STATEMENTS OF TIMOTHY WIRTH, UNDER SECRETARY FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN F. TIERNEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; JEFFREY HUNKER, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND KARL HAUSKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. WIRTH. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is a delight to be back in this hearing room in which I must say I think I spent most of my wayward youth here in this in these very four walls.

I appreciate your having this hearing and I want to start by saying that we have developed this policy in very close cooperation with the Congress, congressional staffs, with nongovernmental organizations and with industry groups. We look forward just to run through a variety of your opening comments, if I might.

We look forward to cooperating with you on any kind of help that we can give on hearings on the science. We think that the evidence is compelling and growing and would look forward to working with you in any way that might be helpful, and I have some reference to that in my testimony.

Trade. The Trade Representative's Office and CEA were, as all agencies of the administration, engaged in the process of preparing not only my testimony this morning, but also all of the background, preparation and agreements that were reached in Berlin.

In your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you made the comments that this could result, I mean, that is correct, there are lots of things that could result. They won't result, but I think it is important to say that one can lay out a whole variety of things that could happen, but let me assure you that we are very aware of lots of things that could happen. What we are concerned about is what will happen.

There are in this-I would agree entirely with you, and you note that it would be unacceptable if the developing-if the developed countries only had obligations. That is not the case in the Berlin mandate, nor do we expect that will be the case in what is coming out of Berlin; that there are, as Mr. Pallone pointed out, no hard agreements in the Berlin mandate at all except a commitment, which we are very proud of, Mr. Pallone, worked very, very hard to get on the joint implementation pilot phase.

We think that may be the most promising part of the whole operation and we are very pleased to be able to have that as a new part of the agenda put into all of the negotiations that will, we hope, come to a first ending in 1997.

Mr. Chairman, in your reference of going to China, I would say I was there in December. We spent a great deal of time talking with the Chinese about their very ambitious follow-up program to agenda 21 and we have a joint program with them on a climate change plan for China.

I just wanted to touch upon those comments. I am sorry that I was not able to be with you at the hearing in March, and look forward-we were deeply involved in that process and look forward to

any further deliberations that the administration has with the Congress.

Before detailing the discussions and outcomes of the Berlin meeting, I want to take a moment to reiterate the scientific basis for the framework convention on climate change and the discussions in Berlin.

In the late 1980's, under the Bush administration, the international community established a worldwide process to review the science and provide policymakers with the best possible scientific assessment about the climate change issue.

Accordingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, was established, and its subsequent reports represent the consensus work of thousands of scientists around the world. I make this point, Mr. Chairman, simply to underscore that the administration's concern and commitment on the issue of climate change is based upon the best scientific evidence available to us and to the rest of the world. These concerns are not based on obscure, unsubstantiated views of the few. They represent the consensus view of the world's scientific community.

What the scientific community has told us is this: The earth's climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The buildup of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is changing the radiative balance of the planet. The essential heattrapping property of these gases is undisputed. Nor is their buildup in the atmosphere a matter for debate.

Lastly, there is certainty that the continued build up of these gases will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and cause the global climate to change. Just as certainly, the scientific community cannot tell us precisely how, when, and at what rate the earth's climate will respond to greenhouse gas buildup. Nonetheless, making the best possible estimates, the scientific community believes that current emissions trends will lead to global average temperature increases of 2 to 8 degrees.

In turn, the best scientific evidence indicates that the impacts of such a warming will have profound consequences for weather, river basins, agriculture, transportation, and human health. In short, climate change has the potential for significant economic and environmental impacts for this and future generations.

Because of the long-term nature of this challenge, the decisions that we make today will determine important environmental and economic conditions that we leave for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

This administration is committed to addressing the problem of climate change and to working with the world community to avoid its adverse consequences. At the same time, we have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are committed to doing so with policies that are good for both the environment and for the economy.

This is reflected in the climate change action plan developed by the administration in October of 1993 and it is reflected in our participation in international policy discussions.

With these goals in mind, we were pleased to participate in the Berlin conference and we think that the meeting was, for the Unit

ed States, a major success. We believe the agreement reached at Berlin moves the world another step toward protecting the global environment through a process that allows careful consideration of options and cost-effective strategies.

The United States had three specific objectives in Berlin. First, to negotiate a mandate to begin considering next steps under the climate change convention; second, to ensure that all parties will be part of that process and advanced developing country's commitments; and third, to establish a pilot phase for joint implementation.

We were successful in achieving each of these objectives.

The convention required that the conference of the parties make several decisions at its first session. In Berlin, the conference of the parties agreed to launch a process to define actions in the post2000 period and to advance the implementation of commitments by all nations. This process will take place in an ad hoc group that is to finish its work as early as possible in 1997.

The process will include, in its early stages, an analysis or assessments to identify policies and measures that deal with climate change and should lead to agreement on actions to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the period after the year 2000. We believe this agreement will maintain critical forward momentum under the convention.

It reflects the President's commitment to continue the trend of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases after the year 2000 and to engage all countries in actions to address climate change.

While the Berlin agreement specifies that there will be no new commitments for developing country parties, it calls for advancing the implementation of the existing commitments related to policies and measures for developing countries and allows for negotiations on new commitments to begin as soon as work under the Berlin agreement is complete.

We are working with the international community to encourage developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, through bilateral programs, joint implementation and participation of the global environment facility, a multilateral partnership.

Through the process launched at Berlin, we will be working to further elaborate specific actions developing countries can take to limit their emissions. In this way, the final consensus reflects our belief that this is a global problem, requiring global solutions. We believe all countries must work together to guard against harmful climate changes.

We are also pleased that the conference of the parties decided to launch a pilot program for joint implementation or JI. JI is the term used to describe projects undertaken between two or more parties to the convention to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The JI Pilot Program will be reviewed annually and the conference of the parties must make a decision no later than the end of the decade about the role of JI in the future. Under the pilot program, greenhouse gas emissions that are saved will not count toward meeting a country's commitments before the year 2000. But countries may be able to count such savings thereafter from

projects begun during the pilot phase, an outcome which we strongly support.

Criteria established for the pilot program are very similar to those adopted by the United States in its domestic U.S. initiative on joint implementation, a part of the U.S. climate action plan.

The conference of the parties made decisions on a host of other areas as well. For example, on technology, on the siting of the convention secretariat in Bonn, and related housekeeping matters.

In terms of Berlin follow-up, Mr. Chairman, let me just note that we intend to continue our efforts to work with all of the interested parties, NGO's, the private sector, and the Congress in developing our positions for discussions in the months and years ahead.

We also intend to continue the practice of engaging all the resources and agencies of the U.S. Government in developing administration views on these complex issues. We intend, over the coming months, to undertake a thorough analysis and assessment of what we can do to contribute to the process of limiting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2000 period.

Our deliberations will include the scientific agencies, the economic agencies, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the White House. Every asset of the U.S. Government will be tapped.

I am also pleased to announce today that we are already planning for broad-based consultations with the private sector and nongovernmental organizations as we develop alternative strategies and examine costs and competitiveness considerations.

Mr. Chairman, the climate problem will not go away if we turn our backs and ignore it. Business as usual is potentially inimical to our natural environment and ultimately to our health and economic well-being. The climate convention represents the global effort to reverse this damaging trend and the United States must continue to work in support of this agreement.

We need to seek ways to limit and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, just as we need to make sure that all countries in the world seek to limit and reduce theirs. We will attempt to make our contribution through thoughtful, cost-effective policies that produce economic and environmental benefits.

This is the basis for our climate action plan. We don't rely on the much-talked about, but never proposed draconian measures to guard against global climate change. Instead, our plan is based on the principles of efficiency, common sense and cost-effectiveness and relies on modest investments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

In this regard, it is essential, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress fully fund the administration's request for funds to implement the climate change action plan. If we are unable to make progress toward meeting the conventional aims, we are going to lose our leverage in international negotiations and the policy agenda will not be defined by us. It will be defined by those who are taking steps to reduce emissions.

We think we have an effective and sensible plan for achieving the convention's current aim. However, it would be extremely disruptive and unwise if the Congress, which is urging us to guard

against draconian measures, pulls the rug out from under carefully crafted plans to meet our international commitments.

This argument extends to international obligations as well, investments in the global environment facility, bilateral assistance and international organizations are in our interests and serve American purpose. They leverage actions and funding that we cannot provide by ourselves to address this global issue.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to share our perspectives on the Berlin conference with you and I look forward to any questions you or your colleagues may have. Again, I would underline the necessity of a partnership in all of this, a partnership both in the development of the policy and a partnership in the support of the measures necessary for carrying out that policy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would also, if I might, you had sent down a letter which came after our testimony was in the process outlining a series of questions and I might ask consent that full answers in great detail to your questions be included in the record.

Mr. SCHAEFER. Without objection.

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Timothy Wirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY WIRTH, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Good morning Chairman Schaefer and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be with you today to review the results of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. As you know, I led the U.S. delegation at the high-level portion of that meeting, which took place from March 28 to April 7 in Berlin.

Before detailing the discussions and outcomes of that meeting, I want to take a moment to reiterate the scientific basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the discussions in Berlin.

Concern about climate change resulting from the buildup of the so-called "greenhouse gases" (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and low level ozone) has existed for many years. Concern about global warming intensified in 1988, when unusual weather and significant drought occurred in various parts of the world-illustrating some of the potential impacts of dramatic climate change. In response to these trends, and at the insistence of the Bush Administration, the international community established a worldwide process to review the science and provide policymakers with the best possible scientific assessment about this issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was therefore established and produced its first report in 1990-with subsequent updates in 1992 and 1994. The IPCC represents the work of thousands of scientists around the world and their consensus reports reflect the findings of the top researchers in the field, under a scientifically peer reviewed process.

I make this point, Mr. Chairman, simply to underscore that the Administration's concern and commitment on the issue of climate change is based on the best scientific evidence available to us and the rest of the world. These concerns are not based on obscure, unsubstantiated views of the few-they represent the consensus view of the world scientific community. And as we have discussed in the past, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we get the scientific facts on the table. What the scientific community has told us is this:

The Earth's climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

The buildup of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is changing the radiative balance of the planet.

The essential heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed. Nor is their buildup in the atmosphere a matter for debate.

Lastly, there is certainty that the continued buildup of these gases will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and cause the global climate to change.