NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1993 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, chairman, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. Welcome to this morning's hearing on the administration's effort to develop a National Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are honored to have with us Hazel O'Leary, the Secretary of Energy, and Robert Sussman who is Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, Tim Wirth, former member of this committee and now Counselor to the State Department, could not be here today to present his testimony. He has, however, prepared written testimony and we thank him for that.* I am also sorry that Dr. Laura Tyson, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, could not be with us this morning. Given the importance of economic forecasting in evaluating the long-term trends in emissions, her expertise would have been extremely helpful and I hope her future schedule will permit her to appear before this committee. Today's hearing represents one in a long series of hearings this committee has held on the science and policy surrounding global climate change. In the past we have heard expert testimony on this issue from the foremost members of the scientific community. However, today's hearing is focused not on the scientific debate, but on the tough, and no less contentious questions of practical application. The President on Earth Day announced his commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Under the direction of the White House Office of Environmental Policy, the Climate Change Mitigation Group has begun debating the variety of emissions reduction strategies that could be implemented to meet the President's stabilization goal. In turn, the administration intends to present this plan in August at * See page 5. the International Negotiating Committee of the Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Geneva. It is my understanding that this August plan will be the basis for the National Action Plan required under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. As this plan is hammered out in domestic and international negotiations, the United States may be forced to consider novel and untried approaches to greenhouse gas emission reductions. One such approach is joint implementation. Will the United States or individual companies be allowed to receive credit for emissions reduction activities taken in other countries? Although there are several aspects to joint implementation that will require further study, a multilateral approach appears to be an attractive and costeffective option, and definitely one worth pursuing in international negotiations. Joint implementation also provides a golden opportunity for U.S. businesses to sell energy-efficient and environmental technologies overseas, a policy that was strongly endorsed by last year's Energy Policy Act. The committee is interested in being a party to the development of this National Action Plan, and I sincerely hope that the administration will continue to keep us well informed throughout the development of the plan. In addition, there are many important provisions in the Energy Policy Act relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear power-all important components of a greenhouse gas stabilization policy-and I look forward to working with the administration to see that these are fully implemented and included in the National Action Plan. I understand that the administration is in the midst of holding a series of public workshops on policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I hope the White House will continue this constructive dialogue with members of the environmental and business community. I think both groups can offer valuable insight in the administration's development of cost-effective and constructive policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that our distinguished witnesses can return before the committee in the fall following the August meeting of the International Negotiating Committee in order to report on their progress in developing a plan for meeting the President's greenhouse stabilization goals. Once again, I thank our witnesses for clearing their busy schedules to join us today, and we look forward to hearing from the Secretary of Energy. [The prepared statements of Senators Akaka, Wallop and Baucus and Mr. Wirth follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII Few people may realize it, but the debate over global climate change began in Hawaii. Twenty-five years ago, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was first documented at the Mauna Loa Climate Observatory. I am sure that the scientists at Mauna Loa didn't realize how much excitement their observations would generate. When you consider the potential consequences of global climate change, it seems very appropriate that this discovery was made on an island in the middle of the Pacific. Global warming is expected to produce a phenomenon that strikes fear in the hearts of many island communities. That phenomenon is sea level rise. Much of the debate surrounding climate change is taking place in cities like Washington, Rio De Janeiro, and Geneva, Switzerland-where a meeting of climate change will occur next month. Yet it is the low-lying reef and atoll islands such as those found in the Pacific that may be the most threatened by sea level rise. If predictions for sea level rise materialize, rising seas and storm surges will render some islands uninhabitable. One Pacific leader summarized the concerns of islanders when he said: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for conclusive proof of global warning. The proof, we fear, will kill us." The most reliable estimate of sea level rise has been prepared by the International Panel on Climate Change, commonly known as the IPCC. Their "best estimate" of a 26 inch rise in world sea levels by the year 2100. If such a scenario proves correct, many Pacific islands will simply disappear at high tide. On a global scale, if the IPCC estimate proves correct, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has estimated that the number of people who would be vulnerable to storm surges and flooding would nearly double, increasing from 100 million to 200 million people. That places a lot of people living in coastal areas at risk. Islanders like myself bring a unique perspective to the debate about climate change. For that reason, I am very receptive to the Clinton Administration's proposals for reducing greenhouse emissions. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MALCOLM WALLOP, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING In his April 21st Earth Day speech, President Clinton announced our nation's new commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000 and continue the trend of reduced emissions thereafter. This is a more stringent_commitment than required by the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It not only commits the United States to the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions but also to a timetable for its achievement. I would note that it was the position of the Senate when ratifying the Convention that any decision by the Executive Branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables to the United States would require further ratification by the Senate (Exec. Rept 102-55). When the Bush Administration signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change last June on behalf of the United States, I expressed my concern that pressures on the United States to sign the Convention were being driven by politics-not sound science. That still seems the case. At the time, the Convention deferred a number of issues regarding rules of procedure, measurement methodologies and a host of institutional issues. These issues remain to be resolved. Consequently, many of the questions on how the convention will be implemented, as well as the science on which it is based, are still evolving. Notwithstanding these scientific uncertainties, the United States must now prepare a National Action Plan. On June 10th and 11th, the White House convened workshops with the stakeholders to identify candidate options for possible inclusion in "cost-effective" Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Plan. The President intends that this plan be presented at the August 1993 meeting of the International Negotiating Committee in Geneva, Switzerland. In conducting its review, I would encourage the Administration to incorporate the initiatives contained in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. It is not a sign of weakness to rely on the bipartisan actions of the last Congress and the last Administration as building blocks for an even better national energy strategy. Moreover, it is the law. To his credit, the President has shown a commitment to greater public participation in the formulation of his climate change initiatives. Efforts such as the recent Global Climate Change workshops are to be commended, and should be continued through the final preparation of a National Action Plan for the United States. The President also expressed his desire that the options for inclusion in the August Plan be "cost-effective" and not result in more "bureaucracy or regulation or unnecessary costs." These are laudable goals that I strongly support. Perhaps today's witnesses can help us understand how this is going to be achieved and the criteria the Administration will use for this purpose. For the record, Congress opposed the inclusion of environmental externalities in such determinations when the 1992 Energy Policy Act was formulated. Finally, in his Earth Day remarks, President Clinton implied that he was advocating unilateral actions by the United States. Unilateral actions were not envisioned when the treaty was submitted to the Senate for ratification and, I believe, would be inappropriate in light of statements made by members of the COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming BENJAMIN S. COOPER, Staff Director CONTENTS STATEMENTS ......................... Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii Sussman, Robert, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Wallop, Hon. Malcolm, U.S. Senator from Wyoming APPENDIXES APPENDIX I Responses to additional questions APPENDIX II 81 Additional material submitted for the record (III) |