Why the Global Warming Treaty Will Ultimately Fail

While politicians, economists, and environmentalists squabble over the details of Clinton’s global warming proposal for the upcoming summit this December in Kyoto, Japan, everyone seems to have lost the forest for the trees. The debate should not center over how strict the Kyoto Treaty should be, but should emphasize that fact that the Kyoto Treaty is a sham: it will not prevent global warming and is a poor way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Whether we use the Clinton proposal to “stabilize” emissions, or a stricter proposal from either the European Union or China calling for emissions reductions, mandatory emissions caps are not the best way to increase energy efficiency. Proposals and debates thus far on both the international and national level show that this Treaty is not about improving the environment, it is about restructuring the economic balance and nature of the international community.

The United States is the most energy efficient and environmentally responsible nation in the world today. We have the strictest and most well inforced set of environmental regulations anywhere. Air pollution for the six major pollutants has significantly decreased over the past 15 years, and over the past 20 years U.S. contributions to carbon dioxide, the leading manmade greenhouse gas, have steadily decreased as well.

The U.S. uses the most advanced technology available to make us more energy efficient than any other nation. For example, India uses three times the energy and emits four times the carbon dioxide per unit of GDP than the U.S., and China use five times the energy and emits eight times the carbon dioxide.

Such facts question the motives behind China and the European Union’s call for stricter reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations. Environmental record does not show that these countries are more environmentally conscious than the U.S., but the fact that stricter reductions would undoubtedly hurt the U.S.’s international competitiveness would certainly benefit them economically.

If any form of the Kyoto Treaty is signed, it will incur multi-billion costs on the U.S. economy, despite Clinton’s rhetoric about trading programs and tax incentives. Countries in Europe will face economic costs as they too must reduce emissions, but comparatively, the U.S. will by far be hit the hardest because we are already the most energy efficient and are already using the most advanced technology available. And of course China favors stricter controls on American industry because they know that if the Treaty passes, much of that industry will flock straight to China where it can operate free from emissions controls.

While Clinton has stated that developing countries must “meaningfully participate” in emissions reductions, if they are not legally bound, they are not going to jeopardize their economy because they care about the environment. Are we to expect that China, a country that over the past 5 years has illegally transferred missiles and nuclear technology to Pakistan, has illegally transferred missiles to Iran, has repeatedly broken intellectual property rights laws, continues to break international standards of human and religious rights, and most recently may have violated our campaign finance laws is really going to voluntarily cut back on greenhouse gas emissions? Their record so far indicates otherwise.

But without the inclusion of developing countries, global greenhouse gases will continue to increase. By 2025, China will emit more carbon dioxide than the U.S., Japan, and Canada combined. If the goal of the Kyoto Treaty is to prevent global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it will fail unless the Treaty is globally applied. Yet given the fact that most developing nations cannot even feed their citizens, it is unrealistic to mandate that they divert economic resources to energy efficiency.

Clinton has also stated that the U.S. must take the leading role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On this point, he is correct. But instead of signing a treaty that will hinder our economic growth without actually preventing an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. should focus on exporting our environmental technology to less energy efficient countries. The global market for energy efficienct technologies has been estimated at $1.8 trillion over the next 40 years without the Kyoto Treaty. By setting up energy efficient systems in places such as China and India, their emissions will decline while their economies increase.

Almost every breakthrough environmental technology has come out of the U.S. Most recently, scientists have announced the successful completion of a revolutionary fuel cell operating on gasoline that will double the fuel economy of today’s automobiles and reduce automobile emissions of greenhouse gases by one-half, which currently account for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions. The last thing the President should do is sign a treaty that will stifle the U.S. economy or hinder international competition, neither of which provide a good environment for innovation or rapid technology development.

The development, production, and export of such technologies much better addresses the problem of greenhouse gas emissions than does a Treaty dependent on inconsistent mandates for some countries and unrealistic expectations for others. The Kyoto Treaty will not only fail to prevent global warming, but it will hinder the very economic growth that stimulates advances in technology and trade that can make all countries, both developing and developed, more energy efficient and environmentally responsible.

Erin Schiller is a Public Policy Fellow at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.