of the Climate Convention. providing significant support for institutional strengthening and capacity building activities in recipient countries. In general, the GEF should be urged to support development-oriented projects that have a significant benefit to the environment and not be limited to environmental projects that may have an incidental benefit for development. This orientation is necessary to assure the equitable distribution of the upcoming replenishment of the GEF and to maintain the enthusiastic participation of developing countries in the INC.

To demonstrate the commitment of this Administration to leadership on international economic development and the protection of the global environment, the President should prepare a major environmental address to be delivered this spring to the United Nations General Assembly. This speech should cover not just the risks of rapid climate change. but the fu!! gamut of environmental issues that face the international community today. It should reaffirm the conmitment made by the President during the fall campaign to stabilize U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide at the 1990 level--but it must go well beyond that easy step. It must position the U.S. as the world leader on the development of environmental technologies and the champion of those who would reduce environmental degradation in the developing world by promoting the status of women and eradicating poverty. A whole-hearted commitment by the U.S. to these goals will not only enhance our status in the world community, it will open up new markets for American businesses and help to save the global environment for our children.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the Clinton Administration must meet the challenge of U.S. commitments to the Climate Convention by completely re-working the U.S. National Action Plan. Using the old plan as an annex, the new plan should emphasize new and additional efforts in the U.S. to reduce our energy-related domestic emissions of greerhouse gases. It should also outline specific programs for increasing the resiliency of U.S. society to the types of weather and climate changes that might accompany a global warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. These should include a complete prohibition on subsidized timber sales, expanded efforts to protect and conserve the quality of

U.S. soils and forests, and measures to reduce the risk of damage to vulnerable U.S. coastal zones. In addition. the Administration should move aggressively to promote new partnerships between U.S. firms and their counterparts in developing countries to accelerate the co-development and deployment of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency devices. It should encourage a shift in the composition of lending and aid programs to stress the development of these critical technologies. Perhaps most important, this Administration must end the institutional deception of the American people. We must have faith in the honesty and intelligence of average Americans to use honest market signals about the real price of energy. If we can stop lieing to the American people about energy--by making the price of fuels reflect the full economic and environmental cost of energy supply and use--we can build our economy on the basis of a sustainable energy future. This is the challenge of the climate issue for the Clinton Administration. If we can meet this challenge squarely today, we can build both a strong nation and a clean

environment.

Additional Information from Mr. Lashof responding to question from Mr. Ballenger at pp. 64-65.

The average person exhales about 2 pounds of carbon dioxide per day. So 1000 people breathing for an hour would produce about 90 pounds of carbon dioxide. This is about the same amount of carbon dioxide that is produced by one person driving an average car (with a fuel economy of 20 miles per gallon) for 80 miles, say one round-trip between Washington and Baltimore. In fact, the average American produces 56 times as much carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption as from food consumption (which is released through breathing). Also, the carbon in food is recycled when plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as food is grown.

STATEMENT OF DANA ROHRABACHER, MENBER OF CONGRESS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMNITTEE ON ECONOMIC POLICY, TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

March 1, 1993

Mr. Chairman and Fellow Members of the Subcommittaa:

It has come to my attention that some people are suggesting that, when the Bush Administration promulgated the U.S. National Action Plan concerning the issue of potential global climate change, commonly called the "UBNAP,"" it did so in the dark of night in a last-minute effort to preempt the Clinton Administration on that important policy matter. That is a complete mischaracterisation of what happened, and I want this subcommittee' record to reflect the facts accurately.

By its terms, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not enter into force -- that is, become legally binding -- until 90 days following its ratification by 50 nations. Only about 12 nations have ratified the Convention so far, and the United States was the first industrialized nation to do so. Bo, although more than 150 nations have signed the Convention, the further requirement of ratification means that the Convention likely will not enter into force until sometime in the spring of 1994.

The

Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Convention, among other things, requires industrialized nations to adopt policies and measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to report thereon and on the projected results of such policies and measures. report is to be furnished to the Conference of the Parties, the supreme body of the Convention, consisting of all parties to the Convention. However, the Conference of the Parties does not come into being until after the Convention enters into forca.

The Convention was negotiated by an international body, established by the UN. General Assembly, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change -- the INC. The INC recognized that, because of the ratification requirement, there necessarily would be delay in the industrialized nations' submitting their reports on climate change policies and measures pursuant to the mechanism established by the Convention. So, on May 9, 1992, the very day that it approved the text of the Convention, the INC adopted what was called a "prompt start resolution."

That resolution "invited" nations eligible to sign the Convention "to communicate as soon as feasible to the head of the secretariat information regarding measures consistent with the provisions of the convention pending its entry into force." (emphasis added).

In my view, the prior Administration's publication of the USNAP in December 1992, at a meeting of the INC, was nothing other than our nation's honoring thể INC's prompt start resolution.

But, there is more. During the course of negotiation of the Convention, the U.S. publicly committed to early publication of its national action plan concerning climate change. Indeed, at the "Earth Summit" in Rio, in June 1992, which was long before the election and even before Mr. Clinton was nominated, President Bush -- reportedly, the urging of EPA Administrator Bill Reilly called upon industrialized nations to come forth with their respective national action plans by the first of 1993.

This was an effective challenge to the European Community, which, although it had engaged in substantial political rhetoric about "stabilizing" its co2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, actually had no agreed plan for achieving its objective. And, I might add, it still does not.

Having publicly challenged other nations to put their national action plans on the table by the first of 1993, the Administration hardly could have avoided doing so itself. The last international occasion to do so, by that deadline, was the INC meeting in Geneva in December.

So, when we look at the facts, the prior Administration's publication of the USNAP not only was pursuant to the INC'a prompt start resolution, but also made good on the public commitment of the President of the United States, made long before the election.

We also should recognize that the USNAP was developed as a result of an interagency deliberative process participated in by all relevant Executive Branch departments and agencies, including EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality.

Moreover, publication of the UBNAP was accompanied by a December 8 Federal Register notion, which invited the publle to comment on the USNAP. The comment period expires next week.

I shall look forward to being enlightened on these important issues not only by testimony of the witnesses selected for today's hearing, but by the public's comments that were invited by the prior Administration.