economic situation of those countries which have raised the price of energy to something like realistic levels, that have trusted their own citizens to make good judgments given honest information, what you see is that the economies of Japan, West Germany, even Italy have grown much more rapidly and stronger than our own. As to the question, is the CFC phaseout enough: Clearly not. It is necessary, but not enough. They contribute about 15 percent of the global warming effect, but they, more importantly, actively contribute to the risks of rapid depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, as well. So by eliminating the most dangerous chlorofluorocarbon compounds, shifting the fluorocarbon to other compounds that can perform the same function, we achieve the economic benefits we want, but reduce both the risks of climate change and the risks of ozone depletion. Is the policy prescription that I would suggest to you good for Canada and Mexico? Should Mexico underprice its oil and gas or should Canada, even though they can take it out of the ground cheaper than the world price? No, I think not. A look at developing countries over the last 15 years has shown that those who subsidized energy prices experience severe market distortions, gross inefficiencies and slower than average rates of economic growth. I would argue to you that by raising the price of energy so that if reflects the full cost, we would encourage the creative and innovative spirits of American business to develop those technologies that can meet our real needs while minimizing the emissions of dangerous pollutants into the atmosphere. The process of doing that will promote the development of technologies that are likely to be at the cutting edge of export development in the end of the 1990's. We need those. We need the partnerships they represent with developing countries and we need to share the economic rents so that the development of these new technologies supports the objectives of both Third World countries and of high-wage jobs in the United States. Thank you. Mr. GLAUTHIER. I take it from your question, Congresswoman McKinney, that you are not a scientist. I am not a scientist either, and my colleagues here on the panel have a strong basis themselves in reaching these decisions. I find it very heartening to look at the National Academy of Sciences report, for example, in April of 1991 where our leading scientists examined the issue and came forward with very strong statements that the problem is real, that uncertainties are there, but it is a serious enough problem that we ought to take actions now, and they said it in very clear terms. We should take actions beyond those actions that are simply justified in other ways. We ought to do some things specifically to help bri lem under control, and they talked in terms of insur One of the concerns that the scientists tell us a certainty in this issue cuts both ways. There is a temperature impacts and sea level rises and the o could come, just as likely to be at the upper end o the lower end. So we do need to We have to rob COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana, Chairman SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota PETER DEUTSCH, Florida ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California CONTENTS Page T.J. Glauthier, director, Energy and Climate Change Policy, World Wildlife John Hemphill, executive director, Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Michael Barrody, senior vice president of policy and communications, Na- tional Association of Manufacturers, and chairman, Global Climate Coali- Dr. Irving Mintzer, Center For Global Change, University of Maryland and ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD |