Posted: 01/22/2004 | Author: H. Sterling Burnett
Gore Roars on Global Warming: Wrong Again!
In the aftermath of his defeat at the hands of then-Governor George W. Bush for President of the United States, former Vice-President Al Gore has struggled to remain relevant to the Democratic Party and in national politics. In an attempt to garner the image of “Kingmaker,” Gore recently, and very publicly, endorsed Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination for President. Now, just days before the first votes were cast, Gore teamed up with the now notorious liberal group MoveOn.org to attack President Bush’s environmental record, particularly on global warming.
Gore’s attack will do little if anything to get Howard Dean elected President. Rather, in raising the specter of global warming once again, Gore is harkening back to a core theme of his own losing campaign for President. And coming on one of the coldest days in New England history, it served to show just how out of step Gore has become.
President Bush did not reject the Kyoto protocol lightly. He simply recognized the reality of the situation. First, Kyoto, negotiated by the Clinton/Gore administration, would never gain Senate ratification – which is why the Clinton/Gore Whitehouse never submitted it to the Senate. Second, the extent to which human activities are contributing to the earth’s current warming cycle is still under debate within the scientific community. However, scientists agree that even if every country participating in the Kyoto protocol cut their greenhouse gas emissions by their assigned amounts, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise – and so, if such concentrations are causing global warming, will the temperature. Third, while the protocol would do nothing to prevent global warming, it will harm the U.S. economy. Bush learned one lesson from Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, Stupid!”
Kyoto was never about the environment. Rather it was an economic treaty pure and simple. Environmentalists saw it as a vehicle to limit economic growth by controlling energy use. Developing countries and some European countries, with large nuclear energy sectors, saw it as a way harm the U.S.’s competitiveness on world markets since the U.S. would have to cut its energy use more steeply than other countries.
What economic impact would Kyoto have had upon the U.S.? The Department of Energy under the Clinton administration issued a report predicting that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would result in a 52 percent increase in gasoline prices and an 86 percent increase in electricity prices. In addition the Gross Domestic Product would drop by 4.2 percent and reduce personal disposable income by 2.5 percent. A report published by my own National Center for Policy Analysis by Dr. Stephen Brown of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank also predicted significant cost to the U.S. if it committed to Kyoto. Dr. Brown determined that even using the most economically efficient means, complying with Kyoto would reduce U.S. GDP by between 3 percent to 4.3 percent in 2010, representing a loss of $275.2 billion to $394.4 billion, or $921 to $1,320 per person.
The U.S. is not the only nation considering the negative economic implications. Kyoto put Russia in an untenable economic position as well – it would only work if Russia restrained its own economic growth. Russia’s economy has yet to recover from its severe decline which occurred shortly after the collapse of the old Soviet Union. As a result, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions are well below their 1990 levels. According to the treaty, therefore, Russia would be able to sell emission credits – payments in lieu of economic growth—to countries whose greenhouse gas emissions exceeded their targets. Unfortunately for Russia, EU officials will not commit to purchase any firm amount of the credits. Since Russia can’t count on Kyoto’s welfare payments, Russia’s leaders decided that they would just have to grow their economy the old fashioned way, through productive activity, which requires energy, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions.
Contrary to Al Gore’s claims, even though the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto protocol, it has not ignored the potential impacts of climate change. Indeed, the President has called for unprecedented funding for climate change-related programs. President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget devoted $4.5 billion to addressing climate change—more than any other nation’s commitment—an increase of more than $700 million over the previous year’s budget. This includes almost $1.8 billion [$1,800 million] for climate change science, $1.6 billion [$1,600 million] for climate change technologies, and $279 million for international assistance—a 29 percent increase. This does not even count the billions of dollars devoted to carbon reduction programs funded in the agriculture bill.
President Bush has not ignored global warming, but neither has he bought into the kind of climate alarmism preached by Al Gore. If reheated climate alarmism is all that former vice-president Gore has to offer candidate Dean, Dean would be better off without his visible support.