Thousands of government officials, diplomats, NGO folks and journalists are in Bali this week for the United Nations’ global warming powwow. While they try to outline an even tougher set of restrictions on so-called greenhouse gases to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, we’ll venture that little will be said about America’s record on curbing emissions without such caps. It’s too big an embarrassment to the assembled worthies.
The Bush Administration announced last week that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 1.8% from 2005 to 2006. Output of all greenhouse gases was down 1.5% last year. All this while the American economy grew by 2.9%. It’s the first time since 1990, when the U.N. began counting these things, that the U.S. has reduced emissions without also suffering a recession.
Critics immediately pointed to the Energy Department’s acknowledgment that the reductions were in part due to higher energy prices and favorable weather. But greater use of lower-carbon energy sources, including natural gas, also played a big role. The U.S. reduction also suggests that letting markets work through higher prices will reduce carbon emissions more than the cap and trade mandates favored by environmental lobbies and most Democrats.
The EU hasn’t yet released figures for 2006. But from 2000 to 2005, the U.S. outperformed Western Europe. Carbon emissions were up 3.8% in the so-called EU-15 during those years, versus 2.5% in the U.S. Over the same period, there has been virtually no difference between the increase in all greenhouse emissions in the U.S. and EU-15.
We refer back to 2000 instead of 1990 because the real agenda of those who blame America’s role in global warming seems to be to blame President Bush for not signing Kyoto. It’s true that U.S. emissions have grown more than Europe’s since 1990, but how can this Administration be held responsible for what happened on Al Gore’s watch?
For all the unproven claims about mankind’s contribution to global warming, here’s something that can be said with authority: If curbing emissions really is the goal, then the heavy-handed approach promoted by the U.N. and Europe isn’t the best way to do so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119664710840811316.html
