TESTIMONY OF
RAFE POMERANCE

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OCTOBER 6, 1994

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I AM GLAD TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND DISCUSS WHAT WE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARE DOING AS WE APPROACH THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE. THIS FIRST MEETING OF THE PARTIES IS TO BE HELD IN BERLIN IN LATE MARCH AND EARLY APRIL.

THE CLIMATE CONVENTION ENVISIONS AN. AMBITIOUS ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE:

"... STABILIZATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
ATMOSPHERE AT A LEVEL WHICH WOULD PREVENT DANGEROUS
ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. SUCH A
LEVEL SHOULD BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A TIME-FRAME SUFFICIENT TO
ALLOW ECOSYSTEMS TO ADAPT NATURALLY TO CLIMATE CHANGE, TO
ENSURE THAT FOOD PRODUCTION IS NOT THREATENED AND TO ENABLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER."

ACHIEVING THIS OBJECTIVE WILL REQUIRE A VERY LONG JOURNEY, WHICH WE HAVE JUST BEGUN. THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS JOURNEY; IT WILL BE THE FIRST CHANCE FOR ALL THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION TO CONSIDER PROGRESS MADE AND THE FUTURE DIRECTION THAT MUST BE CHARTED.

THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES, SCHEDULED FOR BERLIN IN LATE MARCH TO EARLY APRIL OF 1995, IS CALLED UPON TO ADDRESS SEVERAL KEY ISSUES AT ITS FIRST SESSION. AMONG THOSE ARE MATTERS RELATED TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMMITMENTS IN THE CONVENTION, CRITERIA FOR JOINT IMPLEMENTATION, THE ADOPTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THE APPROVAL OF GUIDELINES FOR BOTH THE PREPARATION OF NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND FOR THE REVIEW OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU A COUPLE OF THESE ISSUES HERE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, AT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE SESSION IN FEBRUARY, INC 9, THE UNITED STATES TOOK THE POSITION THAT CURRENT COMMITMENTS UNDER THE CLIMATE CONVENTION ARE NOT ADEQUATE. WE BASED THIS VIEW ON THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS:

FIRST, WE BELIEVE THE EXISTING AIM WILL BE INADEQUATE TO
ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONVENTION; EVEN IF
ALL ANNEX I COUNTRIES (OECD COUNTRIES AND COUNTRIES WITH
ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION TO MARKET ECONOMIES) WERE TO RETURN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO 1990 LEVELS BY THE YEAR 2000
AND MAINTAIN THEM AT THAT LEVEL THEREAFTER -- GLOBAL
CONCENTRATIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO RISE. THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) RECENTLY
ANALYZED THE RESULTS IF ANNEX I COUNTRIES SUCCEEDED IN
STABILIZING THEIR EMISSIONS AT 1990 LEVELS THROUGH THE END
OF THE NEXT CENTURY. EXPECTED INCREASES IN GLOBAL
EMISSIONS - NOT CONCENTRATIONS -- WERE REDUCED ONLY ABOUT
TEN PERCENT UNDER THIS SCENARIO, AND THESE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS WOULD HAVE A VERY LIMITED EFFECT ON
CONCENTRATIONS. IN FACT, CONCENTRATIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO
RISE THROUGH THE 21ST CENTURY.

SECOND, THE CONVENTION COMMITMENTS ARE GUIDED BY THE “AIM"
ONLY THROUGH THE YEAR 2000. ALTHOUGH THE CONVENTION

ENVISIONS THAT MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN AFTER THE YEAR
2000, THERE IS NO AIM TO GUIDE THESE MEASURES BEYOND THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY. THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION MUST
DETERMINE THE NEXT STEP.

AND THIRD, THE EXISTING COMMITMENTS ARE LIMITED IN SCOPE.
THE OECD COUNTRIES HAVE PLEDGED ONLY TO REPORT ON THEIR
EFFORTS TO REDUCE THEIR EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
ALBEIT WITH THE "AIM" OF RETURNING THESE EMISSIONS TO 1990
LEVELS BY THE YEAR 2000. MEANWHILE, OTHER COUNTRIES ARE
OBLIGATED TO INVENTORY THEIR EMISSIONS AND TAKE MEASURES
WITH NO AIMS OR GOALS TO GAUGE THEIR PROGRESS.

IN ADDITION, ANNEX 1 COUNTRIES ARE FACING CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTIES IN REACHING THEIR AIMS FOR THE YEAR 2000. THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY HAS SUGGESTED THAT FEW OECD COUNTRIES ARE IN A POSITION TO REACH THEIR COMMITMENTS, WHICH IN SOME CASES GO BEYOND THE NON-BINDING AIM OF THE CONVENTION. IN THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, WE HAVE ENJOYED VIGOROUS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND LOWER ENERGY PRICES. THESE, HOWEVER, HAVE MADE LIMITING EMISSIONS DIFFICULT.

SO, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM IS IN NO WAY DIMINISHED. THE NEW SCIENCE THAT HAS EMERGED PROVIDES NO INDICATION THAT WE CAN RELAX OUR EFFORTS TO ACT; IN FACT, EARLIER FINDINGS CONTINUE TO BE SUPPORTED. THEREFORE, THE UNITED STATES PROPOSED, AT THE MOST RECENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE MEETING IN GENEVA, THAT THE CONVENTION PARTIES EMBARK, BEGINNING AT BERLIN, ON A PROCESS TO CONSIDER NEXT STEPS UNDER THE CLIMATE CONVENTION. WE TAKE AS A STARTING POINT THAT EXISTING POLICIES AND AIMS, GIVEN OUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE, ARE NOT ADEQUATE. WE TAKE AS OUR CRITERIA FOR NEXT STEPS THAT THEY SHOULD BE COMPREHENSIVE, FLEXIBLE, SUSTAINABLE, PRAGMATIC AND INNOVATIVE.

GIVEN THESE CRITERIA, WE SEE FIVE GOALS:

FIRST, WE NEED A NEW AIM UNDER THE CONVENTION, ONE THAT
TAKES US BEYOND THE YEAR 2000. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A GLOBAL
CHALLENGE, ONE THAT FORCES US TO THINK GLOBALLY OVER THE
LONG-TERM. FINDING A NEW AIM WILL HELP US TO MAKE THAT
CHANGE IN OUR THINKING.

SECOND WE MUST EXAMINE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMON ACTIONS
OR A MENU OF COMMON ACTIONS -- TO MEET THIS NEW POST-2000
AIM. WHILE WE MUST MAINTAIN NATIONAL FLEXIBILITY, COMMON
PROCESSES OR INITIATIVES WILL HELP TO ENSURE THAT NATIONS
MATCH RHETORIC WITH REALITY. TO DATE, ONLY A FEW NATIONS
HAVE DEVELOPED CLEAR, SUBSTANTIVE PROPOSALS FOR REDUCING
EMISSIONS THAT WILL ENABLE THEM TO MEET THE INITIAL AIM OF
THE CONVENTION. WE NEED TO BROADEN THE BASIS FOR
DISCUSSION SO MORE COUNTRIES CAN TAKE PART.

THIRD, WE MUST STRIVE TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SECTOR EXPERTS ARE FULLY ENGAGED IN AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL
SUPPORT TO THE CONVENTION PROCESS. OTHER GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS, LIKE THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL,
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THESE GROUPS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL WISDOM
TO LEND TO THE PROCESS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
FOURTH, WE MUST STRENGTHEN THE CONVENTION PROCESS ITSELF.
CONTINUED WORK IN THIS AREA MUST PROCEED SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF NEXT STEPS, BECAUSE CONTINUED
PROGRESS WILL BE VITAL IN BUILDING CONFIDENCE AMONG THE
PARTIES AND INTERESTED CONSTITUENCIES THAT THE CONVENTION
CAN ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES WITH DUE REGARD TO CONCERNS
FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.

FIFTH AND FINALLY, THERE MUST BE BROADER PARTICIPATION IN
MAKING THE CONVENTION A SUCCESS. THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY MUST RECOGNIZE -- AND ACT UPON THE REALIZATION
THAT THE EFFORTS OF AN INCREASING NUMBER OF COUNTRIES,
BEYOND THOSE OF THE OECD AND THOSE WITH ECONOMIES IN
TRANSITION TO MARKET ECONOMIES, WILL BE REQUIRED TO SOLVE
THIS GLOBAL PROBLEM.

MR CHAIRMAN, WITH THIS BACKGROUND, LET ME NOW PROVIDE A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE TWO MOST CONTENTIOUS ITEMS AT THE RECENT INC SESSION (WHICH MET FROM AUGUST 22- SEPTEMBER 2 IN GENEVA): THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMMITMENTS, AND THE ISSUE OF JOINT IMPLEMENTATION.

ADEQUACY

I HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED THE U.S. POSITION ON THIS MATTER. LET ME BEGIN BY STATING THAT WE WERE SOLIDLY SUPPORTED BY MOST OTHER OECD COUNTRIES. HOWEVER, DURING THE DISCUSSION AT THE SESSION, THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG DELEGATIONS. "SOME COUNTRIES" STATED THEIR VIEW THAT NO NEW STEPS WERE WARRANTED; "OTHER COUNTRIES" BELIEVED THAT EXISTING COMMITMENTS MUST BE MET BEFORE AGREEING TO NEW COMMITMENTS; AND STILL "OTHER COUNTRIES" STATED THAT NOT ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, BUT RATHER ALL COUNTRIES MUST TAKE ACTION. HOWEVER, LET ME STATE THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE POSITIONS OF MANY OF THESE OTHER COUNTRIES HAS BEEN -- AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE INFLUENCED BY THE CHANGING DEBATE. THEREFORE, VIEWS TAKEN AT THIS SESSION OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FINAL OR NECESSARILY BINDING.

THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (THE G-77), AND IN PARTICULAR, SAUDI ARABIA, AND ALGERIA (WHICH OFTEN SPOKE ON BEHALF OF THE G-77 AS ITS PRESIDENT) PLUS BRAZIL, CHINA, SOUTH KOREA, AND COLOMBIA, ARGUED AGAINST INITIATING NEGOTIATIONS ON A PROTOCOL OR ESTABLISHING A PROCESS TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS AT THE COP 1 IN BERLIN.

A SECOND GROUP, MADE UP PRIMARILY OF ANNEX I COUNTRIES (OECD COUNTRIES AND COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION) BUT ALSO URUGUAY, ARGENTINA, MALAYSIA, AND KENYA, SUPPORTED INITIATING NEGOTIATIONS ON NEXT STEPS FOR APPROVAL AT COP 1 AND A STRONG DECLARATION BY THE MINISTERS AT COP 1. A SMALL SUBSET OF THIS GROUP, LED BY GERMANY, AND INCLUDING DENMARK AND THE SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) ARGUED FOR A PROTOCOL DETAILING SPECIFIC MEASURES ON NEXT STEPS, TO BE OPENED FOR SIGNATURE IN BERLIN. SEVERAL OTHER DELEGATIONS SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PROTOCOL AGREED TO FOR BERLIN BUT CONSIDERED IT IMPOSSIBLE TO NEGOTIATE ONE IN THE TIME AVAILABLE BEFORE COP 1.

NEARLY ALL ANNEX 1 COUNTRIES SUPPORTED THE U.S. IN AGREEING ON THE NEED TO BROADEN THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THAT WOULD HAVE FURTHER COMMITMENTS IN A PROTOCOL. ANNEX I COUNTRIES PARTICULARLY URGED THAT THE MORE INDUSTRIALIZED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE INCLUDED IN CONSIDERING NEXT STEPS.

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION

LET ME NOW TURN TO THE OTHER KEY ISSUE WHICH HAS ATTRACTED SO MUCH ATTENTION: JOINT IMPLEMENTATION. AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNITED STATES, JI IS A PROCESS UNDER WHICH ONE COUNTRY COULD TAKE ACTIONS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND CLAIM CREDIT FOR THOSE EMISSION REDUCTIONS TOWARD ITS DOMESTIC GOAL. AS AT PREVIOUS INC SESSIONS, NOT ONLY THE MECHANICS OF THE OPERATION OF SUCH A PROCESS, BUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PHRASE ITSELF, WAS VIGOROUSLY DEBATED. THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE AT THE AUGUST

INC SESSION INDICATED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POSITIONS OF ANNEX I COUNTRIES ON (1) HOW TO DESIGN AN INTERNATIONAL PILOT PROGRAM AND (2) ON HOW AND WHEN TO APPLY THESE CREDITS. HOWEVER, SOME PROGRESS WAS CLEARLY MADE. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE SEEMS TO BE AGREEMENT THAT JI SHOULD PROCEED THROUGH A PILOT PHASE.

UNLIKE AT PREVIOUS SESSIONS, THERE WAS NO UNIFIED G-77 POSITION OR SPOKESPERSON. OPEC COUNTIES, AS WELL AS BRAZIL, CHINA, SOUTH KOREA, ASIAN NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES OPPOSED EMISSION CREDITS AND THE INCLUSION OF NON-ANNEX I COUNTRIES AS ELIGIBLE HOST COUNTRIES IN THE PILOT PHASE. ANNEX I COUNTRIES UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED THE PILOT PHASE BUT DIFFERED ON THE DEFINITION OF COMPONENTS IN THE PILOT. THE EU COUNTRIES GENERALLY SHOWED MOVEMENT TOWARD THE U.S. POSITION (SUPPORTING A PILOT OPEN TO ALL COUNTRIES, COVERING ALL GREENHOUSE GASES INCLUDING BOTH SOURCES AND SINKS, AND ALLOWING "CREDIT" TO BE TAKEN FOR ACTIONS AT ANY TIME).

THE LANGUAGE COVERING JI IN THE INC_REPORT ADOPTED AT THE END OF THE SESSION WAS DISAPPOINTING. THE INC PRODUCED A BRIEF PARAGRAPH WITH LITTLE SUBSTANCE, AND NO FORMAL RECORD SUMMARIZING POSITIONS TAKEN IN THE 43 STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I CONCLUDE, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND OUR FUTURE COURSE INTERNATIONALLY. WHILE PROGRESS AT THIS SESSION WAS NOT ON THE SURFACE AS PROMISING AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESIRED, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS STILL MOVING FORWARD. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABSENCE OF AGREED CRITERIA ON JOINT IMPLEMENTATION AT THIS SESSION IN NO WAY DIMINISHES THE EXTREMELY POSITIVE FEEDBACK THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN RECEIVING FOR OUR OWN JI INITIATIVE. I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE WELL POSITIONED TO LEAD ON THIS ASPECT OF THE GLOBAL PROGRAM TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE, AND, IN FACT, THAT OUR LEADERSHIP WILL BEAR FRUIT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

FURTHERMORE, TO DATE, FOURTEEN COUNTRIES HAVE SUBMITTED NATIONAL REPORTS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION, AND ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS ARE EXPECTED PRIOR TO THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES. THE U.S. REPORT, DISTRIBUTED HERE TODAY, WAS ONE OF THESE FOURTEEN. OUR OWN REPORT SETS A HIGH STANDARD WHICH WE MUST CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THROUGH STRONG DOMESTIC ACTION. AND, IN MY VIEW, THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT DEMONSTRATED BY ALL COUNTRIES IN THE PREPARATION OF THEIR COMMUNICATIONS AND OF THE NATIONAL CLIMATE ACTION STRATEGIES THAT UNDERLIE THEM -- PROVIDES ROOM FOR CONSIDERABLE OPTIMISM ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CONVENTION.

FINALLY, THE BROAD AGREEMENT AMONG OECD COUNTRIES ON THE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NEXT STEPS IS HEARTENING. WHILE THE EXACT COURSE OF ACTION IS STILL A MATTER FOR DELIBERATION (AND THE U.S. POSITION IS STILL BEING DISCUSSED WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION), I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN -- AND MUST CONTINUE OUR PROGRESS ON THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THESE MATTERS.

Mr. SHARP. Thank you very much, Mr. Pomerance.
Dr. Hausker, we would be pleased to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF KARL HAUSKER

Mr. HAUSKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by echoing my colleague's remarks thanking you for your leadership on a broad variety of energy and environmental issues, particularly the climate issue. The list is very long. I remember in particular your leadership during Energy Policy Act of 1992 on various climate-related provisions of that bill and recently you hosted a Green Lights recruiting meeting back in your home district, a little less than a year ago.

You spoke at the White House Conference on Global Climate Change last April, and everyone at EPA is very appreciative of this, and we hope that we will have some ongoing working relationship with you in whatever your new endeavors are. I am going to focus on the implementation of the President's Climate Change Action Plan.

You have heard a good review of the IPCC science and of where the treaty negotiations stand, but let me first highlight one activity that has a linkage to the IPCC report, and that is some of EPA's sponsored research on the economic impacts of climate change. These run a whole gamut of studies, from the impact on agriculture, forests, sea level rise, human health effects, air quality effects, distributional impacts, and many of these are under peer review right now.

But it is worth noting that when you look, for example, just at a small number of recreational benefits that could be lost due to the effect on ecosystems, you can easily estimate numbers ranging from the hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars of costs to our economy, and that should be kept in mind as we balance our policies in addressing this risk. With that, let me turn to the implementation of the Action Plan.

To review for a moment, on Earth Day in 1993 the President announced a commitment to return U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000, and then to continue these reductions beyond that time. In October 1993, he released the Climate Change Action Plan to implement that commitment. The program is comprehensive, it includes 50 specific programs addressing greenhouse gas emissions from all regions and all sectors of the U.S. economy.

EPA has major responsibilities for about half of the emission reductions under the plan. We are working closely with other Federal agencies to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in this cross-agency effort.

The program has been developed and is being implemented with extensive public input. And because many of the aspects of the projections and estimates used in the process are uncertain, there is a strong emphasis on monitoring and evaluation of the program as it is implemented.

We also recognize that we need to be flexible and to adapt programs to ensure that the complete plan meets its ultimate goals. A key principle which underlies almost all of the Action Plan ele