Dante Alighieri's Inferno consigns traitors to Antenora, a lake of ice at the center of Hell. The recent global warming treaty is nothing less than a sellout of our nation's interests. Any Senator who votes to ratify this abomination belongs in Antenora, the icy abode of those who betray their country.

Scientists haven't even agreed that global warming is a real danger. If it is, though, the whole world must participate in solving it. Instead, the treaty requires the United States to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions while nations like Mainland China increase theirs. The treaty requires the United States to spend billions of dollars to cut its carbon dioxide emissions. Motorists— that's most of us— will have to buy smaller and less safe vehicles, and pay more for gasoline. American goods will become more expensive, and less competitive with imports. This means that more American jobs will go offshore. What does the United States get in return?

It is very costly to remove the last few percent of any pollutant from a waste stream. It's often cheaper to get the first eighty percent than the last twenty percent. Most chemical processes, including pollution controls, are like this.

The treaty's proponents say that we have to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to prevent global warming. The treaty requires the United States to tighten its already strict pollution controls— to go after that last twenty percent or so. It doesn't, however, require countries like Mainland China to go after their first eighty percent, or even their first fifty percent. It doesn't require them to do anything! Their projected emissions will actually double whether the treaty is there or not (U.S. News & World Report, 12/22/97, page 48). The United States must cut its carbon dioxide emissions so countries like Mainland China can increase theirs. Of course, China funneled money into Bill Clinton's reelection campaign. Does this create a conflict of interest for the Administration?

Consider a Chinese power plant with no pollution controls. Pollution control equipment will do far more good there than it will at a U.S. plant. If we add it to our plant's existing pollution controls, it may remove another five or ten percent of the carbon dioxide. If the Chinese put it on theirs, it may remove the first fifty or sixty percent. It will also protect the health of the Chinese people who live near the plant, although Mainland China has never had any problem with killing its own people. If China needs money for pollution control, it should build fewer nuclear missiles with which to threaten its neighbors and our West Coast. Meanwhile, Mexican working families are dying from air pollution because nearby factories lack basic pollution controls.

The treaty says nothing about deforestation in South America, either. "Slash and burn" means burning a rain forest and planting crops where trees once stood. When the crops deplete the soil's nutrients, the farmers clear more land by burning more trees. Some people call rain forests "the world's lungs" because of their role in turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. We're supposed to pay billions of dollars to eke out small reductions in carbon dioxide while others slash and burn the world's lungs?

The electric car is another fraud. An electric vehicle emits no pollutants only because its exhaust pipe is at the electric power plant. A power plant that burns coal, oil, or natural gas makes carbon dioxide. Nuclear plants don't, but too many people are against nuclear power.

The Senate must reject the global warming treaty by refusing to ratify it. If the Senate actually ratifies this piece of treason, the House should refuse to pass the enabling legislation. Meanwhile, anyone who wants to "think globally, act locally" can, simply by planting (or saving) trees. They're attractive, and they consume carbon dioxide while making oxygen. Planting them won't export jobs or reduce our standard of living, either. If global warming is really a threat, all nations must be part of the solution— not the problem.

Update: "Kyoto Treaty is not the answer," AAA Mid-Atlantic Motorist, Valley Division, March/April 1998

"Aside from the uncertainty of science, how effective can the treaty be in reducing emissions when three of the four top coal consuming countries- China, India, and Russia- are exempt from emission limits?"
 

Update: Argentina signs climate treaty (no surprise!) Chemical and Engineering News, 3/23/98, p. 9

Yep, six major energy consumers and coal users- except for Switzerland, none of them are even industrialized.

This says it all. A South American diplomat chairs a meeting to develop a treaty that requires no sacrifices from his country. Perhaps the United States should chair a meeting to develop a treaty to limit destruction of tropical rain forests. (Hint: The United States doesn't have any tropical rain forests, but many South American countries do. How do you like that, Mr. Estrada?)

Update: "Treaty Treason," Chemical and Engineering News, May 4 1998 (by William A. Levinson)

Argentine diplomat Raúl Estrada-Oyeula chaired the development of a treaty that requires industrialized countries like the United States to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The same gentleman said that corresponding sacrifices by developing nations "will not happen," nor does he expect this to change at the upcoming meeting in Buenos Aires.

The United States should respond by developing a treaty to limit destruction of the world's rain forests. I'm sure that countries like Norway, Japan, Canada, Finland, and so on will sign willingly. "Slash and burn" agriculture, a common practice in Mr. Estrada's continent, involves burning rain forests to make room for crops. The countries involved apparently want the United States to raise its fuel prices and cripple its economy so they can keep burning "the world's lungs," as these forests are sometimes known.

The Kyoto treaty does not require Mainland China to curtail its emissions, either. Instead, it asks the United States, Japan, and Europe to sacrifice their economies so China can pump out even more unscrubbed pollutants and export even more low-cost goods. China already kills its own people with its pollutants, although China has never had any problems with killing its own people.

The Kyoto treaty is a blatant sellout of our national interests to foreign powers, including hostile ones like China. It is simply a device for sending manufacturing jobs and plants offshore. A vote to ratify this atrocity is treason against the United States. The Senate should instead vote openly to reject and disavow this treaty.