Sentiment regarding “the environment” doesn’t seem to be a major factor in voters’ minds as they weigh the decision whether to cast their ballots for President Bush or for John Kerry. But for those of you still undecided about which candidate will do a better job on Iraq, homeland security, and other issues, you may also want to factor in the candidates’ records and attitudes on environmental issues. Bush has been roundly criticized on environmental issues since he took office. But this criticism has largely come from left-leaning environmental activists and their supporters in academia the vast majority of whom didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 and, moreover, probably wouldn’t vote for a Republican under any circumstance. When Bush proposed more stringent regulations for arsenic in drinking water something the two-term Clinton administration never got around to doing the environmental community ran a television ad campaign implying that the president was actually going to permit more arsenic in drinking water. “May I please have some more arsenic in my water, Mommy,” asked a child in one of the commercials. John Kerry, in a recent interview with Grist Magazine, also characterized the more stringent arsenic rules as part of an “unbelievable series of backward measures.” So I pay no attention to what so-called environmentalists say about Bush. Their attacks usually don’t present the facts fairly and are designed to politicize issues and polarize voters. The most notable environmental decision Bush has made so far was his decision to pull the U.S. out of the economic dance-of-death known as the Kyoto protocol, the international treaty on global warming. The president and Kerry actually agree on this issue, although Kerry told Grist that he would like to re-open the treaty’s negotiating process to fix the treaty’s flaws. The difference between the candidates is that Bush has rightly raised questions about the “science” underlying global warming hysteria and is not at all interested in an international treaty, whereas Kerry would embrace a treaty an agreement that likely would significantly hamper the U.S. economy if he could do so without paying a heavy political price. Bush also gets credit for clamping down on the perpetual regulation machine known as the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA spent the Clinton administration years issuing the most expensive environmental regulations ever air quality standards costing as much as $100 billion per year that will produce no tangible health or environmental benefits and scaring the public about chemicals in the environment. But the EPA’s rulemaking process under Bush has been significantly slowed because the administration’s own environmental initiatives on air pollution and mercury from power plants, for example, are opposed by environmentalists. The resulting gridlock has prevented the issuance of costly, junk science-based rules that produce few-to-no benefits to the public. Short of dismantling the EPA in favor of a more rational approach to the environment the preferred solution the president has done the next best thing by bollixing up the EPA rulemaking process. I don’t think he planned it that way, but I won’t argue with that success. As to Kerry, you really only need to know three things about him to see what he’d do on the environment. First, Kerry has a 96-percent lifetime voting record on environmental issues as determined by the League of Conservation Voters. That means that Kerry rubber-stamps every piece of environmental legislation that comes down the pike, regardless of its merits or costs. Second, in a Kerry administration, I suspect that the decision-making on the environment would be handed over to his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, much the same way the health care issue was handed to Hillary Clinton during the early part of the Clinton administration. The environment is a hot-button issue for Teresa, and I doubt he’d turn down the billionaire who made his presidential campaign possible. What that probably means is that environmental extremists will once again have free reign over the EPA. As head of the $1.2 billion Heinz Foundation, Teresa has given more than $6 million to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center which, in turn, funds groups like Greenpeace, Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club and millions more to other environmental groups. I would expect Teresa to hand these groups the keys to the EPA, as well. Finally, when asked by Grist Magazine whether his Harley-Davidson motorcycle was an environmental “vice” because motorcycle tailpipe emissions are “worse than cars,” Kerry responded, “I haven’t heard that about my Harley. But if it’s a vice, it’s one I don’t think I can quit. Sorry.” Meanwhile, Kerry wants us to take the bus to reduce air pollution. After all, the more of us that do opt for mass transit, the less guilty he can feel about tooling around on his Harley, Teresa’s gas-guzzling luxury yacht and her Gulfstream V jet. It may seem unfortunate that the choices on the environment boil down to regulatory gridlock versus a mindless regulatory frenzy, but that is the reality. I know which I prefer. Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of “Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams” (Cato Institute, 2001).
William Yeatman
Jeffrey Sparshott’s otherwise excellent article “Putin Cabinet approves signing of A clear, odorless gas that is nontoxic to humans at many times current atmospheric levels, CO2 neither fouls the air, impairs visibility, nor contributes to respiratory disease. More important, CO2 is the basic building block of the planetary food chain, and rising concentrations help most plants grow faster and bigger, use water more efficiently and resist pollution and other environmental stresses. The ecological benefit of an atmosphere richer in CO2 is well-nigh universal, because all animals depend, directly or indirectly, on plants as a food source. Empirical studies suggest that the 100 parts per million increase in atmospheric CO2 content over the past 150 years has increased mean crop yields by significant amounts: for example, about 60 percent for wheat, 33 percent for fruits and melons, and 51 percent for vegetables. Were it not for the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion, many people now living might not exist or many forests now standing might have been cleared and turned into farmland or both. Far from polluting the planet, CO2 emissions are greening the Earth, enhancing biodiversity and global-food availability.
MARLO LEWIS
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Les ravages provoqus par quatre ouragans en Floride et dans les Antilles cet t ont suscit des prdictions fantastiques de dtraquement climatique qui serait du l’conomie capitaliste. La ratification du protocole de Kyoto par le gouvernement Russe risque non seulement d’entraner des cots conomiques nfastes et mal compris pour l’conomie mondiale, mais ce protocole est fond sur des interprtations fort contentieuses de donnes scientifiques, et qui font l’objet de vives critiques. Tel sont les conclusions d’un rapport publi jeudi 30 septembre par un institut de recherches conomiques Bruxelles. Le rapport intitul un mythe concernant le rchauffement de la terre, http://institutmolinari.org/pubs/note200410fr.pdf publi dans la srie des notes conomiques de l’Institut Economique Molinari, examine le dbat sur les thories du rchauffement de la terre, et considre les cots de l’imposition des modalits du protocole de Kyoto sur l’conomie mondiale.
Commentant sur le rapport, Ccile Philippe, prsidente de linstitut dclare :
Insister que les changements climatiques actuels seraient dus au rchauffement de la terre cause par l’homme n’est pas plus srieux que blmer le gouvernement parce qu’il pleut. Les mesures proposes par le protocole de Kyoto vont refroidir l’conomie mondiale, sans pour autant protger l’environnement.
Le dbat au sein de la communaut scientifique propos du changement climatique semble, en fait, loin dtre clos. Plus de 18.000 scientifiques ont sign la ptition lance par linstitut des sciences et de la mdecine de lOregon aux tats-Unis, manifestant son opposition au protocole de Kyoto.
Ccile Philippe rsume ainsi :
On peut donc se demander quel peut-tre le fondement dun protocole qui propose dengloutir des milliards de ressources pour lutter contre la cause mal identifie (la production dmissions de CO2 par lhomme) dun problme qui nexiste peut tre pas (le rchauffement climatique). Sil est vident que lmission de ces gaz a fortement augment, on est aujourdhui loin de savoir quels peuvent en tre les effets. Le cot de lutter contre ces missions est lui, certain.
The destruction caused by four hurricanes in Florida and the Caribbean this summer has provoked sensational claims of climate changes caused by the capitalist economic system. The ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the Russian government risks not only damaging and economic costs for the global economy that are not fully understood. The protocol itself is also based on highly contentious interpretations of scientific evidence that are the object of serious criticism. These are the conclusions of a report issued on Thursday 30 September by a Brussels based think-tank. The report titled Earth warming myth http://institutmolinari.org/pubs/note200410.pdf published as part of the Institut Economique Molinari’s Economic Notes series examines the debate surrounding differing theories about global warming, and considers the costs of implementing the terms of the Kyoto protocol on the world economy.
Commenting on the report, Ccile Philippe, the institute’s President stated:
“To insist that current climate changes are the result of man-made global warming is no more plausible than blaming the government for rainfall. The measures proposed by the Kyoto protocol will cool down the global economy, without necessarily protecting the environment.”
The debate within the scientific community concerning climate change is far from settled. More than 18,000 scientists have signed the petition launched by the Oregon institute of sciences and medicine, in the USA, to demonstrate opposition to the Kyoto protocol.
Ccile Philippe sums up the debate:
“One wonders what the basis is for a treaty that proposes to swallow billions of dollars in resources to struggle against the ill-defined cause (the production of CO2 emissions) of a problem that may not exist (global warming). If it is clear that the emission of “greenhouse gases” has increased, we are far from knowing today what the real effects could be. The cost of restricting these emissions is however, all too clear.”
There’s a scientific consensus, we’re often told, that global warming is a problemdespite the opinion of qualified experts ranging from the
This was underlined recently in Denmark, where The Economist magazine and Bjrn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” brought together eight of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, for the “Copenhagen Consensus” project.
The consensus ranked four projects as representing very good value for money. They were new programs to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS; reducing the prevalence of iron-deficiency anemia by means of food supplements; multilateral and unilateral abolition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, together with the elimination of agricultural subsidies; and the control and treatment of malaria.
The panel ranked all three suggestions for action concerning global climate changean “optimal carbon tax,” a “value-at-risk carbon tax,” and the Kyoto Protocollast among 17 project possibilities, and even termed these options “bad investments.”
This ranking backed up previous research that has shown that all the main suggestions for dealing with global warming would lead to economic disaster, slapping the world with a cost that would far exceed the benefit. A widely accepted 1999 study, for instance, found the cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be $220 billion in 1990 dollars, while providing only $95 billion in benefits. We are better off doing nothing.
It is unfortunate that the world cannot currently alleviate all of its challenges. But with the world’s limited resources, efficient spending is a critical aspect to accomplishing the greatest benefit globally. Wasting money on climate-change programs like the Kyoto Protocol is a misallocation of scarce resources that is at best negligent and at worst reckless.
Environmental alarmismincluding scientists emphasizing unlikely worst-case scenarios and
Sir David A. King’s claim that “Climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today–more serious even than the threat of terrorism” (“Climate change science: adapt, mitigate, or ignore?”, Policy Forum, 9 Jan., p. 176) is based, in part, on UK government-sponsored impacts analyses (1, 2) that estimate that by the 2080s, because “of continued warming, millions more people around the world may in future be exposed to the risk of hunger, drought, flooding, and debilitating diseases such as malaria. Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable” (p. 176). But the very studies underlying the latter quote, and which King cites, show that, for the most part, many more millions would be at risk in the absence of climate change (2). For instance, the population at risk of malaria (PAR-M) in the absence of climate change is projected to double between 1990 and the 2080s, to 8,820 million (2). However, unmitigated climate change would, by the 2080s, further increase PAR-M by another 257 to 323 million (2).
Thus, by the 2080s, halting further climate change would, at best, reduce total PAR-M by 3.5% [=100 x 323/(323 + 8,820)] (3). On the other hand, reducing carbon dioxide emissions with the goal of eventually stabilizing carbon dioxide at 550 ppm would reduce total PAR-M by 2.8% (2) at a cost to developed nations, according to King, of 1% of GDP in 2050 (p. 177), or about $280 billion in today’s terms (4). But malaria’s current annual death toll of about 1 million could be halved at an annual cost of $1.25 billion or less, according to the World Health Organization, through a combination of measures such as residual home spraying with insecticides, insecticide-treated bednets, improved case management, and more comprehensive antenatal care (5). Clearly, implementing such measures now would provide greater malaria benefits over the next few decades than would climate stabilization at any level. It would also reduce vulnerability to malaria from all causes–man-made or natural–now and in the future (3). Similarly, reducing present-day vulnerabilities to the other risk factors mentioned by King (i.e., hunger, water shortage, and flooding) could well provide larger benefits at lower costs over the next few decades than would climate change mitigation efforts that go beyond so-called “no-regret” actions, that is, actions that are worth undertaking on their own merits unrelated to any climate change-related concerns (e.g., elimination of subsidies for fossil fuel usage or land clearance) (3).
The World Bank estimates that with additional annual expenditures of $40 to $60 billion, the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals to advance sustainable development could be reached by 2015 (6, 7). Comparing these goals (e.g., at least halving poverty, hunger, illiteracy, child and maternal mortality, and the proportions of populations lacking safe water and sanitation) (6) against what can be expected from halting further climate change (2) indicates that no matter how serious climate change is compared to terrorism, it pales by comparison with the more mundane problems poor people in developing countries face today and over the next few decades. Even advancing halfway toward those goals would provide greater benefits for environmental and human well-being from now through the 2080s, and do so more economically than would heroic mitigation efforts (2, 6). Thus, it would be far more beneficial, and cost-effective, at least for the next several decades, to reduce vulnerabilities to current problems, especially if they might be exacerbated by climate change (e.g., hunger, malaria, drought, and flooding) (3). Even with a lagtime of 50 years to account for the inertia of the climate and energy system, the aforementioned analyses suggest we may have at least a quarter century window (2080s minus 50 years) before deciding on the depth and extent of mitigation. Meanwhile, we should focus on improving mitigation and adaptation technologies and our knowledge of climate change science, economics, and responses. This way we can advance sustainable development and solve the problems of today while furthering our ability to solve the problems of the day after tomorrow.
Indur M. Goklany*
Office of Policy Analysis,
U.S. Department of the Interior,
1849 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20240,
USA.
E-mail: igoklany@ios.doi.gov
*Views expressed here are the author’s and not necessarily those of any unit of the federal government.
References
- M. L. Parry et al., Global Environ. Change 9, S1 (1999).
- N. W. Arnell et al., Clim. Change 53, 413 (2002).
- I. M. Goklany, Energy Environ. 14, 797 (2003).
- World Bank, World Development Indicators (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2004).
- World Health Organization, World Health Report 1999 (WHO, Geneva, 1999).
- World Bank, “The Costs of Attaining the Millennium Development Goals,” available at www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf (accessed 25 June 2004).
- United Nations, “UN Millennium Development Goals,” available at www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (accessed 8 July 2004).
Response
There is no real choice between action on climate change and action on poverty, disease, hunger, and other millennium development goals. These are part of the same sustainable development agenda. Climate change is already affecting developing countries, and it is the poorest regions of the world–such as Africa and Southeast Asia–that are most at risk. The many people who have died and the millions now homeless through the monsoon flooding in Bangladesh will bear witness to that. This kind of event can be expected to become more frequent and more extreme as global warming accelerates, exacerbated by rising sea levels.
To meet the millennium development goals, serious investment is needed in areas such as public health and infrastructure for water and energy. The British government under Prime Minister Tony Blair’s leadership is strongly committed to that. The total UK official development assistance (ODA) will rise to almost 6.5 billion by 2007/08, which will mean that our ODA will have risen from 0.26% of Gross National Income (GNI) in 1997 to 0.47% in 2007/08.
At the same time, the clock is ticking as concentrations of greenhouse gases mount in the atmosphere. At well over 370 ppm, we are already at 50% above preindustrial levels, unlikely to have been seen on Earth for around 20 million years. Global action is needed now if we are to retain the chance to stabilize emissions at a level to avoid even more dangerous climate change than that to which we are already committed. The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the overwhelming majority of world scientific opinion, including in the United States, has shown that we are now on track to seeing average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 5.8C this century as a result of human activities–burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Failure to act will result in a price, both human and economic, that will be paid across the world for generations to come. Once CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it will remain there for centuries.
That is why real climate action is needed now at a global level. As Tony Blair has announced, during our G8 Presidency, we wish to deliver real progress on both climate change and African development.
Sir David A. King
Chief Scientific Adviser to Her Majesty’s Government and Head of the Office of Science and Technology,
1 Victoria Street,
London SW1H 0ET,
UK.
ENVIRONMENT:
Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate, or Ignore?
David A. King
Science 9 January 2004: 176-177
[Summary] [Full Text] [PDF]
Volume 306, Number 5693, Issue of 1 Oct 2004, pp. 55-57.
Copyright 2004 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved.
On March 29, 2001, just over two months into his new administration, President Bush announced that the United States would not comply with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which would have led to energy rationing due to its required cuts in carbon emissions, the inescapable byproduct of energy generation. The President made clear his opposition to the unreasonable demands the Kyoto Protocol places on the United States. We will not do anything that harms our economy, he said then.
However, over three years later, the Clinton-era signature remains on this potentially very harmful document. The Bush Administration should move to unsign it.
The continued presence of Americas signature on the Kyoto treaty sends the wrong signal. Sensing ambiguity in the U.S. position, European offi cials continue to press Kyotos case, and are placing immense diplomatic pressure on Russia to ratify, which would bring the Protocol into legal effect, since it would push Kyoto over the necessary threshold of 55 percent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions. This carries considerable risks.
When in Kyoto, do as in Rome
In May 2002, the Bush Administration announced it would unsignthat is, rescind the American signature fromthe Treaty of Rome establishing an International Criminal Court, which would have exposed American military personnel to politically motivated charges of war crimes (potentially brought by such humanitarian stalwarts as the governments of Cuba, Iran, and Syria). This begs the question: If the United States does not intend to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, why does it refuse to rescind its 1998 signature of it? Unsigning the Treaty of Rome belies the Bush Administrations claim that the United States, as a nonratifying signatory, faces no consequences from the Kyoto Protocol.
The Bush Administration has not stated that the U.S. will comply with Kyotoyet the failure to rescind our signature sends that same message to other countries negotiators.
Unsigning the Rome Treaty but not the Kyoto Protocol suggests that the U.S. intends to adopt Kyoto. This has emboldened the European Union (EU) to lobby Russia to seek the best deal it can while eventual ratifi cation by a future U.S. Senate remains a possibility. Most major EU countries, recognizing that Russia holds all the cards right now, are willing to give Russia major concessionsand the possibility of American ratifi cation places the pressure on Russia to ratify Kyoto fi rst.
Invitation to Litigation
Once it is in effect, other countries will likely use Kyoto to beat up on the U.S.a signatoryat various international fora, even without Senate ratifi cation. Recent litigation by state attorneys general against U.S. power generators and the Administration itself hint at future lawsuits: At least three law review articles have set forth how Third World plaintiffs can use the national signature on the protocol to sue, under the Alien Tort Claims Act and other statutes, over costs allegedly imposed on them by climatechange. The EU is threatening the use of the World Trade Organizations Shrimp-Turtle precedent to make the case that our failure to match EU energy taxes is either an impermissible advantage (eco-dumping) or an unfair trade barrier. The U.S. signature on the protocol invites such action.
Status Quo Makes No Sense
The 1972 Vienna Convention on Conventions (Title 18) delineates treaty interpretation, dealing specifically with the issue of a non-ratifying signatory state: a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty, until and unless it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty, or it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty. This is restated by the Law of Foreign Relations of the United States ( 312 of the Restatement 3d). This is expressly why President Bush unsigned the Treaty of Rome.
That requirement is not satisfi ed by verbally disavowing a treaty, while at the same time maintaining ones signature and continuing to send delegations to ongoing negotiations. The Vienna Conventions withdrawal requirement is achieved only by filing an instrument rescinding the signature with the same body to which the signature was communicated.
The Solution
The Bush Administration should formally announce its intention to rescind the American signature on the Kyoto Protocol. The move would carry no risk. By formally doing what the American and global public believe he has already done, President Bush will surprise no one. And rescinding the signature will remove two possible risks. First, it will take Kyoto off the table and force the world to look again at the issues surrounding global warming alarmism. Second, it will much reduce the chance of litigation to force the U.S. to adopt Kyoto-style energy suppression policies regardless of the Administrations position.
Unsigning the Kyoto Protocol would be consistent with the Presidents correct approach to the Treaty of Rome and reiterate his Administrations willingness to defend American sovereignty and the Constitution against international pressure.
Christopher C. Horner (chornerc@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI and Counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition. Iain Murray (imurray@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI, where he specializes in the debate over climate change and the use and abuse of science in the political process.
Recent hurricane activity in
A link between warmer weather and extreme weather events has been theorized by some climate modelers, but the real world seems to contradict that theory, said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming & International Environmental Policy. In fact, there is a consensus among scientific experts: in a warmer world, extratropical storminess will be reduced.
This reversal of alarmists claims has implications far beyond the realm of meteorology, said CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray. The same climate models and theories that connect increasing storms with higher temperatures form the basis for much of the international response to the question of global climate change. The Kyoto Protocol and similar policies such as the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act are increasingly justified on the basis of unreasonable speculation and climate models that cannot even replicate past climate history.
NASA climate data online: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
There will be NO appreciable CO2 emissions reduction even if Russia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol
Climate analysts at the George Marshall Institute said today there will be no appreciable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions even if Russia adopts the Kyoto Protocol, allowing it to enter into force. Yesterday, several press accounts indicated that Russia may be reversing its position on the treaty.
Russia will benefit from a great wealth transfer as EU funds flow into the country in exchange for rights to Russian CO2 allowances, Institute President William OKeefe said. The tangible effect on carbon dioxide emissions will be non-existent.
O’Keefe said Russia is so far below its allocated emission levels that it will be able to trade its excess to the European Union, who, in turn, will technically meet the Kyoto target but not reduce their CO2 emissions at all.
Russia emitted 1614 million metric tons of CO2 in 2001, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administrations (EIA) 2004 International Energy Outlook. The European Union produced 4123.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2002 (data from the European Commission, press release, July 15, 2004).
The Kyoto Protocol calls for the European Union to reduce its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. According to the European Commission, 1990 emissions totaled 4245.2 million metric tons, which would require the EU to meet a 3905.5 million metric ton mark by 2008-2012. Credible projections suggest that EU CO2 emission levels will begin rising again, following modest decline from 1990 to 2002. Russia is required to maintain its 1990 level of emissions in the same timeframe. The EIA puts Russian CO2 emissions in 1990 at 2405 million metric tons, meaning that it need only maintain that same amount. In fact, its 2001 emissions were significantly below that level (by 791 million metric tons). EIA projections call for a modest increase in Russian emissions, but the level will remain well short of the level allowed under the Kyoto Protocol.
The Russians can sell the EU their excess allowances under the emission trading system called for by the Protocol and European emissions of CO2 will rise as they are expected to, OKeefe concluded. The net effect will be minor, at best.
Pincas Jawetz’s argument that the Consider his premise: 38 countries of the worldLiechtenstein, Luxembourg, Iceland, the United States, etc.agreed in principle to an energy suppression measure, the Kyoto Protocol. The same measure was refused by 160 other countries: Only the What of those proud, supposedly economically vibrant few who soldier on “in exasperation” with our refusal to adhere? Other than 10 percent unemployment and next-to-flat economic growth since they undertook this campaign, stubbornly clinging to Actually, this experience further dispels the notion that energy suppression paves the road to economic health. Every major economic downturn in the past century was preceded by the increase in energy prices that is Claiming that President George H.W. Bush “supported the Kyoto Protocol” is absurd, if consistently so. The Kyoto Protocol is named for the conference at which it was drafted, in December 1997. Thematic talks did not even begin until 1995. President George H.W. Bush was defeated in 1992. If anyone can show me evidence of George H.W. Bush supporting As to President Clinton, he indeed signed this abominable treaty, but for the remaining three-plus years of his presidency refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Mr. Jawetz concludes by menacingly intimating the collapse of the World Trade Organization over the This scenario presumes that the WTOa body created to break down discriminatory trade barriersis likely to accept the argument that if EU nations decide to do something remarkably silly to themselves, then the If any organization that could reach such a conclusion were to collapse, it would be no great loss. Fortunately, it remains as unlikely as the rest of this odd mishmash of Kyotonomics.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org