The potential role of solar activity and other natural factors. Fluctuations in the sun's energy output may be enough to cause average global temperatures to rise and fall and then rise again by several degrees. At a meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in January 1998, two NASA scientists demonstrated that about half of the modest warming trend observed during the 20th Century could be attributable to the sun." This leaves about half a degree for all other causes, including human activities. According to the climate models that served as the basis for both the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in 1992 and the proposed Kyoto Protocol in 1997, there "should" have been seven times this amount of warming, above and beyond that caused by solar activity.

Models have lowered warming projections. As GCMs have improved over the past decade, they have tended to become substantially more conservative in their projections of future warming." The IPCC itself has steadily lowered the amount of warming that can be expected from a doubling of CO2. In 1990, the IPCC estimated a 3.3°C temperature rise by 2100. Five years later, that estimate had been lowered by nearly half to 2°C. At the January 1998 international meeting of the AMS, climate modeler Steve Marcus at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) reported that use of a new, advanced GCM developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research projected a future warming of 1.5°C-a warming that is at the low end of the IPCC's range and well below that of a catastrophic warming scenario. 's

The bottom line: projections of serious warming by GCMs are highly uncertain. The largely unknown net impacts on climate from clouds, oceans, feedback effects, solar energy and numerous other factors make projections of serious future warming from computer models highly uncertain especially when the historical record of the last century points to an atmosphere that is not highly sensitive to human GHG emissions. Recent claims that many of the years during the last decade “are the hottest in 600 years"—even if true (a big "if")—are irrelevant since human beings have experienced even hotter temperatures before the Industrial Revolution began. The IPCC said in 1990: "There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000 – 6,000 BP), at least in summer, though the carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to "16 those of the pre-industrial era...

13 Dr. Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC has said that "half the climate change from 1850 to now can be accounted for by the Sun." See: William J. Broad, "Another Possible Climate Culprit: the Sun," The New York Times (23 September 1997).

14 See, for instance, the discussion in the sidebar (“Model gets it right-without fudge factors") to the 16 May 1997 article in Science, “Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy."

15 World Climate Report, 2 February 1998. The 16 May 1997 Science discusses this computer model developed at NCAR in Boulder, Colorado.

16 J.T. Houghton, et. al., Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge University Press:

People obviously had no causal role in that earlier episode of global warming. Hence, looking back further into history reveals that there is nothing magical about the previous 600 years. Choosing that shorter time period to support a political position ignores the facts that climate change has been driven primarily by natural factors over thousands of years and that today's temperatures are unremarkable.

Many recent claims that particular states or regions within the United States have suffered record-breaking heat waves or other weather extremes also appear to be based on data selected to support a preconceived conclusion. Dr. John Christy, associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, testified before the House Committee on Small Business on 27 July 1998, and demonstrated how regional data can be "spun" to infer a trend of either warming or cooling." Dr. Christy cautioned: "The recent fixation on extreme events as indicators of climate change is misleading because we know very little about the rates of their occurrence and we are able to publicize even marginal extremes to fantastic proportions. Perspective is often lost..."

My point in addressing these enormous and critical uncertainties in our state of knowledge is not to lay a foundation for inaction. Instead, it is to lay a foundation for actions that acknowledge our level of ignorance but also are robust enough to keep pace with advances in our state of knowledge.

ECONOMIC ANALYSES

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Americans within little more than a decade would have to cut their carbon emissions by approximately a third and never increase them from that point forward. This would require a substantial, forced reduction in U.S. energy use over the same time frame. A decade is simply too little time to cut emissions by a third with a growing population and still have a robust economy. The chart, "Economic Impacts in 2010," shows that numerous economic studies by academics at prestigious universities,

17 Professor Christy testified last July:

"For example, last month, a government-sponsored press conference informed you that five
states, MD, CT, MA, VT and NJ experienced one record monthly high temperature at some point
in the period January through May of this year. Human-induced warming was implicated in that
announcement. Now, these five states would fit into the state of Kansas TWICE—not a very
geographically representative sample. However, let me put a different spin on record high
temperatures, provided through NCDC [National Climatic Data Center], and you will see my
point. If one divides the recorded climate history of the entire U.S. into halves at 1940 and looks
at all-time temperatures, one would see that 4 states had equal highs in both halves. Of the
remaining 46 states, 35 recorded their all-time record high temperature prior to 1940 and only 11
have since 1940. Or, take the Midwest where newly digitized information from early years now
provides a better look at extremes. For the ten hottest 3-day periods (i.e. killer heat waves) in the
Midwest since 1896, only two occurred after 1940, and they placed 7th and 8th. Do these results
prove cooling? No. They prove that the spin one places on extreme events can be very
misleading."

well-known consulting firms, respected think tanks and the government have found that curbing carbon emissions substantially within a decade would greatly harm economic growth and cost more than a million jobs.

A more sluggish economy, job losses and higher consumer prices would mean that, on average, implementing the Kyoto Protocol will cost a family of four at least $2,000 annually. Last fall, Dr. William Nordhaus-professor of economics at Yale University and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Carter-pointedly told Vice President Gore that attempting to reduce CO, emissions back to 1990 levels by 2010 would be reminiscent of the energy price shocks of the 1970s. At the December negotiations in Kyoto, the Clinton Administration risked even greater costs by agreeing to reduce emissions below 1990 levels.

Advocates of the Protocol claim that the costs will be much lower and give a variety of reasons. None of these reasons, however, stand up to serious scrutiny.

Americans do not waste energy. A common assertion is that Americans could implement the Kyoto Protocol cheaply simply by eliminating the large amounts of energy they are alleged to waste and also putting effort into developing more energy-efficient technologies. Some authors of the 1995 IPCC report even suggest that curbing greenhouse gas emissions could be free, or even economically beneficial!18

Energy waste means wasting money-something that Americans do their best to avoid. The U.S. economy would not be the envy of the world if American consumers and businesses actually wasted prodigious amounts of energy and other economic resources. It is inconceivable that American industry, which has become such a formidable competitor on world markets through re-engineering, cost-cutting and downsizing, would overlook opportunities to save on energy, a major input in the production process.

Forcing Americans to develop new conservation technologies selected by government bureaucrats will slow economic growth more than improve U.S. energy efficiency. Not many years ago, Japan's "industrial policy model" was being promoted by many as the road this country would have to travel to become competitive on world markets. Japan's economic stagnation throughout the 1990s-along with more recent economic crises in several other Asian countries-serve as a warning of the consequences from having government heavily involved in choosing those technologies that shall receive financial support and those that will not.

18 These authors wrote: "Despite significant differences in views, there is agreement that energy efficiency gains of perhaps 10 to 30% over baseline trends over the next two or three decades can be realized at a negative or zero net cost (negative net cost means an economic benefit)." See: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996), 16.

Energy intensity does not measure energy efficiency. Claims of U.S. energy waste are generally based on the notion of average energy intensity-how much total energy (measured in "British Thermal Units" or BTUs") some 265 million Americans use at home, on the road and on the job divided by a dollar measure of the nation's total economic production, such as the Gross National Product (GNP) or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Many claim that Americans could easily slash their energy use and become more competitive on world markets simply by following the example of the Japanese or the Germans who on average use substantially fewer BTUs per dollar of GNP.

However, there are good reasons why Americans use energy more intensely than either the Japanese or the Germans. These reasons include more abundant land, longer average commuting distances, larger homes to heat and cool, lower delivered energy prices and the prominent roles played in the U.S. economy by several energy-intensive industries such as agriculture, refining, chemicals, pulp and paper, steel and aluminum. Americans use energy as efficiently as anyone, when allowance is made for such factors.

The error of equating energy intensity with energy efficiency can be illustrated here in the United States by comparing Americans living in New York State with Americans living in Tennessee. New Yorkers have an energy intensity that is even lower than that of the Japanese, while people living in Tennessee have an energy intensity that is nearly oneand-a-third times that of the United States as a whole. Yet, no one would lecture people in Tennessee that they could “easily" cut more than half their energy use “simply” by emulating New Yorkers. Obviously, people living in a less densely populated state like Tennessee cannot take buses and subways as easily as many New Yorkers can (not just in New York City but in upstate urban areas such as Buffalo, Rochester and Albany). Mass transit, population density and the characteristics of New York State's economy contribute to that state's lower energy intensity. But that statistical relationship offers neither evidence that New Yorkers use energy wisely, while the people of Tennessee waste it, nor practical guidance for other Americans on how they can "easily" and "cheaply" cut their energy use.

Knowledge—not taxes and regulations—will improve energy efficiency. Some advocates of the Kyoto Protocol point to the progress American companies and consumers have made in the past to improve their energy efficiency as evidence that greater efficiency dictated by government need not hinder economic growth. Developing and learning new ways of getting more from all economic resources energy, labor, capital, raw materials—is indeed vital for achieving economic growth. Expanding such knowledge is a primary motivation behind the hundreds of billions of dollars invested each year by U.S. companies.

19 A BTU is the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit at or near 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit.