President Bush came under blistering criticism during his recent swing through Europe, as he steadfastly proclaimed America’s opposition to the “Kyoto Protocol”, an international agreement to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide in the industrialized world. Carbon dioxide and water are the main wastes produced when fossil fuels such as oil, coal, or natural gas, are burned. As modern industrial society burns vast quantities of these items, it turns out that the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has actually risen substantially in the 20th century. CO2 is known as a “greenhouse gas”, in that it tends to increase the amount of the sun’s heat that is trapped by our atmospheric blanket, without which the Earth would be a frozen rock.
In the 1980’s, some atmospheric scientists put forth the theory that increased CO2 concentrations could reach such a level that it would affect the average temperature on the Earth’s surface. Rough calculations and assumptions about increases in CO2 emissions in the 21st century as the Third World industrialized led to some doomsday scenarios. Some projections suggested that the Earth’s average temperature could rise 10 or more degrees Fahrenheit, a massive warming in just 100 years. For comparison, the Earth was only about 8 degrees cooler during the last ice age, when London and Chicago sat under mile-thick sheets of ice stretching all the way back to the North Pole. Many environmental groups embraced these computer models, and pushed an agenda of scaling back fossil fuel use, particularly in America, which is the world’s largest user of fossil fuels.
By the late 1990’s, refinement of computer models led to less drastic projections, and there is now little talk of melting polar ice caps and the sea rising to swamp huge areas of the globe. But worst case global warming projections still forecast a rise of 3-6 degrees by the end of the century. Some countries, such as Canada and Russia, will actually benefit, but others could suffer serious disruptions. Environmental disruption could be mild or severe, and it is difficult to predict with any certainty. Supporters of global warming bolster their argument by the fact that temperatures in the 20th century rose about 1 degree F, and claim that this warming was due to the rise in CO2 .
In response to these concerns, the world met in Kyoto and hammered out an agreement in 1998 called the Kyoto Protocol. In it, all the industrialized countries agreed to cut their 2010 emissions of CO2 to 10% below year 1990 levels. This treaty was never even submitted by Clinton to the US Senate for ratification, as he knew it would be soundly defeated by both parties. Several European countries are trying to comply with Kyoto, and have pressured the Bush administration to get on board. But as far as Bush is concerned, global warming is just hot air, and there is no compelling reason to hammer the US economy to satisfy the computer-generated warnings of the environmental crowd. To rapidly wean the US economy off of fossil fuels and onto something else (nuclear? wind? solar? mandatory carpools?) will be extremely expensive and disruptive, and unlikely to be accepted by the American taxpayer.
Critics of global warming cite several lines of argument. First, they point out that most of the warming in the 20th century occurred before 1950, when CO2 emissions were much less. Secondly, CO2 is actually a trace part of the atmosphere, even now making up only 350 parts per million, a tiny fraction. CO2 by itself, even if the concentration doubles in the next hundred years, is a weak greenhouse gas. The computer models assume that a little warming by CO2 will cause more water to evaporate, and that water vapor (which is a potent greenhouse gas) is what accounts for much of the actual warming. Finally, the current climate computer models are still very crude. They are unable to predict today’s climate with any accuracy even if one inputs known conditions from the past, and so to rely on them to make a huge decision about the world economy seems like the height of folly. Finally, the Earth’s climate is always warming and cooling. One thousand years ago, Europe was warm enough to raise grapes in England, and the Vikings could start farming colonies on now frozen (and misnamed) Greenland.
Given that, drastic steps are probably not warranted. But reasonable ones should be explored, at least as an insurance policy. Raising the federal mandates for car and truck fuel economy, efficiency standards for household appliances, and some investment in non-fossil fuel energy (wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar) are all good ideas. Arresting deforestation, and policies to reverse that, will allow more carbon dioxide to be sucked up by the globe’s growing forests. But there is no need to turn the world upside down. Bush is right in rejecting Kyoto’s radical solution.