[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26612-26613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 26612]]

                         LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, recently, I attended the Sixth Conference 
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change (COP-6) at The Hague, in the Netherlands. I went to observe 
Undersecretary of State Frank Loy and the rest of the U.S. negotiating 
team confront the complex issues associated with the requirements of 
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  The experience brought into clearer focus for me some disturbing 
themes that appear to be behind the intense international pressure 
brought to bear on the United States to reach agreement on some 
profound economic, social, and environmental issues.
  At the outset, let me make clear that I did not arrive at The Hague 
without first studying the climate issue. For several years now, I have 
closely followed the progress of the climate change debate.
  I have sought the input of nationally recognized scientists 
credentialed in the disciplines of atmospheric, ocean, and computer 
modeling sciences. I have reviewed scientific reports, most notably the 
document entitled Research Pathways for the Next Decade, prepared by 
scientists affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences Board on 
Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.
  In addition, I have traveled to institutions such as the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts and met with ocean scientists 
who are very involved in climate research.
  All of these scientists have, for many years, studied and disagreed 
on how much our planet is warming, and whether it was driven by natural 
causes or by carbon dioxide emissions from industry, and other human 
activities.
  Scientists from around the world have had legitimate disagreements on 
how drastic a problem global warming is likely to be in this century 
and beyond. The debate has been further complicated by politically 
motivated ``junk science'' predictions of ``imminent'' environmental 
catastrophes capitalizing on weather events that most scientists agree 
are not linked to current temperature increases.
  The emotional intensity of this debate cautioned many policymakers 
not to take sides early. However, as Republican Policy Committee 
Chairman, I felt compelled to address the many valid concerns expressed 
about this issue in a balanced way.
  This led me to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, 
Hagel, and others, over a year ago, comprehensive legislation that I 
believed, and still believe, provides the framework for some 
responsible and immediate consensus action on this issue.
  A few days before leaving for The Hague, I met with the Director of 
the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and 
Climate, and other scientists on the Board to discuss the status of the 
scientific research on climate change. Prior to that date, the NRC was 
reluctant to agree with earlier summary scientific assessments of the 
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that 
humans were contributing to increasing temperatures recorded around the 
globe--the so-called ``anthropogenic effect.''
  Indeed, at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing 
held just last Spring, Dr. Joe Friday, testifying on behalf of the NRC 
stated that the ``jury is still out'' on why global temperatures are 
rising. The NRC was clearly unable at that time to state on the record 
that it had detected clear evidence of an anthropogenic fingerprint on 
the warming trends of earth's climate.
  At our meeting a few weeks ago, the NRC scientists were less 
passionate in their refusal to acknowledge the ``anthropogenic 
effect.'' I took from our discussion that day that there was increasing 
evidence that land-use practices and human emissions of greenhouse 
gases were having some contributing effect to the increased land 
surface temperatures monitored around the globe.
  To be sure, the scientists did not suggest or imply that temperatures 
would reach dangerously high levels during the next 50 to 100 years. 
Indeed, the scientists offered their opinion that the rise in 
temperature would more likely be closer to 1.5 degrees rather than the 
5 to 10 degree high range predicted for later this century by the IPCC.
  Moreover, the NRC scientists underscored the uncertain nature of the 
computer modeling results on which most, if not all, predictions 
depend. They cautioned against fully embracing any set of predictions 
because of the uncertain nature of input data and the ability of 
computers to fairly and adequately handle the many variables that are 
included in computer programs.
  They further noted the need for continued technological advancement 
in super computer capability.
  What was clear to me after that meeting was that the issue of human 
contributions to increasing temperatures was reaching some consensus 
within the National Academy of Sciences.
  However, it was also clear to me from my discussions with those 
scientists that many other important scientific issues concerning the 
extent of the human contribution to warming trends, the extent to which 
the earth will continue to warm, and perhaps, most important, the 
extent to which mankind can take actions that will effectively stop or 
slow climate change are far from settled and will likely take years to 
determine.
  Indeed, the consensus that is forming among scientists working on 
this issue for the National Research Council is that we need a plan to 
focus more on climate change ``adaptation'' rather than climate change 
``mitigation.'' This thinking would have been considered radical a 
little over a year ago and today still may be anathema to many in the 
environmental community. Yet, a July, 2000, Atlantic Monthly article 
entitled ``Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock'' by Daniel Sarewitz 
and Roger Pielke, Jr. boldly and intelligently addresses this issue and 
persuasively makes the case for new thinking on what many of us would 
agree is one of the most important issues for this new century.
  Instead of discussions at The Hague centering on ways to reach 
consensus on actions that would reduce vulnerability to climate change 
such as encouraging democracy, raising standards of living, and 
improving environmental quality in the developing world through the use 
of innovative American and other industrialized countries technology, 
many discussions were consumed by scathing anti-American rhetoric.
  Some non-governmental environmental organizations and some European 
Environmental Ministers were criticizing the United States for not 
wanting to surrender some of its sovereignty by allowing other nations 
to police American fuel use and economic expansion strategies.
  Many in the developing world were brazenly demanding billions of 
dollars in ``pay-offs'' for the perceived harm that climate change--in 
their opinion, brought about by American greed--was causing developing 
countries. Astonishingly, all of this pay-off money would be in 
addition to the large sums currently being sent to developing countries 
through AID and many other American taxpayer programs designed to help 
developing nations reach better standards of living.
  The motives of America's strongest critics at The Hague Climate 
Conference appeared to be nothing more than transparent efforts to have 
wholesale redistribution of wealth to the developing world and to 
maneuver our competitors in the global market place into stronger 
competitive positions.
  Many in the non-governmental environmental community appeared to be 
more interested in promoting non-growth and anti-population agendas 
than taking actions that would offer

[[Page 26613]]

the best prospects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or helping 
vulnerable nations adapt to capricious climate variations.
  I believe America will responsibly move forward in addressing the 
climate change issue whether or not Kyoto is ever ratified by the 
Senate. We should not, and the Senate will not allow the international 
community or powerful non-governmental environmental organizations to 
force our nation to accept a deal that will be economically threatening 
or scientifically ineffective.
  Secretary Loy and his negotiating team at COP-6 should be commended 
for their hard work and steadfastness in demanding from the 
international community solid proposals that fully recognize both 
America's determination to defend its sovereignty and its unmatched 
ability through its technological prowess to help the world deal with 
any potential calamities as a consequence of climate change.
  Moreover, the United States won key concessions from international 
negotiators at Kyoto that now appear to be at serious risk. Indeed, 
European negotiators at The Hague, with strong pressure from some non-
governmental environmental organizations, made aggressive attempts to 
rescind those concessions.
  The flexible mechanisms provision and the sinks provision were 
elements of the Protocol that were prominently displayed to Congress by 
the Clinton/Gore Administration when Congressional Oversight Committees 
questioned the costs associated with the Protocol. Each time the 
Administration responded to such queries, the Administration would 
point to the carbon sink and flexible mechanism provisions to 
rationalize its assessment that compliance with the Protocol would be 
inexpensive.
  Clearly, without those provisions, the Protocol's cost will be 
prohibitive and violate one of the critical tenets of Senate Resolution 
98--the Byrd/Hagel Resolution--which passed the Senate 95-0 in 1997.
  I can only hope that the current Administration will do nothing to 
compromise these principles in the coming weeks. To do so would be 
irresponsible and unproductive. Clearly, it would be politically 
ineffective inasmuch as the Senate would not ratify such agreement.
  Meanwhile, as scientists continue to research, discover, and even 
disagree on the causes and effects of global warming, I will continue 
to work with my colleagues in Congress to aggressively establish a 
system of incentives that reduce the environmental impacts of human 
activity, while preserving the freedoms and quality of life that make 
the United States the greatest Nation on Earth.

                          ____________________