Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, July 15, 1998 | |
Is the Global Warming Treaty a Threat to National Security?Pete du PontFormer Governor of Delaware, is Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis |
The Clinton administration took a big step toward unilaterally disarming
the U.S. military last December in Kyoto, Japan. To state the matter more
precisely, if the Senate should approve the greenhouse gas treaty agreed
to in Japan, the U.S. military will have to dramatically reduce its training
and limit its missions. The military will still be able to carry out missions
that defend U.S. interests - but only if the United Nations approves of
the missions. How can that be? Well, it turns out that the federal government
is the nation's largest user of energy. Seventy-three percent of federal
government use - and 1.4 percent of all energy use in the United States
- is by the Defense Department, and 58 percent of that goes for military
operations and training. Most of this energy comes from burning fossil fuels, which generate potentially
heat-trapping greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases have been blamed
by some environmentalists, some scientists and President Clinton and Vice
President Al Gore for causing global warming and all manner of catastrophes
(like hurricanes, floods and maybe even El Nino). On this theory, to avert
environmental apocalypse, we must reduce the use of energy. Because energy use is critical to the effective functioning of the military,
and thus our nation's security, Sherri Goodman, deputy undersecretary of
defense for environmental security (a new position established on President
Clinton's watch), and the leaders of the four branches of the military requested
a national security exemption from emission reductions for the Defense Department.
Before the negotiations in Kyoto, administration officials agreed that
they would demand a defense exemption in any greenhouse gas treaty.
But what they promised and what they delivered are two different things.
The Kyoto treaty exempts only multilateral military operations sanctioned
by the U.N. Neither the military engagements the U.S. undertook in Grenada, Panama,
and Libya nor the humanitarian relief operations like providing aid to Bangladesh
shortly after the Gulf War were U.N.-sanctioned. And with the makeup of
the Security Council, future military operations - against Iraq or Yugoslavia,
for example - would be unlikely to get Security Council approval. In addition,
day to day operations, training and war games are not "multilateral
operations pursuant to the United Nations Charter," and so are not
exempt. Quite apart from the question of whose policy controls, the military
has estimated that a 10 percent cut in fuel use, which would reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by a comparable percentage, would reduce tank training
by 328,000 miles per year, flight training and flying exercises by 210,000
flying hours, and the number of steaming days (days on board ship in port
and at sea for training and military exercises) by 2,000. The Defense Department estimates that these reductions would substantially
hamper military readiness. And cutting emissions by 10 percent would only
go a third of the way toward meeting our commitments under the treaty. Congress is aware of the national security implications. In response
to congressional pressure, Secretary Goodman testified before the Senate
that the administration has assured her it will oppose efforts to impose
energy cuts to reduce emissions on domestic military operations and training.
Furthermore, she said, "If we were to undertake . . . a completely
unilateral operation, we do not need an international treaty to tell the
United States how to operate unilaterally. That is a matter of United States
sovereignty." Well said! But there are a few problems. This strong
language did not make it into the treaty, so in effect we are admitting
to the world that when the treaty does not suit us, we will break it. This
puts us in the unenviable position of being a rogue nation. Or other nations might follow our example, in which case the treaty becomes,
by being routinely ignored, ineffective and largely a moot point - good
for public relations but not much else. So why sign it in the first place?
Finally, if the Defense Department does get a blanket exemption, that
just means that the private sector will have to make even deeper cuts to
make up for it. Harming the U.S. economy would not seem to be any more
in our interests than hogtying the U.S. military in case of a security threat.
Neither weakening national security, flouting treaties nor harming the
economy is an attractive policy stance for a presidential candidate. Will
Al Gore get the message? # # # # # The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy
research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies
on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with
an office in Washington, D.C. For more information: Jil Hicks, Dallas, TX 972/386-6272 Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |