Cost Index

Cost Index

Figure 8. Costs of Alternative Sets of Targets and Timetables

STATEMENT OF JANE M. ORIENT, M.D., VICE PRESIDENT, AND ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, PH.D., PRESIDENT, DOCTORS For Disaster PREPAREDNESS, TUCSON, AZ

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness is a voluntary organization of physicians, scientists, and other citizens who are dedicated to saving human lives through preparedness for hazards of all types, whether natural or man-caused.

We are supported by dues and individual contributions and receive no funding from industry or government.

We believe that scientific misinformation, particularly about technological hazards, is a serious problem, given our dependence upon science and technology for the support of our civilization.

We have reviewed the scientific literature and the testimony before this committee, as well as the FAX and E-mail alerts sent by pressure groups purporting to represent scientists, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists. For your consideration, we present the following conclusions:

1. Predictions of global warming are highly exaggerated. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere increased by about 50% between 1940 and the present; the temperature change was barely measurable and was at most 0.2 degrees Centigrade

Before a computer model can be relied upon to predict the future, it must at least be able to predict the past. Current computer models are far from being able to do that. The dynamics of the earth's atmosphere and the complex interactions of the many pertinent variables are very poorly understood. The predictions of the computer models relied upon the IPCC are contradicted by actual observations, as pointed out by Dr. Sallie Baliunas in previous testimony.

Dire warnings of the effects of global warming are based on a temperature increase of about 3 to 5 degrees Centigrade (or 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit). Under Secretary Timothy Wirth speaks of predictions by "the scientific community" of an increase of "2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit" (1.1 to 3.6 degrees Centigrade) resulting from a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of carbon dioxide, hypothetically slated to occur if we do nothing to decrease emissions. However, we do not need to wait to see whether the prediction is correct; the results are already in. We are halfway to the CO2 level díscussed by Under Secretary Wirth (a doubling or a 100% increase compared with pre-industrial levels). Satellite measurements show no clear evidence of any temperature increase.

Over the past century, the temperature has increased about 0.5 degrees Centigrade. But because most of the increase occurred before the rise in carbon dioxide, it must be due to natural factors, for example, changes in the sun's luminescence. Moreover, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide have had positive effects as by fertilizing plant growth. It has even been argued that a gradual increase in global temperatures would be advantageous. However, all speculations about the effects of the temperature change are irrelevant when actual observation shows that the predicted temperature change is not occurring.

2. There is no scientific consensus on global warming

The Clinton Administration has strongly endorsed the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Serious criticisms concerning the integrity of the IPCC report have been disregarded, with the slanderous implication that the critical scientists are but shills for industry. In fact, scientists of the highest stature have dissented, including Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Science and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University.

The IPCC does not in fact represent a consensus of all scientists expert in the field, but only a select group. The criteria for choosing that group probably include a willingness to concur with the agenda of the IPCC.

In any event, scientific truth depends not on consensus but on actual observation. The critical observation is the mean global temperature. There is no evidence that significant increases in the temperature are now occurring, despite nearly 60 years of increasing concentrations of CO2.

Moreover, the actual conclusions presented by the IPCC, even in the edited report, are far different from those ballyhooed by the major media. They are full of uncertainties. Basically, they state that an "anthropomorphic fingerprint" may have been detected in all the background noise of natural determinants of climate. This conclusion hardly justifies a major disruption of our nation's economy.

3. The costs of intervention are very high, in both dollars and human lives The most important determinant of ill health is poverty. Economic prosperity is absolutely dependent upon the availability of cheap and reliable energy. The proposed taxes and regulations (which are effectively taxes) will increase the cost of en

ergy, raising the cost of all products including food. The burden of such increases will fall most heavily upon the poor.

(In the United States, due in large part to institutionalized impediments on nuclear energy, large-scale generation of electricity depends on coal. This capacity cannot be quickly replaced.)

Estimates of the cost of diminishing carbon dioxide emissions vary widely, but the cost could easily be in the trillions of dollars. Testimony before this committee spoke of annual costs of hundreds of billions of dollars, even for the more moderate proposals. The loss of human life that results from decreasing the standard of living is difficult to quantitate. If a $1,000,000 aggregate loss of income causes one preventable death, then a $100 billion loss in annual income translates into 100,000 premature deaths per year. An economic loss of $1 trillion would, on the same assumption, mean the sacrifice of 1 million lives.

An additional cost is the threat to American lives and liberty resulting from an international enforcement regime, possibly dominated by hostile foreign powers. American livelihoods and personal liberties could be directly threatened by decisions made in a remote, unaccountable, hostile bureaucracy.

4. The only rational course is further observation. A 30-year delay would make no appreciable difference in the ultimate global environment

One of the lead authors of the IPCC report, T.M.L. Wigley, calculated the results of delaying interventions for 30 years: The end result: the same concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the year 2150, with, along the way, a differential of 0.2 degree Centigrade in temperature and 2 inches in sea level. This assumes the correctness of the IPCC model. (See: Wigley TML, Richels R, and Edmonds JA, Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Nature 1996; 379:240-243.)

The cost of delayed interventions would be far less than of immediate, emergency actions, as explained in testimony by W. David Montgomery. One reason is that capital equipment could be retired at the end of its normal life instead of being wastefully trashed.

Since the human costs of rapid implementation of emission controls would be immeasurably greater, and the environmental costs of reasoned delay negligible, even those having unshaken faith in the dubious IPCC computer models should favor a deliberate pace, with fully informed and vigorous public debate.

If, as we believe, the global climate change scenario is mostly overheated rhetoric, a disastrous disruption of civilization and thousands to millions of premature human deaths will have been averted by sober and responsible reflection.

[Following is the statement of Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Timothy E. Wirth, on behalf of the United States during the Second Conference of the Parties. There is no transcript of the press conference that he and Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Eileen B. Claussen, held on July 17, 1996.]

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, UNDER SECRETARY FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chimutengwende, on your selection as Chair of the Conference. My government appreciates your willingness to assume this important role and the leadership you have brought to this task. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the distinguished representative from Germany, Angela Merkel, for the remarkable job that she has done in guiding our work over the past several years. The task of moving forward more than 150 nations is difficult enough in this instance, however, the challenge has been compounded by the fact that we are dealing with what is probably the most complicated scientific, environmental, economic and political challenge in history. The international community is in your debt for hosting us and helping us reach the mandate agreed upon in Berlin last year.

Since Berlin, our deliberations have benefitted from the careful, comprehensive and uncompromised work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their efforts serve as the foundation for international concern and their clear warnings about current trends are the basis for the sense of urgency within my government. We are not swayed by and strongly object to the recent allegations about the integrity of the IPCC's conclusions. These allegations were raised not by the scientists involved in the IPCC, not by participating governments, but rather by naysayers and special interests bent on belittling, attacking and obfuscating climate change