slanguage is in the treaty in Article 4.2-A. It says that it aponly to the Annex 1 nations-the developed nations, that is. in the treaty does it say developing nations are required to e greenhouse gas emissions?

WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, in Article 4.1, preceding the article ave referred to, all parties, including developing country parhave a list of obligations-preparing and communicating to onference of the Parties" inventories of greenhouse gas emisformulating, implementing, publishing, and regularly updatational programs containing measures to mitigate climate e and measures to adapt to climate change; promoting and ating in the development application and diffusion, including er, of technologies to control, reduce or prevent emissions; ting sustainable management and enhancement of sinks; coing in preparation for adaptation to impact, and so on. It is d range of requirements.

CHAIRMAN. I agree, they are very broad. And they can say an aid and a lot of other things. But I do not see where they at they have to reduce.

WIRTH. There is no place, Mr. Chairman, that says that we, nex 1 countries, have to reduce either. Required in the treaty n-binding aim.

CHAIRMAN. Well, here is what it says applies to us:

developed country parties and other parties included in 1_commit themselves specifically as provided for in the folEach of the parties shall adopt national policies and take ponding measures on the mitigation of climate change by limts anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, et cetera. I seems there is a mandate.

WIRTH. Well, we are committed. There are common and difated requirements under the treaty. There are requirements developing world and of the developed world under the trea. Chairman. And that list-perhaps I could ask that a full the developing countries' obligations be included in full in cord, as well, as part of my answer. CHAIRMAN. Would you do that?

WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. And perhaps, for the record, uld enlighten us a little bit more on that discrepancy, which is applying to the developed nations, but not the undeveloped

S.

WIRTH. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe we could discuss that a it more. Could we do that?

WIRTH. I think it is a very important issue that you have disand that many have discussed, and about which we are concerned and the whole world is concerned. Let us rememIr. Chairman, that the overwhelming preponderance of carit into the atmosphere has been put into the atmosphere by veloped world, not by the developing world. The loading that e has been put up there by the Annex 1 countries.

, that carbon is going to stay there for a long time. If we about the parallel with chlorofluorocarbons, we have a very sful Montreal Protocol, designed to slow down and stop the

going to be probably the year 2150 before we see the ozo beginning to heal.

I point that out to establish, first and foremost, that v have put up there already is going to be there for a long p time. So we have an obligation for what has been done in t And we have to face that obligation.

The developing world is increasing its own set of obligati cause the developing world is now putting more and more itself up into the atmosphere. China is at about 50 pe where we are today, in terms of carbon and greenhouse gases. They are at about 50 percent the level of where we projections are that, 20 or 25 years out, they will be even ahead of us.

So what we have to do is merge the developing world int ligation, because of what they are doing, to meet the obligat we have for what we have done in the past and will con do. We have different responsibilities because of what done historically.

The CHAIRMAN. I have several questions, Tim, and I move through these. But to suggest that, in effect, since o technology accumulated a certain abundance of emissions still there, that the developing countries ought to receive so equal to a credit, defies the reality that we have advanc nology available now that would more applicably apply to veloping countries, to allow them, if you will, to use this te as opposed to an issue of equity, where you suggest that them the same opportunity to build up emissions similar so that they will have an equal opportunity.

I guess my frustration is, why do not we encourage ther more advanced technology to address, if you will, their de opportunities? But I want to get into some other questions.

Mr. WIRTH. That is précisely what we want to do, Mr. Ch And one of the best opportunities that exists, coming out of mate Treaty, is precisely the technological advantage t United States of America, we believe, over a long period is going to have, both because we have the technological le and because there are large and emerging-even larger out there for U.S. technology. Precisely on the point.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me try and get through a few quest cause I am going to limit myself to 10 minutes. We have t panels.

What is your interpretation of legally binding? And what consequences if we fail to meet legally binding emissions Can we be taken before the World Court? And what is term? Is it 2010, 2020 or thereabouts?

Mr. WIRTH. First of all, we decided to move away from binding aim, toward the suggestion that there be a legally agreement, because there was a great deal of rhetoric and ality coming from many, many nations, who were saying wonderful things that they were going to under the Climate but, in fact, the reality of their delivery was a long way aw the rhetoric.

Montreal Protocol, where broad disclosure and come a very effective way of enforcing a treaty. rcement mechanism through full transparency for example.

What kind of energy taxes might the administrao meet the targets that you have suggested? re not even at a point of considering any kind airman. We are not at that point. We are still, my testimony, building the model.

Do you anticipate energy taxes might be nec

are not even at that point, Mr. Chairman, of a at kind of specifics might be engaged in. When do you anticipate being at a point where idea of just what you are going to have to have

the first thing that we have to do is to complete the modelling. Under Secretary Ehrlich at the ent is leading that effort-merging particularly ams-one at EPA and one at the Department hem, and making sure that they are sensitive es that could be plugged in-environmental, ecoWe expect to have that modelling job done right ime.

You have been very active in many efforts that of the environmental movement. And we all see d misquoted from time to time. But there is a cent article of Net News Now, where you are the following statement, when you were pre

ot to do in energy is ride the global warming heory is wrong, it means doing the right thing c policy and environmental policy."

ement or was that taken out of context?

absolutely, Mr. Chairman. If you looked at the policy, the kinds of things that this committee n terms of energy conservation, alternative enso on, over the years, it is precisely what we

I mean there is not a shred of evidence anywhere, from that the greenhouse effect does not exist around the world allowed to exist because of the greenhouse effect. And ther a shred of evidence to suggest that the greenhouse effec there. Of course it is, and we have to respond. And one of th ways in which we respond is through effective energy policy The CHAIRMAN. But if the theory is wrong, or to what may be misinterpreted from the standpoint of the historical of climatic change in the United States, or the world for th ter, then is it appropriate that we take extreme action, v what you have suggested? And what does that lead to?

I think that is a legitimate concern of this committee. as we look at our obligation to use technology and the dev nations' efforts to try and catch up, so to speak, how we m international competitiveness, how we address the poten sponsibility associated with whatever might be recommend consequence of the global warming concern through Btu ta so forth, these all have an application on the basic, funda issue here of whether we are on the right track and taking priate measures.

And as we look at the recommendations, at least at this t are a long way away from anything concrete coming down. are certainly riding the global warming issue. I am concern the application of the theory based on the best scientific e at hand.

It seems to me that when we get into these internationa and they look at the United States and their position as leader, oftentimes I think the motivation to provide penal our position at any given time is read by the public as, ind warding, if you will, the developing nations that should us advanced technology at the expense of the United States clearly is going to have certain aspects of its development j ized by potentially a noncompetitive position in world tra other things.

That is why I am very concerned about the lack of cohes entific evidence as to just what we could do. And I comme for your efforts in a difficult area, but certainly one that a responsibility to proceed. But I am just a little sensitive lack of scientific evidence to suggest that this is the policy should be pursuing

Perhaps, on the second round of questions, we can del some of the further concerns I have on the international place, or perhaps Senator Johnston would delve into it-Ch some of our competitiveness.

Senator Johnston.

Senator JOHNSTON, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIRTH. Senator Johnston, if I might. There were a of statements made there. There were a lot of thoughts And I would like to have the opportunity, very briefly if I to respond.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Senator Johnston.

t that means or what kind of penalties there saying that we would have our own development not know how you can come to that conclusion mework or based upon an approach that over a upon U.S. technology and the potential of U.S. ement.

faith in that in the administration. We believe up in the right kind of way and working very try, in fact, this can be very promising for our development. We have to go with that flow. That And we ought to depend upon that. much, Senator Johnston.

Senator Johnston.

ON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

you have a very daunting task. This is one of the difficult subjects and one of the most confused happen to think that the President made an exving you in this position.

nk you, Senator Johnston.'

ON. I think we all need to support you. That does e with you on everything or the administration. that you are the right man for this very difficult nk you, sir.

ON. The problem is there are huge dilemmas inst of all, the United States is very vulnerable to e rest of the world. I mean 22 percent of greenduced by transportation. We have more autoasoline and more driving than any country in the ne how many horsepower my car has.

ON. But I am like other Americans, we want big to drive them a lot. And I can tell you, having Es a gallon tax on gasoline, 10 cents a year over e seventies, Americans are not going to swallow like CAFE, and I have proposed that, too. I am chat it would be a mistake to propose that. So umber one.