Page images
PDF
EPUB

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
Page 2

of the USGCRP and an IPCC official employed by the US in Washington for this
explanation of the "leak".

An article in the October 16, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal suggests that the
document on the Internet was prepared by IPCC Working Group II, not Working Group
I which concentrates on science issues. The article states by definition Working Group
Il is "not in the business of assessing the latest science on the greenhouse issues."

a.

Please identify the portion of the draft Synthesis Report that was carried on the
Internet.

b.

Why did the US ignore the explicit statement "Do not Distribute" on the draft document and place the document on the Internet?

c.

Please identify the US scientists whose comments were being sought through the Internet.

d.

Please provide a copy of the invitation for scientist's comments that was carried on the Internet and the US comments submitted to the IPCC on that document.

e.

To what extent has the US previously solicited comments on draft IPCC documents from scientists through the Internet or other methods?

[blocks in formation]

5.

In an August 28, 1995 statement on the future of the IPCC, the US delegation at Geneva said that the IPCC will need to be "restructured to serve the needs of the COP and SBSTA" and suggested that the IPCC modify its "expert and government review mechanisms so it can respond to the needs of the AGBM "in a timely fashion." The US added:

"We envisage that the AGBM and the COP will need the IPCC to provide reports within a 6-12 month timeframe. We believe that the AGBM and the COP need the type of credible assessments for which the IPCC is so well known. These special reports will need to be focused on the needs of the COP and must be delivered on time - we believe the IPCC can deliver."

The AGBM currently is scheduled to complete its work as early as March 1997. It has scheduled, as of now, a total of five, one-week meetings spread out between October 1995 and March 1997 for this purpose.

a.

Please explain how and to what extent the IPCC needs to be restructured and its review mechanisms modified to meet AGBM needs from March 1996 to

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
Page 3

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Since the COP and SBSTA are permanent and have long-term duties, what is their need for this new accelerated procedure?

d.

Please explain how the IPCC and SBSTA will avoid duplication of effort.

e.

Was the above statement intended to suggest that some new process be established by the IPCC for interpreting or elaborating on matters in the SAR?

f.

Who would make such interpretations or elaborations and what weight should the AGBM, COP, SBSTA and each Party, as well as the news media and the public, give them?

g.

How will this new process affect the credibility, independence, and transparency of the IPCC?

h.

What has been the normal timeframe for IPCC reports, including special reports?

i.

Do you contemplate eliminating or modifying peer review or Working Group involvement, including line-by-line government approval of Summaries for Policymakers or of future reports provided by the IPCC to the COP or any of the subsidiary bodies? If so, please explain why.

j.

I understood that IPCC reports benefitted from peer review and the requirement of government line-by-line approval. How will sound science be assured in a field with so many uncertainties?

6.

At the August meeting in Geneva, SBSTA supported the independence of the IPCC and identified a preliminary list of areas where the IPCC could assist SBSTA in providing timely information and advice on scientific and technical issues. SBSTA apparently also envisaged the need for IPCC scientific and technical advice on special emerging projects within short periods like one year or so. SBSTA, however, did not separately identify its short- and long-term requirements, but agreed to a consultative mechanism between the offices of SBSTA and the IPCC.

a.

Which of the items on SBSTA's preliminary list would require IPCC restructuring or modification?

b.

What is the status of the SBSTA/IPCC consultative mechanism?

7.

In Geneva in August, a US statement called on the IPCC to develop a work plan for the

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
Page 4

"The need is to evaluate and assess future effects of proposed amendments and protocols. This would necessarily include, among other options, the effects of targets and timetables, on an incremental basis, over the next 25-30 years, with benchmarks, for example, at 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025. This would involve both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Some evaluations would involve interaction among topdown modelers currently engaged in assessing, on an integrated basis, the likely projections of changes resulting fromtargets and timetables as well as other approaches. We envision bottom-up assessments utilizing sector models and other methods. These sectors could be along the lines that we have previously related in our intervention on inputs. The IPCC has the capability to engage experts in a relatively short timeframe to develop a moderately large number of estimates and projections that would then become the basis for a special assessment report to COP-2."

[blocks in formation]

b.

What is the purpose and timing of the work plan and why is this a function of the IPCC?

[blocks in formation]

d.

During the AGBM process or COP-2, is the US planning to advocate or support hard or soft targets and timetables of any kind or economic-sector approaches in its protocol negotiations? If so, is the US seeking to gain support for them through the use of an expedited process?

[ocr errors]

The Parties participating in the SBSTA and the AGBM are the same.

a.

Is SBSTA organized to provide by next March "relevant advice to the AGBM about the SAR?

b.

The Secretariat was requested to prepare a document identifying issues and input's for SBSTA's considerations, including those relevant for the AGBM. What is the status of that document?

[ocr errors]

The US also states a belief that there are a number of issues arising from the
SAR "that will need to be further developed in order to be useful to the AGBM."
Since the SAR is not yet final, such a belief by the US seems premature. What

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995

Page 5

9.

COP-1 approved a Convention budget for 1996 and 1997 of over $18.6 million. The
Secretariat said a portion of that budget will be contributed to the IPCC.

[blocks in formation]

b.

Please identify by amount and source all IPCC funds, especially any contributed by the US in those years.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

10.

I understand that the IPCC Chairman and the Chairmen of the Working Groups may soon leave their posts.

a.

What is their term and what is the procedure for selecting successors?

[blocks in formation]

11. According to COP decision 6 CP.1, SBSTA is to be the link between scientific,

technical, and technological assessments and the information provided by
competent international bodies and the policy-oriented needs of the COP. The
functions listed in Annex I of the COP decision related to SBSTA seem to be
extensive and maybe overwhelming.

a.

How will SBSTA carry out those functions and in what timeframe?

[blocks in formation]

C.

The US said review of national communications is the highest priority. Does
SBSTA agree?

d.

What is the timetable for that national communications review?

12.

The COP authorized SBSTA to establish (with subsequent COP approval) two intergovernmental technical advisory panels to provide advice on technologies and methodologies. The US August statement in Geneva said that it was "critical" that the technical advisory panel on methodologies be established 'as soon as possible' and that it could consist of 20 experts. At the same time, the US said the advisory panel on technologies was not as urgent. The US said it should have a steering group of only 10 such experts, plus a substructure of experts.

a.

Please explain the US ideas for the activities and purpose of each of these panels in the AGBM process and the long term.

b.

What is the basis for your suggestion of the number of experts for each panel?

ATTACHMENT - Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
October 19, 1995
Page 6

[ocr errors]

How do the numbers affect the ability of the US to have one or more seats on each panel?

d.

The US said that experts should be nominated by governments, but they could come from inside or outside the government. As you know, "experts' often have different points of view on "scientific", "technical", or "economic issues, and most have policy preferences.

i.

What is the definition of an "expert" for the panels and any substructure?

ii.

What criteria would be used by the US in selecting such experts to ensure that they are qualified, to ensure a balance of views on issues and policies, and to avoid potential conflict of interest problems?

What is, in your view, the function of the substructure panels?

iv.

What is your view of the substructure, the number of experts required, and the criteria for selection?

13.

An Inside EPA article of September 29, 1995 quotes an environmentalist as saying that "global warming will continue until less developed countries also take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." However, the Berlin Mandate does not address the expected growth in greenhouse gases from these countries. It merely reaffirms that these countries are obligated to carry out commitments they pledged to implement when they ratified the Convention, while expressly stating that the AGBM process may not introduce any new commitments for developing countries.

a.

Why did the US agree to an AGBM process that fails to provide for discussion and negotiation of new commitments at any time by developing countries to deal with this growth?

b.

What steps, if any, are the developing countries committed to take under the
Convention to reduce emissions and in what timeframe?

[ocr errors]

Are those commitments contingent under the Convention on Annex I countries providing money and technologies as developing countries seem to contend?

d.

What specific decision should the AGBM take that would result in advancing the implementation of developing country commitments?

e.

Please provide a table in million metric tons comparing estimates in which the US has confidence, based on Energy Information Administration and other reports, of total world greenhouse gas emissions with emissions from the former Soviet bloc, the US, and other OECD countries, China, India, and other developing nations for the years 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2025 and 2100.

« PreviousContinue »