ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 8 f. Should any instrument include trade sanctions, other enforcement mechanisms, or non-compliance provisions, as well as monitoring mechanisms? Please describe your thinking about them. 17. The procedures for adoption of each of the instruments are set forth in Articles 15-17 of the Convention. In the case of a protocol or an amendment, they must be communicated to the Parties at least six months before adoption by the COP. The six months allows time for governments and the public to review the instrument. The AGBM schedule does not indicate when COP-3 will meet. I understand that Japan may want to host the third meeting of the COP as early as June 1997. However, if it is in June 1997, the six-month period would not be available. If it is later and there is a seventh AGBM meeting as the US urged, the six-month waiting period would be also affected. Reportedly, some in the US, particularly the State Department, think there are ways to circumvent this six-month period. Please explain them and explain why the State Department would consider suggesting that not complying with that specified period is good policy and a sound precedent. 18. The report of the August meeting of the AGBM observes that there is a requirement for a comprehensive, focused on priorities, and open and transparent analysis and assessment to assist, in an iterative manner, the negotiation of a protocol or other legal instrument. Completion dates for this activity will be decided at the AGBM's second session. The AGBM schedule appears to preclude anything other than a rather cursory analysis and assessment, largely dependent on the IPCC SAR, inputs from Parties, and the work of various intergovernmental organizations. b. C. d. Will the assessment and analysis examine the economic impacts of all proposals How will the analysis and assessment be carried out, and who will carry it out? 19. The AGBM report said that the analysis and assessment would draw on a joint project of the Organization for Economic and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (IEA) relating to policies and measures for "common action". It is my understanding that the OECD and IEA do not operate in an open and transparent fashion, and that many of their products are classified either by them or the US. The common measures the OECD/IEA apparently are examining include a strong carbon tax, landing tax for air traffic on the basis of emission levels, increasing and harmonizing aviation fuel taxes, raise sales tax on gas guzzlers, congestion taxes, increase road ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 9 freight taxes, CAFE standards, appliance efficiency standards, minimum a. b. C. d. Please explain why the US believes that the AGBM should utilize the OECD/IEA and similar organizations when they do not utilize an open and transparent process that allows participation by the private sector, as well as governments. Please provide the details about the OECD/IEA common measures project and its status. Why is the US supporting it? Are documents provided to the US by these organizations for this project classified by the OECD, the IEA or the US? 20. e. What is the statutory or other basis for such classification? f. What is the expected deadline for results to be provided to AGBM? g. Will there be public review and comment of draft results before they are submitted to the AGBM? h. Does the US favor the development of common measures? I understand from the September 22, 1995 edition of Science that the White House, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences held a conference in September about the linkage between climate change and health effects. a. b. C. Please explain this linkage, and provide the peer-reviewed studies supporting this linkage. Please identify all the conference sponsors and the Federal funds that were expanded. I also understand that the conference, in a breakout discussion group on public outreach risk communication, developed recommendations which were presented by an EPA official. One description of these recommendations suggests that they involve considerable use of public relations techniques, such as preparing press kits, authoring articles, using the Internet, and distributing literature for doctors to give patients. Please provide a copy of these recommendations, explain their status, and indicate what role the Government ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 10 21. The September 22, 1995 edition of Science also reports that the National Academy of Science has sent a proposal to the Center for Disease Control, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies for a three-year study costing $1 million concerning the linkage between global change and human health. Please provide a copy of the proposal and explain its status and the source of funds for the proposal, if adopted. United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 MAY -9 1996 Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of October 19, 1995, in which you asked a number of questions about climate change and organizations that deal with the issue internationally. apologize for the delay in our response. We Per your request, we have composed comprehensive answers to all of your questions on behalf of the Departments of State and Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In compiling our responses we have consulted extensively with other agencies, with both domestic and international expertise on these issues. We hope this will be helpful to you and the members of the Subcommittee. If you have any questions relating to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Barvard Larkin Barbara Larkin Acting Assistant Secretary Enclosures: As stated. The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Tab A. List of Attachments Answers to questions submitted by Representative Rohrabacher Tab B: Question 1 Copy of the IPCC procedures for preparation, review, Tab C: Question 2 List of individuals involved on the drafting team for the Tab D: Question 3 Copy of final texts of the summary for policymakers from WG Tab E Question 4 Copy of IPCC guidelines for consulting experts Tab F: Question 5 Copy of the IPCC procedures regarding the production of Tab G: Question 7 Copy of FCCC requested work program for IPCC Tab H: Question 8 Copy of SBSTA-II Conclusions Tab I: Question 9 Copy of the IPCC budget for 1994, 1995, 1996, & 1997 Tab J: Question 11 FCCC prepared report on Annex I Party national Text of FCCC Secretariat's in-depth review of U.S. Tab K: Question 13 Copies of FCCC Article 4.1 and Article 12.1 U.S. intervention from AGBM-3: commitments Developing country Copy of the initial report on an inventory and assessment |