ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher October 19, 1995 Page 5 9. COP-1 approved a Convention budget for 1996 and 1997 of over $18.6 million. The a. b. What is the IPCC budget for 1994 through 1997? Please identify by amount and source all IPCC funds, especially any contributed by the US in those years. 10. I understand that the IPCC Chairman and the Chairmen of the Working Groups may soon leave their posts. a. b. What is their term and what is the procedure for selecting successors? 11. According to COP decision 6 CP.1, SBSTA is to be the link between scientific, technical, and technological assessments and the information provided by competent international bodies and the policy-oriented needs of the COP. The functions listed in Annex I of the COP decision related to SBSTA seem to be extensive and maybe overwhelming. a. b. How will SBSTA carry out those functions and in what timeframe? C. The US said review of national communications is the highest priority. Does 12. d. What is the timetable for that national communications review? The COP authorized SBSTA to establish (with subsequent COP approval) two intergovernmental technical advisory panels to provide advice on technologies and methodologies. The US August statement in Geneva said that it was "critical" that the technical advisory panel on methodologies be established "as soon as possible" and that it could consist of 20 experts. At the same time, the US said the advisory panel on technologies was not as urgent. The US said it should have a steering group of only 10 such experts, plus a substructure of experts. a. b. Please explain the US ideas for the activities and purpose of each of these panels in the AGBM process and the long term. What is the basis for your suggestion of the number of experts for each panel? ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 6 C. d. How do the numbers affect the ability of the US to have one or more seats on each panel? The US said that experts should be nominated by governments, but they could come from inside or outside the government. As you know, "experts" often have different points of view on "scientific", "technical", or "economic" issues, and most have policy preferences. i. ii. What is the definition of an "expert" for the panels and any substructure? What criteria would be used by the US in selecting such experts to ensure that they are qualified, to ensure a balance of views on issues and policies, and to avoid potential conflict of interest problems? 13. iii. What is, in your view, the function of the substructure panels? iv. What is your view of the substructure, the number of experts required, and the criteria for selection? An Inside EPA article of September 29, 1995 quotes an environmentalist as saying that "global warming will continue until less developed countries also take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." However, the Berlin Mandate does not address the expected growth in greenhouse gases from these countries. It merely reaffirms that these countries are obligated to carry out commitments they pledged to implement when they ratified the Convention, while expressly stating that the AGBM process may not introduce any new commitments for developing countries. a. b. C. d. e. Why did the US agree to an AGBM process that fails to provide for discussion and negotiation of new commitments at any time by developing countries to deal with this growth? What steps, if any, are the developing countries committed to take under the Are those commitments contingent under the Convention on Annex I countries providing money and technologies as developing countries seem to contend? What specific decision should the AGBM take that would result in advancing the implementation of developing country commitments? Please provide a table in million metric tons comparing estimates in which the US has confidence, based on Energy Information Administration and other reports, of total world greenhouse gas emissions with emissions from the former Soviet bloc, the US, and other OECD countries, China, India, and other developing nations for the years 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2025 and 2100. ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 7 14. A statement of the US delegation in Geneva in August noted that the AGBM requested for its March 1996 session that SBSTA provide a report on "innovative, efficient stateof-the-art technologies and know-how that could advance the implementation of the Berlin Mandate" and suggested that such an inventory should be prepared by the Secretariat. 15. 16. b. C. d. What is the capability of either organization to provide such a report or inventory for next March or anytime next year? How would either organization decide whether such technologies or know-how are either innovative or efficient or that they could advance implementation of the mandate? Just as important, is the cost, cost-effectiveness, marketability, and usefulness of such technologies or know-how, but those criteria do not appear to be part of the AGBM or US criteria. Why not? The schedule of the AGBM seems to be very tight and the number of sessions seem few. As noted in Question 5 above, there are only five weeks available between October 1995 and March 1997 for the AGBM to pick a legal instrument and negotiate its contents. Part of the October, 1995 session will be devoted to Article 13 matters. The last session is scheduled for March 10, 1997. I understand that the US suggested a seventh meeting, but met opposition from the Secretariat for budget reasons, and that the origin of the 1997 deadline apparently stems from the US. a. b. C. a. b. Did the US, in urging the 1997 deadline, contemplate that only five separate Does the US expect that COP-2 will be utilized to further the AGBM process? What consideration have you given to the type of instrument that should be What instruments other than a protocol, an annex, or amendment to the C. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? d. Do you oppose any specific instrument? ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 8 17. 18. 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. 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. 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. e. 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? When will it be completed and available for review? 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 |