[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.

     

                          ____________________