|
Letter to President Clinton: Climate Change Negotiations
June 6, 1997
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
You will have received under cover of my letter to you of June 2nd the Statement of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to the G7 Summit in Denver. In that message, the international business community states that the Kyoto Conference of the Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) should address climate change in a manner that is pragmatic and achievable, reflects economic and political realities, and provides maximum flexibility in setting national goals and implementing response measures.
The United States Council for International Business, the U.S. affiliate of the ICC, fully shares that view. It has also taken the view that climate change policies should be informed by the emerging science of climate change. The USCIB's Environment Committee, the primary U.S. business group working on international environmental policy, has actively followed and participated in the climate change negotiations, but still knows little about the specifics of the Administration's position, or the economic assumptions and policy response on which it is based.
The USCIB therefore respectfully recommends that the Administration make known its economic analyses and provide information on the policy proposals, and their economic impacts. Such public communication and debate would enable the business community to determine its position on U.S. government proposals in advance of Kyoto. Specifically, the U.S. Council hopes that further information will be provided in the following areas:
· TARGETS AND TIMETABLES: To this end, we believe it is essential to have more information and justification for specific quantitative targets and timetables and base year specification underlying the Administration's support for emissions reduction target obligations.
· POLICIES AND MEASURES: We support the Administration's opposition to internationally mandated harmonized policies and measures, but urge the Administration to provide additional information on the U.S. policies and measures it contemplates will be needed to achieve the commitments it is prepared to make. What role would voluntary programs, economic instruments, and/or regulatory options have in the policy mix? What lifestyle, consumption and production changes would be caused by these policy measures?
· JOINT IMPLEMENTATION AND EMISSIONS TRADING: We have followed with interest the Administration's support for joint implementation and international emissions trading. Although our members have opposed a cap on emissions which global emissions trading would require, we would welcome further clarification of these concepts and their operation to determine whether they represent economically viable and politically acceptable options.
· FLEXIBILITY AND DIFFERENTIATION: We understand that the Administration supports some flexibility in commitments with respect to banking and borrowing, although it opposes differentiated commitments. However, a comparative analysis with respect to "trade-offs" associated with timing and location of policy implementation and the severity of measures accompanied by an economic evaluation of differentiated commitments that reflect national circumstances and burden-sharing would shed important light on the advantages of other aspects of flexibility and differentiation.
· OTHER COUNTRIES' COMMITMENTS: Thus, although we were interested in the differentiated commitments in the E.U. proposal, we support the Administration's opposition to an E.U. "bubble", as well as its insistence on participation in greenhouse gas reduction commitments by developing countries to participate in GHG emissions reductions over time. What would be the potential impact on the U.S. economy of an E.U. bubble, and/or an exemption for the developing countries? What assumptions has the Administration made with regard to the behavior of other countries in the climate change negotiation?
· ENFORCEMENT: We believe that measurement, monitoring and verification mechanisms will be crucial to implementation of the UNFCCC, and would appreciate further clarification of the Administration's views on how such mechanisms could operate given national sensitivities. What measures would be available for dispute resolution and in the case of failure to meet commitments? How will other countries (including members of the European Union) legally interpret their commitments under the treaty?
The USCIB stands ready to circulate to its own members and to its international affiliates any further information on these points. We in turn would report to the Administration views from our constituency and our international sister organizations.
Involving the full resources of the U.S. business community in the areas of technology, efficiency, innovation and good practice will be of vital importance to meet the challenge of climate change in the context of U.S. economic growth, competitiveness and environmental leadership.
Sincerely yours,
Abraham Katz
CC: The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State
Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. Trade Representative
The Honorable Carole M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Honorable William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce
The Honorable Frederico A. Pena, Secretary of Energy
Janet L. Yellin, Chair, Council of Economic Advisors
|
