Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Bob August 13, 2006 8:31 pm

  

  I don’t consider Easterbrook argumaents to be that different from Gore’s. They believe the same Global Warming theory. This is just a remark on how to deal with it. Gore never said NYC and SF would necessarily be flooded.

• Vicky August 12, 2006 11:51 am

  

  From the September 2006 issue of The Atlantic –
  Gregg Easterbrook on Global Warming –
  Easterbrook’s article, “Some Convenient Truths,” is an obvious slap at Al Gore’s current movie aimed at scaring everyone into thinking that New York City and San Francisco are about to be flooded by melting icebergs.
  “All previous air pollution problems,”Easterbrook argues, “have been reduced faster and more cheaply than predicted, without economic harm.” Urban smog in the 1960s, CFC emissions in the 1980s, and acid rain in the 1990s all seemed overwhelming, he points out until scientists and politicians took reasonable steps to resolve them. While Easterbrook advocates some governmental regulations, he disavows what he calls “the cumbersome Kyoto Protocol.” The free market will work, he suggests, even in settings like Mexico, China, and India.
  Easterbrook notes: “One reason the global-warming problem seems so daunting is that the success of previous anti-pollution efforts remains something of a secret. Polls show that Americans think the air is getting dirtier, not cleaner, perhaps because media coverage of the environment rarely if ever mentions improvements. For instance, did you know that smog and acid rain have continued to diminish throughout George W. Bush’s presidency?”
  Just another point of view – from someone who isn’t exactly considered a “right-winger”.

• Aphrodite McSmith August 10, 2006 9:32 am

  

  Will spaying and neutering by lottery be next?
  I volunteer for both

• Bob August 9, 2006 7:33 pm

  

  Vicky it is nice that we can agree on the need to ensure populations do not grow faster than new technologies can support. I also agree that forced abortions is not the best solution (as I stated earlier).
  Any solution will involve (at least) two aspects:
  1) Increasing energy supplies: Rather than spending billions of dollars on Iraq we need to invest in new technologies that will replace fossil fuels and reduce emissions. Bush has practically ignored these issues when compared to (wasted) war expenditures even though it is far more important.
  2) Controlling Population: This is going to be next to impossible as a great many people feel insulted at any mention of birth control or any suggestions about reducing family size. Many cultures have no interest in world issues and are simply struggling to survive ? large families are often the result of trying to beat the odds in case many die. Bringing these countries up to speed economically will often lead to a reduction in population growth. Better education will also help.