People for the USA March 4, 1998 The Honorable F.J. Sensenbrenner House Committee on Science 389 Ford House Office Building (Annex 2) Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Sensenbrenner: Please accept the following comments as testimony for the record for the March 5, 1998 House Committee on Science oversight hearing on the Kyoto Protocol. Thank you for your assistance. Jeffrey P. Harris P.O. Box 4345, Pueblo, CO 81003 • PH:(719)543-8421• FAX:(719)543-9473 • e-mail:pfw@usa.net People for the USA March 4, 1998 The Honorable F.J. Sensenbrenner House Committee on Science 389 Ford House Office Building (Annex 2) Washington, DC 20515 Mr. Chairman, I am submitting written testimony for your March 5, 1998 Committee oversight hearing on the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the more than 25,000 members of People for the USA. Our members support common sense and economic balance in the environmental debate and advocate sound land management and natural resource production. We do not believe that the Senate should ratify the Protocol, nor should President Clinton sign it. We also hope that members of your committee and others in Congress will help ensure that the Protocol does not become a reality through executive fiat or backdoor implementation. Scientists have yet to agree on whether global warming exists and if so, what causes it. Central to the problem is the sheer complexity of nature and the relative feebleness of our tools to assess it. In addition to CO2, many other powerful forces -- from clouds to volcanic eruptions to tree growth -- determine the Earth's climate. Put into proper perspective, water vapor accounts for 99% of natural global warming. The remaining 1% stems from CO2 and other gases, which are themselves mainly products of nature, not man. CO2 accounts for only 1% of the greenhouse effect, and human-made CO2 accounts for only 4% of that 1%. This works out to the human impact on the greenhouse effect being roughly 0.04% of a total annual effect. The other 99.96% is caused by nature. Economically rational policy options have little support. And until the most cost-effective options to reduce greenhouse gases are identified, policy makers are often operating in the dark. One of the few certainties about global warming is that the costs of severely curbing emissions of greenhouse gases now would be huge. The world relies on carbon-based fuels for most of its energy needs. An enforced switch to non-polluting alternatives would savagely cut people's living standards. The costs to the U.S. in terms of jobs, income and economic growth would be incurred without any demonstrable benefit, other than to the developing countries excluded by the Kyoto proposal. We encourage industry/government voluntary partnerships to continue and believe that industry is committed to actions that make economic and scientific sense. We appreciate any attempts by Congressional leaders to recognize the scientific uncertainties surrounding the popular vision of climate change, and ask members of Congress and the Clinton Administration to stop plans for draconian carbon dioxide reduction and short-term phaseouts of fossil fuels. The costs of the Kyoto Protocol are high -- too high for the average American, especially those in rural areas, who won't have the means to afford higher fuel bills or new, fuel-efficient or alternative energy vehicles for everyday transportation. This is a long-term issue, giving us much more time for more telling science and deciding what we really need to do. There's much more time to do research on how we can reduce emissions without paying a price that American families simply cannot afford. Please do not allow the fears promulgated by environmental extremists and others to outrun scientific knowledge on the subject. With a firmer scientific grip on the influences of climate, we may better afford to make a decision in the future. As future consumers reach voluntarily for the results of proven research, the cost of altering the world's economic structure should be much lower. |