The US presidential election draws near, with candidates of both major political parties noticeably quiet on what should be a defining issue. Their positions are clear enough. But neither Vice-Pres. Al Gore nor Texas Gov. George W. Bush has seen fit to make global warming prominent in debates over such higher-profile matters as energy prices, economic growth, and federal spending.
Gore staked early claim to radical alarmism over global warming as a US senator. He wrote a book that turned political response to climate change into a moral crusade. As vice-president, he ensured that the US signed the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. As Democratic candidate for the presidency, about all he has said on the subject is that he hasn't changed his mind.
Bush, an opponent of the Kyoto accord, might have used the issue to distinguish himself from his rival. His strategists apparently fear that challenging Gore on the subject would position their man on the moral low ground. Yet there's nothing moral about hoisting taxes for scientifically doubtful reasons, as Kyoto and Gore would do. Bush shouldn't avoid saying so.
Understandable silence
Gore's campaign silence on global warming is easy to understand. Consumers of vehicle and heating fuel are angry about prices elevated by a thinly supplied market. Discussion of the Kyoto treaty would highlight the taxes essential to cutting carbon emissions-taxes that would make oil-product prices at current levels the rule rather than the exception. Voters then would demand the impossible: assurance of payoff, measurable in global temperature, justifying the cost. From Gore's perspective, the timing couldn't be worse for his trademark issue.
He should be receiving questions about it anyway. The global warming precautions he espouses would jeopardize the US prosperity for which he presumes much credit. They would hold economic growth below levels he assumes. In turn, they would keep federal revenues below levels required by the spending implicit in his education, medical, and other proposals.
Gore insists that the government can lever the US economy away from fossil energy without hurting it. That's ludicrous. The costs are inescapable.
In an October 1998 briefing paper, the Energy Information Administration estimated costs of Kyoto measures to the US economy in terms of potential growth of the gross domestic product (GDP), adjustment effects, and the cost of international emission permits. Those total costs to GDP came to $77-338 billion/year (1992 dollars) during 2008-2012, depending on how quickly carbon emissions were cut and how funds were recycled. The estimates represent 1-3.6% of total annual economic output expected for the period.
In EIA's projection, the US economy thus grows under Kyoto prescriptions-but not as fast as it would otherwise. In terms relevant to immediate public passions, average gasoline prices in the EIA analysis are 11-53% higher in 2010 than they would be without measures necessitated by the Kyoto treaty. Total delivered energy costs are 17-83% higher.
Given growing doubt that human efforts can discernibly affect global average temperature, why should the government forgo any measure of economic growth? Why should it force any extra costs onto energy consumers? The questions deserve more attention than the presidential campaign has given them. And if the contenders don't want to discuss global warming directly, they should at least frame spending promises within their plans for the Kyoto treaty.
Shrunken surplus
In congressional testimony last March, Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation pointed out that a 3%/year reduction in GDP growth related to Kyoto measures would cut the federal budget surplus from $195 billion projected for 2010 to $57 billion. The difference would fund quite a few of those teachers' salaries Gore promises and buy great quantities of medicine for senior citizens.
By not pressing these questions, Bush has missed an opportunity. Gore apparently hopes to ride lavish promises into the White House before voters testy about oil prices notice his consistent enthusiasm for expensive energy. Once there, he wouldn't be able to both deliver all the programs he proposes and advance his holy global-warming agenda. This seems fundamental to the choice voters face Nov. 7. The candidates should be arguing about it.
