No. 12 November 20, 1998

At the United Nations conference on global warming in Buenos Aires in early November, developing countries greeted the Kyoto Protocol with a virtual deep freeze, rejecting its proposal for voluntary controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But that rejection, beyond what the pundits expected, didn’t stop the Clinton Administration from signing a flawed agreement based on faulty science and which, if implemented, would leave all the heavy lifting to developed countries like the United States.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012, an overall reduction of 37 percent. What, if implemented, will such drastic measures mean to Americans?

Energy production and usage would be severely rationed in order to reach the required emissions targets, similar in concept from what President Clinton proposed for health care reform in 1994. Americans would be put on a serious energy diet with Washington playing the role of Weight Watcher. And because the rationing of any goods or services pushes up the price, energy costs would escalate. While the White House says the impact would be minimal, numerous economic reports discredit that claim, including a recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy. The agency study finds that the typical American family can expect to pay an additional $335 to $1,740 a year in energy bills by the year 2010, and an additional 14 cents to 66 cents per gallon at the pump. Gross Domestic Product, the agency reports, would fall by $96 billion to $397 billion, more than a four-percent reduction over the same period.

Californians would be among the worst hit, given the state’s heavy reliance on oil and natural gas. According to a study released by Pacific Research Institute in June 1998, residents of the Golden State could expect to pay an additional $3 billion to $10 billion a year in energy bills. In addition to dramatic increases in costs associated with energy use and production, the treaty could also mean huge losses in the number of jobs throughout the state. Taxes that transfer money from California to Washington result in job loss. The study shows that every $500 million lost to federal taxes means a loss of 16,250 jobs. A $.50 per gallon tax increase on motor fuels could, therefore, mean a loss of 52,600 job opportunities in the Bay area and a loss of 123,600 job opportunities in the Los Angeles area.

Some argue that ballooning prices, millions of jobs lost, and a weakened economy are necessary to save the world from impending doom. Global warming advocates say such doom is inevitable and avoidable because 2,600 scientists have deemed it so. No matter that 18,000 scientists, responding last spring to a petition letter written by former president of the National Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz, have publicly rejected the notion that if global warming exists at all, it is caused by human action. This hardly constitutes a consensus of scientists who believes immediate draconian action is vital. Nor do the headlines quoting Vice President Gore’s conclusion that this was the hottest summer on record provide proof of an imminent apocalypse.

Sadly, we are the victims of an age in which pseudo-science and media hype dictate costly environmental policies. Stephen Schneider, a scientist and Senior Fellow at Stanford University and one of the most vocal global warming enthusiasts, described the situation best in an interview with Discover Magazine in the early 1990s: "Scientists should consider stretching the truth to get some broad-base support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Even assuming for a moment that global warming is occurring, is a serious threat, and can be stopped through human response, there can be no change without full commitment by Third World countries to limit their release of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from China and India alone are expected to outpace emissions from industrialized nations within the next decade. But this reality is not moving them to the negotiation table.

China, the world’s most populated country and projected to be the world’s largest emitter by 2015, not only refuses to reduce its emissions levels but wants the words "voluntary participation" struck from the language of the Protocol. Meanwhile, it will be up to the citizens of the United States and other developed nations to abide by the harsh terms of the international agreement that will drastically change their living standards

The Kyoto Protocol is wrong on all accounts. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that global warming exists or that, if it does, human activity is a contributing factor. But in the event warming is occurring and is stoppable, the Protocol will not even come close to achieving its stated goal. The world’s largest emitters will get a free ride, leaving the United States to bear the burden.

President Clinton was wrong to sign this nation’s rights away, and the U.S. Senate would be wrong to ratify the agreement. Before we accept the doomsayers’ apocalyptic assumptions, let’s devote more time to real science and to learning whether global climate change is or is not actually occurring.

* Dana Joel Gattuso is Director of Research at the Pacific Research Institute