ibbean and Central America, erupting in drought-stricken Puerto Rico and in wet, warm Central America and Northeast Brazil.

Delays in seasonal onset, greater daily temperature fluctuations and moderate nights considered innocuous by some climate analysts-all favor insect growth. These biological side-effects of climate change have thus far been ignored. Yet climatic variability and increased weather extremes may be the defining characteristics of climate change for our era-and the redistribution of disease vectors may be among the earliest biological impacts.

The NOAA Climate Analysis Center reports we have entered the fifth consecutive year of anomalous conditions in the Pacific. Since 1877, no El Nino event had persisted beyond 3 years. Recent studies reveal enormous amounts of heat accumulating in the North Atlantic, Indian and Southwest Pacific depths; and—of vital concern-warm pools collecting under both polar ice sheets. A Reuter report several weeks ago that a large ice shelf has broken off in Antarctica is consistent with this oceanic warming.

Warm water readily evaporates, increasing the atmospheric cycling of water. Warmer seas may further alter precipitation patterns affecting distribution of insects as well as marine life. Harmful algal "blooms" are appearing with increasing frequency, extent and variety globally: Last summer, algal blooms covered one-third of a heated Baltic Sea (74 degrees); since 1991 a "red tide" has reoccurred annually in the Chilean Straits of Magellan, and this winter a toxic phytoplankton bloom surfaced in Florida waters in the wake of unusually heavy fall rains.

The effects of extreme events (e.g., the California and Central European inundating rains following summer heat waves and warmer sea temperatures) carry enormous direct economic costs. Annual insurance losses (including earthquakes, but excluding floods) averaged $3 billion in the 1980's, but now average close to $20 billion. The insurance industry may be the first sector to feel the overall impacts of climate change.

A volatile climate also tests the endurance of societies and ecosystems. Owls, for example, help control rodent populations involved in Lyme disease and Hantaviruses. Deforestation in the Northwest and prolonged drought in the Southwest both damage their refuges. Any effort to deal with climate instability must recognize its environmental and ecological impact, not merely for aesthetic reasons but also to protect complex systems of biological controls over pests and pathogens.

The mounting physical and biological indications of climate change suggest that greenhouse gas buildup from burning fossil fuel (6 billion tons one ton per person of carbon emitted annually) may have begun to affect planet-wide systems. And the progression may not be a straight line. Prolonged periods of climate "regimes" can change abruptly. Greenland ice-core samples indicate that the jump from the last ice age to the present hospitable "Holocene" state (with its constant mean temperature of 59 degrees) took not centuries, as previously believed, but a mere 3 to 7 years.

Thus public perception must jump from debating "global warming" to understanding climate change, variability and stability. Will we read the signs of global change and react before the resilience of natural systems is exceeded? Or must we waitas have earlier societies stricken by epidemics-to be transformed by them?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization need supplemental capacity to detect and respond to emerging diseases. An inter-agency panel (including the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense) has been formed to coordinate programs in this vital area. Climate forecasting from NOAA, and landscape observations by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and others, can enhance surveillance and help build health early-warning systems.

But the global redistribution of infectious diseases may prove to be only one of the "surprise" areas of climate change. A fully integrated ecological risk assessment that included the spiraling losses in well-being, agriculture, development, tourism and insurance would surely suggest that the societal costs of not shifting from business-as-usual are far greater than we imagine. This expanding potential disaster elevates the urgency for curbing the consumption of coal, oil and timber-to slow the rate of climate change and allow time for life forms to adjust.

Protection of global health rests upon the efficient use of all resources; some uses must be curtailed, with impacted communities compensated. Ultimately our wellbeing depends upon our skill in duplicating the exquisite economy of photosynthesis by harnessing the sun to generate our future energy needs.

Unfortunately, the outlook for substantial achievement at this week's Berlin conference does not inspire optimism. Divisions between the industrialized nations and the developing world threaten any real progress, as do ancillary disputes between the world's oil-producing nations which oppose any meaningful emissions limits

and its smaller island nations, which have a special vulnerability to unstable climate and are pushing for a 20 percent reduction in emissions by the year 2005.

Even within the developed world, many European nations are pushing for hard targets and timetables by which to reduce climate-altering emissions, while the U.S. delegation is willing to subject any such goals to prolonged negotiations before they are ratified. Vice President Al Gore acknowledged Friday that the current agreement "is not adequate" but called only for negotiations over a 2-year period to strengthen the emission requirements. Unfortunately, the threat is all too real and time in which to respond is short.

Paul Epstein is a physician with the Harvard School of Public Health New Disease Group and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ross Gelbspan has reported on environmental affairs for 24 years, most recently for the Boston Globe.

Mr. PALLONE. The editorial points out that there is much to do in Berlin simply in order to be ready to act if and when a stronger political consensus develops in the future on the issue of global warming.

Now I can understand industry's concerns on the eve of the first conference of the parties which is about to take place in Berlin. This is certainly the first time that the 1992 Rio agreement is open for amendment, and the mere possibility that the United States could incur new and additional obligations has some people concerned.

Whether and under what circumstances the United States should take on obligations for the post-2000 era is a legitimate question that deserves a lot of debate. What concerns me though is the suggestion by some in industry that the topic of post-2000 emission reductions is somehow inappropriate and should be avoided in Berlin. This is simply unrealistic, in my opinion. Like it or not, the United States is a highly developed country. Moreover, the United States is a world leader in environmental protection, and that is a position we should not abrogate. We are ahead of the curve in terms of commitment and experience when it comes to grappling with emission reductions.

I'm certainly not advocating our taking on any obligations that are disproportionate to those assumed by other nations. There is much to be worked out in terms of other nations' performance with respect to existing pre-2000 reductions, and I also recognize there are serious differences of opinion over the respective roles of developed and developing nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am not suggesting that the United States abandon its self-interest, merely that it pursue it in an enlightened way, and more than anything else today I am delighted to have a chance to learn more about the pros and cons of the U.S. position at this critical juncture and look forward to the testimony and thank the chairman for having the hearing. I think it is a very important one at this juncture.

Thank you.

Mr. SCHAEFER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and would now turn to the full committee chairman, Mr. Bliley from Virginia, for any comments he may wish to make.

Chairman BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This hearing on international global climate change negotiations is very timely. The administration has taken the position that the current commitments contained in the climate change treaty are inadequate. Next week it will go to Berlin with the goal of setting

up a process to begin negotiating new climate change commitments. I have serious reservations about the advisability of the administration pursuing this course.

First, there is still a lot of uncertainly surrounding the science of climate change. To my knowledge, there has been no determination by the United States or anyone else as to what is a "dangerous" level of greenhouse gas concentrations. Until that is determined I do not believe you or I can determine the adequacy of the treaty.

Second, it is unclear if developed countries can meet the current aim of the treaty. The United States is committed to meeting its current obligations under the treaty. Through the Climate Change Action Plan, U.S. industry and utilities have begun to take actions which will reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. However, if their counterparts in other developed countries do not meet their commitments the United States will be competitively disadvantaged.

Third, to the extent that the administration truly believes climate change is a threat, it cannot continue to ignore the fact that some or all developing countries must begin to take responsibility for limiting their own emissions. Developing country emissions now exceed developed country emissions, and that trend is expected to

increase.

Global climate change is truly a global issue. If it is scientifically determined that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced further, all countries should bear some responsibility and the United States should press hard in international negotiations for such a commitment.

I look forward to hearing from the administration about their plans for the Berlin meeting. I also look forward to hearing from industry as to how they will be impacted by a commitment by the United States to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCHAEFER. The gentleman's time has expired, and I do appreciate the chairman's comments.

I would now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we are going to explore the status of international climate change negotiations that began in Rio in June of 1992 and their continuing future impact on the U.S. economy. It is of vital importance that the United States continue in this international effort to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, but at the same time we must ask at what cost. We need to learn how these efforts affect the working men and women of the United States.

Have we determined what the economic impact is and will be in the future? What will be the compliance costs for the United States and for developing countries? We also need to fully understand what criteria are being used to determine whether a country is still considered to be developing since they are accorded special status under the original treaty. Currently Taiwan is considered developing. This, quite frankly, is ridiculous. Are the environmental regulations that are being used by the United States to reduce green

house gases in our country being utilized in other competing countries? Are the best available and most cost-effective reduction technologies being used? These are all questions that ultimately have to be answered for us to proceed.

I feel it is imperative for the U.S. representatives that will attend the conference of parties beginning in Berlin next week to understand these concerns. Without full understanding and answers to these simple questions, the future participation of the United States in any international climate agreement may need to be reconsidered.

I yield back my time.

Mr. SCHAEFER. I thank the gentleman. His time has expired.
I would now turn the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief because my concerns have been addressed very well by yourself and the other members who have made comment today.

I'm here today to find out just what the administration's objectives are in the upcoming negotiations, and, as has been indicated, there is a significant amount of uncertainty about the science that we are dealing with here, and with as much study as I have been able to give it, I'm hopeful that we are going to be able to get some kind of information in this hearing and, in further efforts as we pursue this issue to help us develop a course for this country, to at least understand the issue and how much of an issue it is and how it should be dealt with, and, as a significant part of that, I'm glad that we are going to be looking today at some of the impacts on industry and the costs that are included in this kind of an issue and the kinds of approaches to the issue that we are hearing about. Primarily, Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very timely that we hold this hearing, and I'm looking for answers to these questions across the board.

Mr. SCHAEFER. The gentleman's time has expired.

I would recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manton. Mr. MANTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today to join in this important hearing concerning global climate change.

There has been widespread concern both nationally and internationally that greenhouse gas concentrations be stabilized in order to prevent interference with the climate system. This has been a controversial issue with convincing arguments from both sides. Although I am keeping an open mind, I am pleased that this issue has received international attention. It is vital that we address this problem so that future generations are protected from potential harm. I recognize that there are some important decisions to make.

The United States would like to take a leading role in protection of the environment but must also consider economic implications and the cost to American industry and taxpayers. I am looking forward to learning how the United States plans to approach the impending Conference of the Parties in Berlin.

Despite continuing scientific debate, the United States has been willing to make commitments to reduce emissions. I will be interested to learn whether we are prepared to make further commit

ments as we move into the next century and whether we will have cooperation from the other industrialized nations of the world.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHAEFER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Are there any other members wishing to be recognized?

If not, we will now turn to our panel: Mr. Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Development; Ms. Susan Tierney, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Energy; and Mr. Karl Hausker, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation of the EPA. I thank you all very much, and the committee does, for taking the time out to be with us today to shed a little bit more light on this particular subject.

I would recognize the gentleman Mr. Pomerance, first, Ms. Tierney, and Mr. Hausker.

STATEMENTS OF RAFE POMERANCE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; SUSAN F. TIERNEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND KARL A. HAUSKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. POMERANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon, members of the committee.

The first meeting of the conference of the parties under the Framework Convention on Climate Change will convene in Berlin on March 28. It will be the first high-level worldwide meeting on climate change since the convention was opened for signature at the Rio Earth summit in 1992.

Since the convention was adopted, there have been a series of formal preparatory meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC, the last of which concluded in New York in February. In addition, there have been a series of more informal sessions to allow more informed contributions to these meetings. We are gratified that as a result of these efforts there is increasing recognition by many parties 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.

Let me just say a brief word about the science. Scientists have confirmed that the blanket of gases around our planet known as greenhouse gases, 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.

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, human activity has released literally billions of tons of these gases into the atmosphere, the single largest effect coming from the 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 see on this