03 04 98 03 04 98 002 0002 WED WED 09 01 09 01 FAX FAX THE THE WHITE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON WAS HIN GTO N March 3 1998 Marchs 1998 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT r' Ov FROM FROM JIM STEINBERG STEINBERG ' JIM TODD STERN KATHLEEN McGlNTY GENE SPERLING GENE SPERLING SUBJECT SUBJECT Climate Climate Change Military Change Military Republican Republican critics critics continue continue to to charge charge that that the Kyoto agreement will hurt the U S military In recent weeks Senators Hagel and Inhofe have used Congressional hearings recent weeks Senators Hagel hearmgs and other otlier fora to push push this tliis line line of of attack attack A group group of prominent Reagan Bush ReaganyBush appointees -- including Richard Cheney and Jeanne Kirkpatrick-make this argument nnming frequently in Cheney and Jeanne Kirkpatrick — make this argument in paid advertising running Roll Roll Call and the Washington Tjmes Times In In fact fact the the Pentagon Pentagon is is reasonably reasonably satisfied with the results at Kyoto The agreement reached there there exempts exempts emissions emissions from from most most multilateral multilateral military operations such as Desert Storm · Bosnia and Grenada and from military Bosnia and Grenada and from military and and civilian international air and marine transport Pentagon Pentagon officials officials participated participated prominently in the U S delegation at Kyoto The The Pentagon Pentagon remains remains concerned concerned however however about domestic implementation of our climate change ohligatjons It accepts that change obligations It accepts that any any domestic domestic emissions trading program should cover Defeme Department Defense Department facilities facilities i e buildings and non-tactical vehicles similar to those used by other government agencies other government agencies or or the the private private sector sector It argues however that any domestic emissions trading program should emissions trading program should exempt exempt military military operations and training including tactical aircrafr aircrafi weapons weapons systems systems combat combat training and border security Noting the unique and often unpredictable unpredictable nature nature of of its its mission mission the the Pentagon Pentagon argues that subjecting military operations and training trainhij to to greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions limits could compromise military readiness Overal Overall I the the Defense Defense Department Department accounts accounts for 1 4% of total U S carbon emissions a 22% decrea e from its share in 1990 Carbon emissions from decrea se from its share in 1990 emissions from military operations and training are 0 8% of the U S total 0 8% of the U S total In 997 climate In your your October October l1997 climate change policy announcement you said that full implementation of aa domt stic ln domestic emissions emissions trading trading program program for greenhouse gases should wait until at least 2008 In that sense consideration of the Pentagon's unique needs in designing such a program may be that sense consideration of the Pentagon’s premature premature However However there there is is a possibility possibility that that the spiraling political charges on this issue could be be defosed defr'sed by by an an early administration statement Specifically we could preempt the critics by annou · cing operaliom and training For the announcing that we would appose oppose emissions limits on military operations reasons reasons stated stated below below your your advisors advisors recommend this approach · 03 04198 03 04 98 WED WED 09 02 09 02 FAX FAX OPTIONS The options are as follows In both cases we would continue to emphasize our considerable succe s success on on this this issue issue at at Kyoto Kyoto 1 Haye an administration spokesman lan state state our our oppositlon opposition to to emissions emissions limits limits on on military operations and training Stu Eizenstat's testimony before several Congressional committees Sti i Eizenstat’s tomor ow tomorrow and Thursday March 3 and 4 would be a good opportunity We have been assured that with such a state1nent statement the uniformed services will publicly express confidence that military readiness can and will be protected in the design of our climate change policit s policies This would significantly if not entirely neutralize political attacks on this issue Furthermore an exemption for military operations and training would respond to the Pentagon's Pentagon’s concer ns on readiness with only the most marginal impact on the United States' ability to meet concerns States’ nation ii emissions targets The share of emissions at stake is small and downsi ling national downsizing together with fuel efficiency improvements may lead to rednced emissions from these with firel efficiency improvements may lead to reduced emissions from these sources sources in any any event event Such Such an an exemption exemption would would carry carry forward forward the the spirit spirit of of the the Kyoto Kyoto agreement agreement witl1 witli respect respect to to military emissions military emissions The biggest downside is the risk of starting a round of special pleading and complaints from industrial industiial emillers emitters Industries Industries may may grouse grouse that that they tliey will will be be asked asked to to absorb absorb emissions emissions reductions reductions properly attributable to the Pentagon More broadly opening the door to discussions on the structure of an emissions trading program could raise a series of awkward questions about our positions on other aspects of the eventual carbon emissions reduction regime However given the small share of emissions at issue the unique circumstances of the military and the number of years before these industries might miglit be subject to limits these appear to be manageable problems The environmental community would not support this approach but we do not anticipate signifieant significant criticism criticism Jim ■Tim St inberg Steinberg Todd Stem Gene Sperling and Stu Eizenstat support this option Katie McGinty supports this option emphasizing that the Defense Department should be asked to come forward with an aggressive plan for reducing emissio s emissions from its non-exempt facilities 2 Cm inue GnnHnue to to emphasize diplomatic success succe ss on on this this issue at Kyoto Kyoto and state that consideration o of domes ic implementation issues js premature domes ic imnlementation is The The other otlier option option is is to to continue continue emphasizing emphasizing and and explaining explaining our our success success on on this this issue issue at at Kyoto Kyoto where few observers expected us to obtain exemptions for our military while deferring questions on domestic implementation to a later time This would avoid charges of special treatment and allow aa more more thorough thorough consideration consideration of of the the role role of of the tlie military militaiy in in any any emissions emissions trading trading program program against againsi the backdrop of other domestic implementation issues However it would also entail a level of @003 003 03 04 98 03 04 98 004 ®004 WED 09 02 FAX WED 09 02 FAX concern concern about about this this issue among the uniformed military that would be damaging in the short- and long-nm It would loug-rm It would provide provide opponents of our global wanning agenda an argument that resonates strongly strongly with many many on the Hill None of your advisors support this option ___ Option Option 11 _ _ _ Option2 Option 2 Let’s discuss discuss - - - Let's