CIVIL DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES
July 1997 (vol. 13, #5) 1601 N Tucson Blvd #9, Tucson AZ 85716 c 1997 Physicians for Civil Defense
COUNTDOWN
In December, 1997, negotiators will gather in Kyoto, Japan, to hammer out a final deal on a protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. U.S. negotiators include Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, who has already declared support for the protocol, and Eileen Claussen, who played an important role in eliminating freon.
The top priority for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) appears to be garnering public support, which is necessary to enable the protocol to clear one major hurdle: ratification by the U.S. Senate. After that, enforcement of the legally binding obligations will be handled by bureaucrats. A vital role will be played by NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), which are accountable to no electorate.
The fossil fuel industry and the OPEC nations are portrayed as the major Bad Guys opposing the treaty. But make no mistake: in the view of treaty advocates, all Americans are Bad Guys and will be punished by the treaty. According to the May 23 update by the ``Sound Science Initiative'' of the UCS: ``whenever anyone drives a car powered by gasoline or turns on an electric light powered by burning coal they [sic.] ... are contributing to an uncontrolled experiment with global climate.''
If you don't believe that, you need to know that ``getting over skepticism is the necessary first step toward accepting the forthcoming call to action.''
On the assumption that ``consensus'' has been achieved on the scientific issues
-note that ``consensus'' is not the same thing as agreement (see p. 2)-the focus is shifting into the policy arena. Here, the Good Guy coalition (environmental NGOs, ``progressive'' business groups, religious leaders, municipal officials, and others) confronts some powerful opponents, notably the United Mineworkers, the AFL-CIO, and the American Farm Bureau, now categorized by the UCS as the ``fossil fuel lobby and their allies.''Having placed their faith in computer models to predict the global climate of the future (and engaging in exaggerations of even the worst-case scenarios), the UCS now calls the skeptics ``economic doomsayers'' who purportedly rely on flawed and biased mathematical models which are based on the assumptions and simplifications of the ``can't do'' stance.
The war of the economic computer models in brief:
The International Impact Assessment Model, developed by Charles River Associates, predicts significant to severe impacts on Annex 1 nations, as well as those developing nations excluded from the protocol requirements. The impact is uneven, depending on the nation's overall economic situation. The heaviest burden would fall on New Zealand, costing between 5 and 7% of GDP. South Africa would lose less than 1% of GDP, while emitting 86 MT of carbon per year, whereas Saudi Arabia would be forced to endure a 3% decline while emitting only 60 MT of carbon per year. The loss to the U.S. would be about 3% of GDP, according to the CRA report.
The CRA assumed that the main policy instrument used to reduce emissions would be a $200 tax per ton of carbon. Using the same assumption, Dr. Lawrence Horwitz of DRI/McGraw Hill estimated a still higher cost of more than 4% of the U.S. GDP, or $350 billion per year. Moreover, he projected a loss of 1.1 million jobs annually. The Competitive Enterprise Institute cites an even higher cost of as much as $1,600 per person per year, or about $400 billion.
The net effect on world-wide emission of ``greenhouse gases'': possibly an increase, if energy-intensive industry moves to exempted nations and oil prices decrease due to diminished demand in the Annex 1 nations.
All of these calculations grossly underestimate the costs of the treaty as they concern emissions, not atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (see DDP Newsletter, July 1997).
The Clinton Administration was supposed to unveil the initial results of its interagency economic modeling analysis of various emissions scenarios by early July. Its computer models predicted an effect about half as severe as the CRA analysis, while its staff summary said the policies might nevertheless shave a mere fraction of a percent from the nation's economic growth (NY Times, 7/16/97). After peer review, the Administration decided to discontinue its internal analytic efforts, leaving a vacuum that groups such as the UCS intend to fill.
The UCS asserts that emissions could be cut 10% from 1990 levels by 2010, while annual energy costs are reduced by $530 per household and nearly 800,000 jobs are created. The UCS claims the support of 2500 economists (fewer than 10% of U.S. economists).
Criticizing the assumptions of the CRA model, especially the magnitude of the carbon tax and the omission of ``no regrets options,'' the UCS model makes some assumptions of its own, such as: (1) Tax ``recycling'' (shifting revenue from taxes on economic ``bads'' so as to lower taxes on economic ``goods'') will result in economic ``double dividends.'' Corollary: Central planning works, and 2x is a big positive number irrespective of the value of x. (2) Innovation happens on demand, especially if there is public investment in research. (3) Unemployment among coal miners doesn't matter if there are more jobs elsewhere, as in compliance bureaucracies. (4) Industries that are not energy-intensive are unaffected by impacts on industries that are (which employ ``only'' 2% of American workers).
During the five-month countdown to Kyoto, the UCS is urging vigorous action to influence U.S. negotiators and Senators. Efforts will probably be redoubled now that the Senate voted 95 to 0 in favor of the ``egregious'' resolution introduced by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) urging the government not to sign the treaty. (The UCS advocated opposition to the Byrd Resolution and support of the resolution by Senator John Chafee (R-RI), which ``recognized'' the seriousness of global climate change and gave the Administration flexibility in negotiating an ``effective'' climate treaty.)
Suggestions made by the UCS include: (1) Supporting the ``Energy Innovations'' report (see p. 2). You can download the report or sign up to receive UCS e-mail at the UCS web site (http:www.ucsusa.org). (2) Contacting your senator before August 2 or through his home office during the August recess. (3) Contacting editors and science reporters to dispel skepticism about climate change or fear of an economic debacle.
There may possibly be a countdown to Armageddon. But global warming is not a horseman of the Apocalypse.