pollutant within the administration, though it is one of the most common atmospheric gasses emitted by humans, animals, and machines."

I also understand that EPA proposed a rule on February 3, 1998, under Section 612 of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990, banning self-chilling cans using HFC-134a or HFC-152a—not as protection of the ozone layer, but to control one of the six greenhouse gases referenced in the Kyoto Protocol.

How are these Administration actions consistent with your assurances to Representative English and to the rest of the Committee, presumably on behalf of the Administration, that “in terms of binding obligations, we do not intend to in any way, shape, or form, through the back door, the front door, the side door, or any other efforts, to bind this country, or any other sectors of this country, until the Senate has acted in a constitutional manner"?

A19. The first part of your question describes a "pre-decisional" Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum. We know that EPA legal counsel drafted a legal opinion for EPA Administrator Browner in response to a March 11, 1998 request from Congressman DeLay regarding, et alia, the extent of the EPA's ability to determine what airborne chemicals are pollutants and thus can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Also in Question 19's first paragraph, mention is made of Department of Justice (DOJ) activities. I know that in the fall of 1997 — before the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December a DOJ memorandum proposed to an interagency policy group that the Administration consider expanding the community right-to-know framework to producers of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal was made during the general consideration of Administration policies and positions prior to the President's October 1997 climate speech. As far as I can recall, this proposal was not discussed within the interagency group or further elaborated upon. It was not considered in developing positions for Kyoto or in the Protocol itself.

Focusing on the last two paragraphs of your question, I am aware that in March 1998 the EPA issued a notice of proposed rule-making on the issue of “self-chilling” cans that were conceived to be activated by vented HFC-134a and HFC-152a, hydrofluorocarbons. It is my understanding that these substances, replacements for CFC refrigerants, are only approved in closed systems and that EPA regulations have long required the recovery and reuse of both CFC-substitute refrigerants.

57-717 99-5

Administration's Bases for Declaring Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases to be Pollutants

Q20. It is my understanding that carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other gases, known collectively as greenhouse gases, help maintain the Earth's temperature, which is critical to the maintenance of human, animal and plant life as we know it; that some greenhouse gases are produced continuously by humans; that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor are critical to the well-being of most plants; and that within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, individuals are not greenhouse gas polluters.

Q20.1 Is my understanding as stated above correct, and if not, what is the correct information?

A20.1 Your statements are correct.

Q20.2 What, then, is the Administration's basis for declaring carbon dioxide a "pollutant" for purposes of regulatory actions within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, such as those just referenced above in Question 19?

A20.2 It is my understanding that EPA has developed an analysis of its legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant emitted by electric power generation sources. We understand that EPA's legal opinion has already been provided to your committee. I would refer you to their responses to your questions. The Department of State is not a regulatory agency and does not have authority to regulate pollutants.

Q20.3 Are you trying to suggest that there is "good" carbon dioxide and “bad” carbon dioxide?

A20.3 No. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of our atmosphere. The problem with carbon dioxide is that its concentration in our atmosphere is rising at an alarming rate, already reaching concentrations much higher than the window of natural variability over at least the last 160,000 years. By the year 2100, if we continue along our same trajectory, the concentrations are predicted to be above 700 parts per million, higher than any level for at least the past 50 million years.

Q20.4 Would you reach the same conclusion for water vapor, the most dominant greenhouse gas?

A20.4 While water vapor is the most abundant natural greenhouse gas, its atmospheric concentration is controlled primarily by natural processes that add or remove water to sustain a near steady-state amount consistent with the existing temperature and atmospheric circulation patterns. These in turn are strongly influenced by the atmospheric water vapor concentration. The adjustment time for water vapor tends to be a few weeks and the amount in the atmosphere is very large, which is

why human-induced additions of water to the atmosphere make little difference except very locally.

Water vapor will, however, play an important role in exacerbating human-induced warming through a feedback on by higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Specifically, the warming influence of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and some other greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere allow a response in the water vapor concentration through natural processes. And because this adjustment is so fast and because water vapor is such an important greenhouse gas, further warming occurs: this furthers warming until a new steady state is established. This natural amplification effect is referred to as water vapor feedback, and it is estimated to cause the ultimate warming to be a few times larger than would be caused by the greenhouse gas increase alone.

Opportunity for Congressional and Public Review of U.S. Positions for Upcoming Bonn and Buenos Aires Meetings

Q21. In January and June 1997, the State Department released to the public drafts of a proposed protocol that was submitted to the Ad-Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM). However, there was no prior opportunity for Congressional and public review and comment on those drafts.

Q21.1 Does the Administration plan to develop and propose in Bonn and/or Buenos Aires text for the rules, guidelines, etc., mentioned in Questions 13 and 14 above?

A21.1 We did not develop and propose text for the June meetings in Bonn. Plans for Buenos Aires are still being finalized, and we have not made ultimate decisions on specific proposals for text for rules and guidelines on emissions trading, joint implementation, the Clean Development Mechanism, or sinks.

Q21.2 Given your comments about "working closely with industry" and the potential importance of such rules, etc., to our domestic economy, will the Administration allow at least 30 days for review and comment by Congress and the public prior to any such submittal, and if not, why not?

A21.2 Prior to Kyoto, the Administration developed its position in consultation with Congress and the public. We anticipate following the same process for Buenos Aires. Currently, the Administration is developing positions on a number of issues with other countries, and has conducted informal discussions with experts outside the Administration and other interested parties, including a wide variety of industry groups and NGOs. We have also received advice and guidance from Members of

Q21.3 If your answer to Q21.2 is no, please explain how you will be "working closely with industry,” and does the term “industry” include labor and agriculture?

A21.3 See response to Q21.2. The Administration's policy is to involve the full range of interests in its discussions on climate change policy, including utilities, manufacturing, labor, agriculture, environmental, state and local groups. We are also conducting consultations with major industrial sectors interested in taking voluntary action to reduce emissions.

New U.S. Requirements Imposed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Kyoto Protocol

Q22. I understand that Articles 10 and 11 of the Protocol relate to existing commitments under Article 4.1 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and apply to all Parties to the Convention. And in the U.S. 1996 Non-Paper, it was stressed that "next steps under the Convention must include all Parties."

Q22.1 Do I understand correctly that implementation of the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 by all Parties depends on “all Parties," becoming Parties to the Protocol?

A.22.1 Yes, only Parties to the Protocol would be bound by its provisions.

Q22.2 Please explain what new requirements these Articles would impose on the U.S. and what, if any, new funds and legislation would be needed to implement them.

A22.2 Strictly speaking, Article 10 advances existing commitments, rather than creating new requirements.

Article 11 restates existing obligations under the Framework Convention.

Although we have not conducted an article-by-article analysis of the need for new legislation, it is unlikely that any will be necessary regarding these Articles.

Regarding funding, for the most part, the United States and other developed country Parties to the Convention meet their requirements to provide such financial assistance through their annual contributions to the Global Environment Facility and through their bilateral assistance efforts, such as the programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Thus far, we see no need for new legislation to implement Articles 10 and 11 of

Q22.3 Are Articles 10 and 11 the only articles in the Protocol that address the issue of adaptation?

A22.3 No. Article 12, which defines the Clean Development Mechanism, provides for the COP/MOP to ensure that a share of the proceeds from certified project activities is used, inter alia, to "assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation."

Q22.4 What measures are planned or underway for implementing effective adaptation?

A22.4 Because the Kyoto Protocol has not yet entered into force, and because there has been only one meeting of the Convention's subsidiary bodies since the Protocol was adopted in December 1997, the Parties have yet to plan or implement, pursuant to the Protocol, any specific measures in this regard.

Clarification of the Protocol's Article 25.1 Entry-Into-Force Provisions

Q23. Article 25.1 of the Protocol states: "This Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."

However, the January 15, 1998 “Fact Sheet” on the Kyoto Protocol released by the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs contained the following: "To enter into force, it must be ratified by at least 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries."

It appears to me that Article 25.1 says that the Protocol would enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date on which at least 55 Convention Parties—which also must include Annex I Parties that accounted for least 55 percent of Annex I Party carbon dioxide emissions in 1990—”have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." However, the State Department “Fact Sheet” says that the Protocol would enter into force whenever it is ratified by any 55 Convention Parties that accounted “for at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries.” There appears to be a contradiction between these two interpretations.