Tick. Tick. Tick. The countdown to Kyoto continues. In December, representatives from 158 countries will meet in this Japanese city to fashion a worldwide treaty that obligates signatories to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
For better or worse, this may be the most important international environmental convention, ever. Its purpose is to avert the "global warming" that some claim results from the burning of fossil fuels. And since all modern societies rely heavily on these substances indeed, since our civilization cannot function without them - the decisions made at Kyoto will profoundly affect everyone on Earth.
Bill Clinton and green activists are trying to persuade Americans to accept a Kyoto agreement that would severely discourage oil, gas and coal consumption. The president has even leaned on weather forecasters to spread propaganda on global warming. And Cable News Network has banned advertising by industries questioning the science behind this scare.
Ironically, this showdown is occurring just as many are doubting both the "greenhouse" scare and proposed remedies to it. And for good reason. For the Kyoto accords, if there are any, may prove disastrous for American workers, the environment and even Mr. Clinton himself.
Within a few decades, 60 percent of carbon emissions will come from underdeveloped countries. China will generate more than any other nation on Earth. Many of these lands will probably refuse to accept curbs on greenhouse discharges.
Yet any agreement that imposes burdens on the United States while exempting the Third World would be disastrous for American workers and the global environment. It would trigger a massive emigration of industry to the unregulated, more polluting countries, thereby costing jobs and actually increasing worldwide production of greenhouse gases. And if Kyoto accords necessitate substantially higher taxes on gas and heating oil, as many predict, millions, especially among labor rank and file, will leave the Democratic Party in droves.
Given these risks, why are we rushing headlong, like lemmings, to Kyoto? Given that most of the 1 degree of warming detected so far occurred before 1950, why don't we wait until science is more certain and international cooperation more possible?
Because, as I learned while attending a conference on global warming in Canberra, Australia, in August, national leaders are afraid of the green-dominated media.
The bipartisan Canberra meeting included Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, and Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat. It was co-sponsored by the (U.S.) Frontiers of Freedom Institute and government-funded Australian APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Studies Centre, and brought a variety of Pacific-rim scholars and officials together to discuss warming.
Nearly everyone attending believed international curbs in greenhouse gases could not be justified yet, if ever. Several experts testified that any treaty limiting emissions would be unenforceable. It's difficult to tell when a country is cheating or, when we catch a culprit, to ensure compliance. Sanctions don't work. And the alternative, as Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin noted, is to create a international superagency that not only possesses police powers sufficiently strong to bring miscreant countries to heel, but also wisdom enough to run the world economy.
In short, attendees saw the greenhouse agenda as impossible and destructive. But few wanted to be the first to say so. The Americans hoped Australians would take the lead in opposition. Australians wanted Yanks to back out first. And since no side was willing to take the heat alone, everybody seemed willing to go along so long as they had company. It was politically safer to accept carbon curbs, no matter how damaging or unnecessary, than be branded "anti- environmental."
Such is the cowardice that passes for "leadership" in the global warming debate. Even skeptics merely ape the "safety in numbers" reasoning embraced by the U.S. Senate in unanimously passing the Byrd-Hagel resolution earlier in the summer. This action did not question the need for an agreement, it only insisted that any accord include every nation.
What drives the warming juggernaut, therefore, is fear of speaking out. Skeptics know retribution awaits those who do. And if some APEC conferees had forgotten this danger, they were soon reminded.
At the first plenary session, a platoon of Greenpeacers in orange jump suits, chanting slogans, took over the meeting hall and refused to leave. Later, other activists disrupted proceedings by playing accusatory messages on blaring boom boxes, to which they'd handcuffed themselves. These folks wanted to silence debate, not encourage it. Yet the media, which largely ignored the thoughtful papers of participating scholars, took great delight in reporting this "colorful" intimidation.
In the television age, image is everything. The countdown to Kyoto is a contest between the advo cates of reason, who are timid, and the agents of emotion, who are bold. Such is how historic catastrophes are made.
Alston Chase is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.