other areas that will be looked at very closely before we look at a trading system. I would also say that, as I understand it, we do not have authority under the Clean Air Act right now to institute a trading system for CO2, and if we did, we would have a host of complex implementation issues that we would need to consider. We have had we think reasonable success with allowance trading schemes under title 4 of the Clean Air Act for NO, and SO2, but the challenge of implementing a broader trading scheme for CO2 emissions would, I think, raise implementation questions beyond those that we have addressed. Again, I do not want to prejudge any option, but we would have to look very long and hard at a trading scheme before moving in that direction. Secretary O'LEARY. Mr. Bennett, let me interject because I was at the conference and I can at least speak to proposals that were discussed and raised by participants at the conference. Clearly, a trading system for greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions has not only been discussed, but has been written about a great deal in the press that we all read. Clearly also, because within the context of documents already written by those who are preparing for the committee meeting in Geneva, there is some international interest in such a scheme. Part of the review process will be taking a hard look at what has been suggested and coming to some conclusions about it, but I did not want to leave you with the impression that that had not been raised both by participants to this conference and has certainly been raised in international circles. Senator BENNETT. In your opinion, would it require legislative action to institute, or would you be able to do it by regulation? Secretary O'LEARY. I think, as Mr. Sussman has already indicated, it would of course require legislation. But I do not want to step up to the edge and say that we are absolutely coming forward with that recommendation, but I wanted to make it clear that many people have proposed that. Dr. HAUSKER. Senator Bennett, could I respond to your question about temperature records? Senator BENNETT. Yes. Dr. HAUSKER. I want to dispel any doubt that EPA is going out on a limb talking about climate records 10,000 years old. Climatologists have developed a methodology in which they can estimate temperature records going back thousands of years based on air bubbles trapped in the ice in Greenland and in Antarctica. The composition of the air trapped in those bubbles, which they can take core samples going down thousands of feet, allows them to estimate the temperature going backwards, up to 10,000, 15,000 years. Senator BENNETT. I do not want to prolong this, but all right, I guess I have got myself into it. I have read about that. Now, in the same articles, the comment was made-and you are in a position to set me straight here, and I am prepared to be set straight-that when they have tried to apply those same models to a particular slice of data and then predict the future, when the future in fact is already known-in other words, if we were to take some data for the early 1900's and predict the late 1900's based on that data, and then we compare that with what actually happened in the late 1900's-that they have been unable to ever make those models accurately predict the future when the future was known. Is that a fair summary? Dr. HAUSKER. I think you are raising a second question in terms of how well we are able to forecast. Certainly our forecasting ability is imprecise at best. That is, however, a separate question from what the ice core data tells. Senator BENNETT. But are they not inextricably related? Because you are, in effect, forecasting the past based on computer models, and then you take those same models and say, "Well, we have been able to demonstrate that this is what happened in the past. Now, let's take a slice and go to the future," and they have not been able to do it. Is that not a validating method of determining that what you are saying about the past is in fact accurate? Dr. HAUSKER. I think it probably indicates the imprecision of the models more than the accuracy of the past data, but I think your point is a good one on the imprecision of our forecasting models. Senator BENNETT. That, of course, is what this whole debate between Senator Wallop and me and Chairman Johnston and so on is about, how much dependence we out on the models. The only other comment I would leave you with-and I gave this to Mr. Frampton when he sat at that table prior to his confirmation-is having to do with the attitude of his Department with respect to logging and timber harvest. I pointed out to him. that if you are concerned about greenhouse gases and global warming, then you want to be in favor of aggressive logging practices because new forests planted to replace forests that have been logged consume considerably more CO2 than old forests. That is, growing trees coming from seedlings use far more CO2 in the atmosphere than mature trees that are simply surviving. I said to Mr. Frampton I would hope that this administration, as it expresses its concern about greenhouse gases, backs away from some of the positions that his organization had previously taken with respect to cutting down on logging. The evidence shows that biodiversity in new forests of the kinds that logging companies create as they replant is far, far greater than biodiversity in ancient forests and that the CO2 problem is alleviated by those kinds of forests. Otherwise, we have the logging management that nature follows, which is fire. If we can replace fire as the management principle in our forests, I would assume it would have a beneficial effect on greenhouse gases. Then the other question, and then I will leave it. Have you factored into your models and projections of the future volcanic eruptions and the amount of greenhouse gases that are thrown into the atmosphere by those eruptions as well? Are they not, in fact, far greater in terms of their volume? You were talking metric tons, Madam Secretary. Do volcanic eruptions not produce substantially greater metric tons than what we are talking about here? Mr. SUSSMAN. Senator, we will need to ponder those issues and get back to you in writing I think. Senator BENNETT. Well, I appreciate that because those are the kinds of things that have to go into any model. Of course, the ecosystem of the planet as a whole for many millennia has been able to take care of volcanic eruptions, and that is another indication that they might be able to take care of some of the things we are talking about with a little less drastic amelioration on our side. Things for us to think and talk about, and I am sure they will come up continually as long as we are in our respective positions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me leave you with one final word. Much of that which could be done is more or less off the table. Taxes have failed, at least in the Senate, and I would guess even if these taxes had been implemented, the Btu tax, a 2 percent conservation effect is within the margin of error, and I think it is debatable because that would have been produced. In any event, at least in the Senate, those seem to be off the table. Emission trading seems to be off the table at the present time. Nuclear power seems to be off the table at least at the present time for this administration. We did as much efficiency and conservation as we knew how to do and to achieve in the Energy Policy Act. It is not fully implemented yet. When it is, I understand it will produce some 20 million to 40 million tons a year, a substantial amount, but that is done, and that is more or less in the cash register. At least I hope upon implementation it will be. That leaves us really with-most of what is left would be joint implementation which I think is where the biggest payoff will be unless you are willing to reconsider some of the other measures. The thing that concerns me is that the goal has been adopted, and while it is true you adopt the goal first and then seek to implement it, it is fairly late in the day in terms of what is the date on which we are supposed to achieve that? August? We ought to be in at least sort of final draft stage now and we are not. It seems to me that we ought to have a little more rigorous examination of these options than we have. It is going to take getting the economic people involved. I am glad Karl Hausker is here. He used to be at least our economic person and a damn good one, but we need that. We need to think not just in terms of that which is desirable. I signed onto this global warming phenomenon. I think it is serious, and it takes some really serious, rigorous, disciplined, scientific thought to solve the problem not-sort of not that which people would like in their own agendas, but some really tough, rigorous thought and consideration of options. We have seen what happens with taxes. Now, taxes are, unfortunately, not very popular with the American public. I say unfortunately because most recognize that a big tax, a carbon tax for example, would have been the environmental way to go, but the administration rejected that early on and for probably very good reasons. You could not pass that. Then you have a Btu tax and that was a small one. That could not pass either. So, we are going to have to go back to consider real actions that produce real results, and I hope we will get that done and with, as I say, the rigorous and disciplined thought with a heavy dose of economic reality brought in. With that, let me thank our witnesses today. You have been very good and very helpful to the committee. [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] APPENDIXES APPENDIX I Responses To Additional Questions DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONGRESSIONAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 29, 1993, Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, testified before your Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding global climate change. Enclosed are the answers to 28 of the 51 questions submitted by you and Senators Wallop and Mathews. The remaining answers will be forwarded to you as expeditiously as possible. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Campbell, on (202) 586-8238. Sincerely, [Enclosure.] WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, III, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONGRESSIONAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 29, 1993, Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, testified before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding global climate change. Enclosed are the answers to the 23 remaining questions submitted by you and Senators Wallop and Mathews to complete the record. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Campbell, on (202) 586-8238. Sincerely, [Enclosure.] WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, III, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSTON Question 1. President Clinton has chosen to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Why was 1990 chosen as the baseline for greenhouse gas stabilization? Does the President intend for the 1990 level to be a cap for future years' emissions? Answer. The year 1990 was chosen as the baseline because this is the baseline specified in Article 4, paragraph 2(b), of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The President did not commit to a permanent cap at 1990 levels but did call for a mitigation plan that would continue the trend of reduced emissions in the years beyond 2000. (53) |