[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E29-E30]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, January 28, 1998
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington
Report for Wednesday, November 19, 1997 into the Congressional Record.
Global Warming and the Kyoto Summit
Later this year the United States will participate in an
international meeting in Kyoto, Japan to discuss the problem
of global warming. Global warming refers to a process by
which manmade and natural emissions of carbon dioxide and
other gases build up in the Earth's atmosphere and trap
radiated heat coming from the Earth's surface. Normally,
forests, grasslands and oceans absorb most of these gases and
recycle them--so that while global temperatures might
fluctuate over time, the overall system would be in balance.
The large-scale industrial development in this country and
around the world, particularly in the last 100 years, many be
upsetting that natural balance. Scientists believe that man
is now generating more greenhouse gases than the environment
can handle, thus causing global temperatures to rise. Over
the last century the Earth's average surface temperature has
increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. While one degree may
not seem like much, it can mean significant changes in sea
levels, crop harvests and weather patterns. For example, sea
levels over the last 100 years have risen by 4 to 6 inches,
resulting in thousands of miles of lost shoreline around the
world.
The issue for U.S. leaders is how to respond to global
climate change. Environmentalists and our allies in the
industrialized world are urging the U.S. to take the lead in
curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, primarily because we
generate more of those gases than anybody else. Others say
that limiting emissions in this way would have harmful
effects on the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers. The challenge
is to develop a policy which balances concerns about the
global environment with concerns about our economic well-
being.
The risks of global warming: Scientists generally agree
that manmade emissions have an impact on the global
environment, but are uncertain about the precise effects of
human activity over time. They say that the range of possible
outcomes is enormous--from modest benefits in some regions to
total disaster in others. For example, we know that
greenhouse gas emissions are up by 3.4% for 1996, as compared
to an 8% combined increase over the previous six years, and
that the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since
1980. We don't know, however, how much those manmade
emissions contributed to the temperature increase.
The effects of global warming have been well documented,
from the shrinking of glaciers and rise in sea levels, to
changes in weather patterns. Higher average temperatures mean
more evaporation of surface water, causing drought in some
areas of the world and abnormally heavy rainfall in other
areas. Some scientists predict more dramatic changes in the
future. In the Midwest, for example, some are predicting that
the Great Lakes will shrink, that the region will experience
more unpredictable and violent weather patterns, and that
over time Indiana farmers will have to shift to growing wheat
and cotton rather than corn and soybeans.
The global debate: There are two sets of issues arising
from any plan to curtail emissions of greenhouse gases. The
first involves disputes between countries that are
industrialized, such as the United States, Japan and Germany,
and those that are developing, such as China and India.
Industrialized countries account for more than 75% of carbon
dioxide emissions, primarily from burning gasoline and other
fossil fuels. The United States alone produces 20% of all
greenhouse gases, even though we have only 4% of the world's
population. Developing countries, in contrast, account for
less than 33% of all global emissions, but that figure is
expected to reach 50% in the next 10 years. The U.S. takes
the position that an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases
will be effective only if both the industrialized and
developing countries agree to curb future levels of
emissions. The developing countries respond that such
restrictions will deny them the benefits of future economic
growth, and keep their people poor relative to the
industrialized world.
The second set of issues relates to how a global agreement
would affect the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers. U.S.
businesses say that an agreement would force them to adopt
expensive pollution control methods, and that those costs
would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices
on gas, electricity and other goods. The net effect would be
to slow economic growth and cut jobs. Environmentalists
respond that U.S. industry made similar warnings about
passage of the Clean Air Act, and those predictions did
not come true. They argue that, despite the Clean Air
standards, the U.S. is now enjoying a sustained period of
economic growth and has the strongest economy in the
world.
President's proposal: The President recently outlined a
plan to curb U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. He has
proposed that the U.S. reduce emissions to 1990 levels, but
do so over the next 10 to 14 years. European countries were
calling for more rapid reductions. The President's plan would
earmark $5 billion in tax cuts and spending to spur energy
efficiency and the development of new
[[Page E30]]
pollution control technologies, and would insist that
developing countries set emission targets as well. Finally,
the President proposes to develop a global market-based
system to curb emissions, under which countries and
businesses can earn ``credits'' for reducing emissions below
targeted levels and sell those credits to countries and
businesses which have exceeded their targets. The U.S. uses
such a trading system to curb emissions of certain pollutants
which cause smog and acid rain.
Conclusion: The scientific consensus is that human activity
is having an impact on the environment and Earth's climate.
The question, then, is how best to respond. I do not support
a ``crash'' program to reduce these emissions. The sky is not
falling, but is slowly filling up with greenhouse gases. I
favor a gradual program of reducing emissions that takes
special care to protect the economy.
The President's plan, on the whole, is balanced and
reasonable. It provides a long lead time for curtailing
emissions, invests in energy efficiency and cleaner
technologies, and proposes market-based solutions. Since the
problem is global, the response must be global, and we should
encourage global emissions trading and the participation of
all countries, including developing countries.
Forming a proposal to fight global warming is the easy
part. The tough part will be selling it to a world that wants
us to do more, and to the American people, who are skeptical
about the science and the need for action. The debate is only
beginning.
____________________