Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:42:03 -0400
From: "J. Timmons Roberts" <timmons@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
To: Peter Grimes <p34d3611@jhu.edu>
>From: dcintern@ucsusa.org
>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 10:31:13
>
>
> URGENT ACTION ALERT
> from the
> UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
>
> Senator Chafee Resolution on Climate Change
>
> ISSUE: A Senate Resolution, being circulated by Sen. Chafee
> (R-RI), takes a constructive, moderate approach to the
> international climate negotiations coming up this December
> in Kyoto, Japan. Chafee's document is a response to a
> deplorable Resolution initiated by Sen. Byrd (D-WV) that
> would seriously hamper the Clinton Administration's ability
> to negotiate a strong and environmentally meaningful
> climate treaty.
>
> ACTION: Call, email, or fax your Senators ASAP.
>
> MAIN MESSAGE: Sign Sen. Chafee's Resolution -- it
> recognizes the serious problem posed by climate change and
> gives the Clinton Administration flexibility in negotiating
> an effective climate protocol.
>
> DEADLINE: Today! (or as soon as possible)
>
> CONTACT INFORMATION: You can reach your Senators through
> the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. You can also
> find their phone and fax numbers, addresses and email on
> the Internet's congressional homepage:http://www.senate.gov
>
> BACKGROUND: Two Resolutions regarding the climate
> negotiations aimed at securing a greenhouse gas emissions
> reductions protocol are currently circulating in the US
> Senate. We must counteract the Resolution sponsored by
> Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) because, if passed, it will
> impede the Clinton Administration's ability to negotiate a
> strong climate change treaty. It resolves that the United
> States should not sign on to any protocol or treaty at the
> negotiations in Kyoto, Japan, or elsewhere, which does not
> include specific, legally binding commitments from
> developing countries. This aspect of the Resolution
> threatens to derail the negotiations themselves, and here's
> why:
>
> * The countries that signed the UN Framework Convention on
> Climate Change explicitly agreed in the treaty to the
> principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."
> This tenet acknowledges that, while the global nature of
> climate changes requires all nations to participate in
> efforts to mitigate global warming, developed countries --
> like the U.S., Japan and the European Union -- must take a
> leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for
> historical, equity, and economic reasons.
>
> * The Byrd Resolution insisting on new commitments for
> developing countries would require the Clinton
> Administration to renege on the terms of the Berlin Mandate
> or quit the negotiations. The Berlin Mandate, agreed to at
> the 1995 2nd Conference of the Parties to the climate
> treaty, resolved that the current round of negotiations
> should produce new emissions reductions commitments for
> **industrialized** countries in the post-2000 era. New
> commitments for developing countries are therefore beyond
> the mandate of the current talks. Without U.S.
> participation, the climate negotiations are pointless.
>
> * Sen. Byrd's Resolution grossly exaggerates the negative
> economic impacts resulting from emissions reduction policy
> options. Over 2500 economists have publicly stated that
> "... there are policy options that would slow climate
> change without harming American living standards, and these
> measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the
> longer run."
>
> The more constructive Resolution, sponsored by Sens. Chafee
> (R-RI), Lieberman (D-CT) and Kerry (D-MA), treats the
> international efforts to mitigate climate change as an
> ongoing process. Its preamble recognizes that climate
> change is a serious problem and that the industrialized
> nations of the world are the chief emitters of greenhouse
> gases. The Resolution itself states that the current round
> of negotiations should be aimed at securing legally binding
> emissions reductions commitments for developed countries,
> like the US, that would "represent a significant step"
> towards mitigating climate change. Once these are ratified
> and being implemented, a subsequent round of talks should
> produce commitments for developing countries -- such as
> China and India -- that would become effective within 10
> years of industrialized countries emissions limitations
> commencement. TO COUNTER THE BYRD RESOLUTION, URGE YOUR
> SENATORS TO SIGN ONTO THE CHAFEE RESOLUTION.
>
> URGENCY: In an unusual move, Sen. Byrd is talking
> personally with his colleagues to generate support for his
> Resolution and hopes to bring it to a vote in the Senate as
> early as this week. YOUR SENATORS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU
> TODAY.
>
> *** SUPPORTING FACTS ***
>
> * A vast discrepancy exists in per capita emissions and
> capacity to pay for emissions reductions between wealthy
> countries like the US and developing countries like India.
>
> * Atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases over the last 100
> years has been almost entirely due to the industrial
> activity of the US and other developed countries.
>
> * For at least the next several decades, wealthy countries
> emissions will continue to exceed those of the developing
> nations.
>
> * Once industrialized countries move decisively to reduce
> their emissions of heat-trapping gases, the developing
> world will accept its responsibility to limit emissions
> early in the 21st century.
>
> * The Chafee Resolution is good for the economy, our
> health, and the environment.
>
> If you send a fax or email message, please send a copy to
> us. If you receive a response from your Senators, please
> let us know what he/she/they said. Send to:
> dcintern@ucsusa.org or UCS, 1616 P Street NW Suite 310,
> Washington, DC 20036-1495 (attn. Eric Wesselman)
>
>