science. We want to take this false issue off the table and reinforce our belief that the IPCC's findings meet the highest standards of scientific integrity. We also note with regret that the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), blocked by a very small group of countries, did not agree on how to use the IPCC report. Let me make clear the U.S. view: The science calls upon us to take urgent action; the IPCC report is the best science we have, and we should use it. In the ongoing scientific effort, Mr. Chairman, I want to note that the United States is proud of the more than $1 billion annual investment it has been making in recent years on global change research. This is a cost we have taken on in order to enhance our own and the world's understanding of the Earth's atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems and represents not only the seriousness with which we view these matters, but also the willingness of President Clinton and the American people to help pioneer progress on behalf of the environment.

The United States of America takes very seriously the IPCC's recently issued Second Assessment Report, which underscores and amplifies the panel's initial workrefining estimates and revealing new understandings that serve to signal even louder alarm bells. From our perspective, the most salient of these findings are as follows:

The chemical composition of the atmosphere is being altered by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

The continued buildup of these gases will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and cause the global climate to change.

Based on these facts and additional underlying science, the second assessment reported that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." This seemingly innocuous comment is in fact a remarkable statement: for the first time ever, the world's scientists have reached the conclusion that the world's changing climatic conditions are more than the natural variability of weather. Human beings are altering the Earth's natural climate system. In turn, the best scientific evidence indicates that human-induced climate change, if allowed to continue unabated, could have profound consequences for the economy and the quality of life of future generations:

• Human health is at risk from projected increases in the spread of diseases like malaria, yellow fever and cholera;

• Food security is threatened in certain regions of the world;

• Water resources are expected to be increasingly stressed, with substantial economic, social and environmental costs in regions that are already water-limited, and perhaps even political costs where there is already conflict over limited re

sources.

• Coastal areas-where a large percentage of the global population lives—are at risk from sea level rise.

In our opinion, the IPCC has clearly demonstrated that action must be taken to address this challenge and that, as agreed in Berlin, more needs to be done through the Convention. This problem cannot be wished away. The science cannot be ignored and is increasingly compelling. The obligation of policymakers is to respond with the same thoughtfulness that has characterized the work of the world's scientific community.

Unhappily, Mr. Chairman, while the established international scientific process is working well, the international policy process, as established under the Convention, has not been as successful. The shortcomings of the Convention-its failure to address the post-2000 period, for example were well explored in Berlin and do not bear repeating today. The most salient fact is now more apparent than ever: the current Convention structure has not achieved the results that were anticipated. Few nations in either the developed or developing world have been fully successful in meeting their commitments under articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Convention. We have to do better.

Over the past year, the United States has been engaged at home and internationally in serious analysis of the successes and failures of the current Convention structure, as well as of the practicality of the various proposals for next steps that have been put forward in recent discussions. While we still have much work to do, our analysis and consideration of this issue to date have led us to certain conclusions about the form of an agreement we hope these negotiations will consider and pursue. In the months ahead, our ongoing analysis and assessment will allow us to more precisely articulate the specific contents that the United States could support. We begin, Mr. Chairman, from the following set of principles, which will guide our consideration of various proposals, and which we believe should guide our multilateral negotiations:

First, our negotiations focus on outcomes that are real and achievable. Sound policies pursued in the near term will allow us to avoid the prospect of truly draconian

and economically disruptive policies in the future. Measured adjustments now and in the years ahead will enable all nations to reduce emissions in an economically sensible manner. Denial and delay will only make our economies vulnerable in the future.

Second, the United States will continue to seek market-based solutions that are flexible and cost-effective. We will not accept proposals that are offered for competitive, not environmental reasons. Serious proposals in the future must not be thinly veiled attempts to gain economic advantage. This is a global problem with global impacts and therefore requires solutions that are fair, and that will ensure prosperity-now and in the future-for all the world's people.

And third, the agreement should lay the foundation for continuing progress by all nations in the future. The United States believes that international cooperation on this challenge remains critical to any effective response, and that all nations-developed and developing must contribute to the solution to this challenge. We believe that, while this is a long-term challenge, we must start making progress now and engage the public and private sectors over the medium- term as well. Climate change is a serious problem and will require sustained long-term investment and the full creativity of the marketplace.

President Clinton has urged all Americans and all nations to prepare their economies for the 21st century. Meeting this challenge requires that the genius of the private sector be brought to bear on the challenge of developing the technologies that are necessary to ensure our long-term environmental and economic prosperity. Based on these principles-encompassing environmental protection, realism and achievability, economic prosperity, flexibility, fairness and comprehensiveness the United States recommends that future negotiations focus on an agreement that sets a realistic, verifiable and binding medium-term emissions target. We believe that the medium-term target must be met through maximum flexibility in the selection of implementation measures, including the use of reliable activities implemented jointly, and trading mechanisms around the world. In addition, our view is that it will be necessary to continue working toward a longer-term concentration goal (e.g. for the next 50-100 years), as set out in the Convention's objective, recognizing that scientific understanding and technology will improve over time. Working toward such a goal would better establish the long-term, global nature of the problem.

Having outlined in broad terms the basic components of an agreement we could support, I want to underscore the expectation of the United States that the agreement be realistic and achievable. Our preliminary analysis of some of the targets that have been tabled for consideration to date suggests that these proposals are neither realistic nor achievable—either because they would compromise other important principles, such as the need for flexibility in time and place of implementation, or because they involve timeframes and objectives that are not consistent with national and international prosperity. Our job in the months ahead is to search for agreement on a next step that will produce results that are consistent with our environmental and economic aspirations.

Others have suggested that the negotiations move toward consideration of some ambitious mandatory, internationally coordinated policies and measures. In particular, suggestions are emerging for annexes to the agreement outlining specific actions that relevant Parties would be required to undertake, such as, for example, agreed fiscal or regulatory policies. In our view, the significant differences in national circumstances and individual national approaches to these matters suggest that few, if any individual measures are likely to be applicable to all countries. Therefore, as a general proposition, the United States opposes mandatory harmonized policies and measures. We are open to the possibility of exploring consensus on agreed procedural measures, for example those that might be necessary to implement an international trading regime or ensure enhanced reporting.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss a difficult component of the negotiations, but one that is essential if we are to make progress over the long-term. The United States is committed to ensuring that all countries-developed and developing-take steps to limit emissions, consistent with the mandate agreed upon last year in Berlin. We look forward to working together to develop strategies for advancing implementation of this Convention. While we recognize that developed countries have the responsibility to lead, we also believe that this effort must be a partnership with all nations. We stand ready to continue our efforts to provide technical expertise to work with developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to continue the partnership which we have begun with many.

In summary, we have come to the conclusion that the current structure of the Convention is less than ideal. Performance under the current regime-or lack thereof-suggests that a new model must be considered. Next steps must be structured in a way that will help produce the desired results—not just more rhetoric. We be

lieve that circumstances warrant the adoption of a realistic but binding target, leaving it to individual governments to decide the most appropriate measures needed to meet the agreed target. We are convinced that the target must be both realistic and binding because it is only through the surety of a commitment of this nature that governments will take their obligations seriously and the only way we can be assured of progress.

We are also convinced that it is the target that should be binding, not the individual measures, thus allowing maximum flexibility in implementation. Continued use of non-binding targets that are not met makes a mockery of the treaty process. It leaves the impression that rhetoric is what counts rather than real emission reductions-an outcome that is both unacceptable and counterproductive.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is committed to making the international climate change process work. The science is convincing; concern about global warming is real and that we must continue to take steps to address this problem consistent with our long-term economic and environmental aspirations. Working together, it is imperative that we marshal the creativity and will necessary to address this farreaching challenge. The United States hopes we can negotiate an agreement that is comprehensive, flexible, fair and certain, and which will help prepare our country and the world-environmentally and economically-for the next century.

THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY,
New York, NY, September 9, 1996.

Hon. TIMOTHY WIRTH, Under Secretary for Global Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. WIRTH: When we met at Rockefeller University on March 3, 1995, you gave those present the impression that the U.S. Government would not adopt a policy of legally-binding targets and timetables for the control of greenhouse gas emissions in place of the voluntary Climate Action Plan instituted by the White House in October 1994. We were surprised to learn from direct quote by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rafe Pomerance cited in Nature (July 25) that "the administration has been working on this policy for more than a year."

We are naturally dismayed to find that you have changed your position in spite of what appeared to be your previous assurances-and without giving a considered hearing to opposing views from scientists or from consumer and industry groups likely to be affected by such policies. We hope that the Congress will provide such a forum before far-reaching and economically disastrous policies, like energy taxes or rationing, are imposed on the American public.

We are frankly puzzled that you would cite climate science as the reason for this policy shift. In July 1996, at the COP-2 meeting in Geneva, you declared: "The science calls on us to take urgent action." If anything, scientific support for mandatory targets is weaker now than it was four years ago when the Climate Treaty was signed. Yet the State Department briefing paper asserts: "The first and foremost reason for launching this new direction is the science." DOE assistant secretary, Dirk Forrister, refers to the science as "convincing and compelling." It is neither; the scientific evidence certainly does not support such statements.

We wish to remind you that at least two-thirds of the warming in this century occurred before 1940, i.e., before most of the increase in greenhouse gases. The period, 1940-1975, showed a cooling. More important perhaps, the highly accurate global temperature data from weather satellites show no warming whatsoever in the last 18 years, while the climate models predict a warming of 0.4 to 0.6C. Clearly, the theoretical models have not been validated by actual observations. Why then should we trust them to predict a future warming?

The shift in your position comes at a time when it was discovered that substantial, possibly unauthorized changes were made in the IPCC report that forms the scientific basis for decisions regarding the UN Climate convention. The revisions were made quietly after the acceptance of the report and before its printing. As confirmed in the scientific journal Nature (June 13), the changes altered the sense of the (scientific) report and were done in order to "conform" it to the IPCC's (political) Summary for Policymakers. The same Nature article reveals that phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these [IPCC] conclusions . . . have disappeared."

66

some

We have now learned of the existence of a State Department letter, dated November 15, 1995, and addressed to Sir John Houghton, cohairman of the IPCC (Working Group). It states, inter alia, that "it is essential that chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of discussions at the IPCCWG-I plenary in Madrid, and that chap

ter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid."

This "modification" of the IPCC report has resulted in the deletion of the following three clauses (among others):

• "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

• No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

• "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

We call attention to the fact that these three clauses were in the final draft of Chapter 8 and had been agreed to by all four lead authors, 31 contributors, and an unspecified number of reviewers. In other words, the deleted clauses represented their considered scientific opinion. We believe that the removal of these clauses is unwarranted, seriously impairs the credibility of the IPCC, and raises the additional question: By what authority did the State Department prevail upon an internationally constituted scientific body to make such changes?

In our opinion, the three deleted clauses not only belong in the IPCC report, but should have been placed into the Summary as indicating our best current scientific judgment about enhanced greenhouse warming. There is nothing in the Summary to support or validate the climate models that predict a substantial future warming. On the contrary, the estimates of IPCC 1995 are substantially less than they were in 1992 or in 1990. The Summary for Policymakers makes no mention of even the existence of the weather satellite data (that show absolutely no warming over the past 18 years). Instead, reliance is placed on an ambiguous phrase: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

As an attorney, you will surely recognize that this contrived phrase conveys different meanings to different audiences; scientists read in quite another way than policymakers.

Scientists will accept this phrase and just shrug their shoulders. We have known for years now that human activities can affect not only local, but also regional and even global climate. For example, during the past five decades, there has been a downward trend in the frequency of intense hurricanes, -0.32 intense hurricanes/ year per decade, significant at the 2% level. (reference: Landsca et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 23, pp. 1697-1700, 15 June 1996).

We could mention other well-known examples, but please note: The existence of such presumed human influences does not by itself validate the climate models. In particular, it cannot be used to claim a substantial temperature rise in the next century-nor does the IPCC summary make such a claim. The likely reason: IPCC scientists would never have agreed to this. What the Summary does is to report the outcome of climate model calculations (that have never been validated). It then implies that the "human influences" somehow validate these models. They do not!

Thus, while the IPCC phrase does not in any way confirm a future warming, it does convey such an impression to policymakers; and indeed, since we do not find any specific disclaimer in the Summary, this may have been the purpose. Judging from your statements in Geneva and those of other government officials, this purpose has been accomplished. The Ministerial Declaration of 18 July 1996, under paragraph 2, specifically-and improperly-links the IPCC phrase about "human influence" to a temperature increase of 20 by 2100. Obviously, acting in good faith, you must yourself believe that all of the climate disasters linked to a major global warming are likely to come true. Please be assured that this is not the case.

Article 2 of the Climate Convention ties any action to "dangerous" levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. No one has yet defined this term, nor does the IPCC report shed any light on where it might be. As a consequence, we do not know whether the present level of carbon dioxide is dangerous or not. Yet the policy statements assume that the present level, or even twice the present level, is a desirable goal. There is no scientific support for such a policy goal.

As a matter of fact, it may turn out that only by restoring atmospheric CO2 levels to those of a century ago can its effects on climate be avoided. This would require negative emissions, which if obviously a daunting task. But even stabilizing emissions at the 1990 level would be a difficult task, especially considering economic growth taking place throughout the world. As the IPCC report demonstrates, even cutting emission levels globally by as much as 50 percent would do no more than to stretch out the time for reaching a doubling of the atmospheric level of CO2.

We believe, therefore, that the action of the U.S. Government in pressing for mandatory emissions targets is precipitous and not based on adequate science. Our

views are in accord with those of a number of Republican as well as Democratic senators. A July 10th letter to the President from Senator Frank Murkowski and seven other senators expresses doubt that the "human-induced climate change was a significant problem that required immediate action" and quotes language from the IPCC report that confirms these doubts. A July 17th letter to President Clinton, signed by Senator J. Bennett Johnston and five fellow senators, complains about the lack of an "adequate basis of analysis and assessment." They believe that it is "premature for the United States to agree to any particular numerical target or date for carbon dioxide emission reductions." The senators "urge the suspension of substantive negotiations [on amending the Climate Treaty] until this controversy over the representation of scientific views can be resolved."

All of the undersigned support a public statement to that effect, based on a conference heid in the city of Leipzig, Germany, in November 1995. Some 100 meteorologists and climate scientists have joined us in signing the Leipzig Declaration, including even some who are listed as IPCC contributors.

In view of this vote of nonconfidence in the IPCC summary, we urge you not to claim the existence of a "scientific consensus" on global warming, nor to claim that the IPCC report, or climate science, justifies the mandatory policy actions you now champion.

Sincerely,

Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. (Max McGraw Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology; founding president and now executive advisor, Gas Research Institute); William A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. (director emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography; member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering); Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. (president emeritus, The Rockefeller University; past president, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; holder of the National Medal of Science; S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; first director, US Weather Satellite Service; former chief scientist, DOT); Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. (founding president, Electrical Power Research Institute; National Medal of Technology; member, National Academy of Engineering)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.

Dr. HENRY R. LINDEN

Dr. WILLIAM A. NIERENBERG

Dr. FREDERICK SEITZ

Dr. FRED SINGER

Dr. CHAUNCEY STARR,

The Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

GENTLEMEN: I am in receipt of the September 9th letter, sent to me and signed on your behalf. I appreciate your continuing interest.

Before getting to the technical aspects of the letter, let me address several points of fact. Last year I responded to an invitation to meet with your group of five scientists; contrary to the implication of your September 9th letter, only two of you came to the meeting: Messrs. Seitz and Singer. During the hour long discussion in Professor Seitz's office, most of the time was consumed by Professor Seitz's argumentation against the science that led to decisions to stop the production and use of ozone depleting substances. Accordingly, Professor Seitz hoped that the U.S. Government would not support a treaty on climate as flawed as the Montreal Protocol and the science behind it. Contrary to your September 9th letter, the only discussion of a treaty was Prof. Seitz's attack on the Montreal Protocol.

Given these facts, you can understand how it is difficult for me to understand how you can be dismayed since most of you weren't at the meeting, and the points which dismay you weren't even discussed. You might want to check both meeting attendance and agenda.

The following respond to the major issues raised in your letter:

1. You suggest that the Administration has failed to consider certain views held by several scientists or from consumer and industry groups.

This is patently false-belied, most notably by the record cited in your letter: at your request I went to Rockefeller University to discuss the issue of global climate change. Similarly, I have met with a broad spectrum of individuals on the issue and the Administration has undertaken a comprehensive effort to meet with, hear from and consider all interested parties and suggestions: