KYOTO--U.S. Vice-President Al Gore rode into town this week for a conference that aimed to restrict the use of energy, likening opponents, including reputable scientists, to tobacco-company officials denying that cigarettes cause cancer. He ordered American negotiators to show flexibility, apparently with results. It seemed not to have occurred to Mr. Gore or to the other attendees, that it is the use of energy that has underpinned this century's fantastic success in raising living standards--and that they were in a part of the world that is facing its gravest economic crisis in years.

After a press conference Tuesday in which Mr. Gore asserted his optimism that an agreement would be achieved, he quickly left town, and yesterday American negotiators indicated the U.S. will yield to demands for cuts in so-called greenhouse gases below 1990 levels.

If so, the Clinton Administration is promising to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gases by over 30% in the next 15 years. Economists differ on the exact cost to the American economy from such a sharp reduction. But they all agree that compliance will slash jobs, push up prices of virtually all products, and cut incomes of American workers. That could come as no surprise to anyone who's already sen through the mist of talk about global warming. Let's be honest: When all the rhetoric is stripped away and the mist of the jargon cut through, the Kyoto conference was always about slowing or stopping the use of fossil fuels.

Before they cheer, however, everyone, including the represantives from over 150 countries attending the conference here, had better think long and hard about the consequences of such an agreement. With so many economies in shaky shape, restricting energy use by major nations could contribute to a trade war, a major drop in worldwide production, rising unemployment, and possibly political strife in the countries where economic growth will be affected.

Plentiful energy, produced almost entirely from fossil fuels, has underpinned a great improvement in the lives of men and women. It has reduced hardship, improved food production, and made possible affordable transportation for the common man. Everywhere on the globe, people are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. Mothers have greater hope than their predecessors that their infants may grow up to be productive adults. Around the world, more and more people are enjoying the fruits of literacy as ignorance and superstitution is diminishing.

With the use of oil, coal, and natural gas, electricity was brought to billions. Water supplies were cleaned. With low cost energy, people could afford to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, and enjoy hot and cold running water with indoor plumbing. Fossil fuels have made rapid transportation possible such as never been seen before on this planet. The irony is that, here at Kyoto, 10,000 men and women have gathered from around the world to debate how to curtail energy use--a number that would have been impossible in the days of sailing ships.

Perversely, many of those opposed to coal, oil and natural gas also are against the use of nuclear or hydroelectric power. These advocates of a simpler, energy free world would lead the world into poverty and hunger. A treaty to reduce energy use willl lower standards of living, which we know will increase mortality. Ours is a world that needs more energy, not less.

The final twist may be a positive one, though. If an agreement is signed here today or Thursday, China and India will probably stay out of it. These countries, along with many other developing states, have stated categorically that they will not agree to any binding limits on their emissions. In fact, they have asserted that they would not even promise to cut them in the future. Their position means that there will be trouble ahead for the agreement, as already skeptical members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and much of U.S. industry, have vowed to torpedo any treaty that does not involve some restrictions on big, rapidly growing countries.

If the enemies of energy prevail, however, the negative consequences will be swift to follow. While the global warming scare scenarios remain speculative at best, there can be no doubt about the effects of enforced energy reduction. U.S. and other Western firms in the chemical, steel, aluminium and cement industries will experience much higher costs. Imports from countries subject to less or no restrictions would further erode jobs and the viability of those industries. One safe prediction: the U.S. Congress and legislatures elsewhere will react by putting up trade barriers to protect these firms and their workers. As a consequence China and many other developing countries would find one of their biggest markets cut off. Even if they were exempt from the energy restrictions their growth would be hurt badly.

For instance, Japan's economy is already teetering and higher energy costs will adversely affect many of their major industries, including autos, steel and shipbuilding. Many of South Korea's major industries rely on plentiful and low cost fuel to compete. Government officials from that nation--the 11th largest economy in the world--have made it clear that they are unwilling to particpate in this treaty. If they are dragooned into joining the folly, their economy will also be undercut. Mexico, another major trading nation and one which depends on the sale of oil for much of its national earnings, would see its earnings reduced and its ability to buy American and other goods curtailed.

Many advocates of a treaty reducing greenhouse gasses, including Mr. Gore, maintain that the world's economy could adjust to higher energy prices and less dependance on fossil fuels. That could happen, after 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, however, as with the recessions and inflation that affected much of the world when the oil crisis hit in 1973-74, the adjustment to higher energy would be wrenchingly painful. Given the weakened economies in Asia, this is no time for radical economic changes. The economic depression triggered by slashing fossil fuels by 30% or more would make the stagnation and inflation of the `70s look mild by comparison.

Perhaps in the long run we could all adjust; but as Lord Keynes so succinctly put it, "In the long run, we are all dead."

Mr. Moore, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is attending the U.N. climate change conference as a member of the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.