metric tons of carbon by the year 2000 relative to 1990 levels. If properly implemented, many of the measures in the existing plan could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from projected levels. In particular, EPA's voluntary public-private partnerships, such as Green Lights, Energy Star Computers and Golden Carrot Refrigerator programs, have been highly successful to date. These programs remain underfunded relative to what would be needed to achieve the market penetration targets in the current plan. If adequate funding is provided, the combination of EPA's program, effective implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and ongoing State-level and utility efficiency programs might reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 by about 100 million metric tons of carbon based on the calculations in the existing plan. That leaves a gap of some 60 million metric tons of carbon that need to be made up.

In my testimony, I enumerate a number of policies that complement or augment those in the existing National Action Plan. Estimated emission reductions are given for the year 2000, and they come to a total of some 80 to 110 million metric tons of carbon, assuming that the individual programs are additive. These emission reductions come from measures-including the Btu tax, included in the Clinton-Gore economic package-increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards and measures to internalize the cost of driving automobiles and therefore reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles where other modes of transportation are available, measures to increase the efficiency of Federal buildings and residential buildings, as well as measures to promote renewable energy and natural gas to replace higher carbon fuels.

These policies, taken together with the existing measures in the plan, would allow emissions to be reduced by some 180 to 210 million metric tons of carbon, more than enough to achieve the goal of reducing emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2000; and the impact of most of these programs would increase in future years beyond 2000, yielding significant emission reductions.

The importance of timing cannot be overstressed, however. Much valuable time has already been lost since the 1988 Toronto Conference first called for a 20 percent reduction in emissions. The turn of the century is now only 7 years off. Each program outlined here will take some time to get off the ground and additional time to achieve significant emission reductions as equipment turns over. The administration and Congress must move quickly to adopt and implement a real National Action Plan to arrest global warming. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lashof appears in the appendix.] STATEMENT OF T.J. GLAUTHIER, DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Mr. Chairman, I am T.J. Glauthier, director of Energy and Climate Change Policy at the World Wildlife Fund. I also coordinate the policy work of WWF organizations throughout the world on energy and technology transfer issues.

WWF is the U.S. affiliate of the international WWF family, which is the world's largest private conservation organization. We have over 1.2 million members here in the United States and over

4 million members worldwide. We have national organizations or representatives in nearly 40 countries around the world.

I also wish to acknowledge our identification with the Climate Action Network, which is a coalition of nongovernmental organizations working on climate change here in the United States and internationally. While I can't speak specifically for all the members of this coalition, I think, together with the comments of my colleagues, Mr. Lashof and Dr. Mintzer, you will get a sense of the general reaction of the nongovernmental organization community regarding the U.S. Action Plan.

I will summarize my comments. The testimony is submitted to you in its entirety.

The subcommittee did raise a question of whether or not the draft action plan should be revised or completely scrapped. This question is largely a matter of semantics. In either case, the thinking and the public comment that has gone on is relevant and should be used in moving forward; and the draft material certainly contains some sections, such as descriptions of key program elements and research plans, that will be useful. However, the revisions that are needed to the overall plan are so extensive that the final version should be substantially different from the draft.

I have four key recommendations I would like to make: The first one is that the draft plan needs a 180-degree shift in orientation to become a strategic document that sets goals and drives actions within the administration.

As you have heard from Dr. Lashof, the draft plan is not goal directed. It is just a compendium of programs and actions that are being undertaken for other reasons.

This plan should be a strategic document. It should be the statement of strategy for our Nation's climate action program. As such, it needs to set forth goals, priorities, and program directions that are useful on a day-to-day basis in making research, policy, and resource decisions.

Our final plan should embrace the objective of the convention and make a clear, explicit commitment to meeting the target of returning greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Then the body of the document should spell out in detail our strategy for achieving that. Our plan should also include a commitment to monitoring our progress and adding additional measures to the plan or increasing their pace if subsequent information shows that the actions we have laid out are not adequate to meet the year 2000 target.

In making the plan a goal-driven document, we also recommend a substantial amount of restructuring being done. I will leave the details of that to later comments.

Our second recommendation is that the action plan needs more actions. The current draft does not meet the test of a good-faith plan because it does not achieve the emissions reduction goal of the treaty. In fact, using the numbers in the draft, it is possible that the steps in the action plan will only go halfway toward the goal of returning emissions to the 1990 levels by the year 2000.

In addition, I understand that a number of the technical assumptions underlying these calculations are based on a rosy scenario

and may overstate the emission reduction that will actually be achieved by the listed actions in the plan.

Currently, what is needed is a credible package of programs and actions, that technical experts agree will be such, to achieve our national goal under the treaty. That will require adding more measures now and including the commitment to monitor results and add additional measures later, if needed.

A third recommendation regards the technology transfer section of the draft plan. That too needs to be changed to be strategic. It needs to contain specific goals that will drive the program and actions to assist the U.S. private sector in undertaking projects abroad.

The present draft on technology transfer lacks both goals and any statement of strategy. At this point, it contains just a listing of examples of activities that fall within this sphere but without direction. The entire treatment of one key area, for example, technology development and transfer, consists of a one-sentence introduction followed by 22 bullets of examples of U.S. projects. These may be valuable sound projects; however, there is no attempt to provide an overall perspective, set of goals, and strategy that binds these together.

Our technology transfer program must be based on facilitating actions by hundreds or thousands of firms in the private sector. We can do that by providing a vision, setting goals, creating incentives, removing barriers and facilitating private sector action.

Some specific recommendations: The United States should set an ambitious, specific goal, such as having 1,000 private-sector projects under way by 1996 in developing countries and countries whose economies are in transition. One thousand projects would provide real focus for government officials who are implementing this program. It would tend to concentrate their attention on real, concrete actions that would stimulate private-sector activity, and the number of projects should be high, high enough to be a worthy goal, but even at this level, it amounts to only two projects per year for each of the next 4 years for each of the developing countries or transitional countries that sign the treaty.

Another recommendation is that the administration should integrate the Action Plan goals and objectives into whatever reorganization is developed for the AID program.

Another is that the United States should actively seek and support meaningful changes to the Global Environmental Facility, which is the interim financing mechanism for technology assistance to developing countries under this treaty.

And finally, the administration should work actively to improve incentives and remove barriers to technology transfer, and effective international private sector partnerships.

Assistance programs could be modified to provide seed money to establish "energy efficiency trust funds" in developing countries. Such monies could be used as revolving funds to overcome the high initial cost barrier of efficient technologies, and the earnings could support continued local staff capability. That idea comes from our experience in conservation finance, specifically in the debt-for-nature swaps. It has shown that the single greatest determinant long

term success is securing funding to support local, independent staff to facilitate and oversee projects on a long-term basis.

My fourth and finally major recommendation is that we should put the Action Plan on a "fast track," commit to publish it by August 1993, and call on other developed countries to do likewise. The plan should be the pacing activity for our national program to deal with global warming, so we need it soon. Furthermore, the United States has an opportunity now to accelerate other countries' implementation activities by several months, or even as much as a year, but only if we commit ourselves in the next few weeks.

In closing, I will reiterate that the overall recommendation we have: that the U.S. National Action Plan must be revised to be a strategic blueprint for U.S. actions to combat global climate change, and it is needed soon. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glauthier appears in the appendix.]

Mr. GEJDENSEN. Mr. Mintzer, are you ready?

Mr. MINTZER. Sure.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If would you rather take a moment, we can let Mr. Hemphill proceed.

Mr. MINTZER. I would actually rather take a moment.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HEMPHILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE Mr. HEMPHILL. Thank you. My name is John Hemphill. I am executive director of the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, and I would like to thank you for having me come to represent the Business Council before your subcommittee on this important issue.

Just briefly, let me give you a little background on the Business Council. It is a fairly new organization; we were formed late last year. We are made up of business leaders from the energy efficiency, renewable, natural gas and utility industries that share a common commitment to a comprehensive, forward-looking, technology-based vision of the future use of energy in meeting the nations' economic needs.

Today, we are here to talk about the draft National Action Plan. We have about four or five comments that I will briefly touch on. I will just simply summarize our full comments, that have been submitted in writing to the subcommittee.

First, we believe that the National Action Plan would be more effective if the document examined the impact of future greenhouse emission programs and not focus only on those programs that are currently in place. This suggestion is not anything new. Other witnesses have made this same observation-that the plan needs to be more strategic.

Mr. GEJDENSON. It might be helpful if you pull that mike just a little bit closer. Some us up here are old and hard of hearing.

Mr. HEMPHILL. For example, we believe the plan should focus on reprioritization of the Federal R&D budget with an emphasis toward increasing the level of funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency and natural gas and those kinds of technologies that promise to be a solution for the future.

Second, we believe that the solution to global climate warming can be dealt with in a very economical and efficient way. It doesn't require loss of jobs and major dislocations. In fact, we believe that solutions to global warming can also provide a net plus in those areas. In fact, a study called An Alternate Energy Future, sponsored by the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Gas Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association, shows that aggressive deployment of these technologies could reduce CO2 emissions by the year 2000 by 10 percent, compared to 1990. But to achieve this result, the plan would have to include actions in the transportation sector.

This brings me to my third point. The current plan virtually ignores the transportation sector of our economy. The transportation sector accounts for 27 percent of our primary energy use, of which virtually all is petroleum. We believe that the revised plan needs to include actions in this area. Those actions could include expanded use of alternate fuel vehicles, increased vehicle efficiency standards, and improved mass transit systems.

Fourth, we believe that the plan put too much emphasis on adaptive strategies rather than on mitigation strategies. Preventative measures that make both economic and environmental sense, taken now, we believe will be less costly and more sustainable than adaptive measures taken in the future. Unfortunately, we don't think the plan provides a balance in that regard. We think greater emphasis on global climate change mitigation would better underscore the country's commitment to address this issue.

Fifth, the Business Council recognizes that increased energy efficiency will be the foundation for a sustainable energy future. The current version of the National Action Plan recognizes the importance of energy efficiency, but we are concerned that it fails to recognize the importance of achieving greater efficiency over the full cycle of energy use. It is essential to consider the emissions from the point of extraction to end-use. Considering only end-use efficiencies could produce mistaken results. It is critical we think, that the energy molecules be traced from the mine mouth to the point of consumption and that emissions also be counted from beginning to end.

And finally, we think that the Action Plan needs to look at joint implementation opportunities with other countries. We believe that there are actions, especially in Eastern European and in developing countries, where the government, working in partnership with businesses, could develop joint programs for exploiting U.S. products and technologies to aid in the solution, the global solution to this problem.

I will conclude by stating that the Business Council stands ready to work with government to achieve this end. Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hemphill appears in the appendix.]

Mr. Barrody, now we will let you clean up. That is what this is all about.