Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285411025
label
Global Climate Convention [Binder]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285411025
contentType
document
title
Global Climate Convention [Binder]
description
These records pertain to Global Climate Change.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
02039-001
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Kenneth P. Yale Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285411025
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a828b9b1a63f2625
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2017-0310-F
2017-0310-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Domestic Policy Council
Series:
Yale, Ken, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
02039
Folder ID Number:
02039-001
Folder Title:
Global Climate Convention [Binder]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
17
7
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
01. Letter
From President Bush to Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers
n.d.
(b)(1)
Re: Hague Declaration (1 pp.)
Page 1 of 1
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Domestic Policy Council
Series:
Yale, Ken, Files
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Global Climate Convention
Pinksheet Number:
ES798
OA/ID Number:
02039-001
Date Closed:
2/15/2018
FOIA/Sys Case #:
2017-0310-F
Re-review Case #:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
TALKING POINTS FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE
The issue of discussions on a global climate framework
convention has received considerable attention.
There is interest in developing an interagency consensus on
this issue.
The DPC Working Group on Environment, Energy and Natural
Resources has been working on options to approach
discussions on a framework convention.
aomestics and intermationally
There is an interest Ain beginning discussions in the near
future on an international framework convention on global
climate change.
Because of the work currently underway in the DPC working
group, and other environmental initiatives under
consideration, it would be inappropriate for U.S. delegates
to the Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG) to move too
quickly on the issue of a framework convention.
We understand that IPCC has determined that RSWG will
consider "legal issues" associated with climate change
response strategies and that the RSWG steering committee may
consider "new legal and institutional mechanisms that could
be used to implement options to limit or adapt to climate
changes."
It is our understanding that the U.S. could work within the
RSWG steering committee, as currently directed, to examine
existing legal processes and to consider new processes, such
as options to discuss a framework convention.
Discussions should take place in the steering committee
It is not clear that a separate group or process needs to be
established within the RSWG at this time to consider legal
and institutional measures or possible approaches to
considering a framework convention.
The concept of a framework convention is receiving attention
by the Federal government.
Should options be considered at the RSWG meeting to approach
discussions on a framework convention, the U.S. delegates
should report back their findings.
Clarate cause c other users
May 8, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID Q. BATES
ROGER B PORTER
SUBJECT: Global Climate Change Convention
The issue of a global climate framework convention has received
considerable attention recently in the press. There is reason to
be cautious in approaching this issue, due to the great
uncertainties in climate change science and the large potential
impact of any new policy direction.
The Administration is currently considering the global warming
issue in a number of ways. Research is underway sponsored by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, NOAA,
NASA, and other agencies. On the international front, the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is also considering
this matter. A working group of this organization, which the
U.S. chairs, is holding its second meeting this week in Geneva to
consider the state of scientific knowledge on global climate.
There is considerable disagreement about the causes and effects
of global warming. Nevertheless, the U.S. has played a
leadership role in the IPCC review, and in other efforts to
address this matter.
You and your Administration have taken a number of actions that
will have an impact on this subject. You directed a phase-out of
CFCs by the year 2000. The FV 1990 budget includes $190 million
for global environmental research and $710 million to encourage
the development of innovative clean coal technologies to deal
with acid rain. Finally, the Domestic Policy Council is
considering legislation to amend the Clean Air Act and deal with
the problems of acid rain, toxic air pollutants, and how our
cities can best meet attainment of air quality standards.
We are not yet ready for a convention, but we will seek
aggressive review of the data and significant progress in
analyzing our scientific knowledge. The Geneva meeting will
assist in reviewing the current scientific evidence. U.S.
delegates to the meeting are aware of Administration interest and
have been instructed not to move too quickly. They will report
back their findings. The Domestic Policy Council may take up the
issue of a framework convention in the near future.
fele
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 9, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID BATES
FROM:
KEN YALE Ky
SUBJECT: Global Climate Convention
This morning the Washington Post reported that the United Kingdom
announced support for an international global climate convention,
leaving the U.S. as the only nation of the G-7 group of countries
that did not support such a move. The paper also reported that
the Administration was divided over the issue. There may be
questions brought up today about this issue, and concerns that
the U.S. should address it.
It is important to keep this in perspective. This issue has such
far reaching implications that there must be good policy before
we go for the good press. Thus, it is not important to be the
first to announce support for a convention, as long as you have
some good initiatives to show the American public. As you know,
there are several environmental initiatives "in the works."
Moreover, the U.S. has never "rejected" the concept of a global
climate convention. It is only one of many possible envirnmental
initiatives that the U.S. is actively considering. In addition,
the U.S. has several ongoing programs, especially in research,
focused on global climate change. We have not received much
credit for these activities.
Therefore, it may be important to develop a package of
initiatives to highlight the Administration's activities in
environmental issues. It could potentially be announced with the
decision on Clean Air legislation as a centerpiece. In addition
to announcing Clean Air, a decision on the international
conference could also be made, and possibly a call to study or
direct an international convention (depending on the outcome of
the DPC review).
Other initiatives could also be prepared for such a package. If
it was planned appropriately, these could all be announced with
the Clean Air decision in June.
May 8, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
THROUGH: DAVID Q. BATES
FROM:
KEN YALE
SUBJECT: Global Climate Change Convention
The issue of a global climate framework convention has received
considerable attention recently in the press.
Uncertainties in Science. There is reason to be cautious on this
issue, due to uncertainties in climate change science and the
large potential impact of any new policy direction. There is
consensus that the earth is warming. However, how fast it is
occuring, its extent, and whether caused by man or natural
variability is a matter of ongoing debate. One extreme of the
debates was recently presented in Congressional testimony.
International Pressure to Move Ahead. There is pressure in the
international community to move on this issue. Canada, Norway,
the Netherlands, Malta, Germany, Japan, and recently the U.K.
have shown some support for a framework climate convention. In
addition to the above countries, other European nations, such as
France, have shown support for increased international
cooperation to address global climate change. Several key
nations may be skeptical about an international law initiative at
this time, including the Soviet Union, China, Korea, and India.
Domestic Interest. The Administration is currently addressing
the global warming issue. Research is underway sponsored by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, NOAA,
NASA, and other agencies. The FV 1990 budget includes $190
million for this research.
There also is interest in developing interagency consensus on the
issue of a framework convention and the Domestic Policy Council
could take up the issue in the near future. Other environmental
policy initatives currently under consideration include: the
Clean Air Act and the idea an international conference. Congress
is also very interested in this issue.
Upcoming Events. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) is considering this matter. An IPCC working group,
chaired by the U.S., is holding its second meeting this week in
Geneva to consider global climate issues, including a possible
framework convention. U.S. delegates to the meeting are aware of
Administration interest and will report back their findings.
Environmental issues will also be highlighted in the Economic
Summit this July. It will be important for the U.S. to develop
policy on international environmental issues before then.
May 4, 1989
U.S. POSITION ON A CLIMATE CHANGE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
The possibility of global warming has received much attention and
both domestic and international interest in the issue of climate
change continues to intensify. The U.S. is participating in
various ongoing international activities regarding global climate
change, and there is interest in discussions on an international
framework convention on global climate change.
The United States is firmly committed to a sound strategy on
global climate issues. It has shown leadership through the
Montreal Protocol on ozone reduction, in calling for a phase-out
of CFCs, in a significant budget for global climate change
research, and as a participant in the United Nations
Environmental Programme/International Programme on Climate
Change. Other initiatives are currently under consideration,
including the concept of a framework convention.
The IPCC has determined that the Response Strategies Working
Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., will consider "legal issues"
associated with climate change response strategies. In the
workplan adopted by the RSWG, the steering committee was given
the charge to consider "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate changes."
The U.S. should work within the RSWG steering committee, as
currently directed, to examine existing legal processes and to
consider new legal processes. This may include, but is not
limited to, consideration of elements that could be included in a
framework convention. Such discussions should take place within
the RSWG steering committee. The U.S. should insist that no
separate groups be established within the RSWG at this time to
consider legal and institutional measures and that no separate
process for considering possible elements of a framework
convention be established.
The concept of a framework convention is receiving attention by
the Federal government. Should options be considered at the RSWG
meeting for discussing a framework convention, the U.S. delegates
should report back their findings.
DRAFT
May 4, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUBJECT: Discussion of a Climate Change Framework Convention at
the May 5-12 Response Strategies Working Group Meeting
The possibility of global warming has received much attention and
both domestic and international interest in the issue of climate
change continues to intensify. The U.S. is participating in
various ongoing international activities regarding global climate
change, and there is interest in discussions on an international
framework convention on global climate change.
The United States is firmly committed to a sound strategy on
global climate issues. It has shown leadership through the
Montreal Protocol on ozone reduction, in calling for a phase-out
of CFCs, in a significant budget for global climate change
research, and as a participant in the United Nations
Environmental Programme/International Programme on Climate
Change. Other initiatives are currently under consideration,
including the concept of a framework convention.
The IPCC has determined that the Response Strategies Working
Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., will consider "legal issues"
associated with climate change response strategies. In the
workplan adopted by the RSWG, the steering committee was given
the charge to consider "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate changes.'
The U.S. should work within the RSWG steering committee, as
currently directed, to examine existing legal processes and to
consider new legal processes. This may include, but is not
limited to, consideration of elements that could be included in a
framework convention. Such discussions should take place within
the RSWG steering committee. The U.S. should insist that no
separate groups be established within the RSWG at this time to
consider legal and institutional measures and that no separate
process for considering possible elements of a framework
convention be established.
The concept of a framework convention is receiving attention at
the highest levels of the Federal government. The U.S.
delegation may explore options for discussing a framework
convention at the RSWG meeting and report back its findings.
May 4, 1989
U.S. POSITION ON A CLIMATE CHANGE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
The possibility of global warming has received much attention and
both domestic and international interest in the issue of climate
change continues to intensify. The U.S. is participating in
various ongoing international activities regarding global climate
change, and there is interest in discussions on an international
framework convention on global climate change.
The United States is firmly committed to a sound strategy on
global climate issues. It has shown leadership through the
Montreal Protocol on ozone reduction, in calling for a phase-out
of CFCs, in a significant budget for global climate change
research, and as a participant in the United Nations
Environmental Programme/International Programme on Climate
Change. Other initiatives are currently under consideration,
including the concept of a framework convention.
The IPCC has determined that the Response Strategies Working
Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., will consider "legal issues"
associated with climate change response strategies. In the
workplan adopted by the RSWG, the steering committee was given
the charge to consider "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate changes."
The U.S. should work within the RSWG steering committee, as
currently directed, to examine existing legal processes and to
consider new legal processes. This may include, but is not
limited to, consideration of elements that could be included in a
framework convention. Such discussions should take place within
Enothers
the RSWG steering committee. The U.S. should insist that no
ant of concern duble an going due then poad
separate groups be established within the RSWG at this time to
consider legal and institutional measures and that no separate
no
process for considering possible elements of a framework
convention be established.
The concept of a framework convention is receiving attention by
the Federal government. Should options be considered at the RSWG
meeting for discussing a framework convention, the U.S. delegates
should report back their findings.
- Correwed about mony fore
- engage m descrisions
- fully ventual, Thought there
- may want & Empand this as part of a larger phg
of envir instiations
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 3, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID Q. BATES
ROGER B. PORTER
FROM:
NANCY MALOLEY
nam
KEN YALE
SUBJECT: Framework Convention on Global Climate
A meeting was held today to discuss environmental issues as they
relate to the upcoming economic summit. The discussion quickly
turned to the issue of an international convention. Present were
representatives from State, EPA, OPD and DPC.
There is little support, except from OMB, for a flat refusal to
discuss possible elements of a framework convention. The issue
is whether it should be discussed in the normal RSWG process, or
if a separate group should be formed to focus discussions.
EPA firmly supports creating a separate process in the U.N.
Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG) meeting next week, to
begin discussions. International interest in the concept, and
the concern that the issue would be taken away from the U.S.-
chaired RSWG in other upcoming international environmental
meetings, were mentioned.
State was clearly divided over the issue. The Bureau of Oceans,
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES, in
charge of environmental issues) also stressed growing
international interest and the possibility of other international
organizations taking up the issue. The Office of the Under
Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs (in charge of
Economic Summit preparations) was interested in making sure there
was interagency agreement before we proceed, that the issue is
framed to the advantage of the President, and avoiding dilution
of the issue prior to the Summit.
It was concluded that:
1. No one wants to see premature creation of a convention.
2. There is no consensus on the creation of a separate process
within RSWG to focus attention on discussions of a
framework convention.
3. There already exists a mechanism for discussion of the issue
in RSWG, and that could be used next week.
4. The Secretary of State and other Cabinet members are
interested in seeking interagency consensus on how to
approach a discussion on a framework convention, before
discussions formally begin.
-2-
The best approach may be to delay a decision on the appropriate
process within RSWG for discussions of a framework convention,
until the DPC has thoroughly reviewed the issue. U.S.
participants in RSWG can still discuss options for discussing a
framework convention at the meeting next week, and report back to
the DPC. This will avoid focusing on this issue in RSWG
prematurely and place the focus for this issue on the White House.
decreatory an went of concerns are agrees / vavd Managet are not rolex ready furness and or mill
and formed domestic "doment hereby THE more WHITE service HOUSE date
gots
WASHINGTON
2 DOE studin
May 2, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
was what The jundied to you JONR
FROM:
DAVID Q. BATES
ROGER B. PORTER
SUBJECT: Framework Convention on Global Climate Change
Several departments and agencies have contacted the White House
for direction on how to approach the issue of a framework global
climate convention at the May 5-12, U.N. International Programme
on Climate Change/Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG)
meeting. The U.S. chairs the RSWG.
beginnes
There is considerable interest from two agenices to rush into
discussions on a framework convention. However, discussions
could easily turn into a call for an unfavorable convention. On
the other hand, other agencies are more cautious due to the great
uncertainties in climate change science and the large potential
impact of any new policy direction.
Moreover, it is important for any action at the RSWG not to
conflict with Administration strategy on environmental issues.
Beginning discussions in the RSWG next week would not be
appropriate in light of the overall environmental strategy.
For these reasons, we recommend delaying discussions of a
framework convention in the RSWG next week, and continuing the
following actions, which are already underway:
bytholot
-- Obtain results of soon-to-be released studies on global
climate that will shed more light on the issues.
-- Complete consideration of the framework convention issue in
the Domestic Policy Council, so the President can make a
fully informed decision, this will occur soon.
could noon
-- Announce our position on a framework convention on global
climate as part of a package -- this could be very favorable
for the President and include initiatives in acid rain,
ozone (smog) and air toxics reduction, an international
conference on the environment, and others.
We believe this strategy will maintain the Administration's
leadership on environmental issues, give the credit for these
initiatives to the President, and avoid the international
community pushing us into policy changes and taking the attention
on environmental issues away from the Administration.
SCHEDULE OF KEY REPORTS AND STUDIES
Dec. 1988 - EPA study on health and environmental effects of climate
change.
Dec. 1988 - EPA study on policy options that would stabilize_current
levels_of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions.
Dec. 1988 - NOAA report to the Congress on the findings of research
and and monitoring of the stratosphere for early detection
of change and climate consequences of such change.
Apr. 1989 - DOE greenhouse gas data collection study of the Federal
Government's existing data about the sources and trends of
greenhouse gas emissions and the trends toward climatic
change. Second weekin May
Apr. 1989 - DOE study of options to mobilize the private sector to
cooperate in mitigating, adapting, and preventing global
climate change. Second weekin May
Jul. 1989 - DOE alternative energy research and development study to
(a) assess the current state of r&d and (b) suggest
appropriate r&d strategies with particular emphasis on the
potential of such strategies to stabilize the
concentrations of the gases that contribute to global
climate change.
Oct. 1989 - DOE carbon dioxide inventory and policy study that
inventories the sources of CO2 and arranges the policy
options to be formulated with the EPA which would lead to
a 20-percent reduction in CO2 emissions in the short run
(5 to 10 years) and a 50-percent emissions reduction in
the long run (15 to 20 years).
Jul. 1989 - NOAA plan to construct and operate a worldwide system of
ground-based remote sensors to monitor stratospheric
levels of chemicals which can affect the amount of ozone
in the stratosphere.
Dec. 1989 - EPA/DOC summary analysis of current international
scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect,
assessment of U. S. efforts to gain international
cooperation, and strategy for seeking furthur
international cooperation, pursuant to Global Climate
Protection Act.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 1, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID Q. BATES
ROGER B. PORTER
FROM:
KEN YALE Ky
NANCY MALOLEY
nam
SUBJECT: Global Climate Convention Decision
The concept of a framework convention on climate change is
undergoing careful review through the Domestic Policy Process.
However, there is pressure to rush to a decision in order to
allow the President to grandstand on the issue during the
Mulroney and Brundtland visits on May 3 & 4.
Due to delays, a thoughtful decision on this issue has not been
reached at this time. Delays have been caused both by agencies
who favor the concept (they did not produce paperwork on the
issue until last week), and by those who strongly oppose it (and
want to kill it). Nevertheless, after the paperwork was
obtained, we proceeded at a very quick pace and could bring the
issue to the Domestic Policy Council at any time. However, the
President may need guidance for a decision by May 3 and 4.
A working group has developed a number of options that reflect
the concerns of all interested departments and agencies.
Although the general concept seems to have some support, the
exact approach taken by the U.S. has yet to be worked out due to
the great uncertainties in climate change science and the large
potential impact of any new policy direction. In addition, the
positions of key Cabinet Secretaries are not at all clear.
We understand that several attempts to end-run the process have
been, and will be, made. We are therefore submitting this draft
options paper, with the understanding that it may not reflect the
opinions of the Cabinet Secretaries, but it is the best material
on the issue. Options 1 and 2 are the least disruptive of
current policy positions. Option 3 would probably be interpreted
as a major new policy initiative that would require DPC
consideration.
Should there be a need for the President to discuss global
climate with the prime ministers, he could point to the
considerable amount of research done by the Federal government on
global climate, the fact that the issue of a framework convention
is under active consideration by the Cabinet, and other
activities of the Federal government. In addition, Options 1 & 2
outline other actions he could safely take.
DRAFT
GLOBAL CLIMATE CONVENTION
ISSUE: Should the U.S. modify its past position and initiate
discussions on an international climate change convention?
BACKGROUND: The possibility of global warming has received much
attention and both domestic and international interest in the
issue of climate change continues to intensify. However, the
present understanding of complex earth system processes is
rudimentary and substantial research will be necessary before we
can begin to make reliable predictions of global climate change.
Conflicting studies have highlighted the uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate system. The lack of adequate models
of the earth system, and the unknown ability of clouds and the
oceans to mitigate climate changes, indicate some of the
uncertainties. Nevertheless, there is growing political pressure
to take action. The U.S. is participating in various ongoing
international activities regarding global climate change and
pressure is building to modify our current policy by allowing
discussions to begin on an international convention on global
climate change.
DISCUSSION: The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in
November 1988 as an international focal point for climate change
issues. Three working groups, chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R., and
the U.S., respectively, were created to consider global climate
science, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and response
strategies. The IPCC plans to complete an interim report of its
findings by November 1990. The report would provide a foundation
for future actions.
Secretary Baker opened the January meeting of the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., with a
speech supporting IPCC activities and articulating a four point
U.S position. The Secretary stated: we cannot resolve all the
uncertainties before acting, immediate focus should be on steps
that can be justified for other reasons, global solutions should
be cost-effective and they should reconcile economic development
with a safe environment.
RSWG holds its next meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A key issue
is expected to be how discussion of an international convention
on global climate change will be handled within the RSWG.
Since its inception, the IPCC has been pressured to consider
creating an international convention on climate change. A
convention would provide an institutional framework, or formal
mechanism, for assessment of issues, discussion of possible
responses, and recommendations for future actions. It could lead
to the adoption of protocols or other formal, legal initiatives,
but might not impose an obligation on parties to agree to future
actions or join any protocol.
DRAFT
The charter of the IPCC calls for consideration of "legal
matters. " The workplan adopted by the RSWG at its January
meeting mandated consideration of "new legal
and
institutional mechanisms that could be used to implement"
responses to climate change. These could be considered moves
towards eventual consideration of a convention.
Advancing too quickly toward a global climate change convention
might circumvent the IPCC process, which considers the science
and impacts of global climate changes in addition to possible
responses. The U.S. has therefore succeeded in preventing either
creation of a separate group within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional mechanisms or explicit discussion within RSWG of
the global climate convention concept. It is unclear whether the
U.S. can continue to delay discussion of these issues, and there
is increasing international pressure to begin discussions on a
convention.
Last year Canada convened a meeting on global climate and drafted
a report that promoted a Law of the Atmosphere and timetables for
CO2 reduction. A Law of the Atmosphere is highly controversial,
and some believe a climate change convention could lead to such a
broad agreement. In December of 1988 the U.N. General Assembly
adopted a resolution calling for consideration of "elements of a
future climate convention" in the IPCC. A Canadian meeting in
February of this year urged adoption of a convention and
protocols to ensure quick action in global climate and limits
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses thought to result in
global warming.
The "Declaration of the Hague" was an agreement among 24 nations
in March of this year on the climate change issue. It stated
that global warming is the world's top environmental problem and
urged new international authority to combat it. The group will
meet again in May and could discuss a convention proposal at that
time. Significantly, major industrialized nations, including the
U.S., were not represented at the meeting.
Upcoming events may also increase pressure for further action.
How to initiate discussion of an international convention will be
an issue at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting. Many RSWG participants
will also attend the first meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol on May 2-5 and the convention issue could be discussed.
The UNEP Governing Council will meet in Nairobi in mid May.
Discussion is expected on a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by executive director Mostafa Tolba.
The IPCC will hold a meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 where the
convention issue is also expected to be raised. Finally, a
number of leaders attending the July, seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris may raise the subject.
Pressure for additional action seems to have come mainly from
those countries that have strong environmental movements or would
have little adverse economic impact from a global warming
DRAFT
convention.
Arguments in favor of discussions of a convention include:
-- A convention is inevitable, and RSWG is a favorable forum
because this U.S. chaired group can guide international
activity towards a reasonable approach to a convention.
-- A convention could be similar to the Vienna Convention on
ozone protection, providing an institutional framework for
assessment of the issue and discussion of responses, and a
legal framework for agreement on specific measures, such as
the adoption of protocols -- without any obligation on the
parties to agree to the specific measures.
-- Discussions to consider formalizing and expanding existing
international cooperation, even in a limited fashion, would
be an aggressive U.S. response and could attract substantial
international attention.
Arguments opposed to discussions of a convention include:
-- Discussions would be a major, threshold step in the
direction toward a climate change convention. No matter how
limited, the process would be uncontrollable and could
result in international pressure for the U.S. to sign a
protocol which is not based on sound science and could have
a serious impact on the U.S. economy.
-- The U.S. has already taken a leadership role by making the
world's largest contribution to global climate research and
initiating and supporting the IPCC process. Leadership on
global climate issues does not need to be defined in terms
of a convention, as pushed by other nations with less at
stake.
-- Any U.S. response to climate change must be based on sound
scientific evidence. The IPCC process is designed to lead
to scientifically sound international policy decisions.
There is no scientific evidence that quick action, even
under the most pessimistic assumptions, will make any
significant difference in global warming.
-- The Vienna Convention was different. There was much more
science available and the effects were better understood
than what is currently known about global climate change.
Moreover, the economic impacts of controls are much less.
-- The U.S. does not have to react to the Hague Declaration
because it did not represent the positions of the major
greenhouse gas producers (US, 23%; USSR, ~19%; China, (10%)
and thus was not a serious international effort to address
global climate change.
DRAFT
-- The IPCC is the major international effort on global
change. It is moving to assess the science, consider the
social and economic impacts, and identify possible policy
responses. Further negotiations would prematurely lead to a
convention, early protocols, and poor policy based on
political expediency and motivations of nations not subject
to serious economic impacts.
-- The U.S. policy on global climate should not be determined
in a multi-lateral negotiation process where U.S. leverage
is traditionally weak. The U.S. should not decide on a
position on a convention until its domestic policies are
more firmly established.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
The U.S. delegation re-affirms its commitment to the current
IPCC process and articulates the U.S. position within the
parameters of Secretary Baker's four points.
The U.S. should insist that no separate groups be established at
this time within the RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established.
Pros:
Provides the President the opportunity to develop foreign
policy aspects of climate change policy as an outgrowth of
domestic policy.
Establishes the U.S. position that negotiation of climate
response actions would be premature until the IPCC develops
the requisite information for sound negotiations.
Maintains the focus of the IPCC on developing a common
international understanding of the science, its uncertainties,
the potential impacts, and the implications of potential
international responses.
Will help discourage demands that the U.S. and other
industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions to reduce
global warming before a sound scientific basis exists for
such costly actions.
Cons:
U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
will encourage international activity on a possible
convention outside RSWG to become more formalized and
organized. In such fora, U.S. views will be given
significantly less attention than those within RSWG.
DRAFT
It is unclear whether the U.S. could succeed in postponing the
discussion, given that such discussion is consistent with the
UNGA and RSWG mandates.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is dragging its feet on a
major international issue.
OPTION #2:
The U.S. delegation re-affirm its commitment to implementation of
the IPCC process while announcing two new initiatives.
1) A research initiative, calling upon the other members of the
IPCC to join in an international research program. The program
would build upon the U.S. global climate change research program,
as well as the IPCC science assessment. The U.S. has proposed
to spend about $200 million in FY 1990 on global research, with
increasing amounts likely in future years. The results of this
research will benefit the world. Other nations should be asked
to share in this effort and in the costs.
2) An invitation to an International Conference on Global
Environmental Issues, to be hosted by President Bush.
In addition, the delegation would re-state U.S. policy that all
countries should focus immediate attention on actions that can be
justified for other reasons, and call upon RSWG to give priority
to such actions in its assessment report. To further buttress
this effort, the U.S. would issue a report on all such actions
that have been initiated within the first 100 days of the Bush
Administration.
The U.S. delegation would oppose any additional efforts to
initiate any actions leading to a possible global convention,
until the IPCC assessments are completed.
Pros:
0
The U.S. would maintain and strengthen its position as a world
leader on international environmental issues.
The U.S. would take a pro-active posture in shaping the
international agenda in directions where the U.S. has a
position of strength, such as scientific research, rather than
reacting to proposals form other countries from a position of
weakness.
The U.S. delegation should seek to take credit for the Bush
Administration global environmental initiatives, rather than
continue to be portrayed in a reactive posture.
Cons:
With U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
DRAFT
existing international activity on a possible convention, now
carried on outside RSWG, may become more formalized and
organized, with U.S. views given significantly less attention
than those within RSWG.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is taking only small
steps toward the resolution of a grave international issue.
OPTION#3:
The U.S. delegation proposes that a separate group be
established within the RSWG Steering Committee with the purpose
of drafting a report on possible institutional mechanisms for
addressing the climate change issue expressly including, but not
limited to, possible elements of a framework convention based on
the Vienna Convention model. The group would be given a specific
timetable, such as an annotated outline report for discussion at
the Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full draft report
for review by the Steering Committee in Spring 1990, and
inclusion in the RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
under potential U.S. control.
The U.S. would assert an aggressive position on an important
international issue.
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
an international understanding of the science and other
relevant considerations before beginning negotiations, may
take a back seat to discussions over a convention and ensuing
protocols.
Financial markets may be startled by the appearance of U.S.
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
The U.S. may not be able to exercise leadership in a separate
RSWG group since it would probably not be chaired by the U.S.
For example, Canada, which has already pursued an aggressive
policy on atmospheric issues, is a likely candidate for the
chair.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CONVENTION
ISSUE: How should the United States approach international
discussions on an international climate change convention?
BACKGROUND: Domestic and international interest in the issue of
global climate change continues to intensify. The possibility
of global warming has received much attention. However, the
present understanding of complex earth system processes is
rudimentary and substantial research will be necessary before we
can begin to make reliable predictions of global climate change.
Conflicting studies have highlighted the uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate system. The lack of adequate models
of the earth system, and the unknown ability of clouds and the
oceans to mitigate climate changes, indicate some of the
uncertainties. Nevertheless, there is growing political pressure
to take action and the U.S. is participating in various ongoing
international activities regarding global climate. There is also
pressure to modify current U.S. policy to allow discussions to
begin on an international convention on global climate change.
DISCUSSION: The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in
November 1988 as an international focal point for climate change
issues. Three working groups, chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R., and
the U.S., respectively, were created to consider global climate
science, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and response
strategies. The IPCC plans to complete an interim report of its
findings by November 1990. The report would provide a foundation
for future actions.
Secretary Baker opened the January meeting of the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., with a
speech supporting their activities. The Secretary said: we
cannot resolve all the uncertainties before acting, immediate
focus should be on steps that can be justified for other reasons,
global solutions should be cost-effective and they shoud
reconcile economic development with a safe enviroment.
RSWG holds its next meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A key issue
is expected to be how discussion of an international convention
on global climate change will be handled within the RSWG.
There has been pressure from the beginning for the IPCC to
consider creating an international convention on climate change.
A convention would provide an institutional framework, or formal
mechanism, for assessment of issues, discussion of possible
responses, and recommendations for future actions to further
international interests in global climate issues. It could lead
to the adoption of protocols or other formal, legal initiatives,
but might not impose an obligation on parties to agree to future
actions or join any protocol.
The charter of the IPCC calls for consideration of "legal
matters." The workplan adopted by the RSWG at its January
meeting mandated consideration of "new legal
and
institutional mechanisms that could be used to implement"
responses to climate change. These could be considered moves
towards eventual consideration of a convention.
Advancing too quickly towards a global climate change convention
might circumvent the IPCC process, which considers the science
and impacts of global climate changes in addition to possible
responses. The U.S. has therefore succeeded in preventing either
creation of a separate group within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional mechanisms or explicit discussion within RSWG of
the global climate convention concept. It is unclear whether the
U.S. can continue to delay discussion of these issues, and there
is increasing international pressure to begin discussions of a
convention.
Last year Canada convened a meeting on global climate and drafted
a report that promoted a Law of the Atmosphere and timetables for
CO2 reduction. A Law of the Atmosphere is highly controversial,
and some believe a climate change convention could lead to such a
broad agreement. In December of 1988 the U.N. General Assembly
adopted a resolution calling for consideration of "elements of a
future climate convention" in the IPCC. A Canadian meeting in
February of this year urged adoption of a convention and
protocols to ensure quick action in global climate and limits
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses thought to result in
global warming.
The "Declaration of the Hague" was an agreement among 24 nations
in March of this year on the climate change issue. It stated
that global warming is the world's top environmental problem and
urged new international authority to combat it. The group will
meet again in May and could discuss a convention proposal at that
time. Significantly, major industrialized nations, including the
U.S., were not represented at the meeting.
Upcoming events may also increase pressure for further action.
How to initiate discussion of an international convention will be
an issue at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting. Many RSWG participants
will also attend the first meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol on May 2-5 and the convention issue could be discussed.
The UNEP Governing Council will meet in Nairobi in mid May.
Discussion is expected on a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by executive director Mostafa Tolba.
The IPCC will hold a meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 where the
convention issue is also expected to be raised. Finally, a
number of leaders attending the July, seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris may raise the subject.
Pressure for additional action seems to have come mainly from
those countries that have strong environmental movements or would
have little adverse economic impact from a global warming
convention.
Arguments in favor of discussions of a convention include:
A convention is inevitable, and RSWG is a favorable forum
because this U.S. chaired group can guide international
activity towards a reasonable approach to a convention.
A convention could be similar to the Vienna Convention on
ozone protection, providing an institutional framework for
assessment of the issue and discussion of responses, and a
legal framework for agreement on specific measures, such as
the adoption of protocols -- without any obligation on the
parties to agree to the specific measures.
Discussions to consider formalizing and expanding existing
international cooperation, even in a limited fashion, would
be an aggressive U.S. response and could attract substantial
international attention.
Arguments opposed to discussions of a convention include:
Discussions would be a major, threshold step in the
direction toward a climate change convention. No matter how
limited, the process would be uncontrollable and could
result in international pressure for the U.S. to sign a
protocol which is not based on sound science and could have
a serious impact on the U.S. economy.
The U.S. has already taken a leadership role by making the
world's largest contribution to global climate research and
initiating and supporting the IPCC process. Leadership on
global climate issues does not need to be defined in terms
of a convention, as pushed by other nations with less at
stake.
Any U.S. response to climate change must be based on sound
scientific evidence. The IPCC process is designed to lead
to scientifically sound international policy decisions.
There is no scientific evidence that quick action, even
under the most pessimistic assumptions, will make any
significant difference in global warming.
The Vienna Convention was different. There was much more
science available and the effects were better understood
than what is currently known about global climate change.
Moreover, the economic impacts of controls are much less.
The U.S. does not have to react to the Hague Declaration
because it did not represent the positions of the major
greenhouse gas producers, and thus was not a serious
DRAFT
today. Also the socioeconomic impacts of CFC controls are
significantly less.
-- The Hague Declaration should not be viewed as a process with
which we must catch up. We were not invited to the meeting
(until the last minute), nor did the other significant greenhouse
gas producers (U.S.S.R. and China) take part in the proceedings.
Any serious international effort on global climate change must
include these three nations. It is unjust to single out the U.S.
as being intransigent when a majority to the world's nations
representing 75% of global CO2 emissions, were not a part of The
Hague process.
-- The IPCC is the major international effort in regard to
climate change and its agenda, correctly reflects the need to:
(1) assess the state of the science, (2) develop a better
understanding of the social and economic effects of possible
global climate change, and (3) begin the identification and
preliminary analysis of possible policy response. The three IPCC
working groups are moving to meet these needs. The IPCC process
is an orderly way to develop the information and international
understanding of that information needed for sound international
decision-making on global climate change. At the present time,
further negotiations would not be based on a sound understanding
of (a) the science (b) the possible social and economic effects,
or (c) the costs and other implications of potential policy
responses. The early participation in such negotiations will
likely lead to an early convention, early protocols, and poor
policy which is based on emotion, political expediency, and the
motivations of nations not destined to be economically damaged by
immature climate change responses.
-- The U.S. should not decide to support a convention on climate
change until its domestic policies are more firmly established.
Otherwise, the U.S. runs the risk of having its domestic policies
determined in a multi-lateral negotiation process where
traditionally U.S. leverage is weak. Joining in such an
international process may imply the adoption by the U.S. of
certain domestic policies, including all or a combination of the
following: (1) energy taxes; (2) tightened CAFE standards for
automobiles; (3) improvements in the efficiency of utilities; (4)
increased reliance on nuclear power; and (5) reforestation
programs.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
The U.S. delegation re-affirms its commitment to the current
IPCC process. and following Secretary Baker's four points,
describes the U.S. position as follows:
-- Given the great scientific and other uncertainties about
climate change, it would be irresponsible and premature to
DRAFT
negotiate actions that can only be justified on the basis of
benefits from avoiding global climate change.
-- However, we cannot afford to wait for all uncertainties to be
reached. Therefore, we should focus immediately on steps which
can be justified for other reasons.
-- The IPCC should identify and analyze those steps in its first
reports so early and informed international discussion of them
can begin.
-- Further steps of the kind which might be included in a
convention must be based on a full international understanding of
the state of the science and its uncertainties, a full
understanding of the potential social and economic impacts that
are likely from climate change, and a full understanding of the
costs and other implications of potential international joint
actions to respond to global change. Those understandings do not
exist now, but the IPCC process is designed and intended to
create them in an orderly and participatory way.
-- The U.S. considers it essential to the success of any joint
international actions on global climate change that they be
based soundly on an agreed upon understanding of the science and
other considerations and upon a wide consensus about what should
be done. Anything less is likely to fail. The Montreal Protocol
has been a success because the consensus is very broad.
For these reasons the U.S. insists that no separate groups be
established at this time within the RSWG to consider legal and
institutional measures and that no separate process for
considering possible elements of a framework convention be
established.
Pros:
Provides the President the opportunity to develop foreign
policy aspects of climate change policy as an outgrowth of
domestic policy.
pat this time
Establishes the U.S. position that negotiation, at this time
of climate response actions would be premature, and unwise and
that the IPCC process will build in an orderly fashion the
common scientific and policy analysis understandings needed
for sound and useful negotiations
Mainrains
until the ipcidevelops drship the information
Keeps the focus of the IPCC at this time on developing a needed for
common international understanding of the science, its
Sound
uncertainties, the potential impacts, and the implications of
potential international responses.
negotiations
Will help discourage demands that the U.S. and other
industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions to reduce
global warming before a sound scientific basis exists that for
DRAFT
such costly. actions. are justified by the benefits.
Cons:
and
greendown
With U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG will encourage
other existing international activity on a possible convention now.
carried on outside RSWG, may become more formalized and
organized, with U.S. views given significantly less attention
than those within RSWG. willbe
It is unclear whether the U.S. could succeed in postponing the
discussion, given that such discussion is consistent with the
UNGA and RSWG mandates.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is dragging its feet on a
major international issue.
OPTION #2:
The U.S. delegation re-affirm its commitment to implementation of
the IPCC process while announcing two new initiatives.
1) A research initiative, calling upon the other members of the
IPCC to join in an international research program. The program
would build upon the U.S. global climate change research program,
as well as the IPCC science assessment.
2) An invitation to an International Conference on Global
Environmental Issues, to be hosted by President Bush.
In addition, the delegation would re-state U.S. policy that all
countries should focus immediate attention on actions that can be
justified for other reasons, and call upon RSWG to give priority
to such actions in its assessment report. To further buttress
this effort, the U.S. would issue a report on all such actions
??
initiated within the first 100 days of the Bush Administration.
The U.S. delegation would oppose any additional efforts to
initiate any actions leading to a possible global convention,
until the IPCC assessments are completed.
Pros:
The U.S. would maintain and strengthen its position as a world
leader on international environmental issues.
The U.S. would take a pro-active posture in shaping the
international agenda in directions where the U.S. has a
position of strength, such as scientific research, rather than
reacting to proposals form other countries from a position of
weakness.
d
The U.S. has proposed to spend about $200 million in FY 1990
on global research, with increasing amounts likely in future
DRAFT
years. The results of this research will benefit the world
Other nations should be asked to share in this effort and in
the costs.
The U.S. delegation should seek to take credit for the Bush
Administration global environmental initiatives, rather than
continue to be portrayed in a reactive posture.
Cons:
With U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
existing international activity on a possible convention, now
carried on outside RSWG, may become more formalized and
organized, with U.S. views given significantly less attention
than those within RSWG. The U.S. call for an International
Conference of Global Environmental Issues will help mitigate
this criticism.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is taking only small
steps toward the resolution of a grave international issue.
OPTION#3:
The U.S. delegation proposes that a separate group be
established within the RSWG Steering Committee with the purpose
of drafting a report on possible institutional mechanisms for
addressing the climate change issue expressly including, but not
limited to, possible elements of a framework convention. The
group would be given a specific timetable such as an annotated
outline of report to Steering Committee for discussion at
Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full draft report for
review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 and inclusion in the
RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
under potential U.S. control.
The U.S. would assert an aggressive position on an important
international issue.
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
an international understanding of the science and other
relevant considerations before beginning negotiations, may
take a back seat to discussions over a convention and ensuing
protocols.
Financial markets may be startled by the appearance of U.S.
DRAFT
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
The U.S. may not be able to exercise leadership in a separate
RSWG group since it would probably not be chaired by the U.S.
For example, Canada, which has already pursued an aggressive
policy on atmospheric issues, is a likely candidate for the
chair.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 2, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR ROGER PORTER
FROM:
KEN YALE
SUBJECT: Alternative on Global Climate Convention Issue
You may want to consider an alternative that would assist the
domestic policy side of the White House to avoid losing control
over the issue of global climate.
Although we understand that Secretary Baker has signed off on the
concept of allowing discussions to go forth on the potential for
a framework convention, we still are not sure when those
discussions have to begin. Therefore, you may still want to
contact Bob Zoellich to determine whether there is a need to come
to a decision on this issue immediately.
If State senses that a decision is definitely needed thus week,
there is still an opportunity to use the options paper of the
EENR Working Group to effectively advise the President.
If State believes a decision is imperative, and if the decision
needs to be made at the Presidential level, the options paper
could be circulated one last time to the agencies. A memorandum
could then be attached and the paper sent in to the President for
his decision.
In this fashion, you preserve the domestic policy process,
utilize the input of the domestic agencies, and give the
President information needed to make an informed decision.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR
THROUGH: DAVID Q. BATES
vor
FROM:
KEN YALE Ky
SUBJECT: Global Climate Coordination
Due to the recent interest in the issue of global climate, it
would be appropriate to ensure timely information and close
coordination on international environmental issues. The attached
paper gives a suggested approach that would bring order to these
wide ranging issues. Action is needed due to pending events that
may require policy development and coordination.
The task force will essentially tap an existing mechanism by
forming a smaller, more streamlined group of agency
representatives already meeting in the DPC Working Group on
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources. By streamlining an
existing process, the White House will have a more efficient
resource with which it can more effectively handle a very broad issue.
P
Task Force
GLOBAL CLIMATE COORDINATION
ISSUE: Due to the interest of the Administration in global
climate issues and upcoming international meetings, there is a
need for timely information on the overall issues and greater
coordination between agencies and the White House.
BACKGROUND: Six major agencies and several White House offices
have direct involvement in global climate issues. Due to the
size of the issue and overlap in Federal agency jurisdiction,
none of the agencies have been willing to trust any of the others
to take a lead role.
In the past, it has been up to the White House to coordinate
efforts in this area. In the previous Administration, the
Domestic Policy Council was given the mandate to consider
international environmental issues that have an impact on
domestic agencies. This avoids the potential for international
interests deciding domestic policy. The Departments of State and
Defense have always participated in these issues in the DPC.
The DPC Working Group on Environment, Energy and Natural
Resources (EENR) has considered the global climate issue.
However, due to involvement with other issues (Clean Air,
Wetlands, and others) and the fact that other agencies without a
legitimate interest in global climate are members of the EENR, it
may be appropriate to create a Task Force on Global Climate,
which would report to the Domestic Policy Council. The group
would also coordinate its activities with the Economic Summit
preparation group.
PROPOSAL: The task force could be headed by the President's
Science Advisor. The agencies represented would include: State,
EPA, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. These are the
major agencies with a legitimate interest in the issues. White
House participants could include: OMB, NSC, OPD, CEQ, OSTP, OCA,
CEA, and others as appropriate.
Having the Science Advisor as head of the group solves the lead
agency problem and addresses the concern that we approach the
issues from a sound scientific and factual perspective. It also
places coordination of the issue within the White House and
allows for an open process in which all parties with a legitimate
interest can participate. The task force could assist in policy
formulation and coordination at a critical time for these issues.
Approve
Disapprove
Discuss
ACENCY RXN,
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
DRAFT
GLOBAL CLIMATE CONVENTION
ISSUE: Should the United States modify its past position and
initiate discussions on an international climate change
convention?
BACKGROUND: The possibility of global warming has received much
attention and both domestic and international interest in the
issue of climate change continues to intensify. However, the
present understanding of complex earth system processes is
rudimentary and substantial research will be necessary before we
can begin to make reliable predictions of global climate change.
Conflicting studies have highlighted the uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate system. The lack of adequate models
of the earth system, and the unknown ability of clouds and the
oceans to mitigate climate changes, indicate some of the
uncertainties. Nevertheless, there is growing political pressure
to take action. The U.S. is participating in various ongoing
international activities regarding global climate change and
pressure is building to modify our current policy by allowing
discussions to begin on an international convention on global
climate change.
DISCUSSION: The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in
November 1988 as an international focal point for climate change
issues. Three working groups, chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R., and
the U.S., respectively, were created to consider global climate
science, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and response
strategies. The IPCC plans to complete an interim report of its
findings by November 1990. The report would provide a foundation
for future actions.
Secretary Baker opened the January meeting of the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG), chaired by the U.S., with a
speech supporting IPCC activities and articulating a four point
U.S position. The Secretary stated: we cannot resolve all the
uncertainties before acting, immediate focus should be on steps
that can be justified for other reasons, global solutions should
be cost-effective and they should reconcile economic development
with a safe environment.
RSWG holds its next meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A key issue
is expected to be how discussion of an international convention
on global climate change will be handled within the RSWG.
There has been pressure from the beginning for the IPCC to
consider creating an international convention on climate change.
A convention would provide an institutional framework, or formal
mechanism, for assessment of issues, discussion of possible
responses, and recommendations for future actions to further
international interests in global climate issues. It could lead
to the adoption of protocols or other formal, legal initiatives,
but might not impose an obligation on parties to agree to future
actions or join any protocol.
The charter of the IPCC calls for consideration of "legal
matters." The workplan adopted by the RSWG at its January
meeting mandated consideration of "new legal
and
institutional mechanisms that could be used to implement"
responses to climate change. These could be considered moves
towards eventual consideration of a convention.
Advancing too quickly toward a global climate change convention
might circumvent the IPCC process, which considers the science
and impacts of global climate changes in addition to possible
responses. The U.S. has therefore succeeded in preventing either
creation of a separate group within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional mechanisms or explicit discussion within RSWG of
the global climate convention concept. It is unclear whether the
U.S. can continue to delay discussion of these issues, and there
is increasing international pressure to begin discussions on a
convention.
Last year Canada convened a meeting on global climate and drafted
a report that promoted a Law of the Atmosphere and timetables for
CO2 reduction. A Law of the Atmosphere is highly controversial,
and some believe a climate change convention could lead to such a
broad agreement. In December of 1988 the U.N. General Assembly
adopted a resolution calling for consideration of "elements of a
future climate convention" in the IPCC. A Canadian meeting in
February of this year urged adoption of a convention and
protocols to ensure quick action in global climate and limits
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses thought to result in
global warming.
The "Declaration of the Hague" was an agreement among 24 nations
in March of this year on the climate change issue. It stated
that global warming is the world's top environmental problem and
urged new international authority to combat it. The group will
meet again in May and could discuss a convention proposal at that
time. Significantly, major industrialized nations, including the
U.S., were not represented at the meeting.
Upcoming events may also increase pressure for further action.
How to initiate discussion of an international convention will be
an issue at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting. Many RSWG participants
will also attend the first meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol on May 2-5 and the convention issue could be discussed.
The UNEP Governing Council will meet in Nairobi in mid May.
Discussion is expected on a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by executive director Mostafa Tolba.
The IPCC will hold a meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 where the
convention issue is also expected to be raised. Finally, a
number of leaders attending the July, seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris may raise the subject.
Pressure for additional action seems to have come mainly from
those countries that have strong environmental movements or would
have little adverse economic impact from a global warming
convention.
Arguments in favor of discussions of a convention include:
-- A convention is inevitable, and RSWG is a favorable forum
because this U.S. chaired group can guide international
activity towards a reasonable approach to a convention.
-- A convention could be similar to the Vienna Convention on
ozone protection, providing an institutional framework for
assessment of the issue and discussion of responses, and a
legal framework for agreement on specific measures, such as
the adoption of protocols -- without any obligation on the
parties to agree to the specific measures.
--- Discussions to consider formalizing and expanding existing
international cooperation, even in a limited fashion, would
be an aggressive U.S. response and could attract substantial
international attention.
Arguments opposed to discussions of a convention include:
-- Discussions would be a major, threshold step in the
direction toward a climate change convention. No matter how
limited, the process would be uncontrollable and could
result in international pressure for the U.S. to sign a
protocol which is not based on sound science and could have
a serious impact on the U.S. economy.
-- The U.S. has already taken a leadership role by making the
world's largest contribution to global climate research and
initiating and supporting the IPCC process. Leadership on
global climate issues does not need to be defined in terms
of a convention, as pushed by other nations with less at
stake.
-- Any U.S. response to climate change must be based on sound
scientific evidence. The IPCC process is designed to lead
to scientifically sound international policy decisions.
There is no scientific evidence that quick action, even
under the most pessimistic assumptions, will make any
significant difference in global warming.
-- The Vienna Convention was different. There was much more
science available and the effects were better understood
than what is currently known about global climate change.
Moreover, the economic impacts of controls are much less.
-- The U.S. does not have to react to the Hague Declaration
because it did not represent the positions of the major
greenhouse gas producers (US, °23%; USSR, °19%; China, °10%)
and thus was not a serious international effort to address
global climate change.
The IPCC is the major international effort on global climate
change. It is moving to assess the science, consider the
social and economic impacts, and identify possible policy
responses. Further negotiations would prematurely lead to a
convention, early protocols, and poor policy based on
political expediency and motivations of nations not subject
to serious economic impacts.
The U.S. policy on global climate should not be determined
in a multi-lateral negotiation process where U.S. leverage
is traditionally weak. The U.S. should not decide on a
position on a convention until its domestic policies are
more firmly established.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
The U.S. delegation re-affirms its commitment to the current
IPCC process and articulates the U.S. position within the
parameters of Secretary Baker's four points.
The U.S. should insist that no separate groups be established at
this time within the RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established.
Pros:
Provides the President the opportunity to develop foreign
policy aspects of climate change policy as an outgrowth of
domestic policy.
Establishes the U.S. position that negotiation of climate
response actions would be premature until the IPCC develops
the requisite information for sound negotiations.
Maintains the focus of the IPCC on developing a common
international understanding of the science, its uncertainties,
the potential impacts, and the implications of potential
international responses.
Will help discourage demands that the U.S. and other
industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions to reduce
global warming before a sound scientific basis exists for
such costly actions.
Cons:
U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
will encourage international activity on a possible
convention outside RSWG to become more formalized and
organized. In such fora, U.S. views will be given
significantly less attention than those within RSWG.
It is unclear whether the U.S. could succeed in postponing the
discussion, given that such discussion is consistent with the
UNGA and RSWG mandates.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is dragging its feet on a
major international issue.
OPTION #2:
The U.S. delegation re-affirm its commitment to implementation of
the IPCC process while announcing two new initiatives.
1) A research initiative, calling upon the other members of the
IPCC to join in an international research program. The program
would build upon the U.S. global climate change research program,
as well as the IPCC science assessment. The U.S. has proposed
to spend about $200 million in FY 1990 on global research, with
increasing amounts likely in future years. The results of this
research will benefit the world. Other nations should be asked
to share in this effort and in the costs.
2) An invitation to an International Conference on Global
Environmental Issues, to be hosted by President Bush.
In addition, the delegation would re-state U.S. policy that all
countries should focus immediate attention on actions that can be
justified for other reasons, and call upon RSWG to give priority
to such actions in its assessment report. To further buttress
this effort, the U.S. would issue a report on all such actions
that have been initiated within the first 100 days of the Bush
Administration.
The U.S. delegation would oppose any additional efforts to
initiate any actions leading to a possible global convention,
until the IPCC assessments are completed.
Pros:
The U.S. would maintain and strengthen its position as a world
leader on international environmental issues.
The U.S. would take a pro-active posture in shaping the
international agenda in directions where the U.S. has a
position of strength, such as scientific research, rather than
reacting to proposals form other countries from a position of
weakness.
The U.S. delegation should seek to take credit for the Bush
Administration global environmental initiatives, rather than
continue to be portrayed in a reactive posture.
Cons:
With U.S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
existing international activity on a possible convention, now
carried on outside RSWG, may become more formalized and
organized, with U.S. views given significantly less attention
than those within RSWG.
It will appear to some that the U.S. is taking only small
steps toward the resolution of a grave international issue.
OPTION#3:
The U.S. delegation proposes that a separate group be
established within the RSWG Steering Committee with the purpose
of drafting a report on possible institutional mechanisms for
addressing the climate change issue expressly including, but not
limited to, possible elements of a framework convention. The
group would be given a specific timetable such as an annotated
outline of report to Steering Committee for discussion at
Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full draft report for
review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 and inclusion in the
RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
under potential U.S. control.
The U.S. would assert an aggressive position on an important
international issue.
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
an international understanding of the science and other
relevant considerations before beginning negotiations, may
take a back seat to discussions over a convention and ensuing
protocols.
Financial markets may be startled by the appearance of U.S.
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
The U.S. may not be able to exercise leadership in a separate
RSWG group since it would probably not be chaired by the U.S.
For example, Canada, which has already pursued an aggressive
policy on atmospheric issues, is a likely candidate for the
chair.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 27, 1989
MEMORANDUM TO NANCY A. MALOLEY
SUBJECT:
GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE PAPER
FROM:
BEVERLY J. BERGER BB
The draft paper on global climate change issue paper is making
significant progress. We appreciate your considerable efforts.
We would, however, like to have an opportunity to review the next
draft as there are likely to be extensive, substantive changes.
OSTP revisions are provided on the attached, including background
on the scientific aspects of this issue.
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:20AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
20239534621# 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TELECOPY MESSAGE
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
FAX: (202) 456-7739
ROOM 220
PHONE: (202) 456-6554
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO:
Beverly Berger
DATE: 4/26
ORGANIZATION: OSTP
TIME:
PHONE # 395-3902
FAX # 395-3462
FROM:
Nancy A. Maloley. OPD/WH
SUBJECT:
EENR Working Group
PER OUR CONVERSATION.
AS REQUESTED.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
FOR COMMENT.
OTHER
REMARKS:
7
PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER.
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:20AM :OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953462:# 2
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE EENR WORKING GROUP
FROM:
NANCY A. MALOLEY
now
SUBJECT:
Global Warming
Attached is the paper concerning discussions on a global
convention. Please provide comments by 4:00 P.M. tomorrow,
Thursday, April 27.
Please FAX as available, as it appears to be the most expedient.
Attachment
'SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:20AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953462:# 3
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ISSUE: How should the United States respond to growing
international pressure for a climate change convention?
BACKGROUND:
The U.S. has urged that the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), jointly established by the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) in November 1988, serve as the central policy
forum for the climate change issue. Three working groups,
chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R. and the U.S., respectively, were
established under the IPCC to consider 1) the science, 2)
environmental and socioeconomic impacts and 3) response
strategies.
Considered to be an unprecedented example of rapid international
cooperation on environmental problems, the IPCC project aims to
submit an interim report of its findings in time for the Second
World Climate Conference scheduled for Geneva in November 1990.
Secretary Baker echoed the President's stated commitment to
addressing global environmental concerns by opening the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG) January meeting in Washington
with a strong statement of Administration support for the overall
effort. The meeting was designed to be largely procedural and
was considered to be an overall success.
We are witnessing, however, a rapid growth of international
interest in the quick advancement toward a global climate change
convention.
insert A here
-- On March 11, France and Netherlands convened ministers
representing 24 nations (the U.S. was not invited until the last
minute) on the global warming issue. At the meeting, the
ministers signed the Declaration of The Hague stating global
warming is the world's top environmental problem and calling for
a new UN authority to combat it. The organizers will meet again
in May to address a convention proposal with timetables, emission
reduction targets, and new international regulatory authority. ¥
insert
-- The RSWG holds its second meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A
key issue is expected to be the concept of a convention on global
warming. The terms of reference adopted by WMO and UNEP for the
RSWG include consideration of "legal matters." The 18-month
workplan adopted at the group's first meeting in January 1989
embraced consideration of "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate change." The U.S. has, however, succeeded to date in
preventing either (1) creation of a separate group within RSWG to
consider legal or institutional measures or (2) explicit
discussion within RSWG of the global climate convention concept
or of what such a convention might contain.
*
insert (Note: The us, UK USSR and China did not attend the Mague meeting
Attendees included most European and this world countries, Japan,
Canada Australia, and New Zealand.)
Insert
A
On June 27-30, 1988 Canada convened with the support of
Prime Minister Minister Mulroney, a meeting entitled "The
Changing Atmosphere; Implications for Global Security." The
Candian-drafted report of the meeting promoted a Law of the
Atmosphere and targets and timetables for CO₂ reductions.
--
On February 20-22, 1989 an international meeting of legal
and policy experts was held in Ottawa, Canada to develop
further the legal and institutional framework for dealing
with existing emerging atmospheric problems. This group
recommended that "an international convention or conventions
with appropriate protocols are needed as a means to ensure
rapid international action to protect the atmosphere and
limit the rate of climate change. It also recommended that
protocols to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere are urgently required,
either within the frame work of a Convention on Climate
Change or a Convention on the Protection of the Atmosphere
and that negotiation of protocols on priority issues should
proceed simultaneously with the development of any such
convention."
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:21AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
2023953462:# 4
- 2 -
-- The Governing Council of the UNEP meeting in Nairobi on May
15-26 is expected to discuss a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by its executive director, Mostafa
Tolba.
-- At the IPCC meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 a climate change
convention is also expected to be discussed.
-- A number of leaders attending the July seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris are likely to force discussions concerning a
climate change convention.
The U.S., the Soviet Union, and China together produce over 50%
of man's contribution to greenhouse gases. Although any serious
international effort toward a response to climate change must
include these nations, to date the three have not participated
in any discussions calling for a climate change convention.
(not quite time -the us participated in both Toronto + ottawa
DISCUSSION: meeting.)
ARGUMENTS FAVORING CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may want to modify ,new its past position by initiating
discussions at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting that would lead to the
formation of a separate group within RSWG mandated with the
authority to discuss the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those in favor of modifying U.S. policy
make the following arguments.
-- The need for early discussions is predicated on the belief
that the U.S. chaired RSWG is a more favorable forum for
international discussion on a global climate change convention.
The convention approach is seen as inevitable, SO it would be
better to guide international activity toward a convention
containing general principles of cooperation, monitoring
mechanisms, and research programs. With strong U.S leadership
this approach may be able to stop movements -- such as the Hague
Declaration -- toward a convention with targets, timetables and
UN authority.
for emissions reductions in green house gas
-- A framework convention could follow the general approach of
the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
providing an institutional framework for continuing assessment of
the issue and discussion of possible responses. It would also
provide a legal framework under which specific measures could be
subsequently agreed, possibly through the adoption of protocols,
as with the ozone convention. However, a framework convention
would not impose any obligation on the parties to agree to
specific response measures or join any protocol.
-- A call for discussions to consider formalizing and expanding
existing international cooperation on climate change by some form
of climate treaty -- even one limited to scientific cooperation -
- would be a significant step beyond the current IPCC process.
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 : 7:22AM :OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
2023953462:# 5
- 3 -
delete, as this is maccurate and very misleading
Such an U.S. proposal could attract substantial international
attention and would represent a serious governmental response.
Depending on its timing, content, and presentation, a treaty
proposal could afford the U.S. an opportunity to reassert a
leadership position on the issue of global climate change. For
example, the President could propose an international legal
initiative in some highly visible form.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may not want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions on the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those against early modification of U.S.
policy make the following arguments.
-- It is vitally important that any potential U.S. response to
climate change be based on sound scientific evidence. Toward
this end, our efforts must accentuate research. The U.S. is
making the world's largest contribution to overall global climate
change research and our representatives may want to impress on
other nations the importance of this leadership role. The
process leading to the Montreal Protocol is an example of
international cooperation on a known environmental problem.
There was considerably more science available on CFCs and their
effect on the ozone layer at the beginning stages of that
process, however, than is known about global climate change
today.
-- The Hague Declaration should not be viewed as a process with
which we must catch up. We were not invited to the meeting
(until the last minute), nor did the other significant greenhouse
gas producers (U.S.S.R. and China) take part in the proceedings.
Any serious international effort on global climate change must
include these three nations.
discussions
-- The IPCC is the major international effort in regard to
climate change and its agenda, correctly, reflects the need for
scientific data collection and analysis. The three IPCC working
groups are progressing and at the present time there is no need
for further negotiations leading toward a mechanism for
developing potential future responses. The early participation
in such negotiations will likely lead to an early convention,
early protocols, and poor policy which is based on emotion,
political expediency, and the motivations of nations not destined
to be economically damaged by immature climate change responses.
-- The U.S. should decide if a convention on climate change is
in its best interest. This decision should be considered within
the context of a comprehensive U.S. approach to the climate
change issue. Until the President has had an opportunity to
develop his overall policy, the Administration should defer
taking positions at international meetings which will limit his
later options. Joining in such an international process may
imply the adoption by the U.S. of certain domestic policies,
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:22AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953462:# 6
- 4 -
including all or a combination of the following: (1) energy
taxes; (2) tightened CAFE standards for automobiles; (3)
improvements in the efficiency of utilities; (4) increased
reliance on nuclear power; and (5) reforestation programs. The
called for modification of U.S. policy is a major threshold step
in the direction toward a climate change convention. This
mechanism may ultimately end with intense international pressure
on the U.S. to sign a protocol which is not based on sound
science and which has the potential of imparting a severe
negative impact on our economy.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
maintains the position
The U.S. delegation continues to insist that no separate group be
established within RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established and uses the
power of the chair to prevail.
Pros:
Provides the President the opportunity to develop foreign policy
assectsof
comprehensive global climate change policy with all options
still intact. as an outgrowth of domestic policy.
The development of science will remain the focus of the IPCC
and the concept of a convention will remain a future option
Cons: within the avoids having legal issues dominate
Promotes focussing on technical aspects of global change at
this stage.
with U.S. intransigence on the convention concept,
international activity may be moved from RSWG to a less
desirable forum.
Maintenance of the current us position in on legal and institutional
The U.S. would appear to the world to be dragging its feet on
issues with RSW6 may result a shift in
a major international issue not to be responsive to pressures
for a global climate convention as articulated at the
OPTION #2: Toronto, Ottawa, and Hague meetings
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional measures and that it immediately begin to discuss
what might be included in a framework convention.
Pros:
among other legal options,
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
2may be able to
/amust
The U.S. would reassert its position as a bold leader on an
important international issue. show that it is
responsive to international pressures.
lla must
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:23AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
2023953462:# 7
- 5 -
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
science, may take a back seat to discussions over a convention
and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted by the appearance of U.S.
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
The early maturation of international policy may preempt the
President's development of a comprehensive climate change
policy.
INSERT
OPTION#3:
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within the RSWG Steering Committee
with the purpose of drafting a report on possible institutional
mechanisms for addressing the climate change issue expressly
including, but not limited to, possible elements of a framework
convention. The group would be given a specific timetable such
as an annotated outline of report to Steering Committee for
discussion at Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full
draft report for review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 and
inclusion in the RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
The U.S. would reassert, to a lesser degree than option #2,
its position as a leader on an important international issue.
Cons:
perhaps
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
science, may take a back seat, to a lesser degree than option
#2, to discussions over a convention and ensuing protocols.
/
Financial markets may be jolted to a lesser degree than
option #2, by the appearance of U.S. movement toward
international treaties mandating the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions. InserT
C
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
INSERT
OPTION # 4 - attached
serts
B
The group would undoubtedly be chaired by Canada which
played leadership roles in the Toronto, Ottawa and the Hague
meetings, all of which promoted either a climate convention
or law of the atmosphere as well as targets and timetables
for greenhouse gas reductions.
Financial markets may be jolted, to a lesser degree than
C
option #2, by the appearance of U.S. accommodation to
international pressure seeking to establish a convention on
global climate change and subsequent targets and timetables
for greenhouse gas reductions.
The group would most likely be chaired by Canada which played
A
leadership roles in the Toronto, Ottawa and the Hague
meetings, all of which promoted both a climate convention or
law of the atmosphere as well as targets and timetables for
greenhouse gas reductions.
Option 4: Same as 3 except legal group is chaired by RSWG
chairman (which is U.S.)
Pro's and con's the same except that U.S. will undoubtedly chair
and have some control over scope and process.
SCIENCE
The magnitude, rate, and timing of any climatic change which
might be caused by human activities is subject to very high
scientific uncertainty. In 1979, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) estimated on the basis of results from the
available climate models that a doubling in CO₂ levels would
yield--with a 50 percent probability-- global warming ranging
from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. The NAS most probable estimate out
of this range was 3 degrees C. A subsequent (1983) NAS review
of the issue, and the 1979 estimate, concluded that:
"the climate record of the past hundred years
and our estimates of CO, changes over that
period suggest that values in the lower half
of this range are more probable."
These projections are based, however, on a very limited
knowledge base--much of the information needed to make
projections of global change including possible climate change
is not known. We currently understand too little of the
physical science and even less of the life sciences necessary
to predict global change. As a result, improving our ability
to understand and to predict global change, whether natural or
human-induced, is essential for providing a sound basis for
developing policy.
Areas of uncertainty include:
-- We do not have quantitative models of terrestrial
ecosystems and marine biogeochemistry. These are
important components to any model of the total earth
system.
-- The effects with global change on cloud cover. Some
people believe an increase in low-cloud cover of only
a few percent would outweigh the radiative effect of
a doubling in atmospheric CO₂ levels.
-- The heat capacity of the oceans could, in principle,
delay substantially a projected rise in global
temperature and modify polar-to-equator temperature
gradients in the interim. We require a better
understanding of the processes governing ocean
circulation and a credible numerical model to
quantify these effects.
APR-28-89 FRI 12:34 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
P.01
TAKE
OF INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Much 1844
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
TRANSMISSION NOTICE
FAX NUMBER:
202/343-4867
VOICE NUMBER:
TO:
Name
Paul Roellig
Voice no. 456 - 7988
Fax Phone #
456-7739
FROM:
I. Goklany
343-4951
Office of Program Analysis
DOI, 18th & C Sts., N.W., MS 4412
Washington, D.C. 20240
5
NO. OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:
DATE: 4/28
TIME:
12:30 p.m.
COMMENTS:
Celebrating the United States Constitution
APR-28-89 FRI 12:34 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
P.02
Paul, I've some very quick
socioeconomic
comments. Sorry I could
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
not get it to you earlier
or devote more time to it.
ISSUE: How should the United States respond to growing
international pressure for a climate change convention?
bods
climate and
BACKGROUND:
The U.S. has urged that the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), jointly established by the United Nations
Organization (WMO) in November 1988, serve as the central policy
forum for the climate change issue. Three working groups,
Does need on The science emphasizing The uncertainty
and timing of change
also it should talk about the
impacts of premature action.
Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological
chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R. and the U.S., respectively, were
established under the IPCC to consider 1) the science, 2)
environmental and socioeconomic impacts and 3) response
strategies.
Considered to be an unprecedented example of rapid international
cooperation on environmental problems, the IPCC project aims to
submit an interim report of its findings in time for the Second
World Climate Conference scheduled for Geneva in November 1990.
Secretary Baker echoed the President's stated commitment to
addressing global environmental concerns by opening the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG) January meeting in Washington
with a strong statement of Administration support for the overall
effort. The meeting was designed to be largely procedural and
was considered to be an overall success.
The direction, magnite
effects.
We are witnessing, however, a rapid growth of international
interest in the quick advancement toward a global climate change
convention.
On March 11, France and Netherlands convened ministers
win
representing 24 nations (the U.S. was not invited until the last
minute) on the global warming issue. At the meeting, the
invited?
ministers signed the Declaration of The Hague stating global
warming is the world's top environmental problem and calling for
a new UN authority to combat it. The organizers will meet again
in May to address a convention proposal with timetables, emission
reduction targets, and new international regulatory authority.
steering grant committee
-- The RSWG holds its second meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A
key issue is expected to be the concept of a convention on global
warming. The terms of reference adopted by WMO and UNEP for the
RSWG include consideration of "legal matters." The 18-month
workplan adopted at the group's first meeting in January 1989
embraced consideration of "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate change." The U.S. has, however, succeeded to date in
X
preventing either (1) creation of a separate group within RSWG to
consider legal or institutional measures or (2) explicit
discussion within RSWG of the global climate convention concept
or of what such a convention might contain.
APR-28-89 FRI 12:35 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
P.03
The Governing Council of the UNEP meeting in Nairobi on May
-- 15-26 is expected to discuss a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by its executive director, Mostafa
Tolba.
-- At the IPCC meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 a climate change
convention is also expected to be discussed.
A number of leaders attending the July seven-nation Economic
Summit -- in Paris are likely to force discussions concerning a
climate change convention.
The U.S., the Soviet Union, and China together produce over 50%
of man's contribution to greenhouse gases. Although any serious
international effort toward a response to climate change must
include these nations, to date the three have not participated
in any discussions calling for a climate change convention.
DISCUSSION:
ARGUMENTS FAVORING CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting that would lead to the
(and/or
formation of a separate group within RSWG mandated with the
advisab-
authority to discuss the advisability and possible elements
of a
framework convention. Those in favor of modifying U.S. policy
ility
make the following arguments.
-- The need for early discussions is predicated on the belief
that the U.S. chaired RSWG is a more favorable forum for
international discussion on a global climate change convention.
The convention approach is seen as inevitable, so it would be
better to guide international activity toward a convention
containing general principles of cooperation, monitoring
mechanisms, and research programs. With strong U.S leadership
this approach may be able to stop movements -- such as the Hague
Declaration -- toward a convention with targets, timetables, and
UN authority.
-- A framework convention could follow the general approach of
the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
providing an institutional framework for continuing assessment of
the issue and discussion of possible responses. It would also
provide a legal framework under which specific measures could be
subsequently agreed, possibly through the adoption of protocols,
as with the ozone convention. However, a framework convention
would not impose any obligation on the parties to agree to
specific response measures or join any protocol.
-- A call for discussions to consider formalizing and expanding
existing international cooperation on climate change by some form
of climate treaty -- even one limited to scientific cooperation -
- would be a significant step beyond the current IPCC process.
APR-28-89 FRI 12:36 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
P.04
reducing The uncertainties in
our sciencific knowledge and
data base, and a much letter
Such an U.S. proposal could attract substantial international
understand
attention and would represent a serious governmental response
Depending on its timing, content, and presentation, a treaty
ding of
proposal could afford the U.S. an opportunity to reassert a
the social,
leadership position on the issue of global climate change. For
environ-
example, the President could propose an international legal mental and
initiative in some highly visible form.
economic
consequences of
ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
any ape policy
The U.S. may not want to modify its past position by initiating
options.
discussions on the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those against early modification of U.S.
policy make the following arguments.
-- It is vitally important that any potential U.S. response to
climate change be based on sound scientific evidence. Toward
this end, our efforts must accentuate research. The U.S. is
making the world's largest contribution to overall global climate
change research and our representatives may want to impress on
other nations the importance of this leadership role. The
process leading to the Montreal Protocol is an example of
international cooperation on a known environmental problem.
There was considerably more science available on CFCs and their
effect on the ozone layer at the beginning stages of that
process, however, than is known about global climate change
today. also, the socioeconomic impacts of CFC control are at least
-- The Hague Declaration should not be viewed as a process with
an order of magnitude less.
which we must catch up. We were not invited to the meeting
(until the last minute), nor did the other significant greenhouse
gas producers (U.S.S.R. and China) take part in the proceedings.
Any serious international effort on global climate change must
thant
by include these three nations will be still bone
by
participation
STET...
The IPCC is the major international effort in regard to
climate change and its agenda, correctly, reflects the need for
scientific data collection and analysis. The three IPCC working
social
groups are progressing and at the present time there is no need
of
for further negotiations leading toward a mechanism for
developing potential future responses. The early participation
and
heree
in such negotiations will likely lead to an early convention,
conseq action
early protocols, and poor policy which is based on emotion,
political expediency, and the motivations of nations not destined
or of inaction
to be economically damaged by immature climate change responses.
-- The U.S. should decide if a convention on climate change is
in its best interest. This decision should be considered within
the context of a comprehensive U.S. approach to the climate
change issue. Until the President has had an opportunity to
develop his overall policy, the Administration should defer
taking positions at international meetings which will limit his
later options. Joining in such an international process may
imply the adoption by the U.S. of certain domestic policies,
PR-28-89 FRI 12:37 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
including all or a combination of the following: (1) energy
taxes; (2) tightened CAFE standards for automobiles; (3)
improvements in the efficiency of utilities; (4) increased
reliance on nuclear power; and (5) reforestation programs. The
called for modification of U.S. policy is a major threshold step
in the direction toward a climate change convention. This
mechanism may ultimately end with intense international pressure
on the U.S. to sign a protocol which is not based on sound
science and which has the potential of imparting a severe
negative impact on our economy.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
The U.S. delegation continues to insist that no separate group be
established within RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established and uses the
power of the chair to prevail.
Pros:
0
Provides the President the opportunity to develop a
comprehensive global climate change policy with all options
still intact.
The development of science will remain the focus of the IPCC
and the concept of a convention will remain a future option.
Cons:
O
With U.S. intransigence on the convention concept,
international activity may be moved from RSWG to a less
desirable forum.
-actinct nations of
0
The U.S. would appear to the world to be dragging its feet on
a major international issue. ; other nations may view this
as a responsible attitude
OPTION #2:
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional measures and that it immodiately begin to discuss
what might be included in a framework convention. in thank, al This time,
Pros: getting into a discussion on The advicability of such a A convistion.
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
The U.S. would reassert its position as a bold leader on an?
Is
this
important international issue.
a "pro"?
APR-28-89 - FRI 12:37 PROGRAM ANALYSIS DOI
Cons:
notessarily
IPCC process, which emphasizes the development convention of
The science, present may take a back seat to discussions over a
and ensuing protocols.
movement Financial toward international treaties mandating the reduction
markets may be jolted by the appearance of U.S.
of greenhouse gas emissions.
presents some danger in
The President's development of a comprehensive climate
early maturation of international policy may proompt change the reducing the flex bil
L
policy.
faxibility mithe
OPTION#3:
The U.S. be established within the RSWG Steering institutional Committee
delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
with for addressing the climate change issue
separate the group purpose of drafting a report on possible expressly
mechanisms but not limited to, possible elements of a framework such
convention. including, The group would be given a specific timetable for
discussion as an at Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1999, a full
annotated outline of report to Steering Committee
This timetal
draft report for review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 1990. and
inclusion in the RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall
unual
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
a is
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
The U.S. would reassert, to a lesser degree than option #2,
its position as a leader on an important international issue.
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
science, may take a back seat, to a lesser degree than option
#2, to discussions over a convention and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted, to a lesser degree than
option #2, by the appearance of U.S. movement toward
accebratic
international treaties mandating the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
a
Could have major adverse social, economic and
environmental impacts on The U.S. 8 The world
t necessaril a commenourate benefit
SSNIMENT OF
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
AMERICA
STATES Note to: Nancy Maloley
From:
Melinda Downing
Subject: EENR Working Group on Global Warming
Please see the attached information from Polly Gault. The Admiral and
Polly are on official travel Friday, April 28, 1989 to Savannah River. All
comments on this issue should be coordinated with John Easton. He can be
reached on 586-6210 or by fax number 586-7644.
Attachment
cc: Bob Grady
00/21/37
Apr 27,89 18:00 No.030 P.02
DOE FORRESTAL COMM CENTE TEL: 202-586-5067
OF
KIMESLO MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
TATES
MEMORANDUM FOR: Nancy A. Maloley
Office of Policy Development
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
FROM:
Polly Gault
Chief of Staff
Office of The Secretary
Polly of Energy gaver
SUBJECT:
EENR Working Group on Global Warming
Discussion of Paper
The Department of Energy is concerned that some of the statements
contained in the "Background" section are not factually correct. For
example, on page 1 there is a statement that the Hague Declaration
calls for a "new UN authority." In fact, Principle (a) calls for
"strengthening existing institutions or by creating a new
institution" (emphasis added).
On page 3 the process leading to the Montreal Protocol was described
as an example of international cooperation on a "known" environmental
problem. The use of this word overstates the degree of scientific
knowledge or scientific agreement about the problem.
A more serious problem is the lack of specificity with regard to the
options. A more detailed analysis of the nature and content of a
framework convention is needed.
Prior to any discussion at the Geneva meeting, the U.S. delegation
must have a clear understanding of what would be an acceptable
content of a framework convention. If a framework convention were
limited only to endorsing the work of the IPCC and calling for wider
participation in the IPCC process, emphasizing scientific cooperation
to determine the effect of greenhouse gases and calling for further
development and analysis of various response options, it could serve
a constructive purpose.
The Department of Energy strongly believes that any discussion of a
framework convention should occur within RSWG and IPCC rather than
UNEP. The U.S. should assure that the IPCC retains control of this
issue rather than have UNEP assume responsibility for it. Since UNEP
has exclusively focused on environmental issues, it would not
consider other competing issues such as energy and economy in the
same way that the IPCC would.
3/2137
Apr 27,89 18:00 No .030 P.03
DOE FORRESTAL COMM CENTE TEL: 202-586-5067
Comments on the Options Presented by EENR:
Option #1: This course of inaction could undermine the U.S.
position. It would appear to be foot dragging. There is
mounting pressure on the U.S. for action that emanates from a cross
section of countries, not just the activists. Continued refusal to
discuss a framework convention will hinder development of consensus
on other matters.
Option #2: If the possibility of a framework convention is discussed,
such a discussion should occur before the entire RSWG. This would
allow the U.S. to retain the chair. In addition, the person selected
for the chair should be a strong, unbiased representive of the U.S.
position. In the past the U.S. agreed that RSWG subgroups should
have foreign chairmen thereby weakening U.S. influence. By contrast,
the Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts Working Group chaired by
the USSR has a Soviet cochair for each subgroup.
Option #3: This option puts discussion of the framework in the RSWG
Steering committee. This is a closed forum with a more limited
representation than a separate RSWG subgroup. Since there would be
no chance for industry and other Non-governmental Organizations
(NGOs) to be heard, there is a greater chance that views contrary to
U.S. interests could be carried.
Recommendation:
The consensus on this issue has not been formed and the process needs
more time. This group should continue to work toward formulation of
a USG leadership position without the pressure of a decision to place
discussion of the matter on the next RSWG agenda. After a USG
leadership position is completed, we may choose our forum to unveil
our plan (e.g., IPCC in Nairobi in June).
A/2137
Apr 27,89 18:00 No.030 P.04
DOE FORRESTAL COMM CENTE TEL 202-586-5067
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
FAX: (202) 456-7739
PHONE: (202) 456-6354
ROOM 220
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
TO:
Polly Gault
DATE: 4/27
ORGANIZATION: Dept. of Energy
TIME: 9:30
PHONE # 586-6210
FAX # 586-7644
FROM:
Nancy Malcley, OPD/WH
SUBJECT:
EENR Working Group
PER OUR CONVERSATION.
AS REQUESTED.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
FOR COMMENT.
OTHER
REMARKS:
PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER.
5/212
THE THE This and
11
!!!
TIED mm an III
SO di 030 ON 00:81 27..8 Apr
DOE FORRESTAL COMM CENTE TEL: 202-586-5067
OFFICE wish OFFICE PRESIDENT STATES UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
APR 27 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR KEN YALE
FROM:
for Jay Plager Jun Moe Ren
SUBJECT:
Global Warming
1) The background discussion should present a short discussion
of the current state of the science. (See attached
statement.)
2) The discussion does not provide the reader with a clear
explanation of what a framework convention is, and how it
differs from the current IPCC structure. [Surely, for
example, the current IPCC provides a framework "for
continuing assessment of the issue and discussion of possible
responses."]
3) The discussion should also point to the points of U.S.
leadership in terms of, for example, the phasedown of CFCs
and the commitment to an ambitious agenda of scientific
research. There must be other ways to lead besides jumping
on the framework convention bandwagon.
4) Rewrite Option #1, as follows:
The U.S. delegation maintains the position that RSWG
will not consider legal and institutional measures and
that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention will be established.
The U.S. delegation will use the power of the chair to
prevail.
5) Tuesday's discussion suggested that even if the U.S.
initiates a discussion of a framework convention in the
context of RSWG, it may not be able to control the ensuing
discussion within RSWG or in the variety of other
international fora on global change. There is no discussion
of this possibility.
6) The draft at several points (p.2 and Option #3 on p.5)
suggests that initiating discussions on the issue would lead
to the formation of a separate group within RSWG to discuss
the advisability, etc., of a framework convention. In
Tuesday's meeting, there seemed to be general agreement that
the U.S. would retain greater control if such discussions
were part of the basic agenda of RSWG, instead of creating a
subgroup.
7) Use of "intransigence" in the first "con" bullet in Option 1
is pejorative. Bullet should be re-written as follows:
Maintenance of the current U.S. position on
may result in a shift in international
activity from RSWG to a less desirable form.
Attachment
SCIENCE
The magnitude, rate, and timing of any climatic change which
might be caused by human activities is subject to very high
scientific uncertainty. In 1979, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) estimated on the basis of results from the
available climate models that a doubling in CO2 levels would
yield--with a 50 percent probability--a global warming ranging
from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. The NAS most probable estimate out
of this range was 3 degrees C. A subsequent (1983) NAS review
of the issue, and the 1979 estimate, concluded that:
"the climate record of the past hundred years
and our estimates of CO₂ changes over that
period suggest that values in the lower half
of this range are more probable."
These projections are based, however, on a very limited
knowledge base--much of the information needed to make
projections of global change including possible climate change
is not known. We currently understand too little of the
physical science and even less of the life sciences necessary
to predict global change. As a result, improving our ability
to understand and to predict global change, whether natural or
human-induced, is essential for providing a sound basis for
developing policy.
Areas of uncertainty include:
-- We do not have quantitative models of terrestrial
ecosystems and marine biogeochemistry. These are
important components to any model of the total earth
system.
-- The effects with global change on cloud cover. Some
people believe an increase in low-cloud cover of only
a few percent would outweigh the radiative effect of
a doubling in atmospheric CO₂ levels.
-- The heat capacity of the oceans could, in principle,
delay substantially a projected rise in global
temperature and modify polar-to-equator temperature
gradients in the interim. We require a better
understanding of the processes governing ocean
circulation and a credible numerical model to
quantify these effects.
SENT 3Y:NAPAP/CEQ
SENI BY:OFFICE OF AUMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 5:44PM ;
2023953928-
2023853928:# 224
4567739;#
4-27-89 ; 7:46AM OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE EENR WORKING GROUP
FROM:
NANCY A. MALOLEY now
SUBJECT:
Global Warming
Attached is the paper concerning discussions on a global
Thursday, April 27.
convention. Please provide comments by 4:00 P.M. tomorrow,
Please FAX as available, as it appears to be the most expedient.
Attachment
4/27/89
Namy- The key issue here is - does
the President want to have international
Concerns drive domestic policy , or does
be want to decide what we do domestically
and then let those decisions drive
our relations with other nations. The
issue needs very the early DPC consideration
Nortes in margies.
al Hill
SENT BY: NAPAP/CEQ
; 4-27-89 ; 5:46PM ;
2023953928-
4567739;# 5
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
: 4-27-89 ; 7:47AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
2023953928:# 5
- 3 -
Such an U.S. proposal could attract substantial international
attention and would represent a serious governmental response.
Depending on its timing, content, and presentation, a treaty
proposal could afford the U.S. an opportunity to reassert a
leadership position on the issue of global climate change. For
example, the President could propose an international legal
initiative in some highly visible form.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may not want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions on the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those against early modification of U.S.
policy make the following arguments.
-- It is vitally important that any potential U.S. response to
climate change be based on sound scientific evidence. Toward
this end, our efforts must accentuate research. The U.S. is
making the world's largest contribution to overall global climate
change research and our representatives may want to impress on
other nations the importance of this leadership role. The
process leading to the Montreal Protocol is an example of
international cooperation on & known environmental problem.
There was considerably more science available on CFCs and their
effect on the ozone layer at the beginning stages of that
process, however, than is known about global climate change
today.
-- The Hague Declaration should not be viewed as a process with
which we must catch up. We were not invited to the meeting
(until the last minute), nor did the other significant greenhouse
gas producers (U.S.S.R. and China) take part in the proceedings.
Any serious international effort on global climate change must
include these three nations.
-- The IPCC is the major international effort in regard to
climate change and its agenda, correctly, reflects the need for
scientific data collection and analysis. The three IPCC working
groups are progressing and at the present time there is no need
for further negotiations leading toward a mechanism for
developing potential future responses. The early participation
in such negotiations will likely lead to an early convention,
early protocols, and poor policy which is based on emotion,
political expediency, and the motivations of nations not destined
to be economically damaged by immature climate change responses.
-- The U.S. should decide if a convention on climate change 18
in its best interest. This decision should be considered within
the context of a comprehensive U.S. approach to the climate
change issue. Until the President has had an opportunity to
develop his overall policy, the Administration should defer
Right!
taking positions at international meetings which will limit his
later options. Joining in such an international process may
imply the adoption by the U.S. of certain domestic policies,
SENT BY:NAPAP/CEQ
; 4-27-89 ; 5:45PM ;
2023953928-
4567739;# 4
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 : 7:47AM :OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953928;# 4
- 2 -
-- The Governing Council of the UNEP meeting in Nairobi on May
15-26 is expected to discuss a global climate change framework
Tolba. convention, which is favored by its executive director, Mostafa
-- At the IPCC meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 a climate change
convention 1a also expected to be discussed.
-- A number of leaders attending the July seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris are likely to force discussions concerning a
climate change convention.
The U.S., the Soviet Union, and China together produce over 50%
of man's contribution to greenhouse gases. Although any serious
international effort toward a response to climate change must
include these nations, to date the three have not participated
in any discussions calling for a climate change convention.
what do
DISCUSSION:
ARGUMENTS FAVORING CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
USSR. difect? d
The U.S. may want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting that would lead to the
formation of a separate group within RSWG mandated with the
authority to discuss the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those in favor of modifying U.S. policy
make the following arguments.
-- The need for early discussions is predicated on the belief
that the U.S. chaired RSWG is a more favorable forum for
international discussion on a global climate change convention.
The convention approach is seen as inevitable, so it would be
better to guide international activity toward a convention
containing general principles of cooperation, monitoring
mechanisms, and research programs. with strong U.S leadership
this approach may be able to stop movements -- such as the Hague
UN authority.
Declaration toward a convention with targets, timetables, and
-- A framework convention could follow the general approach of
the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
providing an institutional framework for continuing assessment of
the issue and discussion of possible responses. It would also
provide a legal framework under which specific measures could be
subsequently agreed, possibly through the adoption of protocols,
as with the ozone convention. However, a framework convention
would not impose any obligation on the parties to agree to
specific response measures or join any protocol.
-- A call for discussions to consider formalizing and expanding
existing international cooperation on climate change by some form
of climate treaty -- even one limited to scientific cooperation -
- would be a significant step beyond the current IPCC process.
SENT 3Y:NAPAP/CEQ
4-27-89 5:44PM
2023953928-
4567739;# 3
SENI BY.OFFICE OF ADMIN
4-27-89 ; 7:45AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953928:# 3
Notes Need to define:
1
what global 2 climate
change is
contributing
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
02
Source
ISSUE: How should the United States respond to growing
pollutants of pollutants. those
international pressure for a climate change convention?
BACKGROUND:
international consideration of
The U.S. has urged that the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), jointly established by the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) in November 1988, serve as the central policy
forum for the climate change issue, Three working groups,
chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R. and the U.S., respectively, were
established under the IPCC to consider 1) the science, 2)
environmental and socioeconomic impacts and 3) response
strategies.
Considered to be an unprecedented example of rapid international
cooperation on environmental problems, the IPCC project aims to
submit an interim report of its findings in time for the Second
World Climate Conference scheduled for Geneva in November 1990.
list pee
Secretary Baker schood the President's stated commitment to
addressing global environmental concerns by opening the Response
nations.
Strategies Working Group RSWG) Jahuary meeting in Washington
with a strong statement of Administration support for the overall
effort. The meeting was designed to be largely procedural and
was considered to be an overall success.
?
Delegates rejected opening
We are witnessing, however, a rapid growth of international us
convention. interest in the quick advancement toward a global climate change
position!
-- On March 11, France and Netherlands convened ministers
representing 24 nations (the U.S. was not invited until the last
minute) on the global warming issue. At the meeting, the
ministers signed the Declaration of The Hague stating global
warming is the world's top environmental problem and calling for
a new UN authority to combat it. The organizers will meet again
in May to address a convention proposal with timetables, emission
reduction targets, and new international regulatory authority.
-- The RSWG holds its second meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A
key issue is expected to be the concept of a convention on global
warming. The terms of reference adopted by WMO and UNEP for the
RSWG include consideration of "legal matters." The 18-month
workplan adopted at the group's first meeting in January 1989
embraced consideration of "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate change. The U.S. has, however, succeeded to date in
preventing either (1) creation of a separate group within RSWG to
consider legal or institutional measures or (2) explicit
discussion within RSWG of the global climate convention concept
or of what such a convention might contain.
SENT BY:NAPAP/CEQ
; 4-27-89 ; 5:47PM ;
2023953928-
4567739:# 6
SENI BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:48AM OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953928:# 6
- 4 -
including all or a combination of the following: (1) energy
taxes, (2) tightened CAFE standards for automobiles, (3)
improvements in the efficiency of utilities; (4) increased
reliance on nuclear power; and (5) reforestation programs. The
called for modification of U.S. policy is a major threshold step
in the direction toward a climate change convention. This
mechanism may ultimately end with intense international pressure
on the U.S. to sign a protocol which is not based on sound
science and which has the potential of imparting & severe
negative impact on our economy.
OPTIONS:
OPTION #1:
The U.S. delegation continues to insist that no separate group be
established within RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established and uses the
power of the chair to prevail.
Pros:
Provides the President the opportunity to develop a
comprehensive global climate change policy with all options
still intact.
The development of science will remain the focus of the IPCC
and the concept of a convention will remain a future option.
Cons:
with U.S. intransigence on the convention concept,
international activity may be moved from RSWG to a less
desirable forum.
o
The U.S. would appear to the world to be dragging its feet on
a major international issue.
OPTION #2:
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional measures and that it immediately begin to discuss
what might be included in a framework convention.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
This assemes will
others
to
The U.S. would reassert its position as a bold leader on an
important international issue.
listen
us
Page
SENT BY:NAPAP/CEQ
4-27-89 5:47PM ;
2023953928-
4567739:# 7
SENT BY:OFFICE OF AUMIN
;
4-27-88 ; 7:49AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953928;# 7
- 5 -
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
science, may take a back seat to discussions over a convention
and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted by the appearance of U.S.
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
The early maturation of international policy may preempt the
President's development of a. comprehensive climate change
policy.
OPTION#3:
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within the RSWG steering Committee
with the purpose of drafting a report on possible institutional
mechanisms for addressing the climate change issue expressly
including, but not limited to, possible elements of a framework
convention. The group would be given a specific timetable such
as an annotated outline of report to Steering Committee for
discussion at Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full
draft report for review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 and
inclusion in the RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
The U.S. would reassert, to a lesser degree than option #2,
its position as a leader on an important international issue.
Cons:
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
science, may take a back seat, to a lesser degree than option
#2, to discussions over a convention and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted, to a lesser degree than
option #2, by the appearance of U.S. movement toward
international treaties mandating the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
o
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
04/27/89 15:45
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
01
of Occaps and International
Environmental ani Scrottific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
RAPIDFAX
CANON FAX-620
Date: 4/27
Time: 1630
FROM:
Name:
A.D. SENS
TEL. No. 6474266
Office Symbol/Number DES
Fax No. 647-5947
Document Description:
Pages to Follow:
TO:
Name: Paul Rollis
Tel. No.: 456-7988
Office Symbol/Number OPD
Fax No.: 456-7739
MESSAGE
CommAs ov 4/26 mallody
Pager, per request.
04/27/89 15:46
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
02
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ISSUE: How should the United States respond within RSWG to
international pressure for immediate consideration of a climate
change convention?
BACKGROUND: The U.S. has urged that the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly established last year by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), serve as the central policy
forum for the climate change issue. Three working groups,
chaired by the U.K., USSR, and the U.S., respectively, were
established under the IPCC to consider: 1) the science, 2) the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts; and 3) response
strategies.
Considered to be an unprecedented example of rapid international
cooperation on an environmental problem, the IPCC is to submit
an interim report of its findings in time for the Second World
Climate Conference scheduled for Geneva in late 1990.
Secretary Baker echoed the President's stated commitment to
addressing global environmental concerns by opening the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG) January meeting in Washington
with a strong statement of Administration support for the
overall effort. The meeting was designed to be largely
procedural and was considered to be an overall success.
We are witnessing, however, a rapid growth of international
interest in the quick advancement toward development of a global
climate change convention:
-- On December 8, 1988, the UN General Assembly adopted a
resolution (which the U.S. did not oppose) calling upon UNEP and
WMO, acting through the IPCC, to recommend "elements of a future
climate convention".
-- On March 11, France and the Netherlands convened heads of
governments representing 24 nations (the U.S. was not invited
until the last minute and did not attend) on the climate change
issue. The resulting "Declaration of The Hague" stated that
global warming is the world's top environmental problem and
called for new international authority to combat it. This group
will meet again in May to follow up and discuss a convention
proposal.
-- The RSWG holds its second meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva, A
key issue is expected to be how discussion of the convention
issue will be handled within RSWG. The terms of reference of
the IPCC call for consideration of "legal matters". The
18-month workplan adopted at the RSWG's first meeting mandate
consideration of "new legal and institutional mechanisms that
could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to climate
change".
04/27/89 15:46
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
03
-2-
The U.S. has succeeded to date in avoiding 1) the creation
of a distinct group within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional mechanisms and 2) explicit discussion within RSWG
of the convention concept. However, given the UNGA resolution's
call for the IPCC to recommend "elements of a future climate
convention" and the RSWG's mandate to consider "new legal and
institutional mechanisms", it is inevitable and, in fact,
required, that the convention issue be discussed within RSWG at
some point before it issues its report in late 1990. In light
of the growing international pressure for early elaboration of a
framework convention, the U.S. must decide how best to manage
the RSWG process and its responsibilities as RSWG Chairman.
Option 1: The US should seek to postpone discussions of a
framework convention until the end of the RSWG process.
Pros:
Would be consistent with USG expressed belief to date that
it is premature to begin discussing a framework convention.
Could provide the USG with more time to develop a
comprehensive global climate change policy with all options
still intact.
Cons:
Faced with U.S. intransigence on early consideration of the
convention concept, international activity may move from
RSWG to a less desirable forum.
It is unclear whether the US could succeed in postponing the
discussion, given that such discussion is consistent with
the UNGA and RSWG mandates.
The US would appear to the world to be dragging its feet on
a major international environmental issue.
Option 2: The US should acquiesce in, but not propose,
discussions now of a framework convention within the RSWG. The
US should seek to focus discussion on the Vienna Convention
model (i.e., general principles of cooperation, monitoring, and
research with no targets/timetables) within a subgroup of the
RSWG Steering Committee in the context of elaborating a range of
implementation mechanisms.
Pros:
Discussions on a convention would remain within RSWG where
the US can influence the outcome.
Discussions on a convention would remain within RSWG, which
would strengthen the IPCC by giving it more political
visibility -- a U.S. policy objective to date.
04/27/89 15:47
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
04
-3-
Early consideration of a convention within RSWG might
forestall consideration of the issue in other less desirable
forums.
The US would not be perceived as dragging its feet on the
convention issue.
Because the US had not itself proposed early consideration
of a convention, it could not be tagged later with having
impliedly endorsed the need for or contents of a convention.
Cons:
Would require us to acquiesce in discussions that the US
might believe are premature.
Only acquiescing now to consider elements of a framework
convention would be a lost opportunity for the President to
exert international leadership on this issue.
Option 3: The US should itself propose discussions now of a
framework convention within the RSWG. The US would seek to
focus discussion on the Vienna Convention model within a
subgroup of the RSWG Steering Committee in the context of
elaborating a range of implementation mechanisms.
Pros:
first four pros of Option 2
Such a US proposal would attract substantial international
attention, resulting in political credit for the President.
Cons:
first con of Option 2
A US proposal for consideration now of a convention could
later be interpreted as implied US endorsement of the need
for a convention, thus limiting the President's options
should he later decide not to begin actual negotiations.
PRESENT OF R OFFICE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
0
April 27, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR: NANCY MALOLEY
FROM:
Robert E. Grady
SUBJECT:
Global Warming
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft DPC
Options Paper. A detailed mark-up of the draft paper with our
specific comments is attached.
I strongly believe that the draft paper is extremely biased
and flawed. In particular, I propose that Option 2, as currently
drafted, be deleted and replaced with a new proposal that I
believe is a leadership initiative that can be supported by all
of the agencies.
I strongly recommend that all of the attached comments
should be incorporated into the next draft. If you have any
problems with any of the comments, please call me immediately.
Attachment
should the U.S modify its past pose non
change by GLOBAL CLIMATE discussions CHANGE on a clemate
ISSUE: How should the United States respond to growing
international pressure for a climate change convention?
BACKGROUND:
A
CURRENT U.S. POLICY AND THE IPCC process:
The U.S. has urged that the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), jointly established by the United Nations
international
Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) in November 1988, serve as the central policy
forum for the climate change issue. Three working groups,
chaired by the U.K., U.S.S.R. and the U.S., respectively, were
established under the IPCC to consider 1) the science, 2)
environmental and socioeconomic impacts and 3) response
strategies.
is CURRENTLY ON
AN AMBITIONS SCHEDULE
Considered to be an unprecedented example of rapid international
cooperation on environmental problems, the IPCC project to
submit an interim report of its findings in time for the Second
World Climate Conference scheduled for Geneva in November 1990.
THIS INTERIM REPORT WOULD THEN PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR CONSIDERING FUSTING ACTIONS
Secretary Baker echoed the President's stated commitment to
addressing global environmental concerns by opening the Response
Strategies Working Group (RSWG) January meeting in Washington
with a strong statement of Administration support for the overall
effort.) The meeting was designed to be largely procedural and
PRESSURE
was considered to be an overall success.
For Further ACTION:
NDespite
THe LACE SCIENTIFIC UNICNOWNS, AND THE RAPID PACE OF current EFFORTS THERE Are
We itnessing however, a rapid growth of international
PRESSURES
ins st in the quick advancement toward a global climate change to
convention.
"LeAPFROC"
THE
CURRENT
-- On March 11, France and Netherlands convened ministers
IPCC
representing 24 nations (the U.S. was not invited until the last
process
minute) on the global warming issue. At the meeting, the
AND
ministers signed the Declaration of The Hague stating global
ADVANCE
warming is the world's top environmental problem and calling for
a new UN authority to combat it. The organizers will meet again
in May to address a convention proposal with timetables, emission
reduction targets, and new international regulatory authority.
-- The RSWG holds its second meeting on May 8-12 in Geneva. A
key issue is expected to be the concept of a convention on global
warming. The terms of reference adopted by WMO and UNEP for the
RSWG include consideration of "legal matters." The 18-month
workplan adopted at the group's first meeting in January 1989
embraced consideration of "new legal and institutional mechanisms
that could be used to implement options to limit or adapt to
climate change." The U.S. has, however, succeeded to date in
preventing either (1) creation of a separate group within RSWG to
consider legal or institutional measures or (2) explicit
discussion within RSWG of the global climate convention concept
or of what such a convention might contain.
a
STATE OF THE science
[A]
N The scientific basis to justify costly policy actions to affect
climate change does not currently exist. The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) in 1979 estimated, on the basis of existing
computer models of climate change, that the most likely outcome
from a doubling of CO2 was a global average warming of 3 degrees
C., with a 50% probability that the warming would fall between
1.5 and 4.5 degrees C. This necessarily implies a 50% probability
that the average warming would be either less than 1.5 or more
than 4.5 degrees C.
Since 1850 the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 25%.
According to the computer models this should have already caused
a 1 degree C. warming. The temperature record doesn't show that
much warming. The U.S. record shows no significant warming trend
from 1910 to 1984. The NAS, in a 1983 review of the issue, and
the 1979 estimate, concluded that:
"the climate record of the past hundred years and our
estimates of CO2 changes over that period suggest that
values in the lower half of this range [1.5 to 4.5 degrees
C.] are more probable."
Estimates of potential warming are highly uncertain because a
number of very important feed-back mechanisms in the climate
system are poorly understood and inadequately treated in the
computer models. For example, clouds could make the warming from
CO2 doubling either policy trivial or policy serious depending on
how they behave. The response of precipitation and sea ice in the
polar regions could either substantially amplify or dampen any
initial warming from CO2.
In a recent report, "Global Environmental Change:
Recommendations for President-Elect George Bush", the NAS
acknowledged that we lack sufficient scientific understanding to
predict with confidence global or regional environmental change.
The NAS recommended strong support for research now underway,
both nationally and internationally. In their view, "reducing
the (scientific) uncertainties would lead to more informed and
effective policy decisions."
In addition, NAS stated that a strong scientific program for
understanding and coping with global change will require
strengthened scientific and governmental institutions and
mechanisms -- both in the U.S. and in the international
scientific community. In its view, the U.S. is "well positioned
to take a leadership role in. gaining an international
consenses on this difficult issue.'
CLIMATE?
[ B ]
He said that: (1) we cannot wait to resolve all uncertainties
before acting, (2) we should focus immediately on steps which are
justified for other reasons, (3) global solutions should be as
specific and cost-effective as possible, and (4) solutions must
reconcile economic development and a safe environment. His
statements were widely quoted as representing U. S. policy views.
SENT
OF
- 2 -
-- The Governing Council of the UNEP meeting in Nairobi on May
15-26 is expected to discuss a global climate change framework
convention, which is favored by its executive director, Mostafa
Tolba.
MAY
RAises.
THE 10es or
-- At the IPCC meeting in Nairobi on June 28-30 a climate change
convention expected to be discussed
porturant
-- A number of leaders attending the July seven-nation Economic
Summit in Paris are likely to force discussions concerning
a
or
climate change convention.
WITH THE U.S 4055R HAVINGST
ACNDA.
THE
ABOUT
The U.S., the Soviet Union, and China together produce 000 50%
EQUAL 20%
C
of man's contribution to greenhouse gases, Although any serious
SHALES.
international effort toward a response to climate change must
include these nations, to date the three have not participated
in any discussions calling for a climate change convention.
DISCUSSION:
ARGUMENTS FAVORING CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions at the May 8-12 RSWG meeting that would lead to the
formation of a separate group within RSWG mandated with the
authority to discuss the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those in favor of modifying U.S. policy
make the following arguments.
-- The need for early discussions is predicated on the belief
that the U.S. chaired RSWG is a favorable forum for
international discussion on a global climate change convention.
The convention approach is seen as inevitable, 50 it would be
better to guide international activity toward a convention
containing general principles of cooperation, monitoring
mechanisms, and research programs. With strong U.S leadership
this approach may be able to stop movements -- such as the Hague
Declaration -- toward a convention with targets, timetables, and
UN authority.
-- A framework convention could follow the general approach of
the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
providing an institutional framework for continuing assessment of
the issue and discussion of possible responses. It would also
provide a legal framework under which specific measures could be
subsequently agreed, possibly through the adoption of protocols,
as with the ozone convention. However, a framework convention
would not impose any obligation on the parties to agree to
specific response measures or join any protocol.
-- A call for discussions to consider formalizing and expanding
existing international cooperation on climate change by some form
of climate treaty -- even one limited to scientific cooperation -
- would be a significant step beyond the current IPCC process.
(C)
The pressure for additional action has come from those countries
that either: (a) have powerful environmental political movements
and/or (b) have little or no adverse economic impacts (or
potentially could gain a competitive advantage) from a global
warming convention. For example, the 24 nations participating at
the Hague meetings account for only 25% of global CO2 emissions.
By comparison,
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
4-27-89 7:22AM OFFICE OPERATIONS 06-
20239534821#
- 3 -
AN AGGRESSIVE
Such an U.S. proposal could attract substantial international
attention and would represent - governmental response.
Depending on its siming, content, and presentation treaty
proposal could afford the U.S. Koppor tunity to reasort &
leadership position on the issue of global elimate change. For
example, the President could propose in international legal
initiative in some highly visible form.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONVENTION DISCUSSIONS
The U.S. may not want to modify its past position by initiating
discussions on the advisability and possible elements of a
framework convention. Those against early modification of U.S.
policy make the following arguments.
SHOULD
-- It is vitally important that any potential U.S. response to
climate change be based on sound scientific evidence. Toward
this end, our efforts must accentuate research. The U.S. is
making the world's largest contribution to overall global climate
change research and our representatives may went to impress on
other nations the importance of this leadership role. The
process leading to the Montreal Protocol is an example of
international cooperation on a known environmental problem.
There was considerably more science available on CFCs and their
effect on the ozone layer at the beginning stages of that
process, however, than is known about global climate change
today.
iT is DIFFICULT TO SINGLE OUTH U.S. AS BeiNG
-- The Hague Declaration should not be viewed as a process with COSNTRIES,
INTRANSIGNT, WHEN A LACE NUMBER OF
which we must catch up. We were not invited to the meeting
Representing
(until the last minute), nor did the other significant greenhouse
over 9.
gas producers (U.S.S.R. and China) take part in the proceedings.
OFTHR
WOLD'S
Any serious international effort on global climate change must
POPULATION
include these three nations.
AND 759
E
u.
-- The IPCC is the major international effort in regard to
climate change and its agenda, correctly, reflects the needefor
CO co2
scientific data collection and analysis. The three IPCC working
EMISSIONS
groups are progressing and at the present time there is no need
ARE
for further necotiations leading toward a mechanism for
HAre
TAKEN
developing potential future responses. The early participation
THE
In such negotiations will likely lead to an early convention,
SAME
early protocols, and poor policy which is based on emotion,
View.
political expediency, and the motivations of nations not destined
to be economically damaged by immature climate change responses.
NOT Decise TO SIPPORT
UNTIL
-- The U.S. should decide if a convention on climate change
DOMASTIC
ITS
in its best interest. This decision should be considered within
the context of a comprehensive U.S. approach to the climate
policies
change Issue. Until the President has had an opportunity to
develop his overall policy the Administration should defer
taking positions at international meetings which will limit his
Te
later options Joining in such an international process may
imply the adoption by the U.S. of certain domestic policies,
& drow DEPARTMENT?
OTHeRwise ,THe U.S. RUNS THE RISK OF HAVING ITS DONOSTIC policies
DeTe/Mines in N MULTI- LATUAL NEGOTIATION placess WHERE TIABITIONALLY
B JS. Leverace is weak.
(D)
-- The calling for modification of U.S. policy is a major
threshold step in the direction toward a climate change
convention. No matter how narrowly it is defined, it would
initiate a process that could become virtually uncontrolla-
ble. This process could easily end with intense
international pressure on the U.S. to sign a protocol which
is not based on sound science and which has the potential of
having a severe negative impact on the U.S. economy.
-- The U.S. is permitting other nations, which have much less at
stake, to define leadership on global climate issues in terms
of a convention. In this context, U.S. support for a
convention is really fellowship rather than leadership.
Instead, the U.S. should seek to define leadership in ways
that serve U.S. interests. The U.S. is already exercising
leadership by initiating and supporting the IPCC process,
designed to lead to scientifically sound international policy
decisions.
-- There is no scientific evidence that hasty precipitous
actions, even under the pessimistic assumptions, will make
any significant difference to the rate, maganitude, and
timing of global warming.
SENT. BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:22AM ;OFFICE OPERATIONS 52-
20239534521# 6
- 4 -
including all or a combination of the following: (1) energy
taxes; (2) tightened CAFE standards for automobiles; (3)
improvements in the efficiency of utilities; (4) increased
reliance on nuclear power; and (5) reforestation programs. The
called for modification of U.S policy is a major threshold step
in the direction toward a climate change convention This
mechanism may ultimately end with intense international pressure
on the U.S. to sign a protocol which is not based on sound
science and which has the potential of imparting a severe
negative Impact on our economy.
OPTIONS:
<
OPTION #1:
at this time
The U.S. delegation continues to insist that no separate group be
established within RSWG to consider legal and institutional
measures and that no separate process for considering possible
elements of a framework convention be established and uses the
power of the chair to prevail.
Pros:
Domestic
O Provides the President the opportunity to develop a
comprehensive global climate change policy with all options
still intact.
o
The development of science will remain the focus of the IPCC
and the concept of a convention will remain a future option.
Cons:
D
with U.S intransigence on the convention concept,
international activity may be moved from RSWG to a less
Mc
iTH
desirable forum
THISPORT
some OTHER COUNTRICS
0
The U.S. would appear to the world to be dragging its feet on
a major international issue.
OPTION #2;
it
The U.S. delegation takes the initiative in proposing that a
separate group be established within RSWG to consider legal and
institutional measures and that it immediately begin to discuss
what might be included in a framework convention.
Pros:
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
where the U.S. can guide them to a reasonable conclusion.
o
The U.S. would reassert its position as a bold leader on an
important international issue.
E
[¢]
(1) to assess the state of the science, (2) to develop a better
understanding of the social and economic effects of possible
global climate change, and (3) to begin the identification and
preliminary analysis of possible policy responses. The three IPCC
working groups are moving to meet these needs. The IPCC process
is an orderly way to develop the information and international
understanding of that information needed for sound international
decision-making on global climate change. At the present time,
furthur negotiations would not be based on a sound understanding
of (a) the science and its uncertainties, (b) the possible social
and economic effects, or (c) the costs and other implications of
potential policy responses.
F
OPTION #
[ Ø
IPCC
process
AND,
AFFIRMS
1+3
COMMITMENT following TO THE Secretary current Baker S points, four
The U. S. delegation describes the U. S. position in the terms
already summarized by Secretary Baker as follows:
-
Given the great scientific and other uncertainties
about climate change, it would be irresponsible and
premature to negotiate actions that can only be
justified on the basis of benefits from avoiding global
climate change.
-
However, we cannot afford to wait for all uncertainties
to be reduced. Therefore we should focus immediately on
steps which can be justified for other reasons.
-
The IPCC should identify and analyse those steps in its
first reports so early and informed international
discussion of them can begin.
-
Furthur steps of the kind which might be included in a
convention must be based on a full international
understanding of the state of the science and its
uncertainties, a full understanding of the potential
social and economic impacts that are likely from
climate change, and a full understanding of the
costs and other implications of potential international
joint actions to respond to global change. Those
understandings do not exist now, but the IPCC process
is designed and intended to create them in an orderly
and participatory way.
-
The U. S. considers it essential to the success of any
joint international actions on global climate change
that they be based soundly on an agreed upon
understanding of the science and other considerations
and upon a wide consensus about what should be done.
Anything less is likely to fail. The Montreal Protocol
has been a success because the consensus is very broad
-
For these reasons the U. S. insists that no separate
group be established at this time within the RSWG to
consider legal and institutional measures and that no
separate process for considering possible elements of a
framework convention be established.
[ B/R GY E ]
Establishes the U. S. position that negotiation, at this
time, of climate response actions would be premature and
unwise and that the IPCC process will build in an orderly
fashion the common scientific and policy analysis
understandings needed for sound and useful negotiations.
Keeps the focus of the IPCC, at this time, on developing a
common international understanding of the science, its
uncertainties, the potential impacts, and the implications
of potential international responses.
Will help discourage demands that the U. S. and other
industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions to
reduce global warming before a sound scientific basis
exists that such costly actions are justified by the
benefits.
Cons:
With U. S. opposition to discussion of a convention in RSWG,
existing international activity on a possible convention,
now carried on outside RSWG, may become more formalized and
organized, with U. S. views given less attention than within
RSWG.
Despite the U. S. stated reasons for its position, it might
appear to some that it is dragging its feet on a major
international issue.
300:105,55
April 27, 1989
(H)
Option #2: The U.S. delegation re-affirms its commitment to
implementation of the IPCC process. In addition, the delegation
announces two new initiatives:
O
a research initiative, calling upon the other members of the
IPCC to join in an international research program. The
program would build upon the U.S. global climate change
research program, as well as the IPCC science assessment.
O
an invitation to an International Conference on Global
Environmental Issues, to be hosted by President Bush.
In addition, the delegation would re-state U.S. policy that all
countries should focus immediate attention on actions that can be
justified for other reasons, and call upon RSWG to give priority
to such actions in its assessment report. To further buttress
this effort, the U.S. would issue a report on all such actions
initiated within the first 100 days of the Bush Administration.
The U.S. delegation would oppose any additional efforts to
initiate any actions leading to a possible global convention,
until the IPCC assessments are completed.
2
os:
The U.S. would maintain and strengthen its position as a
world leader on international environmental issues.
The U.S. would take a pro-active posture in shaping the
international agenda in directions where the U.S. has a
position of strength, such as scientific research, rather
than reacting to proposals from other countries from a
position of weakness.
The U.S. has proposed to spend about $0.2 billion in FY 1990
on global change research, with increasing amounts likely in
future years. The results of this research will benefit the
world. Other nations should be asked to share in this effort
and in the costs.
The U.S. delegation should seek to take credit for the Bush
Administration global environmental initiatives, rather than
continue to be portrayed in a reactive posture.
Cons:
The U.S. would fail to embrace the views of the most
environmentally radical foreign countries that account for a
small minority of the world's population and CO2 emissions.
SENT BY:OFFICE OF ADMIN
; 4-27-89 ; 7:23AM OFFICE OPERATIONS 52->
2023953462:# 7
The V.S is not likely to be able to exercise leadership in
a separate RSWG group since indoubtedly it would not
Cons: an aggretive policy on atmosphene issues, has already
be chaired by the U.S. For example, Canada, which has pursued
o
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development of
sought chairmanship of such a group.
science, may take a back seat to discussions over a convention
and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted by the appearance of U.S.
movement toward international treaties mandating the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions.
o The early maturation of international policy may preempt the
President's development of a comprehensive climate change
policy.
OPTION#3:
PRoposes
The U.S. delegation
the
int
proposing
that
a
separate group be established within the RSWG Steering Committee
with the purpose of drafting a report on possible institutional
mechanisms for addressing the climate change issue expressly
including, but not limited to, possible elements of a framework
convention. The group would be given a specific timetable such
as an annotated outline of report to Steering Committee for
discussion at Steering Committee meeting in Fall 1989, a full
draft report for review by Steering Committee in Spring 1990 and
inclusion in the RSWG section of the IPCC report in Fall 1990.
The head of the U.S delegation would have discretion to seek the
chair of the group or to support another country.
Pros:
UNDER NOMINAL NOM! CONTROL.
The discussions concerning the advisability and possible
elements of a framework convention would remain within RSWG
the U.S can guide. them reasonable conclusion
AN EXTREMELY AGRESSIVE LEADCRSHIP
0
The U.S. would assert lesser degree Utan option
1 position as leader on an important ATIONS. international issue.
AND
CRESIDUATIONS WOULD
BeFore
BEGINNING
Nego
OTHER
OF i
Cons:
ANTRUATIONAL a
OF THE
o
The present IPCC process, which emphasizes the development
science, may take a back seat lesser degree than option
to discussions over a convention and ensuing protocols.
Financial markets may be jolted to lesser degreezthan
by the appearance of U.S. movement toward
international treaties mandating the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
WOULD
o
The movement toward maturation of international policy may
preempt the President's development of a comprehensive climate
change policy.
Domestic
04/27/89 14:47
202 755 7842
SEC SCIENCE & ED
002
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATE THE I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
April 27, 1989
SUBJECT: Global Warming, EENR Working Group
TO: Nancy Maloley
My comment focuses on the writeup for Option #3. First, I believe that Option #3
outlines an approach that the U.S. could propose, and, if accepted, provide constructive
leadership to RSWG.
Next, I agree with the tone and content of the "pros" for Option #3, but the "cons" seem
to overstate the potential negative effects of the option on the development of the science
base and on the markets. On the latter, one must consider that no action by the U.S. may
raise market concerns also. As to the third bullet, it would seem that further discussions
through an options paper should not preempt action by the President.
Coulle
ORVILLE G. BENTLEY
Assistant Secretary
Science and Education
HHS
Option 3
APR 28 '89 14:17
P.2/2
DEPAR stx OF
THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-8000
ODUCTION AND
APR 27 1989
LOGISTICS
E
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD.
SUBJECT: Department of Defense Comments on the Paper that
Discusses the Pros and Cons for an International Global
Climate Change Convention
The speed at which international cooperation has been gained
to address the global climate change issue is a strong indication
of the perceived importance of the subject. Consequently, it
seems appropriate that the United States should modify its past
position and initiate discussions, within the framework of the
Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG), to form a subgroup that
would work towards holding a convention.
Even though the arguments against holding a convention have
merit, the Department of Defense (DoD) considers it inevitable
that a convention will eventually be held. Despite the lack of
consensus within the scientific and political communities it
seems that the prudent move would be for the United States to
establish and maintain control of the RSWG and any subgroup that
is formed to ensure that the speed at which issues move forward
is in consonance with the Administration's policy.
The global climate change issue is of particular concern to
DOD, since it is one part of the holistic approach that the
Administration is taking in the development of a bill to
reauthorize the Clean Air Act. We have found that many of the
policy issues discussed to date at the Domestic Policy Council's
Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Working Group have the
potential for direct and significant impact on DoD. As such, the
DoD would like to be invited to take an active role in the RSWG.
William H. Parker, III, P.E.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Environment)
UNITED STATES.
AGENCY
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PROTECTION
Mashington, D.C. 20460
April 28, 1989
The Administrator
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: A "State of the Environment" Message
I think the time is fast approaching when you may wish to
deliver a major statement on the environment. The ground has
been well prepared during your first 100 days by two important
initiatives: 1) your decision to phase out ozone-destroying
CFCs by the end of the century; and 2) your commitment to
propose legislation to ban shipments of hazardous waste to other
countries unless we have a bilateral agreement with them to
assure the waste is disposed of responsibly.
If you decide to tighten automobile fuel efficiency
standards to 27.5 miles per gallon, a move that can reduce by 2
OIRA
million tons per year the carbon dioxide emitted into the
atmosphere, that will rank as the third significant plus. (It
will also make it easier to advocate energy development in Alaska
if we can point to an energy conservation initiative.)
These decisions, together with the proposed suspension and
possible veto of the Two Forks Dam in Colorado, have established
a climate of genuine receptivity on the part of many Members of
Congress, environmentalists, the press and, I believe, the
country regarding the Administration's environmental intentions.
The Alaska oil spill set us back in the public mind but I tend to
believe that our environmental prospects will recover as Prince
William Sound itself does. The following are some of the
initiatives you might address in a message on the environment, or
in a series of major speeches. may be prencitiers
1. Clean Air. The big test of the Administration's approach to
the environment will be the Clean Air legislation we propose. As
you know, we have made a commitment to the Congress to get such
legislation to the Hill sometime in May (Any later than May, we
were advised by a number of Senators and Congressmen, would be
late for engaging the issue and tracking the committees' own
schedule and their bills.)
Insurance pace
ortof DPC,
june might rell" any 2
CA
Now is a good time to consider a communications strategy on
after
clean air and on other possible initiatives. A number of
forthcoming events will require us to take environmental
positions and I would propose we initiate in anticipation of
these events rather than react to the proposals of others.
The first is Prime Minister Mulroney's visit on May 4. The
Canadian Ambassador has advised me that acid rain will be at the
top of Mulroney's list. You may wish to announce on the occasion
and
till of his visit your decision to propose legislation to require a
to
specific reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions by the year 2000.
The Clean Air Working Group under Roger Porter's direction has
not yet reached a consensus on the details of our recommendation
airport
EPA's
to you but the desirability -- and feasibility -- of a 10 million
of
Nage nuds
dissussed
ton objective and on the necessity to achieve some reasonably
number
significant part of that by 1995 or 1996 is very likely to have
significant support from many quarters. Yesterday Cong. Dingell,
much to our surprise, indicated a 10 million tons reduction was a
famore-
minimum necessary for a credible bill. Your commitment to 10
million tons by a date at or around the year 2000, would confirm
that our bill will be serious. Such an announcement whenever it
comes would help restore some slippage related to the oil spill.
nophs
And, of course, it would delight the Canadians, providing
invelated
Mulroney a great moment and his first genuine concession from the
United States on what his Ambassador indicates is their number
one priority with the United States.
concerned
=
what
is
protecial
defination
multury
more
not
politically expedient
2. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Governing Board
meeting of the United Nations Environmental Programme, which
convenes in Nairobi beginning May 15, will assemble a large
number of environment ministers and will, I am sure, consider the
need for a Framework Convention on Climate Change. I would
other
alt
advise you to consider calling for such a convention very soon,
available
well before the Nairobi meeting. This is one of those
initiatives which is desirable and probably inevitable and which
shouldle not sushingto undered
your leadership could put us in a position to help shape and
control.
DPC,
the gen. coneyst has name benefits, but he major better drawbacks alt for
clementro agains
may
dis,
This past year has heard many of the leaders of the Western
Alliance speaking seriously of the ecological threats posed by
the possibility of global warming. While the scientific evidence
is not as established as that of the ozone layer hole, there is
with
growing scientific opinion that we may already be experiencing a
mild foretaste of a profound warming trend to come. Scientists
agree that a change of even 1-2 degrees Celsius could produce
significant flooding of our coastal population centers by a rise
in ocean levels as a result of the expansion of the oceans and
already
partial melting of the polar ice caps. Droughts similar to that
love
experienced in the United States last year could plague many
currently fertile agricultural areas.
3
broadragy dioxide that
The greenhouse effect is linked to the build-up of carbon
from the burning of carbon-based fuels and deforestation
as well as to "trace" greenhouse gases such as CFCs and methane.
Since the production of these gases is universal, any effective
attempt to mitigate this global warming trend will require
international agreement, and will have enomous social and ecuromic myselfs
A number of our major allies, including Canada, France, the
Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany, favor or tend to
favor beginning formal negotiations of an international agreement
this varans very
on climate change. The positions of the United Kingdom and Italy
are unclear. Just this morning, I learned that the Japanese
Environment Minister will introduce the subject of a Framework
at
Convention on Global Climate at the US-Japan Bilateral
Environment Meeting next week. Thus far, the U.S. has not even
agreed to consider the advisability of an international agreement
and has called only for more study. This argument was advanced
for eight years on acid rain, and it is viewed by many with
depending
skepticism.
your review cricks
policy
You may expect that Prime Ministers Brundtland of Norway and
Mulroney will raise climate change, including a possible
may
convention, in their meetings with you next week. The question
this
to
of a climate change convention is also arising in the
preparations for the July Paris Economic Summit.
I believe that in order for the United States to aspire to
leadership on this issue, we need to come out in support of a
climate change convention. Acknowledging that the details need
alt
to be fleshed out, I would envision a broad framework convention
answable
calling for cooperation on research and information exchange and
other ways
providing a basis for later substantive control measures. Based
on a discussion with Admiral Watkins, I believe he too is
intil
to group the
supportive of such an approach.
head then can forms an not too they DP
read,
Alams leadersing
The Domestic Policy Council may give you an options paper on
this soon. There is concern on the part of some that support of
ccc was
a convention may lead to a slippery slope, to measures we will
appease with
not want to accept. In my view that concern overstates what
cann cut
other developed nations will want to do; reducing carbon dioxide
no
public
emissions will be no easier for other nations than for us. And
global climate change is the significant international
U.S would arrives not
environmental issue. What we need is a formal framework for
dealing with it in concert with other countries, together with a
recognized role as leader to be able to shape the agenda.
U.S would revolt
3. Debt-for-Nature. I would also hope we could make some major
debt-for-nature commitments in the context of the Brady Plan.
These could dovetail nicely with global warming initiatives since
a major objective would be to preserve tropical forests, the
destruction of which contributes to global warming.
rest to political expectively or nationalispoling domestic formulation
yrong
4
has
4. International Conference on the Environment. We are
narrowing options for an international conference on the global
environment and may soon propose one or more such meetings.
We
are examining the pros and cons of a U.S.-Canada-Mexico
conference later this year, a Pacific Rim Conference early next
year, a conference on oceans, and a conference directly on
climate change. There will likely be a very important
international conference in Stockholm in 1992 on the 20th
anniversary of the 1972 Stockholm United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment which established UNEP and launched a new
international environmental agenda. An important role for U.S.-
sponsored meetings before 1992 ought to be to influence the
agenda and set the stage for Stockholm 1992.
5. Wetlands Executive Order. Work has begun within EPA
preparing proposals to include in your promised Executive Order
giving policy expression to your commitment to "no net loss of
wetlands." I hope that the Domestic Policy Council will take
this issue up soon. On wetlands protection we are going to need
pup
a clear conservation priority and it will be important to ensure
who
that all agencies espouse it. At present the Corps of Engineers
and EPA take quite different approaches to applications to
develop wetlands. EPA puts the burden on an applicant to
establish that a proposed use is water-dependent and that there
is no alternative to loss of the wetland. Only then does EPA
fats NY
look at ways to mitigate losses of wetlands. The Corps typically
presumes the permit will be granted and goes directly to consider
mitigation options. Early in the Nixon Administration the Corps
Gs as is
took a more conservative approach. A clear Presidential policy
will be necessary to bring all federal agencies into line on
4th clien on agrier
wetlands.
6. Pollution Prevention. I would like to propose a major
Administration commitment to pollution prevention, emphasizing
industrial process changes such as those being developed to make
biodegradable plastics, and fostering recycling and reuse.
Governor Branstad of Iowa has proposed to require food packaging
be made of biodegradable cornstarch -- and 93 percent of Iowans
support the proposal. The public is increasingly hungry for
leadership on waste reduction. People are looking for ways to
reduce the garbage. The growing cost of waste disposal (from $8
to $10 per ton 10 years ago to $125 per ton in some areas now and
rising), the fact that a third of the nation's landfills will
close within the next 5 years, make this timely and, it seems me,
even urgent. A federal executive order on procurement could have
a profound effect, establishing at a stroke a market for
secondary products of all sorts. If tax forms were to be printed
on recycled paper, for example, we would give a dramatic push to
the cause of waste reduction.
* * *
5
The point of setting these thoughts down is to suggest that
you have a great deal to work with, things you have already done,
have promised to do, or will wish to consider. They add up to a
major message, if you want to make one. or they can provide
initiatives for a number of upcoming events -- commencement
speeches, meetings with Mulroney and Brundtland, the Economic
Summit. Your commencement speech on May 21 at Boston University
me
could be an occasion for a major statement on acid rain, or on
the smog non-attainment part of your Clean Air Act bill, both big
issues in the Northeast and very popular with students.
Governor Kean would love to have you make our proposal on air
toxics, the third major part of our promised bill, in New Jersey
where toxics are a serious problem and where the gubernatorial
race could usefully be injected with some solid Republican
environmentalism. (Kean expects Florio to flog us on beach waste
and Superfund throughout the summer.)
7. A Vision for our Environmental Policy. I am enclosing a
speech I delivered last week at the National Press Club in which
I set out my sense of the environmental vision of the Bush
Administration. Essentially it sets proposed terms for the press
and others to judge us by. So often we read of "the big tests of
the Bush Administration's environmental policy." So I wrote my
own suggested terms for a test.
Tree
William K. Reilly
APR 28 '89 11:16
P.2/10
/ OF C
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Under Secretary for
UNITED STATES . /
Oceans and Atmosphere
Washington. D.C. 20230
April 25, 1989
Honorable William K. Reilly
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
This letter and its enclosures are the initial comments of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the International Trade Administration (ITA), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the office of
Economic Affairs of the Department of Commerce on the EPA
Draft Report to Congress entitled "Policy Options for
Stabilizing Global Climate" dated February 1989. The
Department will provide further comments as we continue our
review of the draft report and the referenced materials.
We believe strongly that perturbation of climate by human
activities should be minimized. To this end, NOAA is
devoting significant resources to increase our under-
standing of the global climate system and our ability to
predict climatological changes forced by natural processes
or human activities. NOAA is participating in the United
States Global Change Research Program, coordinated by the
Committee on Earth Sciences, to establish the scientific
basis for national and international policymaking related
to natural and human-induced changes in the global Earth
system.
Our current understanding of the Earth's climate system,
including how it varies naturally and the potential impact
of human-induced actions on that variability, is woefully
inadequate. If our actions are to be intelligent and
effective, we must embark upon a long-term scientific
commitment to improve that understanding. Precautionary
policy actions may, indeed, be warranted (and justifiable
on a number of socio-economic and environmental grounds),
but to imply that they are based on the scientific
certainty of global warming is inappropriate and
potentially damaging to this Nation's attempt to secure a
commitment to an effective U.S. and international global
AND
OFFANE
ПОНА
TWOLD
75 Years Stimulating America's Progress * 1913-1988
THE ADMINISTRATOR
APR 28 '89 11:17
P.3/10
2
change research program. Our single most important policy
decision at this time might be the acceleration of a solid
science program in global change.
Although substantial changes in climate have been
identified over the last century, an inadequate under-
standing of global processes prevents reliable prediction
of future trends and, therefore, defining actions to alter
future trends. It is essential that our scientists work
together to improve our ability to understand and predict
global change and provide a sound basis for developing
policies and response strategies. Our comments outline the
principal scientific and economic uncertainties that must
be clarified before we can adopt policies and response
strategies with confidence they will have their desired
effect.
The Scientific Uncertainties
The Executive Summary of the draft report should further
clarify the scientific uncertainties. For example, natural
variability, although it is discussed somewhat in Chapter
3, should be emphasized in the Executive Summary. Natural
emissions and variations contribute significantly to
climate change. Climate variations from glacial to
interglacial periods have been caused naturally, and
controlling anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not
prevent climate change. More specifically, water vapor,
the gas that is mainly responsible for the favorable
atmospheric "greenhouse" effect on Earth, is not included
in the list of greenhouse gases, and its effects on warming
are not included fully in the models used in the analysis.
With respect to the models, more specific elaborations are
required. The atmospheric models employed, while among the
most sophisticated, are relatively simple compared to the
feedback mechanisms that exist in the real atmosphere. The
model physics grossly oversimplify the real world. The
models do not yet adequately describe the present climate
and, thus, projections must be viewed with extreme caution.
More explanations of model uncertainties are needed, with
some examples of the variability in results due to these
uncertainties.
Current models cannot adequately represent the physical
processes that may have the capacity to engender relatively
rapid transitions in the equilibrium state of the climate
system, as well as transient responses in general. When
TRATTA
APR 28 '89 11:18
P.4/10
3
the potential for system transients is taken into account,
the concept of model-based "climate sensitivity" analysis
used in the draft report could be very misleading.
Some of the as yet unsettled physical and biogeochemical
"feedback" mechanisms may counter the effect of increased
radiative forcing in the atmosphere. One particularly
important example relates to model deficiencies in
incorporating convection, clouds, and the hydrologic cycle.
In addition, current models do not adequately represent the
details or effects of ocean circulation patterns or
biogeochemical transformation processes on climate change.
The discussion on climate models in Chapter 3 emphasizes
that models show significant warming occurring at high
latitudes with an increase in carbon dioxide. However,
work at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
with a "realistic" coupled ocean-atmosphere general
circulation model indicates that, while the Northern high
latitudes may warm significantly, the Southern high
latitudes, where most of the globe's glacial ice is
located, show virtually no warming.
The discussion on global temperature trends in Chapter 3
does not mention the work performed by NOAA. Two recent
NOAA studies show no evidence of warming due to the
greenhouse effect. Surface, tropospheric, and lower
stratospheric temperatures were analyzed and, although
evidence both for and against the greenhouse effect was
found, it is premature to state that the greenhouse effect
has been observed (Angell, J.K., Journal of Climate,
December 1988). An analysis of temperature over the
contiguous U.S. indicates that there has been no sig-
nificant trend in temperature from 1895-1987 (Hanson, K.,
et. al., Geophysical Research Letters, January 1989).
Copies of these studies are enclosed.
The policy options discussed in the draft report are flawed
in that they target carbon-based fuels as the major
contributor to the presumed global warming, without regard
to the relative "greenhouse potential" of the gasses in
question. While it may be true that CO2 "is the most
abundant and single most important trace greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere" (Executive Summary, page 15), it is also
true that CO2 ranks far behind other trace greenhouse
gasses in its incremental contribution, as shown in the
draft report, table 2-1 (page II-21), in which "greenhouse
potential" is described as "radiative forcing." The draft
APR 28 '89 11:18
P.5/10
4
report lists radiative forcing (expressed in degrees C per
parts per billion) for CO2 as 0.000004 and for CHC13
(chloroform) as 0.04, a ratio of one to 10,000. In other
words, removal of 120 pounds (one pound-mole) of chloroform
in the global atmosphere would produce the same greenhouse
effect as the removal of 440,000 pounds (10000 pound-moles)
of CO2. From a strategy viewpoint, this suggests that
gases should be targeted for removal in order of their
relative greenhouse potential (all other considerations
being equal).
In like manner, the policy options should be framed,
mindful of the relative cost of removal per unit change in
greenhouse potential, not per unit change in concentration
per se. As illustrated in the above example, an expen-
diture of, say one million dollars, to remove 440,000
pounds of CO2 would be just as cost-effective as spending
one million dollars to remove 120 pounds of chloroform.
Additional comments on the Executive Summary of the draft
report, prepared by Dr. J. O. Fletcher, Director of NOAA's
Environmental Research Laboratories, were submitted under
separate cover. A copy of those comments is also enclosed.
Certain of the policy assumptions used in the draft report
exaggerate the possibility of forced warming. For example,
in the "rapidly changing world" scenario, CO2 emissions
increase because use of "very carbon intensive" fuels is
assumed; whereas, over the next century, no fusion and
virtually no increase in fission are assumed. The draft
report should provide a fusion/fission scenario so that the
reader can compare the "global warming" effect of that
option relative to the "very carbon intensive" option.
Another significant policy assumption that needs further
discussion in the Executive Summary is that of population
growth. Over the next 100 years, a driving factor in
ultimate greenhouse emissions will be population growth.
The draft report should provide some analysis holding other
factors stable, while varying assumptions on population
growth so that the reader can understand the sensitivity of
greenhouse emissions to population growth.
Finally, the title of the draft report "Policy Options for
Stabilizing Global Climate" is misleading. As noted above,
the global climate system has and will continue to exhibit
change induced by natural variability. Because of this
fact and our limited ability model global climate, it
cannot be demonstrated that any of the options would
APR -28 '89 11:19
P.6/10
5
"stabilize" global climate. Moreover, the task assigned to
EPA by the Congress was to examine options to stabilize
current levels of atmospheric greenhouse concentrations.
The extension of the legis- lative request wrongly implies
that actions to stabilize anthropogenic radiative forcing
of the atmosphere will perforce stabilize global climate.
A better title for the report would be "Policy Options for
stabilizing Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions."
The Economic Uncertainties
In order to stabilize" global climate, the draft report
identifies various restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
These proposals could have substantial implications for the
industrial structure of the United States. The ramifi-
cations of policies to reduce emissions of CO2 could
significantly alter the industrial structure of our
economy, our international trade, and our balance of
payments. The implications to the U.S. economy would
depend on the options selected and their timing. If
significant reductions in emissions of CO2 were directed
over a short period of time, their adoption could reduce
the rate of economic growth--perhaps substantially.
The U.S. economy is considerably more energy intensive than
those of most of the other major Western industrialized
countries with which the bulk of our international trade is
conducted. These countries are particularly important in
our trade in manufactured goods. Moreover, the United
States is more dependent on coal than most of these
countries. Thus, a worldwide tax on fossil fuels according
to their CO2 content would necessarily have a greater
impact on the U.S. economy than on many other
industrialized countries.
Coal provides about one-fourth of total U.S. energy
requirements, and is used to generate about half of our
electricity. In contrast, France relies mainly on nuclear
power, Canada has large hydroelectric resources, and the
Netherlands enjoys abundänt natural gas reserves. Coal is
also a leading U.S. export commodity, and coal exports
amounted to about $3.5 billion in 1987. Although West.
Germany and the United Kingdom depend on coal as an energy
source to about the same extent as the United States,
neither country has a balance of payments problem as
serious as that of the United States.
To the extent that the United States reduces coal
consumption, greater reliance must be placed on other
energy sources. As a practical matter, these would have to
APR 28 '89 11:19
P.7/10
6
be imported oil or gas, at least in the short run. In
1987, the United States consumed 836 million short tons of
coal. Based on the average 1987 price for imported oil,
for example, to replace one-fourth of the coal burned with
imported oil would have cost about $14 billion. This would
have been in addition to net imports that year of $30.7
billion in crude oil, $9.6 billion in petroleum products,
and $1.9 billion in natural gas. However, it can be
assumed that oil and gas prices would have risen sharply
due to increased demand if the United States and other
countries had actually attempted to buy the much larger
quantities coal replacement would have entailed.
Consequently, the actual cost to the balance of payments of
a shift from coal to oil and natural gas could be sub-
stantially larger. There could also have been widespread
repercussions throughout the economy from higher oil and
gas prices, as well as additional balance of payments costs
to compensate for higher fuel prices factored into the
prices of other imported goods.
In addition to the direct balance of payments cost, a
reduction in coal use and substitution by more costly fuels
could also lead to a loss in international competitiveness
in many downstream industries, especially through increased
electricity prices. Since about 10,000 BTU's are required
to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity, a switch from
coal to oil or natural gas for electricity generation could
lead to a substantial increase in electricity costs.
Electric power is a significant factor in virtually all
manufacturing operations, and is of critical importance in
a number of industrial processes, such as primary metals,
chemicals, and building materials. Enclosed is a recent
ITA report on the "Long-Term Trends Affecting Major
Electricity Consuming Manufacturing Industries" that
identifies the intensity with which the principal
manufacturing industries use electricity.
Finding IV in the Executive Summary of the draft report
that " (a) wide range of policy choices is available to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions while promoting economic
development
" overstates our understanding of the
scientific issues and the economic impacts of global
warming or measures to limit it. We urge great caution
not to let policy commitments get too far ahead of our
scientific and economic understanding.
The draft report effectively contemplates a switch in the
energy economy potentially as great as that from animal
power to fossil fuels during the industrial revolution.
APR -28 '89 11:20
P.8/10
7
There are two important differences, however. The
industrial revolution was induced by new technologies that
clearly offered economic productivity increases and was
gradually introduced through market mechanisms. The energy
revolution contemplated by the draft report would be
government-directed and may or may not support economic
development. The radical shifts contemplated will have
significant social and economic effects. For example, the
geography of economic activity may shift significantly as
transportation costs rise, perhaps altering the suburban
structure of American culture.
Given the likely magnitude of such effects, the
Administration should initiate major multidisciplinary
research efforts engaging the Nation's leading political
scientists, sociologists, and economists to study the
socioeconomic ramifications of the contemplated policies,
in addition to more traditional direct cost analysis for
cost-effectiveness rankings.
As alternatives to the draft Finding IV, we recommend the
following three findings:
Proposed Alternative Finding IV: From a technical
viewpoint, a wide range of policy choices are
available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From an
economic viewpoint, it is not clear at this point
whether policy measures that would reduce greenhouse
gas emissions would not also reduce the rate of
economic growth--perhaps substantially.
Proposed Finding V: Significantly more analytic work
is needed to evaluate the direct costs of each policy
option (both globally and nationally) as well as the
"packages" of options proposed in this report to
Congress--in order to identify the least socially and
economically disruptive approaches for reaching
various CO2 reduction targets. A major multi-
disciplinary research program is needed to evaluate
the potentially huge political, social, and economic
ramifications (as well as direct costs) of adopting
the policies contemplated and to develop
recommendations for actions to address the global
warming problem.
Proposed Finding VI: The "packages" of options listed
in this report are meant to stimulate further study.
They do not constitute a cost-effective or socially
desirable plan for action and should not be
7 APR -28 '89 11:21
P.9/10
8
interpreted as such. EPA will conduct, in cooperation
with other agencies, substantial socio-economic
analyses to evaluate policy measures needed for
reaching varied levels of greenhouse gas reductions.
More extensive comments of the International Trade
Administration (ITA) on the draft report are enclosed.
During its review of the draft report, ITA consulted with
business interests that are represented on the Department's
various advisory committees. The comments received from
the business community are attached to the ITA comments.
The traditional scientific method is to observe the natural
phenomena, to diagnose the observed behavior, to understand
the physical interactions, to simulate the observed
behavior with models, to predict future behavior, and to
control that behavior subject to human intervention. In
order for controls to have their desired effect, they
cannot be selected without having carried out the
preceeding five steps.
In summary, we find that there are scientific uncertainties
in predicting global climate change, and there are signifi-
cant economic, trade, and national security implications
should the United States adopt the policy options identi-
fied in the draft report. In view of these circumstances,
we ask that EPA examine, prior to issuing a final report,
both (1) the scientific confidence level in its predictions
of an eventual global warming as a result of increase in
greenhouse gases, the timing of such a warming, and the
ability of each policy option to "stabilize" anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases (climate cannot be
stabilized) ; and (2) the economic, trade and national
security implications to the United States of adopting each
policy option. In addition, we ask that EPA revise and
amend the findings of the draft report as discussed above.
We look forward to working with you to examine the
scientific and economic uncertainties discussed above.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
William Thans Sincerely, Thank
William E. Evans
Enclosure
APR -28 '89 11:21
P.10/10
ENCLOSURES
General comments on the Executive Summary by J. O. Fletcher
(submitted on March 13, 1989)
Journal of Climate, J. K. Angel, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, December 1988
Geophysical Research Letters, K. Hanson, et. al., National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 1989
International Trade Administration comments on EPA Draft
Report "Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate."
(Attached to the ITA comments are copies of comments by
various business organizations on the draft report.)
Long-Term Trends Affecting Major Electricity Consuming
Manufacturing Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce,
International Trade Administration (March 1989)
MAY, 02 '89 17:22
P.1/5
RAPIFAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
Originator's Name SPRADLEN
Addressee's Name KENHALE
Mail Routing Code
Mail Routing Code
Originator's Telephone 377-3567
Addressee's Telephone
5
Number of Pages
(including cover sheet)
Please number all pages transmitted as part of the total number of pages. For
example, Page 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, etc.
MAY, 02 '89 17:23
P.2/5
TO :
KEN YALE
FROM : J R SPRADLEY
SUBJECT: CLIMATE CONVENTION
Some thoughts on the climate convention issue.
I think we are missing the forrest. The U.S. is the
chair of an IPCC Working Group directed to consider
"new legal processes". If we dont do it, someone else
will--someone without the best interests of the U.S.
at heart.
In the circumstances, perhaps it is best simply to
allow the RSWG team to proceed with its work without
great fanfare. Once the RSWG properly (in our view)
defines the task of considering "new legal processes"
(including a framework convention), then we can take
credit as if we meant it all along.
MAY.02 '89 17:23
P.3/5
OPTIONS:
Continue to consider "new legal processes" in the
RSWG Steering Committee under Task B. = Implementation
Mechanisms".
O establish a separate ad hoc effort within the
Steering Committee, similar to that established
to implement Task A, to consider "legal and
institutional measures".
O examine existing and new legal processes,
including elements of a framework convention
on climate change.
O Discontinue consideration on "new legal processes"
in the RSWG Steering Committee.
DISCUSSION:
o
If the RSWG refuses to consider "new legal processes",
they will be considered either outside the RSWG (and
therefore U.S. control) or outside the IPCC (and therefore
outside the balancing influence of the WMO).
The worst case for the U.S. is for consideration of
a climate convention ot take place under the influence
of a biased forum, such as in Canada, by the Hague Summit
Parties, or by the UNEP.
Because of its energy/coal intensive economy, the U.S.
will be effected more significantly by a global reduction
in CO2 than most of its trading partners.
It is important, therefore, that the IPCC RSWG continue
to claim the "new legal processes" issue and that the U.S.,
as chair of the RSWG, assure an even handed treatment of
the legal issues. For example, the U.S. should assure that:
0 existing legal mechanisims get full consideration;
O attention on a convention be directed to a framework
rather than regulatory convention; and,
O "new" processes focus on monitoring and detecting
(rather than controlling) global climate change.
MAY.02 '89 17:24
P.4/5
RECOMMENDATION:
The U.S. should not announce that it is for or against
considering a Framework Convention.
The U.S. should work within the RSWG Steering Committee
as currently directed to examine existing legal processes
and to consider new legal processes.
As a part of that consideration the U.S. (State OLA)
should examine what elements could be included in a
Framework Convention.
The Framework Convention should focus on cooperative
actions to monitor, understand, predict and detect
globlal climate change.
The U.S. should report that the RSWG is considering
"new legal processes", including a framework convention:
To the UNEP Governing Council. (May 15-26)
To the WMO Executive Council. (June5-16)
To the final G-7 sherpa. (June 2-4)
To the IPCC. (June 28-30)
At the Economic Summit. (July)
At the Japan Conference. (September)
At the Netherlands Ministerial. (November)
Such action is consistent with the directions of the
IPCC and RSWG and with the UNGA Resolution and the
Hague Summit Declaration.
05/03/89 11:19
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
01
of Occurs and International
Environmental and Security Affair
Washington, D.C 20520
RAPIDFAX
CANON FAX-620
Date: 5/3/89
Time: 1145
FROM:
Stros
TEL. No. 647-9266
Name:
Office symbol/Number DES
Fax No. 647-5947
Document Description:
Pages to Follow:
(
TO:
Name: Ed WATTS
Tel. No.: 395-682)
Office Symbol/Number OMB
Fax NO. : 345 -3746
Ed:- As 20 policy MESSAGE decision
on a more Ponth coming approach
is Lines at ies point, could
we a fall % an instruction
along -le Pollawing Line 1?
Mta is 5/4/89 - 4PM
BE
05/03/89 11:20
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
02
RSWG Position Paper -- Convention Issue
Background:
The first IPCC meeting last November determined that the
RSWG was to consider "legal issues" associated with response
options to climate change. The first RSWG meeting in January
established, more specifically, that the RSWG was to develop a
strategy for identifying implementation mechanisms that would
include consideration of "new legal and institutional
mechanisms that could be used to implement options to limit or
adapt to climate change". Discussions on the advisability of,
and possible elements of, a framework climate convention
clearly fall within the RSWG's mandate.
Instructions:
-- The U.S. delegation does not have instructions to
affirmatively propose that discussions on a framework
convention take place within the RSWG.
-- The U.S. delegation does not have instructions to resist (or
postpone) such discussions if they are proposed by another RSWG
member.
-- Thus, given the RSWG's mandate, if another RSWG member
proposes that the RSWG, in the context of considering new legal
and institutional mechanisms, discuss the need for and possible
contents of a framework climate convention, the U.S. should
concur.
-- If such discussions are proposed, however, the U.S. should
seek: should the Haporition that
-- to retain certain control over the process (while
not dominating it)
-- to have such discussions take place within a group
that reports to the RSWG Steering Committee
-- to create an explicit mandate for such group that
makes clear in what context the convention issue is
to be discussed, i.e., within the broader context of
elaborating a range of implementation mechanisms
-- to focus such discussions on a framework
convention (i.e., general principles of cooperation,
monitoring and research without targets/timetables),
along the lines of the Vienna Ozone Convention
for Nitya Grody Clarke Spraday
EPA, State, UMB, DOE, Commerce
note to may players
describy in replaced Keens what
decision
-
note- -
girth city
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Letter
From President Bush to Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers
n.d.
(b)(1)
Re: Hague Declaration (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Domestic Policy Council
Series:
Yale, Ken, Files
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Global Climate Convention
Date Closed:
2/15/2018
OA/ID Number:
02039-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2017-0310-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
Deed of Gift Restrictions
(b)(1) National security classified information
C(1) Closed by Executive Order 13526, governing access to national
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
security information
agency
C(2) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the information
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute
C(3) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
gift [formerly listed as only C]
information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
purposes
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
financial institutions
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
his advisors, or between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA]
concerning wells
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 5- 5-89 11:56AM ;
2023953462-OFFICE OPERATIONS 52:# 1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506
DATE: 5/5/89
TO:
Ken yale
ADDRESS:
TELPHONE NUMBER: 395
FAX NUMBER:
456-2461
FROM:
Beverly Berger
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 395-3902
FAX NUMBER:
(202) 395-3462
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3
SPECIAL INSTRUCTION:
Urgent
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 5- 5-89 :11:56AM ;
2023953462-OFFICE OPERATIONS 52:# 2
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
01
05/05/89 08:08
Baron of Occurs and International
and Main
Bandly
Washington, 10.1. 30520
RAPIDFAX
CANON FAX-620
Date: 5-5-89
Time:
FROM:
Name: Breck Milroy
TEL. NO. 647-9312
Office Symbol/Number DESIENV
Fax NO.
647-5947
Document Description:
Pages to Follow 1
TO:
Name: Norm Hartness
Tel. No. : 395-6840
Office Symbol/Number OMB
Fax No. : 395-5836
MESSAGE
THIS DRAFT MANDATE REPRESENTS THE CONSENSUS REACHED AT YESTERDAY"S
RSWG PREPARATORY MEETING. PLEASE PHONE ANY COMMENTS TO
SUE BINIAZ (647-1370) BY NOON TODAY (5/5).
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 5- 5-89 :11:57AM ;
2023953462-0FFICE OPERATIONS 52:# 3
05/05/89 08:08
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
02
The U.S. delegation should seek to include the following
paragraph in the report of the RSWG Steering Committee meeting:
"The RSWG Steering Committee decided to establish a task
group to contribute to the implementation of Task B. The
so-called "legal and institutional mechanisms task group' is
charged with examining a range of legal and institutional
mechanisms, drawing on all the categories set forth in Task B,
that could be used to implement response options. In addition
to examining existing legal and institutional mechanisms
relevant to climate change, the group should, in the context of
considering new legal and institutional mechanisms, provide
recommendations on the advisability of, and possible elements
of, a framework climate change convention, along the lines of
the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer.
The task group is to report back to the Steering Committee
by
#
05/08/89 16:29
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
02
P.2
BURROUGHS DEX3500
BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES
POLICY STATEMENT
33/89
MONDAY, 8 MAY 1989
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
passports". "The atmosphere knows no boundaries and the winds carry no
by the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the
Attached is a statement to the UN Economic and Social Council
United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell,
Summary
*
discovery of nuclear energy, fifty years ago.
scale and complexity to the problems which arose from the
The effect of "greenhouse gases" is comparable in its
of scientists, industrialists, politicians and academics. a
On 26 April 1989 the British Prime Minister held seminar
no time to wait.
Their concensus was that despite great uncertainties there was
required - a framework in which to operate, a review
There are three areas in which international work is
of institutions and a basis for action to manage the consequences of
a warmer world.
which would set out general principles or guidelines.
The framework has two main aspects: an umbrella convention
task falls to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate This
should Secondly, as scientific evidence requires, specific protocols Change.
be fitted into the framework.
*
necessary, adapt them to changing circumstances. Are and,
challenge we face is how to make best use of them if
There are enough international institutions already. The
problems the of global warming sufficiently taken into the
area? many UN and international institutions working account in this
by
We
mav
Extended Page 2.1
-
provide a secretariat and monitor the global framework
a specialized agency. An intergovernmental commission to
we may need to consider whether UNEP might be promoted to
Charter a role for the Security Council under Article 34 could
be convention on climate should be considered. There also
created. and a Committee of the General Assembly might of also the be
A1-6, B3, B4, B5, EEC, P1/2/3/4/5/6
845 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10022, Telephone: (212) 752-8400
with This 10022. the material which is is registered prepared. under edited, the Issued Foreign or Agents circulated Registration by British Act Information Services, 845 Third Avenue, New York, New York
not indicate Department approval of of the Justice contents where of the this required material registration by the United statement as States on agent Government. is available of the British for public Government. inspection. This Registration material is does filed
YORK MEN S18
5665 852 212
13:40 80-50-686
05/08/89 16:30
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
03
BURROUGHS DEX3500
F' 3
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr President,
I congratulate my colleague the Danish Ambassador on his election
as President of the Economic and Social Council and thank him for
arranging, at short notice, this unscheduled meeting of the Council.
The Council recently agreed that environmental issues would be a
major theme at the second Regular Session to be held in Geneva this
July. We welcome this decision. At last year's General Assembly
political leaders from many countries expressed alarm at the
degradation of the environment of our planet. More recently the
governments of several member states have made proposals for
coordinated international action. We have noted with interest the
letter from the Soviet Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General
proposing the formation of a Centre for Emergency Environmental
assistance. We are also studying carefully proposals which will
iscussed at the forthcoming Governing Council of the United Nations be
onment Programme to strengthen the Inter-Governmental Panel on
limate Change.
Extended Page 3.1
1
BIS NEW YORK
212 758 5395
12:41 80-50-6861
05/08/89 16:30
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
5
04
BURROUGHS DEX3500
- 4
The British government has long been concerned at the prospect
that the steady increase of the so called greenhouse gases *
especially carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and methane - in the
atmosphere could lead to a rise in average global temperature with
incalculable consequences for human society. This problem is
comparable in its scale and complexity with that which arose from the
discovery of nuclear energy more than fifty years ago. It is an
nter-generational problem of a kind which time-bound governments
have never before had to deal with. The atmosphere knows no
boundaries, and the winds carry no passports. Just as member states
of the United Nations came together to take action on damage to the
ozone layer, so we now need to come together to see how to cope with
the wider problem of likely global warming.
This is not the occasion to spell out some of the possible
consequences. It is sufficient to say that a warmer world with wide
variations of temperature in different places and latitudes would
involve major changes in the character of the earth's surface, and
the society which we have built upon it. There would be shifts in
terns of rainfall so that what is now fertile could become arid,
and what is now arid could receive unmanageable rainfall. There
storms. could be greater climatic instability with higher incidence of
Extended Page 4.1
itorms, nurricanes, floods and droughts. There could be rises in sea
evel which could affect low lying areas and the large proportion of
he world's population now living in them. There could be disruption
he intricate webs of life on a scale now hard to imagine. For if
2
BIS NEW YORK
5395 752 212 11:42 80-50-686
05/08/89 16:31
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
5.
05
BURROUGHS DEX3500
P 5
comparable changes have taken place in the past, they have never
happened at such speed. Scientists have not yet succeeded in
devising models which could spell out for every region or country
what warming would involve for each of them. But we can safely say
victims. that within a human time scale there would be no winners: only
My Prime Minister held an all-day meeting or seminar on 26 April
ended by people from a wide cross-section of society: scientists,
industrialists, politicians, academics and others. Their consensus
was that despite the great uncertainties, there was no time to wait.
The British Government has subsequently been considering the actions
It believes should be taken by the international community. I convey
:hem first to the Economic and Social Council. We shall further
levelop them at the meeting of the Governing Council of the United
ations Environment Programme, which begins in Nairobi next week. We
hall do likewise at the Second Session of the Economic and Social
ouncil in July, and at the General Assembly in New York in the
utumn.
There are three main areas in which international work is
aquired. First we need a framework in which to operate. Next
:tion sed to look at institutions. Last we need to establish a basis we for
Extended Page 5.1
to manage the consequences of a warmer world. I shall have a
rd to say about each.
3
YORK M3N $18
089-05-08 212 758 5395 12:43
05/08/89 16:32
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
06
BURROUGHS DEX3500
First the framework. Let me remind you of the terms of the
resolution A/Res/43/53 adopted unanimously by last year's General
Assembly. In operative paragraph 10 we invited the Secretary General
of the World Meteorological Organization and the Executive Director
of the United Nations Environment Programme, through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to initiate action leading
as soon as possible to a comprehensive review and recommendations
with respect to - among other things - "the identification and
possible strengthening of relevant existing international legal
instruments having a bearing on climate"; and "elements for inclusion
in a possible international convention on climate". Work on this
comprehensive review is proceeding, and we are contributing to it.
We trust that it will draw on other work which has taken place on
this subject, notably at a meeting in Ottawa last February in which
we actively participated.
In the meantime I set out the British approach. It has two main
aspects. First we believe that we should seek to establish as soon
possible a simple framework or umbrella convention, which would
set out general principles or guidelines. In doing so we could
follow the precedent set by the Vienna Convention of 1985 on the
ozone layer. The drafting of principles
Extended Page 6.1
.... AND creating or principles and guidelines for good
climatic behaviour should not be too difficult, and could be
completed fairly soon. It is a task clearly falling to the
er-governmental Panel on Climate Change. We have ideas about what
ght be covered and how it might be expressed.
4
)
BIS NEW YORK
5605 758 212 12:43 80-50-686
05/08/89 16:33
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
07
BURROUGHS DEX3500
P.7
Secondly we should fit specific Protocols into the framework as
scientific evidence requires and permits. Again we could follow the
precedent of the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer which was
fitted into the broader Vienna Convention on the same subject. In
this fashion we could establish arrangements sufficiently flexible to
make early progress on problems which might otherwise prove
intractable. It will be easier to decide on those subjects on which
we need specific Protocols after the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has reported next year.
Next I turn to the question of institutions. In our view time
does not allow us the luxury of trying to create something new. We
all know the difficulties and complexities. In any case there is no
need for new institutions. We have institutions enough already. The
challenge we face is how to make best use of them, and if necessary
adapt them to changing circumstances.
Let me enumerate what already exists. There is the World
eteorological Organization which has long done an admirable job.
There is the United Nations Environment Programme with responsibility
for coordinating the functions of Specialized Agencies and other UN
Extended Page was 7.1
associated bodies with environmental responsibilities. There is the
World Climate Programme with its subsidiary programmes. Perhaps most
relevant at present is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
1th its three working groups. As you know the Intergovernmental
Panel is charged to report to the second World Climate Conference in
late 1990. In doing so it will take account of last year's General
5
)
YORK M3N S18
5395 852 212 bo:21 80-50-68
05/08/89 16:33
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
08
BURROUGHS DEX3500
P.8
Assembly resolution to which I have already referred.
The difficulties which most existing institutions have so far
encountered arise from lack of support, in particular financial
support, from their members and the international community
generally. The United Nations Environment Programme has particularly
suffered in this respect In our view it needs urgently to be
strengthened. The British Government has already more than doubled
its contribution, and we urge other Member States to do likewise.
But more money will not be enough by itself. Institutions must
change and adapt. We need to look again at the status of the United
Nations Environment Programme; we may even need to consider in the
longer term whether it might be promoted into a specialised agency.
Without sufficient resources or status, it can hardly be expected to
achieve its aims, particularly in coordinating the environmental work
of other Agencies.
The forthcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
hange will be of particular importance as it will lay out the
scientific basis for future international work on this subject. The
of Panel things was created with this specific purpose, and in the normal way
would
Extended Page 8.1
would not necessarily continue after the publication of its
report. But in view of its quality, we believe that thought should
be given to its prolongation, perhaps in the form of some
tergovernmental Commission, whose task would be to provide the
Secretariat for and monitor the global framework convention on
climate, and report from time to time as appropriate.
6
BIS NEW YORK
5605 852 212 12:45 80-50-686
05/08/89 16:34
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
5
09
BURROUGHS DEX3500
#. 9
You may wonder to whom such a body should report. It should of
course continue to report to the present Intergovernmental Panel's
parent bodies the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Programme. But one of the more central organs of
the United Nations system might also be involved. Work on a matter
of this importance requires high level political direction. For that
reason there could in future be a role for the Security Council which
ould take up environmental issues from time to time under Article 34
of the Charter.
A Committee of the General Assembly might also be created which
would have environmental matters as its prime responsibility.
Most of the existing United Nations or United Nations-associated
bodies have an environmental dimension to their work. I need only
mention the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations
Development Programme and the various international financial
institutions. The World Bank and the regional development banks have
cently worked out new environmental guidelines. We need to
consider whether the specific problems of global warming are
sufficiently taken into account by these bodies.
Extended Page 9.1
-- "I -
Last I come to the most difficult problem of all: the basis for
actions which the international community will need to take to
cope with what is above all an international problem. This is not
the occasion for examining the detailed reasons for global warming.
7
)
YORK M3N sie
5665 758 212 12:46 80-50-68
05/08/89 16:35
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
1
10
BURROUGHS DEX3500
P. 1
As we all know, it has arisen from changes in the use of land;
changes in the way in which we generate and use energy; and changes
in the transformation of agricultural into industrial economies. All
actions to mitigate global warming and adapt human society to it
relate to these three areas. No-one planned what has happened.
Only one or two forecast it. But we now have to live with it.
The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will
obviously be critical in deciding on specific actions. We need
consensus on the science if governments are to work successfully
together and draw conclusions for policy. In the meantime we must
recognize that as with the ozone layer, the problem arises
substantially from the process of industrialization, and in
particular the consumption of fossil fuels. It is for the older
industrial countries to give the leadership when the time comes by
discouraging the further build up of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. But if the burning of fossil fuel is a major component
18 of the problem, it is by no means the whole problem. Changes in land
in particular deforestation, are important worldwide. They are
often the result of pressures generated by an increasing human
population with associated species of animals and plants.
Extended Page 10. 1
Naturally the industrial countries must, as with
hlorofluorocarbons, be ready to help the rest of the world. Such
hould relate to land use, energy, and industrial development.
here is no need for everyone to follow the same path and make the
ame mistakes. We have to find means to help others leapfrog over
8
BIS NEW YORK
5395 852 212 12:47 90-50-5861
05/08/89 16:36
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
5.
11
BURROUGHS DEX3500
P.1
the technologies which have caused the problem. Such help can be
given in many ways, some through multilateral, some through bilateral
channels. For our part we have already put new emphasis in the
British aid programme on help for forestry and finance for studies to
work out alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons. We will also respond
positively to requests for help from aid recipient countries in
re-equipping plants to use substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and to
develop industries free of them. we hope that others will do
likewise.
These Are no more than the outlines of the British approach
towards one of the most difficult and challenging problems of our
time. We need the right framework; we need the right institutions:
we need the right basis for future actions. This planet is the only
one we have got. Its good health is our good health. We need to
bequeath to our successors the marvellous world we inherited from our
predecessors. Our species has evolved through its ability to adapt.
We must continue to adapt in order to survive. The United Nations
has a central role in making that possible.
Extended Page 11. 1
9
BIS NEW YORK
5665 852 212 12:48 80-50-586
- 8 -
troops at their present level in West Germany is not set in cement by
this administration as has been U.S. policy in -- since -- for 40
years.
MR. FITZWATER: Well, what it implies is the point that,
having some 300,000 troops, or whatever it is, in Western Europe is
part of the flexible response policy of the NATO Alliance. That's
why we think it's important and why it should be maintained.
Similarly, that's why we think the short-range nuclear force issue is
so important, that it's a part of the flexible response and a part of
the equation that goes with having our troops in Europe. There is no
intention of changing that policy at this time.
These gentlemen are simply speaking out on any number of
options when you have a changing climate or changing situation, as is
being considered in NATO now.
Q They're not responding to a changed Soviet threat.
They're responding to a policy of one of our allies and saying that
it would be retribution to --
MR. FITZWATER: Well, I refer you to them for
consideration of what was behind their statements, but, nevertheless,
our policy has not changed.
Q
Well, these are two responsible public officials
dealing directly with that problem --
MR. FITZWATER: That's right.
Q
-- and you're saying "ignore what they say."
MR. FITZWATER: No, no, I'm not saying that at all. I'm
saying our policy has not changed, and it's all part --
Q They are making threats, though.
MR. FITZWATER: No, they're simply discussing the issue
-- pointing out the nature of our flexible response policy, what the
various components are, how they relate, what the strategic
interrelationships are. And those are true for everybody. Everybody
in the administration understands that and agrees.
Q Marlin, I wanted to ask you about the -- OMB's
changes in the testimony of the Goddard official on global warming.
Was this authorized by the White House? Was this done unilaterally
by someone over at OMB? Is the President aware of it now? Does the
President approve of that being done?
MR. FITZWATER: Thank you, John. The administration is
considering the global warming issue in a number of ways. Research
is underway sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA
and any number of other scientific units. On the international
front, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
is also considering this matter. A working group of this
organization, which the U.S. chairs, is holding its second meeting
this week in Geneva, Switzerland to consider the state of scientific
knowledge about this phenomenon.
As with most matters of science, there is considerable
disagreement about the cause and effects of global warming
Nevertheless, we have worked diligently and in the lead to begin the
IPCC review of this matter. The United States is deeply concerned
about global warming and its implications for the future. To this
end, the President has taken a number of actions that will have an
impact on the subject.
He has directed a phase-out of chloroflurocarbons by the
year 2000. Our Fiscal Year 1990 budget includes $190 million for
global environmental research. The clean coal technology program
MORE
#51-05/08
19" UTIN
- 9 -
involves $710 million in Fiscal Year 1990 to encourage the
development of innovative technology to deal with acid rain. And
finally, the administration, through it's Domestic Policy Council, is
now considering legislation to amend the Clean Air Act and deal with
the problems of acid rain, toxic air pollutants and how our cities
can best meet attainment of air quality standards. All of these have
an impact on global warming.
It's in this setting that the administration has had
to consider its position before the working group meetings this week
and a testimony before the Congress. The Geneva meeting was not
called to discuss the convention. It was called to review the
scientific evidence to date. Our position is that we are not yet
ready for a convention, but we do seek aggressive review of the data
and significant progress in analyzing our scientific knowledge.
Q In other words, yes?
MR. FITZWATER: Our concern is that unless we base
decisions on sound scientific data, we could end up being forced to
agree with reductions in global warming gases that are neither
realistic nor economically sound.
At the same time, you mention the story this morning that
OMB edited the testimony of Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen's testimony before
the Subcommittee on Space Technology and Science was routinely
reviewed by the OMB for conformity with administration policy. The
OMB staff-level changes made in Dr. Hansen's testimony we felt
related to the policies of the administration and not to Dr. Hansen's
basic scientific conclusions.
The changes in testimony reflected the OMB's interest in
insuring the statements of administration policy reflected the fact
that there are many points of view on the global warming issue. And
many of them conflict with those stated by Dr. Hansen. However,
there is no effort to limit Dr. Hansen's views or to prevent him from
presenting his own conclusions to the Committee. We assume he did
just that. Thank you very much. (Laughter.)
Q Looks like you were ready for that one.
MR. FITZWATER: One of Marlin's finest, folks. Right
there, baby. (Laughter.) It's all there.
Q
When he testifies today is he testifying for
himself?
Q Is that a yes or a no?
MR. FITZWATER: His cleared testimony will represent
administration policy.
Q When does he talk about his own --
MR. FITZWATER: In question and answer, he can present
his own conclusions.
Q Is he off the reservation?
MR. FITZWATER: No, no. He's doing a great job.
Q What is the reservation?
Q
Doesn't this testimony and this statement that you
made sort of conflict with what's come from the State Department and
their assessment of that and the assessment by the EPA?
MR. FITZWATER: There is disagreement within the EPA,
within the State Department, and within the administration on the
MORE
#51-05/08
VN6 9V6A 90 2900 .anorasono FROM
for
surgait TO abide
- 10 -
scientific conclusions related to global warming. It's a process
much like you recall going through on acid rain in the late '70s and
early '80s. That's the way scientific evidence is. There are
differing agreements. So the answer is yes and no. There are some
people at EPA who say we're ready, there are some people who say
we're not. Similarly at the State Department.
Q Marlin, you say that you think the changes were made
only in terms of administration policy. As I recall reading the
story this morning, Dr. Hansen is saying that that wasn't what was
changed. What was changed was his scientific conclusions. He's
saying that science is being changed to conform to administration
policy.
MR. FITZWATER: Yes, we disagree with that. We believe
that the changes were made to reflect the fact that his conclusions
represent his ideas, but not necessarily those of all scientists who
consider this matter. And we welcome his expression of his findings.
We welcome his work. He's an outstanding and distinguished
scientist. We urge him to present his views in any and every form
possible. But we simply point out there are other points of view on
this issue and that the administration policy has not been
established.
Q What role did John Sununu play in making this
decision in terms of --
MR. FITZWATER: On the convention?
Q
On the convention. Doesn't this violate a campaign
statement by George Bush supporting the idea of an international
conference on global warming?
MR. FITZWATER: No, he does support that. We simply are
not ready to move in that direction. The issue here is a convention,
not a conference. A convention is, as you know, a treaty document
kind of thing that sets forth findings of the world community and
views on how they should proceed. We do not believe we are ready to
reach issue. that point. Governor Sununu's role was minimal if any in this
Q
You said you called them staff level changes in
approved? Dr. Hansen's testimony. At what level was making those changes
MR. FITZWATER: There is an OMB examiner about four
levels down from the top -- five levels down from the top, who made
these changes.
Q
It didn't come over here across the street at all?
MR. FITZWATER: No. But he's a brilliant examiner and
does great work. (Laughter.)
Q
Bring him out.
Q
You said that there's disagreement within the
administration on the assessment of the science. Does the President
at this point have any personal view on this question? He's talked
about global warming on several occasions. Does he have any personal
view, tentatively, about which side of this dispute he's on or is he
--
MR. FITZWATER: His personal view is that this is a
serious problem that America needs to show and take leadership on.
We have, in terms of leading this working group effort. But the
science is something that still has to be sorted out. Obviously the
President hasn't made a judgment about scientific assessments; that
has to be done through an established consensus approach. And there
is an approach for that through publications and magazines and it's
MORE
#51-05/08
ORIS POLICE eacha Jand DELIVER were covien
- 11 -
considered in these conferences. And that's the way the scientists
sort these things out.
Q
When did Dick Darman start letting fifth-level
officials make changes in people's testimony?
MR. FITZWATER: Well, you have to remember that they
consider maybe eight, 10 pieces of testimony a day. And normally
these are reviewed by the examiners for each agency and department
and they are not elevated. That's fairly normal.
Q Did Darman ride herd on this all the way? He runs a
pretty tight ship over there.
MR. FITZWATER: No, not on this one. He directs the
process. When I was in the agencies, OMB rewrote everything we did.
Q Marlin, could you clarify - you said he's welcome
to testify today also as to his own conclusions. Does that mean he's
going to be presenting dual testimony?
MR. FITZWATER: No.
Q I mean, has he been unmuzzled now or what?
MR. FITZWATER: He's never been muzzled. He's free to
say whatever he wants.
Q
I'm still wondering what kind of a precedent --
Q Well, then why was his testimony --
Q
As long as it follows your script, or what?
MR. FITZWATER: Well, prepared testimony represents
administration policy. But he's free to say whatever he wants.
Q
Well, I'm just wondering what kind of a precedent --
MR. FITZWATER: The Congress wants that -- the Congress
wants testimony that reflects administration policy.
Q
I'm just wondering what kind of a precedent this
sets for future testimony by eminent government scientists. Are you
saying that when a scientist is called up before a congressional
committee from now on that they're going to have to reflect
administration policy or that they could still express their view
with an OMB caveat somewhere in there that they don't necessarily
reflect administration policy?
MR. FITZWATER: For the 20 years I've been in government,
everybody who has ever testified before Congress does so with the
same ground rules, that their written testimony represents that of
the administration because it's approved by the OMB, and in question
and answer, they're free to give any opinion they want. Nothing
changed, no difference then or now.
Q
But you're talking about opinion of policy. We're
talking here about a scientist presenting scientific evidence or
scientific assessments. Are you now saying that those things also
are going to have to conform with administration policy in the
written part of that testimony?
MR. FITZWATER: No. We're saying we felt we were
commenting on policy, not scientific evidence.
Q Marlin, one of the things that was changed involved
the -- as I recall, the doctor's assessment of the effects and impact
of a long-range global warming trend -- effects in terms of drought,
in terms of temperature changes. Is this a question of
MORE
#51-05/08
- 12 -
administration policy? Does the administration have --
MR. FITZWATER: Well, I'm not a scientist. First of all,
I'm not sure that your summation of the information in question is
accurate, and --
Q We can pull the story and check it up close.
MR. FITZWATER: well, fine, pull it up, come up later,
and we'll talk about it at length. I'll give you the benefit of my
vast knowledge of chlorofluorocarbons and global warming.
Q
Exactly right. But do you understand my question?
That doesn't sound -- a prediction of what happens as the effect of a
long-term global warming trend -- doesn't sound like policy.
MR. FITZWATER: Well, it may not sound that way to you,
and I don't know what the words were that were at question, but the
OMB's position was that it was a policy issue and not a scientific
one.
Q Was this fifth-level person that changes testimony,
was he a scientisit, or is it just some bureaucrat that says that
this is our policy?
MR. FITZWATER: I don't know who it was, but we stand
behind his work, so it doesn't matter.
Q
Does the White House, in retrospect, wish it had
been handled differently?
MR. FITZWATER: No, I think it's scientific information
like this these kinds of differences of opinion often occur, and
here again, I hate to give my age, but I remember when I was at EPA
we had these kinds of debates all the time. And they were always
congressional testimony and scientists -- one side and another. It
just goes with the territory.
Q Except that the scientist said that the change
negated the whole impact of his testimony, what he was trying to say,
which was, there was enough --
MR. FITZWATER: Well, we don't agree. And the fact is,
he is free to go up there and say that. He's free to tell the
Congress, the world, and I suggest he do that. If he feels the
prepared testimony is not accurate to describe his position, then I
urge him to go to the Congress and to the American press and tell
them exactly what he thinks.
Q
-- afterwards?
MR. FITZWATER: Sure.
Q
Aren't you effectively saying that policy repudiates
scientific evidence because it doesn't conform with what you want the
policy to be?
MR. FITZWATER: No, I'm saying they're totally different.
Q
Wait I'm sorry. You're saying what?
MR. FITZWATER: They're different.
Q
They're different?
MR. FITZWATER: The policy we are concerned about was the
conclusion that there was unanimity in the goverment on this matter,
and we simply wanted to point out there isn't.
Q
But you seem to be saying that, regardless of what
MORE
#51-05/08
- 13 -
Dr. Hansen's conclusions may be, if they don't conform with policy,
you're going to disregard them.
MR. FITZWATER: No, his conclusions are part of the
making of policy.
Q
But he works for you. He is a government scientist.
Do you -- are you essentially just rejecting his work?
MR. FITZWATER: No, I'm saying that we can produce a half
dozen or more scientists on the same issue who all work for the
United States government who have different conclusions. They have
to be weighed and assessed in the proper forums. And there are
forums for doing that.
Q
And the ones you accept are those that conform with
policy.
MR. FITZWATER: No, the ones that come out of this
assessment process are submitted to the appropriate policy reviews --
the Domestic Policy Council and others and policies are formed.
This gentleman's views may be totally accepted; they may be totally
between. objected -- I mean, rejected. Chances are it will be something in
Q But by taking this approach and rewriting his
testimony, aren't you discrediting his scientific work?
MR. FITZWATER: No, not at all. Doesn't reflect on his
scientific ability in any way.
Q
Marlin, you said this was done by a forth or
fifth-level examiner. But how high did the level reach where this
was signed off on or approved?
MR. FITZWATER: I don't know.
Q
Did Darman sign off on this?
MR. FITZWATER: But the administration stands behind it.
Q
Marlin, you said the President wants to show
leadership in this area. I'm wondering when you think they might be
interested in moving toward a convention on this.
MR. FITZWATER: Depends on the progress of the science.
Depends on the information.
Q
Many people many of the world's leaders -- I
think Mrs. Brundtland may have spoken to the President about it when
she was here urging him to move this toward a convention. Did he
give her any indication of a time or --
MR. FITZWATER: No.
Q
-- the kind of assessment that you're going to do
here?
MR. FITZWATER: No.
Q
Do you have any comment on the view attributed to
President -- former President Reagan in a recent column by Lou Cannon
that Mr. Bush is moving too slowly in the foreign policy area?
MR. FITZWATER: No, I don't have any comment.
Q
Did President Reagan express that to President Bush
when they met recently?
MR. FITZWATER: I don't know. They had a private
MORE
#51-05/08