Download Locations

• Open CRS (User submitted)

Summary

U.S. policy toward global climate change evolved from a ?study only? to a more ?study and action? orientation in 1992 with ratification of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention committed developed countries to aim at returning their greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. The U.S. decision to ratify the UNFCCC reflected both the nonbinding nature of the accord and analyses that suggested that the United States could achieve the necessary reduction at little or no cost. Under the UNFCCC, developed countries were to adopt national plans and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States submitted such plans in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) has been the principal U.S. statutory response to the UNFCCC. Primarily an energy policy response to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait and the U.S.-led reaction, EPACT?s energy conservation, renewable energy, and other titles were also seen as having a beneficial effect on global climate change concerns. In addition, the George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations encouraged voluntary reductions by industry through administrative initiatives, such as EPA?s various ?green? programs. This largely voluntary approach to complying with UNFCCC allowed the two Administrations to implement a climate change policy without having to ask Congress for new authorities. However, the subsequent inability of nations, including the United States, to achieve reduction goals under the UNFCCC led to negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, which established mandatory limits on emissions for developed countries. While the United States signed the Protocol, the Clinton Administration did not submit it to the Senate, which earlier had specified (S.Res. 98) that any such agreement had to include reductions by developing countries and must ?result in no serious harm to the economy of the United States.? In 2001, the George W. Bush Administration announced that it was abandoning the Kyoto treaty process because of concerns about cost, competitiveness, and the comprehensiveness of the treaty with respect to third world countries, and that it would focus on voluntary programs to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic activity. Also, it launched a six-nation Asia-Pacific Partnership to coordinate voluntary actions to address greenhouse gas emissions and in 2007 and 2008 convened a meeting of the major economies to discuss approaches to climate change. Momentum for action may be accelerating: the Senate in 2005 passed a Sense of the Senate resolution that Congress should proceed with mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases. President Obama, in his campaign, pledged to ?implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.? Since inauguration, his personnel selections and his directive that EPA reconsider its decision to disallow a California waiver so it could regulate carbon dioxide emissions from autos suggest that he intends to carry through on greenhouse gas emission controls. Key committees and Members of the 111th Congress have also been preparing to move on climate change initiatives. But concerns about cost, competitiveness and comprehensiveness continue to ensure debate. If one believes that the costs of greenhouse gas reductions are modest, action to reduce emissions poses little risk. However, if one perceives substantial costs from reducing carbon emissions, the uncertainty about any benefits raises serious questions as to the prudence of such action. This clash of perspectives is likely to ensure that, along with scientific uncertainty and current economic conditions, cost, competitiveness and comprehensiveness remain pivotal issues.

Related Legislation:
• S.R.98
• S.80

XML