Since in the U.S. the federal government is the largest consumer of energy -- with 73 percent of the government's share consumed by the Defense Department -- any forced cut would have vast implications in terms of our military preparedness.

• The Pentagon estimates that a 10 percent cut in its fuel use would reduce tank training by 328,000 miles per year, flight training and flight exercises by 210,000 flying hours, and steaming days -- days on board ships in port and at sea for training and naval exercises -- by 2,000.

• The reductions would add as much as six weeks to the time air forces and tank corps need to deploy in a time of crisis.

• Moreover, a 10 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions would be only one-third of the military's share of the cuts needed to meet U.S. commitments under the treaty.

• Had the U.S. been required to obtain U.N. sanctions for the military engagements it undertook in Granada, Panama, Libya, Sudan and Afghanistan in recent years, it would not have been able to operate since those actions were not U.N.-approved.

Even if the Pentagon were to obtain an exemption, the private sector would have to make even deeper cuts in its fossil fuel usage to make up for it. That would even further jeopardize the U.S. economy.

In the event of a threat to our national security, we would have no alternative but to flout the treaty and give the armed forces the fuel it needs. That would put us in the position of being a rogue nation.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett (National Center for Policy Analysis), "Global Warming Treaty Threatens National Security," Investor's Business Daily, October 15, 1998.