Order Code IB89005
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Global Climate Change
Updated October 10, 2002
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 and Policy
Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Trends
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
Congressional Interest and Activities
LEGISLATION

IB89005
10-10-02
Global Climate Change
SUMMARY
There is concern that human activities are
much of U.S. energy is derived from fossil
affecting the heat/energy-exchange balance
fuels, reducing these emissions poses major
between Earth, the atmosphere, and space, and
challenges and controversy.
inducing global climate change, often termed
“global warming.” Human activities, particu-
The 1992 United Nations Framework
larly the burning of fossil fuels, have increased
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO ) and other
which the United States has ratified, called for
2
trace greenhouse gases. If these gases con-
a “non-binding” voluntary aim for industrial-
tinue to accumulate in the atmosphere at
ized countries to control atmospheric concen-
current rates, most scientists believe global
trations of green-house gases by stabilizing
warming would occur through intensification
their emissions at 1990 levels by the year
of Earth’s natural heat-trapping “greenhouse
2000. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the
effect.” Possible impacts might be seen as
UNFCCC goes further and, if it were to enter
both positive and negative.
into force, would commit the 38 major indus-
trialized nations to specified, legally binding
A warmer climate would probably have
emissions reductions.
far reaching effects on agriculture and for-
estry, managed and un-managed ecosystems,
In March 2001, the Bush Administration
including natural habitats, human health,
rejected the Kyoto Protocol and chose to act
water resources, and sea level depending on
only as observers, declining to participate in
climate responses. Although causal relation-
discussions at international negotiations on the
ships between projected long-range global
Protocol. In July 2001, major political agree-
climate trends and record-setting warmth and
ments were reached, led by the European
severe weather events of the past two decades
Union (EU), and parties agreed to seek ratifi-
have not been firmly established, attention has
cation and entry into force without the United
been focused on possible extremes of climate
States Other parties continue to express hope
change and the need for better understanding
that the United States will rejoin international
of climate processes to improve climate model
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In
forecasts.
May 2002, the European Union and member

states ratified the Protocol. Some 95 nations
The basic policy question remains:
had ratified as of September 27, 2002.
Given scientific uncertainties about the mag-
nitude, timing, rate, and regional
President Bush concluded a cabinet-
consequences of potential climatic change,
level climate policy review with an announce-
what are the appropriate responses for U.S.
ment of a “new approach” for the United
and world decisionmakers?
States based on reducing the greenhouse gas
intensity (greenhouse gas emissions per unit
Fossil-fuel combustion is the primary
of GDP) of the U.S. economy. This and other
source of CO emissions, and also emits other
voluntary measures plus increased climate
2
“greenhouse” gases. Because the U.S. econ-
funding were announced February 14, 2002.
omy is so dependent upon energy, and so


IB89005
10-10-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Following President Bush’s decision in 2001 to withdraw the United States from
participation in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), other parties to the UNFCCC finalized their agreement on rules for
implementation of the Protocol in the October-November 2001 Conference of the Parties
(COP) in Marrakech, Morocco. As of September 27, 2002, 95 countries had ratified the
Protocol. These nations represent 37% of the 1990 emissions baseline, with 55% being the
amount of emissions that must be accounted for by countries that have ratified, in order for
the Protocol to enter into force. Most parties to the UNFCCC continue to express hope that
the United States will re-engage in international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

During 2002, the U.S. Congress considered a number of climate-related legislative
proposals, and the current conference committee on H.R. 4, the Omnibus Energy bill, has
before it a number of those proposals. U.S. climate policy was articulated by President
Bush in a statement on February 14, 2002, in which he highlighted voluntary efforts to
reduce the climate intensity of U.S. industry (greenhouse gases per unit of production), and
included several measures to increase research on climate change and move toward better
methods of recording voluntary changes undertaken by industry.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Global Climate Change: Science and Policy
A large number of scientists believe that human activities, which have increased
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO ) by one-third over the past 100 years,
2
may be leading to an increase in global average temperatures. 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
Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, concern is growing 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 (CO ) that, along with increasing
2
concentrations of other trace gases such as chlorofluorocarbons-CFCs, methane (CH ),
4
nitrous oxide (N O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur
2
hexafluoride (SF ), may be leading to changes in the chemical composition and physical
6
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 (CO ),
2
methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Historically, CO has
4
2
2
been the most important, but over the past several decades other gases have assumed
increasing significance and, collectively, are projected to contribute about as much to
CRS-1

IB89005
10-10-02
potential global warming over the next 60 years as CO . The 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol on
2
Climate Change, if it were to become a treaty in force, would also regulate three other trace
gases: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF ),
6
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.
The amount of carbon cycling from naturally occurring processes each year through the
biosphere as CO is enormous — some 800 billion tons. Ice cores and other proxy climate
2
data, which also indicate CO concentrations in the atmosphere, have shown, in general, a
2
relatively stable global climate, at least over the past 10,000 years. As such, many scientists
suggest that the amount of CO generated by natural processes is about equal to the amounts
2
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 CO per year. Available evidence shows that about half
2
this amount is absorbed by natural processes on land and in the ocean, and that atmospheric
concentrations of CO are now about 32% higher than they were some 150 years ago. Some
2
scientists believe that a large amount of CO may be stored in northern latitude soils and in
2
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 CO alone may
2
account for as much as a 60% increase in global mean temperatures of 0.9oF, since 1850. For
more information on the science of global climate change, visit the CRS Electronic Briefing
Book: Global Climate Change web site. [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.shtml].
The most recent projections of state-of-the-art computer models of the Earth’s climate
(global climate models–GCMs) have projected a globally averaged warming ranging from
almost 3 to 10.7degrees F over the next 100 years, if greenhouse gases continue to
accumulate in the atmosphere at the current rate. Climate scientists believe that such a
warming could shift temperature zones, rainfall patterns, and agricultural belts and, under
certain scenarios, and cause sea level to rise. They further predict 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.
Some 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 does not allow a vast majority of knowledgeable
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 changes and present-day severe weather events
are beginning to be recognized and even predicted, because of an improved ability to observe
CRS-2

IB89005
10-10-02
the El Nino and La Nina phenomena. This notwithstanding, singular extreme weather events
have focused public 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. 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 — for the past 20 years are hard pressed to demonstrate any
positive trends. A report issued in January 2000 by the U.S. National Research Council’s
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Reconciling Observations of Global
Temperature Change
, attempted to resolve apparent disparities between temperature data
measured at the surface and those from satellites. Skeptics claim that 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 which may have an unique impact on the upper
atmosphere that are not currently accounted for in GCMs. In addition, they acknowledged
that only long-term, systematic monitoring of the upper atmosphere could resolve the
differences in temperature trends.
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 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.” And now, the latest report (January 2001), the
Intergovernmental Panel’s Third Assessment, concluded that a firmer association between
human activities and climate seems to have emerged. 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.
As background, a November 2000 national assessment report, Climate Change Impacts
on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,
released under the auspices of the U.S. Global Research Program received criticism from
many of those who were involved in its early review. Critics claimed that many of the
model-projected 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-
CRS-3

IB89005
10-10-02
focused assessments are now available at the USGCRP website
[http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov]. 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.
In August 2000, NASA scientist James Hansen suggested that climate change benefits
could be achieved through near-term regulation of non-CO greenhouse gases. He proposed
2
that reducing emissions of halocarbons (refrigerants), methane, nitrogen oxides, and carbon-
black aerosols (soot) could have the effect of reducing ozone (smog), in the troposphere,
which itself is a greenhouse gas. Non-CO greenhouse gases have relatively short
2
atmospheric lifetimes compared with CO ; however, most have a much larger global
2
warming potential (gwp). This would suggest that controlling emissions of these greenhouse
gases could reduce the rate and overall amount of climate warming from greenhouse gases,
leaving only that expected from long-term CO emissions whose full effects would not be
2
realized for another 75-100 years hence. Nevertheless, Hansen emphasized that any actions
to reduce emissions of these gases would need to be taken concomitantly with long-term
strategies to reduce CO . Hansen also noted that modest gains from reducing CO and non-
2
2
CO emissions in the near-term could be achieved primarily through cleaner energy
2
production.
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 [http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/] or may be downloaded as a PDF file
at [http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/climatechange.pdf]
President Bush made a speech on global climate change from the Rose Garden on June
11, 2001, following release of the NRC report and completion of a cabinet-level 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.
CRS-4

IB89005
10-10-02
The Policy Context
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 CO . The CCAP
2
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 (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, demonstrated a potentially large declines in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
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
(see [http://www.gcrio.org/National Assessment/]). 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 CO . He also called for
2
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.

CRS-5

IB89005
10-10-02
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, the
Bush Administration indicated its opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, and created widespread
concern among the EU nations by essentially rejecting it, citing lack of developing country
participation and possible harm to the U.S. economy, especially in light of acute energy
problems that were evident in the first half of 2001. This followed extensive press attention
to, first, statements by the EPA Administrator that–pursuant to campaign statements 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 of 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. President Bush also outlined a U.S. Climate Change
Research Initiative, and the National Climate Change technology Initiative. (See CRS report
RL30452, Climate Change: Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs) 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.
The Europeans then announced their intentions to proceed with ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol, while President Bush indicated the United States will continue to participate in
negotiations of the UNFCCC parties in order to pursue its own objectives. When talks
resumed among UNFCCC parties at “COP-6 resumed” in mid-July in Bonn, Germany, and
continued in the fall 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 also 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–by
August/September 2002, the date of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa.
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 notes that “if,
in 2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies
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.
CRS-6

IB89005
10-10-02
In addition, the plan directs 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 include
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 over-all greenhouse gas emissions rather than reductions.

(For full description of this announcement, 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
, in which early aspects of the scientific
debate and a chronology of U.S. government involvement in climate change policy prior to
1992 are featured.
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 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.
CRS-7

IB89005
10-10-02
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 July 12, 2002,
75 countries had ratified, including 21 of the Annex B countries with binding obligations
under the Protocol. These 21 nations represent 36% of the 1990 emissions baseline, with
55% being the amount of emissions that must be accounted for by Annex B countries that
have ratified in order for the Protocol to enter into force. Most parties to the UNFCCC
continue to express hope that the United States will re-engage in international efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
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 2-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-8

IB89005
10-10-02
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 between 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 Kyoto
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 the Clinton 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. (See CRS Report RL30452. Climate
Change: Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs
.)
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 2-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
CRS-9

IB89005
10-10-02
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 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 at that meeting. 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 over-all cap on the amount of credit that 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
non-compliance with Protocol provisions was deferred to COP-7, but included broad
outlines of consequences for failing to meet emissions targets that 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.
CRS-10

IB89005
10-10-02
(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, and 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
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. 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.
As noted above, the number of countries that had ratified as of July 12, 2002, was 75,
including 21 of those with binding emissions reductions obligations. [The European Union
and its member countries ratified the Protocol on May 31, 2002.] These 21 countries
represent some 36% of the 1990 emissions baseline. Thus, additional Annex B countries
representing an additional 19% of the 1990 baseline would be needed to allow the Protocol
to enter into force.
Congressional Interest and Activities
A number of hearings have been held in the 107th Congress, focusing primarily on
scientific findings and on climate provisions in both appropriations and energy legislation
Relevant legislation is summarized below.
CRS-11

IB89005
10-10-02
LEGISLATION
A number of bills on energy issues are relevant to climate change, especially those with
provisions encouraging or authorizing energy efficiency and alternative energy sources, but
are not included in this list unless they directly deal with climate change, per se, and go
beyond simply referencing climate/emissions side benefits. For additional information on
climate-relevant energy legislation not included in the list below, see CRS Report RL31205,
Climate Change and Relevant Legislation in the 107th Congress; as well as the Legislation
section of CRS Issue Brief IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget and Electricity
Production Issues
; CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation,
and Electricity Conservation Issues;
and CRS Report RL31044, Renewable Energy
Legislation in the 107th Congress.

P.L. 107-228 H.R. 1646
Authorizes appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
and for other purposes. Section 745 of this bill expressed a “Sense of Congress Relating to
Global Warming,” which stated the sense of Congress that the United States should
demonstrate international leadership in mitigating global warming threats...” (Passed the
House on May 16, 2001, and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on May
17, 2001.) The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved a similar “Sense of the
Congress” resolution as an amendment to its State Department authorization bill, S. 1401.
H.R. 1646 was reported out of conference on September 23, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-671). The
conference committee had dropped the sense of congress resolution on global warming, in
an effort to eliminate this and other potential sources of controversy. Signed into law
September 30, 2002.
H.R. 4
A comprehensive energy bill contains language on many energy topics, including fossil
and renewable energy supply, energy efficiency, and research and development. The Senate-
passed version contains three titles directly related to greenhouse gases and climate change.
Title X would require the development of a national climate change strategy. It would
establish a National Office of Climate Change Response in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee the strategy. It would also establish an Office of Climate Change
Technology within the Department of Energy to develop new greenhouse gas mitigation
technologies and provide support and data for the strategy. Title XI would establish and
national greenhouse gas database, and Title XIII would authorize funding for climate change
research and development. (Passed April 25, 2002 in lieu of S. 517).
The House-passed version of H.R. 4 does not contain language directly related to
climate change. (Passed August 2, 2001). On June 28, 2002, the Conference Committee
convened to reconcile the two versions. As of this writing, the final version has not been
reported.
H.R. 1335 (Allen)
Reduces emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide from
fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units operating in the United States, and for other
purposes. For carbon dioxide, the bill sets a total yearly tonnage cap and requires EPA to
promulgate performance standards to attain the standard. (Introduced April 3, 2001.)
CRS-12

IB89005
10-10-02
H.R. 2646 (Combest)
A bill, commonly referred to as the “Farm Bill,” to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through FY2011. The House version of this bill would authorize $15
million total for carbon cycle research. The Senate version would authorize $25 million
annually for FY2002 through FY2006 for carbon sequestration research, and $20 million
annually for a carbon sequestration demonstration program. (Conferees met March 19, 2002.)
H.R. 2782 (McKinney)
Requires U.S. nationals with more than 20 employees in a foreign country to implement
a corporate code of conduct which requires adherence to international human rights
standards, labor standards, and environmental standards, including standards related to
climate change mitigation. (Introduced August 24, 2001.)
H.Con.Res. 83
The 2001 Senate Budget Resolution, passed in the nature of a substitute for language
in H.Con.Res.83, included S.Amdt. 249, sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, to restore funding
for programs related to global climate change to the funding level of $4.5 billion over 10
years, primarily for existing programs. Among the purposes identified by the amendment
were “....to provide increased funding to ensure adequate U.S. participation in
negotiations...pursuant to the Senate-ratified U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change...” and other purposes. (Passed by the Senate April 6, 2001. See Congressional
Record p. S3641.)
H.Res. 117 (Lee, Barbara)
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should develop, promote, and
implement policies to reduce emissions of fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide. (Introduced
April 4, 2001.)
S. 388 and S. 389 (Murkowski)
A bill to protect the energy and security of the United States and decrease America’s
dependency on foreign oil sources to 50% by the year 2011 by enhancing the use of
renewable energy resources conserving energy resources, improving energy efficiencies, and
increasing domestic energy supplies; improve environmental quality by reducing emissions
of air pollutants and greenhouse gases; and for other purposes. (Committee hearings held
May 24, 2001 through July 26, 2001. S.Rept. 107-144.)
S. 517 (Bingaman) as amended by Senate Amendment 2917 (Daschle)
The National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001. The bill establishes
new programs for cooperative research and government-industry partnerships with the
national laboratories. (Currently being considered by the Senate.) S.Amdt. 2917: This
amendment in the nature of a substitute would insert the Energy Policy Act of 2002 into S.
517. This comprehensive energy bill contains language on many energy topics, including
fossil and renewable energy supply, energy efficiency, and research and development.
Further, the bill contains three titles directly related to greenhouse gases and climate change.
Title X would require the development of a national climate change strategy. It would
establish a National Office of Climate Change Response in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee the strategy. It would also establish an Office of Climate Change
Technology within the Department of Energy to develop new greenhouse gas mitigation
technologies and provide support and data for the strategy. Title XI would establish and
CRS-13

IB89005
10-10-02
national greenhouse gas database, and Title XIII would authorize funding for climate change
research and development. (Currently being considered by the Senate.) The House energy
bill, H.R. 4, does not contain language directly related to climate change. (Passed House,
August 2, 2001.)
S. 556 (Jeffords)
The Clean Power Act of 2001. The bill would require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations to reduce emissions,
including greenhouse gas emissions, from power plants. The bill would require reductions
of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. (Subcommittee hearings held January
29, 2002.)
S. 597 (Bingaman)
The Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001. Includes Title I:
Integration of energy policy and climate change policy, and establishes a National
commission on Energy and Climate Change. (Committee markup held August 2, 2001.)
S. 769 (Brownback)
A bill to establish a carbon sequestration program and an implementing panel within
the Department of Commerce to enhance international conservation, to promote the role of
carbon sequestration, and to reward and encourage voluntary, pro-active environmental
efforts on the issue of global climate change. (Introduced April 24, 2001.)
S. 785 (Brownback)
A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to establish a carbon sequestration program. (Introduced April 26, 2001.)
S. 820 (Wyden)
The “Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act” would amend the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 to assess opportunities to increase carbon storage on national
forests derived from the public domain and to facilitate voluntary and accurate reporting of
forest projects that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and for other
purposes. (Committee hearings held on July 24, 2001.)
S. 1008 (Byrd)
A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to develop the U.S. Climate Change
Response Strategy, with the goals of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere, minimizing adverse short-term and long-term economic and social impacts,
aligning the Strategy with U.S. energy policy, promoting sound national environmental
policy, establishing a research and development program that focuses on bold technological
breakthroughs that contribute significantly toward greenhouse gas stabilization, establishing
a National Office of Climate change Response within the Executive Office of the President,
and for other purposes. Similar language was incorporated in S.Amdt 2917 to S. 517.
(Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on August 2, 2001.
S.Rept. 107-99.)
S. 1131 (Leahy)
The Clean Power Modernization Act of 2001. The bill contains several provisions on
power plant efficiency and modernization. It would also limit power plant emissions,
CRS-14

IB89005
10-10-02
including carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, the bill would set specific carbon dioxide
emissions rates for power plants based on operating fuel. (Introduced May 28, 2001.)
S. 1255 (Wyden)
The “Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act” would, among other provisions, amend
the Energy Policy Act to provide for the establishment of the Carbon Advisory Council,
which would advise on reporting guidelines for greenhouse gas sequestration from soil
carbon and forest management actions and their potential effects and effectiveness.
(Introduced July 26, 2001.)
S. 1293 (Craig)
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide incentives for the voluntary
reduction, avoidance, and sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions and to advance global
climate science and technology development and deployment. (Introduced August 1, 2001.)
S. 1294 (Murkowski)
To establish a new national policy designed to manage the risk of potential climate
change, ensure long-term energy security, and to strengthen provisions in the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974
with respect to potential climate change. (Introduced August 1, 2001.)
S. 1401 (Biden)
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and
2003, and for other purposes. Section 778 of this bill expresses a “Sense of Congress
Relating to Global Warming,” which states the sense of Congress that the United States
should demonstrate international leadership in mitigating global warming threats by taking
responsible action to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from all
sectors, and by “participating in international negotiations...with the objective of securing
United States’ participation in a revised Kyoto Protocol or other future binding climate
change agreements.” (Introduced August 1, 2001, reported by Senate Foreign Relations
Committee September 4, 2001. S.Rept. 107-60.) The House approved a similar “Sense of the
Congress” resolution in its State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1646.
S. 1716 (Kerry)
The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 provides for establishment of a number of new
government entities, including: (1) a National Office of Climate Change Action and an
integrated program office for the global change research program within the Office of
Science and Technology Policy; (2) an interagency climate change action task force to
develop a national strategy for, among other things, substantially reducing U.S. Greenhouse
gas emissions and promoting energy efficiency research and development; and (3) a Science
and Technology Assessment Service in the legislative branch. (Introduced November 15,
2001.)
S. 1766 (Daschle)
The Energy Policy Act of 2002, a comprehensive energy bill, includes provisions for
increased domestic fossil and renewable energy supply, energy conservation, and research
and development, among other provisions. Language from this bill was inserted into S.Amdt.
2917 to S. 517. (Placed on the Senate legislative calendar December 6, 2001.)
CRS-15

IB89005
10-10-02
S. 1781 (McCain)
The Emissions Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. The bill would require the Secretary
of Commerce to establish a voluntary system for industrial greenhouse gas trading.
(Introduced December 6, 2001.)
S. 1870 (Corzine)
The National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Registry Act of 2001. The bill
would require the Administrator of EPA to develop a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions
registry and publish an annual greenhouse gas inventory. (Introduced December 20, 2001.)
CRS-16