Page images

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
Page 7


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.

[blocks in formation]


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.

[ocr errors]

Did the US, in urging the 1997 deadline, contemplate that only five separate weeks would be provided for this effort?

[ocr errors]

Does the US expect that COP-2 will be utilized to further the AGBM process?


Where will COP-2 be held and what country will preside?

[blocks in formation]

What consideration have you given to the type of instrument that should be reported by the AGBM?


What instruments other than a protocol. an annex, or amendment to the
Convention are available?


What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?


Do you oppose any specific instrument?

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
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. 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 waitir.g 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.
a. Do you concur?


Will the assessment and analysis examine the economic impacts of all proposals for a protocol, the trade, job, competitive, and economic impacts of new commitments by Annex I countries on those countries, including the US, and the impact of such commitments on developing countries?


How will the analysis and assessment be carried out, and who will carry it out?


What analysis has the US undertaken, and which agencies are doing it?

When will it be completed and available for review?


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/1EA 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
October 19, 1995
Page 9

freight taxes, CAFE standards, appliance efficiency standards, minimum
emission standards, market aggregation for new technologies, phasing out
HFCs, tradable permits, and more.


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.

[ocr errors][merged small]


Are documents provided to the US by these organizations for this project classified by the OECD, the IEA or the US?


What is the statutory or other basis for such classification?


What is the expected deadline for results to be provided to AGBM?

[ocr errors]

Will there be public review and comment of draft results before they are submitted to the AGBM?


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.


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
October 19, 1995
Page 10


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

10. 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. We porologize for the delay in our response.

Per your request, we have composed comprehensive answers to all of your questions on behalf of the Departments of State and inergy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AiJministration. In compiling our responses we have consulted erlensively with other agencies, with both domestic and inkornational expertise on these issues.

We hope this will be helpful to you and the members of the Lolacrimmittee. If you have any questions relating to this illrother, please do not hesitate to contact us.

[blocks in formation]

Barbara Larkin
Acting Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs

four: losures: As stated.

The Honorable
Dana Fohrabacher, Chai rinan,
::.. bicoinmittee on E11Org; am Environment,
Comunittee rinise junce,

« PreviousContinue »