Prepared Remarks by Owen T. Smith before the Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy’s Symposium

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

November 19, 1997

It is truly an honor for me to be with you today.

I am speaking to those of you who are here because you recognize the disaster that this
Global
Climate Change Treaty will cause. It will have a devastating effect on the American — and for
that matter, the world — economy.

I am speaking to those of you who are here because of a respect for the fine work that is
being
done by the Center for Security Policy. We are particularly proud to be associated with that
organization and admire the work of Frank Gaffney and Roger Robinson, the Director of the
Center for Security Policy and the current occupant of the Casey Chair at the Center.

I am speaking to those of you who are here because of a friendship, a respect, a love for Bill
Casey.

I am speaking to those of you who are here because of our friendship — for that we say
“Thank
you.”

We — and I am speaking also for both Sophia [Casey] and Bernadette [Casey Smith] — are
happy
that we can play a part in bringing this issue, as well as the other issues which are being tracked by
the Casey Institute, to the attention of those who are decision makers in this area and to the
American public.

Today’s topic — the Global Climate Change Treaty — is an issue that would have tweaked Bill
Casey’s imagination, his understanding of the role that the U.S. and U.S. technology plays in the
world today.

As we move toward the treaty that is to be presented for signing at Kyoto on December
7^th, once
again the Center for Security Policy is calling to the attention of the opinion leaders of the
community the impact that this treaty will have on the economic environment of the world we live
in if it were to be adopted without appropriate safeguards.

As Frank [Gaffney] has mentioned, I serve as the Chair of the Finance Department at Long
Island
University. In that role, I am constantly looking at the role that the U.S. economy plays in the
world economy. Observer after observer have projected the impact that this treaty will have on
our economy and the world environment.

The argument is made, however, that we have to protect the environment for those who will
come after us. The problem with that argument is that scientists have not been able to tell us with
any conviction what the impact will be on our environment. Even those who are the principal
scientific advocates for this treaty acknowledge that we do not yet have the scientific answers to
the question of the impact of the so-called “greenhouse emissions” on the long-term environment.

No one can argue that we should take steps to reduce the level of this type of emissions into
the
atmosphere. However, we have numerous alternatives and we should be encouraging the
scientific community to develop others.

The principal use of coal today is for the generation of electricity. If we suddenly switch to
natural gas, we will double the cost of electricity. However, science has made great strides in
reducing and virtually eliminating the emissions from burning coal using sophisticated fluid bed
technology.

There are alternatives. Clearly there is plenty of hydro-power in the United States that has
not
been developed.

Bill Casey lived on Long Island. We live on Long Island, where the Long Island Lighting
Company built a nuclear power plant that because of NIMBY [“Not In My Back Yard”]
opposition was torn down before it began full operation. I am not suggesting that we try and
rebuild Shoreham. Virtually every kilowatt of electricity generated in France is nuclear today.

The automobile is cited as the worst offender — causes more greenhouse effect pollution that
anything else we face. During the time I was Deputy County Executive of Nassau County, out on
Long Island, we received a grant from the federal government to purchase natural gas-powered
buses — reducing the emissions by 80 percent.

The United States has assumed the role of “feeding the world.” Our superior agriculture —
second to none in size and second only to Holland in productivity per acre — has assumed the role
of exporter of staples like grain and rice to the world.

We have put a lie to many of the theories that the world cannot support any significant
population
growth because of the inability of growing sufficient food.

Leading organizations representing the agricultural sector have predicted drastic decline in
agricultural production — in the vicinity of 40 to 50 percent — if this treaty is implemented.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are lots of things that we can do to protect our world
atmospheric
environment without destroying our world economic environment.

I know we are all going to learn a lot from the experts who will follow me at this lectern.

Again, let me both welcome you and express the Casey family’s appreciation for your taking
time
from your busy schedules to address these issues.