• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • 'Global' Global Warming Treaty is a Bad Idea

    As countries from all over the world reconvene in frigid Posnan, Poland for the second week of United Nations climate change discussions, the potential for a global pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appears to be fading, much like global warming hysteria itself. Reuters reports,

    A year ago, 190 nations signed up for a two-year push to agree a comprehensive climate treaty at talks in Copenhagen in late 2009. But negotiators and analysts attending preparatory Dec. 1-12 talks in Poznan say that looks out of reach.”

    A new global pact to combat climate change would replace the failed Kyoto Protocol, a treaty agreed upon by much of Western Europe, Canada and Japan in 1997 to set carbon reduction goals for the years 2008 to 2012. The U.S. chose not to partake in Kyoto and as Heritage analyst Ben Lieberman writes, the U.S. chose wisely:

    For all their rhetoric, the European nations are well off track of Kyoto’s requirement that emissions be 8-percent below 1990 levels starting in 2008. Official European emissions data shows that nearly every one of these countries has higher carbon-dioxide emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997, and the emissions increases show no signs of leveling off. The same is true of Canada, Japan, and other major non-European signatories. In fact, most of these countries are seeing their emissions rising faster than those in the U.S.”

    Today, Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), issued his statement at UN Climate Change Conference in Poland:

    The United States is often asked for leadership on climate change. Leadership involves telling people what they don’t want to hear. Reaching mandatory emissions caps that exclude some of the world’s largest emitters won’t stop global warming. Reductions across developed nations stand to be completely offset by inefficient growth and deforestation in the developing world. That fatal flaw is why neither President Clinton nor Bush submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. The Senate had warned President Clinton on a 95-to-0 vote not to negotiate a treaty without global participation.

    [W]ith the world and the U.S. economies in recession, it is critical that we do not cause further erosion of U.S. jobs or the economy. Analysis of recent legislation by several institutions clearly shows that the “cap-and-tax” approach will have an enormous impact on job growth and our GDP. I call this approach “cap and tax” because that is what it is—a tax on carbon. The emissions trading system is nothing more than a complex scheme to disguise what is ultimately a transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector—in other words, a tax.”

    The lack of progress being made in Poland is irritating members of the environmentalist movement. Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace said, “It’s frustrating. They haven’t made any progress in the last week.”

    Maybe it’s a good thing that world doesn’t rush to judgment to enact a costly treaty that would be extremely difficult to comply and would be a step backwards for developing countries. In fact, India has already stated that they will not accept any emission reduction limits. If China’s not on board, forget about it. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis calculated the costs of global warming legislation in the U.S. alone. The results: The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per household.

    Whether we’re in a recessionary environment or not, global warming legislation and global treaties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are bad ideas. The best action for these countries to take is inaction.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to 'Global' Global Warming Treaty is a Bad Idea

    1. Barb -mn says:

      It's a good idea as it is to collapse America. Nothing but costly, unproductive MAKE-WORK. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MORE GOVERNMENT WASTE.

    2. Pingback: private foundation grants | Digg hot tags

    3. Pingback: ‘Global’ Global Warming Treaty is a Bad Idea « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    4. owl, toronto says:

      The proverb goes something like "The strong one does what is right. The weak one does what sells." This article is selling continued, and accelerated, pollution. The angle about 'not stopping gw' is a rehash of the minimal impact argument used to kill Kyoto. The expensive, job-loss, FUD is more rehash:- the worst performing economy on the planet is the nation that bugged on a response to the pollution. It's not a co-incidence, it's consistent with doing things that sold instead of doing things that were right.

    5. Edward Foster says:

      Even if one accepts that the earth is warming (and the data are insufficient to establish this as a long-term trend), there is no data that prove that mankind has anything to do with it. The most exotic computer models cannot tell you with any degree of certainty whether it will rain next week but people believe these models can predict the weather hundreds of years into the future.

      Methane (a far more potent "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide which is encourages plant growth and creates oxygen in the process) is produced by cow paddies. If you believe that global warming is caused by mankind and you want to help, stop eating beef and start eating vegetables. Planting more vegetables will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and slaughering all animals will reduce the amount of methane. Two fer one! Can't beat that.

      I recall diving off Andros in the Tongue of the Ocean several years ago. At a depth of about 60 feet, there was an underwater "waterfall" that dropped another 60 to 80 feet or so with a ledge at the bottom. All of this was above water during the last Ice Age. We are now coming out of that Ice Age and pseudo-scientists like Al Gore think mankind caused the warming. Get real! We're just not that important.

    6. Charlie Peters, Hayw says:

      California CalEPA Secretary Linda Adams, signed a MOU with the UN in China on earth day. China gets about ½ the world carbon tax and the China government gets a 50% tax of the credits.

      * * China goods and services may increase in California

      * * You pay the carbon tax and GE, Wal-Mart, BP, GM, IBM, Microsoft and friends may all share in the public/private partnership of corporate and NGO welfare.

      * * Clean Air Performance Professionals

    7. Charlie Peters, Hayw says:

      A random "Smog Check" inspection & repair audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit can cut CA car impact over 50% in 2009

    8. Charlie Peters, Hayw says:

      Should California consider a fee on corn fuel ethanol use?

      * * Lower price for food, gas, water, beer, cleaner air and funds for the budget from oil profit.

    9. Penny Thompson says:

      I guess the Global Warming alarmists missed the article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6) that 650 climate experts refute man's influence on climate. Funny how the earth manges to balance it's self no matter what we do. The only thing this is designed to do is lighten your wallet and pay for global government.

    10. John M. Dyess Sr. says:

      Information that I have read on the web indicates that world wide global temperatures are actually cooling. Anyway, why would anyone want to impose carbon restrictions on the United States when Scientists say that if Cap and Trade it will have little if any impact upon reducing global temperatures? In my opinion the people who are pushing cap and trade have a reason other than reducing global warming for wanting cap and trade legislation. Could it be purely a political thing, to raise taxes??? and/or gain control of the energy sector of the economy??? I think maybe that is the reason.

    11. Charlie Peters says:

      "(Dr.) Jeffrey Williams. Looking at the very distant future, can we make it clearer how much air

      pollution is costing people? I can envision cars with a meter on the dash that shows the health

      care cost of the tailpipe emissions. The owner can then get repairs to reduce emissions (rather

      than hit a cut point). We’re not using all the information we could (from OBD II for example) to

      fix the pollution costs of the vehicle. How many miles has the car has driven with check engine

      light? There should be a fine for driving with the check engine light on."


      Is it time for CHANGE?

      Clean Air Performance Professionals

      Charlie Peters

      (510) 537-1796


    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.