Fortunately, the graphs I have seen for carbon dioxide in the air and the like, and reports from people whom I respect, have all suggested that the problem is human-caused and that therefore the solution is not hugely expensive.
But what if it's both and we are exacerbating a natural cycle? Could it be like rolling a boulder over hillside prone to an avalanche? And even if any of the above scenario's are only slightly true, what is the most _conservative_ approach? (I've asked this question of "conservatives" on the list before and never gotten a reply).
To me not contaminating the air we breathe is as obvious as not shitting in the water we drink, but apparently, when there are short term effects on the economy, the obvious becomes obscured.
Doug
GCU Who Cares Who's Drinking the Water Downstream?
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
