SEPP Key Issues

Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty, negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit," and are the driving force behind United Nations efforts to force restrictions on the use of oil, gas, and coal. The Third Conference of Parties (COP-3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (a.k.a. Global Climate Treaty), meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 agreed to set mandatory limits and timetables. Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence. Considering the economic damage from energy rationing and taxation, the plans are drawing strong negatives in the U.S. Congress. Without firm evidence that an appreciable warming will occur as a result of human activities, or that its consequences would be harmful, there can be no justification for bureaucratic remedies or any action beyond a "no-regrets" policy of energy efficiency and market-based conservation. For additional commentary, see articles on Global Warming and the Btu Tax. See also Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate and the convenient 12 point summary of Global Warming: Unfinished Business. We also refer you to the Scientific Case against the Climate treaty in English and in German.

The IPCC Controversy: In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected. For commentary and letters on this issue, see IPCC.

Regulatory Excess: In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Lung Association, an EPA-funded lobbying group, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed ever more stringent standards on ground-level ozone and particulates. These standards are based on inadequate science and wildly unrealistic cost/benefit figures, yet EPA Administrator Carol Browner ignored comments put forth during the formal review process and zealously moved ahead. This puts the Clinton Administration in a bind. Opposition is building among labor unions and industries, city mayors and members of Congress. In part, the fear is that Browner's extreme measures will stall current efforts to deal with urban air pollution by forcing revision of existing plans. But more important, if costly federal regulation forces industry to flee the inner cities, the loss of jobs and the effect that will have on the municipal tax base could exacerbate poverty and destroy efforts to revitalize urban neighborhoods. For related commentary, see Urban Scmog, Environment vs. Jobs, and Costs of Regulation.

Ozone Depletion: Although environmental pressure groups have made exaggerated claims that the stratospheric ozone layer is being eaten away by chlorofluorocarbons (most notably Freon) wafting into space, scientists have yet to see any increase of solar ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. Actually, even the worst-case scenario (the one that spawned all those bogus stories about blind sheep, blind rabbits, blind trout, plankton death, dead plants, autoimmune disorders, and melanoma epidemics), would have resulted in only a minor increase in UV--one you could experience by driving just 60 miles closer to the equator, say from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration hastily imposed a ban on CFC production, costing U.S. consumers up to $100 billion. And to make that sound like a good deal, the EPA is claiming a preposterous health benefit of $32 trillion. Meanwhile, a hugely profitable black market has been created because of the high cost of CFC substitutes and retrofitting air conditioning systems. Indeed, news reports say the border traffic in "hot" Freon is running a close second to cocaine. Worse, Third World countries, exempt from the ban, are still using CFCs and building factories to produce more. Combine the two and it's unlikely that the ban has produced any benefit to stratospheric ozone. Now that all the handwringing has led to an international protocol, however, the issue is no longer in the public eye. As in the case of acid rain, another minor problem "fixed" by an expensive non-solution, hype has triumphed over substance. For additional commentary, see Stratospheric Ozone.

Environmental Health Risks: The mentality of "zero-risk" still survives, even though the infamous Delaney Amendment, which tried to shield the public from single toxic molecules, has finally been repealed by Congress. Chemicals, radiation, and asbestos all exhibit a threshold below which health risks are negligible. What is more, there is a natural background of these substances that cannot be removed by regulation. Despite the increased use of chemicals in food processing and agriculture, and the innumerable (unwarranted) cancer scares over the years, life expectancy continues to go up and up. For related commentary, see Radiation Exposure, Asbestos and Risk Assessment.

Energy / Natural Resources: Natural resources--whether oil, minerals, water, timber, or fisheries--are best managed when property rights can be clearly defined. Markets can then determine the price and handle the allocation of the resource. Unfortunately, there are many institutional problems that impede rational management, especially for water and fisheries, traditionally resources held in common. For related commentary, see Natural Resource Management.

Misuse and Politicization of Science: Controversies about environmental hazards and the management of natural resources have spilled over into attacks on scientists who do not subscribe to "politically correct" views. Scientific evidence based on observed facts is being subordinated to speculative theory and unverified computer models. Scientific debate is being replaced by pressure to conform to a new orthodoxy, reinforced by the control of research funds by governmental agencies. Particularly disturbing is the increasing evidence that this funding biases even scientific organizations and university science faculties. Yet the future of science depends on open and untrammeled debate. For related commentary, see Misuse of Science.

Space Exploration: The U.S. space program has been a spectacular success for planetary science and astronomy. The costly manned space program, however, has few scientific achievements. The manned space station lacks a clear goal. It should be a stepping stone for manned exploration of the planet Mars and its moons. A first step might be a landing on one of the moons to establish a base and laboratory. Another undeveloped program is the protection of Earth and its inhabitants from the effects of asteroid impact--not a negligible risk. For related commentary, see Space.