oM AT E

GLosAt-

CLIMATE WAIrm
?MEE
-

AN INFORMATION UPDATE FROM THE GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION
May 11, 1998

Volume 5, Issue 16

NEW FOCUS ON CLIMATE SCIENCE
ACTIVISTS SEEK TO BLOCK PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW
During an extraordinary two-week period, global warming advocates sought to
recruit both the New York Times and the National Academy of Sciences to block open
discussion of the science of climate change — and both organizations fell victim to the
activists' efforts.
The New York Times carried a front-page story April 26 which supposedly
exposed a new program by industry to reopen the scientific debate by providing more
opportunities for the public to hear from climate experts. The story was based on a
summary of discussions among an informal group of think tanks and industry
executives. Times reporter John Cushman revealed in the story that the private
document had been given to him by Phil Clapp, head of the self-styled National
Environmental Trust, for the specific purpose of aborting the proposed science
program by giving it negative publicity "to ruin the effort to raise money."
Instead, the Times report appears to have revived interest in the science.
Columnist Philip Burgess wrote in the Rocky Mountain News: "Maybe (American
industry) can now sponsor a true national debate presenting both the pros and the cons
of the warming scenario so that the American public can actively participate in
policymaking about global warming." For too long, Burgess wrote, "the well funded
global warming lobby has had a largely free ride."
Uncertainty still abounds about basic issues of climate science, and the public
has a right to know, wrote the Detroit News. Noting that "smearing opponents to
suppress facts that don't fit with its agenda has become part of the basic strategy of the
environmental left," the News pointed to the aggressive "war room" approach of the
National Environmental Trust in its efforts to manipulate public opinion on the
warming issue. 'The NET has unabashedly cultivated journalists, government
officials, religious leaders and even children's advocacy groups" to create fears about
global warming.

JOB LOSSES
UNDER KYOTO
AGREEMENT
Alabama
62,500
Alaska
2,600
Arizona
125,000
Arkansas
17,300
California
411,000
Colorado
40,000
Connecticut
30,600
Delaware
4,000
Florida
76,000
Georgia
45,300
Hawaii
14,600
Idaho
14,600
Illinois
240,000
Indiana
104,000
Iowa
25,300
Kansas
30,600
Kentucky
50,600
Louisiana
48,000
Maine
9,300
Maryland
46,600
Massachusetts
34,600
Michigan
125,300
Minnesota
40,000

 - CLIMATE WATCH
Wit/EF
AS TO THOSE 17,000 PESKY SCIENTISTS
More than 17,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon petition urging the
Administration and Congress to reject the Kyoto treaty on the grounds that "there is no
convincing scientific evidence" that human release of greenhouse gases will disrupt the
earth's climate.
Here again, activists have worked hard to discredit the petition and its signers,
using computer hackers to break into the on-line list of signatories and insert phony
names, and complaining that the petition does not include details on the affiliations
and credentials of the scientists. They also persuaded the New York Times and the
National Academy of Sciences to criticize the fact that the format of the science
summary circulated with the petition looked too much like an official NAS document.
The NAS says it is planning to publish a document of its own in coming weeks,
to help identify gaps in the climate science. Though the NAS is now officially
committed to the idea of global warming as a threat, this is a relatively new position.
In 1975 --not long ago in terms of the earth's climate-- the NAS concluded that the
principal climate threat was a "significant cooling" of the planet within 100 years.
But that was then.
CANADIAN DOUBTS GROW: KYOTO AGENDA "TOO AMBITIOUS"
The Canadian Government is increasingly concerned that it cannot meet the
targets it agreed to at Kyoto. Paul Heinbecker, assistant deputy minister of foreign
affairs, told a recent Toronto conference that the international agenda is a "bit too
ambitious" and "I don't personally think it's going to work." Looking towards the
November meeting in Buenos Aires, he noted ruefully that "the pace of the
international agenda is getting ahead of the national agendas."
At Kyoto, Canada agreed to reduce its carbon emissions 6 percent below 1990
levels by 2010. At current economic growth rates, this would mean reducing its
emissions by 25 percent. Yet environment minister Christine Stewart assured the same
Toronto conference that 'We will not do anything that would jeopardize our
economy."
Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Terence Corcoran commented April 28:
"The scale of the task facing the country is at best monumental. In practice, it is
absurd. Canada has committed to reducing carbon emissions by a set percentage when
in fact nobody has a clue how much carbon Canada is responsible for, nor are there
any known ways to measure carbon emissions....Determining who emits carbon and
how much is nothing more than a theoretical exercise." He also noted that the
scientific justification for global warming is "crumbling."

JOB LOSSES
(coned)
Mississippi
28,000
Missouri
57,300
Montana
14,600
Nebraska
28,000
Nevada
30,600
New Hampshire
6,600
New Jersey
159,600
New Mexico
12,000
New York
145,300
North Carolina
133,000
North Dakota
2,600
Ohio
77,300
Oklahoma
26,600
Oregon
14,600
Pennsylvania
44,000
Rhode Island
2,600
South Carolina
32,000
South Dakota
6,600
Tennessee
48,000
Texas
165,300
Utah
12,000
Vermont
1,300
Virginia
84,000
Washington
60,000
West Virginia
9,300
Wisconsin
87,000
Wyoming
9,300
(Source: WEFA)

GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION • 1275 K St. NW • Suite 890 • Washington, DC 20005 • Press Office (202) 628-3622

 CLIMATE WATCH
CHIEF
SENATE BILL AIMS TO BLOCK "BACK DOOR" POLICY
A Senate bill introduced April 30 by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), seeks to block "back
door" implementation of the Kyoto agreement. The "Economic Growth/Sovereignty Protection
Act" would ban the spending of federal funds for "rules, regulations or programs" designed to
implement the agreement.
The bill specifically targets the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been
pressuring state and local governments to reduce emissions and has claimed in an internal
memorandum that it may already have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean
Air Act.
The bill states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall not have the authority to promulgate regulations to limit
the emissions of carben dioxide."
Implementing a treaty without the Senate's approval "is contrary to the Constitution and
the checks and balances established by the framers," said Ashcroft. "The American president is
not a monarch who is able to make treaties without oversight by the people's elected
representatives. In our nation, a president is not empowered to make treaties that unilaterally
bind American sovereignty."
"This legislation will protect the American economy, our jobs and incomes, and it will
uphold important constitutional values. Having given away far too much to get a bad agreement
in Kyoto, the Administration is seeking to put salt into this wound by sneaking the Kyoto terms
past the Senate and public."

OFFICIAL U.S. STUDY INDICATES KYOTO WILL PRODUCE MINIMAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
The Administration has acknowledged for the first time that the Kyoto agreement will
have only a modest effect on reducing emissions -- due to the fast increasing emissions of
developing nations who are not party to the agreement.
A study released April 22 by the Energy Information Administration found that carbon
dioxide emissions will increase 32 percent by 2010 despite the Kyoto- mandated cuts in
emissions for industrialized nations. By 2020, emissions are forecast to increase by nearly 60
percent even when factoring in complete compliance with the Kyoto agreement by the developed
world.
In an interview with The Washington Times, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who headed
the Senate delegation to Kyoto, said that the agreement is "even deader than it was before in the
Senate, if that's possible."

 CLIMATE WATCH
427/1/E7F"
Discussing the study's forecast for 2010, he said that "for a 10 percent swing in
emissions, the reward is not worth the effort. Why would you do the kind of damage to your
economy and competitiveness and national sovereignty, if in fact you're not going to get any
results? The fact is, without developing countries, of course you're going to have an increase in
greenhouse gases. That's why this Kyoto protocol is complete folly, complete nonsense."
Developing countries which are not required to reduce emissions under the Kyoto
agreement are forecast to account for 75 percent of the increase in emissions between 1990 and
2020, according to the study.
BUT COULD" DEVASTATE" CALIFORNIAN ECONOMY
A study to be released next month projects a "devastating economic impact" on
Californian businesses and families if the Kyoto agreement is implemented. "California would
be particularly hard hit because of its heavy reliance on oil, natural gas, and electricity, all targets
in the Clinton-Gore Administrations push for sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,"
said economist Glenn Schleede, the study's author.
Sponsored by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy and the National Consumer
Coalition, the study found that expected new gasoline taxes would increase a family's driving
costs by an average of over 40 percent to $715 dollars per household and could go higher.
Electricity prices, already well above the national average, would also increase substantially -- an
average increased cost to families in the range of $237 to $946 per household. Senior citizens
would be particularly hard hit as a larger share of their fixed incomes would go to higher energy
costs.
The full economic impact of the Kyoto agreement would be further magnified by
increased competitive pressure on Californian businesses from China, India and Mexico.
"Individuals and families in California deserve to have objective information on the real
implications of the Administration's plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said
Schleede. "Unfortunately, the Administration has not made this information available, despite
the fact it is precisely individuals and families who will bear all the costs and feel the impact of
reduced energy supplies."
EUROPEANS, JAPAN SIGN CLIMATE CHANGE PACT
The 15 European Union member countries signed the Kyoto agreement April 29 and
sought to put further pressure on the United States. "I hope to see the United States signing as
early as possible," said EU environmental chief Ritt Bjerregaard.
Britain's deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said the Europeans were confident that
Clinton would sign the treaty but they understood that it may not be sent to Congress for
ratification for some time.
Japan signed the treaty April 28, becoming the first major industrial nation to do so.

4

 CLIMAI E WATCH
/11111/Er
"NATURE" DENIES CHARGES OF RUSHING REVIEW PROCESS
The British science magazine Nature has denied widely circulating reports that at the
request of the White House it was rushing the peer review process of a paper favoring the global
warming theory.
The paper, by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, claims to have found an error in
satellite temperature readings, which have consistently indicated a gradual cooling in the earth's
atmosphere over the past 20 years. If corrected for the error, the satellite measurements would
show a slight warming, the researchers claim. Vice President Gore's office was widely reported
to have pressed for early publication.
In a letter to GCC President Gail McDonald, Nature 's North American Editor Laura
Garwin described the charges as false. "The paper by Wentz and Schabel is proceeding through
our peer-review process....I can tell you that two months after its submission, the manuscript has
not yet been accepted for publication." She added that no one in the Vice President's office or
Administration had contacted Nature about the paper. Had they done so, "we would certainly
have ignored the request."
Responding to the letter, Ms. McDonald urged that when Nature publishes the Wentz and
Schabel study, it should at the same time publish the comments of the scientists responsible for
the satellite readings, John Christy and Roy Spencer, who do not dispute the Wentz findings, but
claim that they make no difference to the end result: the satellites still show an overall cooling.
GLOBAL WARMING EXPERTS VINDICATED
The independent Minnesota News Council voted 9-4 that the Star-Tribune of
Minneapolis had been unfair in its characterization of the scientific reputations of Robert Balling,
climatologist at Arizona State University, Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental science
at the University of Virginia and S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental
Policy Project. A Star-Tribune editorial had accused them of "disseminating unsubstantiated
opinions without the review by other scientists required for scientific inquiry."
As the Arizona Republic noted in a commentary, Balling alone has published 91 articles
in peer-review journals. Michaels and Singer also have been published extensively. The case
appears to further illustrate the point made in a recent Detroit News editorial: "Smearing
opponents to suppress facts that don't fit with its agenda has become part of the basic strategy of
the environmental left."
YALE TO THE RESCUE
Yale University says it plans to launch a new web site this summer featuring "proven or
promising solutions to a wide range of problems, including global warming." Typical
solutions to be shared on the site, it says, include solar villages near the Arctic Circle and
towns lending stolen bicycles to city employees to reduce automobile use. Go Bulldogs!

GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION • 1275 K St. NW • Suite 890 • Washington, DC 20005 • Press Office (202) 628-3622