r THE WHITE HOUSE WASH INGTON November 25 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN PODESTA FROM TODD STERJ SUBJECT Climate Change -- Organization and Staffing This memo considers how the climate change issue should be organized and staffed in the final two years of the President’s term Background In the wake of the Buenos Aires meeting it is clear that the key open issues of the Kyoto Protocol won’t be resolved until the annual Conference of the Parties in November or December 2000 In the best case scenario the Protocol could then be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent in 2001 The reality is that submission of the Protocol together with implementing legislation even by 2002 would be a major achievement Thus the Kyoto Protocol won’t come to closure within the President’s term in office At the same time a much needs to be done to lay the groundwork for possible ratification in the 2001- 2002 period And a number of constituencies are significantly vested in the issue The work ahead The work broadly breaks down as follows diplomatic efforts to resolve the open issues successfully and to get a critical mass of developing countries on board domestic policy work to advance climate-related budget and tax proposals and other initiatives e g legislation to reward companies who act early with bankable emissions credit etc congressional relations to expand the core of Members who are sympathetic to this issue through activities such as an occasional series of breakfasts lunches with VP Sec Albright Sec Richardson etc outreach to business labor and NGOs shifting in time into a more explicit effort to build a coalition to support ratification communications to get out the message that taking action is essential that our approach is sound and that we continue to treat this issue as a priority As in the case of outreach the communications objective will need to shift in time to support a broad-based ratification effort Constituencies The constituency that cares the most about climate change is the environmental community and they care a great deal The major organizations routinely describe climate change as their top priority Business and labor are also very engaged Although many of them would be delighted if the issue went away that doesn’t mean they’d favor a lower White House profile My guess is they wouldn’t Organization and Staffing Staffing decisions need to be guided by the facts that 1 there won’t be a ratification fight during the President’s term but that 2 groundwork needs to be laid for possible ratification in the 2001-2002 period 3 there is substantial constituency interest in and concern about climate change and 4 climate change may well loom as a significant political issue in the 2000 cycle Task Force I think the Task Force should be retained though it could be scaled back somewhat In general the Task Force’s most essential business is 1 to handle the consultation process with industry sectors and outreach and 2 to produce materials like talking points fact sheets op-eds etc Congressional relations and press are useful but not essential Task Force functions I don’t want to bother you with details of what everyone on the Task Force does but I’d be happy to discuss it with you or whomever you designate if you’d like Diplomatic and domestic policy should be handled by White House staff NEC and CEQ will need to be more engaged than they were this year on domestic policy but that shouldn’t be a big problem since NEC has now filled their vacant energy slot and George Frampton is committed to the issue David Sandalow or his successor can handle the diplomatic side Sandalow incidentally has drawn some staff support from the Task Force since he gets none from NSC White House Coordinator The real resource question involves whether to have a high-level White House coordinator on climate change It is worth considering this both in the period while I’m still at the White House and the period after that For whatever period I continue on the White House staff I think it would make sense for me to oversee the issue since I know it well and it would send a bad signal to the outside world if I disengaged On the other hand I could provide adequate oversight while giving at least half my time to other projects Whether you should appoint a high-level albeit not full-time coordinator to take my place after I’ve left is a separate question In principle I would favor doing so assuming you have a suitable person to fill the role The reasons are first even though we aren’t gearing up for ratification climate change is still an unusually cross-cutting issue with large domestic and international components and a lot of agency players second there is some advantage in having an “honest broker” in charge who isn’t on either the economic or the environmental side of the issue One person who could probably do the Job well is Roger Ballentine in leg affairs I’m impressed with him I don’t know whether he’d be interested but he’s someone to keep in mind If you didn’t appoint a new person leadership on the issue would revert to CEQ with NEC and NSC in a supporting role This option would probably work if George could give it enough resources and attention someone on your team had it on his or her radar screen and the President and Vice President were comfortable with the arrangement If you went this route you’d need to explain the new arrangement effectively to guard against the perception that the White House was reducing its commitment to the issue If you want to discuss any of this further let me know