Here’s a case for action, now for those people who may be skeptical about global warming, or whether it’s caused by humans, or whether there’s anything we can do about it.
First, I think we need to agree on at least one point, to wit: there is a valid, if unresolved, theory being investigated by many scientists relating to global warming. By “valid”, I mean that it’s not a conspiracy or hoax, it’s not some horrible manifestation of group-think, and there are at least some scientists with reasonable methods and credentials who either have done studies, or have reviewed those of others.
If we cannot agree on this point, then I would certainly be interested in seeing any indications that this is not true. Without agreement, though, there’s no need to read further.
Still with me? Then here goes:
Science is equivocal by nature. There’s always a debate. I won’t characterize that debate here; you can read my previous post.
Some reasonable number of climate scientists believe, based on their studies or reviews of others’:
- that global warming is real,
- it is being exacerbated by large increase emissions in “greenhouse gasses”,
- that human activity, notably burning carbon-based fuels caused much of the increase,
- if we do not act right away, several of a number of catastrophic outcomes may ensue; if we do act, we may be able to avert some of them.
You do not have to agree with these conclusions. And that word, “catastrophic” carries some baggage — in this case, I mean that there will be catastrophes (major floods, fires, storms, etc) that significantly disrupt the way people live across the planet.
I believe there is satisfactory evidence for a skeptic to agree that some (reasonable) scientists support some, many, or all of these points. You may agree with none of them or believe there is some ambiguity about enough of them to be a skeptic.
If you are skeptical, you might think we should wait for more information, or do nothing, or perhaps continue to take incremental, market driven steps — the status quo.
If you’re still with me, then consider a couple scenarios.
Scientists Are Wrong so We Take No Action on Global Warming
The first scenario: So what if the scientists are wrong about global warming on all points, or even just the last point?
In this case, I suppose we would work mostly on winning the Iraq war, dealing with our oil and gas prices, going after as much oil as we can, work on making resources we do have, like coal and shale, more useful.
Maybe there are other problems we would address, but mostly they seem temporal, like instability in financial and lending markets, slow growth, immigration and so on.
I have to admit, I have not spent a lot of time thinking about this scenario. It’s probable that what we would do is different than what I suggest.
Taking the course of the first scenario, we could solve real problems without being distracted by the alarmist rhetoric of global warming, and get down to business. In other words, in this scenario, we would be focusing our efforts where they actually matter. Perhaps you might argue that we’re already responding to global warming through market forces.
Scientists Are Right, yet We Take No Action on Global Warming
In the second scenario, it turns out some time from now that scientists were right after all. But we haven’t taken any extra-ordinary steps to mitigate the causes of global warming. What happens in this case?
It really depends on what parts are correct. Some projections are pretty grim, some might result in changes we can keep up with. Or maybe it’s not so bad for us — to be nationalist for a moment, many impacts will affect other parts of the world more than the US so maybe it matters less?
But most of the predictions, while necessarily vague in some ways, are consistent in the degree to which they view the outcomes as dire.
When thinking about how global warming might impact us, we naturally thinks about weather: hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves all become more frequent and severe. It’s kind of abstract since we have been surviving these problems for all of humanity.
But there are many more insidious indirect effects of global warming, and many of them affect our food supply. Small changes in temperature affect our ecosystem — bugs that do good or bad things to our crops go, or come. This affects birds who control insects. Insect-borne disease patterns change. Lots of things change.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, most of these things (and many more) are happening now and have been observed in the last few years; the report recommends we take various defensive actions. This is a report that was issued in May of this year. By the USDA.
And when food supply is affected, people start doing bad things. Witness the genocide in Darfur, which has been attributed to droughts and crop failures causing food shortages.
More “civilized” “conflicts” may arise as land, energy, and nationalism/protectionism isolate countries, and the benefits of globalization start to dwindle. At the very least, there’s a growing economic impact, likely occurring today, at some level.
If (if) the scientists are right, it will not be getting better.
And many, many other things. Even the idea that additional CO2 will act as a kind of fertilizer, making the earth even greener are not supportable by facts.
How Would You Bet?
So if we don’t know whether the scientists are right or wrong, we are, in effect taking a bet. It’s a big bet, as is anything related to the world economic and political scene.
The “scientists and alarmists are wrong” scenario results in the status quo.
We will probably figure out how to solve our current energy and economic issues. Situation normal, in fact perhaps an economic advantage over countries wasting their time on a problem that is not real.
The “uh oh, they were right” scenario creates an increasing probability of dramatic geopolitical instability: war, famine, drought, disease, and the like.
In the best case we’re faced with severe economic stress. In the middle, we face what might be termed “extended global crisis”. In the worst, we face some rather dramatic changes in humanity.
Here’s a simple game of chance. You have the chance to win, say a 20% increase in your income for your lifetime. Or, you could take what’s behind Door Number 2.
Your choice presumably depends on the odds of the outcome and your expectations of how badly it would affect you. This ain’t no game show.
What Are The Odds Global Warming, Etc. Is Real
In 1995, the IPCC assessed the current state of science on the topic and concluded it was “likely”. In 2007, the updated assessment said it was “very likely” (90% likely).
(This is a vast simplification of what the IPCC concluded, and the science behind it)
You may choose not to believe the results of these reports. But if you accepted my 20% salary increase if they are wrong, do you accept a “very likely” downside risk if they are right?
I wouldn’t. And I don’t think others should be willing to accept that risk, either.
Whether your grounds are moral, economic, political, or just your beliefs, I have seen no indication that there’s really anyone claiming that the impact of global warming, if left unchecked, will be “mild”.
Why Is Acting on Global Warming Urgent?
It is urgent to act on global warming mitigation now because even conservative scenarios (or the above referenced USDA report) show a compounding effect, even if the increase of concentration of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) is just linear.
Most GHGs occur naturally, and the earth has a capacity for “processing” these gasses. Imagine holding your hand over a candle flame. If your hand is far enough away from the flame, or the flame is small enough that you could hold it indefinitely with no pain.
But researchers concur that we’re significantly past that capacity and 1) we’re still adding more GHGs every year than the year before, at an increasing rate, and 2) deforestation and other factors are reducing the earth’s capacity. How quickly that is happening matters: conservative predictions suggest a linear increase.
A linear model would say that if you hold your hand at a point that you can tolerate pain for a while, it will eventually get to be too much to bear. Other models suggest a geometric increase in GHGs — in this scenario you move your hand towards the flame steadily. Still others suggest an exponential increase — your hand moves towards the flame faster and faster. All result in pain; they differ only in speed and degree.
I may not have the capacity to understand correctly, but I believe one scientific debate relates to what the rate of temperature increase has been. Steve McIntyre, who publishes ClimateAudit.org has questioned several of the methods used by scientists who claim the exponential model is the best fit to the data. McIntyre suggests that the data was not evaluated correctly and that the increase in much less, perhaps just linear. I may be reading this wrong, but I think this is just a debate about “how bad”.
In any model, it’s bad and getting worse.
The problem was already urgent some years ago. Today we’re mostly looking to reduce the currently progressing impacts as quickly as possible.
(Just in case you thought I forgot, you still don’t have to be convinced any of this is true; you just have to believe that there’s some chance that it is).
But Who Says The Current Solutions Are Any Good?
I am very glad to see that you made it here. Because it suggests you are willing to entertain the possibility that global warming is real, its outcomes are bad, and we have to act now.
Many solutions are proposed, but the most widely accepted, politically and economically reasonable solution is Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a longer term solution that basically puts a cost on GHGs, making alternative ways of making energy more cost-effective, and carbon-based energy less cost-effective. The idea is simple; the implementation will result in winners and losers, and that’s where most of the friction is. McCain and Obama both support Cap and Trade; the difference is in how aggressively it is implemented.
Al Gore recently proposed a plan to upgrade our electricity carrying grid and invest a lot in alternative energy improvements, which are imminently feasible.
T Boone Pickens recently announced a plan to tap wind resources and then solar resources.
All plans, and many others benefit from Cap and Trade, and kick-start its benefits. Fred Krupp enumerates many, many enterprises and technical options, in his book, Earth, The Sequel.
And almost everybody agrees that conservation and better use of the energy we do have is the most immediate and effective thing we can do now.
All of these solutions can co-exist.
Are these measures enough? Will they happen fast enough?
Probably not. So we really have to accept that we will need a lot of different solutions; some will happen sooner than others. There will be winners and losers in the short term.
The Opportunity of Global Warming
No doubt the outcome of global warming is a bad thing (if it actually does exist, of course). There will be economic winners and losers.
However, there’s also a huge economic opportunity in global warming solutions because there is a huge need for many different elements. Isn’t America uniquely equipped to respond to such opportunity?
Heck, even if global warming doesn’t exist, more and more people believe it do, and are willing to endure costs and make change. Many companies are realizing the extent of the opportunity (or at least the costs of doing nothing). In economics, just believing a thing is so can be enough!
Some companies are seem not to realize the extent of the opportunity, and it is hard for me to understand why. From a purely economic standpoint entrepreneurs, business people, and existing companies would not seize this opportunity. The only answer I can see is that they can only see their quarterly profits, no horizon further than that. These companies are the ones who will be losers. And they are huge companies, and have huge numbers of employees that will be affected.
Wal*Mart, a corporate villain for many years has embraced change by focusing on sustainable practices. Ford, if it survives, seems poised to emerge reinvented as a leader in electric vehicles. GM seems still to be dithering (as usual).
ExxonMobil says they are putting a huge sum into alternative energy … yet only the tiniest percentage of their revenues into alternative energy research, according to this ABC report (actually, a link to the ABC story on another site), ExxonMobil invests only about 1% of their profits in alternative energy. Yep, that’s profits, not even revenue. Ok, they are not an alternative energy company. I guess we have found one loser.
Summary
In the end, if doesn’t matter if you believe all, or even some of the data about global warming. If you accept the possibility that the assertions of cause and effect may be plausible, then it is reasonable to consider the possible solutions. If you do, perhaps you’ll be able to find opportunity and be a winner. And if you do and it turns out that global warming doesn’t turn out as expected, you’ll be amongst very good company.
So, even if you don’t believe all, much, or most of the statements about global warming, failing to at least hedge your bet is looking ever more risky and foolish.
A Request For Comment
I have tried to present this argument fairly, and avoid making assumptions, or asserting facts that are not true. This is an argument aimed at people who are not sure, or perhaps even those quite certain that global warming is a lot of hoo-ha.
I greatly respect the opinions of anyone willing to think through a problem and arrive at a sound conclusion. I especially welcome the opinions and ideas of those who can find errors or fault in my argument. I am pretty sure I am right on this one; please, show me how I am wrong.
The fallacy is that you are trying to make a discount calculation based on an unknown variable. If the actual impacts of carbon dioxide emmissions are unknown then you are just saying Q(X) therefor the value is positive. That is rediculous as you must calculate the payoffs of both using both the actual damage you expect to inflict multiplied by probability and the benifit of status quo multiplied by one minus probability.
As is, the variable could be replaced with anything for any demand. Say the Giant Flying Spaghetti monster will come with an unknown probability and inflict and unknown ammount of damage unless you call the 800 number on the screen and buy some pasta credits.
Comment by Mick — August 5, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Mick –
Thanks for the comment.
I think my approach ascribes a non-zero probability to the outcome that climate change predictions are possible. Then, of the range of climate change outcomes predicted, few fall into a class of outcomes one would describe as benign (in other words they are positively not good).
If your values for both of these variables is zero or close to zero, then the argument I make would be pointless. I think I tried to head off that condition in the second paragraph.
I guess I don’t entirely devalue the conclusions of even several people who have arrived at possibly valid results. I believe the number to be far greater than “several”, so perhaps that colors my view. Do you discount all, or most of the findings that have been published?
I like the Great Spaghetti Monster analogy :-).
Thanks for your observations.
Tom
Comment by Tom Harrison — August 5, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Many problematic elements here:
1) Scenario 1 is we do nothing and warming is not anthropogenic and we better allocate our resources. Issue: suppose warming is real but not anthropogenic and it’s still catastrophic? Best allocation of resources = learn to adapt and deal with climate change.
2) Scenario 2 is we do nothing and anthropogenic warming is real and we do nothing. Issue: Nobody can truly predict the impacts of warming. Many studies have shown that increased growing areas and increased food supply with warming could more than offset supposed issues with warming. In other words, the best allocation of resources may be in learning to adapt and deal with climate change, rather than spend trillions to stop it.
3) There is a scenario 3 where it’s not real, and yet we waste trillions of dollars in combating a problem that is fiction. This would be a vast misallocation of resources and do considerable – potentially catastrophic damage not only to the developed world’s economies, but in the willingness and ability to address real, immediate problems (wells for Africa, for example).
4) There is a scenario where it’s real, and we fight it by spending trillions. Well, most agree that the real impact we can make is only fractional, and we have just spent trillions that could be used for good, for learning to adjust, and the like.
Based on simple logic, it seems that the unknowns and probabilities do not lend themselves to paralyzing overreaction and allocation of resources. Our money is best spent continuing to observe the issues of the day, assisting those in immediate need, and learning to adapt to any climate change, be it warming or cooling. This cost addresses real problems, is the best allocation of resources at any one time, and is fully known. All of which is preferable to the alternatives.
Comment by Joe — August 6, 2008 @ 12:50 am
Tom, you make the statement [… I have seen no indication that there’s really anyone claiming that the impact of global warming, if left unchecked, will be “mild”.] . I have .
Take as starters, an open letter dated December 13, 2007 to the Secretary General of the UN signed by 100 scientists http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
which states in the opening paragraph: “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. “ Now this method of mitigation I endorse; not cap and trade.
The letter goes on: “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.” Did you consider this consequence to the actions you advocate?
But wait, there is more: “The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ¬government ¬representatives. The great ¬majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.” Did you catch the fact that papers published after May, 2005 were not considered in the IPCC Report. Do you not think that IPCC should cosider these papers?
Let me elaborate on this sentence from the letter “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate.” This is putting it politely. What it really means is that the IPCC models are wrong. When actual measured surface temperature rises are plugged into the 22 IPCC models, the resultant model temperature rises in the troposphere are not two to three times that at the surface as required by green house gas theory; but equal to or in some cases not even of the same sign. The IPCC models grossly overstate the projected average global warming temperatures as published in IPCC Report IV. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22604
The IPCC models are wrong and hence all of the published data on impacts and mitigating methods are in error. But congress is intent on legislating a carbon tax which will have no impact on global warming. Instead it will increase the cost of gasoline and every other product necessary to produce the products we need and to provide electricity heating and cooling of our homes.
Comment by Ed Gulachenski — August 6, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Global climate models invoke positive feedback from water vapor. This causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. Those who understand how feedback works will know that this trend reversal is not possible with significant positive feedback. Thus, contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant positive feedback from water vapor does not exist.
The infrared radiation that is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules is immediately shared with the thousands of times more numerous nitrogen and oxygen molecules. That is what makes the air feel warm. The absorbed energy is then primarily carried up by atmospheric convection currents. This mechanism is well understood by scientists that are knowledgeable in optical spectroscopy. The process is not yet adequately accounted for in the GCMs. These faulty GCMs are the ONLY predictors of significant anthropogenic global warming. Climate history refutes anthropogenic global warming.
The multi-billion dollar government grants for ‘climate research’ depend for their continuation on ominous prediction of looming catastrophe. A lot of people have been hoodwinked by this self-serving rhetoric. Many are eager to impose their will on others. Some are positioned to profit from it. An entire industry has evolved that exploits the fear of anthropogenic global warming.
None of the GCMs predicted the recent downturn in average global temperature coincident with the steadily rising carbon dioxide level. As the carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t, a whole lot of people are looking more and more foolish.
The so-called consensus is primarily climatologists who stand to benefit from dire predictions and their fans. Over 31,000 qualified scientists and engineers have signed a document stating that human activity has had no significant influence on climate. Compare this to the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
No one can be sure where the average global temperature will go from here. According to Vostok ice core data it has been warmer than now four other times during the Holocene (the last 11,000 or so years) so eventual further rise is not out of the question. However, the change in pattern since 2001, the recent downtrend, and continued quiet sun are all indicating that the planet is in for a continuation of the cooling trend. The huge heat sink of the oceans will cause the cooling to be gradual, as was the warming.
Comment by Dan Pangburn — August 6, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Dan,
I went to your link, and it seems to me that you’ve boiled the equation down to two variables…carbon and temperature.
I’m not an expert in statistics, but I was a science major in college with some coursework in linear regression and I’m not too sure many scientists would agree that you can simply graph 2 variables out of the many pertinant ones in a complex system and then draw solid conclusions based on such a graph. In fact, it’s been my impression that many global warming scientist types think that events like volcanos and wild fires can override (at least for some time) the carbon warming effect.
Also..
“Those who understand how feedback works will know that this trend reversal is not possible with significant positive feedback.”
Why not? Could it not be the case that warming could cause positive feedback, thereby increasing warming further to the point that the warming causes other changes to the planet that then lead to cooling?
I also found your assertion that actions to reduce greenhouse gases “put freedom and prosperity at risk” to be an interesting one. Americans are currently “free” to use as many of the earth’s resources as they please. Is that really such a great thing? And, on the prosperity front, hasn’t it been the case that several European countries have simultaneously cut emissions while growing their economies?
Teresa Stephens
Comment by Teresa Stephens — August 7, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Ed,
“But congress is intent on legislating a carbon tax which will have no impact on global warming. Instead it will increase the cost of gasoline and every other product necessary to produce the products we need and to provide electricity heating and cooling of our homes”.
Putting the global warming issue aside, does the carbon tax not have merit from the standpoint of promoting a more gradual and less painful transition away from fossil fuels than might happen otherwise?
Although I don’t believe that market forces have been in full effect in the oil sector the past (if they had been, we wouldn’t be extracting oil from tar sands while free-flowing oil still exists in Saudi Arabia), I do believe that a market-driven transition away from oil is likely to be a reality in the near future. And I tend to think that this transition will be anything but slow and gentle.
Many prosperous nations are accustomed to paying much more for fossil fuels than we are. My gut is that the citizens and industry of these nations have already made adjustments (not yet made by the US) that will enable them to more readily weather storms caused by a precipitous oil prices climbs.
So, from my perspective, the carbon tax is a “two-fer”. It prods us away from reliance on a non-renewable energy source while also prodding us away from excessive carbon emissions (and yes, I know that we perhaps can’t PROVE anthropogenic warming at this point…but I’d guess I’d prefer for us not to be caught with our pants down).
Comment by Teresa Stephens — August 7, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
[...] Global Warming: Act Now or Wait? is a great article which summarises the consequenses of acting or not acting on global warming. [...]
Pingback by Global Warming: Act Now or Wait? | PaulBristow.net — August 8, 2008 @ 4:17 am
Joe (and all) –
I wanted to take a good shot at responding to your observations.
Joe, I appreciate that you have respected the framework I proposed in my post. Each of your scenarios is worth considering. There are several points where we differ mainly on the order of magnitudes of outcomes, and this seems to be at the heart of our differing views. While my research doesn’t support several of your assertions, I suspect neither does your research support several of mine :-).
I will spend a lot of time thinking about and researching your observations.
But most of all, thanks for iterating a cogent, reasonable position. While I don’t agree, on one point I am sure we will agree: there’s a lot of pure junk out there on both sides. Repeating “facts” that are in question is not that helpful if the two sides of the discussion have dramatically differing views on the veracity or legitimacy or accuracy of those facts.
So with a tidy summary of our differences, I look forward to understanding the details. While we may not end up agreeing, perhaps at least there’s something to be gained.
Thank you so much.
Tom
Comment by Tom Harrison — August 8, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Teresa , you say the carbon tax will prod us away from reliance on a non-renewable energy source. What is the need to do so? Burning fossil fuels is not dangerous to our health, we breathe clean air and our sky is clear of smog and soot. Oh sure you might say, but that is only true because clean air legislation forced industry to clean up its act. But that is the point. American Industry will respond to a clear need such as protecting our health if their actions can make a difference without relying on a global response in kind, For clean air here in the USA that was true and we did clean our air without any help from the world community. There is no such clear need to cut down on CO2 emissions by this country if global warming was indeed a threat, We would need all nations to cut their emissions and we know that India and China are not going to do so. And why should they since global warming is not a threat. See my comments of August 6, 2008.
You also believe that the world will soon run out of oil. This is what the Peak Oil people preach; one day soon world production of oil will peak and then fall off precipitously. Not true for a very long time. Plenty of time in fact for an orderly transition to alternate energy sources. And in the mean time we do not need to extract oil from tar sands as you suggest. Let the Canadians do that if they wish. We do not have to. Why? Because we are sitting on proven oil reserves in North Dakota that surpass all the oil in Saudi Arabia. Hard to believe isn’t it? You can read more about it here. http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
And finally permit me to have a little fun with your inference that oil is not a renewable.energy source. There are scientists who claim that the formation of fossil fuels did not cease millions of years ago. But in fact is going on right now due to the heat from the earth’s molten core continuing the process. Consider this anecdotal evidence . I bring it up because it always gets a rise out of Peak Oil people.
Comment by Ed Gulachenski — August 9, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
I found a great video that makes a shorter, more convincing argument — check it out here…
Pingback by Global Warming: Act Now or Wait (take 2) | Five Percent: Conserve a Little Energy — August 15, 2008 @ 10:08 am
After a drought warning was issued last month, New Yorkers cut the city’s water consumption by 30 million gallons a day. Oil
Comment by Oil — August 30, 2008 @ 11:04 am