Global Warming Conference At The Hague

Representatives from more than 180 countries are meeting this week to discuss global warming and possible implementation of the Kyoto treaty. While the treaty was written three years ago, relatively few nations have signed it. The treaty is so unpopular in the Republican-dominated Senate that President Clinton has not sent it to that body for fear it would be rejected outright.

It is clear that much of the world views the US as the worst environmental offender. Former British ambassador to the UN Sir Crispin Tickell said, The Americans in this area are very much the villains of the piece [of legislation]. They've not gone along with Kyoto and yet they are unquestionably the largest polluter with 4% of the world's population and 25% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The primary objection made to the treaty is that the US would be forced to adhere to harsh restrictions on the emission of greenhouse gasses while other countries, including developing nations and China, would not be required to make any substantial changes.

Others dispute the premise that global warming is as serious as the doomsayers claim. The interpretation of data coming from the scientific community has been contradictory and confusing. Global warming was first simulated by computer models, which predicted that the rising temperatures would melt the polar ice caps and cause the ocean level to rise, flooding the coastal areas. The models also predicted that the deserts would grow and the continents would dry out. Yet, several problems were noted with the computer models. They made no provision for the effects of clouds and trees on the weather, both of which have moderating effects on warming. The effects of volcanoes and sun spot activity on the earths climate were also not included in the models. Other scientists have pointed out that the earth has an historical record of fluctuations in temperatures, citing various warm ages and ice ages before the influence of the industrial era.

The story among global warming advocates is also confusing. First, they claim the warming will create deserts, and then they cite heavy rains and flooding as a result of the rising temperatures. The early springs and the heavy winters are both blamed on global warming. One group claims that planting trees will help take excess carbon from the atmosphere, while another group warns that trees reduce the reflectivity of the snow cover, thus contributing to warming. The ozone hole over the Antarctic is also blamed on greenhouse emissions, but nobody has explained how relatively heavy chlorofluorocarbons from the northern hemisphere affect the high altitude ozone layer in the southern hemisphere.

Numerous atmospheric scientists have signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says, We consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models - and unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.

What is clear about the debate is that credible scientists stand on both sides of the issue and the hard research is incomplete. It is important to pursue the issue in a strictly scientific setting and let the politicians follow, not lead, the results.