« PreviousContinue »
Mr. CRAPO. Now, it is my understanding that most of the Green Programs are domestic. Is that correct? If so, are there efforts going on internationally to move in the same direction?
Mr. SUSSMAN. I believe you are right, that most of the Green Programs are domestic, but I know that the EPA staff that implements the Green Programs is interested in overseas opportunities and hopes to pursue them.
Mr. WIRTH. One of the most striking phenomena, Congressman, if I might point out, is the fact that we are, of course, so much less efficient in terms of our use of energy of our major competitors around the world. And were we able to increase our energy efficiency to the point, say, of the Germans and the Japanese, we would be in very good shape in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, in terms of our own economy.
What we are trying to do is to develop programs that will encourage those who are not as efficient either around the world, with particular emphasis to the developing world. As pointed out in Congressman Sharp's earlier question, the ominous trends are the long-term trends related to developments in parts of the world whose economies are not as efficient nor nearly as committed to the international environmental goals that we might share.
For example, the Chinese referred to earlier have a per capita energy consumption of about 7 percent of ours, but the problem with that is two-fold, (1), that the energy consumed is predominantly coal and very dirty brown coal, and (2) as their economy grows very dramatically, the greenhouse gas emissions are going dramatically. We believe that presents to us and our industries very significant opportunities.
The other problem, of course, is that even though their per capita consumption is very low compared to ours, there are an awful lot of “capitas” there and, therefore, it is important for us to recognize that problem, as well, as an overall part of our international strategies and the need for the United States to lead.
Mr. CRAPO. While we are on that, Mr. Wirth, could you just briefly tell me what are the causes, in your opinion, of the phenomenon you described in which that we are much less efficient in our use of energy?
Mr. WIRTH. Well, I think there are a lot of historic reasons for that. One, energy has been extremely abundant and very cheap in the United States, and really until the last 15 years we have not really accounted for energy. If you look at any large corporation and describe with almost any 1 of them the history of energy attention in that corporation 20 years ago or when Congressman Sharp and I were first on this committee, I suppose the person managing energy was an assistant to the building manager some place way down on the bottom of the corporation.
Because the cost of energy has gone up so dramatically, because the cost of oil, which gives other costs, has gone up so dramatically, attention is now being given to that factor and, like anything else, if the market works, and the market has proved to be working i think very, very effectively and our country is slowly but surely catching up with the inevitability of higher prices.
Mr. CRAPO. I just have one more question.. I guess it would probably be for either EPA or the State Department, I am not sure. Are any of you aware of efforts to track and assess the investments made by foreign firms in the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions?
Mr. SUSSMAN. I can't say that I am.
Mr. WIRTH. The Japanese have been deeply involved in energy technologies, as you know, around the world. There is a recent report out from Japan I believe called “New Earth 21,” which focuses on the 21st Century, and in that the Japanese have indicated that they believe that energy and environmental technologies will be for the Japanese in the 21st Century much of what consumer electronics and automobiles were for them in the 20th Century, signaling a very, very aggressive activity on their part.
I can't answer specifically questions on the question that you have raised. We can look for that. I have seen various figures and various anecdotal information about the U.S. loss of the market in our own backyard and U.S. loss of the market around the world. It is something to which I think we ought to pay a great deal more attention as a country than we have in the past, and this administration is committed to doing that.
Mr. CRAPO. Thank you very much.
Ms. TIERNEY. Congressman, could I follow up, to understand the question you are asking, so that when we are following through, we know what we are answering. Are we answering what is going on with regard to the Japanese or other foreign companies' investment in development of environmental or efficiency technologies here, or their investments which lead to emission reductions within the boundaries of the United States?
Mr. CRAPO. I guess I was not focusing on it. As I look at it, I would be interested in the answer to both questions. I am interested particularly in investments made in the United States to reduce emissions. But if it is an investment outside the United States that reduces an emission within the boundaries of the United States, I think that would be of interest, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHARP. I thank the gentleman. [The information follows:] I am not aware of any reliable way to track the effect of foreign investments on emissions of pollutants within U.S. border unless the foreign companies are willing to provide the data. We have contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce in preparing a response to your inquiry. The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce maintains a data series on investments in the United States for pollution abatement and control, but the series does not include whether the investment was made by a domestic or foreign company. The Bureau also collects data on foreign investment in the United States, but that series does not include the purpose of the investment. There are also no data series on foreign investment outside the United States that might reduce greenhouse gas emissions within U.S. borders.
Mr. SHARP. In August, we have another international meeting to follow through on the Rio treaty. What is your understanding of where some of these other countries are in terms of their signing onto the treaty? In both Europe and Japan, what are we hearing?
Mr. WIRTH. 160 countries have signed the treaty, and I believe 25 or so have ratified the treaty, and we are 1 of the 25. The first step that we are taking is the encouragement of others to ratify this treaty and to move along with the momentum that came out of UNCED in the summer of 1992.
Second, I think it is probably fair to say that the United States has been in the lead in terms of very specifically identifying what we believe the target is and how we believe we are going to meet our share of that target. There has been a good deal of discussion in the developed world, in particular, about this, and I think the European Community is now looking at a very significant energy program there to meet their part of the goal.
I think that has waited for determinations as to what is going to happen to the European Economic Community and whether that was going to come together or not. Now it looks as if that is coming together and I think taking the next step from that will reflect on the goals met at Rio.
The Japanese are in the same situation. They have been very aggressive in terms of marketing technologies and looking at performance in their own backyard. But I think it is probably fair to say that right now the United States has done specifically more in terms of actually measuring and achieving the goal of stabilization at the 1990 level by the year 2000.
Again, going back to the questions that Congressman Synar was asking while you were over voting, are we going to be able to lead, yes, we can, if we lead by example. It is enormously important that we do point out that in our own backyard we can reach that goal, that we are committed to doing so, and that gives us the suasion and the position to aggressively work with other countries to help persuade them that, in effect, the goals of Rio should not be just rhetoric, but which have to become a reality.
Ms. TIERNEY. Could I add to that?
Ms. TIERNEY. Next week, Secretary O'Leary will be meeting with the energy ministers from the International Energy Agency countries and non-member countries who will be attending that meeting as well. She plans to take up this particular issue and the importance to the United States of parallel action in other countries.
We would be happy to report back what we learn from that. I don't know that it will be any different from what the counselor just described, but Secretary O'Leary intends to use our leadership position to try to persuade others to continue on their own commitments.
Mr. SHARP. Well, I think it is very important. Last year and the year before, the Europeans and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Japanese, were quite critical of the United States, suggesting that we were the ones that wouldn't do anything and they were so eager, and there may be reasons why they haven't ratified yet, because of the Maastrict Treaty and others. But it seems to me that they may need some reminding from the United States that they, too, have to live up to their rhetoric like we all have to at some point or die by our rhetoric.
To be frank about it, while I think we can be an example and demonstrate that, I think examples work wonderfully in families for raising children, but in international politics, while I find that is useful, sometimes it takes something stronger than example, that lots of people are quite willing for you to be the example, if it costs you, but if it costs them anything, they somehow find a way to worm out of it.
Not that that doesn't happen to our domestic politics, either. That is what is going on in this budget agreement right now. I mean who wants to take responsibility, for God's sake? After all, the public might expect that.
But I think it is a push-pull kind of thing in which sometimes they will be pushing us, sometimes we will be pushing them, but we have to continually remind them. It seems to me at this point, we have a leg up and we are in a position to remind them of what their responsibilities are.
[The following cable was received for the record:)
The following excerpts on the issue of global climate change were extracted from a cable summarizing the June 4, 1993 International Energy Agency ministers meeting in Paris.
SUMMAR DEL MINISERS MEEING JUNE AT AGREE TC -.-9. STRENG-ENES AC :-:-:ES OVEDUCONG ENERGY E.ECO: IVSSOAS INC.JC:NG ENERGY EFFICIENS AND
SS: ENERO -E: COMMUNDOCONTAINED THE FIRS Cov:. S.Evi'.- O - IL ME ver COUNTÁLE 5S-ARID GAS OF ENERS :C SONCE - :977 ADOPTION OF "IEL PS:13:"ES"
VAF-E-OF: ENE: S-ARED GOALS STATEMENT
OROVIDES GUIDANCE C
WETARY OF ENERGY
THE MEMBER COUNTRIES ESABLISHED THE TEA IN 1974
GOA OF EVERG SECURY IC- REMAINS A PRIMARY
:* :G-SP - DEVE.CPMENS AND IVVIE OF EIRO: CENSUS EVEG CEVANO AND SUPPL ILA
:::EE.::E :: DESC-R14E AND TIMELY ISSUE
:: OF DED_CURE SOS: I WIENERG SECURITY ANC
VARY ACCORDING C
IN ENS:FING GOBA. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS REOIRE
ADOPTION OF A