contribution, the global-scale possibilities are relatively limited: biomass and solar would compete in many areas with food and habitat for land use and biomass may not be sustainable over the long-term without substantial fertilizer/mineralization activities; remaining hydroelectric sites and ocean energy are relatively low intensity energy sources: fission energy may well require a movement to breeders in the very near future; fusion power appears to be quite a ways off at current research levels; and solar power satellites are perhaps too visionary.

Rather than a global scale solution, Lawrence Kulp (personal communication) has suggested a regional, climatically-oriented approach that may be both cost-effective and implementable on an incremental basis and as replacement of existing sources occurs. In the wet tropics, hydroelectric sites are available for electric generation and biomass could provide liquid fuel for transportation; new hardwood forestry techniques may also make reforestation a cost-effective, currency-earning activity. In the dry subtropics, wind power and distributed photovoltaic devices could be made cost effective by further research and there is plenty of available desert land. The industrial nations could pursue efficiency, conservation, natural gas, nuclear, biomass fuels, wind, photovoltaic, etc. This approach to a solution leaves several large developing countries (e.g., China, India) where highly efficient use of coal is the readiest option until cost-effective use of alternative technologies becomes available.

SUMMARY

The potential for climatic change as a consequence of human activities poses a difficult challenge, both scientifically and technologically. Intensified research is required to provide better understanding of climatic effects and environmental impacts. How best to balance the benefits and impacts of fossil fuels is often viewed as a regulatory matter. With the world's population continuing to increase, however, the best way out of the dilemma may be technological.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Sciences Division by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. The views and perspectives represent those of the author. Dr. Karl Taylor assisted in the preparation of the report.

REFERENCES

1. Department of Energy, National Energy Strategy: Powerful Ideas for America. First Edition 1991/1992, Washington (1991).

2. IPCC (Working Group 1), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 365 pp. (1990).

3. IPCC (Working Group 2). Potential Impacts of Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Geneva (1990).

4. IPCC (Working Group 3), Formulation of Response Strategies, WMO and UNEP, Geneva (1990)

5. Kaula, W.M., and D.L. Anderson, “What is AGU's Proper Role in Society?” EOS, 72, 173 (1991).

6. Department of Energy Multi-Laboratory Climate Change Committee, Energy and Climate Change, M.C. MacCracken et al., Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 161 pp. (1990).

7. J. Jager and H.L. Ferguson, Climate Change: Science, Impacts and Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 578 pp. (1991).

8. US/USSR (Working Group VIII of US/USSR Bilateral Agreement on Protection of The Environment), Prospects for Future Climate, M.C. MacCracken, M.I. Budyko, A.D. Hecht, and Y.A. Izrael (eds.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 161 pp. (1990). 9. C.D. Keeling, “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations—Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii 1958-1986," NDP-001.RI, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (1986). Data updated by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (1990).

10. Trabalka, J.R. (ed.), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Cycle, U.S. Department of Energy report DOE/ER-0239, Washington (1985).

11. J. Chappcllaz, J.M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius, “IceCore Record of Atmospheric Methane over the Past 160,000 Years,” Nature, 345, 127–131 (1990).

12. Ccss, R.D., et al., "Intercomparison and Interpretation of Climate Feedback Processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 16601-16615 (1990).

13. National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 127 pp. (1991).

14. S.L. Grotch and M.C. MacCracken, “The Use of General Circulation Models to Predict Regional Climatic Change," J. of Climate, 4, 286–303 (1991).

15. T.M.L. Wigley and T.P. Barnett, "Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations," pp. 239-255, in Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 365 pp. (1990).

16. Kerr, R.A., “Unmasking a Shifty Climate System," Science, 255, 1508–1510 (1992). 17. Charlson, R.J., S.E. Schwartz, J.M. Hales, R.D. Ccss, J.A. Coakley, Jr., J.E. Hansen, and D.J. Hoffmann, "Climate Forcing by Anthropogenic Acrosols,” Science, 255, 423-430 (1992).

18. Penner, J.E., R.E. Dickinson, C.A. O'Neill, “Effects of Biomass Burning Aerosol on Global Radiation Budget," Science (in press).

19. National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Report of the Adaptation Panel (prepublication manuscript). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 148 pp (1991).

20. Revelle, R., W. Broecker, H. Craig, C.D. Keeling, and J. Smagorinsky, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Appendix Y4 in Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House (1965).

Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, DC, August 11, 1992.

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Attached are the Department of State answers to the questions asked by Senator Wallop pursuant to the May 12, 1992 hearing on Global Climate Change before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As the questions were addressed generally to "Administration Witnesses" we have answered only those which are under our jurisdiction, and defer to the expertise of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, both of which were also represented at the May 12 hearing, for answers to the remainder of the questions.

We appreciate being given this opportunity to fully respond to the concerns of the Committee on the important issue of global climate change, and welcome a continuing dialogue on this topic.

Sincerely,

[Enclosures.]

JANET G. MULLINS, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

ANSWERS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WALLOP

Question 1(a). What does the convention accomplish for the United States and other developing and developed countries?

Answer. The FCCC sets up an international process focused on actions. Industrialized countries (including the United States) and countries moving toward free market economies are required to develop emissions inventories using a common methodology. In addition, they will develop national climate action plans containing specific measures to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. Industrialized countries will indicate actions they will take consistent with their national circumstances and provide estimates of the results which will be yielded from their actions over agreed time periods, relying on agreed methodologies for estimating these impacts. By reporting on actions in an open and transparent process, all parties will be able to share information and experience and learn from each other. Public scrutiny will provide a strong incentive for taking meaningful actions.

Developing countries will also engage in this process by preparing national reports. Their reports will describe relevant national circumstances and assess their current emissions and vulnerability to climate change. Many of these countries will need assistance to prepare these reports, and for that reason the FCCC fosters assistance by the industrialized countries for "country studies in developing countries". The United States has committed $25 million over two years for these studies, which will help developing countries fulfill their reporting requirements. In these reports, countries may identify specific projects and programs with benefits for climate as well as for economic development. They may also identify technological and financial resource needs related to implementing such projects.

Question 1(b). What does it [the FCCC] accomplish for the science of global climate change?

Answer. The convention itself does not promote a specific scientific agenda. However, it recognizes the importance of scientific, economic and technical developments that will be necessary to respond to the commitments in the convention.

Article 4 of the FCCC requires countries to develop national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and to formulate programs containing measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change-all of which will require extensive scientific input. Furthermore, this article calls for the Parties (both jointly and individually) to promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socioeconomic and other research and systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system, and to exchange information developed during this research.

Article 5 of the Convention calls for Parties to support and develop international and intergovernmental programs and networks aimed at defining, conducting, assessing and financing research, data collection and systematic observations-in short, to support the science of global change.

To assure that the science developed through these efforts is best utilized by the Conference of the Parties in making its decisions, the Convention also establishes a subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice. This group is charged with responding to the scientific, technological and technical questions of the Conference of the Parties.

Question 1(c). What does it [the FCCC] mean for the furtherance of global environmental policies?

Answer. The Framework Convention on Climate Change is only one in a growing set of international environmental conventions that together are creating a new body of international law. Certain precedents set in the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on the depletion of the ozone layer are elaborated in the climate treaty. For example, the FCCC provides for "joint implementation" of commitments, allowing countries to develop bilateral and multilateral networks to address issues and to find solutions. Cooperative efforts encouraged by the Treaty on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution and the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes are also used and further developed in the FCCC. As the community of nations attempts to address interconnected global environmental concerns, negotiations call for increased participation and coordination among countries in their response.

Some of the provisions of the FCCC are entirely new. It is the first environmental convention to name, even as an interim measure, the Global Environment Facility of the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as the financial mechanism for assisting Parties in meeting their commitments. This approach, which we hope will be adopted in other international environmental conventions, promotes coordination in achieving global environmental goals and should lead to more effective expenditures of limited funds.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change establishes a forum in which all countries will be able to participate in taking practical steps to address climate change, in promoting technology cooperation among countries to this end, and in encouraging better understanding of this complex environmental issue. The FCCC thus represents a significant advance in the development of coordinated, multilateral responses to global environmental issues.

Question 2. During the last week's negotiations, what were the principal concerns that delayed agreement on a framework convention on climate change?

a. From the standpoint of the United States?

b. From the standpoint of the European community? c. From the standpoint of the developing countries?

Answer. The United States sought a convention that would create an action-oriented process for addressing climate change concerns over the longer term, one with commitments and institutions sufficient to ensure it. The European Community sought a similar convention, but insisted that it should include a specific commitment on the part of industrialized countries to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Developing countries sought to assure that any commitments required of them in the convention would be covered by funds and technology from industrialized countries and would not impede their economic development. Many developing countries also sought a convention that would not be overly intrusive.

During the last week's negotiations, the United States, the European Community. the developing countries and others hammered out specific text across a broad range of issues from the language of commitments to provisions on entry into force-in which each took particular positions stemming from its key negotiating objectives and underlying concerns. That the convention was adopted by acclamation on May 9 in New York is a tribute to the agreements they forged-not the differences that separated them.

Question 3. With respect to the climate change convention, what are the principal concerns facing the United States and other signatories next month in Rio?

Answer. The principal concern facing the United States and other signatories in Rio, and for some time to come, is to assure that the convention lives up to the world's expectations. In particular, countries must move expeditiously to ratify the convention, and even prior to its entry into force, begin to take appropriate interim steps to assure its effective operation.

The Climate Convention will enter into force after ratification by 50 countries, and the first session of the Conference of the Parties will occur within a year thereafter. The United States believes it is important to work out practical measures associated with the future global regime. Actions include continuing and enhancing-research and other technical capacity, constructing data bases and developing agreed methods for national reporting, carrying out country studies, and building capacity in developing countries to undertake their own domestic programs. It is only through the concerted efforts of all nations that the climate treaty can become a meaningful blueprint for action.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON,

CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC, August 3, 1992.

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 12, 1992, Linda G. Stunts, Acting Deputy Secretary, testified before your committee, regarding the role of the National Energy Strategy in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Following the hearing, you submitted 26 written questions to the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of State, to supplement the record. Enclosed are DOE's responses to questions 1d, 4 a&b, 5 a&b, 6 a&b, 7, 8 a-e, 9 a-d, and 10-12 to complete our portion of the record.

If we can be of further assistance to you or your staff, please contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Barnes.

Sincerely,

[Enclosures.]

GREGG WARD, Assistant Secretary.

Question 1d. What does it mean for national energy policy? Answer. The Convention calls for the development of national action programs and periodic reviews and updates of those programs to reflect whatever additional scientific information pertaining to the global change phenomenon is developed. The Convention does not require that specific actions be carried out as part of the country's national action plan, but, instead, leaves full discretion to the country for formulating a plan which reflects its environmental and development context. The Convention affirms that national responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner.

For the United States, the Administration has already developed, and has started implementing, a national action plan that will reduce future greenhouse gases from the prior expected trends. This was discussed by President Bush at the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, June 11, 1992. The National Energy Strategy includes a set of proposed legislative and administrative actions that constitute the centerpiece of this national action plan and its projected impact on greenhouse gas emissions levels. We anticipate that future versions of the National Energy Strategy will continue to be an integral part of the future national action-plans that are periodically called for under the terms of the Convention.

Question 4. Regional climate change predictions are needed to estimate impacts of climate change and benefits of control. There is a consensus that forecasts of regional climate change are dubious, at best.

a. If this is the case, how can we proceed to assess the impacts of climate change if we can't forecast it regionally?

Answer. Regional impact assessment would be difficult even if we had accurate forecasts of climate change on a regional basis. Research therefore needs to focus on improving the scientific understanding of climate, which we think will lead to improved regional forecasts, as well as improved understanding of the social, economic and environmental impacts on a regional level. DOE's Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics Program (CHAMMP) is explicitly designed to improve regional forecasts of climate change. Other agencies also have made research on climate change a key part of their programs. Meaningful results from upgraded climate models are expected in 5-10 years.

Question 4b. If we can't assess the impacts of climate change regionally, then how can we estimate the benefits of any controls designed to reduce greenhouse gases? Answer. The estimation of benefits of greenhouse emission reductions is problematic, regardless of whether the scale of interest is global or regional. Theoretically, benefits would be assessed by estimating in monetary terms the impacts of a unit change in emissions on human health and the environment. Such impacts, however, cannot be accurately estimated. Given this situation, U.S. policymakers have used costs and benefits not directly related to climate change as a basis for selecting actions that also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Question 5a. What can you tell me about the impacts of climate change on food security, natural resources, society, and the economy and the environment?

b. What can you tell me about the differences in these impacts if globally averaged temperature increases 2 degrees C over the next 100 years? If they were to increase 5 degrees C over the next 100 years? How do these differences compare?

58-759 0 - 92 - 11