planet we could be committed to a tripling of carbon dioxide concentrations over their pre-industrial by the end of the century-by the end of the 21st century. Concentrations of other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are increasing as well.

While we don't have all the answers yet, we do know that this continued buildup will cause temperatures to rise and climate to change. Such climate change could lead to changes in precipitation patterns, constantly increasing sea levels, and enormous impacts on the world's ecosystems.

At Rio, industrialized countries agreed to the nonbinding aim of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. All countries, including developing countries, with the assistance of developed countries, are required to inventory their missions and sinks of greenhouse gases and to formulate, implement, publish, and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programs containing measures to mitigate climate change. In that sense, all governments under the treaty have the same commitment for that part of it.

For several reasons the administration believes and has stated here at home and at INC meetings over the last year that existing convention provisions do not adequately address policies and measures to be taken beyond the year 2000.

First, even if all industrialized countries succeed in returning their year 2000 emissions to 1990 levels, these efforts will fall far short of stabilizing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

Second, the convention's current aim provides no guidance for the post-2000 period, containing no milestones against which to gauge progress after the turn of the millennium.

Third, we have long stated that climate change is a global problem and that solving it will require broad international participation. While industrialized countries and developing countries both have commitments under the convention, we believe that more must be done on a global basis, recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities of all parties.

We favor agreeing in Berlin to begin a negotiating process that will unite all parties in seeking to establish a new regime with milestones for the post-2000 period. In our view, the negotiating process should include an analytical or assessment phase. In this phase parties would be asked to consider what level of action should be achieved, what level of action may realistically be achieved, by whom and over what period of time. The analytical phase should examine the potential for action not only in the near term (by the year 2010) but also in the longer term (by the year 2020.) The analytical or assessment phase should proceed in parallel with negotiation of a new aim to guide our efforts in the first decade of the next century. The analytical or assessment phase should help us to reach agreement no later than 1997 on this new

aim.

I see the light, Mr. Chairman. May I continue?
Mr. SCHAEFER. Yes, please continue.

Mr. POMERANCE. It won't be much longer.

Clearly, new technologies and new approaches will be vital in addressing the long-term threat of global climate change. Cooperation in this area is a triple win, good for the environment, good for the

economy, and good for American industry. In this connection, we are hopeful that Berlin will produce agreement on terms for a pilot phase for joint implementation.

Joint implementation, a means by which countries can engage in cooperative projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions and share the benefits obtained, is recognized but not defined in the convention. To increase understanding about the benefits of joint implementation, the United States has promoted the concept with both developing countries and countries in transition through the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, about which my colleagues from DOE and EPA will speak in greater detail. There is growing international support for exploring and addressing the advantages of joint implementation, particularly as it may relate to next steps in the post-2000 period.

Finally, let me turn to how other countries are doing in meeting their domestic commitments to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The convention mandates that all Annex I parties that is, OECD countries and countries in transition to market economies-communicate to other parties information on their policies and measures to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. To date, of the 26 countries from which such communications were due, 22 have responded.

In our view, the more than 700 measures and countries' plans should be carefully examined in seeking to adopt next steps to address the problem. At the same time, we must seek, as must all countries, to work to continuously to improve our own domestic efforts and to make funding for climate action programs a priority. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Rafe Pomerance follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAFE POMERANCE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak with you at this time-only days before the opening of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties under the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Berlin on March 28. My testimony will focus on the international situation and our expectations for the Berlin meeting.

The Berlin Conference will be the first high-level, worldwide meeting on climate change since the climate convention was opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Since the convention was adopted, there has been a series of preparatory meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC, the last of which concluded in New York in February. In these meetings, participants have worked to address issues left unresolved by the convention—and on which decisions are required in order to implement the convention's provisions. In addition to these official, U.N.-sponsored meetings, Germany, in its role as host to the Conference, convened an informal ministerial meeting in Bonn less than 2 weeks ago. Under Secretary Wirth represented the United States at that meeting.

We are gratified that, as a result of these efforts, there is increasing recognition that the central goal in Berlin should be to agree on a mandate to begin considering next steps under the convention. Still, achieving such a mandate will not be easy. There are now over 120 Parties to the convention, each of which approaches the Berlin Conference with its own set of concerns. Nevertheless, if we are able to summon the same spirit of compromise that was present in New York less than 3 years ago when the convention was adopted, we are confident that we can reach our goal. Before going into detail on the Berlin session, and our views of next steps under the Convention, I would like briefly to explain why the administration believes that, as President Clinton has put it, climate change is the most important environmental

issue of our time.

Scientists have confirmed that the blanket of gases around our planet-including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide-trap heat near the planet's surface. Without this blanket, the earth would be about 60 degrees Fahrenheit colder-making life as we know it difficult to imagine. Scientists have verified this "greenhouse effect" by comparing our atmosphere with those of our sister planets: Mars, which has few greenhouse gases and is extremely cold; and Venus, which has massive accumulations of carbon dioxide and is extremely hot.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, human activity has released literally billions of tons of these gases into the atmosphere with the single largest effect coming from emissions of carbon dioxide. As a consequence, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million in 1800 to 360 parts per million today. If present trends continue, we could be committed to tripling carbon dioxide concentrations over their pre-industrial concentrations by the end of the next century. Concentrations of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are increasing as well.

Over the past 2 decades, a great deal of progress has been made in understanding how the atmospheric system works. While we don't have all the answers yet, we do know that this continued build-up will cause the climate to change. Such climate change could lead to changes in precipitation patterns, constantly increasing sea levels, and enormous impacts on the world's ecosystems.

Át Rio, industrialized countries agreed to the non-binding "aim" of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. All countries, including developing countries with the assistance of developed countries, are required to inventory their emissions and sinks of greenhouse gases and to "formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national, and where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change."

As part of the “bargain” struck in Rio between those who advocated more stringent commitments and those wary of moving too quickly, the parties agreed that the adequacy of Article 4, subparagraphs 2 (a) and (b) (which contains the "aim" language) would be reviewed at the first meeting of Conference of the Parties, in order to determine whether additional action might be needed to move toward the Convention's ultimate goal-stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For several reasons, the administration believes, and has stated here at home and at INC meetings over the last year, that existing convention provisions do not adequately address policies and measures to be taken beyond the year 2000.

First, as our delegation observed at INC-9, even if all industrialized countries succeed in returning their year 2000 emissions to 1990 levels, these efforts will fall far short of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at any level.

Second, the convention's current "aim" provides no guidance for the post-2000 period. While the Convention's requirement for countries to adopt policies and measures continues after the year 2000, the convention contains no milestone against which to gauge progress after the turn of the millennium.

Third, we have long stated that climate change is a global problem and that solving it will require broad international participation. While industrialized countries and developing countries both have commitments under the convention, we believe that more must be done on a global basis, recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities of all Parties.

For these reasons, the administration believes that all Parties to the convention must move forward in Berlin and agree to consider next steps. It will not be possible there to reach agreement on specifics-there is too much work yet to be done and too little time. Instead, we favor agreeing in Berlin to begin a negotiating process that will unite all Parties in seeking to establish a new regime with milestones for the post-2000 period.

In our view, the negotiating process should include an analytical or assessment phase. In this phase, Parties would be asked to consider what level of action should be achieved, and what level of action may realistically be achieved, by whom and over what time period. The analytical phase should examine the potential for action not only in the near term-by the year 2010-but also in the longer term-by the year 2020. Available assessments of technological success stories in different regions and ways to accelerate the development and diffusion of solutions could help to inform the process. For example, we have proposed developing a common menu of actions; programs outlined in the Parties' national communications could be useful in such an effort.

The analytical or assessment phase should proceed in parallel with negotiation of a new aim to guide our efforts in the first decade of the next century. The analytical

or assessment phase should help us to reach agreement—no later than 1997-on this new aim.

The United States is not alone in viewing global climate change as a critical problem or in urging that countries begin to consider next steps to deal with it. Virtually all countries acknowledge that the commitments in Article 4.2(a) and (b) are only a first step, and several have proposed concrete targets for reducing emissions. For example, the United Kingdom has suggested that industrialized countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5-10 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2010, while the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has proposed that industrialized countries reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2005.

On the other hand, there are a number of developing countries that are reluctant to consider next steps under the convention. Some of these countries even question whether industrialized countries should be encouraged to go beyond their existing actions. We understand the concerns of these countries they face a broad array of problems at home and they are determined that their economies will grow.

But as we have sought to do here at home, we must also convince developing countries that_environmental protection and economic growth are not adversaries but partners. In this regard, we have been exploring new avenues for cooperating in the development and diffusion of environmental technologies. Clearly, new technologies and new approaches will be vital in addressing the long-term threat of global climate change. Cooperation in this area is a triple win-good for the environment, good for the economy and good for American industry.

Despite the difficulties involved, we are hopeful that the Parties will be able to agree in Berlin to begin a negotiating process that will lead to innovative next steps under the convention.

In this connection, we are also hopeful that Berlin will produce agreement on terms for a pilot phase for joint implementation. Joint implementation—a means by which countries can engage in cooperative projects that avoid, reduce or sequester greenhouse gas omissions and share the benefits obtained-is recognized but not defined in the convention. Through several difficult meetings, INC participants have sought to come to grips with joint implementation. To increase understanding about the benefits of joint implementation, the United States has promoted the concept with both developing countries and countries with economies in transition. While many continue to have concerns, it is clear that there is growing support for exploring and assessing the advantages of joint implementation, particularly as it may relate to next steps in the post-2000 period. Beginning a pilot phase in Berlin would send an important signal, particularly to the private sector, of our resolve to look for cost-effective solutions to environmental problems that simultaneously promote sustainable development.

Because of our strong belief in the long-term potential of joint implementation, the United States has already launched its own pilot program-the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation as part of the U.S Climate Change Action Plan announced by the President in October 1993. My colleagues from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency will have more to say about our early efforts under this program, but let me note that we are quite encouraged. In our view, joint implementation provides a significant new opportunity to harness the enthusiasm and creativity of the private sector in pursuit of solutions to global environmental problems.

Mr. Chairman, let me also touch on a more prosaic issue that will occupy our time in Berlin-reaching agreement on rules of procedure to govern_the_conduct of our work under the convention. While the normal rule is for all Parties to strive to reach consensus in all matters, it is also normal to have recourse to a special majority voting process for decisions in the rare instance when consensus proves impossible. We are hopeful that we can reach agreement on such a process in Berlin quickly, so that we can devote our attention to the key substantive issues before the Conference of the Parties.

Finally, let me turn to how other countries are doing in meeting their domestic commitments to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Convention mandates that all Annex I Parties (OECD countries, and countries with economies in transition to market economies) communicate to other Parties information on their policies and measures to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. To date, of the 26 countries from which such communications were due, 22 have responded.

The United States submitted its own communication on September 21, 1994, meeting the deadline set in the Convention. Our plan has been acclaimed by other countries as being one of the most comprehensive efforts of any; meeting all of the agreed guidelines set by the INC for reporting. It was also, we understand, the only report to do so; other countries were asked by the Secretariat to submit additional

information to supplement their communications, which were incomplete in some

areas.

Our experts who have reviewed other country communications believe that some may need to adopt additional measures to reach their goals; only a few appear to have plans that are adequate. An in-depth review of national communications, coordinated by the Secretariat, will begin later this year.

We note that more than 700 measures were listed by countries as they sought to address their greenhouse gas emissions. In our view, this cornucopia of ideas should be carefully examined in seeking to adopt next steps to address the problem. At the same time, we must seek-as must all countries to work to continuously improve our own domestic efforts. That means that funding for programs must be a continued priority. Efforts to inform our citizens of the issue and of actions they can take must continue. In addition, countries must work to meet their reporting commitments so that we can continue to benefit from shared ideas and determine how most cost-effectively and efficiently to proceed. I believe that these will continue to be priorities for our meeting in Berlin.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. SCHAEFER. I thank the gentleman for his statement and would say to this panel as well as the next panel, without objection, that any other parts of your statement that you did not get through will be submitted as part of the record.

Mr. POMERANCE. Thank you.

Mr. SCHAEFER. Ms. Tierney.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN F. TIERNEY

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. Pomerance has provided you the international context, and what I would like to do in my brief oral comments is focus a bit on our domestic strategy for how we will meet those international commitments.

The main point that I would like to make here in my oral statement is the following. As you know, there was a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the cost of meeting our commitments, and I am going to speak a little bit more about that in a moment, but there is absolutely no uncertainty about the way in which we are attending to this action plan. Our strategy is very clear. Our strategy is to devise a cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases using the most cost-effective measures. Our approach is to develop a tool kit as wide and broad as possible that will enable us to choose the most cost-effective and most flexible means by which American companies and households can help attain the U.S. commitments to global climate change. This approach, we think, meets our dual commitments to sustainable economic development and long-term environmental protection.

You have asked me to address the question of the cost of meeting additional commitments. The literature on this subject is extremely imprecise. The literature is also conflicting with regard to the information it tells us about cost. In fact, there is a very wide range of cost estimates in the literature. On the one hand, there are engineering studies. These are studies that take a look at what are the most advanced technologies either for motors or for electric generating equipment for cars, et cetera, and the energy savings and therefore the greenhouse gas emissions reduction that would flow from developing those advanced technologies.