Text 4697, 931 rader
Skriven 2007-05-31 23:30:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070531h) for Thu, 2007 May 31
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release May 31, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/05/20070531-17.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


12:03 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Welcome. As you heard just a few minutes ago, the President gave
extensive remarks on international development and the international
development agenda leading up to the G8. Among other things, he described
his ideas that will be presented to the G8 ministers about the environment,
and I figured the best person to answer any questions and all questions
about it is Jim Connaughton, who is the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and the President's top environmental advisor,
somebody who has been deeply involved in the crafting of this policy.

So without further ado, I will turn it over to Jim on this topic, and then
we'll be happy to tackle all others afterward.

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Thanks, Tony, and good afternoon, everybody. Today,
in the context of the President's speech on development, he's announced our
going forward strategy on the issue of energy security and climate change.
I think it's important to note that this was in the context of the
development agenda. The President emphasized some very important issues on
education, on health, on good rule of law. Well, energy is also important
to development, and he underscored the theme that in order to help nations
grow and prosper, they need access to more energy. But energy carries
environmental consequences, and so -- and we realized that, and so the
issue is, how do we move forward with an increased use of energy, but to do
so in an environmentally responsible way.

Part of that issue is the challenge of global climate change. Our
understanding of the science has strengthened, and our understanding of the
technology opportunities for solving the problem has also carried us
forward with meaningful solutions.

So the President laid out a three-part agenda that he will be taking into
discussions at the G8 next week, and more broadly independent of the G8,
and the three parts are as follows. First, the United States is going to
commit to help lead the way on the development of a new framework on
climate change for the time after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. We
are going to bring to the United States the countries that represent the
largest energy use and the largest emissions of greenhouse gases. In
numbers, about 10 to 15 countries are responsible for more than 80 percent
of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. We hope to find consensus on
the statement of a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases. That has
not been done before collectively in the climate change process.

In addition to trying to find consensus, including with countries like
India and China, on a long-term vision for where we want to be on
greenhouse gases, we're going to work to develop, each country will develop
its own national strategies on a midterm basis in the next 10 to 20 years
on where they want to take their efforts to improve energy security, reduce
air pollution, and also reduce greenhouse gases.

We will then bring together industry sectors. So imagine you have
transportation, you have power generation, you have fuels, buildings. There
are industrial leaders and NGOs who are very active in each of these
sectors. What we want to do is get the representatives from those sectors
in each country to see if they can come up with a common work program to
share best practices, but also, we would anticipate they would set targets,
too. This is an approach we used more recently in something called the
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate that already
involves China and India, as well as South Korea, Japan and Australia.

And then the final element of part one is that we will have a stronger
program of measuring performance and making that very transparent so we can
compare apples to apples on how we're doing.

The second part of the agenda is a broad agenda that involves all of the
participants in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change -- that is 189
countries -- and it's to see if we can develop a common agenda around four
main areas of emphasis. One is sustainable land use -- better forestry
practices, better agricultural practices, and better thinking through our
cities. We want to stop illegal logging -- that's a big problem, and we
want to see if we can -- what we can do about halting deforestation.

Second is efficiency. All nations benefit from efficiency. If we're using
energy more wisely, that's good for everybody. The third piece is
technology sharing: How can we do more to bring technologies in the
developed world and get them into the developing world?

The third component will then be an accelerated program on technology and
advancement. The United States has already committed to significantly
increase its investment in advanced clean energy technologies -- most
notably, in the State of the Union announcement this year the President
indicated how much more we were going to put into advanced biofuels, as
well as other clean coal technologies and other technologies. We're going
to call on other leaders to see if they can make similar commitments and
get our research programs working together.

Another component will be to see if we can bring a greater priority in our
international development banks, who have billions of dollars to lend out
at a low-cost basis to see if we can bring a greater priority to clean
energy investments by the multilateral development banks.

And then we're proposing two things -- one that's within reach. We have had
several years of discussion on the elimination of tariff barriers and
non-tariff barriers to the trade in clean energy technologies. This
discussion has been going on for several years in the context of Doha. We
are going to -- we want to drive to agreement on a schedule of eliminating
these tariffs in the Doha round, which seems quite promising, and in any
event, to do so by the end of next year. The sooner we can remove these
tariffs, the sooner we can get a lot of commonly used technologies in
America moving into the global marketplace.

And then finally, the U.S. government taxpayer dollars pay for a lot of
research and development of new technologies. We often make that technology
available to U.S. manufacturers at very low cost. We are proposing to
extend that policy globally, that if the taxpayers producing new clean
energy systems will make that available globally, as long as other
countries make the same commitment.

So these are the elements of the plan. We hope to conclude this by the end
of next year, so within 18 months to have this new framework established.
And the President will be bringing these ideas to the G8. Now, these ideas
are going to build on the solid foundation that we now have in America of a
whole system of new regulations that will help us deal with energy security
and climate change, a system of more than $10 billion in tax incentives and
innumerable technology advancement partnerships, as well as what you heard,
again, this year in the State of the Union, our desire to replace gasoline
use by 20 percent in the next 10 years, which should also help us halt the
growth of greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars.

So these are the kinds of things we're going to be bringing to the table.
This is very consistent and closely in line with the thinking of Prime
Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel, who have laid the foundation for some
of this work in Europe. And we also know that there's interest in many of
these countries in light of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, where we've
gotten the conversation started already. So we're off to a moving start;
we're not starting from square one on this.

So, happy to answer your questions.

Q Will the new framework consist of binding commitments, or voluntary
commitments?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: It will move similar to the current system, where --
in this instance, you have a long-term aspirational goal that sends a clear
signal that we want significant reductions in greenhouse gases. And then
what we're calling on is that each country will develop their national
strategies for the first phase of trying to meet that goal.

In those national strategies, I'll give the American example. We now have
mandatory fuel economy standards, and those are binding. We have mandatory
renewable power standards at the state level; those are binding. The
President has called on new fuel standards and new auto-efficiency
standards. Europe is doing the same thing. They've got sort of a European
direction, but each of the European member states sets their own binding
national programs.

But also we anticipate it will include technology commitments by sectors
that don't require regulation. And those are just good, old-fashion market
agreements. And then we think there will be incentives involved, as well.

Q Now I'm confused. Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas
emission reductions and that everybody will be making binding commitments
to each other about greenhouse gas reductions -- or, at the end of the day,
are those just voluntary commitments?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: The commitment at the international level will be to
a long-term aspirational goal --

Q Voluntary.

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, I want to be careful about the word
"voluntary," because we do these kinds of goals all the time, international
agreements. It's the implementing mechanisms that become binding. And in
this instance we are expecting that each nation will make a commitment to a
national program strategy to achieve this.

I'll give you the example. We do the same thing in fisheries. We set a goal
for a fishery, but that has to be carried out through national legislation.
That's where it gets its binding characteristics. There's a lot of
misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. The issue is you
agree on goals in the international process; you implement them through
national strategies that include binding measures.

Q But you couldn't really do that internationally, anyway. I mean, you
couldn't make it binding through international --

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: There are some international agreements that you
bring in a structure that can be enforced, sort of mutually enforced. That
has not been utilized in the context of climate change in the past. And
it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic
issues. If you're dealing with --

Q Why not do that with climate change?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Because where the rubber meets the road on climate
change is the effectiveness of the national strategies and the commitment
of countries to actually carry them out.

I'll give you an example. China has made a national commitment to improve
the energy efficiency of their economy by 20 percent by 2010. That's a very
consequential commitment. They're going to achieve that through a wide
array of programs. Some of them are quite dramatically regulatory. That's
exactly what we'd like to see China do, but they retain sovereignty -- they
get to decide on the right mix, rather than us telling them what the mix
should be.

Q Chancellor Merkel has made clear that she wants to use next week's G8
summit to forge a consensus on climate control. Now the President wants to
call a summit, but later, on the same issue. Doesn't this effectively
undercut her effort and put the process off further to the future?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Actually, it's the inverse of that. We've been having
a lengthy discussion -- you'll see a text on climate change and energy
security that will be longer than 20 pages, and what we're trying to do is
reach closure on the broad elements of that. We've had some disagreement
over a few issues, but this will actually bring closure on the core of what
we can agree on, and that's what Chancellor Merkel is trying to achieve, a
situation where the G8 has a sense of how they want to develop a framework,
but we are doing it in a way that will also be attractive to large emerging
economies, like China and India and Brazil. That's our real challenge --
the G8 is already moving in a common direction; how do we bring these other
countries on board.

Q I'd like to go back to the example you just cited of China, for example.
If they were to set their own goals, which would be binding within their
own system, if they do not hit it, what's left for others to do about that?
What's the price?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, what we do is similar to what we're doing now,
is we put in a system of measuring progress. We work with the Chinese --
one is to understand why they didn't hit their mark. There are some goals
that you try your best and the technology doesn't come along, there are
other goals you try your best and technology comes along a heck of a lot
faster than you thought, in which case you can ramp down your goals. We do
the same thing, for example, in the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting
substances -- we break it out into air conditioning, we break it out into
cleaning electronics, aviation. And each country has set its own strategy
for how to do that. Then we take it back to the international process and
make sure we're making the progress we want to make. This is a marathon,
it's not a sprint, and so there's lots of stages to getting to this
long-term objective. So we shouldn't lose sight of the fact we want a
constructive outcome, where each country is really bringing home to their
own domestic circumstances a message of progress that will take hold.

Q The President and you have both again emphasized the development of
biofuels, but at the same time, the oil companies say that that focus has
them questioning the feasibility of improving refineries and building new
ones, thus the higher prices. So what's the balance, what's the answer?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: I think your question is answering itself. We need to
find a balance, but the President is very adamant that we've got to make
faster progress on improving our energy security through the application of
new technology. We've done a lot of internal work in the administration to
see just how far we can push the envelope on bringing the second generation
of biofuels online.

Now the way that happens, though, is you then get Europe to pursue
similarly ambitious goals, you get the developing world to pursue similarly
ambitious goals, then all of a sudden the market jumps in and you get a lot
more investment, like we're already seeing on corn ethanol. And we expect
with this much more ambitious mandate the President set you're going to see
a huge push by the private sector of these second generation fuels. When
you have the second generation fuels, you then get the second generation
vehicles to use those fuels.

So it's part leadership and setting a very aggressive goal, but then it's
also being sure that you're responsive to the pace of technology. We
believe we will be successful. If we're not, we're going to have to take
stock on our way to meeting the goal to see if it requires some adjustment.

Q So in the short-term, then, should the oil industry then just not do
anything about its aging refineries; let the status quo on that and let the
prices just keep going up?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: The President has emphasized we actually need more of
everything. We need more renewable fuel, we need more domestic supplies of
oil and gas for energy security, we need a strategic petroleum reserve that
gives us the security against a major supply disruption, and we need more
efficient vehicles, and we need to alleviate traffic congestion that
massively wastes fuel. We need to work on every aspect. There's no silver
bullet to the energy security equation, just like there's no silver bullet
to the climate change equation. We need it all. And those who suggest
there's one approach versus another, they're not facing reality.

Q And no silver bullet to the prices, right?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: No silver bullet to prices. But markets work, and if
you're sending clear signals, the markets will respond. And you're already
seeing a significant investment and more joint ventures between oil
companies and farmers, between livestock producers and technology
providers. So we're already seeing, with these high gasoline prices we're
experiencing, a lot more interest in the next generation. If global
leadership backs that up, it gives the confidence to the markets to
respond.

Q You, specifically, in the past couple of days rejected Europe's proposal
to set specific limits -- a degree increase beyond which we would not go --
presumably because you felt the world could not meet this without economic
penalties that were unacceptable. Do you believe that Europe can meet the
goals it has set? Do you believe it has achieved the reductions it claims
over the past -- since the passage of Kyoto?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, first of all, we have actually disagreed with
one aspect of one piece of this 22-page agreement, and that's the European
-- the recently established European goal to commit to a temperature
outcome. We don't think that's a very practical approach -- leaving aside
other issues with trying to state your goal on temperature. You can't
manage the temperature. You can manage to -- emissions. And so that's what
the President is talking about. Let's figure out what quantity of emissions
we want to try to reduce by by a certain date.

And there's lots of different ideas on that, by the way. Europe doesn't
have the lock on this. Europe has one goal they think it should be; Japan
has stated a slightly different one; Canada has stated it still differently
again. So we want to bring all these -- this ambition to one conversation.

On the second part, how are we doing? The President did highlight in his
speech today that we got a flash estimate for '06 where the United States
actually had a net reduction of greenhouses gases of 1.3 percent during a
period when we had economic growth of 3.3 percent. That is a remarkable
outcome. Now that's as a result of reasons intentional and unintentional.
The unintentional are, we had cooler summers and warmer winters. The
intentional are, we have a lot more clean power coming on line, and with
the huge new investment in new manufacturing and more productive
manufacturing in America, we're getting more efficient production. So we're
getting more output with the same or slightly increasing amount of energy.
So there's always going to be a mix.

Europe -- some countries in Europe, like Germany and the U.K., have made
very significant strides in reducing their emissions. But if you look at
the period since we took office, so since January 2001 -- we have
international data through the end of 2004 -- the U.S. saw economic growth
of about 10 percent while our emissions went up only about 1.6 percent. In
Europe, they had economic growth of 8 percent while their emissions went up
5 percent, not down. It's always going to go up and down, and so you can't
pick any one moment in time to gauge your progress. As I said, this is a
marathon, it's not a sprint. We want to see what the overall trend lines
look like.

John.

Q Will this administration consider mandatory emission caps? And why would
Europe and the other nations want to take part in these talks if they're
already discussing long-term global emission talks that do include
mandatory caps?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, the President has supported a portfolio of
policies that includes mandates; it includes very significant tax
incentives and includes these technology development partnerships that I
discussed. So we think we should have a mix.

We've been very concerned about cap and trade proposals, which is what
you're talking about, largely on the grounds that they have tended in the
context of climate change not to work very well. What you want is a policy
that gets investment in new technology, that produces a real reduction.
What we're seeing, though, is if you have an unreasonable cap on your
emissions that's impossible to comply with as a matter of technology, you
end up going overseas to try to purchase reductions someplace else.

Well, if your partner overseas doesn't have a cap, his incentive is to make
more of what you're trying to buy, rather than make less of it. And so
we're seeing a dramatic increase in emissions overseas. So it does you no
good to cap your emissions here if it's going to lead to an increase in
emissions someplace else. We just have to be thoughtful about this. This is
not a dogmatic issue, it's a what's the practical policy that gets you the
technology investment you think is going to provide a lasting solution.

Q How are you going to bring India and China on board on this?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, we're going to build on the foundation of the
Asia-Pacific Partnership. We have found that if you approach India and
China on what matters to them, which is energy security, lifting their
people out of poverty, and finding ways to clean up their power sources --
and they have choking air pollution. You can also get them onboard with an
aggressive greenhouse gas management approach.

It is also the case for China and India, if you make the conversation more
practical, they want to know how to get more power out of less fuel. So how
do you make power generation more efficient? That's something they want to
talk to you about. And by the way, when you do that, they'll set targets,
and they'll set targets with real timelines.

If you're having a big esoteric discussion about a broad agenda that you
haven't actually laid out a real plan to achieve, that's where they begin
to get nervous. Why do they get nervous? Because they're afraid it's going
to impose a constraint on their growth, and a constraint on their growth
means fewer people coming out of poverty. So we just have to respect that
they're in a different place than we are, but we want to see if they can
take a stride with us together.

Q Could I follow up on that?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Sure.

Q They have representatives at G8 -- they're not G8 members, but they have
representatives at G8. Have you talked to them? What's been the reaction to
this? Are they ready to sign up?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: We've had discussions at very high levels and the
President, himself, has spoken directly with a number of the world leaders
to whom we'll be proposing this, one on one, either by telephone or in
person. There is a strong interest on finding a common way forward. And I
think that's even different than five years ago. There is a strong interest
on trying to design practical strategies that are based on technology. And
so that's good.

And so as long as we are focusing the conversation on global trade and
clean technologies, that's a really solid ground to build on. They also are
beginning to be more comfortable domestically in their own countries in
setting goals and educating their population on those goals. So we want to
draw that forward.

So I'm looking forward to a very constructive G8 outcome. But what's more
important than that is the conversation that occurs where everyone is on
equal ground. The G8 is the G8. They've invited five countries; they're not
members of the G8. So that's what the President wants to do -- he wants to
create neutral ground where China and India are on the same ground the
United States and Europe are on, to have this discussion at a very high
level.

Q What do you say to those who point to the G8 and say, look, there was a
plan on the table, you could have had an agreement there, and what you're
doing today effectively kicks the can down the road until the end of the
President's time in office?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Actually, it's the opposite of that. We're very close
to an agreement in the G8, rather than not an agreement. And the other
thing is, if you wanted to kick the can down the road, you would actually
run the basic U.N. process, where they meet at the end of this year, they
meet at the end of next year, they meet once a year for the next five
years.

What we're doing instead is saying, no, let's speed up the clock, and in
the 18 months, see if we can get agreement on the basic elements of this
framework. If you do that, then the U.N. process actually has something to
chew on. If you stick with the current approach, what happens is everybody
goes back to their corners. So everyone is kind of in a safe place under
the U.N. process. Those who are in the Kyoto Protocol like where they are,
those of us like Australia and the United States that aren't in it, we're
happy where we are, and we end up just basically restating our classic
lines.

We're trying to create a new conversation, and the product of that
conversation will be brought into the U.N. process with several years to go
before Kyoto expires.

Q Would you expect the G8 -- or hope the G8 will endorse this proposal as
it stands, that you're making today?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, we're bringing these ideas to the G8. So what
we would be hopeful is, in large measure, the proposal will work its way
into the G8 agreement. And why are we hopeful? Because this is a construct
that the President has been talking about for years, with Tony Blair, in
particular, and that we've introduced now that Chancellor Merkel is leading
the G8, and ongoing discussions with Prime Minister Abe in Japan and Prime
Minister Harper in Canada. So we're not starting from scratch here. This is
the -- this isn't something out of the blue, this is the culmination -- at
least even in my recent involvement -- of five intensive months of trying
to figure out what matters to everybody and see if you can give it a shape
that will bring some consensus. What the President is trying to do here is
find that consensus that will allow for forward progress.

Q Why did it take six years since the President pulled out of Kyoto to come
up with an alternative international framework?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, actually, in 2002, the President set a 10-year
national strategy that included reducing greenhouse gas intensity of our
economy by 18 percent, and added a whole series, dozens of programs
underneath of that, some of which I've described already.

At the same time the Kyoto countries were busy designing their national
strategies to meet Kyoto. That's taken us a few years to get experience
with what's working, to get experience with what's not working. So that's
number one.

Number two, we now have five years of experience of a whole series of new
international technology partnerships -- fusion for the long-term; civilian
nuclear -- we have a big group around nuclear; we have a group that's
working on how to produce power from coal with no emissions. That's got
almost 20 countries involved in it. So we created these international
technology partnerships. So when you ask why, the last five years was about
building out our base of experience, as well as the funding for a lot of
these efforts.

It is also the case that the science progress -- the scientific work has
gone forward. As the President indicated in his speech, we understand a lot
more about the science. We have a heightened concern about the observed and
projected impacts of future climate change, and so that drives us to the
next step, as well.

The other piece is, we're five years away from Kyoto, so we want to get the
groundwork laid so that we've got a good plan in place for when Kyoto
expires. And that just takes some planning. So all of that is the "why
now."

In the back.

Q Jim, you seem to suggest that those who are insisting on the cap and
trade are dogmatic in their approach. Is that your guys' opinion on this?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: No, because in some countries a cap and trade, under
certain circumstances, can be an effective instrument. It is proven in the
context of climate change to be much more subject to manipulation than
anyone thought, and it's not driving the technology advancement that we
would want to see. Now, some countries are content to use a cap and trade
just to drive additional efficiency investments. From the American
perspective, that's a problem because efficiency is good in the near-term,
but China is going to use four times more coal than we will by 2020. And so
if we don't figure out how to get the technology that's very expensive on
coal to a point where it's low emissions, you can do all the efficiency you
want and you're not going to affect long-term temperature trends.

A cap and trade does not deliver that investment. Why? Because that's
expensive. The same is true of alternative fuels -- they're expensive,
they're not cheap. And the cap and trade programs go looking for cheap
reductions. So you have to find that balance and it's going to differ from
country to country.

Q You have talked about the medium term as 10 to 20 years. So what, in your
vision, is a long-term -- in other words, when will we see the world
actually cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to simply slowing the
growth?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, I think in the next 50 years you'll see a
combination of both. For example, industrial greenhouse gas emissions in
America have been flat or below their 1990 levels since 1990, even though
our manufacturing output is way up. In America, we've had an absolute
reduction in methane emissions, a significant reduction in methane
emissions. Some European countries have already been able to achieve a net
reduction of emissions. But the demographics in many of those countries,
they don't have growing populations, they have a different fuel supply.

So you have to look at each country's situation individually. China and
India, it's very clear in the near to midterm, that their ambition is to
slow the growth significantly. But it is conceivable over a midterm that a
number of countries can make real strides in reducing their emissions.

This is the hard conversation we have to have: What does that look like?
How do we set a reasonably ambitious long-term objective for a net
reduction? But then understand that some countries are going to be starting
with intensity; others are going to be driving toward net emission
reductions.

Q But your long-term goal is net worldwide reductions 50 years from now?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: A number of the proposals from countries have focused
on 2050 as the date. I've also heard ideas for staging at 2050, 2075. We
don't want to prejudge that conversation, because it's better to get a lot
of thinking.

I'll give you a different one. I've heard some saying, well, shouldn't we
have a long-term technology objective? So one country has suggested,
shouldn't we say we want coal to have this level of low emissions by this
date? That's also a plausible approach.

So the point of the next 18 months is to put all those on the table and see
if we can bring them together into a common vision.

Q Can I follow up again. So if other countries are putting their goals on
the table, what is the United States' vision of what long-term means? Is it
50 years from now?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: We are in a very active discussion about that
internally, and we're in an active discussion on that with the Hill. And
Congress has a voice in this process, as well, and I've seen a dozen
different visions of what a long-term goal might be in Congress. We want to
take the next 18 months and see if we can find common ground on that.

Q You mentioned 2050, and that the Prime Minister of Japan that set out the
plan that cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by that date. So is this
something that -- you mentioned it was plausible -- that the President
supports?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Again, I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the
next 18 months, because also this is an area of particular sensitivity for
the major emerging economies -- like China, India and Brazil. We want to
take the time to work through the plausibility of this -- is it reasonably
ambitious, and whether it fits within their own vision or their own
national future. That's not something you plop in front of them, and say,
will you agree to this tomorrow? They are big, sovereign countries, just
like we are, and we should respect their bigness and we should respect
their sovereignty.

Q How did the -- proposed by President Bush today fit in with Bali? Is it
meant to supplement, to reinforce Bali or to replace it?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: It will run in parallel with and reinforce Bali.

Q You've mentioned a couple of times the "strengthening science." What,
specifically, do you mean by that? And does the administration now accept
that there really isn't a scientific debate about the human impact on
global warming?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, I want to disagree with the predicate of your
question. In 2001, the President made clear, after commissioning a report
from the National Academy of Sciences, that the earth is warming and humans
are largely -- are a large part of the problem, and he's been consistent
about that since the beginning. That is still misinterpreted broadly, so I
need to start there.

Since 2001, the IPCC, which is this international panel that looks at all
the scientific literature, has a higher level of confidence of the
long-term temperature trend, and they have a higher level of confidence
that there is a significant human contribution to that. So that has
strengthened.

We also have much better data on observed impacts, such as ice melt on land
masses that can lead to sea level rise. That is occurring faster than we
thought in 2001. There's then still a lot of work underway about sort of
long-term projected impacts, but that is also giving us a sense of what
some of those could look like. So this is a step. We've taken a step
forward from 2001. We have more information, and we're acting on that
information.

We still have a lot of science to do. We spend almost $2 billion a year on
science, and none of the scientists would say we're done yet. So there's
still many questions that we're working on, especially regional impacts,
how temperature trends really affect things in Chicago or in South America.
There's a lot of work being done there yet, and the scientists are busy
about it.

Q But is it safe to assume that as the Europeans ratchet down their cap
that more investment, more capital will go into actual reductions there?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: They're in the process of designing the next phase of
their system, and they are now actually -- it's a laboratory confronting
some of the really problematic projects that took place under the first
round of their cap and trade system. And I would note, by the way, their
cap and trade system is limited to power production and large industry.
They don't have mandatory requirements on cars, they don't have mandatory
requirements on their farmers, they don't have mandatory requirements on
people in their buildings.

So in the narrow cap and trade system that they do have, they've seen a lot
of money, a lot of euros go overseas to projects that most would agree are
somewhat questionable. Some of them work. So we'll have some that work,
some that don't work.

Looks like we're getting --

Q Can I follow on Kelly's question for a second? Are you familiar with the
comments that Michael Griffin, NASA's administrator made to NPR, "I'm not
sure that it's fair to say" -- he says global warming exists, but, "I'm not
sure it's fair to say that it's a problem we must wrestle with." Does that
reflect the general feelings of the Bush administration?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: I think the President has made clear his general
feelings for himself and the administration. And it goes all the way back
to 2001. This is a serious issue, it deserves a sensible response, and --
just look at his speech today, but also look at the State of the Union.

Q Are you familiar with those comments?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: I read about them today just as you did.

Q What do you make of it?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: The President is committed to this issue, he's
committed to a sensible response, and he's committed to doing it in a way
that brings advanced energies globally to lift people out of poverty. We
get lots of benefits in terms of climate, lots of benefits in terms of
health, lots of benefits in terms of economic prosperity. So we're
dedicated to action. And in fact, I think the conversation has really moved
beyond a statement of the problem, and we're really, really focused now,
finally, on the broad effort on solutions. And so that's where we'll take
things.

Q I have one more --

Q May I follow --

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: John.

Q If the United States will not accept mandatory emissions cuts without
developing nations like China and India signing on, what new specifics are
the United States -- is the United States prepared to offer to try to make
that happen?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Again, the premise of your question is off. The
President, in his State of the Union address -- just to give one example --
has called for a mandatory program to replace 20 percent of our gasoline
usage with alternative fuels and through vehicle fuel efficiency. So we do
believe that mandatory approaches can work if you design them well to
achieve a particular objective.

Now, by the way, that is stated in terms of alternative fuels, but it's
going to give us a huge greenhouse gas reduction. There's this fixation on
a one-size-fits-all approach. The reality -- and I don't care what country
you're in, whether you're in the United States or Canada or the U.K. or
Japan -- the reality is, every country, when you see what they're actually
doing, is pursuing a portfolio of strategies: mandates, incentives,
technology advancement, industry leadership. We're going to continue to do
that. So thank you all very much.

MR. SNOW: And if you have further questions on this, I'll refer you back to
Jim and you can ask other stuff.

Okay, other questions. Goyal.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, I wanted to ask this in relation. As far
as India-U.S. civil nuclear energy agreement is concerned, U.S. Ambassador
Mulford in Delhi said there are some hurdles. And also a lot of talks have
been going on. And with this agreement India is supposed to have clean
energy, and I agree that everyone should move forward. What I'm asking you
is what's going on, because two congressmen have written a letter to the
Prime Minister of India that two Indians were arrested here in connection
with some sort of supplying some nuclear technology to India. And also,
what I'm asking you is, is this something -- this has to do with this
agreement, or when next week the Prime Minister of India meets with
President Bush at the G8, you think they will come up with this final
agreement?

MR. SNOW: I can't give you a sense on the final timing, but the government
is clearly committed to it. We understand that the civil nuclear agreement
not only is important, but it's also a template for dealing with other
countries. One of the things we think is important for people to recognize
-- and Jim was just talking about this in the context of technological
improvement -- is you've got nuclear power, which is clean, you don't have
greenhouse emissions. It offers an opportunity to give people the prospect
of economic growth without the kind of pollution that has caused
environmental concern around the globe.

So, look, anytime you have an agreement this big and this ambitious, you're
going to run into some technical issues that make progress a little more
halting than you'd like it to be. But we're still committed to its success.

Q Can I follow on the immigration. As far as the immigration reforms -- has
been committed to go through this immigration bill, now or never, like
Washington Post and others are saying. My question on immigration is that
if President is in touch with some of the advocates of immigration, because
--

MR. SNOW: He's in touch with who?

Q Immigration advocates like lawyers -- immigration lawyers are saying that
there are too harsh conditions, including the payment, how they will pay,
these illegal immigrants. And there is a lot of anti-immigrant lobbying in
the media. So how we can overcome this --

MR. SNOW: Well, two things here. Number one, if you take a look at the way
this bill has been put together, you've got Democrats and Republicans have
spent a long time looking at it, and you're talking about people -- among
other conditions, they have to maintain continuous employment. And so we do
not believe that a $1,000 fine at the front is unreasonable. Many people
pay far more than that to get snuck into the United States -- or have in
the past.

And secondly, that a $4,000 fine plus application fees is unreasonable --
keep in mind, applications fees are larger than that anyway, Goyal. As for
the second, you've made sort of a large characterization about people's
views and I'm just not going to get into that. That's too non-specific, and
also, frankly, too incendiary.

One of the things we hope to do in this immigration debate is lower the
temperature and get people to talk about basic principles. You've got to
acknowledge, A, that there's a problem; B, a lot of folks are concerned
especially about the presence of 12 million illegals, so what do you do
about it? And we've articulated principles that we think can really command
a lot of support among Democrats and Republicans and the public at large.

Number one, take care of the border, get it secure. Number two, make sure
that you restore respect for the rule of law, and you do that in a whole
series of ways, including, as I just mentioned, saying to those who came
here illegally, the first thing you've got to do is admit you broke the
law. Even though the 1986 legislation had no penalty for crossing
illegally, you pay a thousand dollar fine up front. And then there are a
whole series of other conversations of how you follow.

Third, citizenship. It's not something where you get a coupon that says,
well, welcome to America, you're a citizen now. But, instead, it's
something that's earned through good behavior and constructive
contributions to American society, and embracing the culture and the
language.

So all those I think are areas around which people can rally. And that also
transforms the nature of the debate into one that's very practical: how do
you get the job done? And so we continue to look forward to working with
folks and we understand that it's an area that arouses a lot of passions.
But on the other hand, once people have a chance to step back and look at
these first principles and look at the overall goals, we feel that we can
create an atmosphere where we're going to get some progress and
constructive action.

Peter.

Q Tony, Judge Walton today decided that he will release the letters that
were written in the Libby case. When --

MR. SNOW: These are the letters -- by background -- on behalf of Scooter
Libby, these are -- yes.

Q On behalf of him and those who weighed in, saying that he shouldn't have
a stiff sentence. When they are released, will we find out that the
President and Vice President wrote letters?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think you'll just have to wait and see. I actually do not
know who wrote letters, but we'll all have an opportunity to see them.

Q You don't know whether the President --

MR. SNOW: No, no, I really don't.

Q How will the sentencing affect the White House's consideration of a
pardon?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you continue to try to get us to discuss what, even
at this late juncture, even though you've got sentencing coming up, is an
ongoing legal concern and I don't have comment and can't.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Syndicated columnist and university
professor Walter Williams has noted that the United States successfully
deterred a nuclear attack for decades during the Cold War by promising a
massive nuclear retaliation for an attack on the United States, as was done
by President Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And my question: Does
President Bush have the same commitment if Iran or any other nation
unleashes a nuclear 9/11 on us?

MR. SNOW: I don't know if you missed it, but we're spending a lot of time
working on preventing Iran from having that capability. It is the subject
of ongoing conversations in front of the United Nations Security Council.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is in the game, as well. So it is
our aspiration to make sure that that does not become a problem we have to
deal with.

Q My question was --

MR. SNOW: I know, but your question is based on a hypothetical, and I'm not
accepting the hypothesis.

Q Okay. In Georgia, the President declared those determined to find fault
with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find
something that they don't like. But Chairman Bilbray, a Republican of
California, said amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens --
immigrants isn't a narrow slice, Mr. President, it's the whole darn pie.
And my question --

MR. SNOW: Well, and again, I think --

Q And my question --

MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry.

Q What is the President's response to this and to Republican -- another
Republican, Congressman Bill Sali, who said, "I can safely say that the
number one issue with my constituents is immigration, which is no small
slice of pie"?

MR. SNOW: Yes, and on the other hand -- let's take a look at two things.
There's no amnesty here. Right now a lot of times "amnesty" is used as
shorthand for saying, we don't like the bill. Let me put it this way, Les.
If you look up the dictionary definition of amnesty, it means total
forgiveness of a crime. What you have here is a crime for which there was
no punishment originally. Now what we're saying is everybody who came
across the border, number one, you pay a thousand dollar fine. Number two,
you are on permanent probation. If you break the law, you're deported. If
you do not maintain a job, you are deported. If you do not learn the
English language, you're deported. If you do not subject yourself to a
criminal background check, you're deported. If you do not have an ID that
allows us to trace who you are, where you are, for whom you work, you are
deported.

In other words it sets up a very strong series of tests, A, for people who
want to remain on American soil. And then if you wish to become a citizen,
you have to start with the $4,000 fine, you have to start with a $1,500
application fee. There's also conversation about paying back taxes.

Now, I defy you to say that that is something that simply says --

Q You define me?

MR. SNOW: No, I defy you -- you're indefinable. (Laughter.) But the fact
is, Les, that's not amnesty. As a matter of fact, what it is, is the most
strenuous and arduous test of people's willingness to step forward, to
demonstrate good behavior, and to demonstrate an embrace of the culture in
the history of the United States of America. These are people who would not
be able to have access to the welfare system. These are people who must
contribute, who must be paying taxes, who must be having a constructive
contribution to the United States of America over an extended period of
time, having paid fines that were not in the law when they came here, and
will be, in fact, forced to do what one would expect to be good guests.

Q What percentage of the illegal aliens do you think are going to go
through all of that?

MR. SNOW: Well, the percentage --

Q If they were illegal to begin with, what percentage do you think are
really going to go in for all of that?

MR. SNOW: All of them are going to have to, Les. That's what the law says.

Q You don't estimate how many will.

MR. SNOW: What you estimate is that you're putting together a system where
they're all going to have to. And furthermore, you create mechanisms where
those who are going to try to harbor them and those who are going to try to
employ them illegally are now subject to fines. The original fine for
somebody who knowingly hired an illegal was $250. Now we are talking about
fines depending on the piece -- the sort of amendment under discussion that
range from as high -- the high level of $25,000 to $75,000 per employee. In
other words, it breaks the company.

So these are serious sanctions, and therefore very serious incentives for
people not to be harboring folks.

Q Thank you.

Q Tony, we heard just now about the efforts on climate change dating back
to '01 in this administration. Why did the topic not rate a State of the
Union message until this year?

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is, whether it rates a State of the Union message,
most of the State of the Union messages have been targeted toward
significant themes, many of them, quite understandably, about the war on
terror. On the other hand, if you take a look at administration policy, it
has been aggressive. And you take a look, as Jim was pointing out, carbon
dioxide intensity or greenhouse emission intensity has gone down. We've got
a better record than the European Union.

Now, the fact is that this has been a very aggressive administration, in
terms of financing the science, in terms of looking at alternatives, and in
terms of taking the lead when it comes to climate change science and
climate change activities, and I invite you all to take a look at the
record in totality, because we continue to hear, well, when is the
President going to admit that climate change plays a