[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S5887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today as a supporter and 
cosponsor of Senator Byrd's sense-of-the-Senate resolution, Senate 
Resolution 98, regarding ratification of any international agreement on 
greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change. Back in 1992, the United States and the rest of the 
world agreed to work, on a voluntary basis, to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions which scientists believed could affect climate and sea levels 
over the next century. Unfortunately, this agreement, aimed at 
returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, has failed.
  Now, the administration is negotiating an agreement aimed at meeting 
this 1990 level. Instead of requiring countries, all countries--
developed, developing, and underdeveloped--to agree on voluntary 
efforts, these negotiations are focused on making the 1990 level 
mandatory for only developed countries. In short, it will increase the 
burden of compliance on the United States and other developed 
countries, while doing nothing to ensure that developing countries meet 
these targets.
  Yes, the United States and other developed countries are responsible 
for the bulk of these emissions but that will not always be the case. 
Many developing countries, such as China, Mexico, India, and Brazil, 
are on course to surpass United States emissions. It makes no sense to 
give these countries a pass. I am not saying the United States should 
not do its fair share, we should. My concern is that the agreement is 
shortsighted. Failing to include these developing countries does 
nothing to head off the emission problems which they will soon face.
  In addition, I have a long record of defending the American worker 
and American industry from unfair business and trade practices 
overseas--many of which occur in these developing countries. My fear is 
that failing to include developing nations in this agreement will 
undermine America's ability to compete internationally and will only 
work to force American industry overseas to these developing areas. 
America has the strongest economy in the world. I want to ensure it 
remains that way. Placing the burden of reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions only on developed countries and ignoring developing countries 
will do nothing to secure economic stability.
  In short, this resolution calls for the United States to refuse to 
sign any agreement unless the developing countries are included in a 
legally binding regime of emission control measures. It is an effort to 
ensure that all countries are placed on a level playing field.
  With regard to my record on environmental issues, there have been 
some who have asked if my support of Senate Resolution 98 undermines my 
long record of supporting efforts to clean and protect our environment. 
Let me say now, it does not. In my opinion, this resolution will 
strengthen efforts to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 
ensuring that all countries meet the same standards.
  In closing, I submit for the Record the authoritative and expert 
opinion of Dr. James B. Edwards, the former Secretary of Energy, and 
encourage my colleagues to read his opinions on this matter.
  The material follows:

                   Pouring Gas Reductions Down Drain

       If a new climate treaty to include binding restrictions on 
     the emission of greenhouse gases is a bad idea--and it is--
     then the immediate consequence of such a move is even worse: 
     that a tax is imposed on U.S. industries that burn oil, gas 
     and coal. The cost would ultimately fall on American 
     consumers--without necessarily providing benefits to anyone 
     if other countries continue to pollute.
       The logical conclusion should be: Don't make the first 
     blunder so you are not forced into making the even worse 
     second blunder. But in just seven months an agreement on a 
     new climate treaty could be a done deal. If government 
     commitments made at the latest round of negotiations in 
     Europe are any indication, there could be a treaty in place 
     by December. There is just one problem: U.S. ratification is 
     going to take a two-thirds vote of the Senate eventually.
       In the view of climatologists as esteemed as Patrick 
     Michaels of the University of Virginia, an expert on computer 
     simulations of the climate, and the University of Alabama's 
     John Christy, it will take decades before scientists gain a 
     comprehensive understanding of how greenhouse gas emissions 
     affect the earth's climate. One thing scientists do know is 
     that the concentration of greenhouse gases is building up 
     slowly--less than 0.5 percent annually for carbon dioxide--
     and that gives us time to implement effective mitigation 
     measures.
       Unfortunately, the proposed treaty places binding 
     commitments on industrial nations but none on developing 
     countries. Even such economic powerhouses as China, Korea, 
     and Indonesia would be let off the hook, while the United 
     States would be required to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 15 
     to 20 percent by 2010 or soon thereafter. Such self-imposed 
     restrictions could backfire.
       Simply put, the danger is that developing countries will 
     have no incentive to reduce emissions. Their output would 
     overwhelm reductions made by industrial nations--just the 
     opposite of what a new treaty is supposed to achieve. In 
     fact, developing countries, as a group, are expected to 
     produce the majority of greenhouse emissions in future years.
       According to a report by the U.S. Department of Energy, 
     efforts to restrict fossil fuel emissions with a carbon tax 
     would do serious damage to our economy. The hardest hit would 
     be energy-intensive industries, especially petroleum 
     refining, chemicals, automobile manufacturing, paper 
     products, iron and steel, aluminum and cement. These large 
     industries would be at a disadvantage in the world 
     marketplace, and the cost in dollars, as well as in lost 
     jobs, would be staggering.
       The most responsible economic estimates of the cost to cap 
     carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010 or 
     soon thereafter range from $250 billion to $300 billion per 
     year--an amount that would reduce the U.S. gross domestic 
     product by about 4 percent. For comparison, that's nearly 
     equal to what was spent last year on Social Security.
       This is not to suggest that the United States should do 
     nothing about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. When major 
     industrialized countries meet in Denver in late June at the 
     ``Group of Seven'' economic summit, climate change will be on 
     the agenda. Efforts should be directed toward establishing a 
     flexible route that could achieve the same long-term benefits 
     but at far lower cost. For example, spreading the 
     responsibility globally, possibly through an emissions 
     trading system involving developing countries, would lower 
     the cost substantially.
       Under an emissions trading system, any country exceeding 
     its allotment of greenhouse emissions, pays a regulatory 
     fine. The significant differences between this plan and a 
     carbon tax are that technological innovation, market 
     mechanisms and total global emissions are the defining 
     characteristics of this alternative approach to reducing 
     greenhouse emissions.
       Major efforts should be directed at exporting advanced 
     power systems to developing countries such as China and India 
     so that they can begin to stabilize their emissions, without 
     depriving them of an opportunity for economic growth. After 
     all, as its share of industrial output rises, China is 
     expected to become the world's largest source of carbon 
     dioxide, emitting nearly double the amount the United States 
     emits and more than triple what Western Europe produces.
       It's very simple: Before we hobble our economy and our 
     society with costly new regulations and taxes we should ask 
     ourselves whether the hoped-for benefits justify the cost to 
     our economy and whether there is a better alternative. And 
     environmentalists ought to keep another perspective mind: For 
     any global emissions reduction program to succeed, all 
     nations must participate.

                          ____________________