Undiplomatic Diplomats
Annan takes the anti-U.S. message on the road.

By Paul Georgia, an environmental policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute & managing editor of the “Cooler Heads” newsletter.
May 23, 2001 8:55 a.m.

he release of the Bush administration's energy proposals has European and U.N. officials in another tizzy. They have engaged in one tirade after another against the U.S. over the last few months. Much of the abuse is targeted at the Bush administration's refusal to play global-warming make-believe with the rest of the world.

Mr. Jan Pronk, Dutch Environment Minister and chairman of the sixth Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change blasted the plan saying, "Disconnecting energy and climate policies from each other is fairly disastrous. We were expecting an all inclusive program but that didn't happen."

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan used his commencement address at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University this weekend to berate the U.S., accusing the administration of putting the world at risk. "Make no mistake all countries will suffer," he said, calling U.S. actions a "grievous setback."

The European Union countries are especially upset since they are counting on the Kyoto Protocol to help their economies vis-à-vis the U.S. economy. This became crystal clear when an angered Margot Wallstrom, the E.U. environment commissioner, stated that this was not about environment or global warming but "about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world." Some E.U. officials went so far as to threaten trade sanctions against the U.S., claiming that our lower energy taxes are an unfair trade advantage.

The economic policies now prevalent throughout the E.U. (all but two of the 15 E.U. members have socialist governments) have stifled economic growth, making it very difficult for their own industries to compete on the international market. Heavy energy taxes and regulation have slowed European economic growth to a near standstill. Rather than liberalize their economies, however, European governments have sought to saddle the U.S. energy system with similar hurdles through Kyoto. This is clearly incompatible with President Bush's emphasis on freeing the U.S. energy system from ill-conceived regulatory burdens that have led to the current energy fiasco.

It becomes even clearer upon closer examination of the Kyoto Protocol that this is about economic warfare and not the environment. Kyoto puts a heavier burden on the U.S. economy relative to the E.U. The E.U. and U.S. have similar commitments under Kyoto. The U.S. would be required to lower it greenhouse gas emission by seven percent below 1990 levels and the E.U. eight percent below 1990 levels.

The difference is that the U.S. has experienced tremendous economic growth since 1990, causing carbon-dioxide emissions to go up significantly. The EU economies have been sluggish. They also have the luxury of having shut down much of East Germany's wasteful and inefficient industrial capacity, moving them much closer to pre-1990 emission levels. European enthusiasm for Kyoto would cool significantly if the baseline were to change from 1990 to 2000, even if the overall greenhouse-gas reductions were greater.

The European politicians have another problem. They have invested a lot of political capital in catastrophic global-warming theory at home and abroad, but the science is not coalescing in their favor. In fact, the scientific basis for climatic Armageddon, which was never solid in the first place, has weakened considerably over the last six months. The best evidence to date suggests that the amount of warming likely to occur over the next 100 years would be trivial and perhaps beneficial (a review of recent scientific advances is available at http://www.cei.org/OnPointReader.asp?ID=1477).

Time is running out on Europe's politicians. As the science weakens, the shrillness of their attacks increase. They desperately want to declare the debate closed and force the U.S. to enter into an agreement before scientific reality enters the public consciousness.

President Bush must hold the line against such attempts. So far he has demonstrated a clear understanding of both the scientific and economic realities. His plan to free the U.S. energy system from the ill-conceived regulatory burdens that have led to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing gasoline prices would safeguard our energy future

Secretary General Annan did get one thing right. "The United States…is the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it is the world's most successful economy." That is not something to be ashamed of. Indeed, it should be a great source of pride for the American people. The U.S. economy is successful because the U.S. has democratized energy use to a greater extent than any other country. Affordable energy is available to everyone in the U.S., both rich and poor. In other countries, especially developing countries, only the elites enjoy the blessings of energy use. The poor are often deprived of energy use, forcing them to suffer from frequent power outages and inadequate transportation.

The goal shouldn't be worldwide energy suppression, which is the inevitable outcome of the Kyoto process, but the worldwide democratization of energy use. That would do more than anything else to alleviate human suffering and to improve the ability of people to care for the environment.