Thomas Gale Moore
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
The Global Warming treaty meeting in the Hague, which collapsed in November 2000, provides critical insights into the objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. That agreement, which the Senate has refused to ratify, requires that the United States reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, by 7 percent. The Hague meeting was designed ostensibly to fill in the blanks, to establish, in particular, which reductions would count towards the quotas. As usual, the devil is in the details. Would forests or agricultural practices that absorbed CO2, for example, meet the objectives?
Technical issues, however, masked the hidden agenda. It became clear at this session that the EU’s unstated but overriding goal was to make the US pay for being the richest country in the world. As the only global super-power, America has become the target of all the rest.
The US holds that any and all policies or steps capable of reducing greenhouse gases should be accepted. The EU asserts that the US must slash its use of energy. As the largest emitter of carbon dioxide we must reduce the most, preferably by increasing energy costs substantially. Forestation or changes in farming methods designed to eliminate carbon dioxide fail to pass muster.
Although we do emit the most CO2 we also absorb the most CO2; but that doesn’t count, according to Europe’s greens. Studies show that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that blows in on the West Coast is greater than the level that blows out to sea in the East, suggesting that the continent as a whole absorbs more of that gas than it emits. Nevertheless, the Europeans refuse to allow this country to take full or even partial credit for such reductions. Moreover, credit for further steps, such as planting more trees or modifying farming to absorb CO2, must be sharply limited.
The Administration has been pushing strongly for the establishment of a mechanism that would allow the trading of emissions credits. If a country reduces its emissions below those prescribed in the Kyoto Protocol, it could sell those reductions to countries (companies?) that find it more expensive to meet their quotas. Again the Europeans are dead set against this, claiming that the US simply wants to buy its way out of meeting its obligations. The US has been promoting the adoption of whatever may be the lowest cost means of meeting Kyoto’s objectives. Trading would be less costly than forcing each country meeting to meet a rigid goal; as a consequence, it would not impose the horrendous costs the Europeans obviously want.
The Kyoto Protocol stipulates that a company (country?) providing a technology that emits less greenhouse gases to Third World states can gain credits. The hypocrisy of the global warming advocates becomes obvious when, as in the Hague, they would deny credits for nuclear power plants in developing nations. Nuclear plants produce no emissions: they are totally clean. It is argued that they have wastes that must be stored; but that is a political problem, not a safety or environmental one. France, which makes a point of criticizing the US for its high level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, relies on nuclear energy to produce roughly 80 percent of its electrical power. It has no problem with its wastes.
As the meeting in the Hague shows, one of the major objectives of Kyoto is not to prevent global warming but to constrain the American economy. The strength of our economy is the envy of the world. There are two ways to bring down a rival; one is to do better, the other, to bring down your competitor. It is almost always easier to do the latter.
The Emperor has no clothes: Even if fully implemented, Kyoto will not, let me stress, will not reduce global warming measurably. It will be costly, especially to the United States, but less so to Europe. The growth of emissions in countries not included in the Protocol will quickly overwhelm even the most optimistic predictions of the effect of Kyoto on the climate. In truth, Kyoto will have a negligible effect on climate. Its only purpose is to bring down the US so that our “friends” can better compete with our economy. We should call this charade for what it is, a shell game designed to reduce American living standards to those of the inefficient Europeans.
Why has the Clinton Administration gone along with this scam? Perhaps it is the guilt of the liberal rich; we have so much, we must be humbled. Instinctively many believe that we live in a zero sum world: if we are rich, it must be at some one else’s expense. This is untrue. Nevertheless, the desire to destroy my neighbor’s wealth is all too prevalent. It is unfortunate that the affluent often feel so guilty that they go willingly to the slaughter. Those of us who recognize that wealth has brought great good to most people in this world should rejoice at the collapse of the Hague meeting.