... parties shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting ... anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing ... greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objectives of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions ...would contribute to such modification..." Article 4.2(b) goes on to say: "In order to promote progress to this end, each of While the language contained in these paragraphs is non-binding in terms of emissions reductions requirements, the intent of the negotiators was to have countries move toward the Convention's ultimate objective through the preparation of inventories of their net greenhouse gas emissions -- including both sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases, and the adoption by developed countries of national policies and measures to mitigate climate change and to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the Convention calls for developed countries to provide resources to help developing countries meet their obligations under the Convention. And, finally, it calls for countries to report on the actions they are taking to meet their commitments. The Conference of the Parties which the United States anticipates will meet for the first time in mid-1995, will review these reports, and the adequacy of the commitments under the Convention. Subsequent reviews will take place at regular intervals, with the second review coming no later than December of 1998. Clinton Agenda Since assuming office, President Clinton has directed his Administration to conduct a broad review of international environmental concerns, including global climate change. Through this process, the President has determined that the United States should provide leadership to help guard against undesirable global climate change. President Clinton clearly set forth the direction of our climate policy in his Earth Day speech. He said: "We ... must take the lead in addressing the challenge of global warming that could make our planet and its climate less hospitable and more hostile to human life. Today, I reaffirm my personal, and announce our nation's commitment, to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. "I am instructing my administration to produce a cost-effective plan by August that can continue the trend of reduced emissions. This must be a clarion call, not for more bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary costs, but instead, for American ingenuity and creativity, to produce the best and most energy-efficient technology." The Administration is committed to seeing the Convention promptly implemented, and, if necessary, strengthened. To this end, the Administration is taking a two-pronged approach: a domestic effort to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases; and an international effort, including working to implement the convention, and to support developing countries, and countries moving toward free market economies. in meeting its goals. The Domestic Effort To realize the domestic requirements of the President's commitment, preparations have begun to develop a plan that will identify steps we can take to return U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This will be the focus of our efforts in developing the August Plan. Under the Climate Convention's Article 12, developed Country Parties must report on their actions within six months of the Convention's entry into force, which is expected by late 1994. The August Plan will be the cornerstone of that report, but we anticipate that the next full version of the U.S. National Action Plan will be developed after August in time to meet our Convention commitment. In developing the August Flan, the Administration intends to identify and pursue what we believe are numerous cost-effective actions which may bring us close to our commitment of returning U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The government has received a host of these kind of measures as part of the public comment period established for the Bush Administration's draft Action Plan, issued last December. But these measures alone may not be enough to meet the longer-term goal of continuing the downward trend in emissions. If we are to accomplish that, we will need to look more broadly at a wide array of actions. Most importantly, we will need to establish a framework for identifying new options for our action agenda as we come to grips with the long-term nature of addressing global warming. As we do so, we will need to identify those actions that are the most cost-effective. Very shortly, the Administration will announce how we will develop the plan to fulfill the President's commitment. This policy development will involve the Executive Office of the President and all relevant agencies. We will encourage constructive suggestions from stakeholders and expect to hear some new ideas and fresh thinking about how federal policy can help enhance markets for energy efficient technology and make our economy more competitive while reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. The Clinton Policy on Climate: A Break from the Past The essential difference between the Clinton Administration and the previous Administration on climate change is that we are developing a domestic climate change policy, and will use that policy to play a leadership role in promoting an effective global response. Our policy development process will represent a significant departure from that undertaken by the Bush Administration when it produced a draft Action Plan in December. Let me briefly speak to the problems with that first iteration particularly through the public comment process. - Although the Bush Plan met the letter of the requirement established by the "Prompt Start Resolution of the convention negotiators, it was not adequate to the task before us meeting a national commitment to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and continuing our efforts over the long term. Here are a few examples: the first draft extensively discussed our national circumstances, but it did not set forth how we can best tailor our actions to reduce emissions to take account of those circumstances. The first draft had a section on emissions inventories, but it did not set forth clearly and concisely the baseline numbers, or provide detailed descriptions of which gases are produced in which sectors -all critical information for reducing emissions. The draft addressed at length the question of adaptation to climate change but created the impression that all climate impacts will be manageable at no net cost to the economy. - The draft was incomplete on the measures that can be taken to mitigate the effects of climate change. It failed to state clearly what projected U.S. emissions levels would be either with or without the actions identified in the draft. The draft addressed emissions by the year 2000 -- but avoided any mention of trends beyond that date. In fact, there was virtually no discussion of steps that will be critical to develop a longer term strategy -- in particular, to develop low-emitting technologies and engage the private sector. In the more than 40 sets of comments received on the Bush draft Plan, one prominent theme was the number of activities underway in the private sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in 1992, Pacific Gas and Electric, the nation's largest utility company, through its more than 50 conservation programs, was able to prevent the release of 280,000 tons of carbon. Yet in the first draft, the discussion of programs like PG&E's (including how to develop more programs like it) are inadequate -- much more was being done in the private sector, and should be acknowledged and credited. If we are to deal seriously with the threat of global warming, we must find ways to harness the dynamism and creativity of our private sector and put market forces to work in support of environmental goals. It is the Administration's expectation that the new Plan will address these critical needs more fully. U.S. Efforts Internationally Our actions alone, even as large as we are, will not be enough to reverse the overall upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. We must establish a partnership with other countries. Sources of emissions are spread globally, and action to reduce emissions undertaken anywhere on the planet has global significance. The United States currently contributes about 20 percent of global net emissions, although our share is declining. Developing countries represent an increasing share of the total emissions, about 40 percent today and perhaps rising to 60 percent by 2030. To make a significant contribution to protecting the climate, the United States must first demonstrate its own resolve and then leverage our example in encouraging efforts to reduce emissions the world over. Within the scope of our limited resources, the United States must promote a "partnership" approach between developed and developing countries. Such an approach must reconcile different but compatible interests in environment and development. That there are compatible interests is clear assistance we provide to developing countries will meet both our needs: ours, - with respect to the strong concern we have for the preservation of the global environment and for the creation of domestic jobs in environmental technologies; theirs, both for their own environmental concerns, and for the concomitant requirement to continue along the path of environmentally sustainable economic growth. To begin resolving this issue, industrialized countries will have to take the lead in implementing the Convention's commitments (as agreed in the Convention language itself) and encourage developing countries to follow. In my view, such leadership will be linked to the quality of our national responses, as well as to the extent of the financial and technical assistance we and other industrialized nations can provide to developing countries. Country Studies The United States has already begun to demonstrate our concern for addressing the longer term global effort. We are providing $25 million to a U.S. country studies initiative which will provide an analytical and institutional foundation from which countries may develop appropriate measures and actions to address climate change. Studies enable countries to address vulnerabilities to climate change, measures to limit net greenhouse gas emissions, or both. Country studies could also be used to assess the measures necessary to meet the obligations of the Convention, including by developing national inventories of greenhouse gases and by identifying actions and measures to mitigate greenhouse gases or to adapt to climate change. Participants in the Country Study Program will generally receive funds and associated technical assistance both during the organization of the work and as it progresses. Assistance would cover specific, high-cost activities, including data development, institutional or infrastructural development, model-building, or procurement of special equipment, as well as lower cost technical assistance and project monitoring. The Country Studies Initiative, which is coordinated through a State department committee, is operated by DOE, EPA and AID. Modifying the Convention Under the provisions of the Climate Convention, all parties are called upon to formulate and implement programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with developed countries taking the lead. There is broad agreement about the first step in this effort: countries are aiming to return their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. |