‘Global warning’ about global climate change treaty

On the eve of an international conference to be held in early December in Kyoto, Japan for the purpose of signing a new Global Climate Change Treaty (GCCT), the William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy yesterday convened its own high-level meeting to address the grounds for and advisability of such a treaty. This Symposium — entitled "The Implications of the Global Climate Change Treaty for the U.S. Economy, Sovereignty and National Security" — suggests that the scientific case for human-induced global warming is far from conclusive and the far-reaching costs associated the GCCT are unjustifiable.

Participating in this half-day event in New York City were over sixty participants including 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 formerDuring his eighteen years representing the state of Wyoming, Sen. Wallop rose to become Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Subsequent to his retirement in 1994, he founded Frontiers for Freedom, a non-profit organization which he currently chairs that is dedicated to the promotion of personal freedoms and the reduction of federal fiscal and regulatory interference in the affairs of individual citizens. Senator Malcolm Wallop.

As a representative of Mr. Casey’s family, Prof. Smith discussed the contribution being made by the Casey Institute to the national debate on issues in the nexus between national security as traditionally understood and the emerging fields of financial, economic, technology and energy security. He observed that the GCCT has become one such issue that threatens to have a deleterious impact on U.S. leadership in the international economy. Sen. Wallop — who received the Center for Security Policy’s prestigious "Keeper of the Flame" award in 1992 — amplified on Mr. Smith’s remarks with a keynote address highlighting the ominous implications of this treaty for U.S. economic interests, for American sovereignty and for the readiness and power projection capabilities of the Nation’s military.

Following the luncheon program, the symposium turned to a discussion format to consider in greater detail the rationale for and likely impact of the GCCT. The first segment of this discussion addressed "The Science Behind the Global Climate Control Treaty." It was led by one of the United States’ foremost scientists engaged in the global warming debate, Dr. S. Fred Singer, a former Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. Dr. Singer’s powerful comments rebutted Clinton Administration claims that an overwhelming consensus exists within the scientific community concerning the evidence that human consumption of fossil fuels is contributing to a catastrophic warming of the atmosphere.

Next, the discussion turned to consideration of "The Economic Impacts of the Global Climate Change Treaty." This segment featured remarks by David L. Luke III, longtime Chairman of the Board of Westvco Corp. Mr. Luke argued that 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. Mr. Luke also warned that, "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."

Finally, the Symposium’s participants addressed the GCCT’s "Implications for U.S. Citizens, Sovereignty and National Security." Leading this portion of the discussion was Fred Smith, President of the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute. In wide-ranging remarks, Mr. Smith illustrated the dramatic consequences of this treaty for the areas of political and moral freedom, as well as for fundamental American values regarding the role of government and foreign entities in our political decision-making process. Of special note were concerns expressed about the supranational mechanisms that would have to be created to implement, monitor and enforce the sort of comprehensive energy management scheme entailed in such a treaty and the "emissions trading" arrangement expected to accompany it.

The symposium also benefitted from interventions made by the Center’s Director Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Roger W. Robinson, Jr., the first occupant of the Institute’s William J. Casey Chair. Mr. Gaffney addressed the adverse consequences of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the preparedness of U.S. armed forces.(1) For his part, Mr. Robinson set the stage for the next Casey Institute Symposium to be held in the Spring of 1998, which will address the ever-increasing use of U.S. capital markets as funding mechanisms for foreign entities engaged in activities inimical to U.S. interests — a field in which Mr. Robinson and the Institute have been particularly active in recent months.(2)

A summary of this Symposium event will be released shortly. Click on the following for copies of the remarks by Malcolm Wallop, David Luke, Fred Smith and/or Owen Smith.

– 30 –

1. For more on this problem, see the Center’s Decision Brief entitled Eco-Disarmament: Clinton-Gore’s Global Warming Crusade Threatens U.S. Military — As Well As The Nation’s Economy (No. 97-D 135, 15 September 1997).

2. See the following Casey Institute Perspectives: Russian Bonds Rocked By Second Senate Hearing In A Week Focusing On Undesirable Foreign Penetration Of U.S. Markets (No. 97-C 169, 10 November 1997); Sen. D’Amato’s Committee Serves Notice On Those Who Aid and Abet U.S. Adversaries: No Fund-Raising On American Markets (No. 97-C 161, 30 October 1997); and Dangerous Upshot of Clinton-Gore’s China ‘Bonding’: Strategic Penetration of U.S. Investment Portfolios (No. 97-C 47, 1 April 1997).