climate and biosphere conditions over many decades, it will tak before such efforts will provide information on the best climat adopt. On the other hand, such models have already produce tremely useful insights for those involved in climate change poli the "where" and "when" flexibility analysis described in my tes these analytic efforts are increasingly being used to frame the c scribed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's C report (volume 3, chapter 11).

b

Question 2. If the United States were to propose a "medium term" target for greenhouse gas concentrations, what do you most appropriate time-frames to consider as "medium term❞ and Answer. The impacts of climate change are directly related of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere (which is one of drives the climate system), which changes very slowly because gags that is naturally present in the atmosphere and the long long as 100 years) of many gags which are introduced into the it makes sense for global policy on climate change to focus on centrations as a surrogate for climate change impacts. Since much direct control over the concentration of GHGs in the at national agreement would ultimately be required to set the lin subsequently deemed appropriate. In addition some agreed upo required to approximate the emissions that will lead to the agr tion target and the allocation of emissions among nations. Altho impacts are uncertain, they are not expected to be significant f ades, and the allocation of emissions rights could take many Thus, a reasonable time frame for which an intermediate concen be specified could be say 2050, with a longer-term goal specifie of the next century. Almost all analyses of very short-term targ sions reductions. say those that would limit emissions in 2000, 2 shown that they are probably expensive and unnecessary. They term solution to a long-term problem. On the other hand, a con 2050 will be much less costly if the long lead time available for mediate-term GHG concentration target can be exploited thr high leverage R&D on GHG-free energy supply and higher e technologies, as well as additional research on climate science, pacts research. In fact, over the net 10-20 years, it would proba to negotiate cooperative R&D and technology transfer agreeme year-by-year emissions targets. These societal investments wou than sharp short-term reductions in GHG emissions and woul other countries concerned about climate change in a position to the climate and impacts research suggests is a prudent level o the future. In addition, GHGs concentrations and emissions s and international agreements for technology transfer, and ultim of emissions rights worked out carefully over the neat couple of Question 3. What might be the most appropriate form for mid targets?

tant details. For example, there are practically no data nd the solar radiation reaching the sea surface for most g the Indian and the southern Pacific oceans; yet these alidate coupled ocean-atmosphere models. In addition, ver the oceans is needed to estimate the sulfate radi

indicates that there may be a much larger absorption by the atmosphere than we may have previously in current global change models.

research, independent research by 6 different groups Hopkins University; NASA-Ames; Swiss Federal Instick Institute at Hamburg; and Prof. Kondratiev's group ilar results.

Come of the implications of this research finding for cli

e an important effect on the hydrological cycle (includby the models used for climate change studies, as sugudy conducted at the National science Foundation-Nac Research. It is possible that the global average evapopresent day climate) may decrease by about 15 to 30%. fects must await further research on the source for this rently scientists are eagerly awaiting the results of an d by the Department of Energy over Oklahoma.

re changed to take this effect into account, do you think ively show the same impacts on climate of green house

t change the qualitative predictions for global warming, will not change the global warming to global cooling. nple, the entire US) or locally (say the east coast of US) question because we do not, yet, understand the cause n. We need more field and laboratory studies and surver tropical oceans and land areas.

APPENDIX II

Additional Material Submitted for the Reco

A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL During the Second Conference of the Parties (COP) of signatorie Change Treaty held this past July in Geneva, the U.S. delegation re nificant policy shifts in the U.S. position on global climate change. of these shifts, and the possibility of more specific, binding policy cl veloped prior to the Third Conference of the Parties scheduled for are of great concern to AISI's U.S. member companies, who represe the nation's steelmaking capacity. The U.S. delegation indicated su ber of measures that would not only damage the American econom but would also force the American steel industry to bear an enormo den-putting one of the nation's building block industries at a comp tage in the global marketplace.

SCIENCE SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR ANY POLICY DEVELOPM

At the July conference, the U.S. delegation took the position that climate change is a significant problem that requires immediate, i tention. Such interpretation of "scientific" evidence has served as th the building of possible binding, international agreements. There a fering views on attributing cause to changes in global climate. Las IPCC's own scientific assessment stated: "A)ny claims of . . attril cant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncer natural variability of the climate system are reduced." The AISI u refrain from ratification and implementation of any international ing reductions in emission levels or fuel consumption levels withou entific views and evidence into account. Such binding agreements as at the COP in Geneva would force the steel industry and its many suppliers to bear an unfair economic burden resulting in a loss of in petitiveness, increased costs to U.S. consumers and, as a result, a re all employment levels.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED POLICY AGREEMENTS

The U.S. delegation to the COP, headed by Undersecretary of S Wirth, seemed to reverse previous government policy and move to lishment of legally binding "mid-term" commitments for specific emission reductions. The most disturbing of the proposed policy sh gested movement toward a 10% reduction in emissions below 199 year 2010. The American steel industry has invested massive amou new technology to improve energy efficiency and thereby reduce emissions. Over the past 20 years, the steel industry has reduced e tion levels by approximately 45%-with a corresponding drop in emi steel industry continues to implement cleaner and more producti technology. However, any international agreement establishing em levels leading to the imposition of fuel usage mandates or carbon verely harm the industry, placing it at an unfair, competitive disadv In a paper presented to the "Climate Change Analysis Workshop Oxford Economic Forecasting indicated that the U.S., taking into pated growth, would have to achieve an overall reduction in emi 22%, whereas countries such as Germany and the UK would only less than a 10% reduction. Because the steel industry is a major based materials, forced reductions through taxation would result in hardship for the American steel industry. Coal is a necessary ing steel making, needed to produce coke, an essential material in the co

(105)

n. The cost differential to competing international industries and the repact on GDP would be inherently imbalanced. A study by the Charles ociates for the Global Climate Coalition estimates a carbon tax of $280 per be needed to alter behavior to a degree sufficient to achieve such reducax of this magnitude would cost the steel industry_several billion dollars This is a tax nearly 10 times the amount of the Btu tax once proposed inton Administration. The Btu tax initiative was roundly and properly and ultimately defeated because it was unfair to American business and he same skepticism and debate which led to the rejection of the Btu tax pplied to international environmental agreements governing global climate sulting economic impacts. Moreover, taxes of this nature are self-defeating ey limit available investment in new technology, which is the major factor ishing energy reductions.

Geneva, the Administration appeared to have turned its back on its own calling for voluntary emission reduction programs, many of which are U.S. Climate Change Action Plan. Instead, the U.S. delegates to the COP ent to sell out American interests to the world by promoting binding Es and ignoring progress that can be made with voluntary reductions bewoluntary programs even have a chance to be implemented.

another example of policy shifting, the U.S. delegation seems to have ay from previous positions requiring developing countries to be involved post-2000 reduction strategy. This issue is of particular importance to the industry because much of the U.S. industry's competition comes from deountries. Most studies show that developing countries will be responsible st majority of emissions increases in the next decade. If the U.S. and othdeveloped world bear the complete burden of global emission reduction erican business will pay a price far beyond its share, and in the end there d be little or no progress made in reducing global greenhouse gas emis

JOBS WILL SUFFER

S. steel industry has made tremendous progress in reducing overall fuel on and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These results have been hrough the industry's own technological developments and voluntary proroughout this process, the steel industry has made job retention a goal. etary Wirth, when asked about possible job loss as a result of any interlobal climate agreement, said, "In a world of change, everybody doesn't vantaged." American jobs, in the steel industry or any other, should not ed on the altar of unfair international agreements. The steel industry cond will continue, to support and implement conservation measures that are nal and economically justifiable. AISI and its member companies do not e U.S. should become party to any international agreements that would only the steel industry but also the whole of U.S. industry at a competitive age in the global marketplace. Free trade agreements like the GATT and e of little value if U.S. industry is rendered uncompetitive by unfair internvironmental agreements.

CONCLUSION

coming meetings of the negotiating team in December and in the months will be pivotal in determining the future of U.S. policy regarding global ange. AISI strongly urges the members of this Committee, and the Cona whole, to take an active role in assuring the Administration does not any agreements that would compromise the competitiveness of the Amerindustry and in so doing jeopardize steelmaking jobs. We urge you to send akable message to the President and to the U.S. negotiating team that r protocol along the lines suggested in Geneva in July will not be ratified ented.

you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

T OF RICHARD RICHELS, JAE EDMONDS, HOWARD GRUENSPECHT AND TOM ENERGY MODELING FORUM, TERMAN ENGINEERING CENTER, STANFORD SITY

ABSTRACT

lin Mandate calls for strengthening developed country commitments for reenhouse gas emissions. This paper addresses a key issue in the current

1. INTRODUCTION

The Berlin Mandate calls upon the Parties to the United N Convention on Climate Change to strengthen developed country o duce greenhouse gas emissions.11 A number of proposals have These range from slowing the current growth in emissions to shar present levels. The choice is a difficult one. Acting too slowly risk ronmental damages. Acting too aggressively risks imposing large necessary costs on the global economy. As noted by the Intergove Climate Change (IPCC), the challenge is to develop a prudent h the face of climate-related uncertainties. 12

The Framework Convention is the mechanism established by community for implementing precautionary measures. It recogni hedging strategy should be flexible, with ample opportunities for course corrections. Periodic reviews are required "in light of the entific information on climate change and its impacts, as well as social and economic information." Based on these reviews, app would be taken, including the adoption of new commitments.

Upon entering into force in 1994, the Convention established a binding) aim for developed countries to return emissions to th 2000. At the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-1 of 1995, it was determined that existing commitments under the inadequate. Further commitments for developed countries are to prepared for approval at COP-3 in 1997.

While calling for new commitments, the Berlin Mandate does these commitments should be. Rather it seeks further analysis guide and inform the decision making process. This paper addres the analysis and assessment phase-the costs of proposals to lir Rather than rely on a single model, the analysis is based on in four widely-used energy-economy models.13 In each instance, we e rect and indirect effects on the global economy.

We also examine the impact of alternative proposals on atmo tions. The ultimate objective of the Framework Convention is " greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that y gerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."1 of what constitutes an appropriate limit has yet to be resolved, explore the implications that alternative emission pathways ha centrations.

We pay particular attention to the design of cost-effective mi The Framework Convention states that "policies and measures to change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at costs." Adopting least-cost mitigation strategies will free up val further addressing the threat of climate change or for meeting ot We explore two ways of promoting this objective. In the first, e take place where it is cheapest to do so. In the second, they tal cheapest to do so.