Catching Flack Over Bonn

The world’s environmental ministers got together last month in the German city of Bonn, and after marathon negotiating sessions that kept bleary-eyed delegates awake for days, cobbled together an agreement to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, they officially adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which they will now send home for their respective legislative bodies (for countries that have one) to ratify.

There was, of course, one important holdout. Not wishing to undermine U.S. sovereignty and commit economic suicide, President Bush refused to back off his opposition to the UN agreement. Eurocrats, Mideast oil sheiks, and environmental radicals all expressed shock and outrage. Greenpeace hysterically opined that abstaining from the agreement was “one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in the history of the United States.” Pearl Harbor, Vietnam or maybe even the War of 1812 might be considered true foreign policy disasters, but not signing on to Kyoto? Perhaps Greenpeace was guilty of a slight exaggeration.

The Kyoto Protocol, as we have been told, is intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases. At best, however, it would result in a negligible cut. Thus, even if one thinks that human actions are causing temperatures to rise unnaturally – a theory which, believe it or not, still is the subject of major scientific debate – Kyoto would have virtually no impact.

It would, however, have a much greater impact on our economy. When the Clinton administration first signed the agreement, the Department of Energy and respected economic forecasters estimated that Kyoto could cost the economy as much as $397 billion annually, raise gas prices by 60 cents per gallon, and increase personal electricity costs by 50 percent.

Why would this happen? Because CO2 emissions are a byproduct of almost all energy use in the United States, and will be for the foreseeable future. Since no feasible technology yet exists to eliminate these emissions, the only solution is to cut energy use – either through taxes, regulations, or legislated caps.

Cutting energy use is invariably associated with economic decline. Over the past 30 years, the only time demand for energy has ever fallen is during economic recession, the deeper the recession the deeper the reduction in energy consumption. Quite simply, abundant energy is a critical building block of economic prosperity – and regulating CO2 would smash it.

Why Mr. Bush’s stance should be a surprise to anyone is difficult to grasp. During the 2000 campaign, he announced his opposition to Kyoto every time he was asked about climate change. After taking office, he continued to make his position clear. And why not? The U.S. Senate, which would have to ratify Kyoto, has already voted 95-0 against any treaty that excludes the developing world and trashes the economy – which is exactly what Kyoto would do.

As though the pursuit of sensible policy were not cause enough, delegates in Bonn offered up more reasons to spurn both Kyoto and a negotiating body that has become a cabal of anti-American sentiment.

The world’s environmental ministers, much like environmental activists, seem to have mastered the art of rude and childish condescension, booing and jeering when U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky rose to speak. Not surprisingly this artful form of subtle diplomacy failed to change the American position.

Then there were the veiled attacks by Iran, a country which kidnapped and held hostage American diplomats, and lovingly refers to the United States as “the great Satan.” “This conference was a triumph of multilateralism and cooperation over unilateralism,” said the Iranian delegate Baghir Asadi, by which he meant, of course, the selfish unilateralism of the United States. Fortunately, the Bush administration has remembered a simple lesson of life: You probably shouldn’t follow the lead of those who fervently wish ill upon you.

Finally, there is the arrogance of the Eurocrats themselves, who petulantly demand that Kyoto be legally binding and internationally enforceable – meaning that the same socialists who demonize the United States on a regular basis would have the authority to slap financial penalties on Americans if, even after the wrenching economic slowdown the treaty would cause, we still fell short of its goals.

There is more than a little hypocrisy here, since it is widely acknowledged that the most European nations can’t meet Kyoto’s targets themselves – two exceptions perhaps being Germany, which is shutting down communist-era factories in the East, and Russia, where the economy is in tatters.

Though he can expect some flak from the usual suspects here at home, Americans who are concerned about sound science, a strong economy, and a foreign policy that actually considers U.S. interests should thank President Bush for taking a tough – but correct – decision. The Kyoto Protocol is an ineffective, unfair, and unwarranted treaty that ought to be put out to pasture.

GLENN SPENCER

Deputy director,

Center for Environmental Policy at Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation.