Page images
PDF
EPUB

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: ADEQUACY OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1993

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY,
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Gejdenson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment meets today to discuss global climate change. Today's hearing is the first hearing of this subcommittee focusing solely on environmental matters, which were recently added to the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We intend to exercise this jurisdiction intensively.

For 12 years, Congress faced two administrations whose commitment to protecting either America's environment or the world environment was questionable at best. With the election of President Clinton, we now have an administration committed to environmental protection and to living up to our national interest in being environmentally responsible.

This sea change in the international environmental policy could not come at a more critical time. Scientists have demonstrated that the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, together with the destruction of the world's forests, are warming the Earth's atmosphere. If this trend continues, sea levels may rise, agricultural patterns may change, and the world's energy, transportation and water supply systems could be endangered.

As the Clinton administration gets under way, they unfortunately will be faced with a clean-up task related to global climate left over from President Bush. In the last days of the previous administration, the State Department, over the objections of the Environmental Protection Agency, transmitted a National Action Plan for Global Climate Change to the other nations of the world. This plan was designed to fulfill U.S. commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and was signed last June by 157 nations at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The public comment period on the plan will end March 8.

As envisioned by the drafters of the Climate Change Convention, each country's action plan would not only delineate the sources of greenhouse gas emissions within the Nation's borders; it would also outline an aggressive policy and program to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, as well as to protect the world's forests, which absorb carbon emissions.

The Bush administration's plan, however, is a great disappointment. The plan is simply a restatement of government initiatives already under way to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does not require the U.S. Government to take any new initiatives. Furthermore, the emission reductions which will be achieved by the National Action Plan do not even stabilize U.S. greenhouse gases at the 1990 levels, which was called for under the Convention.

The Clinton administration has an opportunity to revise the National Action Plan and to demonstrate to the world that the United States will not shy away from its international environmental commitment and responsibility. The purpose of today's hearing is not only to examine the shortcomings of the previous administration's plan, but to discuss the options available to President Clinton in redrafting a plan to better meet U.S. commitments under the Climate Change Convention.

I believe the United States should submit a revised National Action Plan which makes three basic changes over the existing document.

First, the United States should commit itself to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. Specific timetables and targets for U.S. reductions will force us to craft aggressive and effective global warming policies.

Second, the administration should spell out how U.S. programs which reduce greenhouse emissions will be improved. While we are currently in an era of fiscal restraint, the government can better use existing resources to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels, to increase protection of our forests, and to pursue research and development into solutions to global warming.

Third, the Clinton administration must specify how U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be coordinated. Currently, many different U.S. Government agencies, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the State Department, play a role in crafting and implementing U.S. global warming policy. We can get more bang from our buck if we eliminate the duplication and increase cooperation.

By submitting the National Action Plan after President Bush's election defeat, the administration-the Bush administration may have been trying to lock in U.S. policy on global climate change. They were clearly harboring false hopes. I am confident that the new administration, the Clinton administration, will see the National Action Plan for what it is: the first opportunity for the new administration to enunciate a far-reaching and ambitious U.S. policy to battle global warming.

I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and working closely with the administration in months to come.

My colleague, Mr. Roth.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your opening statement. Let me say that I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses today.

Few environmental issues generate more widely diverse views than global warming. Some believe we are on the road to inevitable

catastrophe. Others deny it is happening at all. Very little has been proven by either side.

Like most people, I am concerned by what I read about global warming, but I am also concerned that the most radical approaches also would cause serious economic dislocation. It is going to be very hard to sell global warming to a worker whose job is being done away with because environmental rules close a plant or force a business overseas. That is why I am delighted to have the National Association of Manufacturers testify today.

Everyone says we need a balance between environmental and economic concerns, and that is what the Bush administration did in its proposed plan. And before the new administration tries to rewrite the Bush plan, it should remember that spending billions on economic stimulus can be canceled by strangling American business with more government regulations.

After all, the first country to implement the plan was what country? It was the United States of America. Other governments have talked about it, but we were the first to implement it.

There is a Wisconsin adage, talk is cheap; it costs money to produce milk; and that is the way it is with regulations. Let's remember, no country has done more on the environment than the United States. As our witnesses testify today, I hope they will address the danger of stalling our economy and hurting our competitive negatives.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BALLENGER. Thank, Mr. Chairman. First, left me thank you for holding the hearing today. Global climate change is an issue that has been in the public eye for several years now, and the policy implications for action to control global warming are far-reaching, including areas of the business community. But there is a real simple answer to this whole question: If we will all just hold our breath, the problem is solved.

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned about the makeup of today's panel. Although you have included members from the business community, I believe that the panel is pretty one-sided in that it does not include persons opposed to the conventional wisdom on global climate change.

There are currently several scientists who believe that statistics on global warming are more hype than substance. It is my understanding that the subcommittee intends to hold another hearing on this issue in the near future. I hope the subcommittee will act to hold this hearing and not only-and not be only offering the Republicans' rhetoric to keep us from complaining about this very unbalanced panel.

In addition, I would ask that the subcommittee keep the record of the hearing open for an additional 2 weeks to include the testimony of Professor Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. Professor Michaels is widely respected as an expert who refutes the conventional wisdom on climate change, and I believe his statement will offer the subcommittee the kind of balance that we need to fully understand the magnitude of the climate change problem. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's witnesses testimony, and I look forward to our second hearing on this same topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

« PreviousContinue »