There has never been much doubt that the release of carbon
dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere and a byproduct of
fossil fuel combustion, has some warming effect on the planet. But
the impact of man-made emissions of this greenhouse gas may be
minor. The real issues are whether or not the release of carbon
dioxide is a significant factor relative to natural temperature
variability, what the likely consequences of warming would be, and
what should be done about it. To better explain these issues, this
paper provides answers to frequently asked questions about global
Q: Is global warming
No. The earth's average temperature has increased over the last
30 years, and many point to this as evidence of a dangerous
human-induced warming. But temperatures have risen and fallen many
times before that. The Medieval Warm Period (c. 1100-1450) and
earlier periods were likely as warm or warmer than the present. The
earth was cooling as recently as the period from the 1940s to the
1970s, giving rise to fears of a coming ice age, until temperatures
began to increase in the mid-1970s up through the present day.
While it is likely that mankind's activities have made a
contribution to warming, current temperatures are within the range
of natural variability.
Q: Is global warming catastrophic?
Far from it. Given that the current upward trend in temperatures
is not unprecedented, it stands to reason that minor warming will
not lead to unprecedented catastrophes, and scientific evidence
confirms this. According to recent research, the planet and its
inhabitants are much more resilient to temperature variability than
had been previously assumed, and the warming over the last few
decades has not been particularly harmful to humans or the
environment. Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding
global warming is speculative and lies outside the scientific
consensus. In fact, several respected economists believe that any
likely future warming would have benefits (such as increased crop
yields) that outweigh the modest adverse impacts in the U.S.
Q: Didn't global warming cause
Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters?
No. Natural disasters are just that, and occur with or without
global warming. Many activists have tried to link each natural
disaster as it occurs-hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, floods,
wildfires, crop failures, disease outbreaks, and even snowstorms-to
global warming. Although the theoretical link between warming and
some natural disasters is plausible, the scientific evidence points
away from anything more than a small connection. There is no
consistent long-term pattern in the frequency of these events. For
example, while Hurricane Katrina was part of a worse-than-average
2005 hurricane season, the 2006 hurricane season was an unusually
Q: Could the Kyoto Protocol or other
measures to fight warming do more harm than good?
Yes. For example, consider hurricanes. Vast amounts could be
spent trying to mitigate global warming as an indirect means of
reducing future hurricane damage-even though there is no consensus
about a global warming-hurricane link. The resources used in this
effort would not be available for improvements in warning systems,
flood control, building codes, evacuation plans, relief efforts, or
anything else that could have actually made a difference with
Hurricane Katrina. Also consider the one big success story in
Katrina-the million or more people who got into the family car and
drove out of harm's way in the days before the storm hit. If
Kyoto-style energy restrictions had made automobiles and gasoline
prohibitively expensive for some (as is very likely), more people
would have been stranded in New Orleans and other coastal
Q: Are we facing 20-foot sea level
rise because of global warming?
This is highly unlikely and not part of any scientific
consensus. In his book and documentary An Inconvenient
Truth, Al Gore chose to focus on the catastrophic impacts of an
18 to 20 foot sea level rise, including numerous highly populated
coastal areas falling into the sea. The recently released summary
of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report, however, estimates a sea level rise of only 7 to 23 inches
over the next century, and there are reasons to believe that even
that may be overstating things.
Q: Shouldn't we "play it safe" and
take tough preventive measures against global warming?
Not necessarily. There are risks to global warming, but there
are also risks to global warming policies. Fossil fuels-coal, oil,
and natural gas-provide the world with most of its energy. It will
be costly to ratchet down emissions from fossil fuels enough to
make even a modest dent in the earth's future temperature. The
Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty that places a cap on carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will actually
accomplish very little. If fully implemented, its energy rationing
provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but
would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius
of warming by 2050. The costs of capping carbon dioxide are large
and immediate, but the benefits are small and remote. And a poorer
world, which Kyoto would give us, would have less ability to deal
with whatever challenges the future brings.
Q: Wouldn't the costs of Kyoto fall on
industry and not on the public?
The notion that the costs of rationing energy under Kyoto will
be borne by a relative handful of corporate fat cats and that the
rest of us will get a free ride is mistaken. Any measures strong
enough to make a measurable dent in carbon emissions would have a
profound effect on the economy and on family budgets. Electric
bills and gasoline prices would rise, as well as the cost of most
other goods which require energy to make and transport.
Manufacturing jobs would likely leave the country in large numbers
and go to nations like China that have announced that they will do
nothing to cap energy use. At the very least, proponents of Kyoto
and similar measures should be up front with the American people
about the likely costs.
Q: Don't we owe it to the people in
developing nations to save them from global warming?
First and foremost, the developing world needs to develop, not
to adopt costly first-world environmental measures that would halt
economic progress. The consequences of severe poverty are no less
fearful than even the most far-fetched global warming doomsday
scenarios. Energy rationing to combat warming would perpetuate
poverty by raising energy prices for those who can least afford it.
The last thing the 2 billion who currently lack access to
electricity or safe drinking water and sanitation need are global
warming policies that would place these and other necessities
further out of reach.
Q: Isn't the Kyoto Protocol a success
No. The European Union nations that have signed onto the Kyoto
Protocol-and regularly criticize the U.S. for failing to join
them-are falling considerably short of its requirements. Despite
the caps on carbon dioxide emissions, nearly every Western European
nation has higher carbon emissions today than when the treaty was
signed in 1997, and these emissions increases show no signs of
leveling off. Compliance with Kyoto's looming 2008-2012 targets
will be all but impossible for most of these countries, and many
are actually seeing their emissions rising faster than those in the
Q: Is the U.S. doing nothing about
No. The current administration has taken a very sensible
approach to global warming. Rather than engage in extremely costly
efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing sources,
the administration has wisely steered clear of carbon caps.
Congress has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, nor has it (yet)
enacted Kyoto-like programs to ration energy. Instead, Washington
has focused on research into new technologies that may be able to
produce energy with fewer carbon dioxide emissions in a
cost-effective manner. The administration's Climate Change
Technology Program Strategic Plan describes the federal
government's ongoing research efforts in this regard. And its
six-nation Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate is an agreement by which both developed and developing
nations can coordinate the creation and deployment of these
technologies within the context of continued economic growth and
poverty reduction. This approach will lead to economically
practical solutions that could be employed if they prove to
be necessary, rather than economically ruinous immediate measures
imposed whether or not they are needed.
Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe
Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage