Letter to the Editor, Foreign Affairs

Re: Kyoto's Unfinished Business by Henry D. Jacoby, Ronald G. Prinn, and Richard Schmalensee (Foreign Affairs July/Aug 1998)

In their analysis of the Kyoto Protocol (to the Global Climate Treaty) the authors assume that the Treaty's ultimate goal is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) at levels that avoid "danger to economies and ecosystems." But Article 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change does not mention economies and ecosystems; it only talks about "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" -- referring most likely to a concern about climate stability. The authors are correct, however, in stating that the appropriate GHG level is not known. In fact, it may be difficult to define such a target level, and -- significantly --no attempt has been made to do so in the UN-IPCC scientific report.

Thus the recommendation by the European Union to stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at roughly twice the pre-industrial level (of 280 parts per million, i.e. 0.028% of all atmospheric constituents) is a purely arbitrary goal, and not based on science in any way. The EU could have chosen a level of three or four times the pre-industrial value, which could be attained with no economic hardship at all. Evidently, the EU, and the eco-activists driving the situation, are mostly interested in imposing mandatory energy cuts of more than 50%, or in enforcing the use of so-called alternative energies like solar and wind, which may not make economic sense but have become ideologically attractive.

(As an aside: Why did the EU did not choose as its target to restore the pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm? Perhaps because this would have required not just a 50% reduction of present CO2 emissions -- worldwide -- but negative values of emissions -- which is even harder to accomplish.)

Some perspective can be gained from historic data that show carbon-dioxide concentrations in past geological periods up to 20 times greater than the present value -- without harming the climate system. There seem to be no obvious connections: While the large fluctuations of the Ice Ages of the past two million years arose after CO2 levels had fallen to near-present levels, there was a period of widespread glaciation during the Ordovician (440 my ago) when CO2 levels were 15 times the present value.

I have investigated the matter of historic climate stability in more detail. From published ice-core data one finds that climate fluctuations were much greater during the low CO2 levels of the most recent ice age than at the higher CO2 levels of the present warm interglacial (Holocene) period of the past 10,000 years. Does this result suggest that higher CO2 levels promote more climate stability and therefore present less "danger to the climate system"? It is something the world should certainly ponder before embarking on economically ruinous policies of drastic emission cuts.

In discussing the consequences of energy cutbacks in line with the mandates of the Kyoto Protocol, the authors warn that "it will be nearly impossible to slow [climate] warming appreciably without condemning much of the world to poverty, unless energy sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide become competitive with conventional fossil fuels." I would agree but have two comments here: First, there has been no warming observed as yet as a result of the ongoing human-caused CO2 increase. Secondly, it is strange that no mention is made of the existence of nuclear reactors, a well-established source of energy around the world, and certainly economically competitive with fossil fuels whose supply is gradually depleting.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project
4048 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel: 703-934-6940 Fax: 703-352-7535 e-mail: ssinger1@gmu.edu

Mr. Singer's latest book is "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate," published by The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA.