November 1996 Vol. XIII, No. 6

STATES CONSIDER MEMORIAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE CONVENTION

Without energy, there is no life.

Without the burning of fuel, providing an abundance of energy, human living standards and human health standards must plummet. Thus, a tax on sources of energy, or on the byproducts of producing energy, is really a tax on human life. And the rationing of energy means the rationing of life.

A "BTU tax" or a "carbon tax" is a tax on life. Forced "conservation" measures, which are not voluntarily undertaken because they are not economically advantageous, should be called "rationing."

With heavy carbon taxes, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary (or her replacement) may still be able to make junkets around the world in an Air Force jet. But American taxpayers will do without. And some eventually could freeze in the dark.

Because a straightforward proposal for a BTU tax (estimated yearly cost: $300 per family) failed in the Congress, some may think that the idea is dead. But it may come back (new cost estimate: $2,000 per family) in the name of enforcing an international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions and "save the planet" (CEI Update, 1001 Connecticut Ave NW # 1250, Washington DC 20036, Oct 1996).

At the Berlin "Conference of the Parties" on the Rio Climate convention in March, 1995, Liz Barratt-Brown of the National Resources Defense Council reportedly said that to halt progress on climate change, all you "need to do is throw in the monkey wrench of doubt" (World Climate Review, Clark Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, Spring 1995). One big monkey wrench is the graph of global temperatures from satellite measurements.

Senate hearings have been held; however, the ultimate decision may bypass Congress completely as a result of international treaty. Therefore, state legislatures are considering a memorial to send to the Congress:

A CONCURRENT MEMORIAL

URGING THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO

WITHDRAW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH WAS RATIFIED IN OCTOBER, 1992

WHEREAS, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commits the United States of America to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels, and

WHEREAS, fears of global warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide are not based on sound scientific evidence, and

WHEREAS, studies of past records of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures show no definite correlation between the two, and

WHEREAS, the General Circulation Models that have been developed to predict future global temperatures based upon atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have failed to produce credible results when compared to past records of global temperature, and

WHEREAS, the entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepared a report in late 1995 stating there was no convincing evidence that human activities were responsible for global temperature changes, and the printed report was changed by a small group not representative of the entire panel to indicate otherwise, and

WHEREAS, representatives of the United States have entered into side agreements, without the concurrence of the Congress, which, if ratified by the Senate of the United States, will commit the United States to adopt mandatory policies to control domestic carbon dioxide emissions to levels that will lead to irreparable economic harm to the citizens of this country, and

WHEREAS, the adoption of such policies may lead to governmental control of industry through the imposition of carbon production permits, rationing, and a tax levy on consumer carbon emissions, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and sharply increased costs, and

WHEREAS, many major countries, including the nations of Eastern Europe, China, South Korea, and India are exempt from the restrictions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will place the United States of America at a severe competitive disadvantage in the global economy,

WHEREFORE, your memorialist, the (House of Representatives) (Senate) of the State of _____, the (Senate) (House of Representatives) concurring, prays:

THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE INITIATE ACTION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS THEREIN CONTAINED.

(COPIES OF THIS CONCURRENT MEMORIAL SHALL BE SENT TO EACH MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND TO THE GOVERNOR OF EACH STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF _____.)

[This memorial is presented for informational purposes only; DDP does not take a position of advocacy. For further information, contact the Society for Environmental Truth, 5535 E. Rosewood St., Tucson, AZ 85711, (520)519-0430.]

In order to aid the Congress in taking a position based on sober deliberation, taking into account all the data, DDP presented the enclosed written testimony on global warming.]

Possibly because the U.S. nuclear industry and nuclear weapons programs are in a state of contraction, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and activists formerly speaking under the banner of Physicians for Social Responsibility have changed their emphasis. Recent updates from the UCS: In communicating with Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO), "if you want to go into a little more depth,...you might include something like this: `however one comes down on the climate change issue, renewable energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass -- offer a market-based, job-producing method of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and should be aggressively promoted.' This will help counter the argument that the new climate policy will harm the U.S. economy, i.e. trade or competitiveness."

The UCS also lauds a September, 1996, article in Consumer Reports, entitled "Turning Up the Heat." It "covers" [up?] the IPCC controversy. One "downside" to the report, in the UCS view, is the statement that electric cars "wouldn't help much." On the contrary, say unnamed UCS "transportation experts," electric cars would "slash" air pollution, reducing smog-forming emissions by 99% and CO₂ emissions by more than 60%. [In contrast, a study by Carnegie-Mellon University economist Lester Lave showed that an all-electric fleet would lower peak ozone in Los Angeles by just 10% compared with the level expected from the clean gasoline-powered cars of 2010. In New York City, the change in ozone levels due to replacing 500,000 gasoline-powered cars with electric cars would be virtually undetectable -- NY Times 8/29/96.)

Contributing in another way to the same (possibly unintended) consequence of the Green agenda-reduced human population-is PSR stalwart Christine Cassell, who says it is not immoral for physicians to help kill patients. Dr. Cassell is a board member of the FHP Foundation, funding source for bioethics events such as huge conferences on "the ethical, legal, and economic aspects of starting, sustaining, and stopping life." Not coincidentally, FHP International is one of the country's largest for-profit HMOs (New Federalist v. 10, #41).

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: The 1997 meeting of DDP will be held at the Bahia Hotel in San Diego, California, June 13-16.