It is ironic indeed that the United Nations — so often a
misguided ally in promulgating sensible ideas — is marking this
week what it believes is a vital anniversary in the course of
global human affairs.
Manhattan’s best baby blue helmets are in full celebration, but
it’s not to solemnly recognize the global-changing events of
September 11 and the lasting change imposed on our world. Rather,
the UN — which in no major way recognized 9-11 last week — is
breaking out the party hats to celebrate the 20th anniversary of
something called the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete
the Ozone Layer.
The protocol is named for a wide-ranging agreement signed
September 16, 1987 by 24 countries (including the United States)
and the European Economic Community that called for all of the
grand signatories to phase down (and then out) the use of CFCs,
halons and other man-made ODCs (ozone depletion chemicals).
Dr. Henry I. Miller, a former high-ranking official of Ronald
Reagan’s Food and Drug Administration, described the protocol this
way: “In essence, this is an agreement to limit or phase out
various chemicals, and although it stipulates that measures taken
to protect the ozone layer from depletion should be based on
relevant scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and
economic considerations, appropriate balancing of all these factors
has been lacking.”
The lack of “balance” Miller refers is exemplified by the holy
war that the environmental community is waging against chemicals we
use every day — and their weapon of choice is the Montreal
Protocol.
Kofi Annan, for example, has being quoted as saying that the
treaty is “perhaps the single most successful international
environment-related agreement to date.” Hugo Chavez, of course, has
announced that Venezuela’s Ministry of the Environment won’t miss
the anniversary celebration for the world. This is the nature of
what the United Nations thinks is important.
Many will no doubt respond, “Why should we care?” Not a bad
questions, as this is not the first time the United Nations has
demonstrated skewed priorities. After all, when you elect Idi Amin
to your human rights commission, people are going to question your
judgment.
But the Montreal Protocol is much more than another silly piece
of paper under the UN’s letterhead. It is more to the point a
mutual non-aggression pact that the United States has essentially
signed with itself, reducing its use and supply of necessary
chemicals, while the rest of the world laughs at our goodwill and
essentially does whatever they want to their environment.
Among the current signatories to the protocol include Cuba,
Haiti, Iran and North Korea. One can hardly imagine Sheryl Crow
being able to convene a rock concert and hector Kim Jong-Il about
his environmental policies. This is the lack of “balance” Miller is
talking about.
Closer to home, the impact of the Protocol can be felt
everywhere from our agricultural industry — which is finding it
increasingly difficult to access needed chemicals and fumigants —
to our national security system, which is being compromised because
of the elimination of substances that can make us more safe.
Much in the news is a fumigant called methyl bromide, a major
staple of America’s agricultural industry, which has been
determined to have other valuable uses.
Rudolf Scheffrahn, a professor of entomology at the University
of Florida, says, “As Anthrax and other biological weapons continue
to be worrisome and deadly threats, our scientific research has
found that the common pest control agent methyl bromide is more
effective and cheaper than current treatments in eradicating deadly
anthrax bacterial spores from buildings and other enclosed
spaces.”
One might conclude that this scientific evidence would make an
impact the global environmental community, which purports to place
a premium on these things. And yet a consensus is forming around
the idea that the Montreal Protocol, in seeking to radically
restrict America’s access to substances like methyl bromide, is
defiantly and dangerously making us less safe, putting protocol far
above principle.
To millions of Americans, September 11 was a transformative
event, and it communicated a clear learning that we are less safe
than we should be and that the consequences of this educational
process claimed the lives of thousands of people.
Part of that learning process was on display last week, as the
UN turned to its collective calendar, noted that it’s September,
and determined that the most profound anniversary of the month is
one that is making America more vulnerable to another terrorist
attack.
