« PreviousContinue »
ONE MUNORED F#TNCONGAESS
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
Washington, DC 20515-6115
TOM BULEV. VIRGINIA CHARMAN W MUY TAUTIN LOUISIANA
JOHN D. DENGELL. MICHGAN MICHAELG ONLY ON
MENY A WAYMAN CALSOANIA MICHAEL BLANES FLORIDA
EDWARD MARKEY MASSACHUSETTS DAN SOKAEFER COLORADO
KALM MALL TEXAS JOE GAATON TEXAS
RICH SOUCNA VIRGIA DENNIS MASTERT ILLINOIS
THOMAS) MANTON NEW YORK FRED UPTON MICHGAN
EDOLUS Towes NEW YORK CU STE AANS FLORIDA
FRANK PALLONE JA NEW JERSEY BILL PAXON NEW YORK
SNERROO BROWN OMIO SAULE GALLMOR, OHIO
LAAT GONDON TENNESSEE scom QUG WISCONSIN
ERABETH FURSE OREGON JAMES C GREENWOOO MENNSYLVANIA ATTEN DEUTSCH FLORIDA MICHAIL O CRAMO DAHO
TOOL RUSH ILLINOIS STOPHEN COX CALFOANA
ANNA G (SHOO CALORNA NATHAN DEAL GEORGIA
NON KLINK PENNSYLVANIA STEVE LARGENT OKLAHOMA
BART STUPAK MACMILAN RICHARD BURR NORTH CAROLINA
ELIOT ENGEL NEW YORK AMLAN BELBAAY CALFORNIA
THOMAS C SAWYER ONGO D WHITFELD KENTUCKY
ALBERT WYNN MARYLAND GAEG GANSKE OWA
GENE OREEN TEXAS CHARLE NORWOOO. GEORGIA
KAREN MCCARTHY MISSOUR RACK WHITE WASPENGTON
TED STRICKLANO OGO
DIANA DI GETTE COLORADO
April 9, 1998
JAMES & DERDERAN CHIEF OF STAFF
The Honorable Janet Yellen
Dear Dr. Yellen:
I am writing to request for the third time, the documents and other materials supporting your testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power more than a month ago.
At the Subcommittee hearing held March 4, 1998, you presented conclusions regarding the cost of complying with the Kyoto Mandate. At that hearing, I requested that you provide the Subcommittee with the analysis that supported those conclusions, as well as any other economic analysis that reached different conclusions, not later than two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing (opening statement attached). Your staff requested an extension of time within which to respond, which I agreed to (letter attached). That time again was extended by my letter to you requesting the relevant information by no later than April 1, 1998 (letter attached). I still do not have the documents I requested.
In order for the Subcommittee to adequately assess your conclusions, the Subcommittee must be able to review the data and analysis supporting those conclusions. At the hearing you presented certain conclusions. I am merely asking that you provide me with the analysis on which you based those conclusions. I do not believe it is unreasonable for the Subcommittee to ask you 10 support your testimony and, thus, your apparent reluctance to provide this information only heightens my concem over the validity of the Administration's analysis. Moreover, you should already have in your possession all the information I am requesting. I do not expect your office to create new data, documents or analysis to support the conclusions presented at the hearing.
Please be advised that if I have not received a full and complete response to my request by Wednesday, April 15, 1998, I will consider pursuing other legal means to obtain the information.
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions concerning this outstanding request, please contact Ms. Catherine Van Way of the Commerce Committee staff at 225-2927.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20500
April 17, 1998
Dear Chairman Schaefer:
Enclosed find documents relied upon in the preparation of my testimony on the economics of the Kyoto Protocol before the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Power. I apologize for not forwarding these materials sooner. CEA is a small agency with large responsibilities, and we have gathered these documents as quickly as our resources allowed.
In addition to the documents provided today, your request calls for materials that implicate the President's interest in the confidentiality of White House decision making processes. That interest is particularly acute here because of ongoing interactions with foreign governments and because we are continuing to consider, formulate and effectuate new policies in this area.
Pursuant to standard procedures of the Executive Branch, we have consulted with the Office of Counsel to the President to determine how to accommodate the Subcommittee's oversight needs regarding these materials, without undermining the interest of the Executive Branch in the confidentiality of its decision making. As part of that accommodation, the White House is prepared to make available for review, but not copying, by Members and Subcommittee staff, confidential documents you have requested which were relied upon in the preparation of my testimony on the economics of the Kyoto Protocol before the Subcommittee.
Please call me to discuss arrangements for such review, or to address any questions you might have.
دندان به بیر
The Honorable Dan Schaefer
Why 7% below Kyoto's “1990 levels" is no more than
3% below the President's proposal: a calculation
This paper compares the carbon numbers associated with the United States
(1) Under the Kyoto Protocol, each party has its choice of 1990 or 1995 as a
(2) Under the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions budget is based only on gross
(3) Under the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions accounting system includes only
The Kyoto Protocol
(A) The Kyoto Target
Emissions of HFC, PFC, and SF6) ~ 93%
1990 Emissions of CO2, CH4, N20
= 1559 MMTCE 1995 Emissions of HFC, PFC, and SF6
37 MMTCE Total baseline emissions
= 1596 MMTCE
Kyoto Emissions Budget, total for first budget period = 5 years x (1596) 93%
= 7421 MMTCE Annual Average Budget in 2008-2012 1484 MMTCE
(B) The Kyoto Accounting System
2008-2012 emissions = [Total emissions of CO2, CH4, N20, HFC, PFC, SF6)
- (net changes of carbon stocks "from direct human-induced
The President's Announcement
(A) The President's October Target
Under the President's October plan, the emissions target for the United States
Emissions Budget 5 years x ((1990 Emissions of CO2, CH4, N20 and HFC,
PFC, and SF6) - (net changes carbon stocks from all forests, including forest
Note that the budget equation includes sinks, which all else equal makes the budget
President's Plan Emissions Budget = 5 years x (1301) = 6505 MMTCE
Annual Average Budget in 2008-2012 = 1301