Global warming may not be a serious threat, but the Global Warming Treaty sure is!
| EMISSION IMPOSSIBLE
We're faced with a problem that's prickly.
We'd better do something, and quickly.
Forget the suspicions
About greenhouse emissions:
It's the wind from the White House that's sickly. |
|
"Most environmentalists, some scientists, President Clinton, and Vice President Gore have blamed global warming and all manner of natural catastrophes . . . on rising levels of greenhouse gases," observes Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "In December 1997," he recalls, "the Clinton Administration agreed to a treaty in Kyoto, Japan to reduce the levels of human-caused greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. On this theory, since most of the increased emissions come from energy use, we must use less energy to reduce the likelihood of environmental apocalypse."
The logic's more or less sound, assuming that the theory is correct, but that's a big assumption. Burnett points out that "many scientists are skeptical of the theory that humans are causing global warming. Economic analyses," he adds, "have shown that the treaty would raise prices and destroy jobs. And almost everyone agrees that the treaty will do nothing to halt the rise in greenhouse gases." The treaty, evidently, is a response not to greenhouse gases, but to White House gases.
Burnett emphasizes that "U.S. national security could be threatened by actions taken to meet U.S. commitments under the treaty." He explains that "forcing energy use reductions and rationing are the primary policy tools for reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Noting that "the federal government is the nation's largest user of energy," and that the Department of Defense accounts for three-quarters of that usage, Burnett concludes that "cuts in the military's energy use seem a likely option." Perhaps this seemingly unintended effect is the Global Warming Treaty's true objective.
Burnett cites various defense experts who "have argued that energy cuts will dramatically reduce military effectiveness. Moreover, they contend that according to the treaty the U.S. military will be able to defend U.S. interests only on missions approved by the United Nations. That," he says, "is tantamount to placing the U.S. military under UN command." If truth be told, this has been the Clinton Administration's goal all along, but the American people would never stand for an overt change in command, and so Clinton and his cohorts have resorted to this clever subterfuge.
The Global Warming Treaty is really an America Disarming Treaty, and treaty boosters should be viewed accordingly. Any Senator who votes for the treaty, expresses his support for the treaty, winks at Clinton's efforts to implement its conditions without ratification, or pretends that global warming is anything more than an unsubstantiated theory should be considered an advocate of national disarmament. His constituents should demand to know why he favors such a suicidal course, and hold him to account for it.
