Global Climate Change

Interview with Myron Ebell

Myron Ebell oversees all global warming and international environmental work at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington, DC. He also chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, a subgroup of the National Consumers Coalition that focuses on climate change issues. His writings have appeared in USA Today, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Manchester Union Leader, and Environmental Law Forum. He has also appeared as a guest on numerous television and radio programs, including CNN, C-SPAN, National Public Radio's Living on Earth, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Voice of America, and BBC. In addition, Ebell has testified before six House and Senate committees. He holds a MSc from the London School of Economics.

Please briefly describe your profession and tell us more about the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

I manage CEI's global warming and international trade issues, and chair the Cooler Heads Coalition and edit its Cooler Heads newsletter. The coalition consists of two dozen non-profit groups that oppose the Kyoto Protocol and question global warming alarmism. CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy institute that specializes in regulatory issues from a free market and limited government perspective.

What is CEI's stance on the issue of global warming?

We think that the climate is changing and that human activities, principally greenhouse gas emissions, affect the climate. We think that the scientific basis for global warming alarmism is weak. The computer models have been used to produce wildly unrealistic predictions of future warming, and the predicted effects of future warming have been wildly exaggerated in the press (but not by the IPCC's [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Third Assessment Report). To take just the top three predicted effects, the seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age and will continue to rise until the next ice age, so we have been and will continue to have to deal with it regardless; malaria, cholera, dengue fever and other so-called tropical diseases were prevalent during the Little Ice Age (which ended in the late 19th century) in Oslo, St. Petersburg, London, Toronto, New York, and Washington; and the Third Assessment Report says clearly that there is no evidence that the intensity or frequency of intense weather events, such as hurricanes or big storms or floods, has increased or will increase with global temperature increases.

What is CEI's stance on the Kyoto Protocol?

We oppose the Kyoto Protocol. It is a dead end approach to the potential problem of global warming. It cannot work, and it would be extremely expensive.

President Bush released the Clear Skies Initiative as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. Do you believe that his alternative plan is more or less effective than the Kyoto Protocol in combating global warming?

This is a misunderstanding, I believe. Clear Skies would address the major air pollutants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury--and not greenhouse gases.

What are some of the economic impacts of plans combating global climate change?

The Kyoto Protocol and similar approaches would have dramatically negative effects on the global economy. Several economic forecasting studies (and although not too much faith should be put in economic models, they are much more advanced than climate models) have predicted that complying with the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U. S. $300 billion per year. This would be bearable, but the Kyoto targets do not even begin to address the problem. Kyoto supporters estimate that we will need to cut total global greenhouse gas emissions by 70%, which would mean around thirty Kyoto Protocols. The first emissions reductions are the cheapest, so the costs will go up at each further stage. The UNEP has estimated that the total global costs of dealing with global warming could be $300 billion per year, so the cure would be a lot more expensive than the problem.

Does CEI have a plan for creating a healthier environment for the public while maintaining financial stability in our economy?

Yes. CEI has tried to demonstrate this approach on a number of environmental issues over the years. I would refer you to our briefing book, The Environmental Source, which is available on our web site (www.cei.org) for summaries of most of these issues. In regard to global warming--I wrote the chapter in the briefing book on it--we believe that the problem has been overstated. But even if the scariest predictions come true, the proper approach is to build resiliency into our societies and to provide the conditions--private property, free markets and limited government--necessary for long-term technological innovation and transformation. The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook predicts that global energy use--even assuming full implementation and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, which is highly unlikely--will go up by over 50% in the next 20 years, and that the percentage of that energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas will go up from 87% to 90%. So in the short term, carbon dioxide emissions are going to go up. But in the long term, new technologies will allow us to produce energy in much different ways. Some of these technologies are already around, but still too expensive, such as nuclear and wind. Others are still to be discovered or invented.

What are some of the key economic issues of legislation regulating global climate change?

The Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by Senators Lieberman and McCain, was defeated on the Senate floor in October. It would create the institutional framework and lobbying incentives necessary to create an energy-rationing regime called cap-and-trade. The targets and timetable are more modest than Kyoto, so the initial costs would be lower. The Senate version of the energy bill contained a provision that would require investor-owned electric utilities to produce 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. This provision was dropped in the House-Senate conference committee report on the energy bill. Again, a renewable requirement is a way to raise energy prices and thereby force demand down. Both these approaches would be much less efficient economically than a tax on carbon energy use. That is, it would cost us all less to achieve the same emissions reductions with a carbon tax than with a cap-and-trade, renewable requirement, or similar program. The reason these types of programs are favored is because they conceal the costs from consumers.

Is there a general message you would like to send to the public regarding global climate change?

Global warming is unlikely to be much of a problem. The scientific case for alarm has always been weak and is getting weaker as scientists learn more. If it does turn out to be a significant problem, then we can deal with it in much less destructive ways than the Kyoto approach of rationing energy. Until then, we should concentrate our efforts on dealing with much more serious and immediate environmental problems.

Submitted by: Jessi Steinitz, Education Programs Coordinator, SPUSA