ide a little bit with is a better set of-a better way and setting priorities in that research. a suspicion that we picked up that some of the things gotten a large share of the funding available have probupon further or even prior analysis, been the kinds of t are likely to have the highest impacts. most of the research at this point is leaning towards the narket impacts. This would be effects on farm incomes ry, and developed coastal zones and a few other things elatively modest, so it is suspected that most of the action in types of health effects, including the interplay between e and urban air pollution, because all of the rate reacne tropospheric ozone problem and so on are significantly by the climate, and so I think those two things, more ined funding, perhaps more international cooperation, I process for setting priorities. there are individuals, particularly within the EPA now, ctually working very hard to make sure that the research ne is the highest payoff research in terms of the policy t you are facing here. JOHNSTON. Do you both agree that clearly the best opfor at least reducing increases in greenhouse gases are eloping world? NTGOMERY. That certainly appears to be the case, if we fective ways of influencing their decisions. JOHNSTON. But per dollar spent, I mean, it is overy clear, is it not? ANT. Well, I think the other thing you pointed out, Senston, is it may be possible to use a no-regrets argument ple in the developing countries to be more sensitive to a variant on what was a comment attributed to Secretary d that is you do not need to do this because it is good for mate change, you need to do this because your people are adverse health effects from acid rain and tropospheric your Bangkok example is a good one. It should not be o convince people there that although they are a developy, if everybody is going to get ill, and it could get much at that would be reason enough to reduce carbon emis e. JOHNSTON. Well, I think that is right, but the follow-on e going to have to have a lot of money to do it, and anis the dilemmas of this thing is that Americans are genre willing to see regulations put on their corporations, gh it may cost several times more than a tax on those orations, particularly if that tax is perceived to go abroad n of that awful thing, foreign aid. you are really going to do the most effective thing, you a pot of money, and along with a lot of preaching and g of developing countries to the effect that they need to these things in their own interest, but we would also help in reconfiguring your powerplants, or building subeu of highways, or building other things that consume open for 2 weeks to provide witnesses with time t I want to thank you again for an excellent set of the witnesses today. It has been an excellent h very much, and the committee will adjourn. [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was adj *The testimony can be found in the appendix. Hon. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Following the September 17, 1996 h Secretary Timothy Wirth testified, additional questions w record. Please find enclosed the responses to those questions. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesit Sincerely, [Enclosures.] B RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MUR Question 1. Your written testimony of September 17, 1996 lin agreement specifies that there will be no new commitmen try Parties, it calls for advancing the implementation of the e ments agreed to by developing countries and allows for negoti ments to begin as soon as work under the Berlin agreement existing treaty, developing countries are required to adopt po reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are working now to dev for advancing implementation of these existing commitmen countries." (a) Please identify the specific language of any provision Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), togeth article and paragraph in which such language is found, that countries to adopt policies and measures to "reduce" their gree (i) Isn't it true that, during negotiation of the UNFCCC, t refused to agree to language that committed them to "limit" growth" of their greenhouse gas emissions, much less "reduce" (ii) If your answer to Question (i) is not an unqualified “y the fact that, although Article 4.2(a) of the UNFCCC commi I) countries to adopt policies and take corresponding measure climate change "by limiting" greenhouse gas emissions, Article cable to developed and developing countries, referred merely t climate change "by addressing" greenhouse gas emissions? Answer. The Convention's Article 4.1 provides that all På implement, publish and regularly update national programs mitigate climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissi movals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the believe that this is a real commitment, and one that applies t as well as to developed countries. The question, however, suggests a nomenclature with res duce", "limit", "limit the growth", and "address" that is mo usage in the Climate Convention justifies. In brief, the Inters Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that global greenhous (91) that the new legal instrument will contain provisions that sin Article 4.1 and continue to advance the implementa, as called for in the Berlin Mandate. sted in the question are among the most advanced of the that are not listed in Annex I. Two have already joined omic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the negorrent Convention, membership in the OECD was widely developed country status. nticipates that the status of countries will evolve over time ablished no agreed thresholds or process through which gnized. Consequently, this remains a matter for further Ons progress toward a new legal instrument. tify the specific language in the Berlin Mandate that "alew commitments [by developing nations] to begin as soon agreement is complete." Isn't it more accurate to say that nt on that issue? ndate recognizes that Article 4.2(a) and (b) of the Conveny with the commitments of developed country Parties, are he Parties-all Parties-agreed to begin a process to take - period beyond 2000. This process will include efforts to nts of developed country Parties in Article 4.2(a) and (b). to reaffirm existing commitments in Article 4.1-commitParties, including developing country Parties-and conementation of these commitments. The Berlin Mandate enwill culminate at the Third Conference of the Parties, now 997 in Kyoto, Japan, in the adoption of a protocol or other lin Mandate pertains to next steps under the Convention taking in 1997. It is clear that those steps will be only longer path toward meeting the Convention's ultimate ob7(e) requires the Conference of the Parties to assess the nvention, the overall effects of the measures taken, and gress toward the objective of the Convention is being ires that the Conference of the Parties periodically examParties and the institutional arrangements under the Conective of the Convention, the experience gained in its imution of scientific and technological knowledge. And Artionference of the Parties to make the decisions necessary mplementation of the Convention. Taken together, these Convention ensure that negotiations on new commitments ties can begin as soon as the current round of negotiations is completed. U.S. delegation insist on a provision in the protocol or anich is to be negotiated in the AGBM, or a decision of the (COP) at its third session (COP-3), that obligates all Parnex I Parties, to begin negotiations of new commitments |