[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E67-E68]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 3, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention my monthly newsletter on foreign affairs from December 1997 
entitled Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
  I ask that this newsletter be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The newsletter follows:

                 Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol

       The United States and 150 other countries met in Japan this 
     month and agreed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. 
     Scientists believe that these emissions, primarily carbon 
     dioxide, trap heat and cause warming of the Earth's 
     atmosphere. This new treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol to the 
     1992 Climate Control Treaty, launches a lengthy political 
     debate over science, sovereignty, economics, the environment 
     and America's leadership role in the world. Many are 
     skeptical about scientific evidence of global warming or the 
     need for action. Strong Presidential leadership will be 
     necessary if Congress and the American people are to support 
     measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
       Global Warming. There is broad scientific consensus that 
     the presence of greenhouse gases--produced by the burning of 
     wood and hydrocarbons such as oil, coal, and gas--is 
     increasing in the atmosphere, and that the Earth's 
     temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the 
     past century.
       There is no clear consensus about the link between global 
     warming and greenhouse gas emissions, or the effect of global 
     warming on

[[Page E68]]

     human life. There is also no consensus about the cost or 
     effectiveness of measures to reduce emissions. The 
     uncertainty has led to an intense debate over the correct 
     policy to reduce or limit greenhouse gases.
       The Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized 
     nations to cut emissions from six different greenhouse gases 
     by about five percent below 1990 levels, and to do so in the 
     next 14 years. Reductions would vary between six to eight 
     percent for the U.S., Japan and the European Union. 
     Developing countries--including major greenhouse gas 
     producers such as China and India--were asked to set 
     voluntary targets to reduce emissions. The Protocol will 
     enter into force after its ratification by 55 states, and 
     will be binding only on those states that have ratified it.
       The Protocol also permits ''trading`` of emissions rights. 
     A country or company could meet its targets by cutting 
     emissions, purchasing emissions rights from a country or 
     company below its cap, or both. The purpose of this provision 
     is to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions. The 
     Protocol calls for a follow-up meeting next year to reexamine 
     emissions trading, and to decide on ``appropriate and 
     effective'' ways to deal with treaty non-compliance.
       Economic Concerns. Opponents argue that global warming is 
     not a problem, and, if it is a problem, others are causing it 
     and doing anything about it will cost too much. Opponents 
     frame the issue in terms of economic security and national 
     sovereignty. They complain developing countries get a free 
     ride.
       Developing countries argue that they are not the chief 
     source of emissions, and that they cannot reduce fossil fuel 
     use without harming economic growth. The industrialized world 
     is overwhelmingly responsible for the accumulation of 
     greenhouse gas emissions thus far, but the contribution of 
     developing countries is expected to rise over the next 
     decade.
       U.S. business and labor groups strongly oppose allowing 
     developing countries to reduce emissions at a slower pace 
     than industrial countries. This discrepancy, they argue, will 
     encourage companies to move operations to developing 
     countries with lower energy prices--and take thousands of 
     U.S. jobs with them.
       A Balanced Approach. Climate change is a complex and 
     serious problem. The Protocol offers a serious solution, but 
     policymakers must take time to digest fully its implications. 
     President Clinton must convince Congress and the American 
     people that it does not promote global environmental 
     interests at the expense of American jobs and economic 
     growth.
       First, the President should not submit the Protocol for 
     Senate ratification until developing countries agree to 
     meaningful emissions reductions. A global problem demands a 
     global solution, and developing countries must be involved. 
     They cannot be expected to accept identical targets and 
     burdens, and they have a right to energy-efficient growth. 
     But they are becoming major polluters, and need to play their 
     part to reduce emissions.
       Second, the Administration should emphasize tax incentives, 
     not tax increases. Market-based approaches to reduce 
     emissions work better than command and control techniques. 
     The President should advocate tax cuts and incentives for 
     research and development to encourage cleaner and more 
     efficient technologies. Industry, not government, should take 
     the lead to improve fuel efficiency.
       Third, the Administration must begin to build public 
     support for eliminating wasteful energy use. Even though a 
     majority of Americans in polls say the U.S. should take steps 
     to cut greenhouse gas emissions ``regardless of what other 
     countries do,'' the question of global warming is still 
     largely undefined in the public mind. The President will need 
     to persuade voters that there are not only costs but 
     opportunities in a cleaner, more efficient economy.
       Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is historic and important--but 
     it is only a first step. In the United States, the debate 
     over global warming has really just begun. This must be seen 
     as an initial and partial agreement, which will begin many 
     years of international negotiations. With sustained and 
     committed leadership, this treaty can evolve into a 
     significant international agreement that commits the nations 
     of the world to action to safeguard the future of the planet.
       Conclusion. Reducing emissions will protect against 
     unpleasant environmental surprises. The pressing question is 
     how much should we sacrifice now to buy insurance against 
     unknown future threats. To do nothing would be irresponsible, 
     but to sacrifice our economic vitality would be a high price 
     to pay, and the benefits are uncertain.
       The political question on global warming is tough. All 
     politicians understand that the American people are not ready 
     for a 25 cents per gallon gasoline tax. The Congress will not 
     agree to large economic sacrifices until Members are 
     convinced of the seriousness of this problem. There is no 
     reason to rush or panic, but gradual steps now to reduce 
     reliance on fossil fuels could prevent disruptive climate 
     change later--change that could severely damage the economies 
     of the world. If we do not get this right, our grandchildren 
     will not--and should not--forgive us.

     

                          ____________________