Finally, I would like to note that, 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.

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 their 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 on the path toward economic opportunity.

The Climate Convention is but one piece of the international policy framework that can help us redirect our thinking. The task before us is to take the next step. I look forward to working with you and the committee in this effort.

I thank you very much and look forward to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wirth follows:]

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, COUNSELOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

I am delighted to be with you today, along with my colleagues from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to discuss the Clinton Administration's policies on global climate change.

Addressing this issue will require close collaboration between the administration and the Congress, including this committee. It will also require significant U.S. leadership because we cannot solve this problem on our own: we must help guide the international resolve that has developed in support of action to prevent further dangerous human intervention in the complex climate system that influences so many aspects of our society and our world.

Let me begin by reviewing the international context in which we now confront the issue of global warming.

While concern about human intervention in the Earth's natural climate system has existed for some time, global warming has emerged rapidly in recent years as a powerful foreign policy and diplomatic issue. Driving this process has been the continuing development in our scientific knowledge. As our understanding of the atmosphere has improved, we have become more aware of how our actions affect it. It is clear that human activities are increasing atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases (including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). While there are uncertainties about the magnitude, timing and regional patterns of climate change due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, there is substantial scientific evidence that suggests a high probability for global warming. If predictions of significant warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists are realized, the rate of climate change in the next century would far exceed any natural changes that have occurred in the last 10,000 years, and the earth could reach a warmer state than it has experienced in the last 150,000 years. Furthermore, the change in atmospheric composition will likely persist for centuries because of the long atmospheric lifetime of some of these gases. Last year, the international community acknowledged this scientific concern and took the first steps to address this significant challenge for the world. More than 150 nations signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit last June-and to date it has been signed by more than 160 countries. The United States, along with 18 other nations, have now ratified the treaty.

As you and this committee are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Climate Convention was the subject of considerable discussion and debate last year. Let me take a moment to discuss what specifically is in the treaty.

The Convention's ultimate objective is to:

"[A]chieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

This is a major undefined challenge perhaps requiring significant reductions in global emissions. As a first step to agreeing on the international action required, Article 4 of the Convention set forth a series of commitments. While the language of these commitments is rather confusing, let me quote the critical lines from paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Article. Article 4.2(a) states:

parties shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by límiting. anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing. greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objectives of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions... would contribute to such modification.

Article 4.2(b) goes on to say:

"In order to promote progress to this end, each of these Parties shall communicate . . . detailed information on its policies and measures referred to in subparagraph (a) above, as well as its resulting projected anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases with the aim of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions

While the language contained in these paragraphs does not create a binding target level for emissions reductions, the intent of the negotiators was to have countries move toward the Convention's ultimate objective through the preparation of inventories of their net greenhouse gas emissions including both sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases and the adoption by developed countries of national policies and measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and to allow countries to work together to provide cooperative, cost-effective programs to do this. Furthermore, the Convention calls for developed countries to provide financial and technical resources to help developing countries meet their obligations under the Convention. And, finally, it calls for countries to report on the actions they are taking to meet their commitments. The Conference of the Parties, which the United States anticipates will meet for the first time in mid-1995, will review these reports, and the adequacy of the commitments under the Convention. Subsequent reviews will take place at regular intervals, with the second review scheduled no later than December of 1998. Since assuming office, President Clinton has directed his administration to conduct a broad review of international environmental concerns, including global climate change. Through this process, the President has determined that the United States should provide leadership to help guard against human induced causes of global climate change.

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 twopronged approach: a national 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.

To realize the requirements of the President's commitment-the details of which will be addressed more extensively by Deputy Administrator Sussman and Assistant Secretary Tierney-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 6 months of the Convention's entry into force, which is expected by late 1994. While the August plan will be the cornerstone of that report,

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.

The essential difference between the Clinton administration and the previous Administration on climate change is that we take the science of this issue very seriously, and as a consequence, are developing a national climate change policy to use in playing 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 National Action Plan in December.

However, our domestic actions alone, even as large a source of emissions as the United States is, will not be enough to reverse the upward trend in global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. We must establish a partnership with other countries at all levels of development. 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 both demonstrate its own resolve and 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. That there are compatible interests is clear-assistance we provide to developing countries will meet both our needs: ours, 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 the administration's 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.

Joint implementation will be an important piece of the solution to climate change. Under joint implementation, countries would be able to offset domestic emissions of greenhouse gases through emissions reductions achieved through their efforts anywhere in the world. Because emissions of greenhouse gases everywhere contribute to the build-up of atmospheric concentrations, reductions anywhere can diminish the threat of global climate change. However, reductions may be achieved more cost-effectively in some countries or regions than in others.

The interagency group charged with the task of developing the August Plan includes a working group on joint implementation chaired by the State Department. This group will look closely at legislative provisions that support joint implementation (for example, the Energy Policy Act), and through public participation procedures, will draw on the experiences of U.S. companies who already are proceeding with joint implementation projects.

The principal advantage of joint implementation is its efficiency. Joint implementation could provide for global emissions reductions to be achieved at the lowest overall cost, and have a host of possible ancillary environmental benefits.

Provisions for joint implementation also figure in the language of the Framework Convention, which allows countries to implement policies and measures jointly with other countries. The relevant paragraph of Article 4 says:

Parties may implement. policies and measures jointly with other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the achievement of the objective of the Convention..."

A number of questions related to international guidelines for joint implementation need to be addressed in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee at its August meeting. We anticipate that the INC will explore such "how to" questions as who would participate in joint implementation baseline measurements, qualification within the context of the Framework Convention, and how information about such activities would be communicated and acknowledged. To insure proper coordination between plan development and negotiating positions, the same working group that is considering joint implementation in the context of the August Plan will coordinate preparations for these decisions.

Country Studies

The United States has already begun to demonstrate our commitment to the development of an effective international effort to address the issue of climate change. We are providing $25 million over 2 years to a U.S. country studies initiative which will provide an analytical and institutional foundation from which countries may inventory their annual emissions and develop appropriate measures and actions to address climate change. Studies enable countries to identify and 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 gas emissions 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. The Country Studies initiative, which is coordinated through an interagency committee chaired by the State Department, is operated by DOE, EPA and AID. The first country study teams from the agencies left last weekend to begin bilateral discussions with our developing country partners in this effort.

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.

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 and countries with economies in transition. 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.

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, and we must poise our industrial sector for a leadership role in a future international economy that will reflect our global environmental imperatives.

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.

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 our thinking. To address this critical issue, we must continue to advance on all fronts-international and domestic. I look forward to working with you all as we move ahead.

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

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much.

Ms. Tierney, we are very pleased to have you at this point.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN F. TIERNEY

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me and my colleagues from the State Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to outline the administration's climate change policy.

I would first like to turn to the commitment the President made on Earth Day. Counselor Wirth has already outlined the President's commitment. Therefore, let me only emphasize that Secretary Hazel O'Leary strongly supports the President's approach, which is fully consistent with that recommended by the Department of Energy in the interagency discussions that led up to the President's Earth Day address. Clearly, the administration is unified behind the President's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 level by the year 2000.

Let me turn now to emissions projections. Our current projections show that the existing Clinton administration programs will have a substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Most notably, last year's Energy Policy Act, enacted in large measure through the strong efforts of this chairman and members of this subcommittee, is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 40 million metric tons in the year 2000, and by increasing amounts thereafter. The proposed Btu tax would reduce projected carbon emissions by around 25 million metric tons in the year 2000, and 35 million metric tons in the year 2010.

In considering these numbers, I caution to note that these projections of baseline emissions and emissions reductions that would come in future years come from projections that are necessarily based on assumptions about activities that will happen in the years to come. Changes in economic growth rates or energy price trends clearly could change that picture.

Notwithstanding these methodological caveats, we project today that our current policies and programs only get us part of the way toward meeting the President's commitment. We expect to need actions that deliver an additional reduction of between 60 and 90 million metric tons of carbon equivalents in net greenhouse gas emissions. These numbers are rough estimates. I give you ranges not just because of the uncertainty that is inherent in the projections, but because in real time we are in the midst of refining those numbers.

Because the President's commitment is aggressive, but doable, and because the time between now and the year 2000 is short, we will have to exploit the ingenuity and creativity called for by the President. As directed by the President, we will meet our commitment with a cost-effective plan that is designed to promote, rather than hamper, strong economic growth, which remains the primary focus of this administration.

With regard to the process for developing the plan, I will spend just a brief moment, because my colleague, Mr. Sussman, will go into this further. Let me just focus on what I believe is the key aspect: our absolute commitment to getting public input and public ideas, as we move forward.

The climate change mitigation group and its working groups, half of which will be chaired or co-chaired by the Department of Energy, will sponsor a series of public workshops designed to draw on the experience of industry, labor, environmentalists, State and local officials and other key groups such as yourselves.

The administration will be in a listening mode. I want to make that point one more time: We will be in a listening mode, and we want to talk with a large number of people. We are actively seek