Raises Chilling Questions by Amy Ridenour (NAPSA)—With a payoff worth billions at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in a thinly veiled bid to win ratification of the Kyoto global warming treaty. The Houston energy conglomerate hoped to cash in on Kyoto by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy andsell credits to emit carbon dioxide, which environmentalists believe contributes to global warming. Enron appeared to be on the verge of Global Warming: success when Vice President Al Gore Fact or signed the Kyoto Ts treaty in November T1998. The treaty required the U.S. to reduce CO, emissions by seven percent from 1990 levels. The Clinton Administration’s interest in fighting global warm- ing meshed with Enron’s dream of huge profits from related investments. Kyoto ratification would have forced the U.S. to switch from coal-fired power plants to ones fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas. The trading surge in emission credits would have funneled cash to Enron. The plan got derailed when the Senate examined the potential economic impactof a global warming treaty; it voted 95 to zero to urge the White House not to send it any treaty that would harm the economy. Studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the offi- cial forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease GDPby 4.2 percent. A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best-case scenario, reduc- ing CO, emissions seven percent below 1990 levels would represent a loss of between three to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That’s $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, Kyoto would cost the average family of four $6,400 a year. Whenit became apparent that Kyoto had little chance of Senate approval, Enron began seeking ways to implement its provisions through backdoor means. CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environ- mental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank. The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign to convince journalists that global warmingis a dire threat. Enron also joined two far-left environmental groups—the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council —in calling for new curbs on emitting COs into the atmosphere. Enron’s intricate involvement in a national global warming campaign raises questions: How much of the campaign was financed by Enron money? Did the company violate federal election and lobbying laws? How duplicitous were the environmental groups that joined Enron in its crusade for Kyoto? Did these organizations financially benefit from their strange bedfellow alliance with a giant energy company? Did any governmentofficials violate campaign or fraud laws by accepting gifts, gratuities or future high-level positions in return for supporting the company? The public deserves complete and comprehensive answers to those questions, no matter whose illusions are shattered. Amy Ridenour is President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan thinktank in the nation’s capital.
