[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20471-20472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             KYOTO PROTOCOL

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week the Russian Federation began 
the process of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Russia's 
ratification is the crucial step that will bring the Kyoto Protocol 
into force as an international agreement.
  In the initial stages of the negotiations, the Senate made clear that 
we would not be willing to sign any agreement on global warming that 
did not include scheduled commitments for the developing world in 
addition to the commitments that were being asked of ourselves. This 
was not a refusal to participate in the Kyoto negotiations, but it was 
a guide for what we would find acceptable if we were to actually enter 
into a treaty.
  The Bush administration misrepresented that guide and decided to 
completely walk away from international negotiations on the issue. Now 
it looks as though a majority of the world will begin to move forward 
on the issue of global climate change without U.S. participation.
  President Bush's decision was a profound and strategic mistake for 
our country. The protocol is moving forward now and the United States 
has very little to say about the direction that it will take. The 
administration has compounded the error of dropping out of the world 
climate discussion by failing to come up with a viable climate change 
policy of its own.
  Relying solely on voluntary measures as the basis for our climate 
change strategy has proven to be ineffective in slowing the growth of 
our own greenhouse gas emissions. These voluntary actions have been in 
place since the previous Bush administration, the administration of 
George Herbert Walker Bush. And now they have been repackaged by the 
current Bush administration. The current administration and Republican 
leadership in the House have been so stalwart on this issue that they 
have opposed efforts in the Senate to even develop modest measures on 
climate protection, such as a national registry on greenhouse gas 
emissions and a national registry on climate change.
  The science of climate change is clear. The potential losses to our 
economy through climate-related disruptions such as the increased 
frequency of hurricanes and other severe storms is starkly apparent. We 
are putting our own economic security and our competitive edge at risk 
every day that we delay addressing this issue. The fact that the Kyoto 
Protocol will officially be entered into force is a signal that the 
rest of the world is headed toward a marketplace for more efficient and 
cleaner ways to produce and use energy. But because we in the United 
States have absented ourselves from the international discussions, we 
will have a limited role in setting the terms for the development of 
that marketplace.
  The costs to our economic competitiveness could be substantial. A 
1999 report by the President's committee of advisers on science and 
technology shows that between now and 2050 investments in new energy 
technologies in developing nations will likely be between $15 and $20 
trillion, accounting for more than half of the global investments in 
energy supply.
  Let me restate that. Between $15 and $20 trillion, 90 percent of the 
markets for coal and nuclear and renewable energy technologies that are 
expected to be developed, 90 percent of those markets are outside the 
United States. And the question arises: Who will supply those 
technologies? Given the right incentives, the United States has the 
technical capability and the human resources to lead in this area.
  A recent edition of Newsweek demonstrated that a large number of U.S. 
companies, maybe even a majority, are ready to move forward. These 
companies want to take climate change seriously because they are 
fearful of losing a huge part of the growing market for clean energy 
technology. Clean energy technology is the future cornerstone of a 
world market, and we should be vying to capture that market. Instead, 
we are on a track for a future where we will be buying the technology 
from overseas rather than selling the technology to others.
  In contrast to our weak policy on climate change, the Europeans and 
the Japanese have already made serious commitments to reducing 
emissions

[[Page 20472]]

with or without Kyoto. They are poised to corner the market in the 
developing world while our discussions on climate are being held 
hostage by those who would like to avoid an honest discussion of the 
issue. The longer we play politics, the wider this gap will grow as the 
Europeans and the Japanese and others develop more efficient vehicles 
and cleaner and superior ways to produce energy.
  Mr. President, I recently visited China, and the Chinese are 
developing at a rapid pace. My impression from that visit was of the 
enormous number of coal-fired powerplants that are scheduled to be 
built in that country over the next two decades.
  This development illustrates why it is important to engage the 
developing world in climate negotiations. But by walking away from the 
table over 3 years ago, the administration did not improve its ability 
to cause that engagement to occur. Our misguided refusal to engage in 
the issue lets everyone else off the hook.
  The news of Russia's willingness to go forward with the Kyoto 
Protocol should be a wake-up call to this administration. We should 
seize it as an opportunity for the United States to start showing 
leadership on the issue. Only then can we credibly engage China and the 
developing world. One way of taking that leadership is for the United 
States to propel itself forward in the development of cleaner and more 
efficient technology. If we do not and if Kyoto goes into force, then 
the United States will run the risk of falling behind in participating 
in important new markets for energy technology.
  There are flexibility mechanisms within the Kyoto structure to allow 
the United States to participate in a global regime, but we need to 
take our own first steps.
  Two credible first steps could be, first, for us to strengthen our 
own capabilities for energy technology R&D, and, second, for us to 
develop a robust and verified national registry for greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  With respect to the registry, if the United States is to develop a 
strategy for helping to achieve a stable climate in the future, knowing 
where our emissions are coming from is a necessary first step. The 
Senate has gone on record in favor of such a registry in the last 
Congress and again in this Congress.
  With time so short in this Congress, frankly, I am not optimistic 
that we will be able to revisit the issue, but I hope the developments 
in Russia will drive home the need to start a real debate on a 
proactive climate policy, and we need to start taking even modest steps 
to address this extremely important issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________