Washington -- The issue of global climate change is a very high priority for the Clinton Administration, according to Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.

President Clinton plans to "host a White House conference in early October on the climate issue, and then very soon after that the United States will put out its own specific targets and timetables -- that one piece of the climate change negotiation," Wirth said during a July 22 Worldnet interactive broadcast to Canberra and Sydney.

The United States believes that developing countries should all have the same reduction targets and the same reduction timetables for carbon dioxide emissions, Wirth said. However, developed countries -- or Annex I countries -- might have a greater degree of flexibility.

"There is some question about what kind of flexibility there might be between Annex I countries," he said. "We also think that it's appropriate for there to be emission trading that would be allowed. For example if there was a technology in New Zealand and New Zealand was doing a specially effective and efficient job of eliminating carbon, New Zealand would get credits for that, and you in Australia might be able to buy those credits from New Zealand, or we could buy those credits or trade those credits in some way with New Zealand, but that overall there should be a cap on emissions, and within that cap we'd be allowed to trade. That's the basic formulation that we proposed in Geneva in the summer of 1996, and is pretty fundamental to the proposals being made by the United States."

Wirth stressed that the United States and Australia have similar positions on many climate change issues.

"We are both very concerned about the diminution of carbon emissions around the world; we both believe the developing countries have a major role to play; I think we are both supportive of having a binding treaty; and I believe it is also very imperative we understand to have the kind of flexible financial instruments that have been proposed, such as emissions trading and joint implementation," he said.

However, the idea of "differentiation" is one area which requires further discussion, Wirth said.

"Differentiation is a word that is used by different countries, and I think has different meanings for different countries," he said. "I think Japan has argued for a kind of differentiation that means that they should be treated differently, because Japan has very significant efficiencies in parts of their economy. So therefore Japan is saying that they ought to be treated differently -- that's differentiation.

"Australia, as I understand it, has argued that they should be treated differently for a couple of reasons at least -- one, the region of the world in which Australia finds itself," he continued. "And, second, that Australia has a number of very energy-intensive industries and is in many ways an exporter of various energy products, and Australia therefore should not be penalized for the export of those energy-intensive products that are being used elsewhere.

"All of these are, from the perspective of those offering them, a rational position. But there are many different definitions of what differentiation means, and that's the kind of thing that we are going to have to come to understand between now and December," Wirth said.

Following is the official transcript of the program:

(begin transcript)

MR. FOUCHEUX: Hello, and welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue," I'm Rick Foucheux. Thank you very much for standing by for our program today with Mr. Tim Wirth, who is undersecretary of state for global affairs. Mr. Wirth has just returned from a Cabinet meeting, where I am sure you were discussing global environmental issues. And that's why we are getting started just a little bit late. But, Mr. Wirth, we have some very anxious questioners standing by in Australia, so could we begin briefly with a comment from you?

MR. WIRTH: Well, sure, Rick. Thank you very much. And to all of you my apologies for being late. The issue of global climate change is very much at the top of the agenda in terms of President Clinton's time and interest and initiative, and attempting to put together the specifics of what the U.S. proposal is going to be.

As I think all of you know, the president gave a very good speech at the United Nations General Assembly special session about three weeks ago. At that time the president indicated that he wanted to spend the summer -- July, August, September -- really focusing on the broader development of public support for a very aggressive climate program. He will then host a White House conference in early October on the climate issue, and then very soon after that the United States will put out its own specific targets and timetables -- that one piece of the climate change negotiation.

In all of this the United States and Australia have an enormous amount in common. We are both very concerned about the diminution of carbon emissions around the world; we both believe the developing countries have a major role to play; I think we are both supportive of having a binding treaty; and I believe it is also very imperative we understand to have the kind of flexible financial instruments that have been proposed, such as emissions trading and joint implementation.

There are some differences. There is one that has come up on the Australian suggestion that there be some sort of differentiation. That is also a proposal that has been made by some in Japan, some in Canada. We look forward to really learning what that means. We are not sure what differentiation means, and we will look forward to, as ever, working very closely with the government of Australia.

I met with the prime minister when he was here about three weeks ago. The ambassador here set up a session just before a very informal dinner that the ambassador held for the prime minister. It was a very successful time. I know that the issue of climate change was discussed by President Clinton and the prime minister. And Ambassador Peacock has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Australia's positions here. So maybe that's a fair, Rick, opening statement. And again my apologies for being late, but this was one of those command performances. One cannot not be there -- which we all understand. And so but here we are. So let's get your questions, and thank you very much for asking me to be with you. I appreciate it.

MODERATOR: Very glad you could make it. Thanks for the overview.

Welcome to our guests standing by in our international audiences in Sydney and Canberra. Let's begin right away with the first question or comment from Sydney. Go ahead please in Sydney.

Q: Good evening, Mr. Wirth. Allen Tate (sp) here from ABC Australia. Mr. Wirth, does the administration still believe that Kyoto should be the venue for actually agreeing to and signing legally binding targets on reductions?

MR. WIRTH: The proposal -- the United States of America made the proposal that we have a legally binding treaty. A legally binding treaty -- as you know to date it has been a non-binding treaty. We believe that everybody has to enjoy the status of a legally-binding treaty, and that this should be negotiated in Kyoto. The negotiating point was not the United Nations General Assembly or this summer or whatever --- it is when we all get together in Kyoto.

Q: Lenora Tyler (sp) from the Australian financial review newspaper. Mr. Wirth, is it still the U.S. administration's view and aim that at Kyoto the legally binding treaty should involve uniform -- that is, one single target -- for developed countries? And is that still a realistic aim?

MR. WIRTH: Well, we believe that there should be a single -- that developing countries, under the terms of the treaty known as Annex I countries -- we believe that we should all have the same reduction targets and the same reduction timetables. Now, there is some question about what kind of flexibility there might be between Annex I countries. We also think that it's appropriate for there to be emission trading that would be allowed. For example if there was a technology in New Zealand and New Zealand was doing a specially effective and efficient job of eliminating carbon, New Zealand would get credits for that, and you in Australia might be able to buy those credits from New Zealand, or we could buy those credits or trade those credits in some way with New Zealand, but that overall there should be a cap on emissions, and within that cap we'd be allowed to trade. That's the basic formulation that we proposed in Geneva in the summer of 1996, and is pretty fundamental to the proposals being made by the United States.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you in Canberra. We'll be coming back to you shortly. But let's return to Sydney for more discussion. Please go ahead once again in Sydney.

Q: Dr. Wirth, Larry Hogarts (sp) from the City Morning Herald. Australia seems to be really saying that it would want to be able to actually increase its greenhouse emissions under its version of a fair and equitable strategy. Is that -- you know, in any way can that be compatible with a realistic verifiable and binding target?

MR. WIRTH: Well, it depends on what increase means, and it depends -- I mean, these are all negotiated in Kyoto. I mean, if Australia for example -- if the world community were to decide that there would be a cap on emissions and that there should be a limitation on all Annex I countries, then it would be our position that if Australia wanted to increase Australia could trade with other nations that would have a decrease. This provides a flexibility. For example, we learned under our own Clean Air Act -- we learned that when we did that in the United States that allowing this sort of emissions trading between utilities of one kind and utilities of another it became a very, very cost effective way of achieving the limitations we wanted to have. And we think a similar kind of flexibility should exist between nations.

Again to use the Australia, say, New Zealand example, if New Zealand with, as you know its very, very significant energy conservation and carbon sequestration programs, if New Zealand were to drop below its limitation then New Zealand would have credits that were left over. If Australia were to be above its limitation, Australia could work out a deal with New Zealand. That's the idea of a cap and trade system, and that would provide Australia with the ability to increase, and it would be equitable to everybody, we think therefore meeting the conditions of something that is legally binding, is equitable for people, but provides the kind of flexibility necessary for us all to operate together.

Q: Mr. Wirth, Allen Tate (sp), ABC Australia. I'm intrigued by your remarks that the administration is not sure what differentiation means. Given that the Australian prime minister was over there a few weeks ago, and that differentiation forms a central plank of Australia's policy, the Howard government's policy on emission reductions, was the prime minister simply not able to explain what the detail of Australia's position -- what differentiation to Australia actually does mean in a way that was understandable to the administration? Or is part of the problem simply that it is such a complicated system that they are putting forward that it's just simply not easy to understand?

MR. WIRTH: Well, differentiation is a word that is used by different countries, and I think has different meanings for different countries. I think Japan has argued for a kind of differentiation that means that they should be treated differently, because Japan has very significant efficiencies in parts of their economy. So therefore Japan is saying that they ought to be treated differently -- that's differentiation.

Australia, as I understand it, has argued that they should be treated differently for a couple of reasons at least -- one, the region of the world in which Australia finds itself for competitive reasons and so on -- the region I say, not the reason of the world -- the region of the world in which Australia finds itself. And, second, that Australia has a number of very energy-intensive industries and is in many ways an exporter of various energy products, and Australia therefore should not be penalized for the export of those energy-intensive products that are being used elsewhere.

All of these are, from the perspective of those offering them, a rational position. But there are many different definitions of what differentiation means, and that's the kind of thing that we are going to have to come to understand between now and December. Differentiation -- (inaudible) -- by Australia as I understand it has one meaning; as Japan has been suggesting that it might define it has another meaning; Canada I understand or Norway has yet a third meaning of differentiation. So we will have to look at all of these.

Q: Following Allen (sp), I mean still Prime Minister John Howard failed to tell you exactly what differentiation Australian style is, and were you unable to then form an opinion of how that fitted with the U.S. policy?

MR. WIRTH: The formula -- John Howard presented a kind of formula for what Australia would suggest differentiation might be. As I understand it that related to a kind of gross domestic product per capita -- that was part of the formula. And there was a second part of the formula that had to do with fossil fuel exports. These are two key elements in Australia's discussion. And that's one definition of differentiation. There are other definitions of differentiation, and you know whether differentiation overall will be an acceptable concept if it's put in the concept of emissions trading -- whose definition of differentiation are we going to follow in this? We can't have everybody defining a particular term the way they want to. It has to be an agreement we believe among Annex I countries.

Q: I guess back to Allen Tate (sp). Mr. Wirth, I guess to bring this one to an end, does the Australian definition of differentiation have any support at all within the administration, the Australian definition on its own?

MR. WIRTH: Well, I think all of us have ideas that we want to put into this, and all of us want to work with other countries to say, you know, we want to understand what you're saying, you want to understand the position that we are taking. You know, we have particular issues that we are very concerned about in the United States. So I am not about to suggest that one person's idea or one person's concept is not legitimate or doesn't carry particular weight, or whatever it may be. That is to be left to the discussions in the preparatory meetings and in the final negotiation in Kyoto. I am not going to make a judgment sitting here and talking to you about terms that we are not really clear exactly what you are asking about or what I am answering and make a definitive statement -- you know I am not going to do that. But you know we have worked very closely with Australia in the past, we will continue to do so. I made the point to the prime minister when he was here. I've made the point to the ambassador over and over again. And our negotiating postures have been very, very similar over all the years I've been involved in this issue, which has been a long time.

Q: Dr. Wirth, I note from the biographical detail that your responsibilities also include narcotics. Now, just as an example, in Australia at the moment there's some doubts about the war on drugs. There's interest in trialing another approach -- Swiss style heroin trials and that. But there is both overt and behind-the-scenes pressure from the U.S. not to go down that path. I'd be interested how you would rate the issue of reaching agreement on binding greenhouse reduction targets in Kyoto by comparison to the fight against illegal narcotics. And you know if Australia goes to Kyoto completely out of step with the U.S., what sort of pressures can it expect to come to bear?

MR. WIRTH: Well, that's a little bit of do you walk to school or carry your lunch kind of question. I mean, they are totally different issues, and I -- it's the first time I've ever been asked an issue that relates to the two. The way that they are related is that climate change is probably the most overwhelming environmental issue that we all face, and narcotics and related criminal issues is probably the most subtle cancer that we all face. And the fact that we all face these problems and their are new kinds of global security issues, therefore there is a parallel between the two. But to make some other kind of linkage or suggest that we would be pushing on one related to another, there just isn't any connection between the two. There will not be any discussion that I know of of narcotics in Kyoto. It is not -- Kyoto is focused only on climate change. We will all be talking about narcotics in different elements -- some of that you know coming up at the upcoming -- 1998 there is a major U.N. conference on this issue, and I think that we will all be working on that in another venue. But these are -- again, they are not related at all -- that I'm not familiar with.

Q: Sorry, Allen Tate (sp) here, Mr. Wirth. I hope you can hear me. You mentioned the president's speech at the U.S. summit three or four weeks ago, and some of the aspects of that was of course the president applauded the European position while not nominating administration targets. He applauded the European position, and he spoke in terms suggesting the start of an education campaign to the American people of climate change -- I gather climate change as an issue is not really an issue in the United States community at the moment. Is this how the president proposes to override what appears to be opposition within both the Congress and the Senate to signing onto targets in Kyoto, by actually taking it to the people, by overriding Congress and the Senate?

MR. WIRTH: Let me just take those pieces one at a time. The president did praise the very tough actions taken by Tony Blair and the government in the U.K. Going back to Margaret Thatcher the U.K. has been way out front of all the rest of us on this issue, converting from coal to natural gas and making some very tough and important positions. And the president wanted to praise what the U.K. has done. A similar thing in Germany: When Germany was united the West Germany inherited all the East German utilities, shut most of them down, and that created significant hardships in those areas, but they were very dirty, very inefficient utilities, and that also had a major positive effective on climate. So the president wanted to very clearly say that, you know, we recognize and applaud the tough steps taken by the U.K. and by Germany, and that was a position -- I think the president you know really felt very strongly and very admiringly of -- particularly in reflection of his discussions with Tony Blair and Chancellor Kohl at the Summit of the Eight that was held a little bit before that in Denver.

On the education campaign the president feels that this is a very broad important national issue and that the American people simply have to engage more deeply in the debate and that he the president has a bully pulpit, as Teddy Roosevelt called it. The president is the number one educator of the country, and President Clinton has committed himself to a broad education campaign. It begins here in the United States on Thursday, when the president will be holding a -- and the vice president together -- will be holding a very significant scientific roundtable that will be attended by many members of the Cabinet and members of the press here in Washington. And the president has a number of other events scheduled throughout the summer.

What's the purpose of this? Well, to get a broader public understanding and engagement and education on what the administration is and will be proposing.

Now clearly in any situation like this -- and you know that in your country -- when a proposal comes up that is far reaching as the climate proposal, there are going to be interest groups that oppose it. I mean, I've been in politics now for 25 years one way or another. I remember coming in when we were first talking about acid rain in the United States. There were interests that really said there is no such thing as acid rain. And they opposed it. We had a knock-down, drag-out battle, and the public said, Now, wait a minute, you know, we are concerned about this -- we want a change.

I remember when we were first in the business of smoking and health and trying to identify that there were significant problems health related. The tobacco industry came in and said, Hey, there's no problem -- you can't prove any correlation between smoking and health. Well, eventually we got to a point of a very broad public coalition saying that we have to make changes. If democratic governments responded only to the loudest voices who are naysayers we wouldn't get anywhere, would we? And it's President Clinton's belief that you put together the coalitions and you move the ball ahead. Of course there are going to be people who are naysayers. We have to very carefully listen to them, understand their points, know where they are coming from, try to get them to understand our position. But in the final analysis you have to move ahead and the president will be moving ahead, as he said in New York, and moving ahead aggressively.

MODERATOR: All right, thank you very much in Sydney. Once again let's join our participants in Canberra. Please go ahead with your questions or comments in Canberra.

Q: Mr. Wirth, it's Brian Fisher (sp) here from Canberra. I'd like to return momentarily to differentiation. Our understanding is that differentiation is really about burdensharing -- that is, sharing out the economic burden of undertaking mitigation tasks in an equal way. Now, we know that uniform reduction in emissions, the physical uniform reduction in emissions doesn't lead to an equal sharing of that burden. And basically what differentiation is about is asking that the same rule that's been applied for the 15 members of the European Union is applied to the rest of us in Annex I; namely that we have a burden-sharing negotiation.

Now, what is your response to a situation where we have one rule for 15 members who are all individually signatories to the convention, and another rule for the rest of us? Can that really stand?

MR. WIRTH: Well, it's a very good -- it's a very, very good question, Brian, and one where we agree with Australia to the extent that -- for the others -- to explain what this means, the Europeans have argued that they ought to have a bubble, that while each European country might have higher or lower levels of emissions allowed, they ought to be able to pool their emissions into a single bubble, into a single emissions average. So if Germany reduced by 15 percent, Portugal might be able to increase by 40 percent, and it would average out at zero -- and Germany being much larger than Portugal's economy. And we've said that's fine. We agree with that kind of emissions trading. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you the EU would like to allow emissions trading, that is something that we think is very important. The EU is saying they don't want emissions trading for anybody but the EU -- that doesn't seem consistent. I think that that's your question, Brian. We agree. The EU should either say to everybody else, allow emissions trading, which I suggested before we think very strongly we should have -- or the EU should go back and say, well, they're just one vote, and one emissions target for all the EU don't have a lot of specific other emissions targets, and you all as the EU make your one emissions target. But there is a little bit of we think some inconsistency in the proposal raised by the EU as one voice, and raised by individual EU countries. I think on this issue the United States and Australia are in agreement.

Q: This is, Mr. Wirth, Clive Hamilton (sp) from Canberra. I wanted to ask a question about the claims made by the Australian government as to the economic impact of measures to reduce emissions, and then if I could follow up with a brief question in response. The Australian government has argued that uniform targets, such as those proposed by the European Union, would impose huge economic costs on this country. For example, it's claimed that wages would fall by fully 20 percent below the business as usual levels by 2020. It's claimed that per capita cost for Australians will be 22 times higher than those for Europeans. And these claims are based on modeling work done by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, a government research bureau. And although you are probably aware, although it's a public research agency, this modeling work is being funded principally by the fossil fuel industries in Australia. So my question is do you believe these claims of huge and disproportionate costs that would be imposed on Australia? Do you think they're accurate or credible?

MR. WIRTH: It sounds enormous to me, Clive. I haven't seen these models, so I can't comment specifically on them. But I can comment as a general proposition. One, I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions in the models, and then they flog those models as if they're the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world. First of all, anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict two points of percentage increase or decrease, you know I'd raise your eyebrow or take a deep breath or sort of maybe going back to the narcotics thing, look at what those people are smoking, because I don't think there's any way in the world you are going to get that kind of accuracy.

Second, these sound like very high numbers to me. We've had some models in this country kicked out that would show that wages are going to decrease by 20 percent, that the GDP is going to decline by 18 percent, unemployment will increase, and that there will be a broader lower back pain for all Americans if we do certain things.

Now, there are industry groups that have points of view that they are paid to advocate. That's okay. That's their job. But as you are doing in taking this with something of a grain of salt as to where the numbers come from, we would take it with that grain of salt as well.

But, more importantly, almost all of the modeling that we have seen provides a kind of economic tool kit. And if you take all of those tools and apply them -- if we were to move towards some -- and generally the broad international goal that has been used in most of the modeling from many different perspectives is stabilization by a particular date. And if we do that almost all of the analysis shows that this is going to be absorbed in economies. You are not going to see it. There are going to be some winners and some lowers, but overall on balance it's going to come out either neutral, or many people believe as a plus. Dale Jorgenson (sp), for example, who is the chairman of the economics department at Harvard, probably one of the most distinguished economics departments in the world, says that if you recycle the funding that comes in from climate change you would have a real economic bump-up if you do it right, that it's a plus. So, one, I think you take claims by industry groups with ten grains of salt, take models overall with two grains of salt, look at the overall -- all of the information that comes in, and it's probably about a wash.

Q: A follow-up with a brief question. Among the fossil fuel corporations that have funded the Australian government's climate change policy research are the U.S. oil companies, Exxon and Texaco, and they -- not only have funded, but also sit on the steering committee that oversees the Australian government's climate change research. Given that the Australian government's position is at least in part strongly at variance with that of the U.S. position, how does the U.S. government view the activities of U.S. corporations in sponsoring policies in other countries that are at odds with that of the U.S. government? Do you see those companies as acting contrary to U.S. interests?

MR. WIRTH: Well, we're not in the business of telling companies what they can and can't say. That's antithetical to our system. I mean, I have met with -- I met this morning with some representatives of Texaco who were beating me around the head and shoulders, and you know we have done it before and I am sure we will do it again. I mean, that's their position. They don't happen to subscribe to the general approach that we are taking. I had lunch, however, with representatives of BP, you know, another very, very large international oil company. They are British based -- the largest I think U.K. investment in the United States, and the second or third largest energy company in the United States. And they happen to subscribe much more fully to what we are doing. So there are lots of different voices in the oil patch, there are lots of different voices in the energy community. And, you know, they're not all speaking with the same voice, nor would I ever expect that they would.

Q: Lenora Tyler (sp) here again in Canberra. The Australian government's position is almost entirely based on modeling which I think you just said should be taken with ten grains of salt. Do you believe that Australia has been playing a constructive role in the international negotiations on this issue? And to the extent that you have knowledge, do you believe that Australia can mount a good case that it is not seeking a free ride and that it is doing sufficient measures at home to address the greenhouse problem?

MR. WIRTH: Well, first of all, Lenora, I would say that you know I've been doing this kind of very complicated negotiation beyond climate change on a whole series of other issues for a long time. And our number one ally over and over and over again is Australia. We have an incredibly constructive relationship. I mean, it's -- you know, if you look for help the first place I almost always end up going is to the Australian delegation. And that's certainly the case here as I deal with Ambassador Peacock and we talk at great length about these issues. It's very, very helpful. So Australia is always very, very constructive. You know, we don't always start out in agreement. We almost always end up in the same place. We have two different bases for the economy. We are in two different parts of the world. We have different kinds of problems. Some things are more intense in some areas for Australia; others more intense for us. But it is a, to use your word, constructive -- and it is a very constructive relationship, and will be all the way leading up to Kyoto, and it's going to be after Kyoto as well.

Q: Mr. Wirth, without harping on about models, I guess the use of models are primarily to give us some idea about the orders of magnitude and the directions of results. Basically what your models and our models show is that the costs of doing, say, stabilization in the United States is pretty low compared with, say, Japan. Now, there are all sorts of arguments about the exact numbers, but effectively there's general agreement that the costs are low in the United States and high in Japan, for example. There's also a general agreement that some developing countries will lose as a consequence of the trade flow-through effects from abatement and some will win. So we have a situation where these negotiations are complicated by the fact that there are winners and losers as you say, but the magnitude of those wins and losses are radically different. And that's really about -- that really drives the dynamic of this negotiation. And until that's recognized we are not going to make much progress it seems to me.

MR. WIRTH: Well, first of all, when I talked about winners and losers, I was talking about winners and losers within the United States and within an economy. I don't think we have modeling that I have seen or economic analysis that I have seen, or data, the literature on the subject of winners and losers around the world. We are focused, and should be, not on 180 countries but on those who really make very significant contributions of greenhouse gases. China for example is the number two emitter in the world. We are the number one emitter. China is changing its practices very rapidly. China is recognizing increasingly that it is in China's self-interests to make dramatic changes. China and India together are going to be building a huge number of power plants over the next 20 to 30 years. It is in your interests and our interests to make sure that those power plants are as clean and as efficient as possible. If we follow business as usual for India and China, you know, we are all going to get warm much faster -- and that's not to your advantage or to our advantage. It is Australia's interests and in our interests to make sure that we do everything possible to bring India and China -- and other countries, but those two in particular I would cite -- into the stream of modern, clean efficient utilities.

And we have to show them how it is in their economic interests to do so. Most of our data on economic plants indicate that you can build a power plant that is the newest technology, that is the most efficient, that is the most fuel efficient and the most thermal efficient -- you can do this at less cost than in building a dirty old conventional power plant. You know, making that step is in Australia's interests and in our interests to do so, and that should be the crux of -- and I think that that's going to be the key issue that we get down to. I think the issue of differentiation or what we are saying about our own targets and timetables or whatever will be agreed to relatively easily. I think the more important and the more compelling issue is how we all deal with the developing world, with the groups that you cited. That is going to be the most difficult issue, and I'll bet you ten to one right here that Australia and the U.S. are going to be in harness working very closely together with identical interests on that most important issue.

MODERATOR: All right, now with the time remaining let's see if we can fit in a couple more questions from both of our sites. Let's go to Sydney once again. Please go ahead with another question for us in Sydney.

Q: Dr. Wirth, Germana Garity (sp) from Radio Australia. Turning domestically to the U.S., I was wondering if your effort to swing public opinion, a bit more crucially of course the Senate and the Congress, around to your perspective on global changes, now the most crucial issue for your domestic global climate change strategy, and what chances you rate of your success? And, secondly, should you fail, how significantly would a U.S. failure to sign damage the global climate change strategy in your mind?

MR. WIRTH: Well, I mean just first of all public opinion and public support is one of our issues. This is the most -- I have been, as I said, in politics for a long time. This is the most important issue I've ever dealt with and ever seen. It's the most difficult. It's the most economically vexing. It's the most environmentally compelling. It's the most diplomatically complicated, as the previous question indicated. It has got everything in it, and our grandchildren are going to be studying what we did at the turn of the century on climate change as sort of a case study in sort of international negotiation, agreement, international economics, national sovereignty -- all of these pieces are there. National opinion is one of them. Is it the most important? Well, it's sometimes -- when I go up to Capitol Hill it's the most important. When I am meeting, as I did this morning with a lot of economic interests, economics are the most important. When I am dealing with a group of environmentalists, as I was this afternoon, the environment is most important. So they are all compelling.

What's our chances of a success? Well, I've been, again, in this business for a long time, and I wouldn't be in this business if I weren't optimistic. I mean, you couldn't handle it -- you can't keep driving forward if you don't have a sense of mission and a sense of optimism. Our colleagues in Australia that deal with this issue have a sense of mission and a sense of optimism. We have a sense of mission and a sense of optimism, and we are going to get a successful achievement in Kyoto.

Q: On mandatory targets for Annex I countries. I'm sorry, start again. Clive Hamilton in Canberra. If the international community reaches agreement in Kyoto on mandatory targets for Annex I countries, what sort of sanctions might be imposed on developed countries that refuse to abide by the agreement? Put another way, if the U.S. and Japan and Europe take measures substantially to reduce their emissions over time, do you think they'll be content to sit back and watch some developed countries continue to increase their emissions without taking any retaliatory action?

MR. WIRTH: Well, I think we'll end up, Clive -- that's a hypothetical to kind of set up a situation which may be good for writing a story, but it's not reality in terms of what our negotiations are going to be. I think we are going to end up with agreement among the Annex I countries as to what to do, and we will also agree on how we are going to go about mutually enforcing it. This is not enforced by sanctions, it's not enforced by some kind of an international police force. Largely it's enforced by national public opinion. You know, and governments, particularly in the Annex I countries, particularly in democracies -- if the government of Australia or the government of the United States or the government of France agrees to do something, they generally do what they say they are going to do, and they are held accountable by their publics for what they do.

So providing information -- I think one of the enforcement mechanisms, going to the thrust of your question -- one of the enforcement mechanisms is public opinion, and the public -- I know the public in Australia is like the public in the United States -- people believe that they say, "I'm an environmentalist -- I am concerned about the environment. I am concerned about what's happening in the future." And as they say they say also something is wrong in what's going on in the world today. They see change. They're troubled by it. You know, they're looking at kill-off in the Barrier Reef or the reefs off the U.S. coast in the Caribbean. They're looking at the destruction of species. They're looking at indicators of changes in krill patterns in the Antarctic. And they're saying, "We're concerned and we want our governments to operate on behalf of our interests. That's the ultimate accountability, and that's what is going to ultimately see us through to a successful resolution in Kyoto, and it's through that kind of mechanism that we have an opportunity of getting on top of this most important of all question.

MODERATOR: Mr. Wirth, we are going to be out of here in a couple of minutes, but I'd like to give you the chance to put a cap on it, if you would, and maybe give us a final statement.

MR. WIRTH: Okay. Well, thank you all very much for being here. It's a lively discussion. I've had many, many discussions with some of you before here and with the Australian press in New York. And let me just again say that our relationship and cooperation with the government of Australia, with our colleagues in the Foreign Ministry and in the Environmental Ministry and in the Energy Ministry has been nothing but the best. I've done this now for five years since I left the Congress. I was in the Congress for 20 years.

And it has been a great pleasure working with the Australian government and working with your representatives. We are a great team. The United States and Australia end up on the same side of every issue that I can think about. And while there are some differences going in on this mostly differences of definition, we are going to be together. For example, just in this program we talked about our joint attitude toward the EU bubble scheme, we talked about the great importance of the developing countries coming on board, and we are both going to be engaged in that. We both believe in emissions trading as something that has to be done. We're both supportive of the idea of joint implementation. I mean, we have so much in common let's not let ourselves be drawn off into sort of trying to make decisions about where those disagreements are. They are going to fade as we have this joint mission together. It's enormously important.

Thank you all very much for allowing us to be together. And I'm a great fan of Australia. I hope to be back there again soon.

MODERATOR: Well, we thank you very much for joining us today, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth. Thank you very much. And our great thanks of course to all of our participants who were with us today in Sydney and Canberra. For Worldnet's "Dialogue," I'm Rick Foucheux, good day.

(end transcript)

NNNN