If I may quote from the summary of one of the papers prepared for today's symposium, "Stabilization of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a non-trivial goal."

I might have said it differently, and more directly in my Polish manner, but I agree. The issue of global climate change is "non-trivial."

Last week my old friend Tim Wirth came to see me about global climate change. I'm always glad to see Tim. He and I were longtime colleagues on the Commerce Committee, and I genuinely like him. I've gotten to know him well over the years -- well enough to know that when he's in the vicinity, I should keep a close watch on my wallet.

As you know, Mr. Wirth and the rest of the American delegation to the United Nations conference on climate change recently returned from Geneva. In his view -- and in the view of many others, including some prominent newspaper editorial pages -- the Geneva meeting was a success.

So what happened in Geneva -- apart from the generation of a fair amount of hot air?

In Geneva, the United States and all the other parties, with the notable exceptions of the OPEC nations, Russia, and Australia, agreed on three key points on the issue of global climate change.

One, that there was a scientific consensus that climate change is a serious problem, and that manmade emissions are contributing factors.

Two, that we need binding commitments to address climate change.

And three, imposing uniform measures on all countries is an unworkable and unrealistic approach. Instead, we should work toward targets, giving countries flexibility to reach their goals, including the development of a system for trading emissions.

I am more reserved in my judgments of success and failure. Before reaching a verdict, I generally like to see what has actually been accomplished. And what the various parties did in Geneva has raised more questions than answers.

Let me discuss a few of them, starting with the science.

I'm aware of some continuing doubts about the science of climate change. Even those scientists who agree the phenomenon exists and that human activity contributes to it admit that we do not know how fast or to what degree the change is occurring.

That said, in the real world of politics I am not sure what purpose is necessarily served by a prolonged argument over the scientific particulars. That's because politics almost always tramples science. I've never known an environmental interest group to wait for solid science before ringing the alarmist bells. The same is true of environmentalist politicians.

You may remember a little study known as the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, or NAPAP for short. We spent $10 million or so on that project, but as you'll recall it was largely irrelevant: the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were completed before NAPAP.

Leaving aside the science for the moment, if you accept the premise that global warming is a problem, there is only one way to solve it: everybody has to make a commitment.

It will do the environment no good for the U.S. to agree to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the developing nations -- especially China, Brazil, India and Indonesia -- are let off the hook. That kind of agreement could in fact award the developing countries a tremendous competitive advantage and thus do the U.S. economy great harm. At this stage our negotiators have received no assurances -- in writing or otherwise -- that the developing countries will agree to limits or reductions.

That begs several other questions. What will they agree to? What should we agree to? At the moment the Administration is supposedly conducting an extensive analysis and assessment of how various climate change policies would affect our economy and specific industries. We haven't seen any of it yet. We don't know what assumptions they are using or what policies they are considering. Industry, labor or the Congress have had no opportunity to review or comment on the analysis. Further, the analysis won't be completed until just before the next round of negotiations begins in December. In this case, the cart isn't just in front of the horse, it's running several laps ahead.

This isn't the only problem. We don't even know how to properly measure greenhouse gases. I've just received a GAO report that notes that the developed, or Annex 1 countries' progress in meeting the climate change Convention's goals, and I quote, "cannot be fully assessed because the emissions data are incomplete, unreliable and inconsistent."

Some countries are playing with the figures at this early stage. In estimating its inventory levels for 1990, Denmark adjusted its inventory level upward to show what their emissions would have been if their imported hydroelectric power had been generated domestically with fossil fuels. That way, their projections for emissions in the year 2000 come out below the 1990 level. In a similarly self-interested vein, Germany wants credit for reductions they've achieved by retiring old, inefficient coal plants in the former East Germany.

The establishment of a trading system for emissions presents another set of mundane but important logistical problems.

How will we set prices? Scarcity creates value; therefore, if there are no caps on emissions (such as in developing countries) how can there be a price?

Will companies or countries receive credit for reductions in greenhouse emissions? Climate change is a global phenomenon, unlike acid rain. It doesn't matter where the emissions occur. Then shouldn't companies receive credits so that they have incentives to reduce emissions, wherever they operate?

I haven't even mentioned many other questions associated with climate policy, such as energy security, its relationship with the Clean Air Act, or what, exactly, joint implementation means. As you may know, I've written a letter along with Tom Bliley and Dan Schaefer requesting some answers. We've just received a resaponse, and are reviewing it. We're also planning a little hearing for Friday -- though I'm hearing we may lose that day because the House may not be in session.

At this point we're getting all the proper assurances from the Administration. No, they won't cut a deal that disadvantages American industry or labor. No, they won't cut a deal that lets developing nations off the hook.

Nevertheless, we are only a bit more than a year away from the deadline for concluding an agreement. I detect a great many opportunities for mischief in these next few months. At times like these I am reminded of the words of a very wise man -- my father: Trust the dealer, but cut the cards.

I will be depending on many of you to help keep an eye on the dealer.

Thank you very much.

Back to the Public Record Home Page