Friday Interview: Climate-Change Commission

The John Locke Foundation’s Donna Martinez recently discussed the work of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change with Roy Cordato, the John Locke Foundation’s vice president for research, who has been following the commission’s work very closely. (Go to http://carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

Martinez: Let’s talk about this interesting statement from Mr. George Givens. He is the counsel to the commission and here is what he said: “My impression is that the general discussion of global climate change has moved beyond Kyoto because both sides seem to agree that even full implementation of Kyoto would have a relatively small impact on greenhouse gas emissions or global climate change.” End of quote from Mr. Givens. Now that is really interesting Roy. Tell us about Kyoto. He seems to be rejecting Kyoto and, as I understand it, that has been widely endorsed by those who believe that global warming is caused by man.

Cordato: Yes, well the Kyoto Protocol is a United Nations treaty that many countries have signed and endorsed. The United States never did ratify the treaty. But it has been the gold standard for the people who want to claim that we need to do something to head off global warming. And what Givens here is acknowledging — which, I think he is absolutely correct and he is consistent with what all of the climatologists have said — that the Kyoto Protocol will do virtually nothing to alter the climate in the future. And the implications of what he is saying are really quite dramatic for North Carolina’s global climate.

Martinez: Well, tell us about that Roy. What do you think this means? Why did it catch your attention so quickly?

Cordato: Well it caught my attention because the fact is that nothing that North Carolina will do even approaches the dramatic carbon dioxide reductions associated with Kyoto Protocol. So if the Kyoto Protocol would have no impact on the climate, then the implication is quite clear: there is nothing North Carolina can do to have any climate benefits in the future. I would hope that he is acknowledging this, but I don’t think he is.

Martinez: Now in fact, isn’t it true that that is exactly one of the questions that the state commission is looking at? I mean it seems to me he has answered the question.

Cordato: He has. And so have the climate scientists who have testified to the commission. They’ve had, I don’t know, probably 25 or 30 people testify. They’ve only had a couple of climate scientists out of that whole group, but both of those have said the same thing, There is nothing, first of all, that the Kyoto Protocol would do to change climate for hundreds of years, and by implication, there is nothing that North Carolina can do. So I think he seems to be acknowledging that, but the funny thing is, if you look at what the climate commission is doing, it ignores it, it continues to talk about carbon taxes and CO² trading programs, and all of these kinds of silly things that will have absolutely no impact on climate change.

Martinez: Well, it is really interesting because Mr. Givens is the counsel to the state commission. And, as you said, other people have testified before the commission, essentially to the same thing. But being that he is kind of one of their own so to speak with the commission…

Cordato: Yes, absolutely.

Martinez: …do you think that his view will convince legislators on that commission that essentially the work of the commission is done?

Cordato: Funny thing is, I don’t think so. I think he just wasn’t being careful when he said that, in that he sort of acknowledged something that I don’t think the commission, his bosses so to speak, the commission chairmen who are both very much global warming alarmists, would probably, when push came to shove, acknowledge. Because it seems to be unquestionable. But they would not go on and make the next step, which is, well, there is really nothing the state can do.

Martinez: Well, Roy, let’s just say that the commission ignores what Mr. Givens and other folks have said about the issue of whether or not North Carolina could actually do anything, and they seem to be saying, no, North Carolina couldn’t. If the commission goes ahead and implements policies that would try to somehow get people out of their cars, or reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, you as an economist have some very firm views about the negative implications for North Carolina. Tell us about those.

Cordato: Well, it is not my views. Actually it is the views of the U.S. Energy Information Agency, of Wharton School of Business econometric forecasting, University of Pennsylvania. Virtually every study that has been done shows that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would be very, very costly to Americans, costing millions of jobs across the country, hundreds of thousands of jobs in North Carolina, driving the price of gasoline up by over 50 percent, the price of natural gas up by well over, almost 150 percent. So the effects of something like the Kyoto Protocol would be dramatic in terms of the economy. On the other hand, there would be absolutely no benefits in terms of climate change. And that is the problem with what the commission is doing. It would have all costs to the citizens of North Carolina with no climate-change benefits. And the fact is that they don’t dispute it. The global warming alarmists do not dispute that fact. They have not presented one shred of evidence showing the climate-change benefits of anything they are proposing. And the reason is, because nothing they are proposing will have any climate-change benefits. And you can ask them that question over and over and over again, and you will get dodging for an answer. You will get word games. The bottom line is: There is no evidence, no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Martinez: Roy, I always find it interesting in the global warming debate about the fact that it was just in the 1970s that a lot of alarmists were concerned about a coming ice age, not about the heating of the earth, but thinking that there was going to be a freeze. How is it possible that we would go from one extreme to the other in such few years?

Cordato: Well I think there has been a big problem with predictions from environmentalists. They’ve always, always been wrong. They were predicting that we would have run out of oil by now. They predicted that half of the world would be starving by now. All of these were predictions in the 1970s. They were consistently wrong and people are paying the price for them being wrong.