by Christopher C. Horner
April 12, 2005

The purpose of this interview is to explain to the international community, and Americans, the very fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy and their position with regards to the Kyoto Treaty among others. This article is very different to the articles you may read on the Treaty or US foreign policy for that matter. This article is actually about core American beliefs that lead the U.S to the decisions they make rather than going around in circles over each individual issue itself. When we understand core beliefs we can come to agreements with less friction and increase the chance of our common ideals being achieved. Read this with the hope of finding a way that can be agreed on, to better protect our common interest... the environment and peace on Earth. To avoid an article that is too lengthy I have broken the interview into several parts. This week is a prelude dedicated to setting the stage for the more concise points Chris Horner makes regarding the Kyoto Treaty and foreign affairs. So let me begin...  

The international community would be wise to understand the background of America to understand the way American people intrinsically think. Understanding the people then leads to understanding why the U.S is, for the most part, opposed to being controlled/governed by an international body. Without this understanding, information is completely misconstrued around the world. Some good news in misperceptions about the U.S though, is just because America didn't agree to the Kyoto Treaty, does not mean they do not want to be more environmentally friendly as often portrayed. In fact, better energy efficiency and environmentally sound practices are at the very top of the U.S agenda with rising energy costs. We need to start at the beginning to understand why

Americans founded the country on fighting the English government, who, in that era, needed to be fought to achieve individual freedom. Those were the days when the English blue-bloods abused the peasants and were dedicated to empire building at the peril of all who stood in their way. America was founded on those who revolted against the oppression of the English Government. So America was founded on individual freedom and mistrust of the government, which is something people from all around the world should be able to relate to. Individual freedom and mistrust of the government then formed the foundation of the American Constitution and has vigilantly been passed down and engrained in many Americans throughout the generations.

Most Americans want a small government that does not over-regulate their lives. With much mistrust of government and in the spirit of empowering the individual as their basis, most Americans do not want to give more control of their lives away—not only to their own government who at least have a vested interest in the well being of the country, but to foreign governments/international organizations who have a conflict of interest and/or just outright philosophically hate Americans. So not agreeing to Kyoto does not equal not caring about the environment as the far left and media often portray. It is more about not wanting foreign government organizations regulating their lives.

Beginning Of 3 Part Interview:

Gabrielle Reilly: What are your thoughts Chris on the very core reasons Americans don't want other government organizations regulating them as they would be with the Kyoto Treaty?

Chris Horner: Americans have an inherent suspicion of supranational and international institutions for very good reason. President Reagan pulled us out of UNESCO, President George W. Bush rescinded our signature into the International Criminal Court and, while he did not in fact pull us out of Kyoto as is misreported, he has elected to remain outside of it, at least for now although his successor can change that position at any time

The reasons behind this suspicion do not just derive from our resistance to socialism which is so embraced by Europe, which of course is a manifestation of our difference over our views on individual liberty and responsibility. These reasons include that such institutions largely tend to prove themselves to be anti-American in mission and practice, regardless of their stated purpose. In fact they, like much of their membership, seem to devolve to defining themselves as being against whatever the US is for. Americans see little need to subsidize this. Energy is of critical importance to our national security of course, so the combined abdication of "energy sovereignty" are simply untenable to President Clinton—who refused to pursue ratification, we should not forget even if the media conveniently do—and President Bush who ratified that position.

Gabrielle Reilly: I do believe America, and every other country for that matter, can become substantially more efficient energy consumers and plan on being part of the movement to assist in that. I would really like to take a moment to dispel some of the myths about America though that is inhibiting us from making greater strides environmentally. But first, here is some great news you won't often hear regarding the improvement in U.S energy efficiency over the past three decades:

    "Improvements in energy efficiency since the 1970s have had a major impact in meeting national energy needs relative to new supply. If the intensity of U.S. energy use had remained constant since 1972, consumption would have been about 70 quadrillion Btus (74 percent) higher in 1999 than it actually was." <excerpt>

    "Today's automobiles, for example, use about 60 percent of the gasoline they did in 1972, while new refrigerators require just one-third the electricity they did 30 years ago. As a result, since 1973, the U.S. economy has grown by 126 percent, while energy use has increased by only 30 percent. In the 1990s alone, manufacturing output expanded by 41 percent, while industrial electricity consumption grew by only 11 percent" U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Most people around the world are told Americans create the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and I don't dispute that fact, but I would like to put it into perspective... America is a developed country with a population of around 270 million people living in severe weather conditions. The majority of Americans do not live in a standard too different than that of Australians but the weather conditions require much more energy to prevent water pipes from bursting in the homes and to keep Grandmas and children from freezing to death in blizzards.

With a larger population, the commute to and from work to earn money to put food on the table increases also. I would like to compare America to the European Union to see how similar weather conditions, land mass, population and development compare... it would be more like comparing an apple with an apple rather than the environmental graphs I see more frequently that compare apples and oranges to manipulate statistics to satisfy an agenda. Most of the graphs compare underdeveloped countries where the majority of the population ride push bikes like China, or countries with more temperate climates on the tropic lines. So it is unrealistic to ask Americans to turn back to riding bikes and freezing in the winter and more astute to reform our energy consumption and sources as we head into a complete overhaul of an outdated U.S energy systems.

END OF PART 1.

The next part to this series of interviews with Chris Horner will move beyond the core philosophies and address the portions of the Kyoto Treaty that made it unviable for the US to agree to. Chris Horner is a well acclaimed expert on the Kyoto Treaty and will provide much more insight and detail as to why the US would not agree to participate in this Treaty. Please stop by next week to read. 

Thanks very much for your time and dedication Chris.