Order Code IB89005
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Global Climate Change
Updated June 10, 2005
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)
Congressional Interest and Activities
LEGISLATION


IB89005
06-10-05
Global Climate Change
SUMMARY
There is concern that human activities are
fuels, reducing these emissions poses major
affecting the heat/energy-exchange balance
challenges and controversy.
between Earth, the atmosphere, and space, and
inducing global climate change, often termed
The 1992 United Nations Framework
“global warming.” Human activities, particu-
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
larly the burning of fossil fuels, have increased
which the United States has ratified, called for
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO ) and other
a “non-binding” voluntary aim for industrial-
2
trace greenhouse gases. If these gases con-
ized countries to control atmospheric concen-
tinue to accumulate in the atmosphere at
trations of greenhouse gases by stabilizing
current rates, most scientists believe global
their emissions at 1990 levels by the year
warming would occur through intensification
2000. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the
of Earth’s natural heat-trapping “greenhouse
UNFCCC goes further, and commits the
effect.” Possible impacts might be seen as
major industrialized nations that have ratified
both positive and negative, depending on
it to specified, legally binding emissions
regional or national variations.
reductions.
A warmer climate would probably have
On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Proto-
far-reaching effects on agriculture and for-
col entered into force. On November 18,
estry, managed and unmanaged ecosystems,
2004, Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol,
including natural habitats, human health,
enabling it to enter into force 90 days later.
water resources, and sea level, depending on
According to the UNFCCC Secretariat, as of
climate responses. Although causal relation-
April 29, 2005, some 150 nations and eco-
ships between projected long-range global
nomic regional integration organizations had
climate trends and record-setting warmth and
ratified the Protocol. The European Union
severe weather events of the past two decades
instituted its emissions trading system under
have not been firmly established, attention has
the Protocol at the beginning of 2005.
been focused on possible extremes of climate
change and the need for better understanding
In March 2001, the Bush Administration
of climate processes to improve climate model
rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and thus the
projections.
United States is not party to it (and therefore

is not subject to its requirements) as it enters
The basic policy question remains:
into force. President Bush concluded a
Given scientific uncertainties about the mag-
cabinet-level climate policy review with an
nitude, timing, rate, and regional
announcement in 2002 of a “new approach”
consequences of potential climatic change,
for the United States based on reducing the
what are the appropriate responses for U.S.
greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas
and world decision makers?
emissions per unit of GDP) of the U.S. econ-
omy.
Fossil-fuel combustion is the primary
source of CO emissions, and also emits other
This report briefly reviews the status of
2
“greenhouse” gases. Because the U.S. econ-
climate science, international negotiations,
omy is so dependent upon energy, and so
and congressional activity focused specifically
much of U.S. energy is derived from fossil
on climate change.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB89005
06-10-05
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 nations that have ratified the Protocol now represent 61.6% of the 1990 emissions
baseline, with 55% being the amount that 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. As of April 29, 2005, some 150 nations or
regional economic integration organizations had ratified or acceded to the Protocol.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Global Climate Change Science
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, are
2
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, 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 (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
potential global warming over the next 60 years as CO . For example, NASA scientist James
2
Hansen has suggested that climate change benefits could be achieved through near-term
regulation of non-CO greenhouse gases. He proposed that reducing emissions of
2
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 atmospheric lifetimes compared with
2
CO ; however, most have a much larger global warming potential (gwp). This would suggest
2
that controlling emissions of these greenhouse gases could reduce the rate and overall
CRS-1

IB89005
06-10-05
amount of potential climate warming from greenhouse gases, leaving only that projected
from long-term CO emissions whose full effects might not be realized for another 75-100
2
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 .
2
Hansen also noted that modest gains from reducing CO and non-CO emissions in the near
2
2
term could be achieved primarily through cleaner energy production.
The 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, upon entry into force, would also
regulate three other trace gases: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF ), whose limited concentrations in the atmosphere are anticipated to
6
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 35% 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.
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. 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. 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.
CRS-2

IB89005
06-10-05
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. Those scientists who question the surface temperature record claim
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 that 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. 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 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.” 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
CRS-3

IB89005
06-10-05
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 who were involved in its 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-
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.
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 that NRC Key Questions 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
06-10-05
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 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.
CRS-5

IB89005
06-10-05
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 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. 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 focuses on short-term,
policy-relevant objectives of climate change science. An existing U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) supports long-term, 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 FY2006 budget
requests a total spending level of $1.886 billion for research managed by the CCSP, an
amount $27 million, or 1.4%, below the FY2005 funding estimate of $1.913 billion.
Included in the $1.886 billion CCSP funds are $183 million for the CCRI. While funding
for the embedded CCRI experienced growth over two fiscal years from FY2003 to FY2005,
the FY2006 request for CCRI at $183 million is $38 million less than the FY2005 funding
estimate of $221 million. This leaves the FY2006 request for the embedded USGCRP
standing at $1.703 billion, approximately level with the FY2005 funding estimate. There is
some $2.87 billion in the FY2006 funding request for technology research and development
in the NCCTI/Climate Change Technology Program, an amount $120 million, or 4%, below
the FY2005 funding estimate of $2.99 billion. The FY2006 budget request also indicated
that a strategic plan for climate change technology research and development would be
released sometime in 2005.
Two issues of concern for Congress are the extent to which spending for the CCRI and
NCCTI represents new money versus how much is attributable to the reclassification of
CRS-6

IB89005
06-10-05
ongoing research and technology programs, and whether the overall reduced level of
requested funds may be deemed necessary or sufficient to accomplish the work of the CCSP.
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, on December 2, 2003,
released two long awaited reports from the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program that
presented a portfolio of federal R&D investments in climate change technology development,
and highlighted President Bush’s initiatives in technology and international cooperation. The
reports were titled, respectively, Technology Options for the Near and Long Term, and
Research and Current Activities. A strategic plan to guide climate change technology R&D
is planned for release in 2005.
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
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 plan directed the Secretary of Energy in consultation with other key
agencies, to “substantially improve the emission reduction registry” to upgrade the voluntary
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-7

IB89005
06-10-05
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 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
CRS-8

IB89005
06-10-05
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. Most Annex B 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 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-9

IB89005
06-10-05
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.
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
CRS-10

IB89005
06-10-05
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.
(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
CRS-11

IB89005
06-10-05
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 — 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. When COP-8 was held
in 2002, few major decisions were made, and developing country commitments were not
significantly addressed.
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 this meeting in Buenos Aires was the last meeting
of the UNFCCC parties before the Kyoto Protocol entered into force 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.
The next conference of the parties, COP-11, will be held in Montreal, Canada,
November 28 - December 9, 2005. This will be concurrent meetings — the 11th meeting of
the parties to the UNFCCC, and the first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
CRS-12

IB89005
06-10-05
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. Arguments have been presented that policy actions to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be taken now, while alternative arguments have
called for delay, citing challenging issues that were regionally complex, politically delicate,
and scientifically uncertain. Current legislation includes bills to expand technological
options for mitigating or adapting to the effects of any climate change. (For a detailed
overview and comparison of climate change legislation that was introduced and considered
in the 108th Congress, see CRS Report RL32055, Climate Change Legislation in the 108th
Congress.
)
Issues dealt with in bills that have been introduced in the 109th Congress include
regulating not only emissions of carbon dioxide, but emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercury in so-called “multi-pollutant” legislation (see CRS Report RL32755);
greenhouse gas reduction and carbon dioxide emissions trading systems (see CRS Report
RS21581 and CRS Report RS21067); energy issues relevant to climate change, especially
those associated with encouraging or authorizing energy efficiency and alternative energy
sources (see CRS Issue Brief IB10041 and CRS Issue Brief IB10020); 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.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 759 (Gilchrest)
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.
S. 245 (Collins)
To provide for the development and coordination of a comprehensive U.S. research
program to facilitate understanding, assessment and prediction of human-induced and natural
processes of abrupt climate change. Introduced February 1, 2005. Referred to Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
CRS-13

IB89005
06-10-05
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, and to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Introduced
February 10, 2005. Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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
CRS-14

IB89005
06-10-05
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.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-15