This December, world
leaders will meet in Kyoto, Japan to sign an amendment to the Rio
Treaty that will establish strict targets and timetables for
reducing carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gas emissions. The
central premise of the amendment and of the treaty itself is that
atmospheric concentrations of these gases are growing at an alarming
rate, increasing global temperatures, threatening our environment
and our very lives.
President Clinton is likely
to sign the amendment even though U.S. compliance costs are expected
to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars each year, arguing
that the threat to the environment justifies these costs.
The media should be
skeptical. As they prepare to cover the Kyoto summit, journalists
need to ask four crucial questions.
Is global warming
occurring and, if so, how much?
Since the end of the last
Ice Age, the planet has warmed by roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius, but
there is little evidence that this warming trend has continued over
the past 50 years.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models, by
now global mean temperatures were supposed to be rising at a rate of
0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. But satellite and weather balloon
measurements show a slight cooling trend while ground level
measurements indicate warming of about half the projected amount. In
either event, the temperature fluctuations are modest.
Would life be better
with or without global warming?
Evidence suggests that even
if global warming does occur, it could be beneficial.
While the scientific
community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory,
the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of
them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more
evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. With one-third of
the world's population currently suffering chronic water shortages,
global warming could save billions of people from malnutrition,
economic despair, or even death.
If history is any
indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits
of global warming. For example, between the 10th and the 12th
centuries, when the planet's temperature was roughly 0.5 degrees
Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and
Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of
ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Prior to the onset of
this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to those forecast
by the U.N.-sponsored IPCC, the international body which monitors
temperature change, for 2030-2050.
Global warming could also
mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water
conservation as CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while
reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots
through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere).
Is global warming the
result of natural phenomena or human activity?
Scientists don't fully
understand the role of natural CO2 emissions on climate, much less
the role of human emissions. Earth was in the grip of an ice age 440
million years ago, despite the fact that CO2 concentrations were up
to ten times current levels.
There is similarly little
evidence of a link between human CO2 emissions and climate change.
Two-thirds of the rise in global temperatures since the mid-19th
century occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions from
human activities were still minimal. Further, despite a more than 19
percent rise in such emissions since 1979, the planet temperature
has cooled slightly over the past 18 years by 0.9 degrees Celsius.
Is the cure worse than
The initial objective of
international negotiators is to reduce CO2 emissions to their 1990
levels by the year 2000, with further reductions slated for 2010 and
2020. Just stabilizing these gases at 1990 levels could cost one to
three million jobs in the U.S., according to CONSAD Research
The economies of developing
nations would pay an even higher price. Over the next two decades as
much as 60 percent of all carbon emissions will come from the
developing world, meaning that strict emission controls on these
nations will be required.
World leaders are thus
preparing to impose enormous costs on the world's people to stop a
phenomenon that may not exist, could be a net plus if it does, and
may be impossible for human beings to control in any event. The
media can contribute to a more thoughtful, rational policy debate by
asking these four questions.
David A. Ridenour is
vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research (
Reliefrprt@aol.com or 202/543-1286)