Industry should stop damaging its own credibility by its attacks on the IPCC report. Industry should accept the report for what it is: a detailed and accurate statement of the world's scientific con

sensus.

Industry has its own blind spot, too, when it comes to Federal programs to understand and to respond to global warming. For example, for 2 years now, the President has submitted substantial budget requests for U.S. participation in the Global Environmental Facility, or GEF. Global climate change is the major focus of this fund. One GEF project is trying to introduce more energy-efficient refrigeration technologies to China. Refrigeration will be the largest single area of demand growth for electricity in China over the next few decades.

So this investment has tremendous leverage for reducing future greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major U.S. business opportunity. Yet Congress has slashed the President's budget request for GEF for 2 years in a row, and industry has been nowhere to be seen. If industry wants to have credibility on global warming with politicians representing the broad center in this country, then it needs to start actively supporting programs like GEF, instead of just telling us what it is against.

Global climate change is real, and the scientists are telling us that the human component of it may be becoming discernible. But there are still plenty of real questions to argue about, a fact that makes the phony issues that are being conjured up by some environmentalists and some in industry even more indefensible.

Here are some of the real issues that we should be debating: What is the likely magnitude of the human influence on climate, and where might it be most seriously felt? Are developments such as electricity restructuring likely to help or hinder mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions? Should we act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now or should we wait for a few decades, until we know more about climate and about the potential technological alternatives to fossil fuels? If we wait, are we willing to take the risk that something surprising might happen to our climate as a result? Should we develop a policy that incorporates both adaptation to a warmer climate with steps to prevent that warmer climate through mitigation? If so, what should be the mix between mitigation and adaptation?

We need to respond to the challenges of these questions and to every other controversy involving science and public policy with facts and analysis and mutual respect among persons with differing with views, and not with emotions, personal attacks and selfserving hyperbole.

I will not be around to shape the future course of our Nation's policy toward climate change as a member of this committee. I do hope that, through this and future hearings, we maintain a dialogue on these issues that is factually based, mutually respectful and focused on the public interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnston, for that very thoughtful presentation. And as you indicated, you have been at this a long time. As you leave, those of us remaining will continue

to seek your advice and counsel. Because this is something that is going to be with us for a long, long time.

Senator Thomas.

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING

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

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

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

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

man.

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time to schedule this important hearing to examine the issue of global climate change. I am pleased that Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth, who led the U.S. Delegations during the Climate Treaty negotiations in Geneva and Berlin, is testifying before this committee today.

As we approach the 21st Century, the world will face many new opportunities and challenges. With that in mind, it will be necessary for every country to evaluate how it will administer new programs-and environmental regulation is no exception. We need to look at regulations and evaluate them, look for new ways to get better results. That, of course, is what has driven the debate over the last two years. We do not let me repeat-we do not want to roll-back progress in the area of environmental regulation. The goals of economic growth and environmental protection do not have to be mutually exclusive. We can do both.

The basis for a balance must come from several areas: sound, peer-reviewed science and a cost-benefit analysis approach. Using good science, and not good emotional rhetoric, ensures we're spending limited resources on actual problems. It ends up building support for whatever measures we take because folks will have confidence that the sacrifices they are making are worth something. Cost-benefit goes beyond whether we ought to be doing something, but rather lets us decide how best to spend our money. Once we decide to address a problem, we need to take initiatives that give us the best results for the smallest cost.

Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration's effort to push for legally-binding requirements on Annex 1-or developed-nations to reduce emissions even more than the current goals, relies on emotional arguments, not science. Furthermore, it rejects the cost-benefit concept and, I believe, puts the American economy at risk while ensuring nothing less than the worsening of the problem the Administration claims to want to fix. This is frustrating to me because it's our industries that are aware of the problems and are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. and other developed countries are the ones with the knowledge and resources to have cleaner industrial development. Simply put, our industries are cleaner than in underdeveloped countries.

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

creases of 50 cents a gallon or more, while allowing more than fifty percent of the problem to go unaddressed. Clearly, this action will put our industry at a competitive disadvantage.

Mr. Chairman, the problem that arises is that as production falls in developed countries, those industries will move to underdeveloped nations. By the product of government regulation, we could drive the relatively cleaner U.S. industry out of business, thus increasing emissions of dirtier plants in undeveloped nations. The result is a worse American economy and a worse worldwide environment. That just doesn't make sense. We ought to focus on bringing all of the countries of the world to the table. Everyone ought to contribute to the cause. Asking all nations to contribute helps the environment, helps U.S. industry stay competitive and actually helps build new exports as we send our environmental technology expertise around the globe.

Before we get there, however, significant work needs to be done. First, we must work to build an adequate basis of analysis and assessment of the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and the implications of such a move. Second, we must not unfairly penalize the United States as compared to our global competitors. Third, the Administration needs to be frank with the American people and explain the economic and social impacts of any proposed changes. Finally, our policy must be based on cost-effectiveness and flexibility. I'd say the Administration isn't even close to meeting these tests.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the concerns I have with moving away from voluntary efforts and non-binding aims to legally-binding emissions targets that I'm assuming will be enforceable by international law. Let me just say, I will vigorously oppose any agreement that I think jeopardizes our competitiveness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our guests today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Grams.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MINNESOTA

Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of brief comments.

I believe everyone here today agrees that we need to protect our environment for the sake of future generations worldwide. But I am sure that there is going to be differences on how best to meet that goal. Hopefully, today's hearing will bring about some understanding and consensus on how best to address the climate change issue.

Now, while I applaud the State Department for engaging in an international dialogue on the issue, I still remain concerned, however, over the possibility that the United States could legally commit itself to imposing more taxes and regulations on our already overburdened taxpayers, their families and businesses. Moreover, I want to make sure that any actions brought about in these international negotiations are based on sound science. For too long, many of the Federal Government's actions have not been based on sound scientific findings. And I hope that will not be the case in these negotiations, as well.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I hope to have some answers to address any of my concerns.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if we hurry, we will get our main witness off before we get anyone else that comes in, because I know other Senators are coming in who will have opening statements.

Let me introduce you, Tim. You certainly served as a member of this committee in your previous life as a Senator from Colorado, and we welcome you back. You led the U.S. delegation during the

climate talks in Berlin and Geneva. And we are pleased to have you with us today.

Please, proceed.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnston, members of the committee.

I am especially pleased to be here, on a personal basis, on this historic day for Senator Johnston. Your statement, Senator Johnston, with which we are in almost complete agreement, reflects the balance for which you have become very famous, not only in the energy field, but across the Senate. So we salute you for your remarkable contributions. We are all deeply in your debt. And we thank you very much for so many years of superb service.

I am also pleased to be here to have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to describe the Clinton administration's efforts to address the far-reaching challenge of global climate change. As you know, the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon and ratified by the Senate in 1992, recently held the second major meeting, or "Conference of the Parties," in Geneva.

As requested in your letter of invitation, I would like to discuss the rationale for the position articulated by the United States in Geneva, and then of course to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

The United States, Mr. Chairman, had four primary objectives for the Geneva meeting. First, we wanted to put our shoulder behind the outstanding and unparalleled science that has been developed by the world's best scientists, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Second, we wanted to shift the negotiations toward strategies that will achieve environmental results in an economically sensible manner. So we rejected unrealistic proposals by some countries, and proposed that future commitments be realistic, verifiable and binding.

Third, we wanted to ensure that national and international flexibility were preserved, allowing for the use of the most innovative and cost-effective mechanisms here and abroad-such as joint implementation and international emissions trading. And, fourth, we wanted to make sure that all nations, including the developing world, are involved in these negotiations and next steps that will be reached through them.

I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with the issue of science, for it is scientific research and broad consensus among the world's leading experts that form the foundation for our concern and proposed strategies on this issue. This committee has a long history of engagement with scientific experts involved in the issue. Over the past 5 years, the IPCC has emerged as the world's preeminent scientific and technical body concerned with the threat of global climate change. The IPCC, as we all know, involves more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and uses recognized standards of peer review in its scientific method.

In December of last year, the IPCC finalized its second assessment report, representing the most recent, authoritative and comprehensive scientific analysis that we have available to us on this

issue. The second assessment was the result of years of effort, extensive peer review and exhaustive analysis and consultation. The most important of the IPCC's scientific findings are as follows:

First, the chemical composition of the atmosphere is being altered by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Second, the continued buildup of these gases will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and cause the global climate to change. Third, 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 last finding represents the first time that a consensus has emerged among leading climate scientists that the world's changing climatic conditions are more than the natural variability of the weather. In short, the IPCC's results have further underscored the compelling nature of scientific understanding of this issue. Nonetheless, uncertainty remains.

The scientific community cannot tell us precisely how much, when or what rate the Earth's climate will respond to greenhouse gas buildup. However, making the best possible estimate, based upon what is known about the complex climate system, the scientific community believes that current emission trends, resulting over the next several decades in the effective doubling from prehistoric concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will lead to global temperatures which, on average, are 2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, increasing at a rate greater than any known for the past 10,000 years.

Based on these estimates, 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. For example, human health and the risks thereto; food security and the problems that result from those; water resources and the expected increased stress on those important resources; coastal areas, where a very large percentage of the global population lives-increasing in each decade.

In our opinion, the IPCC has clearly demonstrated to policymakers that further action must be taken to address this challenge. It is our strong belief that the IPCC's finding meet the highest standards of scientific integrity. This is the best science that we have, and it is the responsibility of policymakers to consider the panel's findings and respond with corresponding thoughtfulness.

Unhappily, while the established international scientific process is working well, the international policy process has not been as successful. While an important first step, there are a number of shortcoming in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Perhaps most important, the current Convention structure has not achieved its primary aims. Few nations in either the developed or developing world have been fully successful in meeting their objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do better. Last year, at the first Conference of the Parties in Berlin, treaty participants agreed to launch a new round of negotiations aimed at defining steps that could be taken after the year 2000. The socalled Berlin Mandate defined the broad terms by which next steps under the Convention would be negotiated. The Berlin Mandate di