McCain/Lieberman bill hurts US economy by requiring huge energy cutbacks
by Paul K. Driessen
Eco-Imperialism.com
July 2003

WASHINGTON, DC. April 2003 ¾ A new federal law punishes corporate executives for misleading investors about company earnings and stock values. If those same ethical principles applied to politicians, some of them could land in the slammer for using baseless claims to promote pending legislation.

A good case in point is the Climate Stewardship Act, a bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). It’s being touted far and wide as a way to reduce global warming by imposing limits on U.S. companies whose combined facilities emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year.

That may sound like a lot, but bear in mind that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  Like oxygen, it is essential to all plant and animal life.  Without it, we humans would not be able to enjoy our environment or, indeed, complain about it.  We would simply be dead.

Under the Climate Stewardship Act’s draconian provisions, petroleum refiners and importers would be held responsible not only for their own CO2 emissions, but for those generated by anyone who uses their products.

Unfortunately for McLain and Lieberman, their proposals come at a time when piles of new scientific evidence make it clear that the alarms the environmental movement is sounding about climate change are simply unwarranted.

New studies show that the world has had long periods of warming and cooling cycles for hundreds, even thousands of years. Recent research suggests that the slight warming that has occurred over the last century is beneficial, not dangerous, and that CO2 – the so-called greenhouse gas that environmentalists regard as the chief culprit in global warming – actually helps plants grow bigger and better.

Despite the current media drumbeat, today’s weather and climate fluctuations are little different from those that have occurred throughout recorded history.  In fact, today’s temperature fluctuations are mild compared to previous periods.  When the Vikings colonized Greenland in 950, the huge North Atlantic island really was green and Northern Hemisphere temperatures were several degrees warmer than today. Average global temperatures then fell between 1300 and 1850, warmed a little until around 1940, cooled slightly until the 1970s, then rose by 0.1 degrees or so.

Floods and droughts were also frequent, and the defunct Mayan civilization may well have been the victim of the Yucatanpeninsula’s worst drought in the last 7,000 years.

Obviously, the culprit in all this earlier global warming and cooling was not fossil fuels, which didn’t arrive en masse until well into the 20th century.

A far more likely cause is variations in the sun’s energy output, according to Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, senior scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The two have documented a convincing correlation between solar energy and earth temperatures over the last 250 years.

Also weighing in is the U.S. Energy Information Agency, which says carbon dioxide emissions in this country rose by only 0.8 percent, while electricity demand increased 2.7 percent over the past two years.

Since 1970, the dynamic U.S. economy grew three times faster than its energy use, while overall pollution plummeted.  For example, today’s cars emit less than 1 percent the toxic pollution that 1970 models spewed from their tailpipes.

Given all the new findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the McCain/Lieberman legislation likely would create global economic chaos for virtually no environmental gain.

Abundant, affordable energy fuels America’s growth and innovation and enhances our personal lifestyles and opportunities.  It bolsters not only our own economy, but most of the world’s as well.  Limit our energy use by reducing supply and driving up prices, and the effects will be felt worldwide.

Assessments by the federal EIA energy experts show McCain/Lieberman’s CO2 emission limits would send energy prices into the stratosphere.  Gasoline prices would climb 27 percent above where they’d otherwise be by 2025, and already high natural gas prices would shoot up another 46 percent.  Coal would cost nearly five times more.  Worse, our Gross Domestic Product would plummet by $1.4 trillion – just as the economy shows signs of surging out of a three-year slump.

Heating, air conditioning, even electricity would become luxury items.  Jobs, lifestyles, economic growth, pensions, tax revenues and government services would get hammered.

What benefits would we derive from the intense pain inflicted by McCain and Lieberman’s legislative brain-child?  Theoretical global warming would decline by a whopping 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research.   That’s one-tenth of one degree, not one degree.

Instead of passing McCain/Lieberman, the Senate should provide more funding for research that nails down definitive answers about climate change, its potential dangers and benefits, and the dangers of legislation like this.

The best way to solve environmental problems is to tap into America’s innovative genius, rather than throw sticks of political dynamite at the national economy that allows that genius to flourish.