push the climate system beyond the experiences of the last one million years. This does not mean that human beings could not survive the change of course some of us would live through it. It just means that we have no written or historical record to turn back to and ask: What did people do last time? What helped to ease the transition? What made things worse?

Although scientists understand these broad outlines of the global changes that would result from a continuation of the trend in emissions of greenhouse gases, much is still uncertain. Most importantly, none can now predict with confidence the precise distribution of regional impacts that will result from global warming. In particular, our understanding of the global hydrological system is sufficiently poor that we cannot even say, for sure, which areas will become drier and which will be wetter. On average, scientists expect that the intensity of the global hydrological cycle will intensify by about 3-7 percent with a buildup equivalent to doubling the preindustrial concentration of carbon dioxide, but we do not now know whether the additional precipitation will follow traditional distributional patterns, will make old deserts bloom or will mean that the frequency of severe storms will increase dramatically.

Part of the reason that public attention has focused on problems of the atmosphere has been the widespread publicity given to a series of unusual and extreme weather events. These have included hurricanes in Florida and the Eastern Caribbean that destroyed whole towns, wind storms in the United Kingdom that uprooted trees several hundred years old, torrential rains in Arizona and storm surges in Bangladesh that caused extensive flooding and significant loss of life. Hurricanes, wind storms, droughts, floods, hot spells, and cold snaps are not new or unique; they have disrupted human life for millennia. Extreme weather events have occurred without warning and on no particular schedule. They are not caused by greenhouse gases but rapid global warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect could dramatically alter the patterns of upper atmospheric winds and ocean currents in ways which destabilize the atmosphere for decades to come. These changes in the physical behavior of the atmosphere and ocean may increase both the frequency and the severity of extreme weather events.

What the recent experience of extreme weather events has illustrated is how sensitive modern societies are to even small changes in the weather. These episodes have also showed that some of our institutions are not well positioned to respond to rapid changes in environmental conditions. Hurricane Andrew demonstrated that some traditional American building techniques (and traditional practices of building inspection) are inadequate to meet the challenges of extreme weather events-like the hundred-year hurricane. Fortunately, very few Americans lost their lives in this terrible episode, but Hurricane Andrew nonetheless placed enormous stress on local institutions and on many average American families. While the loss of human life was limited, Hurricane Andrew created over $5 billion of economic losses, stressing school systems, water treatment facilities, and insurance companies across southern Florida.

By comparison, the destruction caused by extreme weather events in developing countries has been (and will be) even more severe. Relatively speaking, the damages caused by another hundred-year storm-Hurricane Hugo which struck 2 years earlier in Jamaica-were much more devastating: hundreds of lives were lost, more than a hundred thousand were displaced and economic damages exceeded more than 40 percent of the annual Gross National Product of the island. In both cases, local institutions were ill-prepared to deal with the local environmental damages or the dislocation of regional economies.

Rapid climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect could increase the probability of extreme weather events occurring during the next several decades, adding significantly to the pressures facing human societies and natural ecosystems that are already under stress. None can say with certainty that any of the specific weather anomalies that we have recently observed have been caused by the steadily increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. But as the climate system moves toward a new, warmer equilibrium state, we can expect that the turmoil caused by unsettled weather patterns will continue and even increase. Current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine how, where, or when the effects of climate change will provoke additional experiences of extreme weather events in the future.

There are other important uncertainties as well. Scientists know that the forces that control local and regional climates reflect the interaction of a set of closely coupled, non-linear systems. As we alter the radiation balance of the atmosphere the driving force that controls the interaction of these systems-we expect that some of the responses of these natural systems will be "surprises". Due to feedback mechanisms which are not fully understood today, at some point in the future we are like

ly to cross critical thresholds in the response functions of these systems-entering a regime in which a small additional injection of pollutants will produce a big change in the system's response.

Among the most important uncertainties are the responses of the terrestrial and marine biota to changes in temperature, precipitation, and partial pressure of greenhouse gases. In some cases, for example, economically important plant species have shown increased growth and improved water use efficiency. In other cases, food crops have been negatively affected by increases in temperature or carbon dioxide concentration. Some important grains may not produce the high yield levels we have come to expect and to depend on in an era of increasing human populations. Preliminary research indicates, for example, that the four most widely used strains of rice cultivated today could experience a decline in fertility of up to 90 percent when exposed to temperatures just 4°C higher than the ones we currently observe.

Other types of feedbacks may be of smaller immediate impact on humans but more critical to the rate of change in future climate. Among those that are still uncertain are the effects of increasing temperature on soil microorganisms and on subsurface deposits of methane gas. Warmer temperatures may increase the respiration of soil microorganisms, providing a strong positive feedback to the climate system that could rapidly increase the flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in temperate regions. In the cold polar regions, where surface warming is likely to be amplified 2 to 3 times above the global average, enhanced warming could melt the permafrost in some areas and release large amounts of methane to the atmosphere. It is possible that these methane deposits-which have been trapped for thousands of years under the frozen soil as hydrated complexes-could be freely released to the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect.

It is certain that temperature rise due to the enhanced greenhouse effect would not just occur on land, but would also affect the 86 percent of the world that is covered with water. Increases in sea surface temperature (combined with exposure to other anthropogenic pollutants) have been linked to large-scale starvation among the coral species that are the principal storm-defense of many island communities. In addition, recent epidemiologiral research suggests that rising sea surface temperatures in near-shore areas may have significantly altered the lifecycles of the pathogens that cause cholera-contributing to the dramatic rise in this disease seen in the last decade in Latin America.

The main message in all this is simple. Due to a rapidly expanding research effort, the scientific community has learned much about the dynamics of climate change. Yet we still do not know enough to predict the regional impacts of global warming with certainty or to forecast the future pattern of extreme weather events. We do not now know what will trigger future non-linear episodes in the response of the climate system to small increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases. But we do have enough information to act wisely and to make prudent public policy that can manage future risks.

Our position is similar to that of many parents with young children. They know that they and their children will be exposed to stress and disease in the environments in which they must live and work. They expect that at some unscheduled point, one or another member of the family will fall ill. But they cannot now know the timing or the severity of that future illness. They can ignore this possibility since they do not know for sure that one or more of them will become sick. Or they can take a few simple steps in advance to limit the risk. They can choose to follow a healthy diet, abstain from smoking, avoid drugs, forego excessive use of alcohol, and get regular exercise. And to address the risks that cannot be avoided or minimized, they can invest in some basic insurance. A similar opportunity is available for our country and our economy.

We cannot now know what the effects of climate change due to the greenhouse effect will be on our economy and on our people. But we can take some steps to minimize the risks. We can reduce the likelihood of experiencing rapid climate change by reducing our national contribufion to global emissions of these gases. And we can increase the resilience of American society and of international institutions to the effects of climate change that cannot be avoided by building up local institutions and strengthening local economies.

The key to a prudent response to the risks of rapid climate change lies in trusting our people and the free market. We must use the market to promote investment in industries that will increase the economic development of the country without contributing to a dramatic increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases. And we can make American society more resilient to the impacts of climate change by strengthening traditional institutions. In so doing, we can create new high-wage jobs at home and demonstrate international leadership abroad.

The challenge facing the United States today is how to sustain the prospects for economic growth while minimizing the risks of long-term irreversible damage to our environment. To achieve these complementary goals, the new administration must embrace the spirit as well as the letter of the Convention signed at the Earth Summit last June. The best way to meet our international commitments is to begin to meet the challenges of global warming here at home. There are four basic elements to any strategy to achieve these ends. The key elements of a successful national response to the risks of rapid climate change include the following:

(1) Increase the economic and technical efficiency of energy supply and use in America, thus reducing our contributions to global emissions of greenhouse gases while maining our economy more competitive internationally;

(2) Reorient the incentives for agricultural development in America, reinvigorating national efforts to enhance soil conservation and shifting cultivation away from tobacco crops and surplus cereals to biomass crops for soil strengthening and energy crops;

(3) Accelerate the development of CFC and Halon alternatives in refrigeration, fire protection, and solvent applications;

(4) Encourage the development of new partnerships between U.S. companies and their counterparts in developing countries to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency technologies; and

(5) Develop adaptive responses to increase the resilience of U.S. society to those aspects of climate change that can no longer be avoided.

As a start, the United States must make a firm commitment to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at their 1990 level and then begin to reduce them from this level before the beginning of the new century. To achieve these goals while making U.S. industry more competitive and the economy more energy efficient will take a dramatic assertion of U.S. leadership. To demonstrate a reinvigorated leadership on these issues, the United States must re-enter the climate negotiations prepared to move aggressively toward reducing domestic emissions while building the basis for new partnerships between U.S. firms and their counterparts in the private sector of developing countries in order to apply the best of American technology to reducing the risks of rapid climate change.

Building on the basis of the President's Economic Plan, the United States must use market mechanisms to increase the economic efficiency of energy use at home. But to demonstrate the leadership that our friends and allies are now looking for from Washington, we must go further still. We must make a commitment to introduce a set of energy efficiency measures, designated by the Secretary of Energy as cost-effective today, in all new leased or constructed space operated by and for the Federal Government.

We must reaffirm our faith in the American people by giving them true and complete information about the price of energy. We must raise the price of gasoline to reflect the full economic and environmental costs of petroleum supply and use. I suggest an additional gasoline tax starting next month of $0.04 per gallon and increasing by $0.02 per gallon per month for the next 4 years.

But because of the low elasticity of demand for personal mobility with respect to the price of fuel, a gasoline tax is not enough to change the way Americans drive. If we want to promote smooth and orderly improvements in efficiency of cars that citizens own and use, then this administration must provide a complementary program-a "Clunker Bounty". This bounty or rebate program could pay Americans to retire old polluting vehicles in exchange for a cash payment from the Government. But even the introduction of a bounty will not be sufficient to achieve the linked goals of enhanced mobility and cleaner air. In addition, a program must be instituted to increase the excise tax on cars and light trucks that achieve less than the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard in the year of their manufacture. One approach would charge the purchaser a tax of $1,000 per mile per gallon (mpg) below the standard for the first 10 mpg, $2,000 per mpg for vehicles that fall between 11 and 20 mpg below the standard, and $5,000 per mpg for vehicles that fall between 21 and 30 mpg below the CAFE standard. The money raised by this excise tax would be divided between the old car "bounty" described above and a set of rebates for cars that achieve efficiency levels above the CAFE standard. For example, vehicles that are 1-10 mpg above the standard could receive $250 per mpg, vehicles that are 11-20 mpg above the standard might receive $500 per mpg, and vehicles more than 21 mpg above the standard might receive $750 per mpg. This type of "feebate" program was proposed by the Center for Global Change and adopted by the Maryland legislature but struck down by the courts because it violated Federal laws.

If the administration wants to accelerate the rate of turn-over of the national stock of cars and light trucks-the quickest way to get major emissions reductions that last-then the Congress must change the Federal statute.

If this administration really believes its own rhetoric about the importance of improving the economic and engineering efficiency of our domestic economy, then the measures I have proposed for the transportation sector must be supplemented by an increased tax on electricity that reflects the carbon content of the fuels used to generate it. The electricity tax could be made revenue neutral through fiscal recycling-so that it does not slow economic growth but only has the effect of shifting the composition of domestic economic activity. To achieve this, a set of simultaneous tax credits must be implemented that cover individuals and firms that increase the efficiency of electricity end-use through investments in new technology.

Changing fiscal policies is important but it is not enough. The US. Government must also invest in the commercialization of new technologies that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time that we reduce our contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this we must reorient our energy budget for research and development, shifting the emphasis away from coal and nuclear systems to renewable energy systems and efficiency-improving technologies. In the 1994 fiscal year, this would require a reduction in the U.S. Department of Energy appropriation for research on fission, fusion, and fossil systems of a total of $500 million, with the money that is released then re-directed into investments in the commercialization of conservation and renewable systems.

The magnificent opportunity that awaits us in the area of renewable systems and efficiency technology is one not of basic scientific research but of applied research and commercialization. Last year, with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Congress offered the American people a great new challenge. But the challenge presented by this Act is not being met by the Clinton administration either at home or abroad. If Congress has the courage to meet the challenges it has placed in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, then it must reverse the recent decisions by the Office of Management and Budget and appropriate the full authorized amount for domestic commercialization activities in these two key sectors. In addition, it must appropriate the full $100 million that is authorized annually to U.S. DOE in section 1211 to fund activities that would promote the export of U.S. technologies for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency technologies.

If the courage to meet these challenges exists in this House, then Congress must make certain that the full authorized amount-$100 million annually-is actually appropriated to promote the export and transfer of environmental technologies under section 1608 in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Because many developing countries will inevitably expand their use of coal combustion for energy, if the United States wants to reduce pollution releases on a worldwide basis, we must promote the export of the clean-coal technologies covered by section 1332 of the Act. Similarly, although it now appears that the general direction of U.S. domestic energy policy is moving in a positive direction with respect to the risks of rapid climate change, if the United States hopes to maintain a position of leadership in the international debate, this administration must empower the U.S. EPA to continue its historic role in meeting the specific commitments of the Climate Convention. To achieve this, the Congress must increase the appropriations for international activities related to energy and climate that are authorized for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and carried out by the Climate Change Division of its Office of Policy, Program, and Evaluation. Increasing the annual appropriations of this office to $25 million per year for these activities during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 is the minimum which is necessary to show that we have a strong domestic commitment to bring American expertise and technology into play on these issues.

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson knew that America could only be as strong as her agricultural base. His insights are as fresh today as they were at the start of our countries history. The Congress must help America to return to traditional American values by reinforcing the position of America's family farms and strengthening the incentives for protecting our soil. Soil erosion and loss of soil fertility leads to increased mobilization of carbon into the atmosphere-enhancing the greenhouse effect and worsening the risks of rapid climate change.

To protect against these risks, the Congress must do several things. First, we must strengthen the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Extension Service. Second, we must reinvigorate the soil conservation programs of the USDA. Third, we must provide clear tax incentives to promote the health and maintenance of our family farms, sustaining these pivotal enterprises that have fed our country for generations.

And fourth, we must shift the balance of agricultural subsidies. We must end all Federal subsidies to tobacco farmers. This will help to reduce the Federal deficit im

mediately. It will also help to limit our current health care crisis by using market mechanisms to limit the incidence of tobacco-related diseases. But this is not enough. If the United States wishes to reduce the physical burden of domestic agriculture on the food storage capabilities of our farm sector and the financial burden of crop waste on the Treasury, the existing agricultural subsidies for cereal crops must be shifted away from crops which are already stored in sufficiently surplus anounts as to exceed both current market demand and likely needs for future emergencies. Instead, these former subsidies must be redirected in ways that encourage farmers toward practices that rebuild the quality of America's soils or encourage the cultivation of biomass crops for energy. By encouraging the efficient production of biomass for energy, we could maintain on-farm employment, reduce the trade deficit, and limit annual emissions of greenhouse gases.

Historically, the United States has led the world in the development of CFC's and their alternatives. This process must be accelerated by raising the tax on production and use of conventional CFC's and Halons controlled under the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. Raising the tax on these compounds to $10 per pound in the next year and increasing the tax by $5 per pound in each of the next 3 years will help to stimulate the rapid development of environmentally benign alternatives. In addition, if this administration wishes to capture the double benefit of reducing the risks of ozone depletion while stimulating promising new research in the chemical industry, then the United States must aggressively support the elimination of methyl bromide as an agricultural fumigant and aggressively support research and development activities designed to produce a safe alternative.

Although these domestic actions are necessary to demonstrate our commitment to a comprehensive strategy on climate change, they are not enough to achieve the goals we have set in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States must take the lead at the international level as well. This administration must promote an era of new partnerships between U.S. firms and their counterparts in developing countries. These partnerships and joint ventures must be directed toward the co-development of new technologies that can support the national development objectives of the receiving countries while minimizing long-term damage to the environment.

Energy supply and use is a key sector in which to promote such partnerships. Even today, U.S. technology in many areas of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements leads the world. Many developing countries, already desperately short of reliable energy must expand both their supplies of energy and their efforts to increase energy efficiency in the coming decades. Renewable energy systems and energy efficiency technologies offer one important way to meet some of these energy demands while limiting the rate of growth in per capita emissions of greenhouse gases from developing countries.

If this administration is serious about promoting new partnerships in the energy sector, the United States sought to build on the recent successful experience in this area on the part of the U.S. Agency for International Development. United States AID has operated the Program to Accelerate the Commercialization of Energy Research (PACER) in India for the last 3 years. This successful program utilizes a revolving fund to encourage the development of new partnerships by providing the risk capital necessary to initiate the venture. When the venture leads to a commercial product, the initial cash influx is returned as would be any conventional loan. If growth of the export sector of the U.S. economy was important to this administration, then programs of this type would be extended to other countries and to other regions. By promoting these new partnerships, facilitating the launching of joint ventures and the equitable sharing of the resulting economic rents, the U.S. Government can promote a brand of environmental activism that is good for American firms as well as the global environment. Full funding of sections 1211 and 1608 of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992-as discussed above-will also help to advance these goals in a dramatic fashion.

Another important opportunity for promoting the goals of the Climate Convention lies in a drive to develop a new international network of Centers of Excellence on Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Technologies. This new network, modeled in part on the successful Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), would be built out of existing institutions, mostly in developing countries but with some participation in industrial countries as well. The network, with one institution in each region promoting the accelerated market development of each major renewable energy technology, would support institutional strengthening and capacity building in the developing world. The regional centers would act in each region as a fulcrum for the promotion of new partnerships. The centers would engage in market evaluation, contract liaison, and the identification of promising applications for renewables in the region. By conducting applied research, they