- The Washington Times - Monday, June 11, 2001

President Bush plans during this weeks trip to Europe to soothe European leaders who are upset with his rejection of the Kyoto global-warming treaty. A proposal offered by Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill may very well achieve the presidents goal.
If so, the president may want to stay in Europe. The ONeill proposal is bound to upset Americans interested in developing a rational national energy policy.
The president wisely rejected the Kyoto treaty last March arguing that limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants during an energy crisis would only make matters worse. The Kyoto treaty called for a return to 1990 carbon dioxide emission levels by 2012, about a 7 percent decrease from current emission levels estimated to involve a 30 percent reduction in energy use.
The decision to pull out of the Kyoto treaty kindled a firestorm of criticism from U.S. environmental groups and European nations.
Apparently stung by the criticism, the president went to work on a replacement plan. Mr. ONeills plan doesnt just limit carbon dioxide emissions it would ban them.
The plan calls for developed and developing nations to cap and then eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide. The proposed timetable is as follows:
By 2012, developed nations would cap carbon dioxide emissions at then-current levels;
By 2025, developed nations would eliminate carbon dioxide emissions;
By 2035, developing nations would cap carbon dioxide emissions at then-current levels.
By 2050, developing nations would eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. The Bushies believe these goals can be met through a combination of carbon dioxide control technologies such as drawing carbon dioxide from power plant air emissions and mixing it with calcium chloride to form lime and carbon dioxide sequestration strategies, such as removing carbon from the atmosphere by planting trees and crops.
The source of the plan is Jae Edmonds, a scientist from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory who convinced Mr. ONeill, a longtime global-warming believer, the technology to meet these targets either exists or can be developed soon.
Adding fuel to Mr. ONeills plan is a report on global warming just issued by the National Research Council (NRC). The president requested the report after he rejected the Kyoto treaty.
The report begins, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperature are, in fact, rising. The changes observed … are most likely due to human activities." Supporters of the ONeill proposal including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Todd Whitman, and possibly Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe the plan represents a good compromise.
It appeases global-warming believers because it implicitly acknowledges that human-induced climate change is real and provides a timetable for tackling the problem. But the plan also appeases opponents of steps to limit energy use because no immediate action is required.
President Bush is committed to producing more energy at reasonable cost. But planning to cap and then eliminate carbon dioxide production by 2012 and 2025, respectively, threatens this commitment.
The Bush energy plan calls for construction of 1,300 new power plants over the next 20 years. At this point, it is difficult to conceive so many plants can be built without emitting more carbon dioxide.
It may be technologically possible to eliminate carbon dioxide emission from power plants, but that is quite different from the technology being economically feasible.
In recent congressional testimony, Mr. Edmonds called for "expediting the development of technologies to achieve [stabilization of greenhouse gases] at reasonable cost." But this call is more self-serving than public service.
The Energy Departments national laboratories, previously tasked with developing the nations nuclear arsenal, have been in search of a reason to exist ever since the Cold War ended. Their budgets stand to swell dramatically if Congress signs onto Mr. Edmonds recommendations for fighting the "Warming War."
As to the theory of man-made global warming, a read of the NRC report beyond the first few sentences and todays New York Times headline ("Panel tells Bush global warming is getting worse") reveals there is significant uncertainty about the surface temperature record. Moreover, the recent temperature record compiled from balloon and satellite measurements inexplicably dont show any warming.
No doubt this is why the NRC was forced to acknowledge, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability in the climate record and the uncertainties [relating to man-made greenhouse gases], a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."
Simply as a tactic to blunt criticism and forestall action on global warming, the ONeill plan might work. The problem, though, is that the global-warming myth has proven difficult to kill and the ONeill plan supports rather than knocks down the myth. It will be difficult to develop a rational national energy policy so long as we pretend the myth is reality.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book "Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams"(Cato Institute, 2001).

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide