[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11490-S11491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., the 
distinguished former Senator from North Carolina, often said that the 
United States had never lost a war nor won a treaty. Well, during the 
summer, the Clinton administration quietly set the wheels in motion in 
Geneva for yet another disastrous treaty for the United States.
  During July meetings, Tim Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global 
Affairs, committed the United States to the negotiation of a binding 
legal instrument with the stated goal of reducing global greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Many experts agree that the premise for this new treaty, which 
excludes developing countries from enforcing the commitments to reduce 
emissions, makes its goal simply unachievable. Developing nations such 
as China will be the largest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in 
the post 2000 period, yet will be exempt from any new restrictions.
  The United States currently is party to the U.N. Convention on Global 
Climate Change, signed at Rio in 1992 and ratified by the Senate in 
1993. Under that treaty the member countries are divided into 
industrialized countries, termed ``Annex I countries,'' and developing 
countries, termed ``non-Annex I countries,'' for purposes of 
determining treaty commitments. The treaty tasks Annex I Parties to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
  In March of 1995, the parties to the U.N. Convention laid the 
framework for the current negotiations when they met in Berlin, 
Germany, and agreed to the so-called Berlin mandate. The Berlin mandate 
states that the parties to the Convention would address this global 
problem post 2000 without binding any of the non-Annex I parties to new 
commitments. By agreeing to this disastrous concession--after making 
assurances to Congress that they would not do so, I might add--the 
means for addressing the issue as a global problem were removed from 
the table.
  Mr. President, as things often happen, the flawed Berlin mandate 
became the building block for the latest round of concessions made by 
Tim Wirth in Geneva. There, parties approved a Ministerial Declaration 
which--in ``U.N. speak''--directs Annex I parties to ``instruct their 
representatives to accelerate negotiations on the text of a legally-
binding protocol of another legal instrument.'' The Declaration directs 
that the commitments of Annex I parties will include ``quantified 
legally-binding objectives for emission limitations and significant 
overall reductions within specified timeframes, such as 2005, 2010, 
2020.''
  In plain English this means that any new treaty commitments regarding 
greenhouse gas emissions will set forth legally binding emission levels 
that must be met by industrialized countries only. The U.S. position 
turns basic principles of sound economic policy on its head since it 
directs industrialized countries to subsidize developing countries by 
polluting less while incurring higher costs so that developing 
countries can pollute more without incurring costs.
  Some of our allies recognize the serious flaws in the current 
negotiations. According to the findings of an Australian Government 
study entitled ``Global Climate Change: Economic Dimensions of a 
Cooperative International Policy Response Beyond 2000,'' the treaty 
will not even achieve the desired environmental effect. The study finds 
that stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries only 
at 1990 levels during the period from the years 2000 to 2020 ``would 
lead to minimal reductions in global emissions and would have higher 
costs for most countries than alternative abatement strategies.'' 
According to the Australian study, despite the additional costs, there 
will be no substantial reduction in the growth of global emissions 
because of the continued growth in the rest of world emissions.
  Mr. President, even the elements that would provide some leveling of 
the playing field are nonexistent in the Ministerial Declaration that 
was approved by the parties in Geneva. For example, the document makes 
no reference to Joint Implementation [JI], a practice by which a 
country's emissions abatement costs can be spread across national 
borders. Under JI, a nation with relatively high marginal abatement 
costs can offset costs through involvement with projects in countries 
with relatively low emissions reduction costs. If countries were truly 
serious about decreasing the level of global emissions this plan would 
provide a global solution to the problem and bring economic benefits to 
the lower cost country in the form of foreign investment. These are 
clearly not the goals of the parties advancing this doomed policy.

  According to a study by the General Accounting Office that I 
requested, during the period from 1993 to 1995, Federal agencies of the 
United States have spent almost $700 million on global climate change 
related spending. This is more than 70 percent of the total spending by 
the United States to advance major international environmental 
treaties. Despite the heavy resources being pumped into this Convention 
by the Clinton administration, Congress has yet to be provided a full 
economic analysis of the costs of the proposed protocol to the original 
treaty. Nor has the administration been forthcoming in its own 
proposals for

[[Page S11491]]

the new Protocol. Instead, a shell game is being played out in which 
the substance of the new protocol will be laid on the table in 
December, after U.S. elections.
  During hearings last week in the Senate Energy Committee, the able 
Senator from Alaska, Frank Murkowski, raised serious questions about 
the administration's support of the current negotiations underway at 
the United Nations, particularly the possibility of a carbon tax. I can 
assure you that for so long as I am chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee any international legal instrument agreed to by this 
administration must not and should not put the U.S. economy at a 
competitive disadvantage to other countries. Most importantly, the 
treaty should actually achieve the purpose for which it is negotiated. 
Any treaty that comes before the Senate for ratification must ensure 
that U.S. businesses will remain competitive and U.S. jobs will be 
protected.

                          ____________________