This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Prepared Remarks of Administrator J. Brian Atwood
Address to World Policy Institute
New York, New York, September 12, 1997
U.S. Agency for International Development
I want to thank the World Policy
Institute for inviting me here today. I am
particularly pleased to have the opportunity to
visit with my old friend Steve Schlesinger.
Only infrequently does a public policy
issue come along that cannot be ignored or put
off. I would submit that one of the most
important domestic and international challenges
we now face is the compelling need to address
global climate change. I would go even further
and suggest that this phenomenon -- this
warming of the earth's surface, the rising of the
seas and the disruption of the globe's ecosystems
-- is a national security issue of the first order.
How then will we address this threat?
Our first challenge is to speak truthfully and
persuasively to the American people. In this
century, America stepped up to the challenge of
fascism and communism because we collectively
believed these ideological systems were
repressive and contrary to our interests.
Climate change, however, is a very
different type of public policy issue. It is a
phenomenon rather than an enemy. For many
years we conducted a debate over the science.
While that debate has not entirely ended, it has
become less a debate over whether the earth's
surface is warming and more a debate over how
fast. Two years ago, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,000
eminent scientists including many Nobel
laureates, concluded that "the balance of
evidence suggests that there is a discernable
human influence on global climate."
For those of us who have been frustrated
for years over the inconclusiveness of this
debate, this statement was welcomed. But in a
peculiar way, the consensus among scientists
underscored another difficult aspect of this issue.
In effect, the scientists did not identify some evil
foreign enemy, they were telling us that we were
to blame. They were telling us that economic
progress built on modern machines powered by
fossil fuels was the chief cause of climate
change. They not only took some time to reach
strong consensus over the evidence, when they
got there, they told us, to borrow the line from
the "Pogo" cartoon strip, "we have met the
enemy and he is us."
This presents policy makers with a very
difficult challenge. It is a challenge to our
political system, our economy, and to our
society as a whole. How do we mobilize
support for the defense of our society when the
tools available to us require modifying our own
behavior?
The biggest fear of many who oppose
the President's commitment to negotiate
international carbon emissions targets and
specific timetables is that our very healthy
economy would suffer. Numerous economic
simulations have been run demonstrating that
future economic growth could be hampered if
the United States agrees to limit the use of
carbon-producing fuels. However, the economic
models that predict a negative impact fail to
consider the tremendous cost we are already
incurring because of climate change -- costs due
to weather-related disasters, damage to
agricultural capacity, fisheries and human health.
These models also fail to assume that enhanced
international collaboration to solve this global
problem could actually spur economic growth as
new technology is developed and shared.
In sharp contrast to those who argue that
we cannot afford to address climate change, a
recent study by the World Resources Institute
(WRI) found that a reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions could well lead to a net increase in the
U.S. gross domestic product if we make a few
broad assumptions: (1) that our economy will
respond with innovation and efficiency; (2) that
we will implement our commitments using
market mechanisms; and (3) that we include as
part of the equation the damage to the economy
that would be caused by global climate change.
The Administration is working assiduously to
examine the economic affect emissions
reductions would have on the economy.
WRI also concluded that over ninety
percent of U.S. industries expend less than two
percent of their budgets for energy. They found
that the profit motive has already led to major
savings through more energy efficient systems.
And with the introduction of the new "clean
technologies" we can expect to save even more
while lowering emissions. With additional
incentives, perhaps we will see alternative
energy sources come on stream more quickly.
Motivated by concerns about U.S. trade
competitiveness and angry that prior negotiations
did not obligate developing countries to achieve
specific reductions in emissions, the U.S. Senate
recently passed a resolution sponsored by Robert
Byrd of West Virginia. The Byrd resolution
states that the Senate would not support a treaty
that excludes 130 developing nations from
binding commitments, or that would cause
serious economic harm to the United States.
This resolution passed by a 95-0 vote.
There is no doubt about the advice it conveys,
and the Clinton Administration has heard it loud
and clear. I was also impressed by Senator
Byrd's very personal remarks in his floor
address. The Senator acknowledged the
potential damage of climate change when he
said: "... I begin with the premise that there's
something going on that's very serious that's
already having an impact on my life, your life
and the lives of all Americans and peoples
around the world. And I also begin with the premise that if we recognize that fact and agree
that there's something going on, we need to
work together in dealing with this problem...."
Senator Byrd performed a real service in
advancing the public debate on this issue in that
his resolution was premised on an acceptance of
the problem all Americans face. Still, the
Senate's admonition presents us with a real
dilemma: progress to date in reaching
international agreement has been based upon the
assumption that industrialized nations --
including in particular the United States --
would take action first, to be followed by the
developing world.
In fact, the Berlin Mandate, which
created the framework for the Kyoto negotiation
states that "...Parties [to the Convention on
climate change] should protect the climate
system for the benefit of present and future
generations of humankind, on the basis of equity
and in accordance with their common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country
Parties should take the lead in combatting
climate change and the adverse effects thereof."
Since the climate change convention was
first drafted, developing countries have taken the
view that they will not be willing to take on
commitments until and unless we do first. Their
position has received support from many
developed nations. Their attitude seems to be
that because we have achieved economic
progress, and are the biggest cause of the
problem, we must take action first.
It is clear that what we need is some
give on all sides. The world cannot address this
problem without U.S. leadership and that is
exactly what the President is providing.
Beginning with his speech to the United Nations
in June, his East Room seminar with scientists in
July, and his planned White House conference
on climate change in October, the President
joined by Vice President Gore is attempting to
lead us away from a dilemma and toward a
creative solution.
Part of that solution is a commitment on
the part of the United States to provide $1 billion
to help the developing world to address climate
change over the next five years. USAID is
currently working on an action plan for the use of those funds, a plan that will be the focus of
dialogue with developing countries, the private
sector, the World Bank and others.
Though it is largely an untold story, we
have made great progress since 1990, working
on climate change issues with the developing
world. We have done so by focusing on those
interventions that make economic and
development sense -- actions that increased
energy efficiency, facilitate the transfer of clean
technologies, foster the use of renewable energy,
and promote forest preservation and low impact
logging. By pursuing such common sense
approaches, countries are not only reducing the
rate of growth in their greenhouse gas emissions,
they are also enhancing their competitiveness,
reducing imports of fossil energy and decreasing
local air pollution. Let me give you a few
examples:
* In Indonesia and the Philippines, USAID
has supported feasibility studies and
trade missions for the U.S. renewable
energy industry that have successfully
fostered the use of alternative energy
sources and leveraged tens of millions of
dollars in trade and investment
opportunities;
* In Mexico, USAID has helped develop
state-of-the art power plant retrofits and
energy efficiency audits using U.S.
technologies that are reducing emissions
of harmful pollutants and greenhouse
gases;
* In India, USAID is working with the
Indian National Thermal Power
Corporation, the U.S. Department of
Energy, the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the Electric Power Research Institute
to improve the operating efficiency of
existing coal-fired power plants and
reduce pollution. Already improvements
have decreased carbon dioxide emissions
by 18,000 tons, and saved power plants
money;
* In the Newly Independent States and
Eastern Europe, privatization and
market-reform initiatives are helping to
reduce emissions and increase economic
stability by providing assistance for
efficiency improvements in energy
production and consumption.
Perhaps the most critical way in which
developing countries have been addressing the
threat of climate change has been the sweeping
policy reforms in the energy sector that have
taken place in Asia and Latin America. Energy
price subsidies in developing nations have been
cut by 40 percent since 1990 as countries have
moved towards market mechanisms and a
broader role for the private sector. Energy sector
privatization is dramatically increasing the
efficiency of operations.
Much of USAID's work has been done
in partnership with U.S. electrical utilities--one
of the industry groups that will be most affected
by the outcome of the negotiations. These
utilities have already introduced significant
environmental improvements, and have expertise
and technologies to share. They see collaboration
with USAID as an opportunity to create new
markets. We see the partnership as a chance to
leverage private sector involvement and transfer
lessons learned.
The progress we have made, however,
does not alter the fact that by the year 2020, the
developing world will account for half the
greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans
worldwide. Emerging markets such as China,
India and Brazil will be major sources of
damaging emissions if concerted action is not
taken soon to encourage energy efficient
systems, clean technologies and the protection of
forests that absorb and retain the earth's carbon.
How do we convince these developing
countries to go beyond current efforts and join
an international regime that will set targets and
monitor emissions? The first step must be for
the United States to agree to its own binding
targets and timetables. When we begin
implementing a program at home, we will have
removed the biggest obstacle to a truly
international system.
The second step must be to engage in a
partnership with developing countries today to
cooperate in disseminating clean energy
technology. By providing advice and expertise
on the economic and environmental benefits of a
shift to less carbon intensive development, we
can help developing nations prepare to take on
commitments. We can also help demonstrate
that combatting climate change can help
stimulate private investment.
The potential markets for "climate
friendly" technologies is enormous. For
example, the world market for energy efficiency
technologies has been calculated at almost $1.8
trillion over the next 40 years; and that is
without the added incentive of a global
greenhouse gas emissions cap. Likewise, the
potential market for renewable energy is also
vast -- incentives for cleaner production will
only help to increase the promise of new markets
overseas in an area where the U.S. is highly
competitive.
We are making some progress in
fostering investment now, but we will be able to
stimulate major flows of private capital to the
developing world if a dollar value can be placed
on carbon emissions. In other words, if a
company in the developed world can calculate
how it could benefit financially from helping a
company in the developing world reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, projects that would
not have been profitable might become viable.
Similarly, if a developing nation could expect to
receive credit for reducing its carbon emissions,
the incentives for efficiency would increase
substantially.
Introducing the concept that carbon has
value and then developing the regulatory
framework to enforce an international system
will take time. In the meantime, developing
nations need help in understanding these new
concepts and in surveying their own needs. This
is something the entire donor community should
engage in.
Implementing President Clinton's
commitment of $1 billion for developing
countries gives USAID a unique opportunity to
help lead the donor community on the climate
change agenda. We look forward to the
opportunity to work closely with the World
Bank, UNDP and other bilateral donors. And we
fully intend to work in close partnership with the
U.S. private sector to achieve our shared
objectives. By forming effective partnerships
with multilateral lending institutions and the
private sector, we will be able to have an impact
on greenhouse gas emissions, as we move
developing nations away from rigid negotiating
positions by demonstrating that they will benefit
from targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
We cannot afford delay or denial. The
world is already beginning to feel the impact of
climate change. This has been the warmest
century in about 600 years, and all of the
warmest years recorded in the past 135 years
have occurred since 1979. The frequency and
scope of great natural disasters has increased
from 14 worldwide in the 1960s to 70 in the
1980s; a fivefold increase in three decades. As
the concentration of greenhouse gases rises,
trapping solar hear in the atmosphere, the
surface of the planet will further warm, and
these trends will accelerate.
The impact on infrastructure is already
being felt by the insurance industry. In the first
half of the 1990s, insurers paid out $57 billion
for weather-related losses worldwide compared
with $17 billion for the entire decade of the
1980s.
The dilemma that is posed by the
position of the U.S. Senate and the reluctance of
the developing countries to set targets can only
be managed by increased engagement. The
world is not being affected by climate change in
geographically distinct areas. The best analogy I
have heard is that of a giant ocean liner steaming
ahead full speed toward a reef. Scientists may
argue about how fast the ship is moving or how
far away the reef is, but there is no serious
debate about the direction we are headed.
Whether we are a developed economy or a
developing one, we are all in the same boat
heading toward the same reef.
Climate change is an issue from which
no one can walk away. We owe it to ourselves
and to the next generation to begin to redirect
the global ocean liner. If we are honest about
the economic projections and if we employ
ingenuity and technology, we will not need
major sacrifice. But we have to start today or,
as Senator Byrd said, "my children and
grandchildren... will have an intensified
problem... even more costly in its resolution."
Thank you.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
Last Updated on: July 18, 2001
|
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
