results achieved
representatives from each bureau within USAID.
will be among the Agency's highest priorities.
An Agency-wide Climate Change Team will
Under the Action Plan a concerted effort will be
continue to serve as the locus for information
made to measure the impact of programs,
sharing on programming, current events, results
assess the most effective strategies for
reporting and USAID collaboration with other
combating the threat of climate change, and
Agencies and development partners.
hone and focus the Agency's approach. An
Agency Special Objective for climate is being
Consistent with its role as Agency technical
established, and will be used to track programs
representative on climate change, the USAID
and obligations. USAID currently is developing
Global Bureau Center for Environment will
series of indicators that will measure the impact
continue to facilitate the Climate Change Team,
of programs.
and serve as USAID representative to all inter-
agency climate change programs. The USAID
Policy and Program Coordination Bureau will
Organization of the Report
The first section of this Action Plan summarizes
continue to oversee the consistent application of
USAID policy on climate change Agency-wide,
the state of knowledge regarding climate change,
will ensure that climate change receives a high
its underlying causes and likely impact on
level of attention on the Agency's development
developing and transition countries. It identifies
partnering agenda, and will facilitate the
population growth, economic development,
invoivement of other USAID actors in this area.
urbanization and technology as underlying
The USAID Management Bureau will ensure that
contributors to growing net greenhouse gas
obligations are commensurate with fulfilling the
emissions, and reviews the predicted impact of a
President's commitment.
warmer world on human health, freshwater
resources, biodiversity, coastal zones,
Budget
infrastructure and political systems. The second
section discusses the relationships between
The obligation of resources under the USAID
global climate change and development
Climate Change Action Plan will be focused on
assistance. The third section describes the
mitigating net greenhouse gas emissions, and
Agency's strategy to combat the threat of climate
fostering developing and transition country
change and the approach USAID will take in
participation in the FCCC. USAID obligations as
implementing the President's commitment. The
part of the Initiative will include at least $750
final chapter outlines USAID's proposed
million in grant assistance over the next five
management plan for the Action Plan.
years. and the use of credit tools to leverage at
least $250 million in additional climate change-
related trade and investment. A floor of $150
million in Agency-wide climate change-related
obligations will be created for the next five years.
Of the total $750 million in climate change-
related grant assistance, at least forty percent
will be obligated to programs in the Agency's key
climate change countries and regions. A
significant additional percentage will be obligated
to the Agency's program in Egypt. Assuming
4
For review and consuitation-do not quote or CIIF
Climate Change Action Plan
What We Know About Climate Change
The Science
that occurs in high-intensity climatic events. This
will, in turn, increase the danger of floods and
Global warming, the primary result of climate
high winds. Changes are expected to occur in
change, is caused by an increase in the
the seasonal pattern and variability of
concentration of greenhouse gases in the
precipitation as well. Increased total precipitation
atmosphere. As emissions of greenhouse gases
may not always mean a wetter environment; in
rise, so do the concentrations in the atmosphere;
many regions, the net result will be drying
it is this increase in the concentration of
because evaporation will more than compensate
greenhouse gases that can lead to increased
for increased precipitation. Again, regional
climate variability. The primary greenhouse
differences in impacts will be considerable; some
gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
regions may be much warmer and dryer, while
oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons.
others may be wetter and cooler. In drier
regions, and even in regions with no change in
Over the last century, atmospheric
annual rainfall level but with changes in
concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen
distribution and variation of precipitation, food
dramatically. Over the same period, the
production may be reduced, and the risk of fire
average global temperature has risen by one
and atmospheric pollution such as smoke, may
degree centigrade. In 1995, the
increase.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) found that the "pattern of global warming
Extreme climatic events— such as tropical
is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin," and
cyclones, tornadoes and El Niño effects- may
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible
become more frequent and more severe
human influence on global climate."
because of the additional energy in the
atmosphere. Changes may occur in storm
With a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations
tracks, exposing different areas to the impacts
in the atmosphere- perhaps the most optimistic
and risks associated with severe storms. It is
of the realistic scenarios for the next century-
expected that regional climate will become more
average global temperature will rise by 1.5 to 4
variable and less predictable.
degrees centigrade, exceeding the estimated
natural climatic variation over the past 15,000
As a result of global warming, the earth's sea
years. In general. the increase will be greater in
level is expected to rise by about 50 centimeters
areas closer to the earth's poles and lesser
by the year 2100. Combined with storm surges
toward the equator, but considerable regional
and tides, especially if storms are more frequent
variation in temperature will even impact areas at
or more severe, this could mean episodic
the same latitude. These changes will affect not
incursions of seawater of at least .6 to 2 meters
only ambient temperatures for people, plants.
into coastal and freshwater areas.
and animals, but also such factors as degree
and timing of climatic extremes, the length of
The Causes of Emissions
growing seasons, and soil moisture.
Growth
Along with the increase in temperature, the
earth's precipitation regimes also will be affected.
Greenhouse gas emissions-like any other form
of pollution- are the result of four factors:
In general, it is expected that the additional
energy in the atmosphere will accelerate the
population, economic activity, urbanization and
technology.
hydrologic cycle, increasing average
precipitation and the proportion of precipitation
For review and consuitation-tio not quote or cite
5
U.S. Agency for International Development
Population Growth. Population growth IS one
minimizes the associated emissions while
of the most profound drivers in the rapid
equipping nations to manage change.
expansion of greenhouse gas emissions. The
United Nations projects that in the next half
Urbanization. The accelerating growth in
century, world population - currently at 5.9
carbon emissions corresponds, in large part, to
billion people - will increase by between 1.8
rapid urbanization. According to USAID
and 4.7 billion people. Over 95 percent of that
projections, 60 percent of the world's total
growth will take place in the developing world.
population of seven billion people in the year
By the end of the next century, population growth
2025 will be concentrated in urban areas. The
could account for almost one-half of the growth
trend toward urbanization will contribute to the
in carbon dioxide emissions from developing
threat of global climate change by increasing
countries as the demand for energy and other
emissions of greenhouse gases and fueling the
services grows. The increase in population will
destruction of land-based carbon sinks, such as
place further pressure on natural resources
forests and wetlands. It is estimated that
(which are critical to the carbon cycle), and divert
150,000 people are added to urban populations
scarce investment capacity from other sectors. A
in developing and transition countries every day.
recent study found that stabilizing world
Given the size of current urban populations in
population sooner would significantly reduce the
these countries, high rates of urbanization mean
growth in emissions.
exponential increases in emissions from major
urban sources- transportation, buildings,
Economic Growth. Economic growth is
industry and landfills. In most cities the transport
another underlying cause of increased emissions
sector is the single largest source of urban
of greenhouse gases. Economic growth and
carbon dioxide emissions.
development fuel industrialization; provide the
financial resources to deliver services, such as
Urbanization also is a driving force behind the
energy; and provide the private sector and
destruction of land-based carbon sinks. This
citizens with the income to increase the demand
effect is both direct, when forests and agricultural
for energy and other resources. If current
lands are cleared and wetlands drained to make
economic growth rates in developing and
way for urban sprawl. and indirect, when markets
transition countries continue without a significant
are created for timber and other products.
change in technology or approach to
Furthermore, urban areas are concentrated
development, by 2010 nearly half of all
sources of other pollutants that facilitate the
emissions will come from developing countries.
destruction of carbon sinks in urban and non-
The World Energy Council's analysis linking
urban areas. Sulfur dioxide emissions, for
economic growth to greenhouse gas emissions
example, contribute to acid rain, which stresses
predicted that robust economic growth in
forest ecosystems, reducing rates of carbon
developing and transition countries could result
sequestration.
in a 93 percent increase in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020.
Technology. Energy technologies are the
major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The
While economic growth fuels emissions growth.
growth in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
it also IS critical in building the adaptive capacity
dioxide is tied directly to the emergence in the
of nations and ultimately helps curb population
1800s of a carbon-based industrial economy.
growth. With economic development comes
The use of coal. oil and gas for power generation
increased human and institutional skills, an
and transportation has fueled dramatically
ability to absorb and manage crises, and a larger
increased standards of living over the last two
pool of financial resources to devote to longer-
hundred years. But continued reliance on high
term challenges and needs. Economic growth
carbon-emitting technologies in a rapidly
also brings with it a decrease in birth rates. The
expanding global economy will almost certainly
key is to promote less carbon-intensive
contribute to a more than doubling of
economic growth and development that
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the
6
For review and consultation-do no: quote or Clif
Climate Change Action Plan
next century. The application of new energy
emissions of carbon dioxide. Hydro, nuclear and
technologies and practices offers the prospect
biomass power account for the remaining 24
for continued economic growth without the
percent of energy supplies and to varying
associated climate penalty. These include a
extents. their use can have negative impacts on
range of already proven commercial renewable
sensitive ecosystems as well.
energy technologies (eg. solar, wind,
geothermal, mini and micro hydro, and biomass);
According to World Energy Council estimates,
less carbon-intensive fossil fuels such as natural
developing countries will require additional power
gas; more energy efficient end-use applications
generation over the next 20 years of more than 2
(eg. appliances and building materials); and new
energy technologies, such as fuel cells.
Top Emitters of Carbon Dioxide
Greenhouse Gas Sources and
from fossil fuel combustion
Sinks
and cement manufacture
(1995 emissions in millions
In 1992, total human-induced global carbon
of metric tons of carbon)
dioxide emissions totaled 26.4 billion metric tons.
Rank
Emissions from industrial activity comprised 84
Country
Emissions
percent of the total (WRI, 1996). Over the past
1
USA
1498
twenty years emissions from industrial activity
2
China
879
have increased by 38 percent. Approximately 80
3
Russia
497
percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions
4
Japan
309
result from the burning of fossil fuels
5
India
250
(deforestation and cement manufacturing
6
Germany
227
generate the remainder). It is estimated that
7
UK
fossil fuels will provide three-fourths of the
149
8
Ukraine
120
world's commercial energy in the year 2010.
9
Canada
119
The predicted consequence of higher fossil fuel
10
consumption will be a 30 to 40 percent increase
Italy
112
11
South Korea
in carbon dioxide emissions (IEA, 1995).
102
12
Mexico
98
13
France
93
Annual emissions from developed nations still
14
Poland
93
represent well over half of global greenhouse
15
South Africa
84
gas emissions. The growth in emissions from
16
Indonesia
81
developing nations is accelerating. While it is
17
Australia
79
expected that greenhouse gas emissions in 2010
18
Iran
72
will be 24 percent higher than they were in 1990
19
North Korea
70
in developed nations, it is estimated that
20
Saudi Arabia
69
emissions from developing nations will be more
21
Brazil
68
than twice their 1990 levels. If current growth
22
Spain
63
trends continue, developing nations and
23
Kazakstan
61
transition countries will account for almost half of
annual emissions from industrial sources in
45
Philippines
17
2010; China and India, both coal-rich developing
Central America
7
economies, will be responsible for a large share
Central Africa
3
of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions over
the next twenty years.
Note: Bold indicates USAID key climate change
countries and regions
Energy. Combustion of fossil fuels account for
Source: Oakridge National Laboratory, U.S.
76 percent of the world's energy use and over
Department of Energy
three-fourths of the annual anthropogenic
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
U.S. Agency for International Development
times the current installed capacity in the U.S.
and store it in trees and soil, acting as large
Much of this capacity will come in the form of
"sinks" for carbon. Forests cover about 28
coal-fired power which has grown dramatically
percent of the earth's land area, and other
as a result of economic growth. Between 1980
wooded land, such as forest fallow and
and 1992, coal combustion more than doubled,
shrubland. cover another approximate 13
and this figure is expected to double yet again by
percent (WRI, 1992). Forests contain 80 percent
the year 2000.
of all the carbon stored in vegetation and 40
percent of the carbon in soils (WWF, 1996).
Inefficiencies in the generation, transmission and
Scientists estimate that between 1.6 and 3.2
use of energy, especially electricity, add to
billion tons of carbon are released into the
developing and transition countries' emissions of
atmosphere every year from deforestation and
greenhouse gases without any economic
land use changes, which represents up to 20
payback. Developing country economies
percent of the net annual increase in
currently require 40 percent more energy than
atmospheric carbon dioxide, making
developed nations to produce the same value of
deforestation a direct source of carbon second
goods and services. For example, in developing
only to fossil fuels. Conversion of tropical forests
nations the production of steel and ammonia
to agricultural land is a major source of these
fertilizer often requires twice as much energy per
emissions. Rising demand for fuelwood in many
unit of output; pulp and paper production often
countries also has led to deforestation in areas
requires three times as much. Similarly, power
adjacent to cities. Once gone, forested land
plants in the developing world, use an average of
often converts to slums or marginal agricultural
15 to 30 percent more fuel per unit of electricity
production, and the carbon sequestration value
than efficiently operated plants in developed
of the forests is lost.
countries, and an estimated 20 percent of
electric generation is often lost during
Since 1950, the great majority of emissions due
transmission as a result of antiquated equipment
to deforestation have been from tropical
and theft (Sanghvi, 1991; Schramm, 1993)
countries, where forests are rapidly being
Compounding the problem, state-owned utility
cleared and degraded. When forests are
monopolies and subsidized energy prices create
destroyed, carbon stored in trees and soils is
little incentive to replace inefficient equipment
oxidized and released into the atmosphere-
and thus discourage conservation.
either slowly through the decay of organic matter
or very quickly through fires. Recent studies
Providing energy services to those who currently
confirm that the greatest contribution to
lack sufficient access to energy will increase
emissions is the clearing and burning of up to 10
greenhouse gas emissions. Lack of access to
million hectares of forest per year by 200 to 500
energy remains a critical development problem.
million slash-and-burn farmers. Exacerbating the
An estimated 1.5 to 2 billion people currently
problem are often fiscal and trade policies and
lack access to electricity and 2 billion still cook
related market factors (i.e. high interest rates
using fuelwood and animal wastes. Some
and trade barriers) which can create incentives
experts have estimated that the economic losses
to clear forests unsustainably. Unclear or
associated with power shortages in developing
conflicting land tenure, land use and
and transition countries are as high as 1 to 2
environmental policies also foster unsustainable
percent of their income (UNDP, 1997). In
exploitation and settlement as well as conflicts
addition, the absence of reliable energy supplies
between local users and larger industrial
has negative implications for health, the
interests.
environment, job creation. food availability and
clean water.
The immediate threat to tropical forests from
deforestation and direct human impacts is
Forestry. Forests serve as a major store of
considered far higher than global warming's
carbon and thus play an important role in the
potential impacts on forests. Nevertheless,
planet's carbon cycle. As they grow. forests
scientists predict that climate change will alter at
withdraw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
least one third of the vegetation, structure and
8
For review and consultation-do not quote or Clie
Climate Change Action Plan
function of the world's forests; degradation of
to country and region to region; different sections
watersheds and other indirect forces may then
of nations will be affected differently and at
amplify such changes. Particularly vuinerable are
different times. The economic damage
northern boreal forests in Siberia, Canada and
associated with an increase of 2.5 degrees
Europe. If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
centigrade would, according to some analyses,
doubled, models predict these forests could
reduce developed nations' gross domestic
suffer a 30 to 50 percent increase in fires, with
product (GDP) by 1 to 1.5 percent per year and
an additional 7 to 12 million hectares burning
reduce developing and transition countries GDP
annually in Siberia alone.
by 2 to 9 percent. The estimated costs for island
states would be higher (Cline, 1992; IPCC,
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. The
1995). While these estimates are somewhat
agriculture sector (i.e., crops, fertilizer, irrigation
uncertain, the impacts of climate change are
and livestock) accounts for approximately one-
expected to be greatest for developing nations
fifth of all human-induced greenhouse gas
and transition countries, because of their limited
emissions, producing 50 percent of total
capacity to adapt and cope. Some of the
methane and 70 percent of overall nitrous oxide
sectoral impacts associated with climate change
emissions. In addition, agricultural activities.
are reviewed below.
other than forest conversion, account for almost
5 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
Agriculture. The potential agricultural
emissions. The IPCC estimates that emission
consequences of climate change will include
reductions from the agricultural sector could
increased food insecurity and corresponding
make a significant contribution to overall
increases in poverty, land degradation,
reductions— as much as 32 percent from carbon
dislocation and migration, nutritional and health
dioxide emission, 42 percent from carbon offsets
emergencies, and levels of violent civil conflict.
as a result of biofuels production on land already
Today's conventional wisdom is that yields will
under cultivation, 16 percent from reduced
go down (at least for grains) as much as 16
methane emissions through improvements in
percent in developing and transition countries,
livestock productivity and rice cultivation, and 10
and these countries may not adapt easily due to
percent from reduced emissions of nitrous
inefficient institutional structures to drive the
oxides from better use of fertilizers.
adaptation process and a lack of resources.
Reductions in agricultural-related emissions
The risk for the poorer, more arid parts of the
could be achieved through the promotion of no-
developing world may arise more from changes
till farming and more efficient use of fertilizers.
in precipitation than from temperature changes.
Improved farm management and better use of
Increased variability from year to year as well as
nitrogen fertilizers and other inputs would reduce
seasonal distribution can significantly increase
greenhouse gas emissions and improve yields.
the risk of starvation and stagnant economic
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
growth, especially for the poorest members of
estimates that programs to address this problem,
society, especially women and children. For
such as improved livestock nutrition through
example, poor farmers in water-scarce regions,
supplementation or range management, could
such as the Sahel, would be highly vulnerable
reduce livestock methane emissions by 25 to 75
because of high population growth, low adaptive
percent per unit of product. which would
capacity and scarce economic alternatives.
translate into a 12 percent reduction in global
These impacts will compound the difficulties
methane emissions from ruminant livestock.
countries face in keeping pace with population
growth. Under the worst-case scenarios, the
The Impact of Climate Change
numbers of food insecure people would increase
by 60 percent over the number forecasted
Changes in the climate will affect all sectors cf
without climate change.
the global economy and all realms of the natural
environment. The impact will vary from country
The threats climate change poses to agriculture
are significant. Traditionally, the development
For review and consultation-do no: quote or cite
9
U.S. Agency for International Development
trajectory of countries has been shaped by their
Other potential disruptions could include
ability to modernize their agricultural sectors
impoundments of river systems, groundwater
(thereby triggering demographic transition),
depletion, and increased flooding as a result of
which provides the platform for broad-based
land-use changes, such as deforestation and
economic growth. Where there are significant
over-grazing. Stream hydrology will change with
barriers to agricultural development, critical
climate, but enormous uncertainties discourage
social and economic problems often are manifest
quantification. More frequent or more severe
(eg. poverty, food insecurity, and violent civil
droughts would disrupt transportation, decrease
conflict). Over the next twenty years, food
municipal and industrial water supplies, and
production levels will need to rise enough to feed
threaten aquatic biodiversity. Rivers in arid
an additional 90 million people per year. Much of
regions, such as the Nile, will be very sensitive to
that new food will come from yield increases
climate change, while those in the humid tropics,
thereby putting an emphasis on developing and
such as the Mekong, will be relatively insensitive.
disseminating new varieties and methods.
Agricultural productivity will have to rise to
Freshwater wetlands, such as flood plains, are
compensate for the dwindling stock of arable
extraordinarily valuable ecosystems because of
land result from competition or degradation
their role in flood control, water storage, water
(mostly from salinization, nutrient depletion and
purification and natural habitat. Wetlands will
erosion). Over the past 50 years approximately
generally shrink in a warmer climate because of
2 of the 8.7 billion hectares of agricultural land
increased evapotranspiration. Loss of wetland
have been degraded. As the threat of climate
habitats would risk the extinction of diverse
change is fueled by agriculture sector
plants and animals around the world, and would
development, the global potential for agriculture
threaten pastoral societies, such as those in the
to drive broad-based economic growth will be
Sahel, which depend on marshes during summer
diminished.
droughts. The loss of large peatlands in
Indonesia, Russia and Canada may release
Freshwater Resources. Increased floods and
large amounts of stored carbon to the
droughts are among the predicted effects of
atmosphere.
global warming in the coming century, both of
which will impact the availability of fresh water
Biodiversity. Climate change will almost
resources. Lakes, streams and groundwater
certainly decrease biological diversity over the
would all be affected, potentially compromising
next century. Many species will have to migrate
the ability of these resources to provide
or shift their ranges in response to changes in
adequate water for domestic needs, industry,
climate. Species will shift either toward the poles
navigation, hydropower, agriculture and
or to higher elevations to avoid increasing
biological communities.
temperatures. If the entire range occupied by a
species becomes unsuitable due to climate
Global climate change will intensify the
change, species will have to either colonize a
hydrological cycle: it will rain more in some areas
new, more suitable habitat or become extinct
because of greater evaporation from warmer
locally. To survive these changes and avoid
surface waters and greater transpiration, and
local extinction, the species will need to be able
less in other regions. Greater flooding may
to shift ranges quickly enough to keep pace with
result from increased convective precipitation,
the changes limiting their survival and find
increased snow melt and more intensive tropical
suitable areas to colonize. Even if there are
storms. Increasingly large or frequent flooding
corridors of natural habitat available for
will likely exceed safety parameters designed
migration, species will migrate at different rates,
into dams and levees. A shift from snow, in
fundamentally changing the structure of natural
which water is typically stored for weeks or
communities.
months, to rain, which runs off immediately, will
shift periods of high flow from spring to winter,
Ultimately, many species may not be able to
away from the growing season.
keep pace. Current models suggest that
10
For review and consultation not quote or CIIF
Climate Change Action Plan
terrestrial ecosystems are likely to experience a
atmospheric carbon, annually releasing nearly
warming-induced poleward shift of roughly 250
one-third of the amount emitted through fossil
km over the next century. While animal and
fuel consumption. The forests, grasslands and
insect species may migrate, they depend upon
coastal ecosystems in which biodiversity resides
healthy communities of specific plants and trees
are a significant sink for carbon. By preserving
for their survival. For tree species, migration will
habitats and natural corridors carbon sinks are
be more difficult. While light-seeded tree species
protected and rejuvenated as the adaptive
may be able to colonize new territory at the rate
capacity of the natural environment is increased.
of up to two kilometers per year, heavy-seeded
species may disperse only 100 meters per year.
Coastal Zones. Coastal zones are among the
Under current climate change models, even the
most economically valuable ecosystems on
most "mobile" trees will have trouble keeping up
earth. Sixty percent of the world's population
with forecasted rates of change. High latitude
lives within 80 miles of an ocean or seashore.
ecosystems, such as Siberian forests, will be
Two-thirds of the world's cities with populations
particularly at risk, since temperatures at high
of 2.5 million or more are near tidal estuaries.
latitudes are expected to experience greater
Many of the world's poor are crowded into low-
temperature increases.
lying coastal areas in countries such as Egypt
and Bangladesh. Climate change could severely
Climate change may also lead to an increase in
affect coastal ecosystems and societies.
new diseases and expansion of old ones. The
last few years alone have seen outbreaks of
Flooding and storm damage of coastal regions
disease in wild bird populations. Increasing
would be one of the most direct and graphic
concentrations of waterfowl, due to decreased
consequences of global climate change and
wetlands availability and/or changed climatic
higher sea level. Gradual inundation, salinization
conditions will facilitate disease transmission.
of soils and water supplies, and rapid erosion
would result from encroaching seas, and
Finally, certain groups of species and
catastrophic death and damage are expected as
ecosystems will face special risks from climate
storms reach further inland and over-run
changes. Migrating species, such as
protective barriers. Millions of displaced people,
Neotropical-Neartic migrant birds (eg. warblers
billions of dollars in lost and damaged
and thrushes) or African ungulate species (eg.
infrastructure, and humanitarian crises could be
zebra and wildebeest). depend upon
expected.
environmental cues to signal their migration and
seasonal resources to survive migration. If cues
Sea level is rising at a rate that IS two to five
are no longer synchronized due to climate
times greater than recent averages and is
change, these species may face population
predicted to rise about one-half meter in the next
declines. Dramatic declines in North American
century. Ecosystems that have generally
shorebird populations already have been
migrated landward, such as mangrove forests,
documented, pernaps in response to climate
salt marshes and barrier islands may now be
changes. Similarly, species in high montaine
caught between rising seas and extensive
ecosystems, such as the paramo of Ecuador. will
infrastructure. Further sea level rise would
be particularly vulnerable; species in the highest
severely impact fisheries, human health, tourism
elevations will have nowhere to retreat to avoid
industries. biological communities. freshwater
rising temperatures. And at the other end of the
supplies and financial industries around the
spectrum, coral reefs and their associated hign
world. If sea level were 50 cm higher today. the
biodiversity, will face risks as severe storms
number of people flooded by storm surges in a
increase and the corais suffer from bleaching
typical year would increase from 40 million to 80
due to pigment loss as ocean temperatures rise.
million.
Successful efforts to conserve biodiversity WIII
Impact will vary from regions to region. Higher
help mitigate climate change. The destruction of
sea levels will directly affect or actually displace
the world's forests is a significant source of
every citizen of island states such as the
For review and consultation-(a not quote or cite
11
U.S. Agency for International Development
Marshall Islands and Kiribati. Bangladesh is
Currently, 1.3 billion people lack access to safe
predicted to lose 18 percent of its land area,
water, 1.9 billion lack access to sanitation, and
directly affecting 60 percent of its population,
about 800 million people are chronically
unless one billion dollars worth of protective
malnourished. As already discussed, the
measures are undertaken for threatened
probable effects of global climate change would
developed areas. Food scarcity could result
be to make food and water supplies more
from the loss of current farming practices. Six
tenuous, increasing the risks for these vulnerable
million people in Egypt, the primary recipient of
populations. Large-scale migration may occur in
U.S. development assistance, would be directly
response to these changes, and to flooding,
affected by rising sea levels. It is projected that
drought and other natural disasters. Limited
the U.S. would lose a relatively small portion of
access to water, sanitation and food for those
the nation's land area, 12,500 square miles, but
involved may severely compromise their
protection of developed areas would cost more
nutritional and health status. In addition, urban
than $156 billion dollars. It is estimated that the
air pollution, a by-product of fossil fuel use, could
cost of programs to protect and develop soundly
increase as a result of warmer temperatures,
all coastal areas would be $6 billion annually.
causing respiratory illnesses.
Health and Nutrition. While there is much
Development efforts in the health and nutrition
uncertainty about the impacts of climate change
areas are not typically designed to address
on health, it is clear that the potential for large
climate change issues directly. Rather, these
direct and indirect effects exists. Direct effects
efforts focus on enabling people and societies to
will include increased heat-related mortality and
adapt and respond to epidemiologic and
increases in deaths related to extreme weather
demographic changes. Climate change may
events (with the greatest consequences for
considerably stress the systems and institutions
vulnerable coastal populations). The potential
through which health and nutrition programs are
indirect effects on health and nutrition are of
implemented, such as through the emergence or
even greater concern. These could include
reemergence of health and nutrition problems in
changes in the range of vectors and associated
regions or countries where they were not
vector-borne diseases (eg. malaria); changes in
previously issues. Thus, climate change could
the prevalence of non-vector borne infectious
make current efforts in health and nutrition less
diseases (eg. cholera, especially in the absence
effective simply by stretching limited resources
of adequate sanitation); changes in food
across a broader set of more numerous health
production and consequently nutritional health;
problems. The combination of worsened food
and changes in water quantity and quality. For
security, decreased access to potable water,
example, the Intergovernmental Panel on
increased migration, range expansion and
Climate Change has estimated that malaria
possible intensification of infectious diseases,
cases could increase by 50 to 80 million per year
and more frequent natural disasters could stress
from a current annual level of 500 million
populations, as well as the capacity of the health
globally. The negative impact on child health
systems and institutions that support them. The
and survival could have significant repercussions
health and nutrition interventions that are already
for efforts to reduce population growth;
the cornerstones of development assistance in
uncertainty over children's survival can lead
these sectors — such as improved capacity for
couples to have more children as "risk
surveillance, improved access to and quality of
insurance". Furthermore, the demonstrated links
health services, micronutrient interventions.
between child survival and fertility suggests that
promotion of breast feeding and improved child
these health and nutrition impacts also would
feeding, health policy reform, and environmental
have repercussions for efforts to reduce
health improvements — also strengthen the
population growth.
systems that are the front line defense for the
well-being of vulnerable populations facing these
In developing countries, food security, access to
threats.
potable water and adequate sanitation are
among the cornerstones of public health.
12
For review and consultation-no not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Governance. Climate change will challenge
and the political system will be expected to
political systems and governance structures to
respond. Democratically elected leagers will
reduce the root causes of the problem while
need to adjust to the demands of new
seeking to meet the demands of the problem
constituents with potentially divergent demands
with a diminished pool of resources. This need
and political views, and these new residents may
to respond to the causes and the effects of
find themselves politically and physically
climate change will create unique problems for
dispossessed. The problem will be compounded
effective governance.
as urban residents feel the effects of economic
shifts and assume a dependent rather than a
Developing countries are periodically taxed by
productive role, and as the impacts of climate
refugees of drought and rural economic
change directly threaten urban areas.
stagnation, but the effects of climate change will
expand the numbers of dislocated persons and
As resources become more scarce, particularly
magnify institutional demands and sociological
where depletion is rapid, political and
pressures. A new and potentially enormous
sociological conflict will inevitably result. History
"environmental refugee" population may arise
is replete with examples of political and armed
from agricultural areas suffering from prolonged
conflict over natural resource scarcity. In
drought and desertification and from coastal
countries where land tenure is unclear, resource
areas where fish stocks decline, and agricultural
allocation lacks legal definition and judicial
lands are being lost to rising seas.
systems need financing and capacity-building;
conflicts over resource allocation will be difficult
Governance systems will be challenged first by
to resolve. In regions where water is scarce,
the increasing numbers of urban immigrants.
decreased precipitation and sea water incursion
Feeding, housing, educating, providing health
may heighten tensions. Climate change will
care and otherwise integrating these new urban
exacerbate these trends and make coping
residents will pressure existing infrastructure.
solutions increasingly difficult to implement.
For review and consultation-cio not quoie or cite
13
U.S. Agency for International Development
14
For review and consultation as not quote or CITE
Climate Change Action Plan
Climate Change and Development
The threat environmental degradation poses for
programs to promote development could impact
sustained long-term growth and development IS
greenhouse gas emissions.
well-accepted. Until now, however, the
international development community has
Implications for development
focused predominantly on local environmental
issues - concerns that have a visible and
assistance
immediate affect on human health, agricultural
productivity, national income or other local
USAID's efforts already explicitly or implicitly
priorities. There is a natural predisposition to
strive to achieve climate-related goals. Working
focus on compelling local problems, especially in
with local partners, business and non
communities where basic human needs are
governmental organizations, USAID has been
often unmet. While climate change may be one
combating the threat of climate change since
of the most profound threats to sustainable
1990. USAID's strategy has focused particularly
development, it is rarely seen as a local priority.
on decreasing net emissions of greenhouse
Changes in climate are not immediately visible.
gases through interventions in the energy and
and the greatest impacts are not felt in the short-
land use sectors. As a result of that long-term
term.
emphasis, land use and energy sector programs
are actively promoting more "climate-friendly"
Strategies for addressing climate change,
economic development. At the same time,
therefore, must strive to reconcile social and
coastal zone and freshwater resource
economic aspirations with the need to address
management efforts, health and nutrition
local and global environmental threats. At the
programs, and governance programs are
same time, efforts to promote development need
decreasing developing country vulnerability and
to incorporate programs to help nations
increasing the capacity to adapt to change.
decrease vulnerability to the threats climate
change poses.
The predicted impacts of climate change will
almost certainly increase the need for
The nature and extent of developing country
humanitarian relief around the world. Not only
vulnerability to climate change will ultimately
will more severe weather events create sudden
depend not only on physical environmental
crises, the impact on political stability and
changes, but also on the capacity of nations,
governance could increase the number and
regions and localities to adapt to those changes.
frequency of "man-made" humanitarian crises
Adaptability will partly be a function of the rate of
resulting from natural causes. Humanitarian
change. Gradual changes will be easier to cope
relief efforts today focus in part on trying to
with than rapid ones. It will also be a function of
predict and prepare for severe events. For
human resources. investment resources and
example, USAID is supporting monitoring of the
institutional structures. Skilled and well-
current El Niño event and preparing for potential
managed nations, regions and communities will
drought in southern Africa, as well as increased
cope better than others, not only because of their
flooding in Asia and Latin America. Climate
internal capacity to solve problems, but also
change will undoubtedly increase relief costs due
because of their ability to attract investment by
to severe events, vulnerable populations and
offering a lower risk of failure.
droughts.
This chapter explores the links between climate
The challenge in the coming century will be to
change and the development agenda. It
ensure that efforts to mitigate and adapt to
discusses how climate change will affect efforts
climate change are not overwhelmed by the
to foster sustainable development and how
demands for emergency relief. As more and
For review and consultation-do not quote 01 cite
15
U.S. Agency for International Development
more resources are expended on dealing with
sector restructuring. demonstration projects and
the human costs of climate change, the ability of
voluntary programs.
societies and the international community to
address root causes of emissions and foster
Many USAID-assisted countries have severe
long-term adaptation will be compromised.
market barriers to the implementation of
sustainable energy policies, such as significant
USAID programs in a range of sectors currently
subsidies for energy use and inadequate market-
mitigate emissions and decrease vulnerability to
based incentives for efficiency. These market
climate change-related threats.
imperfections inhibit efficient generation and use
of power. USAID provides technical and
Energy. USAID programs promote renewable
analytical assistance to develop model power
energy; energy efficiency; and clean energy
purchase agreements, facilitate power sector
generation, distribution and transportation.
restructuring and privatization, and draft
Programs have focused on three areas in the
pertinent energy sector legislation and
energy sector: demand for energy services,
regulations. The goal is to help structure a power
choice of fuels for those services, and efficiency
sector that incorporates incentives for cleaner
in energy production. The Agency uses a variety
energy production and use. Voluntary programs
of approaches to achieve those goals-training
also have played an important role in
and education, public-private partnerships,
encouraging investment in energy efficient
technology cooperation, market transformation,
products and services in nascent markets.
Industrial Energy Efficiency in Mexico to Decrease Emissions
The Mexican industrial sector consumes approximately 2 billion tons of oil equivalent annually
consuming natural gas, fuel oil, bagasse, diesel oil and liquified petroleum gas; for each percent
of industrial energy savings on a national level. Mexico could avoid 1 million tons of carbon
dioxide emissions.
One component of USAID's energy program in Mexico focuses on improving the operating
efficiency of boiler and steam systems in partnership with industry. The goal is to develop a pilot
program that could be expanded nationally. USAID experience indicates that a savings of up to
7.9 percent in energy consumption is possible with boiler tune-up programs. A 7.5 percent
savings in consumption is possible with steam system improvements. Efficiency improvements
of 7.9 percent would reduce by 40 percent or more hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions, delivering a significant local air quality benefit.
The steam efficiency program in Mexico is being designed to catalyze private sector
investments in energy efficiency. It comprehensively examines the opportunities for industrial
efficiency, potential cost savings industry could accrue and the financing necessary. Ultimately,
it will reveal the opportunities to introduce national steam system efficiency standards. The
audits performed through the project will build technical and institutional capacity, spur private
sector investment in efficiency, and support small energy consulting firms. In the longer-term,
the program will contribute to the introduction of efficiency standards for boilers and steam
systems.
USAID is undertaking the steam and boiler efficiency project in partnership with CONAE, the
Mexican national commission for energy savings. Initial audit results show savings potentials of
5 to 10 percent of fuel consumption, which would pay for themselves in approximately 2 years.
16
For review and consultation-no not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
These programs also can play an important role
environmental technologies. Efforts also focus
in helping to surmount the market barriers to the
on building the capacity of technicians and
use of "climate-friendly" technologies.
managers to select, implement, operate and
monitor equipment. Training and capacity
Through demonstration and pilot projects,
building is done using U.S.-based courses, field
USAID is able to introduce low- or non-carbon
training, workshops, information systems
emitting energy sources and technologies to
development, exchange visits, databases and
developing and transition countries. USAID
alumni networks.
works with public and private sector counterparts
in the U.S. and abroad to select appropriate
Forestry. USAID's forestry and climate change
"climate-friendly" technologies. The Agency also
program involves strengthening the sustainable
jointly funds pilot projects to demonstrate the
management of natural forests and tree systems
benefits in terms of pollution prevention and
in key countries and regions by promoting the
energy savings. Examples of USAID
development and dissemination of sustainable
demonstration activities include a pilot pollution
forest management policies and practices;
control program at a Mexican power plant, an
management, monitoring and control of forest
electric vehicles project in Thailand and a
fires; development and dissemination of
comprehensive industrial demand-side
reforestation, agroforestry and sustainable
management program in the Philippines.
agriculture practices; analysis and awareness of
non-forest sector policiés on forest management
Complementing the range of USAID activities to
and conservation; participation of local
promote "climate-friendly" energy technologies IS
communities in sustainable forest management
a comprehensive effort to build human and
and policy development; and establishment of
institutional capacity. The Agency supports a
integrated assessment and monitoring systems
range of activities designed to provide
to better understand changes in forest health,
information and training regarding the economic,
biodiversity conservation and carbon
environmental and development benefits of
sequestration.
Reducing the Destruction of Forest Carbon Sinks: Reduced Impact
Harvesting
In many countries around the world, poor logging practices damage soil, trees and tree
seedlings, and increase woodwaste on the forest floor. Recent studies show that Reduced
Impact Harvesting (RIH) could reduce forest damage and the release of carbon, while saving
timber companies money.
USAID is assisting efforts by the Tropical Forestry Foundation (TFF), the Center for Forestry
Research, the U.S. Forest Service, the Brazilian and Indonesian governments, and others to
establish RIH demonstration sites in Brazil and Indonesia- two USAID-assisted countries with
large timber resources and a great deal of timber exploitation. The objective of the program is to
encourage widespread adoption of RIH techniques.
Even in its earliest stages, the program IS showing signs of success. RIH techniques have
generated widespread interest at universities and research centers, and among timer trade
groups and lending institutions. In Brazil. the World Bank redesigned an $18.1 million forest
management program to incorporate RIH after seeing the benefits of the approach. Malaysia
and Indonesia have incorporated principles of RIH into forest sector policies. The International
Tropical Timber Organization recently agreed to fund a series of workshops to expand adoption
of RIH in Latin America.
For review and consultation-cio no: quote or cite
17
U.S. Agency for International Development
To help protect existing carbon sinks and reduce
Urbanization. USAID IS working with cities and
emissions from destructive forestry practices.
industrial facilities worldwide to reduce pollution
USAID has successfully promoted technologies
from urpan-based activities. including the
that greatly reduce environmental damage to
emission of greenhouse gases. For example, in
soils. trees, and tree seedlings thereby
India and Mexico, USAID has supported the use
maintaining the economic value of forests. For
of energy efficiency and pollution prevention
example in Brazil, to curb destructive timber
audits to lower energy consumption in the textile,
extraction while increasing economic benefits to
electroplating and foundry industries. In Tunisia,
local logging companies, USAID has supported
Morocco, Botswana, and Jamaica, USAID works
the development of a model for reduced-impact
with local governments to improve the
harvesting (RIH) using research and
management of municipal landfills and control
demonstration plots at eight forest sites in the
the emission of methane gas. More broadly,
Brazilian Amazon. Here, environmentally sound
USAID administers a credit program that
timber extraction techniques are demonstrated
provides cities with access to capital markets to
and promoted for adoption by private timber
finance investments in infrastructure and
association members to reduce forest damage
technologies to protect human health and
and carbon loss through improved forest
environmental quality, including investments that
management. To address the risk of forest fires.
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
a major source of carbon emissions, USAID is
supporting fire management training and
Biodiversity. USAID promotes the conservation
examining sources of conflict that may be an
of biological diversity on more than 40 million
underlying cause of fire. In recent years, USAID
hectares of land in more than 25 countries. The
increased the political visibility of extensive fires
focus of the program is the conservation of the
that emit greenhouse gases and destroy carbon
natural ecosystems in which biodiversity occurs.
sinks in the Amazon. USAID also has helped to
Since most of this area is forested, these efforts
monitor forest burning through the use of satellite
protect existing carbon sinks and mitigate
imagery in partnership with the Brazilian
climate change.
Government and non governmental
organizations.
Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change
USAID's biodiversity conservation program in Madagascar is a good example of how ongoing
biodiversity initiatives help mitigate climate change and its impacts on biodiversity.
Madagascar is one of the highest biodiversity conservation priorities in the world. The island
currently has less than 15% of its original forest cover. and at current deforestation rates,
forest cover will disappear within 25 years.
USAID has implemented an aggressive program to combat deforestation and maintain the
remaining large tracts of forest on the island. Already, there is evidence that deforestation in
and immediately surrounding key protected areas is halting. This has been accomplished
through an integrated program of improved park management and surveillance, combined
with outreach and development initiatives designed in partnership with local communities.
Without these interventions. deforestation on the island would likely continue. permanently
destroying Madagascar's significant carbon-sequestenng forests and reducing the ability of
many species to adapt to climate change.
18
For review and consuliation-do not quote or Clf
Climate Change Action Plan
Combatting Climate Change in an Urban Context
The Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI) enhances environmentally sound economic growth
through broad-based partnerships to promote efficient resource use in cities. The program
promotes municipal, non-governmental and private sector investments in energy efficiency and
clean energy technology, and leverages funding from international financial institutions and
foundations.
In Ahmedabad, India USAID and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are supporting an
effort to address some of the critical environmental challenges faced by the city. The program
has created an alliance involving the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), the
Ahmedabad Electricity Company (AEC) and Arvind Mills, one of the largest denim producers in
the world which is located in the area.
SCI has helped AEC design and implement three pilot programs to test and install high
efficiency equipment. AEC is investing $700,000 in energy efficiency in FY97, and will scale-up
its projects in 1998. AEC expects to reduce demand by 24 megawatts. avoiding emission of
133,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
AMC has created an energy efficiency unit with private foundation support as a result of the
program. AMC is studying the potential savings the city might accrue from streetlight upgrades
and water pumping improvements. Already AMC has invested to improve power factors, and
retrofit water pumps and streetlights to reduce energy costs and consumption.
As a result of SCI, Arvind Mills is developing an environmental management system to meet
the requirements for ISO 14001 certification. The company has also identified environmental
improvements it will introduce in 1998. Arvind Mills' leadership has lead several other
manufacturers to perform environmental audits that will reduce pollution.
It is too early to assess the results of these efforts. but the project is a good example of an
integrated and coordinated approach to reducing urban greenhouse gas emissions.
The Agency supports initiatives that help
Coastal Zones. USAID is promoting Integrated
manage biologically important areas, identify
Coastal Management (ICM) in diverse
conservation priorities, strengthen policies to
communities in the Philippines, Indonesia, East
promote conservation, conduct applied research
Africa, Mexico, Central America and the
to inform conservation efforts, increase public
Caribbean in an effort to promote the sustainable
awareness of biodiversity's role and
use of coastal resources while developing the
conservation, and identify sustainable means of
information, skills and socioeconomic
financing conservation efforts. USAID primarily
relationships necessary to implement these
focuses on building local capacity for biodiversity
plans. In Africa work is focused on major coastal
conservation. In some regions, USAID also
cities where resources already are degraded and
helps support the conservation of corridors of
significant infrastructure already is at risk. In
natural areas. These natural corridors will help
Mexico, USAID is working to maintain healthy
decrease the vulnerability of natural communities
ecosystems in a relatively pristine setting while
to climate change by providing corridors for
supporting the tourism industry.
species migration.
For review and consultation-do noi quote Or Cite
19
U.S. Agency for International Development
Decreasing the Climate Change Risk in Coastal Zones
Following devastating floods in 1987 and 1988, USAID developed a program to broaden water
resources management in Bangladesh. The objectives were to strengthen local capacity to
predict flooding, improve short-term disaster preparedness, and optimize investments in flood
control, irrigation, drainage and domestic water systems. As a result, modifications were made
to proposed flood control structures that would have interfered with fisheries and agricultural
drainage while offering marginal protection. To predict annual flooding, a Geographic
Information System using satellite data, cloud-penetrating radar and advanced river survey
equipment was introduced. These immediate improvements in Bangladesh's ability to manage
flood variability also enhanced Bangladesh's ability to manage the long-term hydrological effects
of climate change.
USAID also is making special efforts in several
also can vastly improve urban air quality,
nations to protect mangrove wetlands, which
increasingly a local priority in a rapidly urbanizing
protect against erosion and storm surges while
and more democratic developing world.
providing habitat to diverse biological
communities and commercial fish stocks.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that no
Pressures from shrimp and fish mariculture to
matter how effectively the development
clear mangroves are balanced against long-term
assistance community integrates climate
community needs through the ICM process.
change-related concerns into its efforts to
Successful economic development may draw
promote sustainable development, some
more people and infrastructure to the crowded
conflicts with the climate change agenda will
and vulnerable coastal zone, but planned growth
remain. Efforts to foster economic growth and
will offer profound advantages over the current
industrial development will increase energy
situation. Communities, non governmental
consumption. In turn, providing sufficient energy
organizations, university partners, and the
for industrial, commercial and residential use in a
private sector are working to develop guidelines
growing economy will increase greenhouse gas
and tools for conservation and planning.
emissions. Developing country emissions will
continue to grow to meet burgeoning demand.
Key to meeting the climate challenge will be
The Road Ahead
ensuring that growth occurs in the most efficient
and least polluting manner possible.
A great deal can be done to maximize
opportunities for a less carbon-intensive path to
Our climate change objective needs to be to
development. Chief among them is to focus
develop and emphasize the critical programs
initially on the "win-win" opportunities to enhance
that will minimize the threat of climate change
economic development potential while reducing
while serving other development objectives.
environmental risks. More efficient use of
This offers opportunities to strive for economic
energy is the classic example of a "no regrets"
and social development while reducing the
approach that can yield increased economic
threats posed by climate change. Where win-win
efficiency and less pollution as it reduces the
alternatives are limited, the central challenge will
growth in greenhouse gas emissions. It also is
be resolving trade-offs between climate change
critical to focus on the subset of climate change
mitigation and development assistance priorities.
threats that simultaneously contribute to
significant local pollution problems. Fossil fuel
combustion causes most urban air pollution.
Efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions
20
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
The USAID Climate Change Action Plan
Summary
A number of central tenets will underlay USAID
efforts in each of these areas. USAID will:
USAID will implement the President's
commitment to assist developing nations and
Build upon a large array of past and ongoing
countries in transition through a comprehensive
activities that promote technology
program that serves U.S. interests as it meets
cooperation, create partnerships with the
developing and transition country needs. The
U.S. private sector, and develop human and
program will build on USAID strengths-its local
institutional capacity
presence, focus on local priorities, and
Collaborate more closely with other
experience in reconciling economic development
international institutions to leverage a larger
and environmental management goals-as it
pool of resources, and ensure that bilateral,
helps lead the development assistance
multilateral and private resources are
community toward greater cooperation in
targeted to foster environmentally sound
promoting an environmentally sound approach to
development
sustainable development.
Strengthen efforts to attract and channel
private financing into clean technology
Designed to address the links between climate
markets
change and development, the USAID Climate
Build upon USAID's strength in addressing
Action Plan will focus particularly on three areas:
fundamental policy and institutional
transformations, from the perspective of our
Decreasing the rate of growth in net
developing and transitional country partners
greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing
greenhouse gas sources and maintaining or
The core of the Action Plan will be programs that
increasing greenhouse gas sinks
promote "climate-friendly" development. USAID
Increasing developing and transition country
will strengthen its efforts in the energy sector that
success in achieving the goals of the United
create markets for renewable energy, promote
Nations' Framework Convention on Climate
energy efficiency, foster the removal of energy
Change (FCCC)
price subsidies and introduce market forces in
Decreasing developing and transitional
the power sector. The Agency will also build on
country vulnerability to the threats posed by
programs to facilitate more sustainable forest
climate change
management and agriculture by promoting
reduced impact harvesting, encouraging
The $1 billion committed by President Clinton at
community forestry, improving land tenure
the U.N. will be focused on decreasing the rate
legislation and promoting improved agricultural
methods. It will maintain its commitment to
of growth in net emissions from developing
nations and transition countries, as well as
habitat protection, especially in forested areas.
increasing successful achievement of the goals
of the FCCC. Efforts to decrease vulnerability to
An important part of the Initiative will be to more
the threats posed by climate change will
closely manage, track and evaluate the range of
complement this commitment. Programs that
climate-related programs to ensure that they are
reduce vulnerability will be integrated into sector
effectively decreasing emissions of greenhouse
programs that already have as their mandates
gases from USAID-assisted countries. The
improving coastal zone management,
greater emphasis on monitoring and evaluation
decreasing the threats posed by emerging
will guarantee that over the course of the
diseases, strengthening human and institutional
Initiative, strategic emphasis will be sharpened to
capacity, and fostering improved agricultural and
focus on those efforts that are having the
natural resource management methods.
greatest impact. USAID will strive to identify and
For review and consultation-co not quote or cite
21
U.S. Agency for International Development
use those tools and approaches that are most
The Agency Focus
effective in combating climate change. Every
effort will be made to ensure that programs
directly lead to reductions in emissions that are
The USAID Climate Change Action Plan will
significant and real. Over the course of five
encompass three areas of emphasis: mitigating
years, the focus will be honed based upon
greenhouse gas emissions from developing
lessons learned.
nations and transition countries, facilitating
developing and transition country success in
Through the Action Plan, several new areas of
achieving the goals of the FCCC, and reducing
emphasis will be added to the USAID portfolio.
vulnerability to climate change. Through a
concerted effort in those three areas USAID will
Examples of these are:
strive to balance the need to raise the standard
USAID will quantify the health and
of living in developing nations and transition
productivity costs associated with the local
countries with the obligation to reduce the rate of
air pollution that fossil fuel combustion
growth in net greenhouse gas emissions.
USAID's investment, while substantial in terms of
generates in an effort to expand the
definition of "win-win" efforts to decrease
the U.S. Government's development program,
will be quite modest in terms of the problem at
greenhouse gas emissions.
hand. Therefore, a strong emphasis will be
USAID will undertake an analysis of the
placed on leveraging the impact of other donors,
specific regional and local vulnerabilities
the private sector and non-governmental
posed by climate change. That study will be
organizations, as well as ensuring that the
used to identify "hot spots"-areas of
technical, institutional and policy environment is
particular vulnerability that USAID needs to
conducive to decreasing the rate of growth in
emissions.
address.
In fulfilling the President's commitment, USAID
USAID will facilitate private sector transfer of
will ensure that at least $1 billion in assistance is
clean energy technology to key countries
and regions; a first step in this direction is
devoted to assisting countries over the next five
the promulgation of "Global Climate Change
years to decrease the rate of growth in net
Technology Cooperation Agreements" with
emissions of greenhouse gases and to
key countries.
facilitating developing and transition country
achievement of the goals of the FCCC. In
USAID will focus on the urban-climate nexus
addition to that $1 billion commitment, USAID will
continue to devote substantial resources to
and address opportunities to meet local air
quality concerns while decreasing net
decreasing the threats that climatic shifts pose to
developing and transition countries. Efforts to
greenhouse gas emissions.
decrease vulnerability will be firmly grounded in
USAID will enhance environmental
programs to combat disease, destruction of
education and outreach to involve non-
coastal zones, desertification, and decreasing
governmental organizations, the private
agricultural productivity and other threats that will
sector and governments in efforts to promote
be exacerbated by climate change.
development while reducing the rate of
growth in net greenhouse gas emissions.
1. Decreasing the net rate of growth in
emissions
USAID will work with the donor community to
more effectively promote development that
Central to any comprehensive strategy that
minimizes the growth in greenhouse gas
integrates climate change-related goals into the
emissions.
development assistance agenda is a focus on
reducing the rate of growth in greenhouse gas
emissions. USAID efforts to reduce emissions
will strive to promote economic and social
22
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Proposed Agency-wide Special Objective on Climate Change
Reduced long-term threat to the
environment from global climate change
Increased capacity to achieve the
goals of the Framework Convention
Decreased rate of growth in net
Decreased developing country
on Climate Change
greenhouse gas emissions
vulnerbility to the threats
posed by climate change
Improved policies,
Decreased loss of
Decreased rate of
regulations and
carbon
growth in emissions
Decreased rate of
incentives to
sequestration
decrease the threat
from the energy
capacity of
growth in emissions
sector
from urban sources
of climate change
agriculture and
natural resources
Increased capacity
Increased capacity
Increased capacity
Increased capacity
to adapt in the
to adapt in urban
to adapt in natural
of industry and
health sector
resources and
financial sector to
areas
agriculture sectors
adapt
Note: Though part of the USAID Climate Change Action Plan. activities related to the achievement of objectives in
shaded boxes will not receive funding as part of the President's Initiative.
development that is more "climate-friendly." The
The substitution of less carbon-emitting fuel
USAID approach will emphasize the transfer of
sources for more carbon-intense fuel
technologies, policy and regulatory reform, and
sources in the generation of heat, electricity
human and institutional development that will
or cogeneration (eg. the use of natural gas
simultaneously promote development and
instead of coal)
reduce the growth in emissions. That focus will
The use of non-fossil energy sources,
enable USAID to ensure that the development it
including renewable energy (eg. solar, wind,
fosters is truly sustainable-environmentally as
biomass, mini and micro hydro or
well as institutionally.
geothermal) instead of coal, oil, natural gas
or unsustainably harvested fuelwood
USAID efforts to decrease net emissions of
Increased efficiency and environmental
greenhouse gases will focus on reducing the
soundness of fossil fuel-based power
growth in net greenhouse gas emissions and
generation (eg. through plant rehabilitation,
increasing greenhouse gas sinks. In the energy
operations and maintenance improvements,
sector, the focus of the Initiative will be on
modernization, cleaner coal-combustion
activities that result in the following
technologies and re-powering with advanced
improvements:
boiler technologies)
For review and consultation-uo not quote or cite
23
U.S. Agency for International Development
Improved transmission and distribution
Among USAID's primary partners in the land use
efficiencies in power systems using fossil
sector will be the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
fuels for power generation
U.S. Department of the Interior, Peace Corps
Increased end-use energy efficiency (eg.
and U.S. Forest Service. Internationally, USAID
industrial processes, lighting, appliances,
will continue to work closely with a wide range of
HVAC [Heating, Ventilating, and Air
international, regional, national, and local
Conditioning] systems, buildings,
partners, and Centers for Genetic and
cookstoves, etc.) in power systems using
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
fossil fuels
including the International Center for Research in
Decreased use, increased efficiency or
Agroforestry (ICRAF), the Center for
substitution of less carbon-emitting fuels in
International Forestry (CIFOR).
transportation systems
The introduction of market forces and other
Finally, interventions that decrease emissions of
regulatory and non-regulatory incentives that
methane to the atmosphere from urban solid
promote more environmentally sound power
waste or animal husbandry will be considered
sector investment (eg. power sector
part of the USAID Climate Change Action Plan.
restructuring, elimination of price subsidies
and monopolies, and introduction of
A range of approaches will be used to achieve
standards)
the objectives identified for the land use, energy
and industrial sectors. Some will directly affect
USAID will have a wide range of public, private
emissions including pilot and demonstration
and non-government partners in implementing
projects, development and implementation of
the strategy. Primary collaborators in the energy
management plans and technology cooperation
sector will include the U.S. Department of
activities. Other interventions will have an
Energy and its national laboratories; the U.S.
indirect impact, such as power sector
Environmental Protection Agency; multilateral
restructuring, elimination of price subsidies,
development banks and energy partners from
introduction of improved land tenure legislation,
the public, private and non-governmental sectors
incorporation of natural resource endowments in
throughout the world.
national income accounting, institution of building
and appliance standards or the promotion of
In the land use sector, activities will qualify as
sustainable forest industries.
climate change-related that either increase the
storage of carbon in ecosystems or land-use
2. Increasing developing country success in
systems, or decrease the release of carbon
achieving the goals of the FCCC
stored in biomass due to human activities. As
part of the Initiative USAID will implement and
To truly stave-off the threat of climate change,
manage programs that result in the following
action by all nations, developed and developing,
improvements in land use:
will be required. Participation in the negotiation
and implementation of the terms and spirit of the
The preservation, re-establishment or more
FCCC will be fundamental to finding a global
sustainable management and use of forests,
solution. A portion of the resources under the
trees and denuded lands
Action Plan will be used to enhance developing
The maintenance and preservation of
nation and transition country ability to achieve
wetlands and mangroves
the goals of the FCCC.
Decreased burning of savannas, forests and
brushland
The most critical element in assisting developing
Reduced slash-and-burn (shifting) cultivation
and transition countries to take on binding
Increased soil organic matter and decreased
commitments under the FCCC will be their ability
soil erosion
to reconcile climate objectives with their
Increased use of biofuels
economic and social development goals. In
support of that objective, USAID will work in
24
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
collaboration with other U.S. departments and
3. Decreasing developing country
agencies to promote "Global Climate Change
vulnerability to climate impacts
Technology Cooperation Agreements" with key
countries. These agreements will help to
Among U.S. government agencies, USAID is
overcome the barriers to promoting "climate-
unique in its ability to help reduce developing
friendly" development by creating a participatory
country vulnerability to impacts of climate
process through which the combined efforts of
change by helping them to enhance their
governments, private sector and non-
capacity to adapt to change and cope with
governmental organizations can be focused on
challenges. This suggests a special role for
promoting market-based transfer of cleaner
USAID in the vulnerability area as a part of the
technologies and infrastructure.
portfolio of developing country assistance related
to climate change.
The U.S. Country Studies Program and the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation have been
USAID has a substantial portfolio of programs
important vehicles for collaborating with
that increase the ability of nations to manage
developing nations. USAID programs will seek
crises and adapt to environmental, social and
to enhance further developing country capacity
political change. These programs are grounded
to implement the FCCC. In addition to USAID
in local needs and priorities, and local
assistance that helps decrease the net rate of
circumstances must drive them. Often, these
greenhouse gas emissions, efforts that result in
programs are not focused on combating climate
the following will be considered components of
change-related threats; they decrease the
the President's $1 billion commitment:
vulnerability to climate change as they meet
other local needs. For example, most efforts to
Agreements to cooperate in facilitating
increase capacity to cope with one type of crisis
public-private partnership that transfer
(such as the outbreak of a disease epidemic, or
"climate friendly" technology
the need to improve planning for extreme
Creation of national emissions inventories,
climatic events such as El Niño) also increase
national emissions budgets, national climate
capacity to cope with other crises.
change action plans, and national
communications
To ensure that the specific threats associated
Stimulation of joint implementation/activities
with climate change are being considered in
implemented jointly (JI/AIJ) projects and
planning and programming, USAID will
participation in JI regimes
undertake an analysis of the specific regional
Establishment of legislative and regulatory
and local vulnerabilities climate change poses.
structures, and local capacity to participate
That study will be used to identify "hot spots"-
in emissions trading regimes
areas of particular vulnerability that USAID
Acceptance of greater developing country
needs to address. The findings will be used to
commitments under the FCCC
inform and help focus USAID efforts to help
Enhanced capacity to track and monitor
countries adapt.
greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability
to climate change
USAID efforts to reduce vulnerability will
complement the $1 billion in support that will go
Among USAID's primary partners will be the U.S.
toward the Initiative's two other foci. Programs
Department of State, U.S. Environmental
that have the following results will be an integral
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy,
part of the Agency's Action Plan:
U.S. Country Studies Program, U.S. Initiative on
Joint Implementation as well as government,
Increased preparedness for natural disasters
public and private sector representatives in the
(eg. floods, droughts and tropical cyclones)
U.S. and abroad. Once created, the Inter-
Increased adaptability and efficiency of
Agency Climate Change Program will be an
agricultural systems, municipal
important collaborator.
management, water resources and coastal
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
25
U.S. Agency for International Development
zone management and public health
Program (UNDP); United Nations' Food and
systems
Agriculture Organization (FAO); Global
Maintenance of healthy, resilient
Environment Facility (GEF); United Nations
ecosystems, especially those that provide
Environment Program (UNEP); U.S. Department
protection against threats of climatic change
of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior,
(eg. grasslands, forests, wetlands and coral
International Union for the Conservation of
reefs)
Nature (IUCN), the National Oceanographic and
Improved domestic and international
Atmospheric Administration; a wide range of
capacities for conflict-resolution regarding
bilateral donors, host country institutions and
shared resources (eg. water and arable
non-governmental organizations and U.S. private
land)
voluntary organizations and non-governmental
organizations.
Strategies to improve the ability to cope with
stresses resulting from global climate change will
Tools and Techniques
include information and education campaigns,
physical infrastructure investments (for example
To achieve the results above, USAID will use a
in coastal areas), regulatory initiatives, and
range of tools and approaches, including policy
research and development (eg. to develop crop
reform, institutional capacity building, technology
varieties adapted to changed environmental
cooperation, education and outreach, and
conditions).
information collection and dissemination in
combatting climate change. USAID also will
Partners with USAID will include the World Bank;
place particular emphasis on four additional tools
regional banks; the United Nations Development
USAID believes will be particularly critical in
Decreasing Vulnerability to Climate Change by Improving Shared
Resource Management
USAID recently sponsored water policy dialogues in the Central Asian Republics of
Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in response to a 1996 water allocation crisis that
arose along a river the countries share. Faced with diminished heating fuel supplies during
the winter of 1995-96, the Kyrgyz Republic accelerated hydropower production, reducing
Spring water availability for agricultural production in neighboring Uzbekistan and Kazakstan.
In May 1996, the three governments signed a declaration agreeing to develop coordinated
strategies of water allocation and management for transboundary flow; develop legislation and
economic tools for water resource allocation; and use the Toktogul hydropower dam in
conjunction with a program to exchange hydropower for gas, coal and oil products. USAID
helped organize high level meetings involving the three governments to develop an
implementation strategy. Participants discussed the need to establish an inter-republic water
rights policy incorporating a water pricing scheme for end-user payment, quality guidelines,
efficiency measures, and a management structure to promote stability and shift production
decisions to water users, particularly in the agriculture sector.
This program demonstrates the importance of a deliberative policy-focused approach to
allocating natural resources that may be threatened by climate change. USAID helped
advance development of a long-term solution to water scarcity by promoting open and
constructive dialog using participatory approaches to resource sharing.
26
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions:
Private Sector Partnerships. Private
technology cooperation, partnerships with the
companies will be a key strategic partner in the
private sector, collaboration and coordination
Agency's climate action plan. While the
with other bilateral and multilateral donors, and
commitment of $1 billion over five years is
the use of credit to foster trade and investment in
significant for the U.S. government, it will not be
"climate-friendly" technologies and projects.
sufficient to make an appreciable difference on
Each will be part of an integrated strategy to
climate issues in developing and transition
promote development while reducing the growth
countries. It will be critical to engage the far
in greenhouse gas emissions. Over time, USAID
greater resources-human, technological and
will focus on those interventions that are proven
financial-of the business community.
most effective.
Already private capital flows vastly outstrip public
Policy Reform. Fundamental in reducing the
flows to developing nations and transition
long-term threats to environment and
countries. In 1996, private capital to these
development from global climate change will be
nations totaled $243 billion while official
the role of policy reform. Economic restructuring
development assistance fell to $40 billion.
and democratic decision-making do not
Private capital today accounts for 86 percent of
necessarily mean deregulation; they mean the
total long-term capital flows to developing
creation of a policy and regulatory environment
nations and transition countries. As developing
that ensures fairness and equity while creating
country markets open to permit greater private
incentives for environmentally and socially sound
sector trade and investment, the dominant role of
trade and investment. Policy reform is important
the private sector will increase.
because it is a way to send the correct signals
for decentralized decision-making, while
The focus of efforts to create private sector
demonstrating a change in priorities, needs and
partnerships will be on promoting cleaner urban
directions. By creating incentives, it very
development, industrial development and energy
efficiently mobilizes resources through voluntary
sector expansion. In urban settings, USAID will
action in the national and global interest.
foster private sector investment to reduce
emissions from the transportation sector,
Public policy-making is a prerequisite if progress
municipal infrastructure and in the built
is to be achieved in reducing emissions and
environment. The goal will be to improve local air
vulnerability, as well as fostering international
quality and health while reducing net greenhouse
collaboration. A range of policy reform efforts
gas emissions. In the energy sector, USAID will
can and are undertaken because they promote
promote more environmentally sound expansion
economic and social development; often they are
of the power sector, and overcome market
critical means by which to decrease the threat of
barriers to commercialization of renewable
climate change. Energy sector restructuring,
energy and energy efficiency. The approach will
improvements in land tenure regulations, the
involve removing barriers to private sector entry,
removal of price subsidies, and the
and promoting private trade and investment.
establishment of building and appliance
Finally, in fostering cleaner industrial
standards are all policy reform efforts that
development, USAID will build on the successful
promote development that is less carbon
model of the U.S.-Asia Environmental
intensive. For example, developing countries
Partnership to create regulatory and non-
have reduced energy subsidies by 40 percent
regulatory incentives that will encourage the use
since 1990; this has lead to significant reductions
of clean industrial technologies and practices.
in the rate of growth in carbon emissions. A
critical element of the Action Plan will be
Technology Cooperation. Technology
assistance to facilitate policy and regulatory
cooperation will play a critical role in determining
reform that will hasten economic and social
the extent to which developing countries are able
development in a less carbon-intensive manner.
to achieve the goals of the FCCC. To help them
pursue less carbon-intensive economic
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
27
U.S. Agency for International Development
The Role of Partnerships with the Private Sector: The Utility Partnership
Program
Over the last five years, in partnership with the U.S. Energy Association (USEA), USAID's Utility
Partnership Program has paired over 35 utilities in developing and transition countries with sister
U.S. utilities. Additional partnerships, including five more in India, are planned in the near future.
Each utility pair has a specific workplan structured to foster such efforts as Demand-Side
Management (DSM), increased transmission and distribution efficiency or thermal efficiency.
Utilities cover the costs of personnel. USAID covers out-of-pocket expenses. The results are
impressive. This practitioner-to-practitioner partnering program has improved operations,
mitigated the impact of power generation on the environment, stimulated sales of U.S.
technologies and opened the door to emerging markets for U.S. utilities.
U.S. utilities currently involved in the program include: Alabama Power, Boston Edison, Brooklyn
Union, Central and South West, Central Maine Power, Cincinnati Gas and Electric, CMS
Energy, Columbia Gas, Commonwealth Edison, Entergy, Georgia Power, Houston Lighting and
Power, Illinois Power, Kentucky Utilities, Mississippi Power, National Fuel Gas, New England
Electric, New York Electric and Gas, Otter Tail Power, Pennsylvania Power and Light, Questar,
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Southern Electric, Tennessee Valley Authority,
Washington Water Power and Yankee Gas.
Under the Climate Action Plan, USAID is considering establishment of a project development
fund to encourage utility partners to develop specific carbon emissions reduction projects. The
fund would be structured to support pre-investment analysis. USAID would support project
preparation for funding by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and others, such as the
recently-approved International Finance Corporation's "Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Fund".
development (and "leap-frog" the polluting
To focus this effort, USAID will help develop
carbon-rich industrialization phase many
model technology cooperation agreements to
developed countries experienced), developing
help catalyze and channel private trade and
country governments have sought from
investment in clean technologies. These
developed countries commitments to transfer
agreements will serve as vehicles for
technology.
government and business dialogue. The intent is
to create a mechanism by which public
The vast majority of technology transfer from
resources and private capital focused on climate
industrialized countries to developing and
impacts can be highlighted and promoted in key
transition countries will not take place through
developing countries and regions. The
government-to-government grants. It will come
anticipated result of these agreements will be the
about through the marketplace. USAID's critical
expedited flow of investment and technology to
role should be to help countries shape those
developing countries to assist in meeting
markets through policy reform and capacity
emissions reduction goals.
building, so that they work to benefit the global
environment by accelerating the
Institution Strengthening. Sufficient human
commercialization and dissemination of "climate-
and institutional capacity are prerequisites to the
friendly" technologies. This will have to be done
successful implementation of any strategy for
in partnership with the private sector.
promoting sustainable development. In working
to reduce the threat of climate change, decision-
28
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Institution Strengthening as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy:
The Case of Energy Sector Training in Indonesia
Training is integral to USAID's extensive energy sector program in Indonesia. In 1996, the
USAID Energy Training Program focused on enhancing sugar industry ability to use
cogeneration as a power source. Three courses were organized: "Sugar Industry
Cogeneration Project Development", "Renewable Energy Project Finance" and "Renewable
Project Bid Solicitation." Each course involved experienced U.S. experts as instructors and
resource people. As a direct result of the training, Indonesia's national utility has approved two
applications for cogeneration power projects, and the first Power Purchase Agreement for a
sugar mill cogeneration project in Indonesia has been signed.
In 1996, USAID also provided training to support a World Bank-funded Solar Home System
Project in Indonesia. USAID trained local technicians employed by Bank-supported equipment
distributors to ensure that the project will be sustainable. In addition, USAID supported review
of the Bank's specifications and local products, providing advise as to how products might be
improved and specifications streamlined. It is expected that the World Bank loan will support
installation of 200,000 solar home systems in Indonesia, bringing "climate-friendly" power to
more than half a million people.
makers, managers, scientists, technicians,
benefits that are more immediate than the impact
operations and maintenance personnel and
on global climate change- cost savings in
others must have the necessary skills and know-
energy bills, less air pollution and more trees. All
how to make informed decisions and carry out
of these short-term benefits are far more visible.
appropriate actions. Local institutions must be
"Selling" the changes necessary to make a real
staffed with a critical mass of qualified personnel,
difference in the mitigation of greenhouse gases
and efforts must be made to ensure that this
will necessitate tieing desired changes in
significant resource base is retained and
behavior to results people feel more immediately.
developed. In some cases, USAID uses training
Similarly, promoting the necessary societal
to enhance developing country capacity to
changes will require inclusive approaches to
combat climate change specifically. More often.
decision-making that involve broad participation
training is a tool for facilitating improvements that
and outreach.
will drive development in a sector; a climate
change-related benefit will be an added benefit.
Information Collection and Dissemination.
Data and information are critical to climate
Education and Outreach. One of the primary
change-related programs because they provide
reasons that new environmental policies and
a basis upon which to measure the
programs often fail is that the target population is
environmental performance of those sectors of
not involved in the process until after decisions
the economy affecting global climate change.
already have been made. Early work on global
Similarly, they provide an essential means by
climate change suggests that most people and
which to measure progress and assess the
businesses do not believe that they make a
success of programs and activities. Information
significant contribution to the problem- whether
dissemination also has a broader set of functions
they believe there is a problem or not.
in environment programs. The sharing of
Undertaking assessments of attitudes and
environmental information between community
behaviors can provide a basis upon which to
stakeholders-urban and rural communities,
build communications and education programs
civic groups, industry leaders and government
that target select audiences. Almost any effort to
officials-is an important addition to traditional
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have
environmental policy tools. It increases public
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
29
U.S. Agency for International Development
awareness of environmental issues and can
intensifying coordination on climate change
serve as an important agent of change.
issues: multiplying the impact of its programs by
Information dissemination is critical to the proper
joining forces with other donor nations and the
selection and successful implementation of
private sector, and increasing the pace and
policies that use market-based approaches to
durability of needed policy reforms in host
promote environmentally sound development.
countries.
As incentives are put in place to encourage
Coordination will need to take place at all
cleaner investment, the need for information
levels-within countries, among technical
about alternative technologies and strategies for
experts, and in policy-level meetings involving
expansion and investment grows.
USAID officials and bilateral and multilateral
counterparts.
Research. Research will be important in
developing and demonstrating technologies that
Multilateral Collaboration. Maintaining a close
will enable less carbon-intensive development
working relationship with the World Bank Group
and reduce the risks associated with climate
will be critically important to the success of
change. For developing nations and countries in
USAID's efforts. USAID will seek additional
transition, research will be necessary to adapt
opportunities for project work with the GEF and
and apply technologies that will provide cleaner
the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
forms of transportation and cleaner sources of
USAID also will work to deepen relationships
power. Research also will be critical in
with other multilateral lenders. USAID has a
disseminating new agricultural crops, breeds and
history of collaboration on climate change-related
practices that will decrease the stress of climatic
lending operations with the Inter-American
shifts on agricultural practices, as well as reduce
Development Bank and the Asian Development
emissions from animal husbandry and
Bank; both already are instrumental in USAID
cultivation. Complementing efforts to support
climate change work in key countries and
actual research and development will be
regions. The European Bank for Reconstruction
programs to build the capacity of the local
and Development (EBRD), which has a
institutions that will generate the innovations,
considerable resource base for direct lending to
disseminate information about new technologies,
the private sector in Eastern Europe and the
and facilitate adoption of new resource
former Soviet Union, has the potential to be an
management tools and techniques. As part of
even closer partner, particularly in addressing
the Action Plan, USAID will continue and
energy efficiency improvements in the region.
enhance efforts to collaborate with CIFOR,
ICRAF and others on carbon sequestration in
USAID will continue to strengthen the
forests. USAID also will encourage CGIAR
relationship with the main institutions of the U.N.
member research centers to focus more
and other international organizations (eg. ICRAF
explicitly on climate change adaptation in crop
and CIFOR) whose mandate includes climate
breeding and other agricultural research efforts.
change. In addition, USAID will seek increased
opportunities for leveraging U.N. activities in
Partnerships with Bilateral and Multilateral
monitoring and in capacity building in developing
Donors. USAID activities related to global
and transition countries. Potential opportunities
climate change already involve collaboration and
exist for collaboration with a range of U.N.
close partnership with a variety of actors
agencies, such as FAO and the UNEP.
including multilateral and bilateral donors,
international organizations, and other agencies
Perhaps one of the most important venues in
and departments of the U.S. Government. The
which USAID would like to play a leadership role
high profile attention, however, given to climate
is in the OECD/Development Assistance
change in preparation for the third Conference of
Committee (DAC). USAID will use the DAC
the Parties to the FCCC provides an opportunity
partnership strategy as a foundation for working
to deepen these relationships, in particular with
with developing nations to encourage a coherent
official donors. USAID will have dual goals in
response from donors on climate change issues.
30
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
USAID also will use the DAC Working Party on
Agenda, the development assistance programs
Development Assistance and Environment as a
of the Government of Japan are likely to
forum for addressing problems of donor policy on
continue to devote substantial resources to the
climate change and for promoting quality
environment and energy sectors, and larger
standards in the provision of assistance. USAID
amounts to global climate change, even in the
will endeavor to lead the development of DAC
face of major aid budget cuts. It is also likely
guidelines for "climate-friendly" development.
that Japanese loan resources for the
environment will be more widely available to poor
USAID also will strengthen its links with the
countries in the future. USAID will look for
OECD Climate Technology Initiative (CTI).
opportunities to work in partnership with the
USAID will work with CTI task forces to identify
Japanese lending programs.
areas of mutual cooperation in the promotion of
technology dissemination and institutional
Germany could potentially be an important
capacity building. In addition, USAID will use its
partner for the U.S. in the climate change arena.
network of in-country missions and regional
The German Government has demonstrated a
bureaus to identify opportunities for the use of
commitment to addressing climate change-
clean technologies and assist the design of
related issues, and they are the largest bilateral
specific follow-up activities to enhance
source of resources (official and private) to the
commercialization of clean technologies.
countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. The bilateral relationship
Leadership in other regional fora is also possible,
between USAID and the German aid program is
such as the Club du Sahel, Southern Africa
positive but has not received the systematic
Development Cooperation (SADC), and
attention the U.S. has paid to the European
Intergovernmental Authority on Development
Commission and the Government of Japan.
(IGAD) in Africa, as well as with specialized
USAID will explore the possibilities for closer
scientific and expert bodies through which
collaboration.
USAID could expand the participation of its
development partners, such as the IUCN's
Credit. The Initiative announced by President
Sustainable Use Initiative and the Multi-donor
Clinton included up to $250 million in the use of
Secretariat of the World Bank.
credit for climate-related projects and activities.
Two conditions will have to be met if USAID is to
Bilateral Cooperation. USAID will focus efforts to
be able to use credit to advance its climate
promote bilateral cooperation on large bilateral
change program. Congress will have to grant
actors. The European Commission and the
USAID the authority to engage in credit
Governments of Japan and Germany are among
programs (beyond the micro-enterprise and
the most important partners.
urban environmental credit program authorities),
and the Agency will have to demonstrate its
Though collaboration between the U.S. and the
ability to implement needed credit management
European Commission under the U.S./EU New
reforms.
Transatlantic Agenda primarily has focused on
regional issues, both parties are increasingly
Credit would be enormously useful in facilitating
interested in addressing global issues. USAID
the creation of new markets for "climate-friendly"
will pursue global climate change issues as a
technologies. Clean energy technology, energy
regular part of these consultations.
efficiency and renewable energy represent
important methods by which to decrease the
Cooperation with Japan under the U.S./Japan
growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet
Common Agenda is well-established; it involves
significant market barriers exist. Many
not only USAID but also other agencies and
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects
departments of the U.S. Government. Protecting
tend to be small, creating relatively high
the global environment is one of four major foci
transaction costs. Most commercial financiers
of the Common Agenda. Beyond the Common
are unfamiliar with lending in these sectors and
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
31
U.S. Agency for International Development
Using Credit Instruments to Stimulate "Climate-Friendly" Investment
A good example of the potential use of credit can be found in Brazil where one of USAID's
objectives is to promote private sector investment in energy efficiency. USAID has been
working with a national bank to encourage lending to energy service companies using private
demand-side management contracts. Bankers often are reluctant to enter the energy efficiency
market because the terms and collateral (saved energy) are unfamiliar. With credit authority,
USAID might issue a partial loan guarantee to encourage the bank to enter the market. USAID
could, for example, guarantee one-third of a $15 million revolving fund for energy efficiency for a
three-year term to catalyze private sector investment in energy efficiency in Brazil. This modest
investment would save energy while stimulating creation of a private market for energy
efficiency.
these countries. Therefore, clean-energy project
variety of countries, while meeting local needs
developers in emerging and transition
and decreasing the threats posed by climate
economies must turn to international financial
change. USAID will continue to support a wide
institutions for help. But the transaction costs for
range of environmental programs in countries
such small projects are a real obstacle for
throughout the world. The Agency will, however,
multilateral lenders.
use the Initiative to focus on achieving specific,
concrete results that will decrease the threat of
A USAID credit program for "climate-friendly"
climate change.
technology would fill a specific need. It would not
compete with the commercial markets because it
USAID will concentrate resources and attention
would provide financing for projects that are too
under the Action Plan on a set of key climate
risky or too small to garner commercial financing.
change countries and regions. These countries
Additionally it would not replicate the efforts of
were selected because of their contribution to
the U.S. Export-Import Bank or the Overseas
net global greenhouse gas emissions and their
Private Investment Corporation because it would
receptivity to take action to decrease net
neither finance the export of materiel nor provide
emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. Twelve
insurance to buy down risk. The use of credit
key countries and regions will receive priority:
would allow USAID to complement its grant
Brazil, Central Africa (Cameroon, the Central
activities where appropriate with partial loan
African Republic, the Congo, the Republic of
guarantees or loans. USAID could mitigate the
Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon), Central
risk in projects where a developmental and
America (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
environmental purpose was being served and
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama),
where market barriers would otherwise imperil
Central Asia (Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
the investment. Finally, the use of credit would
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), India, Indonesia,
allow USAID to leverage private investment for
Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South
every dollar of USAID assistance. USAID will
Africa and Ukraine. Although China is another
seek to leverage ten dollars for each dollar the
large emitter of greenhouse gases, USAID does
Agency uses in loans or loan guarantees.
not operate in China.
Country and Regional Programs
All of the USAID key countries and regions will
maintain a significant portfolio of climate change-
USAID currently has climate change-related
related activities for the duration of the five-year
activities in 44 countries throughout the world.
Initiative. At least 40 percent of grant assistance
These programs are important components of a
over the course of the five-year Initiative will be
comprehensive strategy that builds links with a
devoted to key countries and regions.
32
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Additionally, assuming credit authority is
Africa
approved, at least two-thirds of USAID's use of
credit instruments to combat climate change will
be undertaken in key countries and regions. The
USAID has one key region and one key country
climate change program in each country will be
in Africa. The region, Central Africa/Congo
designed to meet local needs and priorities. (An
Basin, was identified as key in 1994 by the
overview of each country strategy is included
Agency's Global Climate Change Strategy and
below.) Although USAID missions will have the
the Africa Bureau's approved Supplemental
lead in designing and implementing national
Climate Change Strategy. South Africa is
programs, they will collaborate closely with
currently the second biggest African country in
terms of emissions.
USAID staff in the United States. In the absence
of a local USAID office, staff in the United States
or in regional offices will manage programs,
As an essential part of its strategy in Africa,
where appropriate.
USAID is monitoring the vulnerability of African
countries to the threats posed by climate
USAID may decide to discontinue a climate
change. This will include evaluating the impact
change program in a key country or region if the
that climatic changes, including increased
weather variability, could have on sustainable
Agency determines that USAID climate change
objectives for that country have been achieved, it
development plans, particularly related to
is not in the interest of the United States
agriculture. The primary goal of USAID's efforts
Government to maintain a USAID-supported
will be to increase the development planners'
climate change program in that country, USAID
awareness of the potential risk climate change
efforts in that country would likely be ineffective,
poses, building such considerations where
feasible into National Environmental Action
wasteful or have a negative impact or USAID
climate change efforts in that country are being
Plans, planning related to the Desertification and
met either independently or by other donor(s).
Biodiversity Conventions and other activities.
Short-term impacts of climate change events,
USAID also will continue to be an active
such as El Niño, will be used to model impacts
participant in the inter-agency climate change
locally, nationally and regionally.
programs. The Agency will continue to support
the U.S. Country Studies Program and the U.S.
The Congo Basin will probably remain the priority
Initiative on Joint Implementation as they support
for Africa because it has the largest remaining
programs in developing countries that test the
area of tropical forest. One other possible area
potential for joint implementation, and help
of focus is gas flaring from petroleum and natural
develop and implement national climate change
gas facilities, currently concentrated in Nigeria.
action plans. Additionally, USAID will play an
Africa accounts for 21 percent of world gas
flaring, which in absolute terms still represents a
active role in the design and creation of the Inter-
modest level of emissions. USAID will, however,
Agency Climate Change Program that the
President called for in June.
pay increasing attention to new petroleum
investments in Angola, Equatorial Guinea and
Critical to success will be the implementation of
elsewhere, which may magnify this source.
strategies for combating climate change that are
Central Africa. Central Africa, with its vast forest
based upon local needs and interests. USAID
reserves, is the most important sub-region of
emphasizes different priorities in each of its key
Africa for purposes of storing carbon and
climate change countries and regions. While
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
those strategies will undoubtedly evolve as the
Maintaining the carbon "sink" potential of the
Initiative moves forward, the current suite of
region is the focus of a four-year forest
programs planned or ongoing in these twelve
conservation project in Congo that is just being
countries demonstrates the approach USAID
completed as well as the five-year Central
intends to use in combating climate change.
African Regional Program for the Environment
(CARPE), which is in the early stages of
implementation.
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
33
U.S. Agency for International Development
CARPE's objective is to work with African
with environmental issues of forest management
partners to identify and help establish conditions
in the Congo basin. As a result of CEFDHAC,
and practices that will reduce deforestation and
Africans are showing a willingness to collaborate
biodiversity loss in the Congo Basin. CARPE
with donors on technical issues requiring
attempts to use local knowledge to identify ways
regional resolution. USAID will continue to
to limit deforestation and thereby retain the forest
nurture the CEFDHAC process. By the end of
as a significant global carbon sink. CARPE's
five years, CEFDHAC will be a significantly
specific activities include remote sensing and
better and more pertinent organization,
Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis to
representing the aspirations of its members
improve forest cover data, coordination with
regarding the issues of the forest environment in
scientists studying biomass and developing
the Congo basin.
carbon inventories for various forest types, and
coordination with scientists monitoring
South Africa. South Africa ratified the FCCC in
atmospheric chemistry, testing predictive models
August of this year. It is currently the fifteenth
of forest degradation and deforestation, and
largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gases
identifying policies that improve forest
worldwide and the seventh largest developing
management.
country emitter. One of the key areas for action
under the U.S./South Africa Binational
CARPE's intended goals are to ensure that
Commission (BNC) is energy sector
indigenous forest resource management and
collaboration, and the Vice President and others
conservation practices are better understood and
have indicated a strong interest in cooperation
strengthened, identify and pilot strategies for
on climate change issues. USAID will begin to
assessing and reducing the negative
identify opportunities to engage South African
environmental consequences of logging, identify
partners in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
and test strategies to promote and evaluate
especially emissions related to the country's
smallholder agricultural practices that help
reliance on coal for power generation.
reduce deforestation and biodiversity loss,
develop infrastructure reconstruction strategies
Asia and the Near East
that maximize social and economic benefits
while minimizing adverse environmental impacts,
Reducing greenhouse gases is one of USAID's
determine and pilot test promising strategies for
top environmental priorities in the Asia and Near
using non-timber forest products to contribute to
East region. USAID has three key countries in
forest conservation, assess consumptive and
the region- India, Indonesia and the Philippines-
non-consumptive use of wildlife and pilot test
which each have a significant climate change-
conservation strategies, enhance the
related portfolio of activities. In 1995, USAID
conservation status of biodiversity within
launched the two-year $11.5 million Asia
protected areas; and map areas of high
Sustainable Energy Initiative (ASEI) to foster the
biodiversity and identify gaps in the protected
development and implementation of energy
area system. As the CARPE partners gain a
production and distribution strategies that reduce
greater understanding of the problems and
greenhouse gas emissions while promoting
opportunities, opportunities will arise to
economic development in these three key
undertake specific activities to mitigate
countries.
emissions. Once CARPE is completed, the
understanding of the conditions and practices
USAID also has climate change-related activities
required to reduce deforestation and biodiversity
in Egypt and Nepal. In Egypt, USAID is working
loss in the Congo Basin will be greatly enhanced.
to improve the efficiency of the power and
transportation sectors to reduce air pollution
CARPE is supporting a new organization
(greenhouse gases in addition to local pollutants)
"Conference on the Ecosystems of Dense,
and to improve economic efficiency. In Nepal,
Humid Forests in Central Africa" (CEFDHAC),
USAID has relatively small programs focused on
which is the only African organization dealing
forest restoration and increasing Nepal's
34
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
capacity to develop small- and medium-scale
alternate sources of energy are all priorities.
hydropower resources in an environmentally and
Serious institutional barriers and resource
socially sound manner. The hydropower
limitations will have to be addressed.
programs will enable Nepal to develop in a
"climate-friendly" manner, with the side benefit of
India's transportation sector is another target of
building Nepal's capacity to eventually sell
opportunity. India's motor vehicles are highly
hydropower to India, thereby reducing India's
inefficient and polluting, emitting not only large
dependence on carbon-intense coal for power.
amounts of carbon dioxide but also
hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate
The Agency also has helped support the climate
matter, turning most urban areas into large
change-related efforts of multilateral
pockets of air pollution. The benefits of a focus
development banks in Sri Lanka. The portfolio of
on the transportation sector would be local as
programs in Asia reflects the need to focus on
well as global.
the rapid growth in energy demand that these
countries are facing as well as the loss of
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in India
important forest resources in Indonesia and the
requires the active involvement and participation
Philippines.
of the private sector. Private capital flows to
India already outstrip foreign assistance, and the
India. India is the world's fifth largest source of
growth in emissions in the future will result
greenhouse gas emissions and the second
primarily from growth in the private sector.
fastest growing source of emissions after China.
USAID activities to promote private sector
Electric power generation is the largest source of
participation in combating climate change will
greenhouse gases and is responsible for 71
foster the development of projects that increase
million tons of emitted carbon or 48 percent of
profitability while decreasing greenhouse gas
the carbon emitted from fossil fuels. The second
emissions. The major foci of assistance will be
largest contributor is the transportation sector,
on developing partnerships involving the U.S.
excluding railways, which contributes 11.3
and Indian private sector, non-governmental
percent of total Indian carbon dioxide emissions
organizations and the public sector.
from fossil fuels. India's continued growth
depends on extensive investments in
USAID has a broad and comprehensive program
infrastructure: ports, highways, and-most
to increase the environmental soundness of the
importantly-power generation capacity. It is
power sector. The program includes substantial
estimated that more than 140,000 megawatts of
efforts to promote energy efficiency and the
additional power, requiring approximately $200
commercialization of renewable energy.
billion in investments, will need to be added over
Additionally, USAID supports a specific climate
the next 15 years to meet needs.
change program, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Prevention Project (GEP). As GEP moves
Carbon dioxide emissions from land use
forward, the program will be expanded. Its goal
changes are also a concern in India, with rapid
will be to facilitate a more "climate-friendly" path
deforestation degrading more than 50 percent of
to development through a program focused on
India's land area. Methane is the other major
fostering technology transfer to industries and
greenhouse gas in India. Rice cultivation and
sectors that are major Indian greenhouse gas
livestock are the major national sources.
emitters.
Considerable discrepancies exist, however, in
estimates of anthropogenic (human-induced)
GEP currently promotes more efficient coal
methane emissions in India.
conversion to reduce the carbon dioxide emitted
per unit of power generated in existing coal-
The Indian power sector will continue to be
based power plants and investments in the
largely coal-based, given India's abundant,
production of year-round grid-quality power from
inexpensive coal resources. Therefore the
the waste associated with sugar production
dissemination of cleaner coal technologies and
(bagasse) and alternative biomass. GEP will
the development of renewable and clean
now have a more extensive range of activities to
For review and consultation-tio not quote or cite
35
U.S. Agency for International Development
increase the generation efficiency of existing
total installed power capacity from clean
thermal power plants and ensure that new power
technologies from 0.2 percent in 1994 to 2
generation capacity is more environmentally
percent in 1998, 3 percent in 1999, and 6
sound. Two additional program components
percent in 2000. USAID activities will also
may be added to foster technology transfer by
accelerate institutional, policy and legal changes
stimulating project financing, and combat climate
to increase efficiency in energy supply and end-
change through action in cities to improve
use. USAID activities to encourage and assist
transportation, energy efficiency and solid waste
community participation in forest management
management.
ultimately could involve all of India's public forest
land, some 70 million hectares, in community-
USAID will work with a wide range of Indian
based management by 2003.
partner organizations in implementing GEP.
Collaboration with the Indian National Thermal
Indonesia. Indonesia is the fourth most
Power Corporation and the Industrial
populous nation in the world, with a population of
Development Bank of India will continue. It will
more than 200 million. As a result of burgeoning
be supplemented by links to non-governmental
economic growth, power demand in Indonesia is
organizations such as Development Alternatives
growing at a rate of 16 percent per year. At the
and the Tata Energy Research Institute;
same time, Indonesia's extensive tropical forest
academic institutes such as the Jawaharlal
reserves, which constitute about half of Asia's
Nehru University and the Indira Gandhi Institute
remaining forests, are being deforested at rates
for Developmental Research; industry
estimated to be one million hectares per year.
associations such as the Confederation of Indian
USAID has a portfolio of programs focused on
Industry and the Federation of Indian Chambers
ensuring environmentally sound development of
of Commerce and Industry; and others involved
the power sector and more sustainable
in transportation, city planning and waste
management of forest resources.
management.
In the power sector, USAID is focused on
Forest covers approximately 23 percent of
ensuring that restructuring and reform of the
India's land area, and USAID has long been
power sector create incentives for energy
involved in improving the health of degraded
efficiency and the use of clean and alternative
forest lands in India. In the mid-1980s, India's
energy technologies. Renewable energy
natural forests were degrading rapidly under
presents a special opportunity for commercial
immense pressure from the estimated 50 to 200
investment in Indonesia: Indonesia enjoys
million forest users who unsustainably gathered
abundant renewable resources; grid-connected
biomass in the form of timber, leaves and
projects are being encouraged through a new
grasses. USAID helped develop policies to shift
Small Private Power Producer Program; and off-
forest management from the state to local
grid opportunities exist as a result of Indonesia's
communities. By late 1996, more than 20,000
island geography and vast rural zones. While
villages had formed forest protection groups that
power sector restructuring will help create a
oversee protection and rehabilitation of more
financially viable power sector that will help
than two million hectares. Working with the
attract the private investment needed to meet
support of USAID, local communities are
Indonesia's rapidly growing demand for power, it
devising plans to fit their community. In addition,
will be critical to ensure that the incentives for
with USAID support, the Asia Forest Network is
use of renewable energy technologies and
supporting organizational reforms at the state
energy efficiency are not lost.
level to facilitate decentralization of
management.
USAID is focused on assisting the Government
of Indonesia to protect and promote the
USAID projects that its efforts in the energy
application of renewable energy and energy
sector in India will avoid four million tons of
efficiency, particularly through private sector
carbon dioxide emissions per year. Additionally,
investment. Government of Indonesia (GOI)
the Agency hopes to increase the percentage of
policies encouraging renewable energy and
36
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
energy efficiency are in place but supporting
2002) the savings has reached an estimated
regulations are needed. USAID is providing
420,000 megawatt hours.
substantial assistance to the Ministry of Mines
and Energy. The Agency is helping support
USAID's program in Indonesia couples these
decision-making throughout the regulatory and
energy sector activities with an effort to decrease
restructuring process to foster restructuring and
deforestation. Currently, about 70 percent of
ensure that the Indonesian Government takes
Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions result from
full advantage of the national potential for
land use changes. The introduction of
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
sustainable forest management policies and
practices, including reduced impact logging
USAID also is focused on fostering energy
techniques, offers significant opportunities to
efficiency in the immediate term. Implemented in
decrease the loss of carbon "sinks."
partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy,
Strengthening and decentralizing Indonesian
this program focuses on increasing the efficiency
forest management are crucial components of
of power generation by improving fuels, burner
USAID's climate change strategy. USAID's
efficiency and steam efficiency. Increases in
approach to forestry management in Indonesia
efficiency translate into enormous reductions in
includes helping the Indonesian Government to
emissions. For example, a 1 percent
replicate natural resource management "best
improvement in overall power plant efficiency of
practices" in parks and protected areas;
a 400 megawatt coal-fired power plant would
strengthening the roles of local communities and
avoid emission of 113,648 metric tons of carbon
institutions in sustainable forestry management;
dioxide per year. USAID also is exploring the
working with Indonesia's logging companies to
potential impact that improved motor efficiency
convince them of the benefits of less damaging
would have on energy consumption.
logging practices; and documenting lessons
learned on sustainable forestry management
USAID also is providing support to several non-
policies and practices, for dissemination to
governmental organizations, particularly to
Indonesians.
promote renewable energy project development.
YBUL, an Indonesian non-governmental
The impact of these natural resources
organization specializing in promoting private
management program in Indonesia will be
sector investment in renewable energy, is
measured in several ways. Direct USAID
coordinating the Renewable Energy Network
assistance with the management of parks,
Indonesia, which fosters U.S. private sector
protected areas, and community-based forest
investment in the Indonesian renewable energy
and coastal resources is expected to impact
sector. USAID also is working with Winrock
700,000 hectares by the year 2003. The broader
International to demonstrate the commercial
estimated impact of USAID assistance is
feasibility of wind power systems in Indonesia's
expected to be 17 million hectares in the year
eastern islands. The project will demonstrate the
2003. USAID also will examine the extent to
potential applications for wind energy in rural
which "best practices" are employed in parks,
Indonesia and teach local people how to operate
protected areas, and community-based forest
and maintain self-sustaining, wind-powered
and coastal resources. It is estimated that
enterprises. Finally, in partnership with the
USAID best practices will have been put to use
World Bank and Winrock, USAID is developing
on 720,000 hectares by the year 2003. USAID
several biomass energy projects.
also will measure its success in strengthening
community organizations and local institutions.
The goal of the USAID energy sector effort in
Indonesia is to avoid the emission of one million
Philippines. The demand for energy in the
tons of greenhouse gases and local pollutants
Philippines is growing exponentially. While
per year over the next three to five years. The
energy consumption between 1980 and 1990
projected energy savings over the next five
increased annually by 2.6 percent, consumption
years is 140,000 megawatt hours in 1989/1999,
increased by 8.3 percent per year between 1990
increasing very year until after five years (in
and 1994. Over the next decade, per the
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
37
U.S. Agency for International Development
Philippine energy plan, the Philippine power
field" among the various power generation
sector will grow by 350 percent. Coal will be the
technologies and require that new coal-based
primary energy source. Deforestation also is a
power meets the GOP's more stringent 1998
significant problem in the Philippines. In 1991-
environmental standards.
1992, land use changes accounted for almost 70
percent of carbon dioxide emissions. The rate of
USAID recently completed an analysis of
growth in net greenhouse gas emissions will be
constraints that impede the expanded
a critical issue in the Philippines, and the
commercial investment in the development of
Government of the Philippines is eager to
renewable energy resources. Based on this
collaborate with USAID in implementing
analysis, USAID has opened discussions with
strategies to improve energy efficiency and
the PDOE and other GOP agencies to amend
expand the use of clean fuels for power
the policy and regulatory constraints and look at
generation.
changing institutional procedures that discourage
investors from developing renewable energy for
Consequently, the most promising area for
commercial power generation. In addition to this
intervention in the Philippines at this time is the
work, USAID supports the Renewable Energy
energy sector. The Government is very
Project Support Office in the Philippines, which
motivated to secure inexpensive, efficient energy
helps finance pre-feasibility studies of potential
supplies so that the country can sustain its
renewable energy development projects.
economic growth. The USAID strategy for work
in the Philippine energy sector will include efforts
USAID is carrying out a wide range of activities
to assist national climate change action planning,
to improve energy generation, transmission,
foster development of a policy framework to
distribution and end-use efficiency. For
encourage private investment in clean
example, USAID is financing a program that is
technology and energy efficiency, collaborate
working with the PDOE, the Philippines Energy
with the Government of the Philippines to
Regulatory Board, and several industries to pilot
develop and implement several energy efficiency
industrial demand side management (DSM).
programs, and promote accelerated
USAID is also supporting industrial demand side
development of indigenous natural gas
management through the development of a
resources. Currently, USAID is providing
database on motors, that will enable industry
assistance to the GOP to accelerate the
managers to compare life-cycle costs and
development of indigenous natural gas sources;
efficiencies of various motors before making
promote the use of clean coal technologies in
purchases, a national effort to enhance local
existing and planned coal-fired power plants; and
capacity to test and rate electric motors, lights
expand commercial investment in, and
and appliances for energy efficiency and
development of, indigenous sources of
increase energy code compliance, and a
renewable energy for power production.
commercial DSM effort focused on shopping
malls.
USAID will continue to provide technical
assistance to the Philippine Department of
In addition to energy sector work, USAID has an
Energy (PDOE), Philippines Department of
on-going program to bring at least 10 percent
Environment and Natural Resources, and the
(500,000 hectares) of the country's remaining
Department of Science and Technology in
forests under more sustainable management by
managing the Philippines National Action Plan to
1999. To achieve this goal, USAID is working
mitigate and adapt to changes in global climate.
with the Government of the Philippines to
USAID is working with the PDOE to develop
transfer management responsibility and use
economic models that will enable policy makers
rights to communities that border or are located
to compare the financial, economic,
within public forest lands. In return for protecting
environmental and social impacts of natural gas,
and managing the forests, the communities will
coal and renewable energy technologies. Using
be given the right to harvest some forest
this analysis as the basis, USAID will assist the
products within the limits of an approved
PDOE in revising regulations to "level the playing
management plan. USAID, working through the
38
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Philippine Department of Environment and
Poland, Kazakstan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and
Natural Resources, is assisting the communities
Romania. As a heavily industrialized region,
to develop these plans and set up the
these countries are large and highly inefficient
management systems to monitor management of
energy consumers. Due to an economic system
the forests. Since land conversion is a
that heavily subsidized energy production and
significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
consumption, energy intensity in the ENI
putting in place this "social fence" already has
economies - measured as the amount of
significantly reduced the incidence of slash-and-
energy consumed per dollar of GNP produced -
burn agriculture and fire in areas under
generally ranges from double to quintuple the
community-based forestry management.
energy intensity of Western industrialized
countries. For this reason, USAID's approach to
The impact of these efforts to reduce
mitigating the ENI-based threat of global climate
greenhouse gases will be measured in terms of
change focuses heavily on energy efficiency and
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions
direct emissions reduction, with less emphasis
avoided. Through efforts in the energy sector,
on carbon-absorption and land management.
USAID's goal in the Philippines between 1998
and 2002 is to avoid more than 47 million metric
The four key climate change countries and
tons of carbon dioxide, with 40 million metric tons
region in ENI are Russia, Poland, Ukraine and
avoided through efforts to promote the use of
the Central Asian Republics (CAR) of Kazakstan,
renewable energy technologies and natural gas.
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and
and 7 million metric tons through increased
Turkmenistan. All use significant quantities of
energy efficiency.
domestic coal and lignite - a major factor in
their greenhouse gas emissions. Assessments
Central and Eastern Europe, and New
have confirmed the substantial potential for coal-
Independent States
bed methane production. Nuclear power
generation is significant in Russia and Ukraine,
The transition from centrally planned to market
but many of the plants are unsafe. It is likely that
economies in the countries of Central and
thermal generation will replace some of these
Eastern Europe and the New Independent States
plants (increasing emissions), although potential
of the former Soviet Union (ENI countries) has
for increased energy efficiency will make it
important implications for the energy and
possible to defer new capacity in many cases.
environmental systems affecting the threat of
With assistance from USAID and the multilateral
global climate change. The transition initially
resulted in sharp reductions in economic output.
banks, many ENI countries are undertaking
energy consumption and greenhouse gas
major reforms to improve power-sector efficiency
emissions from peak 1990 levels. While
through the development of decentralized
economic growth and energy demand have been
competitive power markets. USAID bilateral
restored in several countries that have
assistance programs are supporting these
implemented economic reforms, it will be some
reforms by improving the legal and regulatory
time before greenhouse gas emissions reach
framework for investment and introducing
former levels. Some countries have made
commercial management systems in utility
progress in improving energy efficiency, shifting
companies. Foreign investor interest is high in
from coal to natural gas and petroleum products.
the CAR, Poland and Russia, and major
and putting environmental controls in place.
strategic investors have committed to
rehabilitation of thermal plants in the CAR and
The ENI region has significant fossil fuel energy
Poland. The creation of these power markets will
resources as well as forests. Russia dominates
lead to more rational energy prices and improved
production and consumption of fossil fuels and is
tariff collection, which will provide incentives for
the principal supplier of energy imports to Central
energy efficiency investments. Competitive
and Eastern Europe and the New Independent
electricity markets also will improve efficiency
States. Other major energy producers are
and reduce emissions in the ENI region. USAID
industrial and municipal energy efficiency
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
39
U.S. Agency for International Development
programs are demonstrating the large potential
Souther Tier countries such as Romania where
for savings in heat and electricity and supporting
problems will worsen. As Poland strives to meet
the development of local energy service
European Union standards for accession, Polish
companies (ESCOs) and associations.
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may
only impact on the margins of the issue as
In Russia, USAID is an active participant in the
problems in other nations mount. Limited
Environment Committee of the Gore-
funding might best be dedicated to other
Chernomyrdin Binational Commission, where
countries in the region.
efforts to introduce emissions trading are a high
priority.
Central Asia. Kazakstan is the fourteenth
largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide
The bilateral programs in the key countries are
worldwide and has the second highest rate of
complemented by ENI regional programs that
per capita greenhouse gas emissions after the
seek to develop regional power pools and further
United States. Uzbekistan also is a significant
interconnection with Western Europe, establish
carbon emitter, ranking 27th worldwide in
energy efficiency and environmental business
industrial carbon dioxide emissions. The
networks and partnership arrangements between
nations of the CAR are highly interdependent
local and US organizations, further cooperation
when it comes to energy sector resources. All
among the growing number of ENI countries
share the same watershed; hence, when
regarding the regulatory aspects of competitive
Kyrgyzstan absorbs a higher percentage of the
power market development, and promote
available hydroelectric power, Kazakstan is
environmental trade and investment through
forced to increase its dependence on coal. All of
U.S.-ENI business and non-governmental
the Central Asian Republics (CAR) - Kyrgyzstan,
organization partnerships.
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan- have
significant oil and gas, electric power and natural
With respect to increasing carbon absorptive
resources management needs. USAID therefore
capacity, USAID programs in the ENI Bureau
considers the CAR a key climate change region.
stress reliance on sustainable forestry.
Programs in the region have used a multifaceted
Part of the explanation for the high rate of
approach incorporating forest regeneration
emissions is the fact that Kazakstan has large
capability; fire suppression and control;
energy-intensive metal, chemical and refining
reforestation requirements for logging
plants within its borders. Kazakstan also has
concessions; efficient downstream processing of
approximately 24.5 million hectares of forest
domestic timber harvests and conservation
land, 95 percent of which is protected area. In
efforts aimed at preserving biodiversity; and
1995, there were 1,320 forest fires in Kazakstan
promotion of ecotourism, non-timber forest
which destroyed thousands of hectares of forest.
products and indigenous cultures.
Pests severely affected another 163,500
hectares.
USAID's sustainable forestry program in the
Russian Far East has worked in Primorskii and
Almost 80 percent of all greenhouse emissions
Khabarovskii Krai to build Russian capacity in all
generated in Kazakstan, however, come from
these areas. The program in the Ukraine has
the use of coal in the electrical power sector.
worked with local and national authorities to
While Kazakstan's electrical generation capacity
promote ecotourism and biodiversity
was 17,380 megawatts in 1995, Kazakstan is a
conservation. USAID programs also build
net importer of energy. Kazakstan is also a
community-based forestry in Albania, and
major producer, consumer and exporter of coal.
promote national parks and conservation areas
Kazakstan produces about 125 million tons of
in Bulgaria.
coal per year, about 70 percent of which is
consumed domestically. Oil consumption
As the USAID program in Poland phases out
accounts for 40 percent of the carbon dioxide
over the next few years, USAID's strategy in ENI
produced from fossil fuels every year.
will shift to focus increasing on efforts in the
Development of the oil and gas sector in the
40
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Caspian Sea is expected to accelerate rapidly
demonstration projects. The GEF project in
and will likely result in greatly expanded refining
Poland targets the reduction of emissions
capacity in the basin. Finally, natural gas
through gas conversion, forestry development
resources in Kazakstan offer the potential to
and biodiversity activities.
reduce emission levels by reducing coal and oil
consumption.
The Government of Poland has made
environmental considerations prominent in its
USAID will expand its global climate change
national Transport Policy (1994) and Industrial
strategy in the CAR to support power sector
Policy (1993). These new laws address the
restructuring and environmentally sound
pollution caused by the transport sector,
development of oil and gas resources. After
including fuel sources, as Poland rebuilds its
meeting needs in these priority areas, USAID will
infrastructure. The legislation introduces an
contemplate support for the urban and industrial
obligation to (1) prepare environmental impact
pollution control activities of the Kazakstan
assessments for investments related to transport
National Environmental Action Plan being
infrastructure, (2) tighten the requirements for
developed in cooperation with the World Bank.
reduction of exhaust gases, (3) increase power
Finally, limited agriculture sector interventions to
efficiency, and (4) set new standards for fuels
mitigate global climate change also may be
with a lower content of hazardous substances.
undertaken.
The dramatic increase in vehicle usage,
however, coupled with new road projects, may
Poland. Poland has the largest electric power
offset progress.
sector in Central and Eastern Europe, 90 percent
of which is coal-based. As a result of the high
The National Agency for Efficient Energy Use
level of coal consumption, 60 percent of Poland's
and the Polish Power Centre were recently
industry relies on coal. Poland is the sixth largest
established. Parliament has adopted a national
emitter of carbon dioxide in Europe. On a per
energy policy through the year 2010. In addition,
capita basis, carbon dioxide emissions are
a modest fee on carbon dioxide emissions was
slightly above average for OECD/European
introduced in 1995 and government subsidies to
Union member countries. Nonetheless, in terms
the coal industry have been reduced.
of emissions per unit of GDP, Poland produces
Procedures for "tradeable permits" for emissions
twice as much carbon dioxide as the worst
are being developed. Energy consumption per
emitter in the OECD. Methane emissions result
unit of GDP during the period 1991-1995
mainly from animal husbandry and coal
dropped by about 18 percent, and hard coal use
extraction (1 million tons each). A relatively small
decreased markedly.
quantity comes from landfills (360,000 tons). In
fact, the combined effect of methane emissions
As part of its Local Government Partnership
may be as large as one-third of the effect of
Program (LGPP), USAID/Poland will focus
carbon dioxide emissions.
climate change efforts on selected activities at
the local level. USAID will not be involved in
In 1991, the U.S. swapped 10 percent ($360
policy creation on the central level, except
million) of Poland's total debt in the region's first
perhaps in response to a specific request from
debt-for-nature swap aimed as protecting and
the relevant central administration.
improving the environment. One year later, the
newly established Ecofund received $26 million
USAID efforts in Poland will focus on the energy,
in funding from the swap. Projects that reduce
transport and solid waste sectors. In the energy
greenhouse gas emissions are the fund's top
sector, efforts would focus on improving district
priorities. To date, USAID has undertaken more
heating systems; promoting integrated resources
than $33 million in environmental project
planning; promoting energy efficiency in industry
activities in Poland, including improvements in
and municipalities through demonstration
district heating, promotion of energy-efficient
projects, energy efficiency investment planning
buildings, and clean coal and low emissions
and financing; renovation of buildings; and
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
41
U.S. Agency for International Development
strengthening energy service companies. Efforts
in the transport sector would focus on
Forestry and natural resource management also
enhancing the ability of local governments to
will be critical. Sustainable land-use policies will
plan and manage transport infrastructure to
be needed to balance the demand for valuable
improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas
natural resources with the desire to protect the
emissions. Activities to improve solid waste
environment. Interventions- such as land-use
management would focus on reducing methane
zoning, sustainable agriculture, land-use
emissions.
planning, forest and timber management, and
geographic information systems- can have the
Russia. Russia is responsible for approximately
greatest impact. USAID and the Government of
10 percent of the world's greenhouse gas
Russia share the goal of strengthening the policy
emissions (which is 22 percent lower than it was
and institutional framework for sustainable
in 1990). The energy sector is the major source
natural resource management, promoting
of emissions (up to 98 percent of carbon dioxide,
environmentally sustainable forest management,
and over 50 percent of methane and oxides of
and protecting endangered species and critical
nitrogen). Russia also contains more than 22
habitats.
percent of the world's forested area, 50 percent
of the world's coniferous forest lands, and 21
USAID has begun to address global climate
percent of its estimated timber volume. Because
change-related issues by providing assistance to
Russia's forests provide the largest land-based
Russia in reshaping its energy sector to support
carbon store in the world, the threat of logging
the transition to a market economy. The
and inefficient land-use practices is critical.
program supports efforts to rationalize energy
prices and develop sound national energy
The Russian Federation ratified the FCCC in
policies, and restructure, commercialize and
November 1996. In 1995-96, the Russian
privatize specific energy sub-sectors (power, oil,
Federation prepared the Federal Program for
gas and coal). The project supports cooperation
Climate Change to focus on policy reform,
between U.S. and Russian utilities and energy
capacity building, and the introduction of new
organizations. USAID also support efforts to
technologies to transform the Russian energy
promote fuel switching and combustion efficiency
and forestry sectors into sustainable areas of
in district heating boilers and central power
growth. Building on the commitment of the
plants. Additionally, a housing sector reform
Russian Federation and the support of the
program promotes residential energy efficiency
international development community, the
in six cities in Russia by installing meters.
primary areas of opportunity for intervention in
USAID also provides assistance to strengthen
Russia will be in energy and industry,
the policy and institutional framework for
sustainable land use and forestry, and natural
sustainable natural resource management;
resources management.
promote environmentally sustainable forest
management; and enhance the protection of
The Russian energy sector suffers from
endangered species and critical habitats. USAID
overwhelming financial difficulties, extreme
is supporting the development of sustainable
inefficiencies, and the difficulties of transition
land-use programs in four of Russia's most
from a large, centrally planned state entity to a
pristine areas.
modern, efficient provider of power. The
Russian energy sector can reshape itself to
In coordination with the Government of Russia,
support the transition to a market economy while
USAID has identified strategic areas that will
supporting climate change initiatives by
address climate change-related concerns over
rationalizing energy prices and developing sound
the next five years. Given adequate resources,
national energy policies; improving energy
USAID would build on its current energy and
efficiency in industry, buildings, power and
forestry portfolios. On the energy side, the focus
municipal heating systems; and restructuring,
will be on energy sector restructuring and tariff
commercializing and privatizing specific power,
reforms, particularly in the electric utility sector to
oil, gas and coal energy sub-sectors.
increase power generation, transmission,
42
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
distribution and use efficiency. In forestry,
efficiency in industry, municipalities,
programs will include additional work on fire
transportation, agriculture, gas, and the fuel and
management, reforestation and forestry policy.
power sectors.
USAID will add technical assistance to support
emissions trading. (This would be contingent on
The GOU recognizes the need for significant
consensus in support of emissions trading at the
investments and restructuring of its economy,
third Conference of the Parties, Russian
particularly the energy and industrial sectors.
agreement to implement a bilateral emissions
With investments of $300 to $400 million, the
trading program, and perhaps the viability of a
Government estimates that coal bed methane
World Bank proposal for fostering emissions
technology could reduce emissions of methane
trading of greenhouse gases.)
by 3,348 metric tons. An investment of $4 to 6
million in diagnostics could introduce efficiencies
Ukraine. Ukraine is the eighth largest industrial
and reduce system losses in the methane
emitter of carbon dioxide. Ukrainian emissions
production, storage and distribution network by
result from the fact that a high proportion of the
6138 metric tons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides
economy is devoted to manufacturing using
could be reduced by introducing specialized
energy-intensive equipment and outdated
combustion equipment and technologies for $15
technology. In 1995, emissions of carbon
to 20 million. Investments of $1.1 billion to
dioxide were 9 percent lower than 1990 levels.
establish new waste processing enterprises
This was due to a drop in industrial output and a
would enable the Ukraine to reduce the volume
13 percent decrease in the supply of fossil fuels.
of solid wastes at landfills and reduce methane
During the same period, however, coal's share of
emissions. Installation of purification facilities for
the Ukrainian fuel supply rose by 15 percent.
wastewater processing would enable the
Ukraine's 1995 carbon dioxide was 13 tons per
methane recovery and result in significant
capita- greater than the European Union
methane emission reductions.
targets which are 5.4 tons per capita in 2010 and
1.1 tons per capital in 2050. As Ukraine's
The GOU is studying the use of economic
economy recovers and its industry, agriculture.
instruments to achieve its reduction goals and
and energy sectors increase output, emissions of
commitments. The reform program in Ukraine
greenhouse gases will rise unless significant
has not moved smoothly or predictably.
interventions are made to restore sinks and
Because of the large manufacturing sector, the
minimize sources.
heavy reliance on coal, and the Chernobyl issue,
The Government of Ukraine (GOU) is currently
USAID has focused on demonstration activities
planning how to meet its obligations under the
and targeted policy assistance. The current
FCCC. The GOU signed or ratified more than 20
emphases are energy efficiency, waste
international agreements pertaining to the
minimization, environmental auditing, demand
environment that require the modification of
side management, coal bed methane, policy
legislation. The Ministry of Environmental
reform, sustainable agriculture, sustainable
Protection and Nuclear Safety (MEPNS) is
forestry and biodiversity conservation.
undertaking a series of programs to comply with
the agreements. MEPNS has identified a series
USAID's ongoing programs in energy efficiency,
of strategic interventions that will be required to
waste minimization, alternative energy sources,
comply with the climate change convention.
renewable energy, power and coal sector reform
According to preliminary calculations, Ukraine's
and natural resources conservation provide
emissions of greenhouse gases can be reduced
significant support for the climate change-related
below 1990 levels by implementing the "State
priorities of the GOU. Additional resources
Complex Program of Energy Efficiency in
would enable USAID to leverage international
Ukraine up to 2010." The GOU estimates it can
financial institutions and the private sector to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
institutionalize these programs, fill critical gaps in
equivalent to 104 million tons carbon dioxide by
existing programs, and help Ukraine fulfill the
the year 2015 through increased energy
terms and spirit of the FCCC. Activities would be
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
43
U.S. Agency for International Development
initiated to encourage gas sector reform,
in the region. For example, in 1995, the
promote clean coal technology, increase fuel
Environmental Initiative for the Americas devoted
efficiency and improve transport planning,
$9.7 million to promoting sustainable energy
increase energy efficiency in district heating,
production and use throughout Latin America;
improve municipal waste and landfill
that initiative spurred a greater focus on
management, and enhance forest conservation.
promotion of renewable energy and energy
efficiency in Central America, Brazil and Mexico.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Brazil. Brazil is the largest emitter of
USAID has two key climate change countries
greenhouse gases in Latin America, and in 1991
and one key region in Latin America. For more
Brazil was the fifth largest net greenhouse gas
than seven years, USAID's climate change
emitter worldwide. Most of Brazilian emissions
activities in Brazil, Mexico and Central America
result from the loss of Amazonian forests. From
have introduced cutting-edge energy
1980-1990, Brazil's annual deforestation rate
technologies and improved land use practices
was 0.6 percent per year. Although this may
that reduce greenhouse emissions and continue
seem modest compared to other tropical
to leverage significant donor resources.
countries, 36,700 square kilometers of forests
were lost over the decade; between 1991 and
The USAID program in Brazil protects forests
1994, the deforestation rate increased to about
covering an area larger than the country of Israel
0.8 percent per year.
and has introduced pilot activities for protecting
forests that have leveraged tens of millions of
Brazil is also the 22nd largest industrial
dollars from the G-7 Pilot Program to Conserve
greenhouse gas emitter. According to a 1997
the Brazilian Amazon. In Mexico, USAID's
WorldWatch Institute report, Brazil's industrial
efforts have reduced deforestation rates on lands
carbon dioxide emissions increased 20 percent
equivalent in size to the Carolinas and have
from 1990 to 1995. Given the recent
avoided the emission of more than 350,000 tons
improvement of Brazil's economy, it is likely that
of carbon dioxide emissions through the
industrial carbon dioxide emissions will continue
promotion of renewable energy and energy
to increase.
efficiency. Many of those energy programs are
now being replicated with Government of Mexico
Brazil's poor and overpopulated northeast region
and World Bank funding. In Central America,
is particularly vulnerable to climate change if the
USAID has improved protection of over 20
frequency of regional droughts increases, as
forested national parks, established trust funds
predicted by some climate change scenarios.
for forest conservation and environmental
The potential for increased El Niño events would
protection in six countries, supported
threaten the globally important biological
establishment of joint implementation offices in 2
diversity of the Atlantic Coastal Rain Forest
countries, and launched a region-wide $10
("Mata Atlantica") and the neighboring Cerrado,
million environmental enterprises fund with Inter-
which also harbors Brazil's agricultural heartland.
American Development Bank and bilateral
support. USAID intends to build on these
USAID has robust forestry and energy sector
successes. USAID also is continuing its
efforts in support of its climate change-related
programs to protect the forests of the Andean
goals. The program works primarily through U.S.
countries by promoting forest conservation and
non-governmental organizations and a host of
sustainable forest management programs in
partner Brazilian organizations. In the forestry
Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia and the regional
sector, the presence of large, multi-donor efforts
Parks in Peril program.
in the Brazilian Amazon and Mata Atlantica as
well as the proliferation of strong Brazilian
Complementing the core program of activities in
environmental non-governmental organizations
Latin America have been initiatives focused on
provide a unique opportunity for successful
building the portfolio of environmental programs
USAID interventions to reduce greenhouse gas
44
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
emissions from deforestation. The multilateral
and train key public and private sector personnel
G-7 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian
in the technologies, approaches and public
Amazon (PPG-7), a $290 million effort managed
policies necessary to promote clean energy
by the World Bank, is beginning to implement
sector development in Brazil.
forest conservation activities, primarily in the
Amazon.
Over the next two years, USAID's global climate
change program in Brazil will focus more on
To meet its energy needs, Brazil will need more
promoting effectively managed forests and
than 6,000 megawatts of additional generation
conservation units, especially in the Amazon,
capacity by the year 2000. This increased
and increasing the use of efficient and renewable
energy demand does not fully account for the
sources of energy. By the end of 1999, 9 million
development needs of the poor. Currently,
acres of parks and extractive reserves will be
Brazil's electric grid system fails to reach
better protected, 600,000 acres of Amazon
approximately 30 million people. Much of the
commercial forests and agroforestry systems will
additional capacity will probably come from fossil
be managed sustainably, 200 megawatts of
fuel power plants. In an effort to avoid
energy from renewable sources will be produced
constructing some new capacity and deliver
in northeast Brazil, and the Brazilian industrial
energy services to a greater percentage of the
sector will save 300 megawatts of energy by
population, USAID will promote clean renewable
adopting energy efficiency technologies.
energy technologies and help the Brazilians
shape and implement a $150 million renewable
Central America. Central America is unique in
energy loan from the World Bank. To minimize
the developing world because of its unequivocal
the need for new capacity, USAID also will work
support, at the highest levels of government and
with Brazil's rapidly privatizing industrial sector to
industry, for North-South collaboration on climate
increase energy use efficiency.
change initiatives. Central America has been
particularly effective among G-77 countries in
The USAID forestry program in Brazil will
promoting approaches which promote climate
continue to promote the development of
change mitigation and adaptation. Designating
ecologically and economically sustainable
Central America as a priority region will
policies and activities to manage forest
recognize and ensure continuation of its climate
resources in the Amazonian states. The
change leadership. It also will promote and
program's strategic focus will include applied
accelerate a wide range of additional initiatives
research and demonstration activities with forest
that will serve as models for the rest of the
communities on the harvest non-timber products
developing world, including those intended to
from standing forests and plantations; training
transcend national boundaries or affect small
and institutional strengthening in research,
nations.
planning and management skills; and policy
analyses and environmental impact
Central America also possesses two of the
assessments. USAID will continue to influence
Western Hemisphere's largest contiguous
the design and implementation of the PPG-7;
carbon sinks north of the Amazon: the Mayan
USAID and its Brazilian partners will
Forest in Guatemala and Belize (and southern
demonstrate successful alternatives to tropical
Mexico) and the Mosquitia Region of Honduras
deforestation and unsustainable land use
and Nicaragua. Unfortunately, Central America's
practices that can be replicated. Smaller
deforestation rate ranks among the world's
activities will conserve key fragments of the Mata
highest and currently stands at an estimated
Atlantica.
2.13 percent loss in forest cover per year.
USAID's energy strategy in Brazil will continue to
Central America depends heavily on
promote the use of renewable energy and
hydroelectric power for energy. Should climate
energy efficiency technologies, improve private
change impact rainfall patterns or reduce
sector participation in the energy services sector.
forested watersheds, electricity production and
For review and consultation-co not quote or cite
45
U.S. Agency for International Development
hence economic development, will be greatly
using renewable energy, and private sector
impaired. Changing rainfall patterns and the
investment in "clean energy" technologies
exaggerated El Niño effect also would lead to
(renewable energy and energy efficiency)
increased desertification, crop failure, flooding
through joint implementation.
and landslides with significant losses in national
production, infrastructure repairs and human
USAID will work regionally and bilaterally to
casualties. Coastal zones are especially
address these needs. Regionally, USAID will
vulnerable to flooding during storm surges if
accelerate our work in developing and
major climate events, such as hurricanes,
disseminating models for reducing the impacts of
increase. In the Caribbean, along the world's
climate change, such as regional projects to
second largest barrier reef, the growing
capture carbon within the Meso-American
ecotourism industry is vulnerable if climate
Biodiversity Corridor; encourage shaded coffee
change leads to coral bleaching. In some cases,
and methane gas recovery; establish a regional
the coral around keys off the coast of Belize
monitoring, reporting and feedback systems to
have already suffered from severe bleaching.
facilitate the flow of resources to the most
effective mitigation efforts, further develop
At the December 1994 Miami Summit of the
private sector partnerships and access to U.S.
Americas, the Heads of State of the U.S. and
technology, and engage in regional policy
Central America signed the "Declaracion
dialogue and donor coordination. Bilaterally,
Conjunta Centroamerica-USA" (CONCAUSA)- a
USAID will assist host countries to establish and
joint declaration and Action Plan to protect the
strengthen national climate change offices,
region's rich biodiversity, strengthen
clarify institutional responsibilities, identify
environmental protection legislation, expand
national climate change priorities, conduct
renewable energy use and promote more open
training and provide technical assistance in
trade. CONCAUSA, therefore, demonstrates the
carbon sequestration certification and
region's political will, and U.S. Government
monitoring, develop new joint implementation
commitment, to confront the region's critical
projects, and facilitate participation in the FCCC.
deforestation and sustainable energy supply
problems.
Mexico. Mexico is the second largest emitter of
greenhouse gases in Latin America and the
Within the energy sector, recent serious
twelfth largest industrial emitter of greenhouse
shortages of electricity rocked the region's
gases worldwide. Significant Mexican
economies, especially in Honduras. As a result
greenhouse gas emissions also result from
of these shortages, and in concert with
deforestation. Between 1981 and 1990, the
worldwide trends, the countries of the region
Mexican deforestation rate was 1.3 percent per
have been shifting toward much more private
year, meaning that almost 6.8 million hectares of
sector involvement and investment in the power
Mexican forest were lost over that time.
sub-sector, greater interest in renewable energy
sources, and increased desire to acquire U.S.-
Mexico's drylands and coastal areas are
based energy technologies.
especially vulnerable to climate change. Many
formerly fertile areas of northwest and Central
USAID's primary approach to addressing climate
Mexico are desertifying due to unsustainable
change issues in Central America is to ensure
land use practices. The increased droughts that
the conservation of critical carbon sinks which
are expected under some climate change
simultaneously protect biological diversity.
scenarios would exacerbate the desertification
Additional key approaches include improving the
problem, reducing agricultural yields and water
region's legal and regulatory frameworks to
supplies for urban and industrial uses, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other
increasing poverty and migration. Coastal
pollutants, such as potentially more dangerous
areas- including many tourist zones, such as
methane gas from Central America's urban
Cancún, Mazatlán and Puerto Vallarta- are
landfills, and to encourage rural electrification
vulnerable to sea level rise. Mexico's Caribbean
46
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
coast is also vulnerable to increased frequency
clean energy technologies; and strengthening
of hurricanes, while coral reefs could experience
Mexican institutions involved in promoting,
increased bleaching and death as water
financing and regulating clean energy
temperatures rise.
technologies.
Currently, more than 80,000 villages, or about 5
As part of a strategy to protect Mexico's globally
percent of households, lack electricity. In
important biological diversity while also
response to this need, and a Presidential pledge
addressing climate change issues, USAID will
to electrify every Mexican village of 100 or more
help protect Mexican carbon sinks by improving
people, several Mexican federal and state
the management of forested protected areas and
agencies are promoting renewable energy
buffer zones. Key interventions will include
technologies as a tool for providing electricity to
supporting on-site management of core
the rural poor. USAID and the U.S. Department
protected areas; providing alternatives to
of Energy-funded pilot renewable energy
deforestation and unsustainable land use in the
projects were instrumental in leading the
buffer zones around protected areas (eg.
Mexicans to this strategy. Maquiladora
agroforestry, organic coffee production, and
industries, which are growing at 5 percent per
ecotourism); promoting sustainable, non-
year, are starting to profit from energy efficiency
destructive resource use in buffer zones and
and pollution prevention technologies that make
non-protected areas (eg. sustainable forestry,
them more competitive while they reduce
honey production and marketing and use of
greenhouse gas and noxious emissions. In
medicinal plants); strengthening Mexican
Mexico City, the integration of renewable energy,
organizations devoted to conservation; and
energy efficiency, and pollution prevention
improving the policy environment for protected
activities into "Resource Management Systems"
areas management.
(RMS) is occurring through USAID-supported
demonstration activities. Mexican energy
Over the next two years, the USAID global
organizations have been replicating USAID-
climate program in Mexico will be to reduce
funded energy efficient technologies and
carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and
applications.
household sources and reduce deforestation
rates in southern Mexico, primarily by improving
The Government of Mexico (GOM), with support
the conservation of key protected areas and their
from the GEF and the USAID-supported Mexico
buffer zones. By the end of 1999, the adoption
Nature Conservation Fund, has committed to
of renewable energy and energy efficiency
conserving Mexico's biological diversity. Much
technologies will prevent the emissions of almost
of this biodiversity resides in heavily forested
820,000 tons of carbon dioxide and the yearly
protected areas that also are significant carbon
deforestation rate in targeted areas will be
sinks. Additionally, the increasing number and
reduced by 33 to 50 percent. In addition, more
strength of Mexican non-governmental
than 80 industrial firms will adopt cleaner
organizations and community-based
production technologies and practices, more
organizations interested in conservation and
than 6,500 Mexican will benefit from adopting
natural resource management offer unique
clean energy technologies, and more than 15
opportunities to strengthen local capacity and
million acres of Mexican protected areas and
garner grassroots support for conserving
their buffer zones will be adequately managed.
Mexican forests.
The USAID energy sector program in Mexico will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the
energy sector by promoting clean energy
technologies (eg. renewable energy, energy
efficiency and pollution prevention); fostering the
introduction of policies to promote investment in
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
47
U.S. Agency for International Development
48
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Managing the Action Plan
USAID Management
Bureau, regional bureaus and missions of all
relevant activities, analyses, workshops and
USAID climate change programs will combine an
conferences being undertaken by inter-agency
emphasis on meeting local needs with a greater
programs, and provide ample opportunity for
focus on global goals and objectives. Climate
mission and/or regional bureau involvement. G/
change activities will be developed based upon
ENV also will be expected to monitor and report
local priorities, while effectively combating the
on the results achieved for USAID contributions
growth in net emissions of greenhouse gases.
to inter-agency activities.
A USAID Climate Change Committee will be
The USAID Management Bureau will ensure that
formed to make decisions over issues of policy
obligations are commensurate with fulfilling the
related to implementation of the USAID Climate
President's commitment. The Management
Change Action Plan. The Committee will include
Bureau also will provide guidance on closeout
representatives nominated by Assistant
plan and nonpresence country procedures
Administrators from each bureau within USAID.
related to operating in countries moving to
Any issues that the Committee cannot resolve
nonpresence status. PPC and G/ENV Bureau
will be sent forward for resolution to Agency
will track attributions of funding for climate
Senior Staff in the form of a Decision
change against reporting of results to the
Memorandum.
Agency-wide Special Objective on climate
change. A review and revision of the Activity
The Agency-wide Climate Change Team will
Code/Special Interest (AC/SI) coding system will
continue to serve as the locus for information
be undertaken to ensure that coding facilitates
sharing on programming, current events, results
results reporting.
reporting and USAID collaboration with other
Agencies and development partners. Consistent
Budget
with its role as Agency technical representative
on climate change, the USAID Global Bureau
The obligation of resources under the
Center for Environment (G/ENV) will continue to
President's Initiative will focus on mitigating net
facilitate the Climate Change Team.
greenhouse gas emissions, and fostering
developing and transition country participation in
The USAID Policy and Program Coordination
the FCCC. USAID obligations will include at least
Bureau (PPC) will continue to oversee and
$750 million in grant assistance over the next
ensure the consistent application of USAID
five years, as well as the use of credit
policy on climate change Agency-wide. PPC will
instruments to leverage at least $250 million in
continue to act as USAID representative on
additional climate change-related trade and
matters of policy. Finally, as the USAID Bureau
investment.
with the lead for development partnering, PPC
will ensure that climate change receives a high
An annual floor of $150 million in Agency-wide
level of attention on the Agency's development
climate change-related obligations will be
partnering agenda. and will facilitate the
created for the next five years. Of the total $750
involvement of other USAID actors in this area.
million in climate change-related grant
assistance, at least 40 percent will be obligated
The G/ENV will continue to serve as USAID
to programs in the Agency's key climate change
representative to all future inter-agency climate
countries and regions. A significant additional
change programs. G/ENV will be expected to
percentage will be obligated to the Agency's
inform fully other centers within the Global
program in Egypt. Assuming Congressional
For review and consuitation-do not quote or cite
49
U.S. Agency for International Development
approval for the use of credit, at least two thirds
foster "climate-friendly" development are being
of the investment USAID stimulates through the
adopted in key climate change countries and
use of credit instruments also will focus on
regions. Targets related to each of these
USAID key climate change countries and
indicators will be developed over the next six
regions. In total, almost fifty percent of
months.
obligations under the Initiative will be focused in
key countries and regions.
In the immediate term. the measure of success
for activities to decrease vulnerability to climate
USAID funding for Inter-Agency Climate Change
change will be based upon mission indicators
Programs will come from the overall Agency
and targets. Once an analysis of critical areas of
budget. An additional increment will be devoted
vulnerability is completed, objectives for specific
to climate change from the overall Agency
sectors and countries may be set. Achievement
budget for each of the five years of the Action
of local objectives relevant to decreasing
Plan. Those funds will support inter-agency
vulnerability to climate change also will be
climate change programs.
tracked.
Monitoring and Measuring
Over the next several months, considerable
Results
effort will be devoted to creating a global
monitoring and reporting system. At this point,
USAID is only initiating development of that
Monitoring and measuring the results achieved
system. Ultimately, the system will include
will be among the Agency's highest priorities.
indicators and targets of success and will be
Though USAID has been spending substantial
structured to capture the full range of program
resources on climate change-related activities
impacts. As part of standard reporting
since 1990, insufficient attention has been
procedures, USAID will report every year on the
devoted to tracking the impact of those
status of the Initiative. Additionally, the Agency
programs. Similarly, too little attention has
will issue a final report at the end of the five-year
focused on replicating successful approaches
period that will summarize achievements and
and determining which interventions have the
lessons learned.
greatest effect.
Under the Action Plan a concerted effort will be
made to measure the impact of programs,
assess the most effective strategies for
combating the threat of climate change, and
hone and focus the Agency's approach.
Currently, USAID is developing a series of
indicators that will measure the impact of
programs. One proposed measure will track
avoided greenhouse gas emissions. The target
will be developed by examining total emissions
from each relevant nation and region (in
particular USAID key countries and regions) and
determining a reduction that will be in USAID's
manageable interest. The target also will be
derived by examining existing related USAID
targets to determine the estimated Agency-wide
impact on emissions over five years. A measure
related to policy reform and human capacity
development also is being developed. It will look
at the extent to which policies and measures that
50
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
USAID Climate Change Contacts
Bureau for Global Programs
Mary Knox
Office of Energy, Environment and
Phone: (202)647-4013
Technology
E-mail: [email protected]
Leslie Cordes
Phone: (202) 712-5304
Bureau for Asia and the Near East
E-Mail: [email protected]
Judith Barry
Carla Koppell
Phone: (202)712-4255
Phone: (202) 712-4169
E-mail: [email protected]
E-Mail: [email protected]
John Wilson
Jeff Seabright
Phone: (202) 712-0040
Phone: (202) 712-1750
E-mail: [email protected]
E-Mail: [email protected]
Bureau for Africa
Office of Environment and Natural Resources
Alicia Grimes
Philip Jones
Phone: (202) 712-5424
Phone: (202) 712-5535
E-Mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Office of Environment and Urban Programs
Tony Pryor
Robert MacLeod
Phone: (703)235-3695
Phone: (202) 712-4473
E-mail: [email protected]
E-Mail: [email protected]
Bureau for Latin America and the
Office of Agriculture and Food Security
Caribbean
Jonathan Olsson
Phone: (202) 712-0950
E-mail: [email protected]
Jeff Brokaw
Phone: (202) 712-5623
Office of Health and Nutrition
E-mail: [email protected]
John Borrazzo
Phone: (202) 712-4816
Eric Fajer
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (202)712-0809
E-mail:[email protected]
Bureau for Policy and Program
Bureau for Europe and Newly
Coordination
Independent States
Victor Bullen
Pamela Baldwin
Phone: (202)647-5986
Phone: (202) 712-1700
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
James Hester
Loren Schulze
Phone: (202)647-9012
Phone: (202)712-5086
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
51
U.S. Agency for International Development
52
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Bibliography
Brown, L., Renner, M., Flavin, C. and Starke, L. (eds.) 1997. Vital Signs 1997: The Environmental
Trends that are Shaping Our Future. WW Norton and Company, New York.
Chivian, E., McCally, M., Hy, H. and Haines, A. (eds.) 1993. Critical Condition: Human Health and the
Environment. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press (Chapter 8).
Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group / to the
Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge
University Press.
Climate Change 1995: Impacts Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical
Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC Is92
Emission Scenarios. (Eds. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, J.P. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, B.T. Callander,
E.F. Haites, N. Harris, K. Maskell) 339 p. Cambridge University Press.
Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Report of the
IPCC Scientific Assessment Working Group (Working Group I)(Eds. JT Houghton, B.T. Callander and
S.K. Varney) 200 p. Cambridge University Press.
Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Impacts Assessment. Report of the
IPCC Impacts Assessment Working Group (Working Group II). Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Climate Change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 Assessments - IPCC First Assessment Overview and
Policymaker Summaries and 1992 Supplement.
Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990. Report of the IPCC Scientific Assessment
Working Group (Working Group I) (Eds. J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins, J.J. Ephramus) 365 p.
Cambridge University Press.
Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies, 1990. Report of the IPCC Response Strategies
Working Group (Working Group III) 273 p. Island Press.
Cline, William, 'The Economics of Global Warming' (Institute for International Economics, Washington
DC, 1992), pp. 3-10.
Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change. Proceedings of National Science and
Technology Council and the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy
Press, Washington D.C. 1996.
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
53
U.S. Agency for International Development
Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy, International Energy Outlook, 1995 Report No.
DOE/EIA-0484(95) (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1995), Table A9,
p 87.
Engelman, R. 1994. Stabilizing the Atmosphere: Populations, Consumption and Greenhouse Gases,
Populations Action International, Washington, D.C.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The Social Costs of Climate Change:
Greenhouse Damage and the Benefits of Control, Chapter 6 in 'Second Assessment Report, Working
Group III,' April 1995 draft (World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment
Programme, Geneva, 1995), p. 52.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate
Change Impacts and Adaptations 1995, 59 p. World Meterological Organization.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of
Scientific-Technical Information relevant to interpreting Article 2 of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/ [accessed September 18, 1997].
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. 1995. Annual Report. ICRAF Nairobi p. 188.
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 1995 (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development, Paris, 1995) p. 49.
Lal, M. et al., April 1997. Vulnerability of Rice and Wheat Yields in Northwest India to Future Changes
in Climate. Communication to Agriculture and Meterology, India.
Last, J.M. Global Climate Change Ozone Depletion, Greenhouse Warming and Public Health. Annual
Review of Public Health 14 (1993): 115-136.
McMichael, A.J., Haines, A. Sloof, R., and Kovats, S. (eds.) Climate Change and Human Health.
World Health Organization (1996).
Mitra, A.P., June 1995. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in India, National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi,
India.
Mitra, A.P., July 1994. Global Change Series: Issues and Perspectives of South Asian Region,
SASCOM Scientific Report, Naitonal Physics Laboratory, New Delhi, India.
Observed Climate Variations and Change: Contribution in Support of Section 7 of the IPCC Scientific
Assessment, World Meterological Organization.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1997. Development Cooperation:
Efforts and Policies of the Members of the Development Assistance Committee- Report by James H.
Michel, Chairperson of the Development Assistance Committee, Paris.
Patz, J.A., Epstein, P.R. Burke, T.A., Balbus, J.M. Global Climate Change and Emerging Infectious
Diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association 275 (1996):217-223.
Potential Health Effects of Climate Change. World Health Organization (1990).
54
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite
Climate Change Action Plan
Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st Century, Conference Report of the World Coast
Conference, 1993.
Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing Technologies and Management Systems for Agriculture
and Forestry in Relation to Global Climate Change, Canberra 1992.
Qureshi, Ata (Regional Study Team Leader), July 1994. Climate Change in Asia: India Country
Report, Asian Development Bank, Philippines.
Sanghvi, Arun, Power Shortages in Developing Countries, Energy Policy Vol. 19, No. 5 (June 1991) p.
427.
Schramm, Gunter, Issues and Problems in the Power Sectors of Developing Countries, Energy Policy.
Vol. 21, No. 7 (July 1993), p. 740.
Shope, R. Global Climate Change and Infectious Diseases. Environmental Health Perspectives 96
(1991): 171-174.
Smith, J.B. et al. (eds.), Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Strategies for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Report of the Coastal Zone Management Subgroup of the
IPCC Response Strategies Working Group (Working Group III), 1990.
Technologies, Policies and Measures for Mititgating Climate Change: IPCC Technical Paper 1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II (eds. R.T. Watson, M.C.Zinyowera
and R.H. Moss) 1996. World Meterological Association.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 1997. Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges:
Executive Summary.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Climate Change Information Kit. http://
www.unfccc.de/ [Frame "What is climate change" from home page - Fact Sheets, Accessed
September 18, 1997]
For review and consultation-ao not quote or cite
55
U.S. Agency for International Development
56
For review and consultation-do not quote or cite