[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 43 (Monday, April 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3247-S3248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words this 
afternoon about the U.N. global climate treaty that the Clinton 
administration agreed to in Kyoto, Japan, this past December, and which 
you, as the Presiding Officer, have taken a real lead in helping your

[[Page S3248]]

colleagues here in the Senate to understand. In fact, I know that you 
helped to lead a delegation to those proceedings in Kyoto. This treaty 
will require the United States to drastically reduce its greenhouse-gas 
emissions, presumably by rationing our energy consumption and assessing 
taxes on energy use and production.

  The reduction of pollutants, of course, is a laudable goal. I 
wholeheartedly support efforts that will produce a cleaner environment. 
But what the administration fails to adequately appreciate is that 
protecting the environment is a global issue, one all nations must 
actively take part in if global environmental protection is truly to be 
attained. The administration would like the American people to believe 
that this debate is about who is for or against the environment; but, 
that is not the case. This debate is about whether or not this 
particular treaty is in the best interests of the American people and 
the global environment.
  The underlying hypothesis used by proponents of the treaty is that 
greenhouse gases, which trap the sun's infrared rays and heat the 
earth's atmosphere, have become so abundant in the atmosphere that a 
``global warming'' effect has commenced, and that the cause of this 
phenomenon is manmade. On the basis of this as-yet unproven connection 
between human activity and the climate, delegates at the climate change 
conference in Kyoto reached an agreement to curb greenhouse-gas 
emissions. The treaty, if ratified, would legally bind the U.S. to cut 
its overall emissions of six gases by seven percent below 1990 levels 
by 2012. However, 130 developing countries, such as Mexico, China, 
Korea, and India, would not be held liable to these same standards.
  The evidence of global warming is inconclusive, at best. For the past 
20 years, precisely the same 20 years during which carbon dioxide 
levels have increased the most, the earth has actually cooled. This 
cooling flies in the face of the theory that man-made emissions are 
causing a global warming effect. Models cannot accurately predict what 
the weather will be like next week, let alone what temperatures will 
prevail on Earth in the next century. The only consensus that has been 
reached within the scientific community--that future effects of fossil-
fuel use are most likely to be gradual over many decades to come--gives 
good reason for the U.S. government not to rush to judgement.
  Committing the U.S. to these targets will have severe economic 
effects on American families and workers. According to the Heritage 
Foundation, holding emissions to 1990 levels will raise energy prices 
between 50 and 200 percent; average households would pay $1,620 in 
additional taxes a year; and the economy would contract by a total of 
$3.3 trillion, all by the year 2020. I note that these figures are 
based on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels only; going 
seven percent below these levels, as agreed to by the Clinton 
administration, will result in more serious hardships for the American 
people. Furthermore, the AFL-CIO estimates that reducing emissions to 
1990 levels will result in the loss of 1.25 to 1.5 million American 
jobs. And these jobs will not simply disappear; rather, industry will 
move overseas and reestablish itself in those countries that are not 
legally bound to gas-emissions targets. These combined effects would 
place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage, while failing to address 
the global problem of soaring amounts of pollution produced by the 
developing nations of the world.
  Meanwhile, the developing countries are projected to continue 
accelerating their use of fossil fuels during the next century. By 
2015, China will surpass the U.S. in total carbon emissions. Without 
the full participation of the developing countries in any treaty of 
this kind, unilateral attempts by the developed nations to reduce 
greenhouse-gas emissions will not significantly slow the steady 
increase of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
  In sum, the United States should not be party to a global climate 
treaty that is not supported by a scientific consensus, that puts an 
unfair burden on American workers and consumers, and that asks us to 
turn back the clock on economic growth and our standard of living. More 
importantly, this treaty fails to effectively address the issue because 
it ignores the developing countries of the world. It simply does not 
make sense, either environmentally or economically, to focus on the 
nations that are already spending billions on pollution control and 
making substantial progress, while ignoring developing nations--
countries where emissions could be curbed by employing the same basic 
technologies the United States has used so successfully to reduce its 
levels of pollution. U.S. companies, using the best available 
technology, are able to eliminate the bulk of pollution from their 
emissions. To achieve an additional increment of pollution reduction, 
developed nations like the U.S. would be required to expend inordinate 
sums of money in pursuit of only marginal improvements. The costs 
associated with attempting to squeeze out the last increments of 
pollution will heavily outweigh any benefits in the developed nations. 
However, in countries where pollution-control technology is not as 
advanced or widespread as it is here, a dollar spent on equipment will 
provide far greater reductions in overall pollution. Thus, the cost/
benefit ratio favors pressing developing nations to catch up with us. 
The Global Climate Treaty does not do this.
  Faced with certain defeat on this issue, the administration has 
resorted to a level of fear mongering which I think has been unmatched 
since the 1970s, when some of the same scientists who are promoting 
global warming warned at that time that we were about to enter upon the 
next ice age. I find it hard to believe that in a mere 20 years, our 
climate has moved from one extreme to the other. In a December Wall 
Street Journal article, Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson of the 
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine point out that ``there is not 
a shred of persuasive evidence that humans are responsible for 
increasing global temperatures.'' But the administration, in an effort 
to rally support, issues apocalyptic warnings that, if global warming 
is not headed off, we will experience floods, droughts, rising sea 
levels, and the spread of infectious diseases. The global warming 
hypothesis should not be taken as fact; Americans should not be scared 
into accepting unsubstantiated scenarios as the truth.
  The Senate fulfilled the first half of its ``advise and consent'' 
role this summer by passing the Byrd-Hagel resolution 95 to 0. That 
bipartisan advice instructed the administration not to sign a treaty 
that did not include the developing countries of the world in the same 
emission-control requirements, or a treaty that would cause great 
economic harm to America. The treaty to which the administration has 
agreed meets neither of these guidelines. Therefore, because the 
administration was unwilling to consider the Senate's advice, I do not 
believe the Senate will give its consent--nor should it.

                          ____________________