va.

Americans who will be affected by these negotiat whose jobs may be lost and their wallets may whose life styles may be changed do not often tra Berlin to watch these U.N. negotiations and unders what is going on there.

So we hope this hearing will provide everyone w derstanding of what is behind this change of polic to shed some light on some of the following question Has the administration concluded the rigorous an understand the competitive and economic implicat policy? We also hope to shed some light on other qu

Has science reached a consensus that dangerous will result from human influences? What are the a scientific uncertainty? How well is the process used tion on Climate Change to inform and guide poli the science of climate change working? Is science s are policymakers trying to shape science?

What are the economic implications of the adm proach? What will be the impacts on U.S. jobs, e and the balance of payments? And are there econ in waiting to achieve greenhouse reductions later r er? Are there economic and environmental advant on reductions in the developing world rather tha world?

Well, these are all questions that I hope we ca morning, and we look forward to the testimony o [The prepared statements of Senators Akaka and

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENAT

I want to thank Chairman Murkowski for holding a hearin topic. Global climate change is the most complex environmental lem confronting humanity.

The problem calls for actions now if we are to avoid future cli ances that would wreak havoc on our planet. The potential chan cause profound disturbances for agriculture, water resources, o and human health. It goes without saying that the impact on m ing ours, would be enormous.

vel rise. Coastal areas of our country, and around the world, are heavily popuThese areas may be at significant risk.

Chairman, the scientific evidence to date suggests that anthropogenic activie having a measurable effect on our planet's climate. One may argue about ientific and technical details and specific numbers, but the overall conclusion sputable.

plaud President Clinton's efforts in this area. He has urged all Americans and nations of the world to prepare their economies for the twenty-first century environmentally responsible manner.

30 applaud President Clinton's efforts to involve the private sector as a key r in addressing this problem. The creativity and the genius of the private sece necessary to develop solutions to our long-term environmental problems, esy the problems associated with global climate.

1 pleased that we are not only participating in the United Nations Framework ntion on Climate Change but also playing a leadership role, thanks to the eff Under Secretary Wirth.

ARED STATEMENT OF HON. WENDELL H. FORD, U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY Chairman, I am glad you have scheduled today's hearing on Global Climate e. This is a topic which is right below the radar screen today-but which has tant and far reaching consequences for tomorrow. The international negotiaunder the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change are a high priority s Administration, and should receive the close scrutiny of this committee. n especially concerned with the potential implications of any international neons for the coal industry in my state. I am concerned about the potential for g two international standards-one for developed countries and one for develcountries. I share the concerns of others on this committee about the scientific for negotiating any new standards. I am concerned about the potential longmpacts for both domestic energy production and our competitiveness overseas. ere are many questions in my mind about where we are headed. Obviously, k we will find that this Administration wants to balance economic and enviental considerations very carefully. I plan to listen closely today and over the everal months to the many affected parties in my state as these Climate Treaotiations proceed.

e CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnston.

ATEMENT OF HON. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

nator JOHNSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

-. Chairman, this may well be my last hearing on any energyed topic, and I think it is appropriate that it be on global clichange, one of the most interesting issues to come before us. n I was chairman of this committee, we held the first hearings And most of the hearings on global climate change have been before this committee, a fact of which I am proud.

obal climate change is an issue that illustrates, in microcosm, he difficulties of integrating sound science into public policy, a ggle which has been at the centerpiece of my Senate career. As stitution, Congress faces enormous challenges in connecting ce and public policy.

ientific research is often not conclusive. There is always one experiment to be done, one more hypothesis to be examined. most any issue, one can find a decent number of intelligent arians in the scientific community. This makes for stimulating fruitful debate among scientists, and it often gets all aspects policy examined. But it confuses the political world, which sto scientists for clear and simple answers. As one member of ress supposedly said, "I am tired of hearing scientists tell me

In contrast to much of science, public policy is often mad pressure cooker situation, where emotions run high. To achi litical progress, proponents of a cause often feel they must ex ate the consequences of inaction in order to galvanize their and to overcome institutional inertia.

There is not an easy fit between these forces and motiv And the global warming debate has been marked by excesse from the environmental movement and from the industry.

Some environmentalists claim that recent extreme weathe nomenon, be they hurricanes or blizzards, are signs of hun duced global warming. This is junk science. It takes the exist search far beyond where it can properly go. The recent IP port, to its credit, repeatedly refuses to make any such conne With respect to any connection between global warming and storms, the IPCC says this:

"Knowledge is currently insufficient to say whether there any changes in the occurrence or geographical distribution vere storms, that is, tropical cyclones, as a result of warm mates."

You cannot get any clearer than that from scientists.

Some environmentalists also have a peculiar blind spot w comes to technologies that could help prevent global warmin clear power and hydropower never seem to appear on the technologies to consider. We are worried, of course, about emissions of greenhouse gases from China as it moderniz grows. China alone will install, over the next few decades, electric power generation capacity at a rate 10 times greate that which is expected in the United States. Development of power in the Yangtze Valley and the use of safe forms of power should be high on the world's wish list for China.

Yet many in the environmental movement oppose efforts t the Chinese markets to modern-and I might say safe-U clear powerplants, as well as U.S. participation in projects s the Three Gorges Dam. Such projects are not without e mental cost. But are not the costs potentially less than the native?

If environmentalists want to have credibility on global w with politicians representing the broad center in this countr they need to advocate a balanced portfolio of energy supply o including nuclear and hydropower, and not simply treat warming as another talking point for a preexisting agenda.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, some in ir are now trying to obfuscate the basic facts about global change. Their target is the latest IPCC report, and the s seems to be to impune the integrity of the scientists invo writing it. This, I believe, is a disgrace. There is no credi dence that the IPCC report has been subjected to, quote, "sc cleansing," as has been charged. There is not a shred of e of misconduct by any scientist involved in writing this report This sort of smoke screen is unfortunately all too com Washington. If you are losing on substance, attack on pro you are losing there, too, then start attacking personally.

a row, and industry nas been nownere to pe

its to have credibility on global warming with ing the broad center in this country, then it ly supporting programs like GEF, instead of t is against.

nge is real, and the scientists are telling us ponent of it may be becoming discernible. But of real questions to argue about, a fact that ues that are being conjured up by some envime in industry even more indefensible.

the real issues that we should be debating: agnitude of the human influence on climate, be most seriously felt? Are developments such turing likely to help or hinder mitigation of sions? Should we act to reduce greenhouse gas ould we wait for a few decades, until we know and about the potential technological alters? If we wait, are we willing to take the risk ising might happen to our climate as a result? policy that incorporates both adaptation to a steps to prevent that warmer climate through at should be the mix between mitigation and

d to the challenges of these questions and to rsy involving science and public policy with nd mutual respect among persons with differnot with emotions, personal attacks and self

nd to shape the future course of our Nation's e change as a member of this committee. I do his and future hearings, we maintain a dias that is factually based, mutually respectful ablic interest.

airman.

hank you, Senator Johnston, for that very ion. And as you indicated, you have been at you leave, those of us remaining will continue

Senator Thomas.

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENAT
FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admire th man's statement and also the ranking member's. They are and right on track. I will try to avoid the senatorial idea erything has been said but not everybody has said it, and mit my statement for the record.

First, let me thank you for having this hearing. I have to a lot of people who are quite interested in this issue. nately, there has not been a great deal of discussion about Therefore, this hearing should prove helpful. It is impo many people.

I hope that we can find a way to base any evidence of g mate change on peer-reviewed science. We need to find a balance the costs involved, and those that will be involve important, we can find a way to have fairness among the pants. That is key. Certainly, there will be involvement by gress and the this administration on the key issues.

I would like to submit my statement for the record, Mr

man.

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM W Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time to schedule this importa to examine the issue of global climate change. I am pleased that Under of State Timothy Wirth, who led the U.S. Delegations during the Clima negotiations in Geneva and Berlin, is testifying before this committee toda As we approach the 21st Century, the world will face many new opportu challenges. With that in mind, it will be necessary for every country to eva it will administer new programs-and environmental regulation is no exc need to look at regulations and evaluate them, look for new ways to get sults. That, of course, is what has driven the debate over the last two do not let me repeat-we do not want to roll-back progress in the area mental regulation. The goals of economic growth and environmental pro not have to be mutually exclusive. We can do both.

The basis for a balance must come from several areas: sound, pee science and a cost-benefit analysis approach. Using good science, and not tional rhetoric, ensures we're spending limited resources on actual probler up building support for whatever measures we take because folks will fidence that the sacrifices they are making are worth something. Cost-b beyond whether we ought to be doing something, but rather lets us decid to spend our money. Once we decide to address a problem, we need to t tives that give us the best results for the smallest cost.

Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration's effort to push for legally-b quirements on Annex 1-or developed-nations to reduce emissions even the current goals, relies on emotional arguments, not science. Furtherm jects the cost-benefit concept and, I believe, puts the American econon while ensuring nothing less than the worsening of the problem the Adm claims to want to fix. This is frustrating to me because it's our industric aware of the problems and are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emis U.S. and other developed countries are the ones with the knowledge and to have cleaner industrial development. Simply put, our industries are cle in underdeveloped countries,

However, the reductions being pushed by the Administration will let u oped countries off the hook. They won't have to meet the strict requirer our industries do. Regulations that could potentially reduce our Gross Product by $200 billion, eliminate thousands of American jobs and force