Global Climate Change

Order Code IB89005

CRS Issue Brief for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Global Climate Change

Updated May 12, 2006

John R. Justus and Susan R. Fletcher

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Global Climate Change Science

Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Trends

Climate System Response

The Policy Context

Clinton Administration Policies

Bush Administration Policies

International Action

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

COP-1, The Berlin Mandate

COP-2, Geneva, Switzerland

COP-3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

COP-4, Buenos Aires

COP-5, Bonn, Germany

COP-6, The Hague, Netherlands

COP-6 “bis,” Bonn, Germany

COP-7, Marrakech, Morocco

COP-8 (New Delhi, India, 2002), COP-9 (Milan, Italy, 2003), COP-10 (Buenos Aires,

2004)

COP-11, Montreal, Canada

Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

Congressional Interest and Activities

LEGISLATION

IB89005

05-12-06

Global Climate Change

SUMMARY

omy is so dependent upon energy, and so

much of U.S. energy is derived from fossil

fuels, reducing these emissions poses major

challenges and controversy.

There is concern that human activities are

affecting the heat/energy-exchange balance

between Earth, the atmosphere, and space, and

inducing global climate change, often termed

“global warming.” Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have contributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide

(CO2) and other trace greenhouse gases. If

these gases continue to accumulate in the

atmosphere at current rates, most scientists

believe significant global warming would

occur through intensification of Earth’s natural heat-trapping “greenhouse effect.” Possible impacts might be seen as both positive and

negative, depending on regional or national

variations.

The 1992 United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

which the United States has ratified, called for

a “non-binding” voluntary aim for industrialized countries to control atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases by stabilizing

their emissions at 1990 levels by the year

2000. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the

UNFCCC goes further, and commits the

major industrialized nations that have ratified

it to specified, legally binding emissions

reductions. On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto

Protocol entered into force. According to the

UNFCCC Secretariat, as of February 6, 2006,

160 nations and economic regional integration

organizations had ratified the Protocol. The

European Union instituted its emissions trading system under the Protocol at the beginning of 2005.

A warmer climate would probably have

far-reaching effects on agriculture and forestry, managed and unmanaged ecosystems,

including natural habitats, human health,

water resources, and sea level, depending on

climate responses. Although causal relationships between projected long-range global

climate trends and record-setting warmth and

severe weather events of the past two decades

have not been firmly established, attention has

been focused on possible extremes of climate

change and the need for better understanding

of climate processes to improve climate model

projections.

In March 2001, the Bush Administration

rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and thus the

United States is not party to it (and therefore

is not subject to its requirements) as it enters

into force. President Bush concluded a

cabinet-level climate policy review with an

announcement in 2002 of a “new approach”

for the United States based on reducing the

greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas

emissions per unit of GDP) of the U.S. economy.

The basic policy question remains:

Given scientific uncertainties about the magnitude, timing, rate, and regional

consequences of potential climatic change,

what are the appropriate responses for U.S.

and world decision makers?

This report briefly reviews the status of

climate science, international negotiations,

and congressional activity focused specifically

on climate change.

Fossil-fuel combustion is the primary

source of CO2 emissions, and also emits other

“greenhouse” gases. Because the U.S. econ-

Congressional Research Service

˜

The Library of Congress

IB89005

05-12-06

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force, committing those nations that have ratified

it to specified mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. The 160

nations that had ratified the Protocol as of February 6, 2006, now represent 61.6% of the 1990

emissions baseline among developed nations (55% must be accounted for by industrialized

countries that have ratified in order for the Protocol to enter into force). The United States is

a party to the UNFCCC, but not to the Kyoto Protocol. The first meeting of the Kyoto

Protocol parties occurred November 28-December 9, 2005, in a joint meeting with the 11th

Conference of the Parties (COP-11) of the UNFCCC.

On June 22, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a “Sense of the Senate” resolution as an

amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included findings that greenhouse

gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, causing average temperatures to rise, and there is

“growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas

accumulation in the atmosphere.” It stated the sense of the Senate “that Congress should enact

a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and

incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such

emissions....,” while not significantly harming the U.S. economy, and in a way that will

encourage comparable action by other nations. This resolution was not included in the final

energy bill by the conference committee.

Following suit, on May 10, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations in the draft

FY2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations bill adopted sense-of-the-Congress language

stating that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of

mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow,

stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions. That language calls for limits and incentives

that do not significantly harm the U.S. economy and that will encourage comparable action by

our major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. Also adopted was

language directing EPA to study the ways global climate change will affect human health and

to recommend ways the nation should improve medical preparedness and response capabilities

and public health systems to deal with the health impacts associated with increased pollution

and other environmental changes.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Global Climate Change Science

A large number of scientists believe that human activities, which have increased

atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 35% from preindustrial values of 280

parts per million (ppm) to 378 ppm over the past 150 years, are leading to an increase in global

average temperatures. Global temperatures have already risen 0.6oC (0.9oF) in the last 100

years, and, according to model projections, might rise anywhere from as little as 1.8oC to as

much as 7.1oC (2.7oF to 10.7oF) over the next 100 years. However, the science of “global

warming” is not without challengers, who argue that scientific proof is incomplete or

contradictory, and that there remain many uncertainties about the nature and direction of

CRS-1

IB89005

05-12-06

Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, there is significant concern that human activities, such as the

burning of fossil fuels, industrial production, deforestation, and certain land-use practices are

increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) that, along with increasing

concentrations of other trace gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), may be leading to

changes in the chemical composition and physical dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere, including

how heat/energy is distributed between the land, ocean, atmosphere and space.

Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Trends

Scientists have found that the four most important variable greenhouse gases, whose

atmospheric concentrations can be influenced by human activities, are carbon dioxide (CO2),

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Historically, CO2 has

been the most important, but those other atmospheric trace gases are also radiatively active,

in that they can affect Earth’s heat budget and thereby contribute to a greenhouse warming of

the lower atmosphere.

The amount of carbon cycling from naturally occurring processes each year through the

biosphere as CO2 is enormous — some 800 billion tons. Ice cores and other proxy climate

data, which also indicate CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, have shown, in general, a

relatively stable global climate, at least over the past 10,000 years. As such, many scientists

suggest that the amount of CO2 generated by natural processes is about equal to the amounts

absorbed and sequestered by natural processes. However, human activity since the Industrial

Revolution (c.a. 1850), and primarily in the form of burning fossil fuels, is now generating

some additional 24 billion tons of CO2 per year. Available evidence shows that about half this

amount is absorbed by natural processes on land and in the ocean, and that atmospheric

concentrations of CO2 are currently about 35% higher at 378 parts per million (ppm) than they

were some 150 years ago at 280 ppm. Some scientists believe that a large amount of CO2 may

be stored in northern latitude soils and in temperate and tropical forests, suggesting a greater

importance of the role of natural resources management and land-use practices in these

regions, including burning of biomass and deforestation. Scientists estimate that

anthropogenic emissions of CO2 alone may account for as much as a 60% increase in global

mean temperatures of 0.9oF, since 1850.

The combined radiative forcing from the other trace gases is approximately equal to that

of CO2 and, collectively, they are projected to contribute about as much to potential global

warming over the next 60 years as CO2. Some of the halogenated compounds, while present

in the atmosphere at very low concentrations, are of considerable interest because of their high

global warming potentials (GWPs) and long atmospheric residence times. Methane

concentrations had been rising from a preindustrial value of around 700 parts per billion (ppb)

up to the mid-1990s, when they began to level off to a present value of about 1,766 ppb, a

152% increase. Nitrous oxide concentrations have been rising from a preindustrial value of

around 270 parts per billion (ppb) up to a present value of about 317 ppb, representing a 17%

increase. The atmospheric concentrations of the chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11, at 268 parts per

trillion (ppt), and CFC 113, at 84 ppt, have been on the decline in recent years in response to

the Montreal Protocol of the late 1980’s. The concentration of CFC-12 at 533 ppt is also

anticipated to decline, but the decline is expected to be delayed due to (1) a longer atmospheric

lifetime than CFC-11 or CFC-113, (2) its use in long-lasting appliances such as home

refrigerators, and, possibly, (3) particularly extensive stockpiling at the global scale, due to a

perceived lack of suitable replacement at the time production decreases were being mandated.

CRS-2

IB89005

05-12-06

The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change also regulates three other trace gases:

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), whose

limited concentrations in the atmosphere are anticipated to grow over the long term. Sulfate

aerosols, a byproduct of air pollution, and other natural phenomena are also viewed as

important for their transient and regional “climate cooling” effects in Earth’s atmosphere.

On a related note, NASA scientist James Hansen has suggested that climate change

benefits could be achieved through near-term regulation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. He

proposed that reducing emissions of halocarbons (refrigerants), methane, nitrogen oxides, and

carbon-black aerosols (soot) could have the effect of reducing ozone, itself a greenhouse gas,

in the troposphere. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes

compared with CO2; however, most have a much larger global warming potential (gwp). This

would suggest that controlling emissions of these greenhouse gases could reduce the rate and

overall amount of potential climate warming from greenhouse gases, leaving only that

projected from long-term CO2 emissions whose full effects might not be realized for another

75-100 years. Nevertheless, Hansen emphasized that any actions to reduce emissions of these

gases would need to be taken concomitantly with long-term strategies to reduce CO2. Hansen

also noted that modest gains from reducing CO2 and non-CO2 emissions in the near term could

be achieved primarily through cleaner energy production.

Climate System Response

The most recent runs of state-of-the-art computer models of the Earth’s climate (general

circulation models — GCMs) have projected a globally averaged warming ranging from

almost 3 to10.7degrees F over the next 100 years, if greenhouse gases continue to accumulate

in the atmosphere at the current rate. Many climate scientists believe that such a warming

could shift temperature zones, rainfall patterns, and agricultural belts and, under certain

scenarios, cause sea level to rise. With regard to sea level rise, over the last 100 years, the

global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 centimeters (4 to 10 inches). It is likely that much

of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the

last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the

world ocean may account for about 0.8 to 3 inches of the observed sea level rise, while the

observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 0.8 to 2 inches. Other factors

are more difficult to quantify, including isostatic effects associated with rising or subsiding

coastlines, neotectonics, and sedimentation. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests a net

positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations

of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate

contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past

changes in sea level because of insufficient data about them over the last 100 years. Taking

into account the ranges in the estimate of climate sensitivity and ice melt parameters, and the

full set of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, the models project an increase in global mean

sea level of between 5 and 37 inches by the year 2100. In addition, because of the thermal

inertia of the oceans, sea level could continue to rise for many centuries beyond 2100 even if

concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized at that time. Some climate scientists

further project that global warming could have far-reaching effects — some positive, some

negative, depending how it may be experienced in a given region — on natural resources;

ecosystems; food and fiber production; energy supply, use, and distribution; transportation;

land use; water supply and control; and human health.

CRS-3

IB89005

05-12-06

Skeptics of the global warming theory have called into question the reliability of the

computer climate models and their output used to make projections of future warming that

supported Kyoto Protocol negotiations. They also challenge some scientists’ assertions that

recent episodic weather events may seem more extreme in nature, and that this may be

indicative of long-term climate change.

Evidence of natural variability of climate is large enough that even the record-setting

warmth at the end of the 20th century has made it difficult for many climate scientists to state

beyond a reasonable doubt that weather extremes experienced over the past two decades are

attributable to “global warming,” at least at the present time. However, the warming trend at

the surface appears to be continuing. In some cases, causal relationships between seasonal and

inter annual climate variability and present-day severe weather events are beginning to be

recognized and even predicted, owing to an improved ability to observe such phenomena as

El Nino and La Nina, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal

Oscillation (PDO). That notwithstanding, singular extreme weather events have focused

public, academic, and government attention on possible outcomes of potential long-term

climate change and a need for a better understanding of regional climates on decadal to century

time scales.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) researchers reported that

the 12 warmest years (globally averaged) since historical records have been kept occurred in

the past two decades, with 1990 and 1998 among the warmest. Those records reveal that the

year 2004 was the fourth warmest worldwide since records began. At least some of this

warming, they concluded, is human-induced. On the other hand, satellite instruments —

which, through indirect methods, measure the average temperature of the atmosphere in a

deep column above the surface — are hard pressed to demonstrate any positive trends over the

past 20-year period.

A report issued by the U.S. National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences

and Climate, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000), attempted to

resolve apparent disparities between temperature data measured at the surface and those from

satellites. Scientists who question the surface temperature record state that such disparate

trends invalidate the output of general circulation models (GCMs), many of which demonstrate

homogenous warming throughout all the levels of the Earth’s atmosphere. Panel scientists

concluded that there may be a systematic disconnect between the upper and near surface

atmosphere and cited physical processes not currently accounted for in GCMs that may have

a unique impact on the upper atmosphere. In addition, they acknowledged that only long-term,

systematic monitoring of the upper atmosphere could resolve the differences in temperature

trends. Scientific work continues in the opposing communities and among government and

university modeling centers, accompanied by analysis of weather balloon and radiosonde data

and re-analysis of surface temperature and satellite data sets, with the prospect of advancing

resolution of this pivotal issue. The most recent entry into this fray, released May 2, 2006, by

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), is the first of what will be 21 Synthesis

and Assessment Products, this one entitled Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere —

Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences; CCSP Synthesis and Assessment

Product 1.1 (see [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm]).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly established in 1988 by

the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP), reported in its Second Assessment (1996) that “... [such] a

CRS-4

IB89005

05-12-06

change is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin ... [and that] the balance of evidence, from

changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal,

and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggests a discernible human influence on

global climate.” Issuing an updated conclusion in January 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel

in its Third Assessment (2001), reported that a firmer association between human activities and

climate seemed to have emerged, stating that “... in the light of new evidence and improved

understanding, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed

warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas

concentrations.” That was news, because reservations about the source of the past century’s

warming and whether it bore a human fingerprint are often cited in policy debates, usually in

support of deferring actions aimed at mitigating possible global warming. In addition, the

IPCC reported a higher range of potential warming — roughly between 2.7 and just under 11

degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.

In the United States, the national assessment report Climate Change Impacts on the

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (2000),

published and released under the auspices of the U.S. Global Research Program, received

criticism from many of those involved in its review. Critics claimed that many of the modelprojected impacts of possible future climate changes were overstated and unsubstantiated. The

National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), with overall authority for the report, countered

that much of the criticism it had received did not take into account the time scales upon which

the report was based; the report targeted the effects of climate toward the middle of this

century to the end of the next. Also, seemingly contradictory outcomes were produced by the

two climate models selected for making the climate projections, casting some lingering doubt

on the overall value and utility of the results for decision makers at the local, regional, and

national levels. Various regional and resource-focused assessments are now available at the

USGCRP website, [http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm]. A final synthesis report

by the NAST, of the same title and consisting of an overview of all of the regional and sectoral

studies, was released in December 2000.

On June 6, 2001, a Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the U.S. National

Research Council (NRC) released a report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key

Questions, stating that global warming could well have serious societal and ecological impacts

by the end of this century. Commissioned by the Bush White House and prepared by 11 of the

nation’s leading climate scientists, the report summarized the current state of knowledge on

climate change and confirmed that the climatic changes observed during the past several

decades were most likely due to human activities. The committee members warned, however,

that they could not rule out the possibility that the climate’s natural variability could be

responsible for a significant portion of that trend. The authors agreed that human-induced

warming and sea level rise were expected to continue through the 21st century and beyond,

but they emphasized that current predictions of the magnitude and rate of future warming

“should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or

downward).”

The NRC report generally concurred with the latest conclusions of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, which found that the Earth warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit

during the 20th century, and that most of the warming of the past 50 years was probably due

to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The full report, Climate

Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, is available online at

CRS-5

IB89005

05-12-06

[http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/] or may be downloaded as a PDF file at

[http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10139].

President Bush made a speech on global climate change from the Rose Garden on June

11, 2001, following release of that NRC Key Questions report and completion of a cabinetlevel review of climate change options. In that speech, timed just before his trip to Europe to

meet with leaders there, the President acknowledged that the world has warmed and that

greenhouse gases have increased, largely due to human activity, but emphasized that the

magnitude and rate of future warming are unknown.

The Policy Context

Since the conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

in 1992, U.S. climate policy has been evolving through several different stages, first under the

Clinton Administration, and then under a very different approach under the Bush

Administration. This history is reviewed briefly below. (For more information on U.S.

Climate Policy and how it has developed, see CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal

Laws and Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions.)

Clinton Administration Policies. Taking office the year after the UNFCCC was

completed, the Clinton Administration presided over early U.S. efforts to deal internationally

with climate change, and to participate in formulation of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC.

On October 19, 1993, President Clinton released his Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP),

which proposed voluntary domestic measures to attain greenhouse gas emissions stabilization

as outlined by the UNFCCC, to stabilize U.S. emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The

CCAP called for comprehensive voluntary measures by industry, utilities and other large-scale

energy users. CCAP stressed energy-efficiency upgrades through new building codes in

residential and commercial sectors, and other improvements in energy generating or using

technologies. Large-scale tree planting and forest reserves were encouraged to enhance

sequestration of carbon dioxide and to conserve energy. Other aspects of the plan addressed

mitigation of greenhouse gases other than CO2. The CCAP avoided mandatory command and

control measures.

On November 12, 1998, President Clinton instructed a representative to sign the Kyoto

Protocol to “lock in” U.S. interests achieved during negotiations. This act drew protest by

some in Congress. Some Members claimed Clinton action was in violation of the June 1997

Byrd/Hagel Resolution (S.Res.98) that required an economic analysis of legally binding

emission reductions on the United States, as well as binding obligations for all UNFCCC

parties, including developing countries. The President announced he would continue to

pursue”meaningful” commitments from key developing countries before he would send the

treaty to the Senate for advice and consent.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the

Council of Economic Advisors, that concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex

B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the “Clean Development

Mechanism” — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the

costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many

estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

and the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, projected a potentially

large declines in GDP from implementing the Protocol.

CRS-6

IB89005

05-12-06

On November 11, 2000, President Clinton issued a statement on “Meeting the Challenge

of Global Warming” in response to the results of the report Climate Change Impacts on the

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (available at

[http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm]). In his statement, President Clinton said he

would promulgate new regulations for U.S. electric power plants, imposing emissions caps on

sulphur, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and CO2. He also called for establishment of a domestic

emissions trading program and promised a continued U.S. leadership role in climate change

to set an example for other industrialized countries. President Clinton announced he would

take such steps as necessary to keep the United States on target for meeting Kyoto Protocol

goals, if certain concessions were made regarding international adoption of flexible

mechanisms such as emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM), credit for

carbon sinks, and accountable, legally-binding, compliance mechanisms.

Bush Administration Policies. Soon after taking office, the Bush Administration

had asked for a delay in resumption of the collapsed COP-6 negotiations (see COP-6

discussion below), in order to allow time for consideration of its approach and policies. Talks

were accordingly scheduled for the second half of July. However, in late March 2001, the

Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol — causing widespread concern among the

EU nations — citing lack of developing country participation and possible harm to the U.S.

economy. This followed extensive press attention to, first, statements by the EPA

Administrator that — pursuant to a campaign statement by then-candidate George W. Bush

— carbon dioxide would be included in a multi-pollutant regulatory effort; and then a

repudiation of that position and clarification by President Bush and Administration

spokespersons that carbon dioxide would not be regulated.

President Bush made a policy statement in mid-June 2001, resulting from a continuing

cabinet-level review of climate change options, in which he outlined the U.S. approach as

rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and favoring voluntary actions, increased scientific research, and

market mechanisms. This preceded his trip to Europe for meetings with European heads of

state, which ended with statements that Europe and the United States “agree to disagree” on

climate change approaches. President Bush also outlined a Climate Change Research

Initiative (CCRI) and a National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), along with

a new Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration to

oversee their implementation. The CCRI and the NCCTI focus on short-term, policy-relevant

objectives of climate change science and climate change technology applications, respectively.

A previously established U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) supports longterm, fundamental, scientific research objectives.

Both the new CCRI and the existing USGCRP were combined for the first time into the

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) in the FY2004 budget. The FY2007 budget requests

a total spending level of $1.717 billion for research managed by the CCSP, which is $4 million

(+0.2%) above the FY2006 funding estimate of $1.713 billion. Included in the $1.717 billion

CCSP funds are $200 million for the CCRI. While funding for the embedded CCRI

experienced growth over two fiscal years from FY2003 to FY2005, the FY2007 funding

request for CCRI at $200 million is level with the FY2006 funding estimate of $200 million.

That leaves the FY2007 funding request for the embedded USGCRP standing at $1.517

billion, which is $4 million (+0.3%) above the FY2006 funding estimate of $1.513 billion.

Some $2.98 billion is in the requested FY2007funding profile for technology research and

development in the Climate Change Technology Program(CCTP) and its embedded NCCTI,

an amount $207 million (+7.5%) above the FY2006 funding level of $2.773 billion. The

CRS-7

IB89005

05-12-06

budget request emphasized that the Climate Change Technology Program Office was in the

process of addressing the nearly 300 comments received on its Draft Strategic Plan, in

advance of publishing a final Strategic Plan on Climate Change Technology later on in 2006.

Two issues of concern for Congress are the extent to which spending for the CCRI and

CCTP represents new money versus how much is attributable to the reclassification of ongoing

research and technology programs, and whether reduced funding in some cases, or virtual level

funding in most other cases, might be deemed necessary or sufficient to accomplish the work

of the CCSP and the CCTP. The Administration released a Climate Change Science Program

Strategic Plan on July 24, 2003. The plan included five major research goals and dozens of

specific research targets as well as 23 written synthesis and assessment products with

deadlines. The plan did not give budget details. The National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences conducted an independent review of the Strategic Plan and in

April 2004 published its overall assessment in a 51-page report, Implementing Climate and

Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U.S. Climate Change Science Program

Strategic Plan.1 To complement the CCSP Strategic Plan, the Department of Energy has

released several guidance documents for Climate Change Technology Program activities:

Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan Public Review Draft on January 24,

2006, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program: Technology Options for the Near and Long

Term on September 15, 2005, and U.S. Climate Change Technology Program: Vision and

Framework for Strategy and Planning, on August 5, 2005. Release of the completed final

CCTP strategic plan is expected sometime in 2006.

In June 2001, the Europeans announced their intentions to proceed with ratification of

the Kyoto Protocol, while President Bush indicated the United States would continue to

participate in negotiations of the UNFCCC parties in order to pursue its own objectives, but

would not participate directly in Kyoto Protocol negotiations. When talks resumed among

UNFCCC parties at “COP-6 resumed” in mid-July in Bonn, Germany, and continued in the

fall of 2001 in Marrakech, Morocco at COP-7, the United States delegation did not make new

proposals and declined to participate in negotiations on issues of the Kyoto Protocol.

Agreement among the other parties was found on the remaining Protocol issues at COP-7, and

they announced that they would seek ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and its entry into force

— even without the participation of the United States.

On February 14, 2002, apparently concluding the cabinet-level review of climate change

underway since early 2001, President Bush announced a U.S. policy for climate change: a

“new approach for meeting the long-term challenge of climate change.” The centerpiece of

this announcement was the plan to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy by

18% over the next 10 years. Greenhouse gas intensity measures the ratio of greenhouse gas

emissions to economic output, and has been declining in the United States over the past

several years. The Administration stated that the goal, to be met through voluntary action, is

to achieve efficiency improvements that would reduce the 183 metric tons of emissions per

million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) to 151 in 2012. The plan noted that “if, in

2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies

1

U.S. National Research Council, Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

Strategic Plan, Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U.S.

Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan (Washington, The National Academies Press,

2004), 51 pp., viewed online at [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088658/html/].

CRS-8

IB89005

05-12-06

further policy action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include

a broad, market-based program” and other incentives and voluntary measures to accelerate

technology development.

In addition, the policy directed the Secretary of Energy in consultation with other key

agencies, to “substantially improve the emission reduction registry” to upgrade the voluntary

emission reduction program under section 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, to bring

about enhanced measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability. Other measures included

providing for protected, transferable emission reduction credits, increased funding of $700

million in total climate-related spending, and a new management structure to coordinate

climate change and technology research. Domestic policies such as tax incentives for

renewable energy and new technology, development of fuel-efficient vehicles and cleaner

fuels, and carbon sequestration were also proposed, along with several international bilateral

initiatives and relatively modest increases in foreign assistance.

Some observers praised the plan for taking a practical, conservative approach to

government action and for relying on voluntary measures. Critics observed that voluntary

approaches by themselves have not historically often been effective, and noted that the

reductions in energy intensity are very little different from current trends and would allow for

significant increases in overall greenhouse gas emissions rather than reductions.

Continuing to encourage voluntary action rather than mandatory requirements, the

Administration detailed on February 12, 2003, a set of voluntary agreements by various

industry groups under an umbrella initiative titled Climate VISION (Voluntary, Innovative

Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now). These initiatives by sectoral groups involve actions

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency. (For a fuller description,

see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html].)

International Action

The United States was involved in negotiations and international scientific research on

climate change prior to ratifying the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). This included passage of a National Climate Program Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-367).

These activities are discussed in CRS Report RL30522, Global Climate Change: A Survey of

Scientific Research and Policy Reports, which covers early aspects of the scientific debate and

contains a chronology of U.S. government involvement in climate change policy before 1992.

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was opened

for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

(UNCED) conference in Rio de Janeiro (known by its popular title, the Earth Summit). On

June 12, 1992, the United States, along with 153 other nations, signed the UNFCCC, that upon

ratification committed signatories’ governments to a voluntary “non-binding aim” to reduce

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with the goal of “preventing dangerous

anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system.” These actions were aimed primarily

at industrialized countries, with the intention of stabilizing their emissions of greenhouse

gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000; and other responsibilities would be incumbent upon all

UNFCCC parties. The parties agreed in general that they would recognize “common but

CRS-9

IB89005

05-12-06

differentiated responsibilities,” with greater responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas

emissions in the near term on the part of developed/industrialized countries, which were listed

and identified in Annex I of the UNFCCC and thereafter referred to as “Annex I” countries.

On September 8, 1992, then-President Bush transmitted the UNFCCC for advice and

consent of the U.S. Senate to ratification. The Foreign Relations Committee approved the

treaty and reported it (Senate Exec. Rept. 102-55) October 1, 1992. The Senate consented to

ratification on October 7, 1992, with a two-thirds majority vote. President Bush signed the

instrument of ratification October 13, 1992, and deposited it with the U.N. Secretary General.

According to terms of the UNFCCC, having received over 50 countries’ instruments of

ratification, it entered into force March 24, 1994.

Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in

conferences of the parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and

beginning in the mid-1990’s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding

obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. After

completion of the Protocol in 1997, COP meetings focused on formulating the operational

rules that would prevail as nations attempted to meet their obligations to reduce emissions.

These rules were essentially agreed upon at COP-7 (see below) in 2001. As of February 16,

2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force. At that time, 141 nations had ratified it, including

35 of the 38 Annex B industrialized countries. Those Annex B parties to the UNFCCC that

have ratified the Kyoto Protocol continue to express hope that the United States will re-engage

in international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As of February 6, 2006, nations

that have ratified or accepted the Kyoto Protocol number 160.

COP-1, The Berlin Mandate

The UNFCCC Conference of Parties met for the first time in Berlin, Germany in the

spring of 1995, and voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries’ abilities to meet

commitments under the Convention. These were expressed in a U.N. ministerial declaration

known as the “Berlin Mandate,” which established a two-year Analytical and Assessment

Phase (AAP), to negotiate a “comprehensive menu of actions” for countries to pick from and

choose future options to address climate change which for them, individually, made the best

economic and environmental sense. The Berlin Mandate exempted non-Annex I countries

from additional binding obligations, in keeping with the principle of “common but

differentiated responsibilities” established in the UNFCCC — even though, collectively, the

larger, newly industrializing countries were expected to be the world’s largest emitters of

greenhouse gas emissions 15 years hence.

COP-2, Geneva, Switzerland

The Second Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-2) met in July 1996 in Geneva,

Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was adopted July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S.

position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs

for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which (1) accepted the scientific findings on

climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its

second assessment (1995); (2) rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

and (3) called for “legally binding mid-term targets.”

CRS-10

IB89005

05-12-06

COP-3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

was adopted by COP-3, in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, after intensive — and tense —

negotiations. Most industrialized nations and some central European economies in transition

(all defined as Annex B countries) agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions of an average of 6%-8% below 1990 levels in the years 2008-2012, defined as the

first emissions budget period. The United States would be required to reduce its total

emissions an average of 7% below 1990 levels. (For more details, see CRS Report RL30692,

Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.) The Protocol provides that it will enter into

force when it has been ratified by 55 countries, accounting for 55% of developed country

emissions in 1990. In 1997, prior to the completion of the Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed

S.Res. 98, which urged the President not to agree to a treaty that did not include binding

commitments for developing countries, or that would cause harm to the U.S. economy. As

noted above, although President Clinton did sign the Protocol in 1998, it was never submitted

by his administration to the Senate because it would not have met the conditions of S.Res. 98.

The Clinton Administration initiated funding efforts to address climate change; in the

FY2001 budget request funding was included for a Climate Change Technology Initiative

(CCTI) first introduced in his FY1999 budget. Somewhat reduced funding for the climate

technology initiatives was received in previous years.

COP-4, Buenos Aires

COP-4 took place in Buenos Aires in November 1998. It had been expected that the

remaining issues unresolved in Kyoto would be finalized at this meeting. However, the

complexity and difficulty of finding agreement on these issues proved insurmountable, and

instead the parties adopted a two-year “Plan of Action” to advance efforts and to devise

mechanisms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, to be completed by 2000.

COP-5, Bonn, Germany

The 5th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change met

in Bonn, Germany, between October 25 and November 4, 1998. It was primarily a technical

meeting, and did not reach major conclusions.

COP-6, The Hague, Netherlands

When COP-6 convened November 13-25, 2000, in The Hague, Netherlands, discussions

evolved rapidly into a high-level negotiation over the major political issues. These included

major controversy over the United States’ proposal to allow credit for carbon “sinks” in forests

and agricultural lands, satisfying a major proportion of the U.S. emissions reductions in this

way; disagreements over consequences for non-compliance by countries that did not meet their

emission reduction targets; and difficulties in resolving how developing countries could obtain

financial assistance to deal with adverse effects of climate change and meet their obligations

to plan for measuring and possibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the final hours of

COP-6, despite some compromises agreed between the United States and some EU countries,

notably the United Kingdom, the EU countries as a whole, led by Denmark and Germany,

rejected the compromise positions, and the talks in The Hague collapsed. Jan Pronk, the

CRS-11

IB89005

05-12-06

President of COP-6, suspended COP-6 without agreement, with the expectation that

negotiations would later resume. It was later announced that the COP-6 meetings (termed

“COP-6 bis”) would be resumed in Bonn, Germany, in the second half of July. The next

regularly scheduled meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC — COP-7 — had been set for

Marrakech, Morocco, in October-November 2001. (For more detailed discussion of COP-6

issues, see CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.)

COP-6 “bis,” Bonn, Germany

When the COP-6 negotiations resumed July 16-27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany, little

progress had been made on resolving the differences that had produced an impasse in The

Hague. However, this meeting took place after President George Bush had become the U.S.

President, and had rejected the Kyoto Protocol in March; as a result the United States

delegation to this meeting declined to participate in the negotiations related to the Protocol,

and chose to act as observers. As the other parties negotiated the key issues, agreement was

reached on most of the major political issues, to the surprise of most observers given the low

level of expectations that preceded the meeting. The agreements included:

(1) Mechanisms — the “flexibility” mechanisms which the United States had strongly favored

as the Protocol was initially put together, including emissions trading; joint

implementation; and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which provides

funding from developed countries for emissions reduction activities in developing

countries, with credit for the donor countries. One of the key elements of this agreement

was that there would be no quantitative limit on the credit a country could claim from use

of these mechanisms, but that domestic action must constitute a significant element of

the efforts of each Annex B country to meet their targets.

(2) Carbon sinks — credit was agreed to for broad activities that absorb carbon from the

atmosphere or store it, including forest and cropland management, and revegetation, with

no overall cap on the amount of credit a country could claim for sinks activities. In the

case of forest management, an Appendix Z establishes country-specific caps for each

Annex I country, for example, a cap of 13 million tons could be credited to Japan (which

represents about 4% of its base-year emissions). For cropland management, countries

could receive credit only for carbon sequestration increases above 1990 levels.

(3) Compliance — final action on compliance procedures and mechanisms that would address

noncompliance with Protocol provisions was deferred to COP-7, but broad outlines of

consequences for failing to meet emissions targets would include a requirement to “make

up” shortfalls at 1.3 tons to 1; suspension of the right to sell credits for surplus emissions

reductions; and a required compliance action plan for those not meeting their targets.

(4) Financing — three new funds were agreed upon to provide assistance for needs associated

with climate change; a least-developed-country fund to support National Adaptation

Programs of Action; and a Kyoto Protocol adaptation fund supported by a CDM levy and

voluntary contributions.

A number of operational details attendant upon these decisions remained to be negotiated

and agreed upon; these were the major issues of the COP-7 meeting that followed.

COP-7, Marrakech, Morocco

At the COP-7 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, October 29-November 10, 2001,

negotiators in effect completed the work of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, finalizing most

CRS-12

IB89005

05-12-06

of the operational details and setting the stage for nations to ratify the Protocol. The United

States delegation continued to act as observers, declining to participate in active negotiations.

Other parties continued to express their hope that the United States would re-engage in the

process at some point, but indicated their intention to seek ratification of the requisite number

of countries to bring the Protocol into force (55 countries representing 55% of developed

country emissions of carbon dioxide in 1990). A target date for bringing the Protocol into

force was put forward — the August-September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa — but this target was not met.

The main decisions at COP-7 included operational rules for international emissions trading

among parties to the Protocol and for the CDM and joint implementation; a compliance regime

that outlines consequences for failure to meet emissions targets but defers to the parties to the

Protocol after it is in force to decide whether these consequences are legally binding;

accounting procedures for the flexibility mechanisms; and a decision to consider at COP-8

how to achieve to a review of the adequacy of commitments that might move toward

discussions of future developing country commitments.

COP-8 (New Delhi, India, 2002), COP-9 (Milan, Italy, 2003),

COP-10 (Buenos Aires, 2004)

At these three meetings of the conference of parties to the UNFCCC, attempts were made

to consider next steps after the 2008-2012 commitment period, but these attempts encountered

resistance from developing countries and some other parties. The announced reluctance of

Russia at the Milan COP-9 to undertake ratification of the Kyoto Protocol called into question

whether or when the Protocol might enter into force. Without U.S. participation, the required

55% of baseline emissions of parties would not be achieved if Russia did not ratify. However,

just before the COP-10 meeting, Russia did ratify the Protocol on November 18, 2004. Thus

the Kyoto Protocol would enter into force 90 days later, on February 16, 2005. All three of

these meetings centered on largely technical issues, and avoided major substantive

declarations; what “next steps” involving developing countries should be remained a

controversial issue, and was not resolved.

COP-11, Montreal, Canada

COP-11 was held in Montreal, Canada, November 28 - December 9, 2005. This was a

concurrent meeting — the 11th meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC, and the first meeting

of the parties (MOP-1) to the Kyoto Protocol. One of the key outcomes of the Kyoto Protocol

MOP was adoption of the “Marrakech Accords,” which outline what the Secretariat terms the

“rule book” for the Protocol. Among other things, it formally launches emissions trading by

providing rules for trading, and outlines the operational rules for the Clean Development

Mechanism and Joint Implementation, both of which provide for credit to developed countries

for projects to reduce emissions or augment sinks in developing or other eligible countries.

Other rules adopted include how emissions are accounted for, guidelines on data systems

needed, rules for a compliance system, and rules governing how absorption of carbon dioxide

by agricultural soils and forests is to be measured. Discussions of “next steps” were

considered under both the Protocol and the Convention. Negotiations under the Protocol were

agreed upon that could lead to new binding commitments for Kyoto Protocol parties after

2012; and a decision under the Framework Convention was made to open a non-binding

“dialogue on long-term cooperative action,” which could include all parties to the Convention,

including the United States.

CRS-13

IB89005

05-12-06

Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

On July 27, 2005, a six-nation partnership was announced at South East Asian Nations

(ASEAN) forum. This is a partnership agreement among six nations — the United States,

Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. The participants described the focus of the

partnership as technology development and reduction of greenhouse gas intensity, with

voluntary participation. Representatives of the six nations met in Sydney, Australia, in early

January, and spelled out the purpose and provided a work plan for the partnership in

statements on January 12, 2006. The purposes included to “Create a voluntary, non-legally

binding framework for international cooperation to facilitate the development, diffusion,

deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer-term cost-effective, cleaner, more

efficient technologies and practices among the Partners through concrete and substantial

cooperation so as to achieve practical results.” Eight task forces were established to review

the status of their sectors with regard to clean development and climate, and to identify cost

and performance objectives and realistic goals; they focused on specific sectors: (1) Cleaner

Fossil Energy, (2) Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation, (3) Power Generation and

Transmission, (4) Steel, (5) Aluminum, (6) Cement, (7) Coal Mining, and (8) Buildings and

Construction. The charter for the partnership states: “The partnership will be consistent with

and contribute to our efforts under the UNFCCC and will complement, but not replace, the

Kyoto Protocol.” (More detailed information is available on the State Department website).

Congressional Interest and Activities

Discourse in Congress over the prospect of global warming and what the United States

could or should do about it has yielded, over the last several years, a range of legislative

proposals. Issues dealt with in bills that have been introduced in the 109th Congress include

regulating emissions of carbon dioxide along with emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, and mercury in so-called “multi-pollutant” legislation (see CRS Report RL32755, Air

Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress); greenhouse gas reduction and

carbon dioxide emissions trading systems (see CRS Report RS21581, Climate Change: Senate

Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CRS Report RS21067, Global Climate

Change: Controlling CO2 Emissions Cost-Limiting Safety Valves); energy issues relevant to

climate change, especially those associated with encouraging or authorizing energy efficiency

and alternative energy sources (see CRS Issue Brief IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit,

Budget, and Electricity Production Issues and CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency:

Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues); carbon sequestration

technologies and methodologies; federal and national research concerning the prospect of

abrupt climate change, climate change impacts, and climate system surprises; federal spending

on climate change science programs and climate change technology programs and, more

broadly, on global change research programs; and long-term research and development

programs to develop new technologies to help stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. (For an

overview and comparison of key climate change legislation, see CRS Report RL32955,

Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress).

LEGISLATION

P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains provisions addressing

climate change, and a number of others were debated during consideration of the bill. Title

XVI establishes programs to promote the adoption of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas

CRS-14

IB89005

05-12-06

intensity, similar to those adopted on the Senate floor in S.Amdt. 817. The House version of

H.R. 6 did not contain climate change or greenhouse gas provisions. Two other climate change

amendments included in the Senate bill as passed were not included in the final version of the

bill: S.Amdt. 866 expressed the sense of the Senate that climate change is a serious concern

and that Congress should establish mandatory, market-based limits on greenhouse gas

emissions; and S.Amdt. 826, based largely on S. 1151, would have required mandatory

emission reduction and a cap-and-trade system. H.R. 6 passed the House April 21, 2005. It

passed the Senate June 28, 2005. The conference report, H.Rept. 109-190, was agreed to by

the House July 28, 2005, and by the Senate July 29, 2005. The bill was signed by the

President and enacted into law on August 8, 2005.

H.R. 759 (Gilchrest)/S. 342 (McCain). To provide for a program of scientific research

on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the

United States by establishing a system of tradeable allowances that will limit greenhouse gas

emissions in the United States. Introduced February 10, 2005. Referred to the House

Committee on Science and Committee on Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 955 (Olver). To amend the Clean Air Act to establish an inventory, registry, and

information system of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to inform the public and private sectors

concerning, and encourage voluntary reductions in, greenhouse gas emissions. Introduced

February 17, 2005. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; referred March 14,

2005, to Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

H.R. 3057 (Kolbe). The Foreign Operations, Export Financial and Related Programs

Appropriations Act of 2006. Section 6074 would require that not less than $180 million shall

be made available to support clean energy, and other climate change policies and programs in

developing countries, of which $100 million is to directly promote and deploy energy

conservation, efficiency, renewable and clean technologies, and the balance to measure,

monitor, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and enhance

climate change mitigation and adaptation programs. In addition, a climate change report is

required to describe federal agency obligations and expenditures, domestic and international,

for climate change in FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 for the U.S. Agency for International

Development. On June 24, 2005, the House Committee on Appropriations reported an

original bill (H.Rept. 109-52). Passed the House on June 28, 2005. On June 30, 2005, the

Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3057 with an amendment in the nature of

a substitute and an amendment to the title (S.Rept. 109-96). Passed the Senate on July 20,

2005. On November 2, 2005, conference committee filed a report (H.Rept. 109-265).

Conference report agreed to in House November 4, 2005. Conference report agreed to in

Senate November 10, 2005. Signed by President, November 14, 2005; became P.L. 109-102.

H.R. 5049 (Udall of New Mexico). Would establish a market-based system to regulate

greenhouse gas emissions and to promote advanced energy research and technology

development and deployment. Introduced March 29, 2006. Referred to the Committee on

Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Science, International Relations,

and Education and the Workforce, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

S. 245 (Collins). To provide for the development and coordination of a comprehensive

U.S. research program to facilitate understanding, assessment and prediction of humaninduced and natural processes of abrupt climate change. Introduced February 1, 2005.

Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

CRS-15

IB89005

05-12-06

S. 386 (Hagel). To direct the Secretary of State to carry out activities that promote the

adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries while

promoting economic development. Introduced February 15, 2005. Referred to Senate

Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 387 (Hagel). To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives

for investment in greenhouse gas intensity reduction projects. Introduced February 15, 2005.

Referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

S. 388 (Hagel). To amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of

Energy to carry out activities that promote adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse

gas intensity and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for

projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, and to provide for the

establishment of a national greenhouse gas registry. Introduced February 15, 2005. Referred

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

S. 883 (Hagel). Would direct the Secretary of State to carry out activities that promote

the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries,

while promoting economic development. Introduced April 21, 2005. Referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 887 (Hagel). Would amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of

Energy to carry out activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse

gas intensity and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for

projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, and for other purposes.

Introduced April 21, 2005. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

S. 745 (Byrd). Would amend the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of

1989 to promote clean energy development, to open and expand clean energy markets abroad,

to engage developing nations in the advancement of sustainable energy use and climate change

actions, and for other purposes. Introduced April 11, 2005. Referred to the Committee on

Foreign Relations.

S. 1151 (McCain). Would provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of

greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States

and reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, to support deployment of new climate

change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers. Introduced May 26, 2005.

Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2724 (Carper). To amend the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to protect and

preserve the environment and safeguard public health by ensuring that substantial emission

reductions are achieved at fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities; to significantly reduce

the quantities of mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides that enter the

environment as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels; to achieve emission reductions from

electric generating facilities in a cost-effective manner; and for other purposes. Introduced May

4, 2006. Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S.J.Res. 5 (Feinstein). A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the

United States should act to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Introduced February 16, 2005.

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

CRS-16