Page images
PDF
EPUB

President Clinton clearly set forth the direction of our climate policy in his Earth Day speech. He said:

"We ... must take the lead in addressing the challenge of global warming that could make our planet and its climate less hospitable and more hostile to human life. Today, I reaffirm my personal, and announce our nation's commitment, to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.

"I am instructing my administration to produce a cost-effective plan by August that can continue the trend of reduced emissions. This must be a clarion call, not for more bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary costs, but instead, for American ingenuity and creativity, to produce the best and most energy-efficient technology."

The Administration is committed to seeing the Convention promptly implemented, and, if necessary, strengthened. To this end, the Administration is taking a two-pronged approach: a domestic effort to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases; and an international effort, including working to implement the convention, and to support developing countries, and countries moving toward free market economies, in meeting its goals.

The Domestic Effort

To realize the domestic requirements of the President's commitment, preparations have begun to develop a plan that will identify steps we can take to return U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This will be the focus of our efforts in developing the August Plan.

Under the Climate Convention's Article 12, developed Country Parties must report on their actions within six months of the Convention's entry into force, which is expected by late 1994. The August Plan will be the cornerstone of that report, but we anticipate that the next full version of the U.S. National Action Plan will be developed after August in time to meet our Convention commitment.

In developing the August Flan, the Administration intends to identify and pursue what we believe are numerous cost-effective actions which may bring us close to our commitment of returning U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The government has received a host of these kind of measures as part of the public comment period established for the Bush Administration's draft Action Plan, issued last December.

But these measures alone may not be enough to meet the longer-term goal of continuing the downward trend in emissions. If we are to accomplish that, we will need to look more broadly at a wide array of actions. Most importantly, we will need to establish a framework for identifying new options for our action agenda as we come to grips with the long-term nature of addressing global warming. As we do so, we will need to identify those actions that are the most cost-effective.

Very shortly, the Administration will announce how we will develop the plan to fulfill the President's commitment. This policy development will involve the Executive Office of the President and all relevant agencies. We will encourage constructive suggestions from stakeholders and expect to hear some new ideas and fresh thinking about how federal policy can help enhance markets for energy efficient technology and make our economy more competitive while reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Clinton Policy on Climate: A Break from the Past

The essential difference between the Clinton Administration and the previous Administration on climate change is that we are developing a domestic climate change policy, and will use that policy to play a leadership role in promoting an effective global response. Our policy development process will represent a significant departure from that undertaken by the Bush Administration when it produced a draft Action Plan in December. Let me briefly speak to the problems with that first iteration particularly through the public comment process.

Although the Bush Plan met the letter of the requirement established by the "Prompt Start" Resolution of the convention negotiators, it was not adequate to the task before us -meeting a national commitment to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and continuing our efforts over the long term.

Here are a few examples: the first draft extensively discussed our national circumstances, but it did not set forth how we can best tailor our actions to reduce emissions to take account of those circumstances. The first draft had a section on emissions inventories, but it did not set forth clearly and concisely the baseline numbers, or provide detailed descriptions of which gases are produced in which sectors all critical information for reducing emissions. The draft addressed at length the question of adaptation to climate change but created the impression that all climate impacts will be manageable at no net cost to the economy.

[ocr errors]

-

The draft was incomplete on the measures that can be taken to mitigate the effects of climate change. It failed to state clearly what projected U.S. emissions levels would be either with or without the actions identified in the draft. The draft addressed emissions by the year 2000 -- but avoided any mention of trends beyond that date. In fact, there was virtually no discussion of steps that will be critical to develop a longer term strategy in particular, to develop low-emitting technologies and engage the private sector.

In the more than 40 sets of comments received on the Bush draft Plan, one prominent theme was the number of activities underway in the private sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in 1992, Pacific Gas and Electric, the nation's largest utility company, through its more than 50 conservation programs, was able to prevent the release of 280,000 tons of carbon. Yet in the first draft, the discussion of programs like PG&E's (including how to develop more programs like it) are inadequate -- much more was being done in the private sector, and should be acknowledged and credited.

If we are to deal seriously with the threat of global warming, we must find ways to harness the dynamism and creativity of our private sector and put market forces to work in support of environmental goals. It is the Administration's expectation that the new Plan will address these critical needs more fully.

U.S. Efforts Internationally

Our actions alone, even as large as we are, will not be enough to reverse the overall upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. We must establish a partnership with other countries. Sources of emissions are spread globally, and action to reduce emissions undertaken anywhere on the planet has global significance. The United States currently contributes about 20 percent of global net emissions, although our share is declining. Developing countries represent an increasing share of the total emissions, about 40 percent today and perhaps rising to 60 percent by 2030.

To make a significant contribution to protecting the climate, the United States must first demonstrate its own resolve and then leverage our example in encouraging efforts to reduce emissions the world over. Within the scope of our limited resources, the United States must promote a "partnership" approach between developed and developing countries. Such an approach must reconcile different but compatible interests in environment and development. there are compatible interests is clear provide to developing countries will meet both our needs: ours,

That

assistance we

with respect to the strong concern we have for the preservation of the global environment and for the creation of domestic jobs in environmental technologies; theirs, both for their own environmental concerns, and for the concomitant requirement to continue along the path of environmentally sustainable economic growth.

To begin resolving this issue, industrialized countries will have to take the lead in implementing the Convention's commitments (as agreed in the Convention language itself) and encourage developing countries to follow. In my view, such leadership will be linked to the quality of our national responses, as well as to the extent of the financial and technical assistance we and other industrialized nations can provide to developing countries.

Country Studies

The United States has already begun to demonstrate our concern for addressing the longer term global effort. We are providing $25 million to a U.S. country studies initiative which will provide an analytical and institutional foundation from which countries may develop appropriate measures and actions to address climate change. Studies enable countries to address vulnerabilities to climate change, measures to limit net greenhouse gas emissions, or both. Country studies could also be used to assess the measures necessary to meet the obligations of the Convention, including by developing national inventories of greenhouse gases and by identifying actions and measures to mitigate greenhouse gases or to adapt to climate change.

Participants in the Country Study Program will generally receive funds and associated technical assistance both during the organization of the work and as it progresses. Assistance would cover specific, high-cost activities, including data development, institutional or infrastructural development, model-building, or procurement of special equipment, as well as lower cost technical assistance and project monitoring. Country Studies Initiative, which is coordinated through a State department committee, is operated by DOE, EPA and AID. Modifying the Convention

The

Under the provisions of the Climate Convention, all parties are called upon to formulate and implement programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with developed countries taking the lead. There is broad agreement about the first step in this effort: countries are aiming to return their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

[ocr errors]

To move forward, I believe that our work under the Convention must focus on the longer term. Once all countries have ratified the Convention and the State Department will be beginning a campaign to encourage this --- we must evaluate the obstacles to its implementation, and work to overcome them. As I noted earlier, the preponderance of future emissions are most likely to come from the developing countries.

We must therefore begin now to develop appropriate responses to help these countries reduce their emissions while continuing in the path toward economic prosperity, a response that is sure to involve the development, and commercial exchange of new environmentally sound technologies.

[ocr errors]

One of the charges that has in the past been leveled against those who have advocated a strong environmental policy such as the one required to address global warming is that environmentalism and economic growth cannot coexist. I do not agree. I strongly believe that a sustainable environmental future is economically imperative. We must think about the long-term nature of the environment we pass down to our children. And, simultaneously, we must also concern ourselves with the present welfare of our country. Investment in environmental technology is one way to reach this goal.

As President Clinton noted in his Earth Day speech, there will be, by the end of this decade, a $300 billion market for environmental technologies, and the United States must capture as much of that market, and the tens of thousands of jobs it will create, as possible. This in an area in which the United States can and must continue to be a leader. We must continue to build our technological markets, both at home and abroad.

11

[ocr errors]

These are the kinds of programs that this Administration will support in our efforts to address climate change.

As adopted, the Climate Convention is but one piece of the international policy framework that can help us redirect cur thinking. The task before us is to take the next steps. I look forward to working with you all as we move ahead.

Thank you. I would be happy now to respond to any questions you may have.

« PreviousContinue »