“Kyoto: The Greenhouse Road to Global Governance”

By Fred L. Smith, Jr.
and Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Based Upon Remarks Made by Fred L. Smith,
Jr. before the Casey Institute of the Center for Security
Policy’s Symposium on

“The Implications of the Global Climate Change
Treaty for the U.S. Economy, Sovereignty and National Security”

November 19, 1997

For more than 50 years, the political Left has resented America’s greatness – our nation’s
pre-eminence in wealth, technology, and military prowess. Ever since the 1950s, America bashers
have inveighed against the visible symbols of our prosperity – big cars, large companies, sprawling
suburbs – but also against U.S. “unilateralism” (i.e., our nation’s independence) in foreign affairs.
With the passing of the Cold War and the demise of old-fashioned socialism, Left-leaning
politicians and pundits have increasingly taken refuge in the “small is beautiful” mantra of
“sustainable development” environmentalism. No longer able to blame American capitalism for
global poverty, they now blame American industry for global warming. But whether colored pink
or green, those animated by Lilliputian resentment have worked day and night to tie down the
American Gulliver in a dense web of bureaucratic rules and regulations. The Kyoto Protocol is a
masterpiece of Lilliputian ingenuity, endangering America’s freedom, prosperity, and
independence.

The Kyoto accord would require the United States to reduce its emissions of greenhouse
gases –
chiefly carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) – 7% below 1990
levels by the year 2012. Since U.S. fossil fuel emissions in 2012 are projected to be 30% higher
than 1990 levels, Kyoto effectively requires an almost 40% reduction from the baseline. There is
no feasible way to accomplish such drastic emissions reductions without similarly draconian
cutbacks in energy use. According to WEFA, the respected economic forecasting firm,
Kyoto-mandated energy-suppression policies would destroy over a million U.S. jobs, depress
economic
output by $227 billion annually, and raise consumer energy prices by 40% to 50%. The oil price
shocks and “malaise” of the 1970s would seem mild by comparison.

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would also vastly expand the reach and scope of
non-elected, unaccountable, regulatory bureaucrats, at home and abroad. Carbon dioxide, the
principal greenhouse gas, is the most pervasive by-product of industrial civilization. Most of the
energy Americans use to operate their farms and factories, heat and cool their homes, light up
their cities, and power their cars and transportation systems, comes, directly or indirectly, from
fossil fuels. The paperwork burdens, monitoring systems, inspections, fines, and prosecutions,
which would be required to cut America’s energy use by roughly one-third, boggle the mind.

Unfortunately, the greenhouse gang has hoodwinked many journalists and others into
believing
that industrial activity is dangerously over-heating the planet, and that the only solution is some
kind of coordinated central planning by the world’s governments. This viewpoint is fast becoming
the conventional wisdom. It is an intellectual and moral house of cards.

Critique of the Global Warming Hypothesis

The theory of catastrophic warming implies much more than the simple proposition that
civilization has a “discernible impact on global climate,” as the UN concluded. The global
warming hypothesis is actually an ensemble of linked hypotheses – and all must be valid if the
climate treaty is to make sense. Let’s examine those premises through a series of questions.

First, are industrial emissions having (in practical, not just in statistical terms) a
significant impact
on global climate? Those arguing the affirmative rely on computer models that simplify or ignore
many key variables (water vapor, clouds, solar radiation) and cannot “hindcast” the past century’s
climate. More significantly, no clear empirical evidence links greenhouse gas levels to climatic
changes. U.S. weather satellites show no overall warming during the last two decades – a period
of sharply increased fossil fuel use. The scientific evidence for global warming is dubious at best.

Next, suppose the data did suggest a “discernible” warming – so what? There is no a
priori
reason to assume the change, on net, would be harmful rather than beneficial. Most retirees move
to the Sun Belt, not the Snow Belt. Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institution notes that
throughout history, mankind has prospered in warm periods and suffered in cold. Besides, most
climate models suggest it makes no ultimate difference whether we impose emissions controls
now or 20 years from now. We lose little by waiting until our scientific understanding improves.

Third, if the climate is changing, can any treaty stop it? The Kyoto accord would do nothing
to
mitigate climate change, since it exempts the developing countries, which will be the major
emissions source in the next century. And even if developing countries eventually
sign it, how
could Kyoto be enforced? Since the benefits of emissions reduction are distant,
diffuse, and
speculative, whereas the costs are immediate, concentrated, and real, every party will have strong
incentives to cheat. The UN can’t enforce simpler agreements on arms control or human rights.
Kyoto may be able to destroy jobs in treaty-honoring countries like the U.S. – and create jobs for
international bureaucrats. But there’s no chance it would “work” as advertised.

Finally, what is the best insurance policy for addressing the hazards of global change? Even if
Kyoto were a feasible solution to a real problem, that would still not clinch the case for carbon
withdrawal policies. Making societies poorer seldom makes them safer, healthier, or cleaner. A
better approach would be a Resiliency Strategy. Policy makers would work to eliminate the
political barriers (high taxes, burdensome regulations, preferential subsidies) that impede
invention, innovation, and creative adaptation. For example, rather than try to prevent sea-level
rise (which has been going on for centuries), we would seek to increase the wealth and mobility of
coastal populations so that vulnerable communities could either adapt (e.g., build sea walls) or
relocate.

A Resiliency Strategy is clearly the superior option given the uncertainties surrounding
climate
change. Many catastrophes may await us in the next century: global cooling, a new viral plague,
increased earthquake activity, an errant meteor, nuclear terrorism, biological or chemical warfare.
The resources of money, effort, and attention available to address such crises are limited.
Mobilizing the nations of the world and spending vast sums to fend off one possible threat that
may prove to be non-existent or trivial is hardly a prudent insurance policy. In contrast, making
societies wealthier and freer is inherently desirable, and would better prepare us to address other
potential risks that might materialize in the 21st century.

National Security and Sovereignty Threats

Kyoto apologists deny that an international climate treaty would transfer decision-making
authority from national to multilateral bodies. But if Kyoto does not erode national sovereignty,
then it cannot work. As already noted, every party to the agreement will have potent incentives
to cheat. Relying solely on each nation’s own environmental agency to monitor and enforce the
treaty is out of the question. Every national agency would come under intense political pressure
to undercount emissions so as to secure trade advantages for domestic producers. Therefore, an
international authority would have to be created to oversee the entire process – for example, to
keep the books on international emissions trades. What is more, that authority would need what
arms control enthusiast Paul Nitze calls “realistic options for deterring emissions profligacy,”
including trade “sanctions or embargoes.”

There are several problems here. Nitze’s proposed enforcement tools would not be legal
under
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Furthermore, if the UN can’t make
Saddam Hussein stop making chemical and biological weapons, if it cannot even begin to enforce
the Chemical Weapons Convention, how is it going to force any country to emit only so many
tons of carbon dioxide and no more? Finally, even if the enforcement agency were not strong
enough to coerce the Beijing regime, it might well be strong enough to harass U.S. citizens and
companies. A global EPA would very likely work hand in glove with environmental bureaucrats
and lobbyists here at home to torment entrepreneurs, bilk consumers, fleece taxpayers, stifle local
self-government, and usurp the prerogatives of our elected representatives.

What Is To Be Done?

Civic and business leaders should oppose any attempt by the Clinton-Gore Administration to
implement the treaty through executive order or regulation; there must be “No Implementation
without Ratification.” Similarly, they should condemn the use of tax expenditures and R&D
subsidies to divide and conquer the business coalition now opposing Kyoto.

Conservatives should blast Kyoto as a pro-tax, pro-regulation treaty. Europeans may wish to
cripple their economies with anti-energy policies, but Americans have already rejected earlier
efforts by this Administration to enact a Btu tax. The Clinton-Gore climate initiatives are a replay
of Jimmy Carter’s Synfuels programs and energy-rationing schemes. Awakening public memories
of “malaise,” stagflation, and gas lines is certainly fair game.

Most important, friends of liberty should expose the greenhouse gang’s arrogant elitism. Who
does Al Gore suppose will be the first to lose jobs when emissions limits kick in – Berkeley
environmentalists or West Virginia coal miners? Who does he think will be hurt most by
European-style gas taxes – the Mercedes owner, or the Soccer Mom with a mini-van full of kids?
Who does Gore believe will suffer more from 40% to 50% increases in electricity prices during
future Chicago heat waves – UN jet-setters or inner-city families who already cannot afford air
conditioning?

The climate treaty debate is fundamentally a contest between individual liberty and central
planning, between the myth of resource depletion and the truth of the inexhaustible human spirit,
between American greatness and global governance. We have nothing to lose and much to gain if
we engage this debate intelligently and energetically.

Fred L. Smith, Jr. is the Founder and President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
in
Washington, D.C. In December 1997, he attended the United Nations Climate Conference in
Kyoto, Japan. Marlo Lewis, Jr. is CEI Vice President for Policy and Coalitions. Both
gentlemen participated in the 19 November 1997 Casey Institute Symposium.

— End of Remarks —