Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Flash back to 1997. The Senate, concerned about the U.S. economy and wanting to be sees as on the side of the American worker, votes 95-0 against the Kyoto accord. Not that it was a binding vote, since the treaty had not been proffered by then President Clinton. The Senate, however, wanted to make sure voters knew that they were all against hurting the economy and in favor of protecting jobs in the U.S.

Return to today. Several of the Senators who voted against Kyoto in 1997 are now making noises about how President Bush should be honoring the principles of Kyoto. That appears to be a bit strange, since the original vote was so emphatically against even considering the treaty. So what has changed since then? Aren’t U.S. jobs still at stake? Don’t those Senators want to be viewed favorably by the American worker?

Well, yes and no. Jobs would be at stake if the Senators were talking about actually implementing the Kyoto treaty. Peer at the actions of the Senators a little more closely and you’ll notice they are talking about supporting the principles. What is the difference? The principles of the treaty are that global levels of emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. The way to achieve this is being debated, but the plan with the most support is to set up a carbon trading system. Countries with high carbon outputs (like the U.S.) can buy carbon allowances from nations with low outputs (most of Africa and South America and parts of Asia).

A carbon trading system would in effect become a global equity market, with the industrial output of entire nations controlled through the carbon allowances. Sounds pretty powerful, doesn’t it? Well, such a powerful entity requires oversight, not to mention highly paid administrators. And who better to administer the system than politicians? Who better to provide oversight than political appointees? Not to mention financing all of these deals, once again by a highly administered system that requires oversight.

It’s not surprising that the Senators who have come out in favor of supporting the “principles” of Kyoto are either Democrats—opposing Bush simply for the sake of opposition—or Republican “mavericks”—setting themselves up for post-Senate jobs. But what happened to the concerns about the U.S. worker? What about voter backlash? Let’s put it this way: you can’t be voted out of office if you aren’t running for re-election, or if you just had an election cycle in 2000 and won’t face the voters again until 2006, when the issue will be a done deal and long forgotten.

And what about the economy? Ask supporters of this plan and they will say the U.S. economy would still be there, chugging away. It would just be paying a fee (read tax) to the global carbon trading association. Nothing too onerous (from a governmental standpoint), and the Federal Government can always step in and provide relief for companies that need help, especially if those companies are making contributions to the right political party: the one that supports the “principles” of Kyoto. Companies like Enron.

Already power generating companies and energy trading companies are lining up to lobby Congress, as well as any other political entity that will be regulating carbon output. Even Senators from states that produce coal are making noises about supporting a carbon trading scheme as “inevitable”, so much so that they might as well work for a plan that benefits U.S. industry—or their own political aspirations.

Time should be taken to step back and take a look at the premise of Kyoto: that the Earth is becoming unacceptably warmer and the principle cause is manmade in nature. Well, that will probably come as a shock to fans of the age of the dinosaur. The Earth was considerably warmer when they roamed the Earth. So much so that Colorado had a seacoast and the Gulf of Mexico reached into Canada. How warm was it then? A lot warmer than it is now, that is for sure. If the current theory of dinosaur extinction—a comet or asteroid impact causing a global winter—is correct then the cyclic warming and cooling we see in Earth’s history is simply nature’s way of working back to the “correct” planetary temperature. And Kyoto would be futiley battling nature to keep temperatures at the same level they were when Baby Boomers were growing up. And I think it is safe to say that that temperature is not the "normal" temperature for the Earth.

In the final analysis the plan that benefits U.S. industry the most is no plan at all. With Global Warming an unproven theory, and one that is leading towards socialist-style regulations on global trade, the Senate should be working on ways to keep global trade free of meddling bureaucrats instead of trying to secure their piece of the global trade regulation pie.

Several of the Senators who voted against Kyoto in 1997 are now making noises about how President Bush should be honoring the principles of Kyoto.

...who better to administer the system than politicians?

...the Federal Government can always step in and provide relief for companies that need help, especially if those companies are making contributions to the right political party: the one that supports the “principles” of Kyoto. Companies like Enron.

In the final analysis the plan that benefits U.S. industry the most is no plan at all.