Press Briefing

Mr. David B. Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) and Ambassador Mark G. Hambley, U.S. Special Negotiator on Climate Change and David Gardiner, Executive Director of the White House Climate Change Task Force

DAVID SANDALOW: Thank you. We are delighted to be here this evening. Three years ago in Kyoto, we, the United States, joined with more than 160 nations in forging an agreement to tackle the challenge of climate change. Here in The Hague we meet with the eyes of the world upon us to take the next major step forward. I want to state clearly, the United States is committed to making real progress here and now, and to shaping a treaty that can be ratified. Let me briefly mention several items the United States will be working to achieve over the next two weeks. These include strong market-base rules for the flexible mechanism; a reliable accounting system; binding legal consequences for the failure to meet targets; rules that recognize the roles of forests and farmlands in fighting climate change; a prompt start to the Clean Development Mechanism with rules to ensure its workable operation and environmental integrity; and, help to ensure that developing countries have the technology and capacity they need to combat climate change and adapt to its impacts.

As we did last year at the Fifth Conference of Parties in Bonn, we will urge a new process among developed and developing countries, to explore ways in which all countries can promote strong economic growth and fight poverty while meeting the challenge of climate change. Industrialized countries must take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But other countries must also contribute in ways that promote their sustainable development. As Secretary General Annan eloquently stated today, "Measures to reduce global warming in industrialized countries will be in vain if meanwhile, developing countries are following the same wasteful and noxious pattern of industrialization." I am encouraged by President Pronk's leadership to date, and dedication to moving the ball forward at COP-6. The task ahead is difficult and we should not underestimate the amount and complexity of the work that lies ahead in the next two weeks. We must work hard with open minds to resolve differences and achieve our common goals. Thank you very much.

DAVID GARDINER: I just wanted to make three short points particularly focused on what the United States is doing at home with respect to the challenge of climate change. First, I want to say that the United States is fully committed to meeting the challenge of climate change through strong domestic actions. We are taking those actions today. Most recently, just on Saturday, the President called for the creation of a program to limit greenhouses gases from our electric utility sector, which is responsible for more than one third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, there are many segments of American society, which are now participating in the efforts to address climate change, in particular, a growing number of members of the U.S. business community. Just to take one example, Ford and General Motors recently committed to improve the fuel economy of their fleet of sport utility vehicles by 15 - 25% by the year 2005. All of our domestic manufacturers have unveiled high-bred-concept cars capable of traveling between 70-90 miles per gallon. Honda and Toyota are already selling highbred automobiles with fuel economy ratings up to 70 miles per gallon.

It is not possible to list all of the actions that are being taken, but we believe that these actions are leading to real results that in particular challenge the historic link between economic growth and emissions growth... as very robust economic growth has been accompanied by a slow-down in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Over the course of the 1990's, the U.S. gross domestic product grew almost three times faster than emissions of carbon dioxide. And during the past two years for which we have measurements, 1998-1999, the economy grew more than 8% overall while greenhouse gas emissions grew less than 1%. So we believe that we are beginning to take the sorts of actions domestically that can turn the tide in the efforts with respect to climate change. Thank you.

AMB. HAMBLEY: Let me just make a very short comment about the current negotiations. I think all of you who have probably covered these meetings in the past know the importance of atmospherics. If you have a good atmosphere you make progress. If you don't have a good atmosphere, then the contrary happens. Talking to many delegations from around the world about this meeting, I think atmosphere is composed of two different elements. The first is the element of optimism��I think the great majority of individuals here are optimistic that the time has come, we can indeed, if we put our minds to it, resolve the outstanding issues. At the same time there is also the element of realism. Everyone realizes that the work ahead of us is indeed extraordinarily difficult. The texts which are out there are heavily bracketed, some of them are very long, however we have instructions from President Pronk to undertake a very strong effort to remove brackets during this week and to come up with clear-cut options which then can be presented to ministers next week. This is an engagement which the United States will certainly very strongly support and we look forward to working with the mechanisms, sinks, compliance, the developing country issues of technology transfer, capacity building, 4.8, 4.9, and 3.14, and trying to develop an overall solution by the end of the two week period which we can be proud of. So I would just like to stop there with one last comment, President Pronk indicated tonight that quoting former President Szyszko who's favorite phrase was, "Time is our boss." And President Pronk indicated that, "Time is our boss, but Time is scarce."

QUESTION, LE FIGARO: Vice President Gore has made a clear statement about the use of nuclear energy in climate change. I'd like to know your own position, and my precise question is: Should nuclear energy be part of the Clean Development Mechanism?

SANDALOW: We are open to discussion on this issue. We have long said that nuclear power presents a number of challenges. Those include safety, waste disposal, non-proliferation, costs and public acceptance. This is a large complex negotiation in which the concerns of all parties have to be addressed. It is important, in our view, for all parties to demonstrate flexibility in these negotiations so we can reach an agreement.

ROBIN POMEROY, REUTERS: The EU position seems to be that everyone should take half of their targets by domestic measures and the delegation in here was just telling us how that is a question of equity and the question of political burden. Is the U.S. trying to dodge its political burden by trying not to take any domestic measures and do you think there should be a cap on the flexible mechanisms?

SANDALOW: No. Let me start by saying that the U.S. is strongly committed to taking domestic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. David Gardiner has already spoken to some of the programs underway. President Clinton, just Saturday, called for a new program to limit emissions from power plants in our country which represent about a third of total emissions. There is growing bi-partisan support for that approach. So the United States is strongly and deeply committed to taking domestic action to reduce emissions at home. At the same time we reject quantitative restrictions and artificial limits on the use of flexibility mechanisms. These are an important element of the architecture agreed to at Kyoto and furthermore, they will both promote innovation in the fight against climate change and reduce costs. A lot of problems must be addressed in this world, many of them require financial resources. We don't have the luxury of wasting dollars, euros, or yen in the fight against climate change.

KATHY ADAMS, USA RADIO: There were two provisions in the Senate bi-partisan unanimous resolution. One was indeed dealing with the economic issues, which you are addressing. The other was that all nations would be bound equally. Is that going to be addressed and how?

SANDALOW: As I said in my opening statement, the United States is committed to pursuing the participation of developing countries in this process. We believe that it is an important element of any long-term solution to this problem. I would add that just over the course of the past couple of years there has been increasing enthusiasm by many developing countries for the Clean Development Mechanism. I would add that some developing countries have indicated in statements that they are taking aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gasses at home. There is no question that without developing country action to reduce emissions, we cannot solve the underlying environmental problem. That's part of our approach as we go forward.

QUESTION/FINISH ENERGY NEWS: Could you just specify the answer to the first question of the French colleague. I am not quite sure how I should understand the answer. Could I just get a single 'yes' or 'no?' Should the nuclear energy be included in the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) or not?

SANDALOW: Let me be clear. We are open to discussing this issue as we go forward. We have long had concerns about nuclear energy. Those concerns relate to safety, waste disposal, non-proliferation, costs and public acceptance. In order for us to succeed in these negotiations, all parties are going to have to show flexibility.

QUESTION/GERMAN NEWS AGENCY, EPD: In the statement you gave today at the conference, you skipped a sentence according to the written statement we got in the press room. It was the exactly the sentence on domestic actions. Could you give a reason? Why didn't you say the sentence?

SANDALOW: I was not aware that I had. There was no meaning to be read into any difference between the oral statement and the written statement whatsoever. I think I made some edits at the chair to make sure that I did not take up too much time from the President's schedule, but I stand by the written statement as delivered.

QUESTION/INSIDE EPA: I will try the first question for one more time here. Does the U.S. consider nuclear power to be clean and renewable?

SANDALOW: Let me be clear. As I said, we are absolutely open to discussion on this issue. That has been answered.

JOHN DILLON/EARTH TIMES: You said Clinton has called for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants. How much of those reductions and what effect does that call have? Will it result in anything happening? Isn't that a choice done by the utilities themselves?

GARDINER: The President specifically called for the adoption of a program that would, among other things, limit the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the electric utility sector. He suggested that other pollutants also be addressed as well in an integrated strategy for the electric utility sector. Clearly this is a program that would need to be adopted in the future. We are hopeful that the Congress would heed this call for action. As David Sandalow noted, this type of an approach is gaining acceptance among both political parties in the United States and we think it has reasonable prospects for success.

Thank you very much.