Last, Mr. Chairman, where do we go from here? First, we have to adopt rules and procedures to assure that this emissions trading and joint implementation are operating efficiently and smoothly. I'll be working, and our team will, closely with our industry to be sure that they're satisfied that the system is developed in a way that's efficient and effective for them. We also have to work to secure meaningful participation of key developing countries. We'll be putting on a full court diplomatic press which has already begun to achieve this. We will accept nothing less, and we know you will accept nothing less. As the President's indicated, we not assume binding obligations under the Protocol on this country until key developing countries meaningfully participate in meeting the challenge of climate change. It, obviously, would be premature to submit something to the Senate when the Senate, itself, has asked for this kind of participation, and we have not yet achieved it. That's our obligation over the coming months and, if necessary, coming years. Further, let me say, that to lock in the progress we've and that I've described with the developed countries, we anticipate signing the Protocol sometime between mid-March of this year and midMarch of next year when it is open for signature. We haven't as yet determined the precise timing due to tactical considerations. We'll sign at a time which makes the most sense in terms of our diplomatic situation. Last, Mr. Chairman, is the President's own proposed initiative; as you mentioned in your opening statement, a $6.3 billion technology initiative of tax cuts and R&D incentives. This country-and I think your Committee will be central to this-this country has an unparalleled capacity for innovation and for developing technological solutions to problems. When Jack Smith, the President of General Motors, talks only a few weeks ago about the fact that he's going to produce a car that will get twice the gas mileage that our current cars will make, and that he was going to produce this in several years; when Texaco talks about the fact that they're going to be producing a special conversion program for natural gas to reduce the amount of natural gas that's flared, we know that we have the technological capacity-and this, again, I think this Committee is going to front and center in helping us meet these obligations and create jobs at the same time. Indeed, when I was Under Secretary of Commerce, we created a special unit on environmental exports. Environmental exports, members of the Committee and Mr. Chairman, are the fastest growing exports the United States has, and these countries are going to be hungry for our exports of environmental technology, Honeywell measuring devices and the So, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman-as we did in Kyoto-with your Committee; with the Congress. All I would say is this, the science is there. We would risk ignoring it. We can purchase an insurance policy now at a very reasonable cost, and if we ignore the science and we assume that this problem will go away, we will wake up a decade from now and have to pay far, far greater costs than the moderate costs we can assume now. Thank you very much for your attention. [The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Eizenstat follow:] Statement of Stuart E. Eizenstat Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs before the House Science Committee Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, let me thank those members of Congress, in this chamber and in the Senate, who participated with us in the Kyoto Conference and who lent their advice and support to our efforts there. Rarely has there been an environmental issue more important or complex than global warming, and rarely has there been a greater need for the Executive Branch and the Congress to work closely together. It is with great pleasure that I appear here today to explain the Administration's position on global warming. To this end, I will divide my testimony into four parts: (1) a short discussion of the science – the driving force for all the efforts we have taken to date to mitigate a significant and growing global environmental problem; (2) a discussion of the results of the recent Kyoto Conference and key features of the Kyoto Protocol; (3) an effort to correct misperceptions; and (4) a brief review of the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative. I hope to leave you with a clear understanding of why we believe that it is necessary to act, of how we intend to proceed internationally, and of what the President plans to do here at home. The Science Human beings are changing the climate by increasing the global concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Burning coal, oil and natural gas to heat our homes, power our cars and illuminate our cities produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as by-products - more than 6 billion metric tons worth of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide annually. Similarly, deforestation and land clearing also release significant quantities of such gases -- another 1 to 2 billion tons a year. Over the last century, greenhouse gases have been released to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove them. There is no ambiguity in the data; since 1860, concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen 30 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm. In December 1995, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the work of more than 2,000 of the world's leading climate change 2 scientists from more than 50 countries, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." The IPCC Assessment represents the best synthesis of the science of climate change. It concludes: Concentrations of greenhouse gases could exceed 700 ppm by 2100 under Increased temperatures are expected to speed up the global water cycle and exacerbate weather extremes. Faster evaporation will lead to a drying of soils and in some areas increased drought. Overall, however, due to the faster global cycling of water, there will be an increase in precipitation. Sea levels are expected to rise between 6 and 37 inches over the next century. A 20 inch sea level rise could double the global population at risk from storm surges -- from roughly 45 million to over 90 million, even if coastal populations do not increase. Low-lying areas are particularly vulnerable (e.g., much of coastal Louisiana and the Florida Everglades). Human health is likely to be affected. Warmer temperatures will increase the chances of heat waves (like the Chicago event in 1995 that killed over 400 people) and can exacerbate air quality problems such as smog, and lead to an increase in allergic disorders. Diseases that thrive in warmer climates, such as dengue fever, malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis, and cholera are likely to spread due to the expansion of the range of disease carrying organisms. By 2100, there could be an additional 50-80 million cases of malaria each year. Agriculture, forests, and natural ecosystems are also likely to be affected. The poorest countries, already subject to food production and distribution problems, will likely suffer the greatest agricultural impacts. Doubling current carbon dioxide concentrations could lead to a dramatic change in the geographic distribution of one-third of the Earth's forests. (For example, the ideal range of some North American forest species would shift by as much as 300 miles to the north in the next 100 years -- far faster than their ability to migrate on their own.) Such changes could have profound effects on parks 3 What Changes Have We Seen to Date? The earth's temperature is increasing: Scientists from our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.K. Meteorological Office and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) all recently announced that 1997 was the warmest year on record. In fact, nine of the last 11 years are among the warmest ever recorded. The water cycle of the planet may be speeding up: Since the beginning of the century, NOAA estimates that precipitation in the United States has increased by about 5 - 10 percent, while the frequency of heavy downpours (where more than 2 inches fall in a day) has increased by about 20 percent. The United States has had many recent reminders of how costly extreme events can be: the Mississippi flooding of 1993 led to damages of between $10 and $20 billion; the Southern Plains drought of 1996 was estimated to cost $4 billion; and the Northwest floods of 1996-97 about $3 billion. We have yet to learn what the current floods in California will cost. While no single event can be attributed to global warming, increases in floods and droughts are expected as global warming occurs. Action Needed Now Some have argued that we can wait to act until all the details of the climate system have been fully understood. The science tells us that this is a recipe for disaster. We will only fully confirm predictions when we experience them. At that point it will be too late. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to rise each year, and because these gases will persist for many decades to centuries, this problem is only slowly reversed. The earth will continue to warm and the seas continue to rise as long as we continue to load the entire atmosphere of the earth with greenhouse gases. The problem has developed over the course of a century and it will take many decades to solve. Already, we have another 1.0 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the pipeline from emissions that have previously occurred, so some impacts will happen no matter what actions we take. Nevertheless, we can still forestall many others if we begin taking costeffective actions now. We should look at the Kyoto Protocol as an insurance policy against the potentially devastating and irreversible impacts of global warming. This insurance policy is fully justified today, based solely on our current understanding of the science. If we act now the premium will be far more reasonable than if we delay and hope the problem created by greenhouse gases will go away. It is like a life insurance policy whose costs grow significantly if we delay year after year insuring ourselves. But there is a critical difference in the case of the climate system. In most insurance policies, the loser can be made whole -- restitution is possible; the building can be rebuilt, the stolen car replaced, the fire or flood damage repaired. In the case of global |