| 113th Year, 42nd Issue | Thursday, May 30, 2002 | Sparta, North Carolina |
In his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World", Danish mathematician and Greenpeace member, Bjorn Lomborg, points out that the claims of environmental catastrophe and imminent disaster are not only overblown, but that the costs of "correction" substantially exceed the actual benefits to either humanity or the environment. In presenting the issues in this light, he has raised the ire of the environmental left to a level comparable to that of the anti-monarchists during the French Revolution. That "costs" should have any place in the discussion of environmental religion is a heresy not to be tolerated. In the real world, however, economics provides the only rational basis for prioritizing efforts and expenditures when faced with multiple demands on resources. And so it turns for "global warming" and the Kyoto protocol.
Before Gore negotiated the Kyoto protocol for the Clinton administration in 1997, the US Senate had voted 95-0 against ratifying a treaty that would harm the US economy. Clinton never bothered to submit the protocol for Senate approval. Instead, the administration gave the Energy Department the job of figuring out what implementing Kyoto would cost.
The results were not gratifying to Kyoto supporters — a cost of nearly $200 billion and millions of jobs lost. The Clinton administration was not completely stupid; they simply shelved the issue. Yet when the Bush administration indicated that the protocol was a dead issue, Kyoto supporters here and abroad went into hysterical overdrive. Obviously this administration was in the pockets of ‘big oil' and ‘corporations,' placing money and connections ahead of our moral responsibility to "do something" —another variant of the "salmonella in my hamburger" argument.
Now our European friends had an opportunity to occupy the moral high ground, since emissions of "global warming" gases had been declining on their watch. The European Parliament readily approved the protocol, leaving the issue up to the individual members to follow suit. That appeared to be the direction, until April of this year. Prior to then, European emissions had declined by nearly 4 percent from 1990 as a result of increased natural gas usage, cleanup of East German industrial sites and stagnating European economies. On April 25th, The American Council of Capital Formation (ACCF) presented a study in Brussels outlining the effects of Kyoto implementation on the EU economy. The data was an awakening – GDP loss of 4-5 percent, unemployment increasing by 5-8 million, fuel prices increasing by 15-20 percent and natural gas pricing up by 40 percent.
And shortly after this study was presented, the European Environment Agency reported that the previous decline, with its bragging rights for the EU, had reversed. Europe is now in the midst of a dilemma – implement the protocol and watch the economy crash and burn or back away from previous posturing and be revealed as hypocrites. Advocates of warming theory are not happy with this turn of events; the EU appeared to be in their pocket. Yet the results of the ACCF report have been replicated, with the same conclusions, from a variety of sources worldwide; the US department of Energy, the Japanese Ministry; Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Norwegian commissions. And reality is generally unkind to utopian fantasy. Each of these countries has expressed reservations about or objection to ratification of the protocol. Their backing away from Kyoto is being supported by the accumulation of actual science which, increasingly, is calling into question the basic claims of the "global warming" crowd and their insistence on human responsibility.
The environmental lobby, worldwide, has been consistent in their position that the costs of "correction" have no place in the discussions about "doing something." Since only they are in possession of the "truth," failure to implement their vision is simply immoral. Bjorn Lomborg has been demonized specifically because he continually questions the cost of environmental problems and their justification. In responding to his arguments, they are required to justify their positions and demonstrate why they should receive priority over a multitude of other worthwhile programs. Once the apocalyptic rhetoric is sidelined, justification is increasingly difficult to accomplish. In the instance of global warming, circumstances seem to have provided the opportunity to sidestep the hysteria and focus on real problems.
Unfortunately, you can expect the self-serving fear mongers to return to the global stage with yet another imminent catastrophe requiring their divine guidance. Unless, of course, you insist that the costs be defined.
Back to the Mushroom Chronicles Archive
Email: allnews@ls.net