have to have people that are going to invest in it. Investors are going to generally prefer those plants that have lower capital costs.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Would either of you, the other two witnesses, care to comment on whether or not we should open a repository and at least keep the plants we have open open?

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I can't resist responding to the question, though I don't think I can give you a direct answer on that because that goes kind of far beyond climate issues. But it is clear that nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy source. As we look out, especially beyond Kyoto, to ask what we can do to have an economy that's continuing to grow and satisfying its energy needs, while we limit or reduce carbon emissions below today's level, if we are to do what the long-run goals for climate policy suggests, the technologies that have to be on the table for that are technologies that let you have more energy with no carbon. Nuclear is the one that we know now, that we know how it works. There is potential for solar energy. There is potential for other biomass sources if we're very careful about our accounting and our stewardship of forests. That's about it. So those are the things that I think do need to be looked at in the long run.

I think it is ironic that, for example, the reports on the recent German election and the Green/Red coalition suggest that they are looking at how fast they can phase down their nuclear power plants, which is going to put them in a race between phasing out coal consumption by shutting down industrial activity in East Germany and trying to replace nuclear power with what will be fossilfueled energy.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I'll just advise everybody, this is not a nuclear alert. We just have a vote going on over on the Floor.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Geller, would you like to comment?

Mr. GELLER. I think I'll pass. I think enough has been said. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. We have a 15-minute vote, which usually comes to be about 20 to 25 minutes, followed by a 5-minute vote. The Committee will stand in recess and reconvene right after the 5-minute vote. Members who wish to ask questions during their 5 minutes are strongly encouraged to be back here right away because the train will leave the station whether it is powered by a fossil fuel or some other type of fuel. The Committee stands in recess.

[Brief recess.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett, is recognized.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I find myself in concert with some of the views of many of those who would support the Kyoto agreement, but for none of the reasons that they have perhaps. I am not at all convinced that we have global warming. Even if we have global warming, I am not at all convinced that we have any part to play in that because I note that in the past, the world has been very much colder with ice ages and ice coming down into southeastern Ohio, the glaciers, for instance. The Earth has been very much warmer with subtropical vegetation growing in what is now the tundra because we are still finding mastodons there in the permafrost with subtropical vegetation in their stomachs. And we

weren't even around when we had those enormous wanes in global temperature. So I am not at all convinced that we have warming, or if we have warming, we play any role in that. Even if the world is warming, I have yet to be convinced that's overall bad. It would be hard to convince those in Siberia that a little warming would be bad.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Nor in Wisconsin too.

BACKDOOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr. BARTLETT. Or Wisconsin. Yes, the world would be different. Our corn belts and our vast wheat growing areas would be in different places. We would have deserts where now we are growing things and we would have green and growing things where now we are not growing things. So the world would be different. I am not sure it would be worse if we had some warming. The plants would like a little increase in CO2, thank you. They now live on a very short supply at .04 percent.

But my reasons for supporting some of the concerns of those who support the Kyoto agreement is that we have a very uncertain energy future in our country. We have 2 percent of the world's known oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's energy. That is a prescription for disaster. We have no national energy policy. Perhaps these discussions can help us move toward a national energy policy.

I have two questions. One is can you assure us that the Clinton Administration, Dr. Hakes, that the Clinton Administration is not attempting to implement the Kyoto Protocol through backdoor measures, executive orders and so forth?

Dr. HAKES I am not the right person to ask that question to. We are an independent statistical agency within the Administration, but as our results are not reviewed or influenced by the Administration, I don't influence their views or can't speak for the Administration.

DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION

Mr. BARTLETT. I'm sure you have all seen the same television ad I have seen with someone cutting countries out of a global map, dropping them in a pile. Then they end this rather convincing commercial showing a view of the whole world and they show all of those countries that are not a part of the treaty being whited-out and it's far more than half of all of the world. They point out that the countries that are not obligated to meet these goals are those where carbon emissions are going five times faster than they are in the countries which are obligated under the proposed treaty. Their final statement is it's not global and it won't work. I am wondering what comment you would have relative to the message of that ad.

Dr. HAKES Well, I think that the Kyoto Protocol itself does not deal with the problem of the buildup of concentrations of carbon, and only in a partial way deals with the emission issues. I would say, however, that most of the discussions have considered Kyoto a first step so that there might be later steps that would come. In

addition, I think the issue of the internationality of it is still somewhat being negotiated in later stages of the process.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do either of the other witnesses have an observation on the commercial?

Mr. GELLER. I would suggest that it's very misleading. That there are commitments for developing countries under the treaty. They are not identical to the commitments for the industrialized countries, but they are parties with commitments within the treaty.

Industrialized countries are responsible for about 80 percent of the cumulative emissions to date of these greenhouse gases. We have the largest responsibility for beginning the reduction process that will need to play out over many decades if it is a serious problem that we are going to address through major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions resulting from fossil fuel use. We will need to bring in all countries over the long run, but this in my view, is a reasonable way to start with the industrialized countries, just as we started with industrialized countries under the Montreal Protocol for addressing the stratospheric ozone problem, of phasing out CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. The industrialized countries took the first commitments. They were phased in at a later stage, requirements for reductions by developing countries.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Dr. Montgomery, do you want to answer that question?

Mr. BARTLETT. Then my time is up.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Your time is already up. Then we'll go to Mr. Boehlert.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you. I was under the impression my time was up too. But yes, I would like to address that question.

I think unfortunately when we think about policies that we would be adopting today and in the future, like the Kyoto Protocol, the only emissions that they can affect are emissions today and in the future. Therefore, it's pretty much irrelevant who did things in the past except for the arguments which we are now seeing about who should pay for things.

But as far as what can be done to reduce global emissions, most estimates that I know of conclude that the developing countries. Emissions will exceed those of the industrial countries sometime between now and 2015. But over the course of the next century, you are exactly right, emissions from developing countries will probably be five times as large as cumulative emissions from the industrial countries. The industrial countries could disappear from the face of the earth, not just adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and we still would not succeed in controlling concentrations of greenhouse gases without developing countries being part of the emission limits.

I think, in talking about the commitments by developing countries, the most important commitment for an effective international system is that they commit to a cap. The cap does not necessarily have to be one that's even much below what their projected emissions are, but unless they commit to a cap, there's going to be no way to establish the global emission trading system that the Administration made the centerpiece of its defense of the Kyoto Pro

tocol. In fact, I am afraid that if the developing countries are not part of that kind of a cap and emission-limiting system now, what we will see is that there will be significant shift in investment into energy-intensive industries away from the industrial countries toward the developing countries. That's both going to produce leakage their emissions are going to grow while ours shrink-kind of offsetting the benefits of reductions in the industrial countries. Even worse, they are going to create economies that are even much more tied to highly energy-intensive industries and use of energy in these developing countries, which probably makes their willingness to adhere to a protocol in the future even less, because they are going to become the energy centers of the world.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert.

FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I note this is the fourth hearing. I applaud you for that, on a subject that many think is not very important. One of the things, one of the favorite attacks of the do-nothing crowd is to sort of trivialize the whole thing. Usually it will occur about on the 14th of February when it's about 20 below and you'll have somebody say, “Ha, ha, so much for climate change and global warming."

But the fact of the matter is, I think there is considerable scientific consensus, while it's not 100 percent proven, that there is climate change occurring and that we may be partially responsible for what is occurring. So I think we have to deal with it in a very serious manner.

There have been many studies predicting the consequences of implementing policies that will allow us to meet our potential obligations under the Kyoto Treaty, but even the EIA study, which has been criticized for not accounting for international emissions trading and not accounting for the adoption of energy efficient technologies as the cost of older technologies rise, even that study showed that the cost of inaction would be even higher. It's not a new idea that some policies to reduce greenhouse gases are smarter than others, that some would have a greater impact on our economy than others, while that some would encourage innovation and energy efficiency, more than others.

So I would ask each of you, what kinds of policies do you think that the Congress ought to be looking at so that we will be in a better position in the future to deal with climate change? Dr. Hakes?

Dr. HAKES. Well I think that there are two principal approaches. One is to broaden the range of the technologies that are available to be participants in the system. This would include things like no carbon generation, like nuclear and like renewables. We are actually quite optimistic about renewables like wind and biomass, particularly in the later years.

Even when you develop those technologies, however, there is sort of a second stage you have to go through, is how do those technologies actually penetrate the market. They are usually more expensive than the older technologies, but they have some advantages over the older technologies in some cases. Basically there are

several ways to do that. One is by a price signal. If the price signal is more gradual so that this doesn't come as a shock, that might perhaps be worth looking at. Or it can be done as Mr. Geller suggests by regulation.

Regulation is not free. Usually if you require someone to use a more efficient piece of equipment, that equipment will cost more. But a lot of that cost, maybe all of that cost might be paid for over the lifetime of the equipment. So there are a whole range of tools out there.

As I said in February, I didn't want to make judgements about things we hadn't done careful studies on. I think one of the things that might be done in the future is to take a more careful look at what some of these options are.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I think I agree completely with Dr. Hakes on what he has characterized as potential policy responses. I think that whatever the disagreements are about the science of climate change, one thing that's clear is that it is a long-term problem that concentrations of greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a very long time. There are many different paths we could take for reducing emissions that would get us to exactly the same point in the long run in terms of managing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

That means that, without any risk to the global environment, we can take the time to develop technologies in order to make the options that we have much larger and much cheaper in the future for getting exactly the same thing done. Unfortunately, what I think that takes is money. It takes money now to go into the kind of long-term R&D that can produce the breakthroughs in fuel cells or power generation that will be required. It requires figuring out a way to do that so we don't repeat the mistakes we made in the 1970's and 1980's of pouring money into government agencies that did not find solutions for private-sector problems. It means the right way of combining government money to provide a stimulus with private sector-direction of where and how the research proceeds. Then Dr. Hakes is absolutely right; it takes a long-term commitment to sending a price signal of gradually rising carbon price in the economy so that those technologies will get themselves adopted.

I think in many ways Kyoto is backwards because even if we adhere to the Kyoto limits, we know nothing about what is going to happen beyond 2010. There is no long-term stable policy that gives a private investor any reason for investing in these technologies. Nothing we do about regulating energy use over the next 5 or 10 years will create that. It takes a long-term commitment. I think the main part of that commitment is money now to get the research started.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Montgomery, before we get to Mr. GellerChairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. BOEHLERT. But they should have an opportunity to respond to the question. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Chairman? We have got one more responder, but I just wanted a brief interjection here. There is language going forward in an appropriations bill in the Congress, the Knollenberg language, which in effect says EPA can't do anything to implement the Kyoto treaty. EPA can't even think