Increased spread of infectious diseases. Infectious diseases that are carried by insects and other pests are highly sensitive to environmental conditions. Higher temperatures will increase the range of malaria-carrying mosquitoes and make the mosquitoes more infectious. Global warming could cause as many as one-million additional deaths from malaria each year during the middle of the next century. Other sensitive diseases include hantavirus and dengue fever, which has already broken out in Texas. Flooding along our coasts and river basins. Warmer temperatures cause sea levels to rise and allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture. In addition to coastal flooding, inland areas can be affected by earlier and more rapid snow melt and more intense storms, leading to greater rates of flooding, such as the ones witnessed last year in North Dakota and Minnesota. · Extreme droughts and more severe storms in our heartland. More of our rainfall is now coming in intense downpours rather than steady drizzles. This coupled with higher rates of evaporation in a warmer world is expected to intensify droughts and storm damage in America's breadbasket. => The current drought in the Southeast United States is a clear example of this kind of event. Last winter was very wet, with soil moisture levels in the Southeast well above normal. Yet severe drought conditions developed very rapidly this Spring due to intense evaporation when the normal rains failed, as shown in Exhibit 2. The wet winter led to extensive growth of underbrush which fueled the fires when drought conditions developed. Wildfires in Florida consumed almost half of a million acres this June. More than 140,000 acres have burned in Texas. Meanwhile, drought-induced fires have burned more than 3 million acres in Mexico and Central America. 介 介 Texas now estimates over $1.5 billion in agricultural losses, Oklahoma about $2.0 billion, Florida about $175 million, and Georgia over $400 million as a result of the drought. CMI VALUE Weekly Crop Moisture Index: Mar-Jun ⚫TX. OK, AR. LA, TN. MS. AL. GA FL. SC. NC Exhibit 2 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 04 JUL National Climatic Data Center, NOAA The climate system is complex, and there are remaining uncertainties, particularly about the details of climate change at the regional and local level. While it is impossible to unequivocally demonstrate a link between global warming and any specific event, the examples I have given do demonstrate that global warming can have severe consequences. It is abundantly clear that we are facing a real and serious threat. As we discuss what we still don't know, it is essential to remember that uncertainty is a doubleedged sword. We cannot rule out the possibility that climate change will be less severe than expected in the mainstream scenario outlined above, but it is just as likely that things will turn out to be worse than the mainstream forecast. For example, in a recent journal article I reviewed feedback mechanisms that have the potential to substantially exacerbate global warming beyond levels considered in the mainstream projections. Another recent article reviews the risk that sea levels could rise by as much as 20 feet over the next several centuries, rather than the mainstream forecast of about five feet. These articles are attached to my testimony for the record. The Defense Department would never base its response to military threats on the views of a handful of doubters or on the hope that the world will turn out to be benign. We should apply the same precautionary principle to global warming policy. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by President Bush and ratified by the Senate in 1992, the United States is officially committed to this precautionary approach. The 1992 Convention sets the objective of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Achieving this objective requires a substantial and progressive reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions beginning without delay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CEL COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Why Kyoto Is Not an Insurance Policy Marlo Lewis, Jr. Vice President for Policy and Coalitions, House Small Business Committee Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to present testimony on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit research and advocacy group committed to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. What I'd like to do in the next several minutes is address what I take to be the Clinton Administration's strongest argument in favor of an international climate treaty. This is the argument that, "if we do it smart," Kyoto will provide low-cost planet insurance for ourselves and future generations. In candid moments, Administration spokespersons will admit that the theory of catastrophic warming has not been validated by experimental or empirical evidence. They'll concede that scientists know too little about the underlying physics, that computer models are too slow, and that the evidence is too conflicted, to permit a genuine resolution of the global warming debate. In other words, they'll admit, at least privately, that the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol isn't really clear, compelling, or “settled." But they don't see this as a great liability. Indeed, in their view, our very ignorance about the extent of human influence on the climate system is reason enough to justify an enterprise like the Kyoto Protocol. 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.⚫ Suite 1250 Washington, DC. 20036 Phone: (202) 331-1010 • Fax: (202) 331-0640 E-mail: info@cei.org • Web site: http://www.cei.org I. Precautionary Deception The Administration's trump-card argument in the global warming debate is not any testable scientific hypothesis but something called the Precautionary Principle. This is the proposition that lack of scientific certainty should not become an excuse for inaction where there are threats of serious or irreversible harm to health, safety, or biodiversity.' The precautionary case for Kyoto goes as follows. The earth may be warming; industrial activity may be the cause; and the effects of such warming may be catastrophic. Furthermore, a global program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be feasible and effective in averting or mitigating harmful climate change. Mankind, through its combustion of fossil fuels, has been running a gigantic, uncontrolled experiment on the climate system. Since this experiment is potentially life threatening, we should start applying some controls. Curbing energy use to reduce emissions could prove costly, but what is money compared to the lives that might otherwise be lost? Kyoto or some similar treaty is, thus, the only responsible option. The alternative is to throw caution to the winds and gamble with "the only planet we have." This argument is rhetorically powerful because it sounds so much like familiar maxims of common sense - look before you leap, err on the side of caution, better safe than sorry. In fact, as will soon become clear, we can with equal legitimacy invoke precautionary considerations to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. My testimony has two parts. First, I'll show that the Precautionary Principle supplies no real guidance for choosing between policy alternatives. Then I'll offer specific reasons why Kyoto is not an insurance policy. The Precautionary Principle Is Self-Contradictory The fatal flaw in the precautionary case for Kyoto - as in environmental advocacy generally - is its complete one-sidedness. Environmentalists demand assurances of no harm only with respect to actions that government might regulate, never with respect to government regulation itself. But government intervention frequently boomerangs, creating the very risks that precautionists deem intolerable. Examples abound. Federal fuel economy mandates force auto makers to produce smaller, slighter, less crash-resistant cars, causing 2,000 to 4,000 highway deaths per year. FDA regulations delay the availability of life-saving therapies, killing tens of thousands over the past 'Words to this effect occur in both the 1992 Rio Treaty and the Biodiversity Convention. See James Cameron, "The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law," in Timothy O'Riordan & James Cameron, eds., Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Earthscan Publications, 1994), p. 269. |