Christopher C. Horner, Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, and Brett D. Schaefer (for The Heritage Foundation)

The practice of addressing international environmental concerns (and, increasingly, domestic ones) through global forums is fraught with problems and contradicts conservative principles of free markets, property rights, individual liberty, and devolution of decision-making to the most local level possible. By agreeing to address environmental problems through global negotiations, the United States frequently places its negotiators in a position of weakness as merely one of numerous “equal” participants, the goal of many of whom is to ensure that the U.S. assumes disproportionate obligations. Another systematic problem is that U.S. participants often misapprehend that the object of the negotiation is the achievement of an agreement, rather than representing the best interests of the United States. The result is often an ineffective, costly exercise that fails to address key U.S. concerns or would inappropriately infringe on the economic and individual liberties of American citizens. Instead of this flawed approach, the United States should assess environmental concerns pragmatically, emphasizing that the process should be as narrowly participatory as is practical, acceptable to those states expected to bear the largest share of the costs of implementation, focused on the relevant issue(s), based on sound evidence rather than theoretical conjecture, cost effective, and respectful of the essential role played by free markets and property rights.(read more)