[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 60 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4394-S4395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier this week, Vice President Cheney 
gave us a brief glimpse of the administration's soon-to-be-released 
energy plan that suggests that we need to take action to avert an 
impending energy crisis. He suggested that the plan will push for 
increasing fuel supplies from domestic sources. Still, the Vice 
President did not explain how domestic climate change programs will be 
reflected in the energy plan, nor did he discuss press reports that the 
administration is developing a plan to deal with the international 
aspects of climate change.
  I would like to focus on the latter, and discuss recent decisions by 
the administration regarding the international negotiations. Climate 
change cannot be discussed in complete isolation from the soon-to-be 
released energy plan, since the issue of climate change must be 
addressed both domestically and internationally.
  I wish to note, at the outset, that I applaud the administration's 
support for clean coal technologies and the administration's 
recognition that coal is one of our country's most important sources of 
energy. I recognize and strongly support this policy by the executive 
branch. A bill I have introduced this session, S. 60, the National 
Electricity and Environmental Technology Act, addresses the challenges 
faced by coal, and I would welcome the administration's active support 
to utilize coal in a cleaner, more efficient way.
  I also believe, however, that it would be a mistake to focus too 
heavily just on increasing fuel supplies from domestic sources. If that 
is where the administration is headed, it is not on exactly the right 
path. In order to solve the challenge of climate change, we must 
develop new domestic sources such as coal, using clean coal 
technologies, while also engaging in bold initiatives to develop new 
technologies in the area of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and 
renewable energy.
  I am concerned, based upon preliminary reports, that the 
administration's plan may not reflect such a balanced and farsighted 
perspective. Let me begin by noting the obvious--the primary, manmade 
cause of global warming is the burning of the very fossil fuels that 
power virtually the entire world.
  Here is part of the power just above us as we look up to the ceiling 
of the Senate Chamber and see these lights. What is required, then, is 
the equivalent of an industrial revolution. We must develop new and 
cleaner technologies to burn fossil fuels as well as new methods to 
capture and sequester greenhouse gases, and we must develop renewable 
technology that is practical and cost-effective. Rarely has mankind 
been confronted with such a challenge--a challenge to improve how we 
power our economy. This is the greatest nation in the world when the 
issue is one of applying our engineering talents to push beyond the 
next incremental improvement, and, instead, visualize and then achieve 
major leaps forward. We can do this, if only we apply ourselves. The 
scale and the scope of the problem are enormous, as is the leadership 
that will be required by the current administration, and, for that 
matter, the next dozen administrations, if we are to confront and 
overcome this awesome challenge in our children's time and in our 
grandchildren's lifetime.
  But this takes visionary leadership. It would take extraordinary 
leadership. We need more than just small, incremental increases in our 
domestic oil supplies or in our existing research and development 
programs. This is an approach which only pays lip service to the 
challenge that we face. It is a huge challenge. I hope that the 
administration's plan will take a broader view.
  We must also recognize that the European Union, China, and other 
developing nations are quick to point the finger at us, at the world's 
largest contributor to global warming. We must demonstrate our resolve, 
and begin to get our own house in order by launching such a research 
and development effort, as well as continuing and expanding our current 
efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  However, it should also be noted that China will soon surpass us as 
the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Chinese Government must 
stop blocking all forward movement on the question of developing 
country participation. The developing world is poorly served by the 
current level of Chinese intransigence. The poorest nations in the 
developing world--which will be those that are hardest hit by global 
warming during this century--must demand leadership from within their 
own ranks, and especially from China. The Chinese leadership must join 
us in honestly discussing solutions to the problem of climate change. 
The United States can develop and provide the technological 
breakthroughs that can be deployed by all nations, as we move forward 
together to solve this common, global problem.
  However, I want to emphatically warn that new technologies and 
voluntary approaches will not by themselves solve this problem. We must 
also actively negotiate and ratify international agreements that 
include binding commitments for all of the largest emitters of 
greenhouse gases, if we are to have any hope of solving one of the 
world's--one of humanity's--greatest challenges.
  This concern takes me back to the Senate's actions just 4 years ago. 
During the Senate floor debate over Senate Resolution 98 in July 1997, 
I expressed two fundamental beliefs that have guided my approach on the 
issue of climate change. First, while some scientific uncertainties 
remain, I believe that there is significant, mounting evidence that 
mankind is altering the world's climate. Second, the voluntary approach 
of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 
commonly known as the Rio Convention, has failed, as almost all of the 
nations of the world, including the United States, have been unable to 
meet their obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 
levels. With those points in mind, we must ask

[[Page S4395]]

what needs to be done in a binding fashion to begin to address this 
global issue--the preeminent environmental challenge of our time.
  On July 25, 1997, the Senate passed, by a vote of 95-0, S. Res. 98 
which stated that, first, developing nations, especially the largest 
emitters, must agree to binding emission reduction commitments at the 
same time as industrialized nations and, second, any international 
climate change agreement must not result in serious harm to the U.S. 
economy. That resolution served as guidance to U.S. negotiators as they 
prepared to hammer out the details of the Kyoto Protocol.
  Senator Hagel and I were the prime cosponsors of that resolution.
  The adoption of that resolution was perhaps, a dose of reality--
laying out, in advance of the completion of the Kyoto negotiations or 
the anticipated submission of a climate change treaty to the Senate, 
just what an administration--any administration--would need to win the 
Senate's advice and consent. Contrary to statements made by some in 
this administration, the Senate has never voted on the Kyoto Protocol, 
although the protocol, in its current form, does not meet the 
requirements of S. Res. 98.
  Since that vote in July 1997, international climate change 
negotiations have covered a wide range of topics in an attempt to craft 
a balanced treaty. While there have been some important gains and there 
have been some unfortunate setbacks from the U.S. perspective, I am 
concerned that, in the Bush administration's zeal to reject Kyoto for 
its failure to comply with S. Res. 98, the baby is being thrown out 
with the bath water through a complete abandonment of the negotiating 
process. Such an abandonment would be very costly to U.S. leadership 
and credibility and could force the international community to go back 
to ``square one'' on certain critical issues such as carbon 
sequestration and market-based mechanisms--areas which I believe are 
critical to any future binding climate change treaty.
  Still, an examination even of Kyoto's drawbacks can provide the basis 
for forward movement by the Bush administration.
  Let me say that again. An examination, even of Kyoto's drawbacks, can 
provide the basis for forward movement by the Bush administration.
  For example, U.S. negotiators should go back to the negotiating table 
with proposals that could be achieved internationally. In my opinion, 
an effective and binding international agreement must include several 
elements. First, the initial binding emission reduction targets and 
caps should be economically and environmentally achievable. Such an 
international agreement should specify increments by which the initial 
reduction could be racheted downward and made more stringent over time. 
This architecture could provide a realistic and obtainable target, and 
it would give U.S. industry more time to prepare to meet such 
requirements. Additionally, the inclusion of incremental reductions 
would encourage the development of a range of cleaner, more efficient 
technologies to meet the long-term goal, namely, the stabilization of 
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Most important, these 
steps would give the United States a clearer path toward the goal of 
dealing seriously with a serious and growing problem.
  Recently, we have heard talk by the Bush administration to the effect 
that the United States should promote voluntary initiatives to meet our 
international treaty commitments. Well, that sounds good, but it will 
not work. I note that, in 1993, the former administration undertook an 
extensive assessment to formulate the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan, 
which subsequently developed a wide range of voluntary programs and 
technology strategies to help the United States reduce domestic 
emissions to 1990 levels. While these remain laudable and important 
programs, they have not put us on a path toward significantly reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, rather than accomplishing that goal, 
by the late 1990s, U.S. emissions were at least 11 percent above those 
1990 levels. Clearly then, the next global climate change treaty will 
have to include binding emission limits by industrialized nations, as 
well as developing nations, specifically the biggest emitters in the 
developing world. I am talking about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and 
others.
  Additionally, as I explained at the time we were debating S. Res. 98, 
the initial commitment by developing countries could be modest, with 
the agreement specifying a more rigorous approach to growth and 
emissions over time. Recent press reports indicate that China, the big 
emitter, exceeding the emissions of the United States very soon, has 
already made progress in reducing the growth of its greenhouse gas 
emissions. That is good news. That is encouraging. A future binding 
climate change agreement could recognize these efforts and provide 
market-based mechanisms by which China could obtain technological 
assistance to expand upon its efforts over time.
  An international treaty with binding commitments can and should 
provide for the continued growth of the world's developing nations. The 
economic growth of Mexico or China, for example, need not be choked off 
by unrealistically stringent, inflexible emission reduction targets. 
The initial commitment could be relatively modest, pacing upwards 
depending upon various factors, with a specific goal to be achieved 
within a fixed time period. If properly designed, a binding 
international treaty can accommodate economic growth and environmental 
improvement in the developing world. This approach provides the means 
by which China and other key developing nations can grow in a more 
efficient, environmentally sound manner while also making commitments 
to reduce their fair share of this global climate change burden.
  Using this approach, the Bush administration has a historic 
opportunity to shape, rather than cripple, the international climate 
change debate by negotiating an agreement that includes all of the 
largest emitters of greenhouse gases on a global basis.
  It is a huge task no doubt, but it is a huge problem, and it 
confronts the world, not just he occidental but also the oriental--not 
just the West but also the East. Such an agreement must also include 
market mechanisms that are unencumbered by layers of bureaucracy; 
strong provisions for domestic and international sinks, sequestration, 
and projects that prevent deforestation; and tough enforcement and 
compliance requirements.
  But any such agreement must also be met by an honest effort on 
America's domestic front. I am, therefore, very concerned that the 
President's overall budget does not adequately provide the level of 
funding necessary to support programs and policies that would address 
U.S. energy and climate change challenges. So I urge the Bush 
Administration to include all relevant policy aspects in the energy 
needs assessment currently under review and to examine the total 
costs--both economic and environmental--in any national energy 
strategy. I hope the President will work with Congress on these 
critical issues to develop a constructive, long-term negotiating path 
for the future. America leads the world in so many important areas--
addressing our global climate change challenges should be front and 
center.

                          ____________________