Obviously, we don't know that. We've been keeping meteorological records-if memory serves me from my days of having been one of those people who could not forecast weather, but yet was paid to do so that we were keeping meteorological records from some time around the mid part of the last century.

Now, that said, that is barely the blink of an eye in the history of this great planet. And you referred to something the Vice President has referred to, and that is that 9 of our past 11 years have been among the warmest on record. That is less than the blink of an eye.

Are we looking at a meteorolgocial glitch? What exactly is causing that? I have been told by various people on both sides of the issue that we, humankind, are responsible for somewhere around— and I will ask you if my figures are correct-that we are responsible for somewhere around 4 or 5 percent of the CO2. Is that a correct figure? Is that your understanding?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. We omit about 24 percent of the greenhouse gas

ses.

Mr. KLINK. Twenty-four percent of the green-and how about

Ms. YELLEN. The United States does.

Mr. KLINK. Just CO2?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. The United States.

Mr. KLINK. Now, I'm talking about the CO2 in the atmosphere. Ms. YELLEN. You mean, human activity?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. You mean, human activity per se?

Mr. KLINK. How much is human activity responsible for? I'm sorry, the way I phrased the question, you probably didn't understand it.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I'll have to get a figure for that.

Mr. KLINK. I've been told that that figure is around 4 percent. Does anyone concur with that? Disagree with that? Have another figure?

My point is and I've heard this from people on both sides of the issue, we're talking about 4 or 5 percent-so, if the figure is 4 or 5 percent, if we reduce if that's a correct figure. I know you don't like hypotheticals but since you don't have another figure, let's use my figure for the sake of an argument. If we are able to reduce CO2 by 25 percent of what we emit, that's only 1 percent overall.

Now, how much does it cost us to do that? How much turmoil do we create in the industrial development of not only our Nation, but other nations, by the kinds of expenditures and the kinds of shift in manufacturing that are going to be done? These are questions that I have.

I just met briefly-I was here earlier, and left the room-I had to meet with a representative of LTB, who just closed down a coke plant in the Pittsburgh area, put a thousand people out of work. They are hopeful now that with the environmental problems with the manufacture of coke-we've had that ever since the old beehive coke ovens. They're looking forward to perhaps seeing the construction of a new kind of coke plant that's called nonrecoverable, which incinerates the dust and the soot and the gasses that we would have to recover from the current coke technology.

It simple makes sense for us in this Nation and in other nations to develop technologies like that. It makes good business sense. It makes good health sense. But to bind us to that kind of technology, while still allowing other nations to use ancient beehive coke technology doesn't make any sense. And that's why, I think, when those of us who've spoken to you talk about getting a true and firm committment from the developing countries, that's important.

I talked to Secretary Eizenstat in Kyoto, and I brought up the point of I was around back in the 1980's when the last of the beehive coke ovens were torn down. They were torn down, not to be destroyed, but were shipped to South America, where I don't know if they're still in use or not. But they were put in use back then. I would hope that whatever kind of agreement we have, that we don't just force our worst technologies on other countries. In fact, if we're worried about global pollution, that we deal with it in a global fashion. This agreement currently does not do that. It simply doesn't do that. Too many countries are nonplayers in this and are unwilling to make commitments.

George Brown, the ranking member of the Science Committee, talked about a steel plant that the Chinese purchased from his district, horrible technology, very filthy. They took it over. They're using it to manufacture steel now. An automobile plant that was just outside of my district used to make Volkswagons. They came over, tore that plant down. It's not state-of-the-art. They took it apart piece by piece, took it back over to China. That's being used. We should not be exporting our worst technologies. We should be creating an agreement whereby our best and cleanest technologies are moving forward. I would also state further my concerns. There are a lot of companies-and I understand that you've got your hands full dealing with global warming in this treaty and when we met with you in Kyoto, and I know that you only had a few hours sleep, I know how hard you worked, I know how hard you tried to do this. But some of us have worked just as hard. And we've got to fight on behalf of our constituents.

When a company decides not to make an investment in a new plant or new equipment, when they decide not to expand or not to create new industries, they leave behind in my district, Mr. Schaefer's district, and other members' districts, tremendous amounts of poverty, of lost opportunity. And I would ask you, if you ever have time, to come and walk with me through some of the towns of southwestern Pennsylvania where we have lost those jobs by the tens of thousands. A hundred and fifty-five thousand manufacturing jobs left over a two decade period.

There is no worse environmental degredation, be it pollution of any kind, than that that is caused by poverty. When people no longer can heat their homes by paying electric bills, they use coalburning wood stoves and wood stoves. They use kerosene heaters. And we've seen-again, my 24 years in the news business, I saw tremendous amount of loss of life. At one time, about 10 or 12 years ago, in Meadville, Pennsylvania, seven children burned to death in one house fire because they couldn't afford to turn on the electric heat in the house and they were using an old kerosene heater that didn't work properly, or they had put gasoline instead of kerosene in, which unfortunately sometimes I have as a news

reporter covered dozens and dozens of cases where you had those kinds of loss of life.

Pollution that takes place inside the house. We know that asthma, as we've cleaned up the air, the cases of asthma have gotten worse. We think that perhaps it comes from inside there are some studies that show that it perhaps comes from the pollution of inside air.

You see, so these big picture things about global warming, they're great ideas. But No. 1, how severe really is the problem? What kind of a timeframe, really, are working on? Is this another blip on the meteorological screen over the hundreds of millions of years that this planet has been here? Or do we have the kind of reality that we know that we're on a specific timeframe. And I don't know the answers about that?

When the companies back in my district, or any other district of this country, are talking about whether they're going to make an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in plant and equipment, they look at what are going to be the treaties through which this Nation will be bound in regards to global warming. How will we deal with the issue of regional haze? What are going to be the new NOx standards? Are we going to deal with the transport of pollution from one region of our country to another, which EPA has not done a good job of? We get a tremendous amount of our pollution in western Pennsylvania that's transported across the border. Yet we're in severe non-attainment and people are going out purchasing pollution credits, if they want to locate there. We've lost opportunities for automobile plants, steel plants, other plants.

So, all of those poor people who've decided to stay in southwestern Pennsylvania to tough it out, have that many fewer economic opportunities to rebuild their communities, to educate their children, to increase the tax base, to pay taxes that can pave the roads, that can build better sewage treatment plants and can do a better job of delivering safe, clean drinking water to the people who live in those communities. All of that is lost because we haven't allowed economic expansion to move forward under fair rules.

We're being punished for pollution that is created elsewhere. I don't want us to sign an agreement that causes everybody in this Nation to play under a different set of rules than people in China, in India, in Pakistan and you name the country.

And there was a great amount of animosity toward the United States in Kyoto. We sat and talked with the Europeans, it was not a very pleasant conversation. They kept saying, "what are you afraid of? What are you afraid of in the United States?" First of all, I don't think they understand our system of government. They don't understand that you have to come to Congress and that we have some say in these matters.

I'd like to ask a question, because I understand, Mr. Eizenstat, there really has been a shift in the language that the Administration has been using on this whole idea of developing Nation's implementation. You used to talk-and I think that when we were in Kyoto, the conversation was really about the importance of China and India being participants. And now more that I hear you talk, you're talking about gaining the participation of the developing countries. The question is, have we given up on China and India?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. First, let me respond, if I may to your

Mr. KLINK. Please do.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. [continuing] very thoughtful comments. Let me start with what data we have.

This scientific data in chart one is based on ice core data. That ice core data goes back virtually to the beginning of the planet, and the scientists make their calculations based on that. And it demonstrates an inexorable increase in CO2 concentrations, not coincidentally increasing very dramatically beginning with the industrial revolution.

So, this is not a one-time phenomenon. It's not a question of, you know, a particular summer or winter being warm and coming to hyperbolic conclusions on the base of that. It is based on rigid, analytical, scientific data, measurements in core ice data that we will be glad to provide to you.

Second, with respect to jobs, it has been said for every environmental improvement, clean water, clean air, ozone, the Montreal Convention, that this would be somehow catastrophic to the economy. And yet, we have an economy today—and I'm not in any way trying to negate the concerns that may exist in your district, believe me, but we have an economy today which is performing at levels we haven't seen in decades in terms of growth, in terms of job creation, in terms of income growth. And at the same time, we have the best environmental protection that we've ever had in this country. So, we can in fact have growth and environmental protection. And the old notion that this was a zero-sum game I think has been increasingly disproven by actual data. There are

Mr. KLINK. If I could just interrupt you for a second. I think, Mr. Secretary, that we could agree, that if we left it up to many in the industrial community, no steps would ever be taken. On the other hand, if we left it up to some of those in the environmental community, we would have no industry at all. What you and I are doing is, we're fighting about the gray areas. We're not really fighting, we're having a discussion about it. But we're arguing about those gray areas in between and where this comes down.

Clearly, I understand that your point is well taken, that, you know, that there has been a sky-is-falling mentality on both sides. But our point is in dealing with, not what was past history, not the claims that were made, but how much truth there is today. I will give you your point on

Mr. EIZENSTAT. With respect to the point you make on China. I want to assure you that there's been no change in terminology. The President used the term in October when he inaugurated our program of meaningful participation by key developing countries. China is a key developing country. It is one of the real opportunities we have and challenges we have to work with to try to convince China that it is in its interest to participate, to be a player in this, to be a leader in this as one of the largest emitters over the next several decades.

Mr. KLINK. Will China be a full participant, do you think, by November when we meet in Buenos Aires?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. I'll be quite frank. I would be the most surprised man on the planet if that were the case, by November.

Mr. KLINK. Would we continue to move forward without China's participation?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. We won't be able to move forward without getting meaningful participation by developing countries, and they have to be a key ingredient in that.

Mr. KLINK. China would have to be a key ingredient in?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. As one of the largest emitters, they do. Now the question, Congressman, of what commitments they make, is the key issue we're struggling with now.

We believe that there has to be a differential approach to developing countries, just as there is a differential approach taken in Kyoto to developed countries. One ought to look at their per capita incomes, their capacity, their poverty levels, and their emissions levels. All of these have to be taken into account. And what may be meaningful, for example, for Singapore and Israel, or countries like Mexico and South Korea, which are in the OECD, may be very different than what is reasonable for India, China, or Bangladesh. And what we're trying to develop is something that is realistic and achievable, but also will, in fact, achieve this meaningful participation.

So, again, we can't put a uniform blanket, or blueprint over a 160 countries. We want to be differential, but for key developing countries, of which China is one, there certainly has to be a significant way in which they participate.

Mr. KLINK. You bring up an interesting point on something I've always been a little bit confused about. And maybe it's because I'm slightly dimwitted when it comes to these issues. How do you define a developing country? I'm not sure I understand it. Because if you take a look at Singapore, there per capita income, I believe, is higher than ours. Their infant mortality is lower than ours. Yet they're a developing nation and we're not.

Mr. EIZENSTAT. În a way, that was predetermined for us in the way in which the Annex I countries were defined. And it included a lot of countries like for example, central Europe, or for that matter, the former Soviet Union, where per capita incomes were indeed less than some of the countries that were out. But, we've had to live with that definition, and that's why we think we ought to be able to go back to those countries that have high per capita in

comes.

Mr. KLINK. Is that a negotiating point?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. Yes. We think that it should be.

Mr. KLINK. An important negotiating point?

Mr. EIZENSTAT. We think that one of the arguments as we develop our diplomatic strategy for developing countries is to look at per capita incomes and make the point that if you're not an Annex developed country, quote unquote, because your level of development has come recently, that if your per capita income is at a certain level, or for example, if your like Mexico or South Korea in the OECD, or like Argentina, you wish to get into the OECD, that you ought to play by developed country rules.

Mr. KLINK. Now, we've got a couple of umbrella groups within this agreement: the European umbrella, and the other group which was formed between our Nation, I think it's Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine. Is that cover most of them.