Mr. MANZULLO. That is because you had a Cadillac. I had a Ford Falcon in 1964 that got 25 miles a gallon and gasoline was 17 cents a gallon. Mr. GEJDENSON. The gentleman needs to check not just his tax facts, but also my driving facts. I had a Mustang GT, which got just as bad mileage. Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Wirth, I appreciate your coming here this afternoon. I do have a suggestion in terms of the research that I think is long overdue. There is obviously a delicate balance between growth and consumption of energy and the environment. My wife is a microbiologist. We have a game preserve on our farm in conjunction with a small cattle operation, the two exist side by side. One of the things I would like to see the administration do is an environmental impact study on people's lives as they are reflected whenever any type of energy taxes are increased. For example, energy taxes will increase the cost of bus fares. It keeps going down the line. Energy taxes will increase for example the cost that my brother charges for food at his restaurant because he has to pay more to the people trucking food to his restaurant. He has to raise prices in order to offset the price increase to him. So we are in a situation where raising the cost of energy in order to conserve energy puts us in a situation where we may have spiraling inflation. We may have people pushed to the wall where they cannot afford to pay any more for the energy than they are presently paying. I appreciate the tough stance that you are taking for the environment. I would suggest that people are part of the environment also, and the impact of taxes has to be weighed upon the people of this nation. Thank you very much for coming. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much. I know the President agrees with you. We have to be very careful about the impact on people, the impact of the deficit, and the impact of interest rates are very significant indeed. If we are not able to alleviate that burden it will be enormously difficult for our children and grandchildren to enjoy the level of living that all of us in this generation have had. Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you for your efforts here today and your work in the past. We look forward to working with you. We have a significant challenge ahead of us, but this challenge is also a great opportunity to leave a better planet for our children and our grandchildren, and to make our industries more efficient and more competitive. The President could not have chosen a person better than you to instill confidence in us that the job will be completed successfully. Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Congressman Roth and Congressman Manzullo, thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX OPENING STATEment of ReprESENTATIVE SAM GEJDenson, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC Policy, TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT From the start of the global warming debate, many have argued that we cannot protect the global environment and the interests of U.S. business at the same time. Tough action on global warming, they argue, will cause far-reaching damage to the American economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. American firms are on the cutting edge of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and clean coal technologies. Tough U.S. action to stem global warming will help ensure that American firms will move forward with environmentally sound technology which will undoubtedly dominate the international market in the 21st century. In the subcommittee's hearing in March on global climate change, it was clear that the Bush administration's National Action Plan failed to grasp this basic concept. This was by no means the only flaw in the draft plan, however. The plan failed because it did not commit the United States to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. The plan provided no direction for American policy because it simply restated existing U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan returned to the "hat and sunglasses" days of former Interior Secretary James Watt by giving too much attention to the different ways that Americans can live with the effects of global warming, such as rising oceans. President Clinton, however, has made it clear that Congress can expect a completely different global warming policy from his administration. In his recent Earth Day speech, the President announced that the previous administration's National Action Plan would be thoroughly rewritten. In a dramatic break with the past, he also said that the United States would return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. Today, we have the opportunity to receive testimony from the Honorable Tim Wirth. We are fortunate to have him heading up the administration's efforts to protect the global environment. I called today's hearing so that we could discuss the details of the Clinton administration's new global climate change policy. In particular, I would like to examine: the strengths and weaknesses of the draft plan from the Clinton administration's standpoint; the new policies and programs being considered by the administration to improve the plan's effectiveness; the timetable for reviewing and improving the plan, particularly those aspects related to technology transfer; and, the possibility of committing the United States to further reductions in greenhouse gases beyond the year 2000. By signing the Climate Change Convention in Rio, the United States agreed to draft a meaningful plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help developing countries achieve this important objective. Having examined the Bush administration's draft plan, it is clear that the United States has yet to live up to its commitment. I believe that the United States must put together a meaningful, far-reaching plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and to promote U.S. environmental technology firms. I would like to thank my old friend and colleague, Tim Wirth, for coming before the subcommittee today to explain how such a plan will be written. (27) Testimony of Timothy E. Wirth Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment May 18, 1993 I am delighted to be with you today to discuss the Clinton Administration's policies on global climate change. I am especially pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and the Environment as this subcommittee will consider many of the priorities that our nation is facing in a challenging and changed world order. Foremost among those challenges is a broad set of international environmental concerns about which we are learning more all the time. Perhaps overarching all others in terms of its centrality, complexity and challenge -- is broad scientific and international concern about the issue of global warming. Addressing this issue will require close collaboration between the Administration and the Congress, including this Committee. It will also require significant U.S. leadership because we cannot solve this problem on our own: we must help guide the international resolve that has developed in support of action to prevent dangerous human intervention in the complex climate system that influences so many aspects of our society and our world. Scientific Context Let me begin by reviewing the international context in which we now confront the issue of global warming. While concern about human intervention in the Earth's natural climate system has existed for some time, global warming has emerged rapidly in recent years as a powerful foreign policy and diplomatic issue. Driving this process have been advances in the scientific basis for concern. As our understanding of the atmosphere has improved, we have become more aware of how our actions affect it. It is clear that human activities are increasing atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). While there are uncertainties about the magnitude, timing and regional patterns of effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, there is sound scientific evidence that the rate of climate change in the next century could far exceed any natural changes that have occurred in the last 10,000 years, and that the Earth would be warmer than it has been in millions of years. Furthermore, the change in atmospheric composition will persist for decades and possibly centuries because of the long atmospheric lifetime of some of these gases. The Climate Convention Last year, the international community acknowledged this scientific concern and took the first steps to address this significant challenge for the world. More than 150 nations signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit last June -- and to date it has been signed by more than 160 countries. The United States, along with sixteen other nations, have now ratified the treaty. As you and this committee are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Climate Convention was the subject of considerable discussion and debate last year. Let me take a moment to discuss what specifically is in the treaty. The Convention's ultimate objective is to: "[A]chieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of This is a major undefined challenge perhaps requiring massive reductions in emissions. As a first step to agreeing on the international action required, the Convention set forth a series of commitments in Article 4. While the language of these commitments is rather confusing, let me quote the critical lines from paragraph 2 (a) and Article 4.2(a) states: (b) of this Article. |