Ambassador April H. Foley

Remarks at the Climate Change and Clean Energy Seminar

Central European University, Budapest
May 2, 2007

Ambassador Foley at the seminar

Climate change and clean energy are extremely timely topics. Two days ago, President Bush, Chancellor Merkel and EU Commission President Barroso met at the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, DC. Excellent progress was made. President Bush is strongly committed to revitalizing the transatlantic partnership. He particularly wants to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the European Union.

On the political and security front, the Summit highlighted our close cooperation to advance peace, human rights, and democracy around the world. Specifically, the Summit addressed: Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Sudan and Cuba.

On economic cooperation, we signed:

• a landmark framework agreement for advancing transatlantic economic integration
• a U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement
• And, significant to today's discussion, a joint statement on U.S.-EU Cooperation on Energy Security and Climate Change.

This afternoon, I would like to talk about two interlinked issues: climate change and clean energy. They are of critical importance to the United States, to Hungary, and for that matter to the entire world.

While we could easily have an interesting discussion on either alone, there is value in considering them together. It is no secret that on the first of these -- climate change -- the United States is frequently misunderstood. This is particularly true here in Europe, where misperceptions about our climate change policy have contributed to negative public views about the United States. This is unfortunate. Once you move beyond the rhetoric, it quickly becomes clear that there are few issues where the U.S. and Europe agree so much, yet understand each other so little. That said, I think last week's summit did a lot to increase understanding.

Let me start with a few, clear, simple statements:

-- The United States -- and the Bush Administration -- care deeply about climate change.

-- We agree that human activity contributes to global warming.

-- We support the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- in which U.S. scientists played a leading role.

-- We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

-- We have made tremendous investments in reducing emissions.

-- We are working multilaterally.

--We are producing results. U.S. efforts stand up favorably against those of anyone in the world.

Just because the United States hasn't joined the Kyoto Protocol does not make any of these statements less true.

There are widely held misperceptions among some in Europe that, when it comes to climate change:

-- The U.S. just doesn't get it,
-- That we are wasteful in our behavior,
-- And that Europeans are simply "greener".

A review of the facts reveals a more intricate story.

First, it is true the United States is the world's largest emitter of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, that statement alone doesn't tell you everything. Yes, the U.S. is the largest emitter, but that is because we are the largest economy in the world. With 5 percent of the world's population we produce 25 percent of global wealth. Our emissions are not out of line with the size of our economy.

According to data from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), during 2000-2004 -- the most recent period for which we have good, comparative data -- U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased 1.3 percent. During those same years, however, the U.S. economy grew by $1.9 trillion. And our population increased by 11.3 million people. The increase in the US population was more than the current population of Hungary. Factoring this in, the "greenhouse gas intensity" of the U.S. -- that is, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP -- actually decreased 7.5 percent during 2000-2004.

To put that information into some kind of perspective, let's compare it to what has been happening in Europe. In that same period -- 2000-2004 -- collective emissions by the EU-25 increased 2.1 percent. That is, higher than the 1.3 percent recorded by the United States. And no, this difference is not because new EU members have lower environmental standards than Western Europe.

Actually, the new members have the opposite effect. The new EU nations -- like Hungary -- are moving away from older polluting technologies. And their economies are not as highly developed as Western Europe. They are part of the good news story. If the EU members admitted since 2004 are excluded, the old EU-15 would have poorer results. They recorded a 2.4 percent increase in emissions during this same period.

As I said before, emissions numbers cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They must be seen in the context of economic activity. Taking European GDP growth into consideration, the EU-25's greenhouse gas intensity -- again, that's the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP -- decreased by 4.5 percent during 2000-2004. That is solid progress, but it is not nearly as sharp a reduction as the 7.5 percent decrease registered by the United States.

So, this leads us to the interesting question of how the United States achieved this lower emissions intensity ratio. The answer is actually pretty straightforward: by working hard to bring cleaner energy technology to the marketplace. And this is the second main point I want to touch on today: Through a combination of targeted market decisions, incentives, voluntary partnerships and mandates, the Bush Administration's policies have helped speed the introduction of cleaner energy technologies.

Kyoto provides a target for emissions reductions. The U.S. is committed to cutting emissions, even though it is not a Kyoto country. To cut emissions, you need to put new, cleaner technologies in place. And this is where the U.S. is leading the world. The challenge is not to limit our economies, but to make them cleaner as they grow.

To do this, we are investing heavily in clean technologies and instituting policies to help them become cost competitive. President Bush has committed substantial funding for the environment. $35 billion! $35 billion has been committed for climate-related science, technology, observations, institutional assistance and incentive programs. That's a huge number and a massive commitment any way you look at it.

In his January State of the Union address, President Bush highlighted a number of important initiatives. These include:

-- Modernizing fuel economy standards for cars. This will reduce projected annual gasoline use 32 billion liters by 2017.

-- Requiring the use of 132.5 billion liters of renewable energy and alternative fuels by 2017 -- more than five times the 2012 target.

-- Appropriating $2.7 billion for the Advanced Energy Initiative, a 53% increase.

-- Moving forward with $1.6 billion in tax credits to help build nine highly efficient "clean coal" projects. Clean coal technology cuts emissions and promises to deliver cost-effective carbon capture and storage.

-- Targeting $179 million for the President’s biofuels initiative in 2007 alone.

-- Devoting $1.6 billion in new funding over the next ten years for energy innovation, including bio-energy research and energy efficiency grants.

-- Providing $2 million in loans for cellulostic ethanol plants.

OK – that’s a lot of numbers and programs I just threw at you. What does it all mean, particularly in terms of the environment? Well, the measures the President announced at the State of the Union are designed to cut annual carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent – or around 175 million metric tons by 2017. That is the equivalent of taking 26 million automobiles off the road today.

I’ve spoken quite a bit on what the United States is doing to address climate change, adopt cleaner energy technologies and enhance our own energy security. I would like to conclude with a few words about Hungary -- a country for which I have developed deep affection over the last 9 months.

Just last Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. The Paks plant provides Hungary with nearly 40 percent of its electricity and doesn't emit any greenhouse gases at all. Clearly, the clean energy the Paks plant produces will be a key element in Hungary's future energy equation.

But nuclear energy alone cannot satisfy Hungary's need for a diverse energy mix. Yes, Hungary will continue to rely on oil and gas piped in from beyond its borders, and on nuclear energy. But, in addition, biofuels, wind, solar and other emerging technologies will take on increasing importance. And what will also be key here is improved energy efficiency.

American companies are on the leading edge of the technological revolution that is transforming our energy landscape. The U.S. Embassy is looking for ways to encourage cooperation and facilitate mutually beneficial business opportunities. This coming September, for example, a U.S. trade delegation made up of companies working on alternative energy technologies is planning to come to Hungary. It will offer an outstanding opportunity to deepen U.S.-Hungarian ties in this increasingly important area.

With that, I will conclude. I look forward to hearing from the other panelists and from you in the audience. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you.