Interviewer: Now, a few moments ago you used the word comensurate, you said the senat would not ratify unless there were commensurate restrictions on developing countries as there would be on the industrialised countries like the United States ..

Chuck Hagel: Meaning simply ... and it's in the language ... ah legally binding commitments that developing countries would have to make ... now we are not saying that they would have to percentage wise necessarily make the same kinda (commitments) ...

Interviewer: ... that was what I was getting at. Do they have to cut their emissions by the same percentage as the US would have to cut it ...

Chuck Hagel: no, we're not saying that, but they would have to le- legally bind themselves ..ah .. to a treaty of commitments like we would do that, because .. this is going to require significant economic displacement. Ah .. you know, the Australian Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago said, straight out, he would not sign a treaty that would in any way inhibit the growth of Australia's economy. Australia for example is one of the largest exporting nations in the world. Their largest exports are coal and the mine products. This kind of treaty would devastate their economy. So w .. So we are seeing some of the nay ..ah nations of the world sober up here and understand the consequences because .. this treaty would have very significant consequences.

Interviewer: The consequences would be to reduce the output not only of greenhouse gases in the United States and other industrial nations, but also reduce the output of the economy.

Chuck Hagel: Absolutely, every economic model that we have seen, and and this is something that is very rare in our country, Ralph, what you find, organised labour, business, industry, agriculture and consumer groups, who are all unified in a coalition opposing this treaty. And ... if you really stand back and analyse that for a moment there must be a reason. And the reason is, as economic models will show you, from labour, from agriculture, from industry-business, you would displace millions of people out of work, you would devastate 6 to 10 complete industries in this country, because you would put such tough restrictions and targets and timetables on getting down to these artificial time frames and targets .. ah .. that simply you would take industries and just movem to Mexico ... or movem to China or movem somewhere whe whe where the're no targets or time frames. And, and, by the way, one other thing, we're not even talking about the baseline of what this should all be predicated on. And that is, the science. And the science here is still very unclear and very contradictory. Because you can get scientists, climatologists, very renowned, noted climatologists from all or the world, Harvard, MIT, Cornell, University of Alabama, Virginia, you go on, ah .. who will step forward, have stepped forward, in great testimony here in the Congress of the United States saying we do not yet know enough about this. We are not saying that that we don't have a problem, but what we are saying is we don't know enough yet ... to to bind this nation and other nations into this kind of drastic ... activity ... that would in fact have serious consequences on our future.

Interviewer: you down know enough yet to take *any* action to diminish the impact of global warming?

Chuck Hagel:We, we don't know. The New York Times, for example, about three weeks ago had a .. ah series ah .. it was ah very fascinating story ah and it was predicated on a study done by the Smithsonian Harvard University ... ah a number of Climatologists and Scientists .. and the story was about the solar activity of the world and how much .. ah .. ah.. warming or cooling or climatology ..ah .. is directly related to the Sun .. well that seems fairly logical .. ah. and ah and the facts are, Ralph, just to put it in some kind of simplistic term here, satellite data is the most sophisticated weather data we have today, everybody acknowledges that, that's backed up by balloon data, ol almost the last 20 years satellite data, backed up by balloon data, shows that there has actually been a cooling of the world over the last 20 years. So, we we have a lot of contradictions here in the science that ah we just aren't sure enough.

Interviewer: And you are arguing, don't do anything until the science is clear?

Chuck Hagel: Don't do anything to the extent that what the administration and some nations want us to do. You know, the United States has been ah very active over the last 25 years in cleaning up its environment this is not a question for a debate about who is for cleaning up the environment and who isn't. Ah I don't know of any senator or Congressman or any American who doesn't believe that the environment is critically important. We all want to leave the environment to our children and grandchildren, that's not the debate. The debate is how we do it, what is commonsense, what we should, what action we should take based on the science available. We should do everything we can to control greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, no question about that. But we take the drastic drastic actions that are prescribed in this treaty, ah thats thats where many of my colleagues and I essentially draw the line.

Interviewer: There are some developing nations, China, India, Brazil for example, who, as you pointed out earlier, are developing and will perhaps in a decade or so develop into some of the world's largest polluters, who argue now: if you don't put restrictions on the developed countries, the industrial countries and you, and you ah don't require us, the developing nations, ah give us developing nations a chance to develop. You are essentially keep hoarding all the good stuff for yourself. You've already developed, you've built the industries, you got the consumer goods, you got the industrial output and the benefit and the high wages of all that, and now you relegating us, the developing nations, to cut our level of development. How do you respond to that argument?

Chuck Hagel: Well that that is a pervasive argument and and the way I respond to that is this way: first of all ... ah ah that's really nonsense, and here is why it's nonsense: is because, the developing nations and the economies of the the ah world today are now in a position to be able to take advantage of the new technologies, the new scrubbers on the smoke stacks, and all the things that the United States and the developed nations, the industrialised nations, have developed over the last 25 years. They are cheaper, they are more effective they are more efficient use of energy, fossil fuel energy or any kind of energy. The developing nations are the beneficiary of that and there is no reason ah why China, or India, or Mexico or South Korea or any other developing nation would have to ah have to go back 50 years and use 50 year old technology. As a matter of fact, look at China, ah the the the debate about China right now and as the Chinese President is in the United States, and the and the arrangements being made or to sell aah this new advanced technology for energy use to the Chinese that's that's nuclear, which is the cleanest form of energy ah ah geothermal and hydrogen, and all the newest and most sophisticated technologies are being sold now to these nations, so I don't at all subscribe to the fact that they have to step back 50 years and take the old stuff because it is inefficient, its ineffective and its expensive and they shouldn't have to do that.

Interviewer: There is an argument made even by some industrial nations who have already taken some concrete steps to reduce their industrialisation, to reduce their pollution, ah thinking of Germany which shut down a lot of factories in East Germany, ah Japan which has taken some steps as well. Admittedly, there are those who say Japan hasn't gone far enough. But what about those countries, who are industrial nations, have already taken steps, should they now be ah .. required say you guys done your thing but we are going to stay out of it, we are going to be excluded, the US is going to be able to go ahead and develop without the restrictions without the draw-backs that Germany and Japan has suffered.

Chuck Hagel: Well, Ralph, first of all, the nations you have mentioned, including, I would add even Great Britain, those decisions were not made .. ah .. based on the environment, those were economic decisions. Germany couldn't sustain those those kind of inefficient ah ah ... technologies and factories and industries the reason for example Great Britain ...

Interviewer: The reason why they did it is irrelevant to whether or not its causing them to cut back their economic output. Ah .. if the U.S. decided to put the restriction on itself for other reasons it would still have the effect of reducing greenhouse gasses.

Chuck Hagel: Aaahh ... not necessarily, not necessarily, the the market will .. ah ... direct much of this .. ah .. l..l..let's just look at something commonsense here for a minute ... industries, whether you are in a developing nation or in a developed nation, doesn't make any difference, industries and businesses ... ah will always go for the most efficient use of energy, because that means that your energy is cheaper, you can gain more productivity from the use of that energy, meaning, that your products are more competitive in the world market, there is a higher standard of living for your people, better wages, so the market itself, having nothing to do with the environment, for example, will drive most of this as it has done in almost every developed country. Now, that doesn't minimise the responsibility we all have for the environment, that isn't n again the issue here, we all have a responsibility, n absolutely, no question about it. But what I am saying, and many of my colleagues are saying is that ... partly the market will drive some of this. Different forms of renewable energies ...nuclear for example. You know, we have not, in the United States, built a new nuclear power plant, it is not cur.. it is.. hasn't come on line since 1975. Now, if we would move towards more nuclear power as the Europeans, I think over half of the European's energy, electricity and energy is produced from ah nuclear power, then that's what we're gonna have to start doing .. natural gas, other forms that we can get there .. with, but .. ah .. yu yu you can't just ah through a five to ten year period say, that fossil fuel is no longer gonna be used and the way we are going to inhibit the use that is we are going ratched up to tax .. taxes so highly ... five times the BTU tax for example, in this case, that President Clinton wanted to put on this country, and think that's not going to have an impact on your ah economy, so what we are saying is, use some commonsense here, use some balance here, and and we we can get there we need to be.

Interviewer: Senator, a few moments ago you talked about the Chinese President been in the US and China's role in development as well .. if China decided .. if China made an agreement with the United States today and then four or five years down the road said: you know, never mind, we are not gonno abide by that after all .. you'd probably be a strong critic of China for doing that. Didn't the US make a commitment in 1992 to proceed with the kinds of mandatory, required drawbacks in development to prevent ah gas house green ah green house gasses?

Chuck Hagel: Noo! Ah .. no they didn't, Ralph, and the key word there is mandatory....ag... The the the Rio meeting, the Rio, Brasil meeting that ... ah .. aah.. started all this .... was voluntary. and, it was the Clinton administration, interestingly enough, not the Europeans, not the Japanese, not the developed, developing nations that insisted on mandatory restraints, it was the United States, but that ..that was not in 1992, those nations that came out of Rio .. ah .. all said voluntary ... and .. ah thats wh .. what we all started moving forward on, based on what we all could come together with ... and and not until a couple of years ago .. coming out of the Berl.. the so called Berlin mandate in Berlin did we find new languagethat in fact mandated those commitments

Interviewer: But the issue of not abiding by that commitment, you don't think doesn't .. you think it doesn't apply here ...

Chuck Hagel: No, it doesn't apply, first of all, one of your earlier questions that you asked .. ah ah of me... aah ... there was never anything signed in treaty form by the President of the United States, never binding this nation in any way and the second part of that as I said ... it has to be ratified by the United States Senate... at a ministerial level those things can ah be signed, but ah... it it it had no force .... aah of law, now there if nations ah a-an-be-im-bim-beyond law ... but if nations believe that ah the United States is reneging .. ah on a commitment ah .. ah that that may very be a very valid criticism and concern but ah ... those who made that commitment .. ah .. if they did on the behalf of the United States ... ah .. knew exactly what they were doing, knew that there, there was no force of action on that .. that ah we we couldn't do that. And one last point: The treaty itself, Ralph, that's why we've had 8 negotiating sessions since Berlin, 8 negotiating sessions to get us to Kyoto, was to develop the language and to develop the treaty protocol ... so that the nations could sign it. So, to say that 2 years ago we bound ourselves is just not correct.

Interviewer: Real briefly, what happens if a if the developing nations say to the United States: "You know, if the US and the other industrial nations aren't gonna do this, why should we?"

Chuck Hagel: It's in their self- interest, Ralph, it is. In the nati.. nation's self-interest, to protect their environment, .. ah .. it in their economic best interests, in their future, of their children's best interest, and their environmental best interests, because pollution is inefficient ... ah .. fossil fuel use .. ah .. is .. is inefficient and expensive, so it's in their own economic development, market development, best interest to protect their own environment.

Interviewer: Thanks very much, Senator Chuck Hagel, for joining me on global view.

The undemocratic elites of the  military-industrial complex hate to be regulated: