Summary Of The William J. Casey Institute’s Symposium On The Implications Of The Global Climate Change Treaty For The U.S. Economy, Sovereignty and National Security

19 November 1996
New York City

(Washington, D.C.): In the run-up to the international conference on the Global Climate Change
Treaty (GCCT) in Kyoto, Japan, the William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy
convened a symposium to examine the impact and advisability of such a treaty. This event
afforded an opportunity for critical analysis of this potentially very far-reaching treaty — the
sort of analysis that has been conspicuously absent to date from the Clinton Administration’s
presentation of its costs and benefits to the American people.

Participating in this half-day meeting in New York City were over sixty past and present senior
industrialists and representatives of Wall Street firms, former senior government officials,
journalists and specialists from non-governmental organizations. The program began with an
elegant luncheon featuring remarks by Mr. Casey’s son-in-law — Owen T. Smith, a professor at
Long Island University and an attorney specializing in environmental law — and by former
Senator Malcolm Wallop, recipient of the Center for Security Policy’s “Keeper of the Flame”
award in 1992 and currently chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Following the luncheon program, the symposium adopted a discussion format to consider in
greater detail the rationale for and likely impact of the GCCT. The Lead Discussants for this part
of the program were: Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the United States’ foremost scientists engaged
in the global warming debate and a former Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on
Oceans and Atmospheres; Mr. David L. Luke III, longtime Chairman of the Board of Westvco
Corp; and Mr. Fred Smith, President of the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute
and a contributor to CEI’s new book, The Costs of Kyoto.

The following summarizes many of the important insights regarding the GCCT to emerge
during the course of this Symposium. (Where possible, direct — although unattributed — quotes
from participants are provided; the passages not in quotation marks paraphrase key points.) No
effort was made to achieve a consensus. Yet a number of the observations and concerns
expressed in the course of the discussion appeared to be broadly shared by participants.

Reality Versus Rhetoric Concerning the ‘Science’ of Global Warming

Strong skepticism was expressed by many of the participants in the Symposium about the
scientific basis for claims that the earth is warming catastrophically and, if it is warming at all, that
human production of greenhouse gasses via consumption of fossil fuels is the cause. The
following are among the more trenchant points made in the course of a discussion led by Dr. Fred
Singer:

• “The question of whether the world is getting warmer or cooler depends on when you start
  and when you stop [the analysis]. You can take any time you like and get any result you want.
  Has the climate warmed in the last 100 years? The answer is yes it has, but before 1940.
  Since 1940, it has cooled.”
• “The warmest years in the United States, after correcting for urban effects, were in the 1940’s
  — not the 1980’s or ’90’s. Has the climate warmed? Yes, it has since the middle of last
  winter. [Again], it depends on when you start and when you stop.”
• “The satellite data — which are the only good global data we have — actually show a cooling of
  the climate in the last 20 years, which completely contradicts the theory and computer models.
  So the basic question really is: ‘Who should we believe?’ Should we believe in observations
  or should we believe in computer models? That becomes a matter of personal choice and
  philosophy. I will tell you that I believe in observations.”
• “…The computer models are faulty, shall we say inadequate. They do not know how to
  [model] clouds. Clouds are effective reflectors of solar energy; small changes in cloud cover
  can make large changes in climate.”

“[Neither can they model] water vapor. These are technical problems with the
computer model. It is very, very difficult, in all fairness, to simulate the atmosphere in
all its complexity. The [models] are getting better, [but] at this point they are not good
enough. They are not reproducing what’s actually happening.”

• “The science is not settled. The science is not compelling….The business is unfinished. We
  need to develop computer models that actually simulate what is going on in the atmosphere.
  Before we rely on these models to make policy. That’s our point pure and simple.”

False ‘Consensus’

• “The myth that scientists have reached a consensus was largely created by a joint letter
  circulated by an environmental pressure group, Ozone Action. Over twenty-six hundred
  alleged scientific experts on global warming have signed this letter. It is quoted and referred to
  endlessly as putting an end to the debate. Citizens for a Sound Economy recently … concluded
  that fewer than ten percent had any expertise at all in any scientific discipline related to climate
  science.”
• The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) also contributed to
  the misconception that the “science” of global warming is settled. In June of 1996, the IPCC
  produced a detailed scientific analysis of the available data. It ran to some 2,000 pages in
  length and did a pretty good job of reflecting the uncertainties that remain about long-term
  climate trends. The “Summary for Policy-Makers” that was produced to accompany this
  unwieldy tome, however, was an altogether political document. It contended that there was
  agreement on the “science” of global warming — a conclusion that neither reflects reality nor
  the underlying document.
• If anything, the “science” of global warming will be even more politicized in the future as the
  Clinton Administration and other governments dispense research dollars to universities and
  other institutions nominally for the purpose of understanding climate trends. There is a
  substantial risk of abuse, however, if such funds are sluiced primarily to those who subscribe to
  the party-line on global warming.

At the very least, the availability of vast sums — the United States is currently spending
on the order of $2 billion per year in this area, more than is available to the National
Cancer Institute — for those whose research would advance the Administration’s case
can be predicted to create a cottage industry for willing scientists. There is unlikely to
be anything in the way of comparable funding sources for “politically incorrect” and
unpoliticized analyses. Over time, the effect will likely be to produce even more of an
artificial scientific “consensus” about global warming than is claimed to exist today.

• “The Clinton Administration has on the one hand professed complete faith in the predictions
  far into the next century of highly speculative and comparatively primitive computer climate
  models, while on the other hand it has dismissed numerous studies of the painful short-term
  economic costs of reducing fossil fuel consumption because the models used are inadequate.”

The Economic Impacts of the Global Climate Change Treaty

If the scientific basis is wanting for a treaty that attempts to restrict energy consumption in the
developed world (and perhaps elsewhere), the economic implications of such a treaty make it an
even more unattractive prospect. The following points from remarks by Mr. David Luke and the
discussion that followed are particularly noteworthy:

• “The United States economy is vigorous, competitive, and growing nicely because of generally
  excellent technology, creativity and leadership in the private sector — together with the fact
  that there has been enough self-discipline and wisdom in our electorate to avoid some of the
  regulatory excesses and governmental interventions that so clearly have caused a degree of
  economic stagnation in some other very prominent nations in the developed world.”
• “We are now at the forefront in world energy efficiencies. The People’s Republic of China, for
  example, is eight times less efficient per unit of GDP in production than we are.”
• “There is no efficiency deficit in our country, and there is no obviously available
  opportunity which will let us magically and suddenly do drastically better.“

“There are no ‘all gain, no pain’ options available to curb the creation of greenhouse
gasses.”

• “Our emissions are growing in parallel with our GDP and it would obviously be a very major
  and challenging task to have to return our emissions to the 1990 levels or below them.”
• “As a nation, we could reduce our emissions by moving away from coal — one unit produces
  20% more carbon dioxide (CO₂) than petroleum and 80% more than natural gas — but it would
  move us away from a secure, indigenous source of energy into greater dependency on
  potentially much less secure, non-indigenous sources of energy.”

“[Indeed,] two of the United States’ most important energy security assets — supply
diversity and reasonably high self-sufficiency — will be forfeited if the United States
signs the GCCT…Supply diversity and reasonably high self-sufficiency are great
national assets. Clearly, such a position should not be abandoned without the most
careful thought.”

Quantifying the Costs:

• “[A study by] Wharton Economic Forecasting Associates has calculated that…a tax would
  need to be [imposed at the level of] $200 per ton of carbon emitted in order to return our
  emissions to the 1990 levels. They estimate that imposing such a tax would produce the
  following results:…gasoline prices would increase by 45 cents per gallon; residual fuel oil
  prices for industrial facilities would increase by roughly 140%; natural gas prices for
  industry would increase by 90%; the United States’ GDP would decline more than 2.5
  % per year; a million good, high-paying jobs would be lost; and the U.S. trade deficit
  would jump sharply.”
• “The so-called climate treaty is [properly] viewed as an energy suppression treaty. Forcing
  Americans to reduce fossil fuel emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012, as the president
  proposes, won’t do a thing to (or for) the climate, but it could raise gasoline prices by as much
  as 50 cents per gallon while boosting electricity and home heating prices by 50 percent. Such
  cost increases would devastate low-income families and those (such as elderly persons) on
  fixed incomes. Food, pharmaceuticals, telephone service, indeed all goods and services
  requiring energy in manufacturing, transportation, or delivery — just about everything — would
  also become less affordable, lowering the living standards of all working families.

“In addition, energy taxes or their proxies would cripple the global competitiveness of
such energy-intensive industries as steel, aluminum, chemical manufacture, paper, and
cement — a wonderful result if your goal is to shrink opportunity, destroy jobs, and
perpetuate the welfare state.”

Dealing with the Developing World:

• “Failure to control the developing nations will mean that almost no matter what is done in the
  developed nations, total world emissions will continue to grow and any hope to stabilize
  atmospheric concentrations will not be fulfilled….The factors from the Global Climate Change
  Program that produce significant economic disadvantage in many of the developed countries
  will automatically produce significant relative economic advantages in the developing countries
  which compete with the developed countries. With the increasingly global nature of the world
  economy, jobs and capital will be inclined to flow to areas of the greatest relative economic
  advantage.”

“The economic self-interest of nations is a very compelling force in most areas of the
world, and it is very, very hard to voluntarily persuade many nations to give up their
own self-interest. Unless we bring all nations in on the same basis at the beginning, it
will be virtually impossible to do it later.”

• “Developing countries are wise to refuse to inflict the climate treaty’s energy suppression
  regime upon themselves. They know from bitter experience that an energy-starved world is a
  world of starving people. They know that making nations poorer cannot make them safer or
  healthier.”
• At its core, the GCCT will critically impact the United States’ role as global economic leader.
  American acquiescence to an overarching global warming treaty regime — which potentially
  could place a huge economic burden upon U.S. industry and its workforce — will entail a
  radical transformation of the global economy. Effectively, the standard set by the world’s
  foremost economies — the U.S. in particular — will be lowered to ensure greater equality
  of the alleged deleterious impact of economic activity (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions)
  between first and third world economies.

Implications for U.S. Citizens, Sovereignty and National Security

The discussion next turned to a consideration of other costs that may be associated with the
Global Climate Change Treaty. Mr. Fred Smith opened the conversation with remarks addressing
the GCCT’s detrimental implications for the rights and interests of America’s citizens and for the
Nation’s sovereignty. The Center for Security Policy’s director, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., introduced
information about the adverse effect reductions in fossil fuel consumption could have on the
readiness and combat effectiveness of the U.S. military. Highlights of these interventions and
those that followed included:

Redistribution of Wealth:

• “The environmental establishment has long argued for curbs on economic and technology
  growth…. Global warming provides the ideal pretext to promote such anti-progress policies.
  Thus, while global warming itself may or may not pose a threat, global warming policies pose
  very real threats to our civilization.”

“Much of the environmental arguments for wealth transfers today are little more than a
recycling of arguments raised years ago. Then it was argued the south was poor
because the north was rich; the solution was to transfer wealth from the north to the
south. The global warming debate now incorporates a green version of that same
idea.”

• The emissions trading scheme being advanced by the United States is at best fraudulent. At
  worst, it will create a permanent international entitlement program, involving the redistribution
  of wealth via the way in which national quotas are set.

Increased Regulation:

• “Is it better to divert wealth to reduce an already low likelihood that current fossil fuel might
  increase the severity and/or frequency of [potentially harmful effects]? Or would we achieve
  more by assisting these poorer nations to gain the greater wealth and technology skills which
  make such [effects] less risky to our own societies? This is the question on which the global
  warming debate should focus.”

“[Enhancing resiliency] would involve a series of initiatives like deregulation,
elimination of government subsidy programs, and privatization of government
enterprises….Evidence for the superiority of [such a] resiliency strategy is suggested by
the fact that, while in 1992 all the developed countries agreed to voluntary reductions
of greenhouse gas emissions, only Germany and Great Britain, were successful.”

“It is ironic that these two countries, who most avidly support stringent
international political controls over the world’s energy consumption, achieved
their reductions by liberalizing and de-politicizing their energy markets. Germany
ended support for the inefficient East German energy sector, and Great Britain
stopped subsidizing her coal industry.”

Degrading U.S. Military Capabilities:

• The Department of Defense uses 73% of the energy used by the federal government (fully
  1.4% of all the energy used in the U.S.). According to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
  Environmental Security Sherri Goodman, 58% of that total is “used for operations and training
  in military tactical and strategic systems (i.e., equipment, vehicles, aircraft and vessels designed
  or procured for use in military operations).”
• Goodman drew from this data the following conclusion in a intra-Defense Department
  memorandum circulated on 5 September: “Any restriction on allowable carbon dioxide
  emissions for these [tactical and strategic] systems will affect DoD military operations and
  readiness.” Ms. Goodman noted, for example, that a 10% reduction in operations and training
  fuel use would:
• “Cut 328,000 miles per year from tank training, impacting its ability to fully execute
  the National Military Strategy;
• “Reduce [flight crews’] readiness status, requiring four-to-six weeks of
  additional training to deploy and will jeopardize crew safety;
• “Cut 2,000 steaming days per year from training and operations for deployed
  ships… result[ing] in some ships being deployed at a less than acceptable readiness
  rate;
• “Result in the loss of over 210,000 flying hours per year. This would reduce
  Air Force readiness to the point it would be incapable of meeting all of the
  requirements of the National Military Strategy.”
• For all these reasons, Secretary Goodman proposed that a “national security waiver” to the
  Kyoto treaty be negotiated. This position has reportedly been made part of the U.S.
  government’s formal negotiating proposal for Kyoto, but it remains to be seen whether it will
  be incorporated into the final treaty — and, if so, whether such a waiver will apply only in time
  of conflict or during peacetime, when the damage to readiness and training from reduced fuel
  consumption is likely to be greatest.

‘Family Planning’ as a Tool for Curbing Global Warming:

• “At a White House briefing for television weathermen, Mr. Gore — asserting that climate
  change was a symptom of population growth — suggested that people in poor nations could
  reduce emissions by having fewer children. He cavalierly proposed reducing world population
  growth by 2 to 5 billion human beings over the next two decades. And calling for ‘the
  empowerment of women to participate in decisions about childbearing,’ he implied that more
  abortions would help save the earth.”

“The administration has yet to explain how its proposed program of tradable emissions
permits would work, but Mr. Gore’s ‘family planning’ approach to emissions control
suggests interesting possibilities. Since each person, through his consumptive
activities, generates a certain tonnage of carbon dioxide each year, the United Nations
could establish equivalency ratios for all ’emissions sources,’ including individual
human beings.”

“Many critics of the climate treaty complain that it leaves China and other
developing countries ‘off the hook.’ But by Mr. Gore’s logic, might not China
already be in compliance? Hasn’t China amassed vast stores of emissions credits
through forced sterilization, coerced abortions, and the liquidation of millions of
‘class enemies?’ Mr. Gore’s gaffe at the weathermen briefing — his careless
admission that the climate treaty and population control are two sides of the same
agenda — exposes the hopelessly Malthusean mindset of modern liberalism.”

Supranational Mechanisms That Will Erode U.S. Sovereignty, Security:

• “For those of us who doubt that the honor system will work any better here than it has in any
  other of international relations, something more will be required. In short, an enforcement
  power [will have to emerge]…yet another United Nations bureaucracy is about to be created.”
• Are we actually going to allow the UN or some other supranational mechanism to control,
  police and enforce international energy controls? What possibility is there for verifying
  compliance without unacceptable costs to the rights, freedoms and property of Americans?
• “The failure of this misguided and misconceived attempt to impose binding limits on
  greenhouse gas emissions through a system of centralized planning will very likely lead to
  grave problems among nations….The problems posed by Kyoto for the international order may
  reverberate into areas far removed from environmental policy. Some of the most dangerous
  periods in international relations have occurred when utopian projects have broken
  down.”

Conclusion

It seems clear from the Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy’s Symposium that —
despite repeated assertions to the contrary by the Clinton Administration and other environmental
activists — there is no scientific consensus about whether the planet is, in fact, warming and
if so why. Under these circumstances, it appears to be most ill-advised to subordinate the United
States to the sort of new, international regulatory regime that could have far-reaching
repercussions for its economy, sovereignty and security and for the standard of living and rights of
its people.

On the basis of the discussion, it is to be earnestly hoped that the Clinton Administration will
decline to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Should the Administration nonetheless proceed to do so, it will
behoove the United States Senate swiftly to exercise its constitutional responsibility to advise and
consent to such a treaty.

Several participants expressed concern, however, that the President might try to finesse the
Senate, denying it the role of check-and-balance on executive action contemplated by the
Framers. As one put it: “…The proposals [President Clinton] made last month can largely be
implemented by executive actions without submitting a treaty for ratification. For instance, the
President can raise fuel efficiency standards by executive order. Other parts of his package will
require only piecemeal congressional approval.” The stakes are simply too high to allow such a
subterfuge.

— End of Summary —