[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14172-S14173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS IN MONTREAL

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of myself and 
Senators Lieberman, Biden, Carper, Feingold, Feinstein, Kerry, 
Lautenberg, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, and Wyden.
  Over the last 2 weeks, 189 countries, including the United States, 
met in Montreal, Canada, to discuss the issue of global climate change. 
These countries are all signatories to the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change. The Montreal talks also included 
discussions by the 157 countries that are signatories to the Kyoto 
Protocol.
  A key topic of the discussion was whether future talks could include 
discussions of additional commitments under the Framework Convention or 
the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration's position from the outset 
was that such discussions were a ``nonstarter'' and that the United 
States would not engage in any such talks.
  On December 5, 2005, 24 members of the Senate wrote to the Bush 
administration to note that the United States remains a signatory to 
the Framework Convention and thus is obligated to take actions to 
``prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate 
system.'' In the view of those Senators and others, blocking such talks 
would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United 
States under the Framework Treaty.
  The letter, which I submit for the Record, also noted that in June of 
2005, a bi-partisan majority of the Senate approved a resolution 
calling for domestic legislation to achieve mandatory reductions in 
greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions and recognizing the need for comparable 
action by major GHG emitters nations worldwide. It urged the Bush 
administration to be mindful of this fact and to conduct its 
negotiations accordingly. The signers of this letter hoped that it 
would be useful in making clear that many in the United States, 
including a majority of members of the Senate, do not agree with the 
Bush administration's position.
  Despite the letter, the Bush delegation did their best to block and 
stall the negotiations and to send the message that the United States 
will not take mandatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 
many years to come. When it was time to actually negotiate about 
further commitment discussions, the chief negotiator of the United 
States bluntly indicated that such discussions were unacceptable and 
abruptly walked away from the negotiating table.
  The good news is that the rest of the countries involved were not 
deterred by the U.S. walkout and ultimately reached agreement on a set 
of decisions that will allow initiation of further talks next year. 
Only when confronted with this agreement in a public way did the United 
States ultimately accept a version of those agreements.
  This means that we have made progress and that further discussions 
will take place under both the Framework Treaty and the Kyoto Treaty 
about additional commitments. The clear message from the rest of the 
world to the Bush administration is that we are moving forward. Such 
progress can take place with or without the United States at the table.
  The results of these negotiations are encouraging and open a variety 
of pathways to future U.S. engagement. The developments expand the 
opportunities available to the U.S. to fulfill its Framework Convention 
obligations to engage the international community prior to the 
Framework Convention and Kyoto Protocol meetings in 2006--in meeting 
the Convention's goal of ``preventing dangerous anthropogenic 
interference with the climate system.''
  Even without the United States, those nations that are parties to the 
Kyoto protocol have agreed to initiate a process by which commitments 
will be established for the period following 2012, when the first 
commitment phase of the Protocol ends. Contrary to the claims of some, 
the Framework Convention process and the Kyoto process remain as viable 
legal vehicles for future reductions of greenhouse gases.
  It is also worth noting that the parties to the Framework Convention, 
including the United States, also agreed to initiate a process for 
considering reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through avoided 
deforestation. As much as 25 percent of global GHG emissions are 
generated by tropical deforestation. The avoided deforestation 
initiative, prompted by the efforts of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica 
and endorsed by the G77 Group of Developing Nations and China, means 
that developing countries are open to ways in which they could reduce 
their greenhouse gases emissions, consistent with the Framework 
Convention principle of ``common but differentiated responsibilities 
and respective capabilities.''
  The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and has 
been for some time. We have an obligation to be a leader in the fight 
to reduce greenhouse gases. We have an obligation under the Framework 
Convention to take actions to ``prevent dangerous anthropogenic 
interference with the climate system.'' We have not yet honored those 
obligations, even as other countries, including developing countries, 
move forward.
  A majority of Americans support taking some form of action on climate 
change. A recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 
sponsored by the Center for International and Security Studies at the 
University of Maryland, found that 86 percent of Americans think that 
President Bush should act to limit greenhouse gases in the United 
States if the G-8 countries are willing to act to reduce such gases. 
All the G-8 countries except the United States are signatories to the 
Kyoto Treaty. Finally, the study found that 83 percent of Americans 
favor ``legislation requiring large companies to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.''
  We cannot afford further delay on climate change, which appears to be 
the desired outcome of the Bush administration policy. The Montreal 
talks are a positive step forward, but we need to do much more, much 
faster. Climate change is here and it will accelerate the longer we 
wait. The time has come for the United States to adopt mandatory 
legislation to reduce greenhouse gases and for the United States to 
reengage in the international negotiation process in a constructive 
way.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 2005.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President, as you know, one of the most pressing 
     issues facing humankind is the problem of human-induced 
     global climate change. Between November 28 and December 9, 
     2005, 189 countries, including the United States, are meeting 
     in Montreal, Canada to discuss future actions that can be 
     taken under the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change (UNFCCC). That conference will be the 11th 
     UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 11). Simultaneously, 
     157 parties to the Kyoto Protocol, an extension of the 
     UNFCCC, will be meeting and the United States will 
     participate as an observer in that process, which will be the 
     first Meeting of the Parties (MOP1).
       The United States is a signatory to the UNFCCC treaty, 
     which the Senate ratified in

[[Page S14173]]

     1992 and which entered into force in 1994. Article 2 of that 
     Convention commits the parties to achieving ``stabilization 
     of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level 
     that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with 
     the climate system.'' In addition, Article 4.2(d) requires 
     that the parties review the adequacy of measures relating to 
     the mitigation of climate change, beginning in 1998 and 
     ``thereafter at regular intervals.''
       We are writing to remind the Administration of its 
     continuing legal obligation to participate in the COP 
     negotiations in a constructive way that will aid in meeting 
     the agreed-upon goal of ``preventing dangerous anthropogenic 
     interference with the climate system.'' In our view, a 
     deliberate decision by the Administration not to engage in 
     such discussions, solely because they may include the topic 
     of future binding emissions reductions requirements, is 
     inconsistent with the obligations of the United States as set 
     forth in the UNFCCC treaty. In any event, the United States 
     should, at a minimum, refrain from blocking or obstructing 
     such discussions amongst parties to the Convention, since 
     that would be inconsistent with its ongoing treaty 
     obligations.
       We would also like you to be aware that a bipartisan 
     majority of the United States Senate has now agreed that 
     human-induced climate change is real and that ``mandatory 
     steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of 
     greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.'' On June 22, 
     2005, the Senate went on Record for the first time in support 
     of mandatory limits on greenhouse gases by a vote of 53-44. 
     The Resolution states that:
       ``It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact 
     a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, 
     market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse 
     gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such 
     emissions at a rate and in a manner that--
       (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; 
     and
       (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that 
     are major trading partners and key contributors to global 
     emissions.''
       As this Sense of the Senate Resolution makes clear, the 
     Senate intends, at some future date, to require a program of 
     mandatory greenhouse gas limits and incentives for the United 
     States. Moreover, that system will be designed to ensure 
     comparable action by other nations that trade with the United 
     States. This system, therefore, will build on the actions of 
     the United States and other countries in implementing the 
     UNFCCC. It is only a matter of time before Congress takes 
     such action.
       The United States Senate is on the path towards requiring 
     mandatory commitments and reductions of greenhouse gases and 
     supports working through and alongside the Framework 
     Convention process. The Administration should remain mindful 
     of that key fact in its negotiations with all Parties and 
     comport any discussions about future obligations accordingly.
       Sincerely,
         Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, John McCain, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Susan M. Collins, Lincoln D. Chafee, Tom Carper, Chris 
           Dodd, Daniel Inouye, Charles Schumer, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Paul Sarbanes, Ken Salazar, Hillary Rodham 
           Clinton, Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Joe 
           Lieberman, Maria Cantwell, Russell D. Feingold, Dick 
           Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John F. Kerry.

                          ____________________