[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11019-S11022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the United States is currently engaged in
negotiating a climate change treaty. This is a negotiation that we have
literally only just really engaged in, in the sense that we have only
now made clear to the world what our negotiating position will be, the
critical elements from which we will proceed. I was somewhat troubled
this morning to hear a number of our colleagues come to the floor of
the Senate and, frankly, either considerably misstate or considerably
misrepresent the very straightforward words of the President yesterday
with respect to this subject. The following is the position that the
President articulated yesterday.
No. 1, it is the goal of the United States to find a binding treaty
which includes not just developed nations but developing nations as
well.
No. 2, the U.S. goal is a binding treaty that seeks to bring
greenhouse gases to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, so as to
minimize economic costs to the United States.
And, finally, No. 3, the United States now will undertake policies to
fully leverage market mechanisms, innovation, technology, and American
ingenuity to make achieving emissions reductions less costly.
I remind my colleagues that all of these positions are completely
within the framework of the resolution that the Senate passed, the
Byrd-Hagel resolution. That resolution specifically said it must
``mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
for the annex I parties, unless the protocol or other agreement''--and
I want to emphasize here, ``other agreement.'' The President in his
proposal has made allowance for the very ``other agreement'' potential
that was contemplated in the resolution we passed. It specifically
requires that other agreement, or the principal agreement, mandate new,
and specific scheduled reductions for the developing countries within
the same compliance period.
The second requirement that the Senate passed was that whatever
agreement we reached would not result in serious harm to the economy of
the United States. Let me emphasize, the term is ``serious harm to the
economy of the United States.'' Any fair reading of the President's
remarks outlining our position would find that the President is
completely within the framework of the Senate resolution. And yet,
today, we really heard Senators completely misrepresenting that
position and asserting that it is somehow outside of the Byrd-Hagel
resolution.
I ask unanimous consent the full text of the President's comments be
printed in the Record so people can judge for themselves the degree
with which we are in compliance.
There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Remarks by the President on Global Climate Change Before the National
Geographic Society
The President. Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Vice
President, to all of you who are here. I thank especially the
members of Congress who are here, the leaders of labor and
business who are here, all the members of the administration,
and especially the White House staff members that the Vice
President mentioned and the Secretary of Energy, the
Administrator of the EPA, and the others who have helped us
to come to this moment.
On the way in here we were met by the leaders of the
National Geographic, and I complimented them on their recent
two-part series on the Roman Empire. It's a fascinating story
of how the Empire rose, how it sustained itself for hundreds
of years, why it fell, and speculations on what, if any,
relevance it might have to the United States and, indeed, the
West.
And one of the gentlemen said, well, you know, we got a lot
of interesting comments on that, including a letter
referencing a statue we had of the bust of Emperor Vespasian.
And one of our readers said, why in the world did you put a
statue of Gene Hackman in a piece on the Roman Empire?
(Laughter.) And I say that basically to say, in some senses,
the more things change, the more they remain the same.
(Laughter.)
For what sustains any civilization, and now what will
sustain all of our civilizations, is the constant effort at
renewal, the ability to avoid denial and to proceed into the
future in a way that is realistic and humane, but resolute.
Six years ago tomorrow, not long after I started running for
President, I went back to my alma mater at Georgetown and
began a series of three speeches outlining my vision for
America in the 21st century--how we could keep the American
Dream alive for all of our people, how we could maintain
America's leadership for peace and freedom and prosperity,
and how we could come together across the lines that divide
us as one America.
And together, we've made a lot of progress in the last
nearly five years now that the
[[Page S11020]]
Vice President and I have been privileged to work at this
task. At the threshold of a new century, our economy is
thriving, our social fabric is mending, we've helped to lead
the world toward greater peace and cooperation.
I think this has happened, in no small measure, in part
because we had a different philosophy about the role of
government. Today, it is smaller and more focused and more
oriented toward giving people the tools and the conditions
they need to solve their own problems and toward working in
partnership with our citizens. More important, I believe it's
happened because we made tough choices but not false choices.
On the economy, we made the choice to balance the budget
and to invest in our people and our future. On crime, we made
the choice to be tough and smart about prevention and
changing the conditions in which crime occurs. On welfare, we
made the choice to require work, but also to support the
children of people who have been on welfare. On families, we
made the choice to help parents find more and better jobs and
to have the necessary time and resources for their children.
And on the environment, we made the choice to clean our air,
water, and land, to improve our food supply, and to grow the
economy.
This kind of commonsense approach, rooted in our most basic
values and our enduring optimism about the capacity of free
people to meet the challenges of every age must be brought to
bear on the work that remains to pave the way for our people
and for the world toward a new century and a new millenium.
Today we have a clear responsibility and a golden
opportunity to conquer one of the most important challenges
of the 21st century--the challenge of climate change--with an
environmentally sound and economically strong strategy, to
achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases in the
United States and throughout the industralized and the
developing world. It is a strategy that, if properly
implemented, will create a wealth of new opportunities for
entrepreneurs at home, uphold our leadership abroad, and
harness the power of free markets to free our planet from an
unacceptable risk; a strategy as consistent with our
commitment to reject false choices.
America can stand up for our national interest and stand up
for the common interest of the international community.
America can build on prosperity today and ensure a healthy
planet for our children tomorrow.
In so many ways the problem of climate change reflects the
new realities of the new century. Many previous threats could
be met within our own borders, but global warming requires an
international solution. Many previous threats came from
single enemies, but global warming derives from millions of
sources. Many previous threats posed clear and present
danger; global warming is far more subtle, warning us not
with roaring tanks or burning rivers but with invisible
gases, slow changes in our surroundings, increasingly severe
climatic disruptions that, thank God, have not yet hit home
for most Americans. But make no mistake, the problem is real.
And if we do not change our course now, the consequences
sooner or later will be destructive for America and for the
world.
The vast majority of the world's climate scientists have
concluded that if the countries of the world do not work
together to cut the emission of greenhouse gases, then
temperatures will rise and will disrupt the climate. In fact,
most scientists say the process has already begun. Disruptive
weather events are increasing. Disease-bearing insects are
moving to areas that used to be too cold for them. Average
temperatures are rising. Glacial formations are receding.
Scientists don't yet know what the precise consequences
will be. But we do know enough now to know that the
Industrial Age has dramatically increased greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, where they take a century or more to
dissipate; and that the process must be slowed, then stopped,
then reduced if we want to continue our economic progress and
preserve the quality of life in the United States and
throughout our planet. We know what we have to do.
Greenhouse gas emissions are caused mostly by the
inefficient burning of coal or oil for energy. Roughly a
third of these emissions come from industry, a third from
transportation, a third from residential and commercial
buildings. In each case, the conversion of fuel to energy use
is extremely inefficient and could be made much cleaner with
existing technologies or those already on the horizon, in
ways that will not weaken the economy but in fact will add to
our strength in new businesses and new jobs. If we do this
properly, we will not jeopardize our prosperity--we will
increase it.
With that principle in mind, I'm announcing the instruction
I'm giving to our negotiators as they pursue a realistic and
effective international climate change treaty. And I'm
announcing a far-reaching proposal that provides flexible
market-based and cost-effective ways to achieve meaningful
reductions here in America. I want to emphasize that we
cannot wait until the treaty is negotiated and ratified to
act. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's
people, enjoys 22 percent of the world's wealth, but emits
more than 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. We must
begin now to take out our insurance policy on the future.
In the international climate negotiations, the United
States will pursue a comprehensive framework that includes
three elements, which, taken together, will enable us to
build a strong and robust global agreement. First, the United
States proposes at Kyoto that we commit to the binding and
realistic target of returning to emissions of 1990 levels
between 2008 and 2012. And we should not stop there. We
should commit to reduce emissions below 1990 levels in the
five-year period thereafter, and we must work toward further
reductions in the years ahead.
The industrialized nations tried to reduce emissions to
1990 levels once before with a voluntary approach, but
regrettably, most of us--including especially the United
States--fell short. We must find new resolve to achieve these
reductions, and to do that we simply must commit to binding
limits.
Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms for meeting
these limits. We propose an innovative, joint implementation
system that allows a firm in one country to invest in a
project that reduces emissions in another country and receive
credit for those reductions at home. And we propose an
international system of emissions trading. These innovations
will cut worldwide pollution, keep costs low, and help
developing countries protect their environment, too, without
sacrificing their economic growth.
Third, both industrialized and developing countries must
participate in meeting the challenge of climate change. The
industrialized world must lead, but developing countries also
must be engaged. The United States will not assume binding
obligations unless key developing nations meaningfully
participate in this effort.
As President Carlos Menem stated forcefully last week when
I visited him in Argentina, a global problem such as climate
change requires a global answer. If the entire industrialized
world reduces emissions over the next several decades, but
emissions from the developing world continue to grow at their
current pace, concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere will continue to climb. Developing countries have
an opportunity to chart a different energy future consistent
with their growth potential and their legitimate economic
aspirations.
What Argentina, with dramatic projected economic growth,
recognizes is true for other countries as well: We can and we
must work together on this problem in a way that benefits us
all. Here at home, we must move forward by unleashing the
full power of free markets an technological innovations to
meet the challenge of climate change. I propose a sweeping
plan to provide incentives and lift road blocks to help our
companies and our citizens find new and creative ways of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
First, we must enact tax cuts and make research and
development investments worth up to $5 billion over the next
five years--targeted incentives to encourage energy
efficiency and the use of cleaner energy sources.
Second, we must urge companies to take early actions to
reduce emissions by ensuring that they receive appropriate
credit for showing the way.
Third, we must create a market system for reducing
emissions wherever they can be achieved most inexpensively,
here or abroad; a system that will draw on our successful
experience with acid rain permit trading.
Fourth, we must reinvent how the federal government, the
nation's largest energy consumer, buys and uses energy.
Through new technology, renewable energy resources,
innovative partnerships with private firms and assessments of
greenhouse gas emissions from major federal projects, the
federal government will play an important role in helping our
nation to meet its goal. Today, as a down payment on our
mission solar roof initiative, I commit the federal
government to have 20,000 systems on federal buildings by
2010.
Fifth, we must unleash competition in the electricity
industry, to remove outdated regulations and save Americans
billions of dollars. We must do it in a way that leads to
even greater progress in cleaning our air and delivers a
significant down payment in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Today, two-thirds of the energy used to provide
electricity is squandered in waste heat. We can do much, much
better.
Sixth, we must continue to encourage key industry sectors
to prepare their own greenhouse gas reduction plans, and we
must, along with state and local government, remove the
barriers to the most energy efficient usage possible. There
are ways the federal government can help industry to achieve
meaningful reductions voluntarily, and we will redouble our
efforts to do so.
This plan is sensible and sound. Since it's a long-term
problem requiring a long-term solution, it will be phased in
over time. But we want to get moving now. We will start with
our package of strong market incentives, tax cuts, and
cooperative efforts with industry. We want to stimulate early
action and encourage leadership. And as we reduce our
emissions over the next decade with these efforts, we will
perform regular reviews to see what works best for the
environment, the economy, and our national security.
After we have accumulated a decade of experience, a decade
of data, a decade of technological innovation, we will launch
a broad emissions trading initiative to ensure that we hit
our binding targets. At that time, if there are dislocations
caused by the changing patterns of energy use in America, we
have a moral obligation to respond to those to help the
workers and the enterprises affected--no less than we do
today by any change in our economy which affects people
through no fault of their own.
[[Page S11021]]
This plan plays to our strengths--innovation, creativity,
entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the way
by developing tremendous environmental technologies and
implementing commonsense conservation solutions.
Just yesterday, Secretary Pena announced a dramatic
breakthrough in fuel cell technology, funded by the
Department of Energy research--a breakthrough that will clear
the way toward developing cars that are twice as efficient as
today's models and reduce pollution by 90 percent. The
breakthrough was made possible by our path-breaking
partnership with the auto industry to create a new generation
of vehicles. A different design, producing similar results,
has been developed by a project funded by the Defense
Advanced Research Products Agency and the Commerce
Department's National Institute of Science and Technology.
The Energy Department discovery is amazing in what it does.
Today, gasoline is used very inefficiently in internal
combustion engines--about 80 percent of its energy capacity
is lost. The DOE project announced yesterday by A.D. Little
and Company uses 84 percent of the gasoline directly going
into the fuel cell. That's increased efficiency of more than
four times traditional engine usage.
And I might add, from the point of view of all the people
that are involved in the present system, continuing to use
gasoline means that you don't have to change any of the
distribution systems that are out there. It's a very
important, but by no means the only, discovery that's been
made that points the way toward the future we have to
embrace.
I also want to emphasize, however, that most of the
technologies available for meeting this goal through market
mechanisms are already out there--we simply have to take
advantage of them. For example, in the town of West Branch,
Iowa, a science teacher named Hector Ibarra challenged his
6th graders to apply their classroom experiments to making
their school more energy efficient. The class got a $14,000
loan from a local bank and put in place easily available
solutions. The students cut the energy use in their school by
70 percent. Their savings were so impressive that the bank
decided to upgrade its own energy efficiency. (Laughter.)
Following the lead of these 6th graders--(laughter)--other
major companies in America have shown similar results. You
have only to look at the proven results achieved by companies
like Southwire, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kraft, Interface
Carpetmakers, and any number of others in every sector of our
economy to see what can be done.
Our industries have produced a large group of efficient new
refrigerators, computers, washer/dryers, and other appliances
that use far less energy, save money, and cut pollution. The
revolution in lighting alone is truly amazing. One compact
fluorescent lamp, used by one person over its lifetime, can
save nearly a ton of carbon dioxide emissions from the
atmosphere, and save the consumer money.
If over the next 15 years everyone were to buy only those
energy-efficient products marked in stores with EPA's
distinctive ``Energy Star'' label, we could shrink our
energy bills by a total of about $100 billion, over the
next 15 years and dramatically cut greenhouse gas
emissions.
Despite these win-win innovations and commitments that are
emerging literally every day, I know full well that some will
criticize our targets and timetables as too ambitious. And,
of course, others will say we haven't gone far enough. But
before the debate begins in earnest, let's remember that over
the past generation, we've produced tremendous environmental
progress, including in the area of energy efficiency, at far
less expenses than anyone could have imagined. And in the
process, whole new industries have been built.
In the past three decades, while our economy has grown, we
have raised, not lowered, the standards for the water our
children drink. While our factories have been expanding, we
have required them to clean up their toxic waste. While we've
had record numbers of new homes, our refrigerators save more
energy and more money for our consumers.
In 1970, when smog was choking our cities, the federal
government proposed new standards for tallpipe emissions.
Many environmental leaders claim the standards would do
little to head off catastrophe. Industry experts predicted
the cost of compliance would devastate the industry. It
turned out both sides were wrong. Both underestimated the
ingenuity of the American people. Auto makers comply with
today's much stricter emissions standards for far less than
half the cost predicted, and new cars emit on average only 5
percent of the pollutants of the cars built in 1970.
We've seen this pattern over and over and over again. We
saw it when we joined together in the '70s to restrict the
use of the carcinogen, vinyl chloride. Some in the plastics
industry predicted massive bankruptcies, but chemists
discovered more cost-effective substitutes and the industries
thrived. We saw this when we phased out lead and gasoline.
And we see it in our acid rain trading program--now 40
percent ahead of schedule--at costs less than 50 percent of
even the most optimistic cost projections. We see it as the
chlorofluorocarbons are being taken out of the atmosphere at
virtually no cost in ways that apparently are beginning
finally to show some thickening of the ozone layer again.
The lesson here is simple: Environmental initiatives, if
sensibly designed, flexibly implemented, cost less than
expected and provide unforeseen economic opportunities. So
while we recognize that the challenge we take on today is
larger than any environmental mission we have accepted in the
past, climate change can bring us together around what
America does best--we innovate, we compete, we find solutions
to problems, and we do it in a way that promotes
entrepreneurship and strengthens the American economy.
If we do it right, protecting the climate will yield not
costs, but profits, not burdens, but benefits; not sacrifice,
but a higher standard of living. There is a huge body of
business evidence now showing that energy savings give better
service at lower cost with higher profit. We have to tear
down barriers to successful markets and we have to create
incentives to enter them. I call on American business to lead
the way, but I call upon government at every level--federal,
state, and local--to give business the tools they need to get
the job done, and also to set an example in all our
operations.
And let us remember that the challenge we face today is not
simply about targets and timetables. It's about our most
fundamental values and our deepest obligations.
Later today, I'm going to have the honor of meeting with
Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew I, the spiritual leader of
300,000,000 Orthodox Christians--a man who has always
stressed the deep obligations inherent in God's gift to the
natural world. He reminds us that the first part of the word
``ecology'' derives from the Greek word for house. In his
words, in order to change the behavior toward the house we
all share, we must rediscover spiritual linkages that may
have been lost and reassert human values. Of course, he is
right. It is our solemn obligation to move forward with
courage and foresight to pass our home on to our children and
future generations.
I hope you believe with me that his is just another
challenge in America's long history, one that we can meet in
the way we have met all past challenges. I hope that you
believe with me that the evidence is clear that we can do it
in a way that grows the economy, not with denial, but with a
firm and glad embrace of yet another challenge of renewal. We
should be glad that we are alive today to embrace this
challenge, and we should do it secure in the knowledge that
our children and grandchildren will thank us for the
endeavor.
Thank you very much.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also point out it is true that yesterday
the group of 77 and China proposed a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse
gases by the year 2010 under a framework that would exempt developing
nations. That is a proposal that would do serious harm to the U.S.
economy. It does completely ignore the growing contributions of
developing nations to the problem. It anticipates a command-and-control
model that would undermine all of the opportunities for cost savings
inherent in the market-based solutions that the President has proposed.
I believe that is a proposal that U.S. Senators ought to oppose, and I
am confident we would. But that is not what the President will agree
to. That is not what the President has proposed. That is not, clearly,
the negotiating framework within which the United States will attempt
to approach this treaty.
I urge my colleagues to read the remarks of the President so they
will understand how fully it is within the framework of the resolution
that the Senate passed. I hope my colleagues will stand back and really
make judgments based on a fair appraisal of our negotiating position
and ultimately what we hope to achieve in Kyoto.
Mr. President, before I yield, I would just say it is my hope,
obviously, we are about to be able to talk about the framework in which
we are going to proceed on campaign finance reform. I would like to
thank all of those parties who have worked together to try to come to
what I think is a reasonable agreement on that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed
as in morning business for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--of course, I
will not object--I wonder if I could get consent to be recognized after
the majority leader and the minority leader, who are going be
recognized a little later? Following their recognition, I would like to
be recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would object to that. I only can assume
that the Senator wants to speak first. The business before us will be
the ISTEA legislation.
[[Page S11022]]
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. CHAFEE. As manager, normally I would be the first, the one who
would be recognized first, under that. I don't want to waive that.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that after Mr. Chafee is
recognized, in that order, after the two leaders, then Mr. Chafee, if I
could be recognized?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request by the Senator from Alabama? Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for up to 20 minutes.
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request by the Senator
from West Virginia, that he would follow the Senator from Rhode Island?
If not, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his
characteristic courtesy.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, at this point I yield 2 minutes of my time
to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
____________________