Global Climate Change

Global Climate Change

Order Code IB89005
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Global Climate Change
Updated May 12, 2006
John R. Justus and Susan R. Fletcher
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Global Climate Change Science
Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Trends
Climate System Response
The Policy Context
Clinton Administration Policies
Bush Administration Policies
International Action
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
COP-1, The Berlin Mandate
COP-2, Geneva, Switzerland
COP-3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
COP-4, Buenos Aires
COP-5, Bonn, Germany
COP-6, The Hague, Netherlands
COP-6 “bis,” Bonn, Germany
COP-7, Marrakech, Morocco
COP-8 (New Delhi, India, 2002), COP-9 (Milan, Italy, 2003), COP-10 (Buenos Aires,
2004)
COP-11, Montreal, Canada
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
Congressional Interest and Activities
LEGISLATION

IB89005
05-12-06
Global Climate Change
SUMMARY
There is concern that human activities are
omy is so dependent upon energy, and so
affecting the heat/energy-exchange balance
much of U.S. energy is derived from fossil
between Earth, the atmosphere, and space, and
fuels, reducing these emissions poses major
inducing global climate change, often termed
challenges and controversy.
“global warming.” Human activities, particu-
larly the burning of fossil fuels, have contrib-
The 1992 United Nations Framework
uted to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
(CO ) and other trace greenhouse gases. If
which the United States has ratified, called for
2
these gases continue to accumulate in the
a “non-binding” voluntary aim for industrial-
atmosphere at current rates, most scientists
ized countries to control atmospheric concen-
believe significant global warming would
trations of greenhouse gases by stabilizing
occur through intensification of Earth’s natu-
their emissions at 1990 levels by the year
ral heat-trapping “greenhouse effect.” Possi-
2000. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the
ble impacts might be seen as both positive and
UNFCCC goes further, and commits the
negative, depending on regional or national
major industrialized nations that have ratified
variations.
it to specified, legally binding emissions
reductions. On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto
A warmer climate would probably have
Protocol entered into force. According to the
far-reaching effects on agriculture and for-
UNFCCC Secretariat, as of February 6, 2006,
estry, managed and unmanaged ecosystems,
160 nations and economic regional integration
including natural habitats, human health,
organizations had ratified the Protocol. The
water resources, and sea level, depending on
European Union instituted its emissions trad-
climate responses. Although causal relation-
ing system under the Protocol at the begin-
ships between projected long-range global
ning of 2005.
climate trends and record-setting warmth and
severe weather events of the past two decades
In March 2001, the Bush Administration
have not been firmly established, attention has
rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and thus the
been focused on possible extremes of climate
United States is not party to it (and therefore
change and the need for better understanding
is not subject to its requirements) as it enters
of climate processes to improve climate model
into force. President Bush concluded a
projections.
cabinet-level climate policy review with an

announcement in 2002 of a “new approach”
The basic policy question remains:
for the United States based on reducing the
Given scientific uncertainties about the mag-
greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas
nitude, timing, rate, and regional
emissions per unit of GDP) of the U.S. econ-
consequences of potential climatic change,
omy.
what are the appropriate responses for U.S.
and world decision makers?
This report briefly reviews the status of
climate science, international negotiations,
Fossil-fuel combustion is the primary
and congressional activity focused specifically
source of CO emissions, and also emits other
on climate change.
2
“greenhouse” gases. Because the U.S. econ-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB89005
05-12-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force, committing those nations that have ratified
it to specified mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. The 160
nations that had ratified the Protocol as of February 6, 2006, now represent 61.6% of the 1990
emissions baseline among developed nations (55% must be accounted for by industrialized
countries that have ratified in order for the Protocol to enter into force). The United States is
a party to the UNFCCC, but not to the Kyoto Protocol. The first meeting of the Kyoto
Protocol parties occurred November 28-December 9, 2005, in a joint meeting with the 11th
Conference of the Parties (COP-11) of the UNFCCC.
On June 22, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a “Sense of the Senate” resolution as an
amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included findings that greenhouse
gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, causing average temperatures to rise, and there is
“growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas
accumulation in the atmosphere.” It stated the sense of the Senate “that Congress should enact
a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and
incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such
emissions....,” while not significantly harming the U.S. economy, and in a way that will
encourage comparable action by other nations. This resolution was not included in the final
energy bill by the conference committee.
Following suit, on May 10, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations in the draft
FY2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations bill adopted sense-of-the-Congress language
stating that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of
mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow,
stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions. That language calls for limits and incentives
that do not significantly harm the U.S. economy and that will encourage comparable action by
our major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. Also adopted was
language directing EPA to study the ways global climate change will affect human health and
to recommend ways the nation should improve medical preparedness and response capabilities
and public health systems to deal with the health impacts associated with increased pollution
and other environmental changes.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Global Climate Change Science
A large number of scientists believe that human activities, which have increased
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO ) by 35% from preindustrial values of 280
2
parts per million (ppm) to 378 ppm over the past 150 years, are leading to an increase in global
average temperatures. Global temperatures have already risen 0.6oC (0.9oF) in the last 100
years, and, according to model projections, might rise anywhere from as little as 1.8oC to as
much as 7.1oC (2.7oF to 10.7oF) over the next 100 years. However, the science of “global
warming” is not without challengers, who argue that scientific proof is incomplete or
contradictory, and that there remain many uncertainties about the nature and direction of
CRS-1

IB89005
05-12-06
Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, there is significant concern that human activities, such as the
burning of fossil fuels, industrial production, deforestation, and certain land-use practices are
increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO ) that, along with increasing
2
concentrations of other trace gases such as methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), hydrofluoro-
4
2
carbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF ), may be leading to
6
changes in the chemical composition and physical dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere, including
how heat/energy is distributed between the land, ocean, atmosphere and space.
Greenhouse Gases: Sources and Trends
Scientists have found that the four most important variable greenhouse gases, whose
atmospheric concentrations can be influenced by human activities, are carbon dioxide (CO ),
2
methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Historically, CO has
4
2
2
been the most important, but those other atmospheric trace gases are also radiatively active,
in that they can affect Earth’s heat budget and thereby contribute to a greenhouse warming of
the lower atmosphere.
The amount of carbon cycling from naturally occurring processes each year through the
biosphere as 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 this
2
amount is absorbed by natural processes on land and in the ocean, and that atmospheric
concentrations of CO are currently about 35% higher at 378 parts per million (ppm) than they
2
were some 150 years ago at 280 ppm. Some scientists believe that a large amount of CO may
2
be stored in northern latitude soils and in temperate and tropical forests, suggesting a greater
importance of the role of natural resources management and land-use practices in these
regions, including burning of biomass and deforestation. Scientists estimate that
anthropogenic emissions of CO alone may account for as much as a 60% increase in global
2
mean temperatures of 0.9oF, since 1850.
The combined radiative forcing from the other trace gases is approximately equal to that
of CO and, collectively, they are projected to contribute about as much to potential global
2
warming over the next 60 years as CO . Some of the halogenated compounds, while present
2
in the atmosphere at very low concentrations, are of considerable interest because of their high
global warming potentials (GWPs) and long atmospheric residence times. Methane
concentrations had been rising from a preindustrial value of around 700 parts per billion (ppb)
up to the mid-1990s, when they began to level off to a present value of about 1,766 ppb, a
152% increase. Nitrous oxide concentrations have been rising from a preindustrial value of
around 270 parts per billion (ppb) up to a present value of about 317 ppb, representing a 17%
increase. The atmospheric concentrations of the chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11, at 268 parts per
trillion (ppt), and CFC 113, at 84 ppt, have been on the decline in recent years in response to
the Montreal Protocol of the late 1980’s. The concentration of CFC-12 at 533 ppt is also
anticipated to decline, but the decline is expected to be delayed due to (1) a longer atmospheric
lifetime than CFC-11 or CFC-113, (2) its use in long-lasting appliances such as home
refrigerators, and, possibly, (3) particularly extensive stockpiling at the global scale, due to a
perceived lack of suitable replacement at the time production decreases were being mandated.
CRS-2

IB89005
05-12-06
The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change also regulates three other trace gases:
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF ), whose
6
limited concentrations in the atmosphere are anticipated to grow over the long term. Sulfate
aerosols, a byproduct of air pollution, and other natural phenomena are also viewed as
important for their transient and regional “climate cooling” effects in Earth’s atmosphere.
On a related note, NASA scientist James Hansen has suggested that climate change
benefits could be achieved through near-term regulation of non-CO greenhouse gases. He
2
proposed that reducing emissions of halocarbons (refrigerants), methane, nitrogen oxides, and
carbon-black aerosols (soot) could have the effect of reducing ozone, itself a greenhouse gas,
in the troposphere. Non-CO greenhouse gases have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes
2
compared with CO ; however, most have a much larger global warming potential (gwp). This
2
would suggest that controlling emissions of these greenhouse gases could reduce the rate and
overall amount of potential climate warming from greenhouse gases, leaving only that
projected from long-term CO emissions whose full effects might not be realized for another
2
75-100 years. Nevertheless, Hansen emphasized that any actions to reduce emissions of these
gases would need to be taken concomitantly with long-term strategies to reduce CO . Hansen
2
also noted that modest gains from reducing CO and non-CO emissions in the near term could
2
2
be achieved primarily through cleaner energy production.
Climate System Response
The most recent runs of state-of-the-art computer models of the Earth’s climate (general
circulation models — GCMs) have projected a globally averaged warming ranging from
almost 3 to10.7degrees F over the next 100 years, if greenhouse gases continue to accumulate
in the atmosphere at the current rate. Many climate scientists believe that such a warming
could shift temperature zones, rainfall patterns, and agricultural belts and, under certain
scenarios, cause sea level to rise. With regard to sea level rise, over the last 100 years, the
global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 centimeters (4 to 10 inches). It is likely that much
of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the
last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the
world ocean may account for about 0.8 to 3 inches of the observed sea level rise, while the
observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 0.8 to 2 inches. Other factors
are more difficult to quantify, including isostatic effects associated with rising or subsiding
coastlines, neotectonics, and sedimentation. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests a net
positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations
of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate
contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past
changes in sea level because of insufficient data about them over the last 100 years. Taking
into account the ranges in the estimate of climate sensitivity and ice melt parameters, and the
full set of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, the models project an increase in global mean
sea level of between 5 and 37 inches by the year 2100. In addition, because of the thermal
inertia of the oceans, sea level could continue to rise for many centuries beyond 2100 even if
concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized at that time. Some climate scientists
further project that global warming could have far-reaching effects — some positive, some
negative, depending how it may be experienced in a given region — on natural resources;
ecosystems; food and fiber production; energy supply, use, and distribution; transportation;
land use; water supply and control; and human health.
CRS-3

IB89005
05-12-06
Skeptics of the global warming theory have called into question the reliability of the
computer climate models and their output used to make projections of future warming that
supported Kyoto Protocol negotiations. They also challenge some scientists’ assertions that
recent episodic weather events may seem more extreme in nature, and that this may be
indicative of long-term climate change.
Evidence of natural variability of climate is large enough that even the record-setting
warmth at the end of the 20th century has made it difficult for many climate scientists to state
beyond a reasonable doubt that weather extremes experienced over the past two decades are
attributable to “global warming,” at least at the present time. However, the warming trend at
the surface appears to be continuing. In some cases, causal relationships between seasonal and
inter annual climate variability and present-day severe weather events are beginning to be
recognized and even predicted, owing to an improved ability to observe such phenomena as
El Nino and La Nina, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO). That notwithstanding, singular extreme weather events have focused
public, academic, and government attention on possible outcomes of potential long-term
climate change and a need for a better understanding of regional climates on decadal to century
time scales.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) researchers reported that
the 12 warmest years (globally averaged) since historical records have been kept occurred in
the past two decades, with 1990 and 1998 among the warmest. Those records reveal that the
year 2004 was the fourth warmest worldwide since records began. At least some of this
warming, they concluded, is human-induced. On the other hand, satellite instruments —
which, through indirect methods, measure the average temperature of the atmosphere in a
deep column above the surface — are hard pressed to demonstrate any positive trends over the
past 20-year period.
A report issued by the U.S. National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences
and Climate, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000), attempted to
resolve apparent disparities between temperature data measured at the surface and those from
satellites. Scientists who question the surface temperature record state that such disparate
trends invalidate the output of general circulation models (GCMs), many of which demonstrate
homogenous warming throughout all the levels of the Earth’s atmosphere. Panel scientists
concluded that there may be a systematic disconnect between the upper and near surface
atmosphere and cited physical processes not currently accounted for in GCMs that may have
a unique impact on the upper atmosphere. In addition, they acknowledged that only long-term,
systematic monitoring of the upper atmosphere could resolve the differences in temperature
trends. Scientific work continues in the opposing communities and among government and
university modeling centers, accompanied by analysis of weather balloon and radiosonde data
and re-analysis of surface temperature and satellite data sets, with the prospect of advancing
resolution of this pivotal issue. The most recent entry into this fray, released May 2, 2006, by
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), is the first of what will be 21 Synthesis
and Assessment Products, this one entitled Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere —
Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences; CCSP Synthesis and Assessment
Product 1.1 (see [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm]).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly established in 1988 by
the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), reported in its Second Assessment (1996) that “... [such] a
CRS-4

IB89005
05-12-06
change is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin ... [and that] the balance of evidence, from
changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal,
and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate.” Issuing an updated conclusion in January 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel
in its Third Assessment (2001), reported that a firmer association between human activities and
climate seemed to have emerged, stating that “... in the light of new evidence and improved
understanding, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations.” That was news, because reservations about the source of the past century’s
warming and whether it bore a human fingerprint are often cited in policy debates, usually in
support of deferring actions aimed at mitigating possible global warming. In addition, the
IPCC reported a higher range of potential warming — roughly between 2.7 and just under 11
degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.
In the United States, the national assessment report Climate Change Impacts on the
United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (2000),
published and released under the auspices of the U.S. Global Research Program, received
criticism from many of those involved in its review. Critics claimed that many of the 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.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm]. A final synthesis report
by the NAST, of the same title and consisting of an overview of all of the regional and sectoral
studies, was released in December 2000.
On June 6, 2001, a Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the U.S. National
Research Council (NRC) released a report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
Questions, stating that global warming could well have serious societal and ecological impacts
by the end of this century. Commissioned by the Bush White House and prepared by 11 of the
nation’s leading climate scientists, the report summarized the current state of knowledge on
climate change and confirmed that the climatic changes observed during the past several
decades were most likely due to human activities. The committee members warned, however,
that they could not rule out the possibility that the climate’s natural variability could be
responsible for a significant portion of that trend. The authors agreed that human-induced
warming and sea level rise were expected to continue through the 21st century and beyond,
but they emphasized that current predictions of the magnitude and rate of future warming
“should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or
downward).”
The NRC report generally concurred with the latest conclusions of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, which found that the Earth warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit
during the 20th century, and that most of the warming of the past 50 years was probably due
to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The full report, Climate
Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, is available online at
CRS-5

IB89005
05-12-06
[http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/] or may be downloaded as a PDF file at
[http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10139].
President Bush made a speech on global climate change from the Rose Garden on June
11, 2001, following release of that NRC Key Questions report and completion of a 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.
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 avoided mandatory command and
2
control measures.
On November 12, 1998, President Clinton instructed a representative to sign the Kyoto
Protocol to “lock in” U.S. interests achieved during negotiations. This act drew protest by
some in Congress. Some Members claimed Clinton action was in violation of the June 1997
Byrd/Hagel Resolution (S.Res.98) that required an economic analysis of legally binding
emission reductions on the United States, as well as binding obligations for all UNFCCC
parties, including developing countries. The President announced he would continue to
pursue”meaningful” commitments from key developing countries before he would send the
treaty to the Senate for advice and consent.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the
Council of Economic Advisors, that concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex
B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the “Clean Development
Mechanism” — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the
costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many
estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
and the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, projected a potentially
large declines in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
CRS-6

IB89005
05-12-06
On November 11, 2000, President Clinton issued a statement on “Meeting the Challenge
of Global Warming” in response to the results of the report Climate Change Impacts on the
United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (available at
[http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm]). In his statement, President Clinton said he
would promulgate new regulations for U.S. electric power plants, imposing emissions caps on
sulphur, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and CO . He also called for establishment of a domestic
2
emissions trading program and promised a continued U.S. leadership role in climate change
to set an example for other industrialized countries. President Clinton announced he would
take such steps as necessary to keep the United States on target for meeting Kyoto Protocol
goals, if certain concessions were made regarding international adoption of flexible
mechanisms such as emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM), credit for
carbon sinks, and accountable, legally-binding, compliance mechanisms.
Bush Administration Policies. Soon after taking office, the Bush Administration
had asked for a delay in resumption of the collapsed COP-6 negotiations (see COP-6
discussion below), in order to allow time for consideration of its approach and policies. Talks
were accordingly scheduled for the second half of July. However, in late March 2001, the
Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol — causing widespread concern among the
EU nations — citing lack of developing country participation and possible harm to the U.S.
economy. This followed extensive press attention to, first, statements by the EPA
Administrator that — pursuant to a campaign statement by then-candidate George W. Bush
— carbon dioxide would be included in a multi-pollutant regulatory effort; and then a
repudiation of that position and clarification by President Bush and Administration
spokespersons that carbon dioxide would not be regulated.
President Bush made a policy statement in mid-June 2001, resulting from a continuing
cabinet-level review of climate change options, in which he outlined the U.S. approach as
rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and favoring voluntary actions, increased scientific research, and
market mechanisms. This preceded his trip to Europe for meetings with European heads of
state, which ended with statements that Europe and the United States “agree to disagree” on
climate change approaches. President Bush also outlined a Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) and a National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), along with
a new Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration to
oversee their implementation. The CCRI and the NCCTI focus on short-term, policy-relevant
objectives of climate change science and climate change technology applications, respectively.
A previously established U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) supports 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 FY2007 budget requests
a total spending level of $1.717 billion for research managed by the CCSP, which is $4 million
(+0.2%) above the FY2006 funding estimate of $1.713 billion. Included in the $1.717 billion
CCSP funds are $200 million for the CCRI. While funding for the embedded CCRI
experienced growth over two fiscal years from FY2003 to FY2005, the FY2007 funding
request for CCRI at $200 million is level with the FY2006 funding estimate of $200 million.
That leaves the FY2007 funding request for the embedded USGCRP standing at $1.517
billion, which is $4 million (+0.3%) above the FY2006 funding estimate of $1.513 billion.
Some $2.98 billion is in the requested FY2007funding profile for technology research and
development in the Climate Change Technology Program(CCTP) and its embedded NCCTI,
an amount $207 million (+7.5%) above the FY2006 funding level of $2.773 billion. The
CRS-7

IB89005
05-12-06
budget request emphasized that the Climate Change Technology Program Office was in the
process of addressing the nearly 300 comments received on its Draft Strategic Plan, in
advance of publishing a final Strategic Plan on Climate Change Technology later on in 2006.
Two issues of concern for Congress are the extent to which spending for the CCRI and
CCTP represents new money versus how much is attributable to the reclassification of ongoing
research and technology programs, and whether reduced funding in some cases, or virtual level
funding in most other cases, might be deemed necessary or sufficient to accomplish the work
of the CCSP and the CCTP. The Administration released a Climate Change Science Program
Strategic Plan on July 24, 2003. The plan included five major research goals and dozens of
specific research targets as well as 23 written synthesis and assessment products with
deadlines. The plan did not give budget details. The National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences conducted an independent review of the Strategic Plan and in
April 2004 published its overall assessment in a 51-page report, Implementing Climate and
Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Strategic Plan.1 To complement the CCSP Strategic Plan, the Department of Energy has
released several guidance documents for Climate Change Technology Program activities:
Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan Public Review Draft on January 24,
2006, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program: Technology Options for the Near and Long
Term on September 15, 2005, and U.S. Climate Change Technology Program: Vision and
Framework for Strategy and Planning, on August 5, 2005. Release of the completed final
CCTP strategic plan is expected sometime in 2006.
In June 2001, the Europeans announced their intentions to proceed with ratification of
the Kyoto Protocol, while President Bush indicated the United States would continue to
participate in negotiations of the UNFCCC parties in order to pursue its own objectives, but
would not participate directly in Kyoto Protocol negotiations. When talks resumed among
UNFCCC parties at “COP-6 resumed” in mid-July in Bonn, Germany, and continued in the
fall of 2001 in Marrakech, Morocco at COP-7, the United States delegation did not make new
proposals and declined to participate in negotiations on issues of the Kyoto Protocol.
Agreement among the other parties was found on the remaining Protocol issues at COP-7, and
they announced that they would seek ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and its entry into force
— even without the participation of the United States.
On February 14, 2002, apparently concluding the cabinet-level review of climate change
underway since early 2001, President Bush announced a U.S. policy for climate change: a
“new approach for meeting the long-term challenge of climate change.” The centerpiece of
this announcement was the plan to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy by
18% over the next 10 years. Greenhouse gas intensity measures the ratio of greenhouse gas
emissions to economic output, and has been declining in the United States over the past
several years. The Administration stated that the goal, to be met through voluntary action, is
to achieve efficiency improvements that would reduce the 183 metric tons of emissions per
million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) to 151 in 2012. The plan noted that “if, in
2012, we find that we are not on track toward meeting our goal, and sound science justifies
1 U.S. National Research Council, Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Strategic Plan, Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Final U.S.
Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan (Washington, The National Academies Press,
2004), 51 pp., viewed online at [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088658/html/].
CRS-8

IB89005
05-12-06
further policy action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include
a broad, market-based program” and other incentives and voluntary measures to accelerate
technology development.
In addition, the policy directed the Secretary of Energy in consultation with other key
agencies, to “substantially improve the emission reduction registry” to upgrade the voluntary
emission reduction program under section 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, to bring
about enhanced measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability. Other measures included
providing for protected, transferable emission reduction credits, increased funding of $700
million in total climate-related spending, and a new management structure to coordinate
climate change and technology research. Domestic policies such as tax incentives for
renewable energy and new technology, development of fuel-efficient vehicles and cleaner
fuels, and carbon sequestration were also proposed, along with several international bilateral
initiatives and relatively modest increases in foreign assistance.
Some observers praised the plan for taking a practical, conservative approach to
government action and for relying on voluntary measures. Critics observed that voluntary
approaches by themselves have not historically often been effective, and noted that the
reductions in energy intensity are very little different from current trends and would allow for
significant increases in overall greenhouse gas emissions rather than reductions.
Continuing to encourage voluntary action rather than mandatory requirements, the
Administration detailed on February 12, 2003, a set of voluntary agreements by various
industry groups under an umbrella initiative titled Climate VISION (Voluntary, Innovative
Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now). These initiatives by sectoral groups involve actions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency. (For a fuller description,
see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html].)
International Action
The United States was involved in negotiations and international scientific research on
climate change prior to ratifying the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). This included passage of a National Climate Program Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-367).
These activities are discussed in CRS Report RL30522, Global Climate Change: A Survey of
Scientific Research and Policy Reports, which covers early aspects of the scientific debate and
contains a chronology of U.S. government involvement in climate change policy before 1992.
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was opened
for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) conference in Rio de Janeiro (known by its popular title, the Earth Summit). On
June 12, 1992, the United States, along with 153 other nations, signed the UNFCCC, that upon
ratification committed signatories’ governments to a voluntary “non-binding aim” to reduce
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with the goal of “preventing dangerous
anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system.” These actions were aimed primarily
at industrialized countries, with the intention of stabilizing their emissions of greenhouse
gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000; and other responsibilities would be incumbent upon all
UNFCCC parties. The parties agreed in general that they would recognize “common but
CRS-9

IB89005
05-12-06
differentiated responsibilities,” with greater responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the near term on the part of developed/industrialized countries, which were listed
and identified in Annex I of the UNFCCC and thereafter referred to as “Annex I” countries.
On September 8, 1992, then-President Bush transmitted the UNFCCC for advice and
consent of the U.S. Senate to ratification. The Foreign Relations Committee approved the
treaty and reported it (Senate Exec. Rept. 102-55) October 1, 1992. The Senate consented to
ratification on October 7, 1992, with a two-thirds majority vote. President Bush signed the
instrument of ratification October 13, 1992, and deposited it with the U.N. Secretary General.
According to terms of the UNFCCC, having received over 50 countries’ instruments of
ratification, it entered into force March 24, 1994.
Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in
conferences of the parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and
beginning in the mid-1990’s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding
obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. After
completion of the Protocol in 1997, COP meetings focused on formulating the operational
rules that would prevail as nations attempted to meet their obligations to reduce emissions.
These rules were essentially agreed upon at COP-7 (see below) in 2001. As of February 16,
2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force. At that time, 141 nations had ratified it, including
35 of the 38 Annex B industrialized countries. Those Annex B parties to the UNFCCC that
have ratified the Kyoto Protocol continue to express hope that the United States will re-engage
in international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As of February 6, 2006, nations
that have ratified or accepted the Kyoto Protocol number 160.
COP-1, The Berlin Mandate
The UNFCCC Conference of Parties met for the first time in Berlin, Germany in the
spring of 1995, and voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries’ abilities to meet
commitments under the Convention. These were expressed in a U.N. ministerial declaration
known as the “Berlin Mandate,” which established a two-year Analytical and Assessment
Phase (AAP), to negotiate a “comprehensive menu of actions” for countries to pick from and
choose future options to address climate change which for them, individually, made the best
economic and environmental sense. The Berlin Mandate exempted non-Annex I countries
from additional binding obligations, in keeping with the principle of “common but
differentiated responsibilities” established in the UNFCCC — even though, collectively, the
larger, newly industrializing countries were expected to be the world’s largest emitters of
greenhouse gas emissions 15 years hence.
COP-2, Geneva, Switzerland
The Second Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-2) met in July 1996 in Geneva,
Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was adopted July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S.
position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs
for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which (1) accepted the scientific findings on
climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its
second assessment (1995); (2) rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
and (3) called for “legally binding mid-term targets.”
CRS-10

IB89005
05-12-06
COP-3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
was adopted by COP-3, in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, after intensive — and tense —
negotiations. Most industrialized nations and some central European economies in transition
(all defined as Annex B countries) agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions of an average of 6%-8% below 1990 levels in the years 2008-2012, defined as the
first emissions budget period. The United States would be required to reduce its total
emissions an average of 7% below 1990 levels. (For more details, see CRS Report RL30692,
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.) The Protocol provides that it will enter into
force when it has been ratified by 55 countries, accounting for 55% of developed country
emissions in 1990. In 1997, prior to the completion of the Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed
S.Res. 98, which urged the President not to agree to a treaty that did not include binding
commitments for developing countries, or that would cause harm to the U.S. economy. As
noted above, although President Clinton did sign the Protocol in 1998, it was never submitted
by his administration to the Senate because it would not have met the conditions of S.Res. 98.
The Clinton Administration initiated funding efforts to address climate change; in the
FY2001 budget request funding was included for a Climate Change Technology Initiative
(CCTI) first introduced in his FY1999 budget. Somewhat reduced funding for the climate
technology initiatives was received in previous years.
COP-4, Buenos Aires
COP-4 took place in Buenos Aires in November 1998. It had been expected that the
remaining issues unresolved in Kyoto would be finalized at this meeting. However, the
complexity and difficulty of finding agreement on these issues proved insurmountable, and
instead the parties adopted a two-year “Plan of Action” to advance efforts and to devise
mechanisms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, to be completed by 2000.
COP-5, Bonn, Germany
The 5th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change met
in Bonn, Germany, between October 25 and November 4, 1998. It was primarily a technical
meeting, and did not reach major conclusions.
COP-6, The Hague, Netherlands
When COP-6 convened November 13-25, 2000, in The Hague, Netherlands, discussions
evolved rapidly into a high-level negotiation over the major political issues. These included
major controversy over the United States’ proposal to allow credit for carbon “sinks” in forests
and agricultural lands, satisfying a major proportion of the U.S. emissions reductions in this
way; disagreements over consequences for non-compliance by countries that did not meet their
emission reduction targets; and difficulties in resolving how developing countries could obtain
financial assistance to deal with adverse effects of climate change and meet their obligations
to plan for measuring and possibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the final hours of
COP-6, despite some compromises agreed between the United States and some EU countries,
notably the United Kingdom, the EU countries as a whole, led by Denmark and Germany,
rejected the compromise positions, and the talks in The Hague collapsed. Jan Pronk, the
CRS-11

IB89005
05-12-06
President of COP-6, suspended COP-6 without agreement, with the expectation that
negotiations would later resume. It was later announced that the COP-6 meetings (termed
“COP-6 bis”) would be resumed in Bonn, Germany, in the second half of July. The next
regularly scheduled meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC — COP-7 — had been set for
Marrakech, Morocco, in October-November 2001. (For more detailed discussion of COP-6
issues, see CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.)
COP-6 “bis,” Bonn, Germany
When the COP-6 negotiations resumed July 16-27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany, little
progress had been made on resolving the differences that had produced an impasse in The
Hague. However, this meeting took place after President George Bush had become the U.S.
President, and had rejected the Kyoto Protocol in March; as a result the United States
delegation to this meeting declined to participate in the negotiations related to the Protocol,
and chose to act as observers. As the other parties negotiated the key issues, agreement was
reached on most of the major political issues, to the surprise of most observers given the low
level of expectations that preceded the meeting. The agreements included:
(1) Mechanisms — the “flexibility” mechanisms which the United States had strongly favored
as the Protocol was initially put together, including emissions trading; joint
implementation; and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which provides
funding from developed countries for emissions reduction activities in developing
countries, with credit for the donor countries. One of the key elements of this agreement
was that there would be no quantitative limit on the credit a country could claim from use
of these mechanisms, but that domestic action must constitute a significant element of
the efforts of each Annex B country to meet their targets.
(2) Carbon sinks — credit was agreed to for broad activities that absorb carbon from the
atmosphere or store it, including forest and cropland management, and revegetation, with
no overall cap on the amount of credit a country could claim for sinks activities. In the
case of forest management, an Appendix Z establishes country-specific caps for each
Annex I country, for example, a cap of 13 million tons could be credited to Japan (which
represents about 4% of its base-year emissions). For cropland management, countries
could receive credit only for carbon sequestration increases above 1990 levels.
(3) Compliance — final action on compliance procedures and mechanisms that would address
noncompliance with Protocol provisions was deferred to COP-7, but broad outlines of
consequences for failing to meet emissions targets would include a requirement to “make
up” shortfalls at 1.3 tons to 1; suspension of the right to sell credits for surplus emissions
reductions; and a required compliance action plan for those not meeting their targets.
(4) Financing — three new funds were agreed upon to provide assistance for needs associated
with climate change; a least-developed-country fund to support National Adaptation
Programs of Action; and a Kyoto Protocol adaptation fund supported by a CDM levy and
voluntary contributions.
A number of operational details attendant upon these decisions remained to be negotiated
and agreed upon; these were the major issues of the COP-7 meeting that followed.
COP-7, Marrakech, Morocco
At the COP-7 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, October 29-November 10, 2001,
negotiators in effect completed the work of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, finalizing most
CRS-12

IB89005
05-12-06
of the operational details and setting the stage for nations to ratify the Protocol. The United
States delegation continued to act as observers, declining to participate in active negotiations.
Other parties continued to express their hope that the United States would re-engage in the
process at some point, but indicated their intention to seek ratification of the requisite number
of countries to bring the Protocol into force (55 countries representing 55% of developed
country emissions of carbon dioxide in 1990). A target date for bringing the Protocol into
force was put forward — the August-September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa — but this target was not met.
The main decisions at COP-7 included operational rules for international emissions trading
among parties to the Protocol and for the CDM and joint implementation; a compliance regime
that outlines consequences for failure to meet emissions targets but defers to the parties to the
Protocol after it is in force to decide whether these consequences are legally binding;
accounting procedures for the flexibility mechanisms; and a decision to consider at COP-8
how to achieve to a review of the adequacy of commitments that might move toward
discussions of future developing country commitments.
COP-8 (New Delhi, India, 2002), COP-9 (Milan, Italy, 2003),
COP-10 (Buenos Aires, 2004)
At these three meetings of the conference of parties to the UNFCCC, attempts were made
to consider next steps after the 2008-2012 commitment period, but these attempts encountered
resistance from developing countries and some other parties. The announced reluctance of
Russia at the Milan COP-9 to undertake ratification of the Kyoto Protocol called into question
whether or when the Protocol might enter into force. Without U.S. participation, the required
55% of baseline emissions of parties would not be achieved if Russia did not ratify. However,
just before the COP-10 meeting, Russia did ratify the Protocol on November 18, 2004. Thus
the Kyoto Protocol would enter into force 90 days later, on February 16, 2005. All three of
these meetings centered on largely technical issues, and avoided major substantive
declarations; what “next steps” involving developing countries should be remained a
controversial issue, and was not resolved.
COP-11, Montreal, Canada
COP-11 was held in Montreal, Canada, November 28 - December 9, 2005. This was a
concurrent meeting — the 11th meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC, and the first meeting
of the parties (MOP-1) to the Kyoto Protocol. One of the key outcomes of the Kyoto Protocol
MOP was adoption of the “Marrakech Accords,” which outline what the Secretariat terms the
“rule book” for the Protocol. Among other things, it formally launches emissions trading by
providing rules for trading, and outlines the operational rules for the Clean Development
Mechanism and Joint Implementation, both of which provide for credit to developed countries
for projects to reduce emissions or augment sinks in developing or other eligible countries.
Other rules adopted include how emissions are accounted for, guidelines on data systems
needed, rules for a compliance system, and rules governing how absorption of carbon dioxide
by agricultural soils and forests is to be measured. Discussions of “next steps” were
considered under both the Protocol and the Convention. Negotiations under the Protocol were
agreed upon that could lead to new binding commitments for Kyoto Protocol parties after
2012; and a decision under the Framework Convention was made to open a non-binding
“dialogue on long-term cooperative action,” which could include all parties to the Convention,
including the United States.
CRS-13

IB89005
05-12-06
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
On July 27, 2005, a six-nation partnership was announced at South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) forum. This is a partnership agreement among six nations — the United States,
Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. The participants described the focus of the
partnership as technology development and reduction of greenhouse gas intensity, with
voluntary participation. Representatives of the six nations met in Sydney, Australia, in early
January, and spelled out the purpose and provided a work plan for the partnership in
statements on January 12, 2006. The purposes included to “Create a voluntary, non-legally
binding framework for international cooperation to facilitate the development, diffusion,
deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer-term cost-effective, cleaner, more
efficient technologies and practices among the Partners through concrete and substantial
cooperation so as to achieve practical results.” Eight task forces were established to review
the status of their sectors with regard to clean development and climate, and to identify cost
and performance objectives and realistic goals; they focused on specific sectors: (1) Cleaner
Fossil Energy, (2) Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation, (3) Power Generation and
Transmission, (4) Steel, (5) Aluminum, (6) Cement, (7) Coal Mining, and (8) Buildings and
Construction. The charter for the partnership states: “The partnership will be consistent with
and contribute to our efforts under the UNFCCC and will complement, but not replace, the
Kyoto Protocol.” (More detailed information is available on the State Department website).
Congressional Interest and Activities
Discourse in Congress over the prospect of global warming and what the United States
could or should do about it has yielded, over the last several years, a range of legislative
proposals. Issues dealt with in bills that have been introduced in the 109th Congress include
regulating emissions of carbon dioxide along with emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercury in so-called “multi-pollutant” legislation (see CRS Report RL32755, Air
Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress); greenhouse gas reduction and
carbon dioxide emissions trading systems (see CRS Report RS21581, Climate Change: Senate
Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CRS Report RS21067, Global Climate
Change: Controlling CO2 Emissions Cost-Limiting Safety Valves); energy issues relevant to
climate change, especially those associated with encouraging or authorizing energy efficiency
and alternative energy sources (see CRS Issue Brief IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit,
Budget, and Electricity Production Issues and CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues); carbon sequestration
technologies and methodologies; federal and national research concerning the prospect of
abrupt climate change, climate change impacts, and climate system surprises; federal spending
on climate change science programs and climate change technology programs and, more
broadly, on global change research programs; and long-term research and development
programs to develop new technologies to help stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. (For an
overview and comparison of key climate change legislation, see CRS Report RL32955,
Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress).
LEGISLATION
P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains provisions addressing
climate change, and a number of others were debated during consideration of the bill. Title
XVI establishes programs to promote the adoption of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
CRS-14

IB89005
05-12-06
intensity, similar to those adopted on the Senate floor in S.Amdt. 817. The House version of
H.R. 6 did not contain climate change or greenhouse gas provisions. Two other climate change
amendments included in the Senate bill as passed were not included in the final version of the
bill: S.Amdt. 866 expressed the sense of the Senate that climate change is a serious concern
and that Congress should establish mandatory, market-based limits on greenhouse gas
emissions; and S.Amdt. 826, based largely on S. 1151, would have required mandatory
emission reduction and a cap-and-trade system. H.R. 6 passed the House April 21, 2005. It
passed the Senate June 28, 2005. The conference report, H.Rept. 109-190, was agreed to by
the House July 28, 2005, and by the Senate July 29, 2005. The bill was signed by the
President and enacted into law on August 8, 2005.
H.R. 759 (Gilchrest)/S. 342 (McCain). To provide for a program of scientific research
on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States by establishing a system of tradeable allowances that will limit greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States. Introduced February 10, 2005. Referred to the House
Committee on Science and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 955 (Olver). To amend the Clean Air Act to establish an inventory, registry, and
information system of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to inform the public and private sectors
concerning, and encourage voluntary reductions in, greenhouse gas emissions. Introduced
February 17, 2005. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; referred March 14,
2005, to Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
H.R. 3057 (Kolbe). The Foreign Operations, Export Financial and Related Programs
Appropriations Act of 2006. Section 6074 would require that not less than $180 million shall
be made available to support clean energy, and other climate change policies and programs in
developing countries, of which $100 million is to directly promote and deploy energy
conservation, efficiency, renewable and clean technologies, and the balance to measure,
monitor, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and enhance
climate change mitigation and adaptation programs. In addition, a climate change report is
required to describe federal agency obligations and expenditures, domestic and international,
for climate change in FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 for the U.S. Agency for International
Development. On June 24, 2005, the House Committee on Appropriations reported an
original bill (H.Rept. 109-52). Passed the House on June 28, 2005. On June 30, 2005, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3057 with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute and an amendment to the title (S.Rept. 109-96). Passed the Senate on July 20,
2005. On November 2, 2005, conference committee filed a report (H.Rept. 109-265).
Conference report agreed to in House November 4, 2005. Conference report agreed to in
Senate November 10, 2005. Signed by President, November 14, 2005; became P.L. 109-102.
H.R. 5049 (Udall of New Mexico). Would establish a market-based system to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions and to promote advanced energy research and technology
development and deployment. Introduced March 29, 2006. Referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Science, International Relations,
and Education and the Workforce, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
S. 245 (Collins). To provide for the development and coordination of a comprehensive
U.S. research program to facilitate understanding, assessment and prediction of human-
induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change. Introduced February 1, 2005.
Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
CRS-15

IB89005
05-12-06
S. 386 (Hagel). To direct the Secretary of State to carry out activities that promote the
adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries while
promoting economic development. Introduced February 15, 2005. Referred to Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations.
S. 387 (Hagel). To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives
for investment in greenhouse gas intensity reduction projects. Introduced February 15, 2005.
Referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
S. 388 (Hagel). To amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of
Energy to carry out activities that promote adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse
gas intensity and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for
projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, and to provide for the
establishment of a national greenhouse gas registry. Introduced February 15, 2005. Referred
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 883 (Hagel). Would direct the Secretary of State to carry out activities that promote
the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries,
while promoting economic development. Introduced April 21, 2005. Referred to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
S. 887 (Hagel). Would amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of
Energy to carry out activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse
gas intensity and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for
projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, and for other purposes.
Introduced April 21, 2005. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 745 (Byrd). Would amend the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of
1989 to promote clean energy development, to open and expand clean energy markets abroad,
to engage developing nations in the advancement of sustainable energy use and climate change
actions, and for other purposes. Introduced April 11, 2005. Referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
S. 1151 (McCain). Would provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of
greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States
and reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, to support deployment of new climate
change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers. Introduced May 26, 2005.
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 2724 (Carper). To amend the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to protect and
preserve the environment and safeguard public health by ensuring that substantial emission
reductions are achieved at fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities; to significantly reduce
the quantities of mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides that enter the
environment as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels; to achieve emission reductions from
electric generating facilities in a cost-effective manner; and for other purposes. Introduced May
4, 2006. Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S.J.Res. 5 (Feinstein). A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the
United States should act to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Introduced February 16, 2005.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
CRS-16