Efforts to paint the President's position as extreme or reckless are not warranted, and the purpose for such charges must be closely examined. I strongly suggest that what we need is not more attacks but, instead, to get beyond Kyoto and focus our collective efforts on a more serious examination of the issue. Our challenge is to look at the issue based on a hard examination of what we know, what we do not know, and what we must do in the name of prudence. Not to steal the thunder of any of our excellent witnesses today, but let me attempt to boil down the state of the science that I believe is necessary for policy makers to understand. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are increasing.
Human activities are responsible for a significant portion of that increase.
Like a high school chemistry experiment, at some point the increased concentrations will cause serious changes in the chemistry of our planet. The uncertainty in the results of this work is tremendous. Many of those who have supported the Kyoto Protocol have argued that because emissions related to human activities have the potential to lead to adverse climate changes over the course of this new century, then we must err to the side of caution by dramatically reducing industrial emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To that I say, caution is a good thing, but only when appropriately applied. We should apply the precautionary principle not only to the examination of possible harm from emissions, but also to the possible harm to the economy from overly-aggressive emission curbs.