A recent statement by more than 2,000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates, calls on the United States and other nations to implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes, auction of emission permits and international emission trading agreements.

The statement was issued in anticipation of the meeting of representatives of the world's nations in Kyoto in December 1997 to negotiate an international treaty that would limit the emissions of so-called greenhouse gases — predominantly carbon dioxide (C02).

The nominal objective of this treaty is to reduce the threat of global warming by constraining the use of fossil fuels — oil, natural gas and coal — well below the levels now considered essential to maintaining U.S. and world economic growth and to continuing the improvement in the quality of lithe of the developing world.

Although a constructive con-tribution to the debate on how to deal with global change, the "Economists' Statement" is based on a questionable premise — namely, that there is a consensus that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

This assertion, made not by the majority of practicing climatologists, but by the political apparatus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, has stimulated vigorous dissent because it convicts with observational evidence — most notably the absence of any increase in average temperatures since January 1979, as determined by highly reliable and unbiased NASA satellite measurements.

Moreover, it is still an open issue if moderate temperature increases and ecological impacts related to atmospheric CO2 enrichment would be beneficial or harmful Paleoclimatic data, correlations between climate and human development and well-being over the last 10,000 years and the demonstrated positive impact of atmospheric C02-enrichment on vegetation growth, suggest that doubling of pre-industrial C02 concentrations poses no credible threat and, on balance, may yield major benefits.

"Economists' Statement on Climate Change" suggests that a tax levied on oil, gas and coal consumption proportional to the carbon content of these fossil fuels can accomplish the objectives of the UN Framework Con-vention on Climate Change with-out harming American living standards.

IPCC's initial objective — roll-back of total carbon emissions from these fuels by industrialized countries to 1990 levels and stabilization at this level — would require carbon taxes of $100 to $200 per metric ton. Studies by independent economists show that a $100-a-ton carbon tax would increase the energy bins of most U.S. consumers by 20% to 40%.

Even if the proceeds were used to lower existing taxes, this would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 2% to 4% by 2010, and result in job losses of 500,000 to 1 million a year compared to the baseline.

Obviously, international emission trading and joint implementation programs are preferable to national command-and-control policies. But a casual reading of the "Economists' Statement" might suggest that it validates potentially harmful government intervention on the basis of another fictitious crisis.

What is especially troubling is the apparent intent of the U.S. negotiators to agree to a binding commitment by only the industrialized countries to roll back carbon emissions to 1990 levels and keep them there, despite the economic damage this will do and despite the fact that this will accomplish little in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.

The United States essentially would have to abandon all use of fossil fuels by 2015 just to make up for the projected increase in C02 emissions by China and India. Yet the United States will be responsible for only 10% of the increase of 3.2 billion metric tons in annual global carbon emissions be-tween 1995 and 2015, whereas the developing countries will be responsible for nearly 70%.

There is no scientific basis for linking the global mean temperature rise of about 0.6 degrees Centigrade since the mid-1800s with human activities such as fossil fuel consumption and land use. Two-thirds of this increase occurred before 1940, when carbon emissions from these sources were still minimal, and much larger temperature fluctuations have occurred over geologic time due to natural causes.

If the prestigious economists who signed the initial state-ment will reevaluate various policy options on the basis of cost/benefit and risk analyses that take into account the ongoing reassessment of climate change, they will arrive at a more constructive set of recom-mendations.

Henry Linden, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, was founding president of the Gas Research Institute and has served in numerous advisory capacities to the federal government. Mr. Linden is also a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors of the Science & Enivonmental Policy Project.