Ever since time began, the earth has gone through cycles of heating up and cooling down. The cycle in which the earth's surface and atmospheric temperatures rise is referred to as global warming. Many natural cycles consist of interactions between the earth's surface and the atmosphere; these interactions play a key role in maintaining life on our planet. Atmosphere and oceans are the two main carbon dioxide (CO2) reservoirs. The ocean is the single, largest factor controlling atmospheric temperature. Fluctuations in sea levels, water salinity, and the plankton content on the ocean surface determine atmospheric temperatures. Increases and decreases in these components determine whether the atmospheric temperatures get warmer or cooler. Decreases of plankton reduce the amount of CO2 absorbed; increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere allows the temperatures to rise. Less salt in the ocean produces fresher water causing ice to form producing cooler temperatures; as the amount of salt increases it produces warmer temperatures. Abrupt changes in ocean salinity affect global temperatures more drastically. The ocean acts as a buffer to equalize the amounts of CO2 and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The second biggest factor in the equilibrium of atmospheric CO2 is the photosynthesis and respiration cycles. Plants and animals produce CO2 through respiration (breathing); plants then absorb the CO2 and through the process of photosynthesis they convert the CO2 into oxygen. People and animals breathe in oxygen through respiration, which is vital to life. In addition, people and animals then eat those plants or other animals that have eaten them and gain usable energy form the CO2 built up in the plants. As CO2 increases, photosynthesis occurs more often, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and storing it as usable energy. The majority of our body's useable energy comes from CO2. Plant and animal life appear to have no adverse side effects from increased CO2 in the atmosphere; the problem appears to be related more to changes in weather patterns. It is obvious that plants play an important role in controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (C. E. Anderson).

WHAT IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?

"Like the panes of a greenhouse, gases in the earth's atmosphere permit the sun's radiation to heat the earth but do not permit the infrared energy radiated back out by the earth to escape into space. These gases … are responsible for maintaining a global temperature acceptable to life, and this process is referred to as the greenhouse effect. As the gases increase, more heat is trapped within the atmosphere, and the worldwide temperature edges upward" (Encarta 98).

Greenhouse Gases

An accurate calculation of the present composition of dry, clean air in the lower atmosphere is:

Present Composition of the Lower Atmosphere (Average composition of dry, clean air)

Gas Symbol or Formula Percent by Volume

Nitrogen N2 78.08% Oxygen O2 20.94% Argon Ar 0.934% Carbon dioxide CO2 0.033% Neon Ne 0.00182% Helium He 0.00052% Methane CH4 0.00015% Krypton Kr 0.00011% Hydrogen H2 0.00005% Nitrous oxide N2O 0.00005% Xenon Xe 0.000009%

Present Composition of the Lower Atmosphere

Methane is a combination of carbon and hydrogen; it is the first member of the alkaline, hydrocarbons. It is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly flammable. It is naturally produced and released from a large variety of sources.

Some include:

Ø Swamps (swamp gas) and wetlands. Ø Rice patties (one of the largest sources). Ø Trash. Ø Firedamp in coal mines. Ø By-product of petroleum refining. Ø All herbivores and grazers (vegetarians) release almost pure methane gas and have high concentrations of methane in their feces. Methane is also a valuable fuel. Because it is a natural gas it burns much cleaner and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. It can also be used in many ways to help agriculture. In the earth's atmosphere it plays a role in producing noctilucent clouds.

Clouds also play an important role in the greenhouse effect. They function as a filter or a gate. "Clouds perform a very important function in modifying the distribution of solar heat over the Earth's surface and within the atmosphere." The tops of clouds reflect the majority of solar energy back into space. The radiation that gets through is absorbed by the Earth's surface, redistributed and then the energy is released. The lower portion of the cloud reflects the energy released from the Earth's surface back to Earth. "The atmosphere actually absorbs less radiation on clear days than on cloudy days." Clouds work as a regulator and/or an insulator to keep the Earth's temperature stable and suitable for life (Encarta 98 and NCSU study).

CLIMATE

"Climate [is] the long-term effect of the sun's radiation on the rotating earth's varied surface and atmosphere" (Encarta 98). Climate is determined by averaging temperature (daily, seasonal or annual) and the amount of precipitation during a given time and/or period. It is studied by analyzing weather statistics and their relationship with the atmosphere. Globally, climate is divided into zones or belts that can be traced from the equator to a given hemisphere. Circulation patterns of both the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) and the troposphere (lower atmosphere) where weather actually takes place and there influences on each other determine weather and climate.

ATMOSPHERE

The atmosphere is divided up into four layers, with contrasting temperatures due to differential absorption of solar energy.

Divisions of the Atmosphere Without our atmosphere, there would be no life on earth. A relatively thin envelope, the atmosphere consists of layers of gases that support life and provide protection from harmful radiation.

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

CARBON CYCLE OFF BALANCE

The most likely reason for our current global warming is that the CO2 cycle is off balance. There are many factors that contribute to this imbalance. The two main factors, I believe are water pollution and deforestation. Water pollution puts a film over the water; it filters out sunlight and hinders bodies of water from absorbing CO2. I also believe that pollution in the oceans increase its salinity causing the water to become warmer.

DEFORESTATION

Deforestation reduces and in some cases eliminates photosynthesis producing plants. This lessens the occurrence of photosynthesis resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. We are producing more CO2 then we ever have and we are limiting the natural filters that normally equalize and utilize CO2. Slash and burn deforestation wastes valuable resources and energy (CO2), It puts massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere so fast that the atmosphere cannot cycle it through fast enough. In addition one of the main CO2 filters, rainforests, is the target. The soil is so poor that it cannot support agriculture, nor can it support regrowth. Rainforests receive almost all of their nutrition from their canopy. As matter decomposes in the canopy it is made into a rich soil. Trees, as well as other plant life, sprout roots in this rich canopy soil and flourish.

NATURAL WEATHER CYCLES

Through out history, we see that weather runs in cycles. The planet heats up and then it cools down. We have ice ages and then gradually we become warmer. Archaeological studies have turned up a substantial amount of evidence to prove this. Studies that have been done in Polar Regions have produced evidence that they used to be tropical. Weather studies have also shown that weather patterns and trends change over time. Not long ago (approximately 100 years ago), we went through a mini ice age, then temperatures have gradually gotten warmer. I think a lot of the warming that we are now experiencing is due to natural weather cycles.

THE EARTH'S ROTATION

As the earth rotates and shifts position on its axis weather also changes. The magnetic pull of the earth can shift water and air currents. This may contribute to some of our strange weather in the last decade. Heat is distributed through the atmosphere by wind and air currents: changes in these currents either produce more storms or fewer storms. Climate temperature and ocean temperature also plays a big role in direction shifts of air and water currents. High (warm) and low (cool) currents react to each other, other times they interact with each other, these reactions and interactions will either produce or disband a storm and determine the type of storm. SUNSPOT THEORY

The sun's magnetic pull also plays an important role in ocean current shifts. The sun's surface has spots that contain strong magnetic fields. Most of the time they appear in pairs: one faces the sun and the other away. Sunspots normally run in 11-year cycles. At the beginning of the cycle there are only a few sunspots present, gradually they increase to a high number of spots, then gradually the number of spots decline. Once the number of sunspots has dropped very low again the cycle starts over. As a new cycle begins, the magnetic-field direction of the leading sunspots in each hemisphere reverses. It takes approximately 22 years to complete a full solar cycle. Some scientists believe that sunspot cycles affect global temperatures more than CO2 levels do. A sunspot cycle can last 9 to 13 years. During the past 100 years, sunspot cycles have shortened from 11.7 years to 9.7 years and the global land temperature has risen 0.6°. Between 1940 and 1970 the earth's temperature cooled down. During this cooling period the sunspot cycle slowed. These cycles ranged from 10.2 to 10.7 years. After 1970 the sunspot cycles sped back up and pushed temperatures up sharply enough to provoke predictions of a catastrophic global warming. To me this theory seems logical and I believe it too has a role in global warming.

VOLCANOS

The earth's surface is covered with volcanoes. We have them on land, underground and in our oceans. Most are very active and several erupt at the same time. These eruptions release heat, mainly in the form of CO2, and other greenhouse gases. We are not certain as to how much heat is generated into the atmosphere from volcanoes or to what degree they contribute to the rise in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. I believe that these eruptions could be a contributing factor in global warming.

HUMAN IMPACTS

It is obvious that humans play a role in global warming. However, to what degree they affect climate change is unknown. According to Charles Anderson, a Botany Professor at NCSU, "In recent years measurements indicate that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has nearly doubled. It has increased in many places from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.05%.""The majority of the scientific community feels as if this increase is due to the Industrial Revolution. The burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, industry, agriculture and the standard way of life in developed countries is believed to be the culprits.

Today we live in a "throw away" society. Rather than fixing something that doesn't work, we just throw it away and then replace it. We are producing massive amounts of waste products and we are running out of places to put these wastes. As a result we are polluting our air and water.

There is very little usable clean water on earth, and if we continue to contaminate these precious sources with pollution, I feel as if we will eventually run out of useable water, which is essential to life. Fossil fuels are nonrenewable; they too will eventually run out. Population growth contributes to the destruction of all natural forests. People are rapidly moving into new areas and infringing on natural habitats of plants and animals, causing many species to become extinct or close to extinction. The extinction causes entire ecosystems to fold if key species are removed. Pollution (mainly water) is also speeding up the extinction rates. Rates of extinction have risen drastically to dangerous highs. Higher worldwide population produces more pollution, uses more energy and natural resources, and increases extinction rates and reduces the rate of photosynthesis.

MY THEORY OF WHAT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING

Based on all of my research I have concluded that global warming is caused by a combination of all of the above. Global warming cannot be pinned down to just one cause; all of these things are contributing factors. Some may play larger roles than others, but they all are pieces to the same big puzzle. Until scientists can find all of the pieces and fit them together in their proper sequence, we will not be able to solve the problem.

I feel as if most of the equation is natural and normal. I think that humans do play an important role, however, the bottom line issue is pollution. Pollution is a problem separate from global warming and needs to be addressed on its own merit. I am not convinced that a reduction in pollution can stop global warming, or can I find any valid evidence that it will slow the warming process. Because it is a serious problem and has many negative repercussions, something needs to be done to combat pollution. If the reduction in pollution does stop global warming or even slows the process down, then that is an extra, added bonus.

I am also not convinced that the effects of global warming are going to be anywhere near the catastrophic predictions. There is just not enough accurate evidence to make a sound logical conclusion.

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

COMPUTERIZED CLIMATE TEST MODEL PREDICTIONS

What are computerized Climate Test Models?

These are computer simulations of the earth's atmosphere. Data such as earth's surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, individual greenhouse gas amounts and other statistics are entered into the computer. The computer then formulates a reconstruction of the earth's atmosphere by converting the entered data into mathematical equations. Scientists can then watch what happens when different elements of the equation are altered.

In order for the test results to be accurate or close to being accurate it cannot have a variable of more than three. There are two ways to test for accuracy. The first is to wait and see what does actually happen. The second is to try to reproduce past climate temperatures. If the models cannot reproduce past temperatures then the test and its predictions are invalid.

North Carolina State University (NCSU) and other universities have done validity studies on these models. NCSU conducted their study in 1990. Results of these studies ranged from a 3° to 8° variable in climate temperatures of the past. In each study the test model's prediction was always higher. This makes the computer test model's predictions invalid. Their study showed that several key factors such as cloud cover and volcanic eruptions and many other intangibles were left out of the equation. Scientists are working hard to try to improve the accuracy of these test models, but they still have a long way to go. Most of their problem is the inability to formulate cloud cover, volcanic eruptions and other key factors into the equation.

Test predictions

Most of the test models predicted catastrophic effects that global warming will cause. These predictions include:

v An increase in average global temperatures of 1 to 3.5°C (1.8 to 6.3°F) over the next 100 years.

v A rise in sea level due to the melting of the Polar Ice Caps, of 6 to 37.5 inches (one prediction stated that sea level would rise 20 feet or more).

v Extreme coastal flooding causing dislocation of humans, plants and animals. Severe stress on forests, wetlands and other ecosystems.

v An increase of diseases and damage to human health.

v Dislocation of agricultural crops and commerce.

v An increase in the frequency and magnitude of storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, etc. by possibly as much as 70%.

v Famines will become more profound in certain areas of the world.

FLOOD THEORY

All coastlines worldwide would experience severe flooding. Most of the 19 thousand miles of US shoreline would be lost. All land up to 100 feet (possibly more) from the water's edge would go under water. There would be a 70% loss of land in the southeast, especially in Florida, Louisiana and North Carolina. 12 of the country's biggest cities lie on tidal waterfronts and will become covered in water unless drastic measures are taken to block the ocean from coming inland. The list includes:

1. Baltimore 2. Boston 3. Houston 4. Los Angeles 5. Miami 6. New York 7. Philadelphia - Wilmington 8. San Francisco - Oakland 9. San Diego 10. Seattle 11. Tampa - St. Petersburg 12. Washington DC

(George J. Mitchell; Opposing Viewpoints; pamphlet: p320).

AGRICULTURE THEORIES ON WHAT MAY HAPPEN IF THE PLANET WARMS UP

According to JD Obermiller, Agricultural Research Analyst at NCSU Mountain Horticulture Crops Research and Extension Center:

If the warming happened all at once, it would be devastating to agriculture. Immediate flooding would wipe out about 40-50% of fresh fruit and vegetable crops, mainly grown in coastal areas.

I don't think it will happen all at once. I believe it will be a slow trend, because we have increased environmental awareness. Weather runs in cycles and changes occur at slower rates. I don't think that in the next 10 years the temperature will raise another 1.5°; it will be a lot slower and a lot less warming.

Warmer temperatures would prolong the growing season in some areas. However, there would also be many adverse effects on Agriculture. Warmer temperatures would increase insect pest populations by at least double if temperatures increase by 5-10°F; this would make it necessary to increase pesticide use. It is possible that crop diseases may also increase, especially summer rot. These factors can devastate crops.

If temperatures are too warm, crops will scorch, irrigation can scorch them further. Some crops won't grow even with irrigation, and water may become depleted in many areas.

The majority of present agricultural areas will not do well, while a minority will flourish. From central Georgia to Pennsylvania, even if all other factors are met and irrigation is used, the rise in temperature would blister the crops. Broccoli, strawberries, and other fruits and vegetables would be knocked out; these are mainstays in the American diet.

Shannon Morris, of the NCSU Agriculture Extension Office in Morganton, further concludes:

There is no proof that these things are happening. Without more study and sound scientific evidence, to act at this time is irresponsible.

Melting ice caps can raise sea levels. I feel as if this will be gradual and nowhere near the magnitude that is predicted.

If the warming does occur, we will have plenty of time to adapt. As far as agriculture is concerned, I think we will need to shift the time of year certain crops are planted. Other crops will have to be geographically shifted. For example, the Corn Belt will need to be shifted east.

REGIONAL CHANGE THEORY

Many scientists believe that there will be regional climatic changes. Some areas that are dry or desert like now will receive more rainfall and will become moister; other areas that are moist now will become dryer. Colder areas will get warmer and there is the possibility that areas that are warm now will become cooler. Polar Regions may become either considerably warmer, possibly even tropical, while tropical areas may become considerably cooler than they are now.

CLINTON'S CLIMATE CHANGE PROPOSAL

CLINTON'S FIVE KEY ELEMENTS:

1. Binding Targets to Reach 1990 Emissions Levels by 2008-2012 and Reductions Below 1990 Levels in the 5-Year Period that Follows.

¨ Realistic. Seeks to return U.S. emissions to 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012 and reduce them further thereafter. Rejects European proposal for more stringent early reductions, as well as the "do-nothing" approach of some interests.

¨ Achievable. By providing incentives for early action to reduce emissions, attacking domestic energy inefficiencies, securing flexible international implementation mechanisms, and putting in place a market-based domestic emissions trading system, the U.S. can reach 1990 levels in the proposed time frame with minimal economic costs. (CO2 tax as an alternative to emissions trading.)

¨ Meaningful. Achieving 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012 would amount to almost a 30% reduction off a business-as-usual path, an important first step on the road toward stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Emissions accounting will include all greenhouse gas sources and sinks (including reforestation).

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Something needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions. I agree with President Clinton that this needs to be done gradually and that severe drastic measures must be avoided. Taking drastic measures would send our economy plummeting into a severe depression. Taking a gradual approach would allow our economy to adapt a little at a time and avoid economic devastation. I also agree that we should not sit back and do nothing. Pollution is a serious problem and measures should be taken to reduce this problem. I believe that this goal is achievable, if done correctly. Tax breaks should be given to those who are taking measures to reduce pollution. At this time it is expensive to replace equipment that is inefficient, to install filtering systems and to clean up existing pollutants. Businesses that undergo these alterations should get tax credits to help reduce their huge expenses. Individuals should also be given a tax credit if they go through the expense of upgrading their homes to make them more energy efficient. Restrictions should be made on new appliances and homes to meet certain energy efficiency standards. A trade in system also needs to be devised were people can trade in their old energy inefficient appliances and receive new efficient ones at a lower cost. Older, inefficient appliances that have been traded in could be updated to efficiency standards and then resold at a lower cost than brand new ones. This would recycle these outdated appliances and insure that they do not contribute to our waste problem. It is imperative that we do have worldwide implementation mechanisms. Technology should be shared with lesser-developed countries, developed countries need to educate and aid them on how to stabilize their economies in an energy efficient manner. They should be held to the same standards as developed countries in controlling emissions. The emissions trade component is not a feasible idea! This will give industry the opportunity to buy the right to pollute and to continue business as usual practices. This defeats the purpose of reducing emissions! It would be easier and most likely cheaper for industry to buy the right to pollute than to do something to reduce the amount of pollution they produce. I feel as if this is a lose-lose strategy and if implemented we will be "cutting our nose off to spite our face." If this component is put into action it will be working against the purpose of this plan and nothing will change; reduction goals will not be met. This is a bad idea both on a domestic and an international level and should be avoided. It is unclear as to who will get taxed if a CO2 tax is imposed in place of emissions trading. It would be effective if there were penalties imposed upon the auto industry if they do not design more fuel-efficient cars. Industries who fail to reduce their emissions by a specified percentage should also be penalized. Power companies should be mandated to improve their efficiency standards and to switch from carbon based fuels to renewable energies within a reasonable, specified time period or be penalized. Additional taxes on gas would encourage people to drive less and to buy fuel-efficient cars. People who live in an area that has carbon based electricity should not be penalized for living in a specific area. This is a much more logical answer than the carbon emissions trading proposal. Projects designed to share technology and educate people in lesser-developed countries need to be devised and put into action. They need to take into consideration the people's sociological, cultural, traditional, religious and economic backgrounds when designing a plan in order for them to be effective.

These projects need to address at the minimum the following issues:

Ø Reforestation. Ø Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Ø Immunizations, Efficient Medical Care Practices, Prenatal Care, Preventative Medical Care for Infants and Children, and Birth Control. Ø Waste Management, Water Purification and Disease Control. Ø The Importance of a Strong Education, how to set up Public School Systems. Ø Government Welfare and Health Care Systems.

This is just to name a few. I feel as if these programs should not be funded entirely by the developed countries. Lesser-developed countries must share in the cost! They need to be willing to help themselves, and to become self-supporting! Unless this happens they will never become economically stable. The governments and people in these areas must be educated on how to use their available resources wisely and efficiently.

2. $5 Billion Program of Tax Cuts and Research and Development (R&D) for New Technologies. To spur energy efficiency and the development of new technologies, the President proposes a major new package of tax cuts and R&D spending amounting to $5 billion over five years. $3.6 billion in tax credits and $2.7 billion for Research and Development (R&D).

Domestic Initiatives:

ü Tax credits for energy-efficient building equipment, homes, and rooftop solar systems.

ü R&D funding for more energy efficient buildings and equipment, and a HUD-led partnership with the building industry to develop, demonstrate, and deploy inexpensive energy efficient housing technologies.

Industry Initiatives:

ü Tax credits for combined heat and power powers, replacement of SF6-containing circuit breakers, and equipment designed to recover PFCs and HFCs from semiconductor projection processes.

ü Increased DOE (Department of Energy) R&D funding for advanced electric power generation and cogeneration technologies and a government-industry partnership on technology roadmaps and plans to reduce energy use and achieve early reductions of greenhouse gases.

Fuel-Efficient Transportation:

ü Tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles, an equalization of tax treatment of parking and transit benefits.

ü Other incentives include government-industry partnerships to develop more fuel-efficient cars and diesel engines for trucks, along with initiatives to promote alternative to single-occupancy vehicle travel. (A financial incentive allowing employees the potion of taking either employer-paid parking or its cash value as increased income, providing a cash incentive to take public transportation or to car pool; has been proposed).

Electricity Initiatives:

ü An extension of tax credits for electricity generated from wind and biomass.

ü Other incentives include expanded government-industry partnerships for renewable technologies, and DOE R&D efforts directed toward nuclear powerplant life extension and toward more efficient coal combustion technology.

R&D Strategies:

ü Explore other energy source possibilities; improve technologies to make them more affordable, energy efficient, and more available as alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. Areas to be explored are wind, solar, hydroelectricity (ocean and rivers), biomass (energy crops grown by agriculture that provide plant produced fuels), geothermal energy (produced by utilizing the earth's heat) nuclear fission and fusion, and the utilization of natural gases (Methane).

ü Increase energy efficiency in everything that uses power on all levels (industry, individuals and government) especially, in the auto, building and appliance industries.

ü Reducing the use of energy on all levels (education, "Green Light Project", etc.).

ü Further study on Global Warming.

ü Further the technology on Fuel Cells.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Domestic incentives are more practical than most industrial incentives. Individuals would be more likely to make changes toward upgrading their homes and appliances if they were made more affordable and they received a tax break or credit for doing so. Most of the time industry will not make changes until their equipment becomes obsolete. I am not convinced that incentives will influence industries to make changes to reduce their emissions. (See Appendix A for Breakdown of how Energy is used in the United States.) Fuel-efficient transportation definitely needs more study. Unfortunately, several carburetors have been developed over the last decade that increase fuel efficiency and burn a lot cleaner than the cars we have now, but none of them have ever been made available to the American public. These more efficient carburetors are designed after the ones used in airplanes during World War II. Diesel engines became popular in the 70's during the oil crisis, however their inability to accelerate as quickly as gasoline cars caused Americans to lose their appeal to them as soon as the crisis was over. Diesel fuel is not as flammable as gasoline; it is a petroleum product similar to kerosein, jet fuel, and home heating oil. Diesel fuel is less expensive to produce and more efficient

to produce and more efficient than gasoline, it is safer to use and less likely to catch on fire in an accident. They have an internal-combustion engine and do not need spark plugs, consume less fuel and emit fewer waste products. The disadvantages are that they are noisier and produce sooty, smelly smoke, but modern diesels generally run cleaner with fewer odors than older models. Clinton is working with the auto industries to improve the performance of vehicles and is trying to promote the use of them. This is a good idea and that until alternative vehicles can be made that eliminate the use of fossil fuels all together; this is a step in the right direction. Further breakthroughs are being made for fuel cells. These operate similar to a battery. These cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel directly into useable electricity and heat without combustion. Like batteries they produce a direct current by means of an electrochemical process, but fuel cells can operate indefinitely as long as fuel is supplied to them. Fuel cells can provide power for cars and other applications, such as electricity and hot water for buildings. This is a gasoline-powered technology that would allow you to double the fuel efficiency of a car and emit half of the greenhouse gases and virtually no other air pollution. Previously, hydrogen or methanol has powered these cells, which are less convenient for use in cars, but now we have the technology to use the existing gasoline infrastructure. Clinton's PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles) is working towards the goal of making a family sized vehicle with triple the fuel efficiency of today's cars, without compromising cost or convenience. This is an alternative to the electric cars of the past. It is a good idea and needs to be pursued further. Mass transit as it exists today is not practical. It definitely needs to be improved. The bus system is the worst. Most of the time the buses travel with 25% capacity, resulting in a waste of time and gas, increasing CO2 emissions. More people use subway and trolley systems that run on electricity, due to the frequency of their use; they are much more practical. A few industries have van routes that are setup according to where their employees live; the van's route is designed to pick up its employees in the most efficient order and to avoid unnecessary areas. Employees do not have to pay for this service; the company hires one of its employees to drive the route and pays the fuel costs. This is an excellent program! It puts people who would other wise not have the means to get to work into the work force, reduces the need for parking, saves fuel, reduces emissions, and reduces the employee's travel expenses. Clinton needs to be made aware of this and provide incentives for industries and business to devise van routes for their employees. Economically, as well as, convenience wise, it is a lot more practical and feasible than his employer-paid parking incentive. As far as R&D goes, for the most part I am in favor of that part of the plan. I believe that fossil fuels will eventually run out and that now is the time to start looking for alternatives. Furthermore, we are producing way too much pollution and that cleaner, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly energy sources need to be developed. Until other methods such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric can be further developed, I feel as if nuclear fission should replace the use of fossil fuels. I think that the technology of nuclear fusion should be studied more aggressively. If we can develop away to use nuclear fusion as a power source, it would be our best avenue for the future. Unfortunately, this concept has not been achieved effectively so far. Biomass should also be explored. It is possible to make fuels from plants that can run gasoline engines with very few alterations. The problem we are now facing is that we do not have the technology to make these fuels cost effectively. Methane, a naturally occurring renewable gas is being studied at great lengths. Methane is highly flammable, produces a lot of energy, and gives of very little if any pollutants. Cow manure is methane rich; people in India have been utilizing it for years as an energy source. Research is currently being done to see how practical of an energy source it is. For example, there is a power plant in the mid-western United States that is effectively being powered by methane from cow manure. Unfortunately, some scientists are trying to devise a way of harnessing "cow gas" as it leaves the cow to be used as an energy source. This is the most impractical concept I have ever encountered! This study is a waste of taxpayers dollars and a waste of time. In fact, the whole cow study is ridiculous! Scientists are blaming primarily cows for the increase of methane in the atmosphere. The truth is, all herbivores produce methane gas and have methane rich feces. Herbivores have always roamed the earth, many of which have become extinct. Even though we have more cows on the planet now then we have ever had, we have fewer numbers of other herbivore species. It is my theory that this evens itself out and that, animals on the planet are not producing anymore methane than they have in the past. This whole study needs to be abandoned. However, I am not against the study to utilize cow manure as an energy source. There are so many directions in which research and development need to be done, it would be impossible to list all of them. As long as scientists are studying useful, and logical ideas, then Clinton's allotment of $2.7 billion is reasonable. However, I think that there should be some way of monitoring what studies this money is being spent on and a way of ensuring that it is used only for "good science based" logical, and practical studies.

3. Industry-by-Industry Consultations and Early Credit. The Administration challenges key industries to prepare plans over the next 9 months on how they can best reduce emissions. To provide an incentive for near-term actions to cut emissions, the President is committed to ensuring appropriate rewards for firms that act early. Ø Industry-by-Industry Consultations: The Administration challenges key industry sectors to prepare plans over the next 9 months on how they can reduce emissions, including how the Federal government can remove regulatory hurdles that discourage energy efficiency. The Administration will work in partnership with industry to develop sensible efficiency standards in a variety of areas. ¨ Use new technologies to capture waste heat. ¨ The use of cogeneration of natural gas or biomass to reduce carbon emissions. ¨ The use of advanced turbines developed by the DOE and industry (available in 3 years), and an overall efficiency of 80-90%. ü They produce steam together with low-cost electricity and significantly reduce NOx emissions. ü Nearly zero carbon emissions. ü Some industries produce their own biomass as a waste product (example: paper companies). ¨ Reduction measures to produce less waste materials.

Ø Credit for Early Action: To provide an immediate incentive for near-term actions to cut emissions, the Administration is committed to ensuring firms which act early a rewarded appropriately. We will work with companies to build a program that appropriately rewards those who take prompt and early actions before the mandatory emissions budget period in Stage 3.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Industry is one of our major pollution sources. They pollute our water and our air, and put several hazardous wastes into our environment. Something must be done to stop this. However, the cost to upgrade their equipment to more energy efficient machines and to install filtering systems and mechanisms to decrease waste and scrap products is so high. Many industries loose almost all, if not all, of their profits for the period the upgrading occurs. In many cases, it may effect their profits over several periods. Smaller companies may go belly up as a result of upgrading. Tax incentives will have to at least make up for half of this expense, through a tax credit. Mandates need to be made to reduce the actual cost of upgrading so that smaller companies can afford to switch. This would also reduce the amount of profit loss. New, affordable, energy efficient technologies must be available if this component is to work all the way across the board.

4. Developing Countries Must Participate. Climate change is a global problem, and requires a global solution. That is why the United States has spear-headed joint implementation (JI) projects, and the President has committed that the United States will not adopt binding obligations without developing country participation. q Global Participation. All countries must participate. Every nation would be required to take meaningful actions to limit emissions. The U.S. will not assume binding obligations until developing countries agree to participate meaningfully in the challenge of addressing climate change. q Equity. The obligations of poorer and less developed countries should take into account their state of economic development and their relative contribution to the climate change problem. q Assistance. While insisting that developing countries take meaningful actions to address climate change, the U.S. recognizes that many of these countries face significant development changes that hamper their ability to reduce emissions. President Clinton is reemphasizing his commitment to working with these nations to help build more sustainable energy futures. This includes a $1 billion package of assistance from USAID and a renewed commitment to provide financial assistance through the Global Environment Facility, as well as our pathbreaking joint implementation proposals. q Joint Implementation Project. § Market-based approach for addressing global climate change that uses international partnerships to achieve low-cost reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. § Under JI, a company in the U.S. invests in a project, which reduces emissions in another country and uses those reductions as a less expensive means of meeting its own target. § Example: Two U.S. companies will work with Renewable Energy Services Company of Asia, Ltd. To market and install 812,000 solar home systems in Sri Lanka. These systems will replace the use of kerosene lamps for lighting and the use of diesel-electric charging of lead-acid batteries used for powering small home appliances. The result will be a 1.5 million metric ton reduction in greenhouse gases and cleaner energy for tens of thousands of people. § Provides a strong incentive for companies and countries to search the globe for the lowest cost ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. § Creates major opportunities worldwide for increased sale of U.S. energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies. § Increased reliance on more energy efficient technologies and less carbon-intensive energy alternatives will help developing countries meet their growing energy needs with more environmentally sustainable solutions.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Global participation is imperative. However, I do not think that the U.S. should foot the entire bill. I think that we should contribute some aid, along with other developed countries and that the developing countries must also pay a good portion of their assistance expenses. They must be held responsible financially for their reform in some way or to some degree. They need to learn how to sustain their own economy and how to use their resources wisely. I think that it is also very important that we share our technology with them and allow them the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and successes in hopes that they won't repeat our mistakes. I think that if implemented correctly, the JI Project can accomplish this goal. Pollution and energy use are both global problems. Countries do need to work together to reduce them both. Worldwide, education is the key component in making this happen. The challenge is the many different languages, customs, cultures and stages of development that needs to taken into consideration. Worldwide technology and science need to be made available to all countries so that all countries may have the opportunity to contribute possible solutions to growing pollution problem. Developing countries whose energy needs are increasing need special attention, to learn sustainable, energy efficient ways of meeting their growing demands for energy.

5. Broad-Based Domestic and Industrial Emissions Trading System Begins After A Decade of Experience Has Accumulated. The President is committed to a market-based emissions trading system, both domestically and internationally, that will harness the power of the market to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The trading system would begin after a decade's worth of experience with tax incentives, R&D, early credit, electricity reconstruction, Federal efforts, and other measures.

Ø Description The principle of emissions trading is to use the efficiency of the market place to achieve environmental objectives at the lowest possible cost. Under an international emissions trading regime, a country (or firm) would be able to meet its emissions reduction target by reducing pollution itself, purchasing reductions from another country (or firm) that was able to achieve excess gains, or some combination of both. Given an effective international regime, emissions trading provides a powerful incentive for nations to reduce below the amount required and then sell excess reductions to others who in turn avoid more costly actions. The U.S. has proposed that emissions trading be permitted among all countries that agree to a binding emissions target.

Ø How it would work Consider a simplified example for how international emissions trading might work. Country A and Country B must reduce emissions by 100 tons each. It might cost each country $1,000 to reduce 100 tons individually for a total of $2,000. However, if Country A could reduce its emissions by 200 tons for a total cost of $1,500 and sell half of these reductions to Country B, the overall target would be achieved for $500 less, a savings of 25%.

Ø U.S. experience Emissions trading is being used successfully at the domestic level to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions (which cause acid rain) under the Clean Air Act. Achieving targeted reductions was originally estimated to cost $5 billion annually if traditional controls had been required and $4billion with emissions trading. A GOA estimate after the initial stage of emissions trading now puts the cost at $2billion per year, or 60% below the original estimate with pollution reductions significantly ahead of schedule. Emissions trading has also been successful in cutting the costs of phasing out leaded gasoline and in curbing the production of chlorofluorocarbons which deplete the ozone layer.

Ø Cost savings According to the 1997 Economic Report of the President, international emissions trading of CO2 could lower the cost of reductions by 50% below the minimum achievable using purely domestic programs.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

This idea is not practical! Emissions need to be reduced across the board. This idea leaves too much room for falsified information, illegal activities, misrepresentation of facts and too many unverifiable actions. It is impractical and not feasible. Everyone must reduce emissions. This gives too many big money industries an opportunity to continue "business as usual" practices. This is giving permission to buy the right to pollute as much as you want to pay for. Companies that purchase and implement reduction measures will be the ones to bear the burden. It would be impractical to think that they would be able to recover even half of the money they would have to pay out to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In most cases smaller industries will be the ones to implement changes and run the risk of going "belly up". This is not an answer, it is a way of fooling ourselves into believing that we have reached our goals, when in fact we have not.

CLINTON'S FIVE KEY PRINCIPLES:

1. Guided by science. The vast majority of the world's scientists have concluded that if the countries of the world do not work together to cut greenhouse emissions, temperatures will rise and disrupt the global climate. Indeed, most scientists say this process has already begun. But there is much we still don't know about how the climate and human health will react to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. That's why the President's plan includes regular science reviews, to ensure that our policies are guided by the best science available.

The core program of the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) is focused on four key scientific areas: à Seasonal to Interannual Climate Variability: The development and refinement of forecasts of seasonal and interannual climate variability, including the study and prediction of the El Nino phenomena. à Climate Change Over Decades to Centuries: Analysis and projection of the effects of long-term climate change on natural resources, public health, and socio-economic sectors. à Changes in Ozone, UV Radiation, and Atmospheric Chemistry: Research on the causes, rate, magnitude, and human health and ecological consequences of changes in stratospheric ozone, UV radiation, and atmospheric chemistry. à Changes in Land Cover and Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems: Research on the causes and consequences of land-cover changes, and on basic processes governing the functions and structure of terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems. New Research Directions: Global change research is providing the information about the changing Earth system, and in particular, about climate change, that is needed to achieve a sustainable future. New research efforts include: à A National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts to aggregate information across regions and sectors, analyze national-scale consequences, and support development of mitigation and adaptation strategies. à Improved Regional-scale Analyses, including regional estimates of the rate and magnitude of climate change, analyses of the environmental and socio-economic consequences of climate change in the context of other stresses, and integrated assessments of the implications for society and the environment of climate change. à Regional Workshops to examine the vulnerabilities of various regions of the U.S. to climate change.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Further research definitely needs to be done on global warming. My concern is the validity of the research the President is using to make policies. My fear is that he is basing his concerns on computer test models that have already been proven to be invalid. Not all scientists or scientific studies are valid. I feel as if it is imperative that each study is proven to be valid before it receives government funding. There is just too much bad science out there at this time. My recommendation is that lawmakers take extreme caution to determine what research is valid and base their decisions on only valid, accurate science.

2. Market-based, common sense tools. We have learned that the costs of protecting the environment is substantially lower if we harness the power of markets to do so. That's why the President's plan emphasizes flexible and market-based mechanisms. His plan includes a domestic and international permit trading system for greenhouse gas emissions, similar to the highly successful permit trading system that has dramatically cut acid rain at a fraction of the predicted cost.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

I feel as if the reduction amount that has supposedly occurred with acid rain is grossly misrepresented. This portion of the plan needs to be thrown out and the acid rain trading system also needs to be thrown out. This is inaccurate and misleading. It is an ineffective "Band-Aid solution" that only covers up the problem instead of addressing and dealing with the real issues involved. It makes it too easy to play with the figures and make it look good, because there is no way to actually check the figures accurately; the real truth is hidden. At best we will be "cutting our nose off to spite our face."

3. Seek win-win solutions. There are a multitude of win-win solutions to reducing carbon emissions, that can improve our energy efficiency and save consumers money. For example, a breakthrough in fuel cell technology… will clear the way toward developing cars that are twice as efficient as today's models - - cutting pollution while also cutting driving costs. The President believes that we must seek such win-win solutions to addressing climate change. v Electricity Reconstruction: The ability to purchase electricity from any power plant in the U.S. to encourage lower carbon emissions, and cost. This will give energy companies an incentive to use renewable, cost efficient energy resources. v Improved Building Standards: Guidelines to mandate that all new homes and buildings are built as energy efficient as possible. New appliances will also have standards that will have to be met. These are to be both energy and cost efficient and reduce wasted energy. v High Efficiency Vehicles: Through the PNGV, government is working with the auto industry to make more fuel efficient cars, light and heavy trucks, that get better gas mileage and have fewer CO2 emissions. In addition they will also be working with the aircraft and railroad industries to improve their efficiency and reduce their emissions. v Low-Carbon Fuel: Government-Industry Partnerships to find alternative fuel sources that will reduce the amount of carbon fuels or eventually replace them. Biomass fuels are being explored as alternatives to gasoline. (Biomass fuels are carbon neutral because the crops capture CO2 when they grow and release it during combustion.) v Recycling: This is already in effect and ways of being able to recycle and reuse more things is being studied. Also more cost efficient ways of recycling are being developed.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

In general, this portion of Clinton's proposal is practical and logical. I feel as if all of these things need to be developed and studied. I think that it is imperative that we reduce pollution in all sectors; it is everyone's responsibility. I feel as if this would be an important step towards having sustainable energy and reducing pollution. Although, I was unable to find a complete list of proposed win-win solutions. Mass transit and some of the other possibilities, would only be effective in certain areas and not nationwide. I think it is necessary to look at each demographic region to see what pollution problems exist and then what possible reduction strategies will be best implemented in that area. Looking at the U.S. as a whole, not everything will work everywhere. Each area needs to be looked at on an individual basis and have a specific plan of action designed for them.

4. Global participation. Climate change is a global problem, and requires a global solution. A ton of carbon emitted in Argentina has just as much effect on the global climate change as a ton of carbon emitted in the U.S. - - and within the next few decades, emissions from developing countries are expected to exceed those from developed countries. And many win-win opportunities exist to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. That's why the U.S. has spear-headed joint implementation projects and the President has committed that the U.S. will not adopt binding obligations without developing country participation.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Over all, I agree with this portion of the plan, as long as developing countries are held financially responsible for at least half, if not more, of these modification programs. I do not think that the U.S. should "foot the bill". It is important that we share research, development and technology on a global basis. Rather than trading carbon emissions, to me it seems more practical and logical to trade technology. Not just technologies to reduce carbon emissions, but all technologies. Developing countries would be able to purchase the technology to have a sustainable economy. Medical, agricultural, waste management, efficient energy, water purification and many other technologies could be marketed. In addition, we could purchase technologies from other developed countries to improve our way of life in areas that they are more efficient in.

5. Common sense economic reviews. Our knowledge of the challenges and opportunities we face will grow over time. Therefore, the President is calling for regular 5-year economic reviews and updates, to ensure that policy-makers, both in the Administration and in Congress, have the best possible information on how the economy is responding to the effort to address climate change, how other countries are performing relative to their own commitments, and how the climate is changing in response to human activities.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Economic reviews are necessary; however, 5-years seems like an awfully long time. I feel as if it would make more sense to meet either once a year or every 18 months. This will help lawmakers to be more aware of policies that are not effective and problems that may arise, as well as monitor any accomplishments or achievements. This will give them the opportunity to address problems as they occur and change the laws that are causing the problems a lot sooner and avoid major economic upsets. It will also allow them the opportunity to determine whether or not the plan is working and what areas of the plan need improvement.

CLINTON'S THREE STAGE PLAN:

Stage 1: Priming the Pump Through R&D, Tax Incentives, Incentives for Early Action, Federal Leadership, and Industry Consultations. The first stage of the President's package includes a 9-point action plan - - including $5 billion in tax incentives and spending for R&D and energy efficiency, incentives for early action, a set of Federal government energy initiatives, and industry-by-industry consultations to explore their best ideas on how to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner (including market-oriented standards for energy efficiency). The first economic review would occur near the end of Stage 1.

The Nine Immediate Actions Proposed: 1. Tax Cuts and Federal R&D. (Already discussed.) 2. Credit for Early Action. (Already discussed.) 3. Industry-by-Industry Consultations. (Already discussed.) 4. Encouraging the Use of Energy-Efficient Products. As the Dept. of Energy's 5-Labs study illustrates, many existing technologies produce win-win solutions to reducing carbon emissions - - but nonetheless are still not widely used. The President is committed to expanding their reach. He will therefore compliment his other programs by engaging in a broad-based effort to expand the use of existing energy-efficient technologies - - while also spurring the development of new technologies. 5. Federal Procurement and Energy Use. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Federal sources, DOE will spearhead a comprehensive effort that includes expanded performance contracting to make Federal buildings more energy-efficient, improved Federal procurement (acquisition) of energy-efficient technology, and partnerships to improve the energy efficiency of Federal aircraft, ships and vehicles. Federal agencies will also be called upon to assess emissions in major initiatives. 6. Electricity Restructuring. (Already discussed.) 7. Setting a Concentration Goal for Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere. The goal of the existing climate treaty is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases, but the specific concentration has never been defined. The U.S. supports developing a specific, long-term goal, with the assistance of the national Academy of Science and other appropriate bodies. 8. Bilateral Dialogues. In addition to pursuing agreement in Kyoto, the Administration will pursue bilateral dialogues with key developing countries to promote clean energy. 9. Economics and Science Reviews. The President proposes regular scientific and economic reviews, to ensure that policy-makers have the best possible information on climate change.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

Over all there are some good strategies, however, many are too vague to base an absolute opinion on. There needs to be a more defined course of action before the plan can be effective. As it is now, there are too many loopholes and too much flexibility. We need something that is more concrete. Definite guidelines need to be set, implemented and adhered to. I like the fact that Clinton's plan addresses every area of the population. He did a good job in holding everyone responsible. This way no one area will have to bear the brunt and everyone has a role in the process of reducing pollution. This plan implies that unity in this effort is important, and I agree with this concept. I also believe that it makes more sense to work into these changes gradually. Clinton's perspective of this concept is right on target. If we were to barrel into taking immediate, drastic measures we would catapult our economy into severe devastation. Gradual change will be more effective, and give us the opportunity to adapt to the changes and keep our economy on a more even keel. Further more, at the present time we do not have enough sound scientific proof or evidence to support drastic measures. It has taken us a long time to damage our world, and logically, it will take us a long time to correct our mistakes.

Stage 2: Review and Evaluation. The second stage, which would begin around 2004, would build upon the programs adopted in Stage 1, by including a review of our progress and an evaluation of the next steps as we move toward a market-based permit trading system for carbon emissions. During this second stage, the details of the permit system would be refined and perhaps tested. Such a permit system is similar in concept to the one that dramatically cut acid rain emissions - - although the scale would be significantly larger than the current acid rain program. The second economic review would occur near the end of Stage 2.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

I am strongly opposed to the permit trading system for carbon emissions. I do not think it is practical or logical, and I can not find any valid evidence to support the supposed drastic reductions it is said to have achieved in the acid rain program. I feel as if that pronouncement is grossly exaggerated. I feel as if this could also have a devastating effect on our economy, especially for smaller businesses that can not compete that may fold as a result of the trade. Further, I would like to conclude that there must be a better alternative to the emissions trading to place in effect during Stage 2. That alternative must be found!

Stage 3: Meeting Binding Targets Through Domestic and International Emissions Trading Program. In the third stage, we would reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012, and below 1990 levels in the 5-year period after that, through a market-based domestic and international emissions trading system. Before beginning the third stage, the second economic update would and review would allow Congress and the President to evaluate how the economy had responded to a decade's worth of experience in the first two stages of the President's plan. The President is committed to working with labor and Congress to insure that we give proper assistance to any workers dislocated by the changes in energy usage inherent in any climate change plan.

My Recommendations and Conclusions

The only practical things that are mentioned in Stage 3 are the review and assistance for displaced workers. If we allow the emissions trade, we will have an excess of dislocated workers and our economy will become very unstable. In the initial changes there is a probability that some workers may become displaced, assistance needs to be incorporated during Stage 1, and no later than Stage 2. OTHER PEOPLE'S OPPINIONS ON CLINTON'S PROPOSAL AND GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES

According to Congressman, Cass Ballenger, (this is not an exact quote, it is a summery of my interview with him and my interpretation of what he said): President Clinton's proposal is nothing more than a good theory. There is not enough sound, scientific, evidence to make a sound prediction of what may happen if global warming is in fact happening. In his proposal, the developed countries will be left footing the bills while less developed countries have no real cost. We are dealing with an imperfect system and there are no clean answers to anyone's problem. Clinton's plan is just too vague, it needs to be laid out in a clearer, more definite course of action, and needs to be more direct and to the point. Until it is more precise, I do not think it will be passed. The APA is out of line and keeps banning things, with no real scientific evidence to support their actions, for example they decided that methyl alcohol was pollution and then banned its use. The FQPA and FDA is just as bad, case in point the Alar fiasco, now they are trying to ban other important agricultural aids, yet they want sustainable food supplies. Emissions Trading is a bad idea, it is allowing the selling of rights to pollute. As long as you have money you can pollute all you want to. This defeats the whole purpose of reducing CO2 emissions. Taxing carbon use has advantages and disadvantages. The only foreseeable advantage is that it would raise the cost of using fossil fuels. If fossil fuels become too expensive to come by people will find alternatives to replace them, with something they can afford. Slash and burn deforestation which is occurring more rapidly than it has in the past, and there are fewer trees to absorb the excess CO2 being released. It has been going on for a long time, but the trees that are no longer there to absorb the excess CO2, can no longer disguise its effects. Another important factor to consider is volcano eruptions; they too put a lot of carbon emissions into the atmosphere that are no longer being absorbed. There are just too many variables that are not being considered. "I personally, do not think that the effects will be as great as they are predicting, however, no one will know for sure until it does or does not happen."

Sustainable Agriculture is another major issue in the global warming controversy. Legislature is constantly being passed due to public uproar, and not scientific evidence banning the use of pesticides, fungicides and bacteria fighting agents. Several years ago, environmentalists raised a big ruckus about Alar; a chemical designed to keep apples on the tree longer to improve their quality and size. They public was panicked due to false reports that it caused cancer and was harmful to children. Scientific testing showed that you would have to eat 28,000lbs of Alar treated apples a day for a 70 year period before you would show any signs of "PRE" cancer. It also proved not to be harmful in any way to children. Unfortunately, legislators chose to ignore all of the scientific evidence and ban its use based on the testimony of uninformed environmentalists and Meryl Streape. Today the FQPA (Food Quality Protection Act) is in the process of going over and analyzing every chemical and natural pesticide, fertilizer, herbicide and fungicide. They are reviewing all Agricultural aids for cancer causing agents and plan to ban those that have even the slightest indication of causing cancer. The sad thing is that so many companies purchase their fruits and vegetables from lesser-developed countries because they are so much cheaper. Most of these countries are still using DDT and other harmful and not so harmful agricultural aids that have been banned in the U.S. Then when something goes wrong, U.S. growers get the blame. Agriculture also has a key role in possible alternative fuel production. Part of Clinton's proposal is to explore these possibilities. Another one of the concerns is the effect global warming will have on crop production. The following is JD Obermiller's (see page 16 for more information and credentials) view point on the future of agriculture and the limiting factors that may hinder its sustainability and what role it plays in global climate change: Alar has been banned due to unfounded, undocumented public scares. Methyl Bromide a short-term fumigant has been blamed for 1.5% of the Methane content in greenhouse gases. Agriculture in the U.S. is the first to be forced to give it up; its use will be banned in the year 2000. Lesser-developed countries can use it all they want until the year 2015. Methyl Bromide reduces the use of pesticides. It is gone from the environment after 2 weeks, and deters pests for a whole season. Alternatives cost more, and have to be used more often. We are cutting our nose off to spite our face. Economics plays a key role in reducing pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides. Materials that generally cost 2-4 times as much per acre to use replace products that cost less and often work better. These alternatives are usually effective short-term. Animal byproducts are being stopped along with other natural fertilizers and deterrents do to bacterial diseases, such as echoli, due to public scares. Political and Industrial figures need to take a closer look at agriculture and stop blaming it for causing global warming. I believe that fossil fuels may not run out in our lifetime, but that they will eventually run out. Now is the time to explore alternative energy sources. Wind and solar power are two things that need to be explored. Ethanol fuel, from corn, (and other plant fuels) also needs to be looked into. Agriculture may be able to grow enough Ethanol fuel to support a lot of our energy needs; it burns cleaner, and is a lot less polluting than fossil fuels. Farmers are generally good stewards of their land, because their land is what feeds their families and pays their bills. If alternative means continue to raise in price, many small farms will fold. Avenues of biotech engineering, also need to be further explored. Plant hybrids could make the difference when it comes to sustainable agriculture. It can pave the way for new possible energy sources that can be grown by agriculture. Trash, cows and other factors and industry contribute more methane than agriculture does.

According to Charles E. Anderson, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Botany at North Carolina State University and founder of Pollution Solutions, man does have a profound effect in global warming. He also poses important things to consider and possible solutions to the pollution problem. The current increase in carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is certainly related to man's activities. Particularly, man's activities as they relate to the burning of fossil fuel, and to the destruction of vegetation on a worldwide basis. The wide spread use of coal, oil, and natural gas has been on a steady increase in the twentieth century. The automobile may be the most common source of such pollution. However, man's demands for electricity and other kinds of power have also caused the construction of large power plants and many other industrial sources that burn fossil fuels. These are sources of much greater levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide than were experienced in the past, within the atmosphere of the earth. We are burning the products of many million years worth of photosynthesis, almost on a yearly basis. Modern day photosynthetic rates are just not able to keep up and maintain the natural balance normally achieved by the cycles. Not only is man burning greater and greater amounts of fossil fuels, but he is also eliminating vast quantities of photosynthesizing plants. Just building the Interstate highway system in the United States has eliminated many millions of acres of plant life. Rain forests in many tropical areas of the earth are being harvested for their valuable wood. These forests are very poor in mineral content and the trees cannot be replaced. They have been a great source of photosynthesis and carbon dioxide uptake. Now these areas are unproductive and fix little carbon dioxide. Perhaps the most critical loss of carbon dioxide uptake has occurred as the result of man's pollution of the world's waters. Much of the photosynthesis on earth occurs in the oceans and large bodies of water. Pollution of water has directly killed many photosynthesizing organisms. The pollution is also an absorber of light, which is necessary for photosynthesis to occur. This shading effect, we see as dirty water, directly reduced the rate of carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere. So, by the hand of man, we find that the gases created by our industrial revolution, are the gases that are changing the air around us both in chemical content and in temperature. Because most of this situation is the result of man's activities, it seems reasonable to assume that man could reverse the process. Of course this is true, but how many of us are ready to give up our cars, electric appliances, and the fertilizers and pesticides that make our world so productive and pleasant to live in? We here a lot today about electric cars. These cars would certainly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases coming from automobiles directly. But what about the power plants that provide the electricity to run these cars? We would find that more power plants are required, so we might just be trading one source of pollution for another. Control devices are available for many pollution sources. However, sometimes the cost of installing and running these devices more than doubles the cost of the product. Are we willing to pay that cost for the goods we use? Clearly what is called for is an entirely different strategy when it comes to energy and water pollution. We must develop technology that allows us to use sunlight, wind, geothermal energy and even waves and other water sources for our energy needs. We must learn to grow crops with natural fertilizers and to use biological control of pests so that we are not adding chemicals that end up in our water supplies. Lastly, we must replace the trees and other vegetation that we harvest so that the ability to clean the atmosphere is restored to past levels. If forests cannot be replaced then they must not be harvested. Man must learn to discipline himself to restore the atmosphere we once had on earth.

RECOMMENDATIONS

First of all, we need to stop addressing this issue as "The Global Warming Crisis", and address it as the "Pollution Crisis". All of the strategies are centered around combating pollution, which on its own merits needs to be addressed. Clinton's plan is a beginning, however it is not precise and needs further defining. There are too many aspects that are unclear, too many loopholes and flexibilities. Unless a more direct plan of action is made, the plan will not be effective. This effort needs to be implemented gradually and include all areas of the population as Clinton has implied. Global participation is also a must. Research and Development are major factors that need to be pursued. The President, Lawmakers and American Public, needs to take special care in determining what research is valid and base their decisions on good, accurate, science. Research projects should be proven valid before receiving any government funding. Studies and predictions that have been proven invalid need to be thrown out (computer test models, the harnessing of "cow gas", etc.,) and rejected. Alternative possible energy sources need to be pursued aggressively, especially hydroelectric, geothermal and the development of "cold" nuclear fusion. Auto and building efficiencies need to be improved dramatically and made available to the public at affordable prices. Industrial emissions need special attention, and more affordable ways to curtail the amount of pollution they are producing. As far as global warming is concerned, I think greenhouse gas concentrations need to be monitored and climate patterns need to be studied; however predictions should be limited greatly. It makes more sense to study the impacts of pollution on the environment. Monitoring of the gases will give insight as to how big of a role humans do play in climate change if any. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure that the banning of agricultural aids are based on sound scientific studies and not public panic. Also the impacts of the chemical's use verses the impacts of not using it. Often, we are banning a good product with a few disadvantages for one that in the long run is a lot more harmful to the environment. Advantages and disadvantages of a product needs closer consideration than it has in the past, if we are to develop a sustainable food supply. Furthermore, if a product is banned in the U.S. it should be banned worldwide, or the option to buy agricultural products from other countries should be revoked. Tax incentives are an important factor in reducing pollution. However, I think that this component needs further work in Clinton's proposal. Something needs to be devised to give individuals who chose to upgrade their homes or to purchase a more efficient car, a tax credit, deduction or break to help off set the cost of upgrading. I think that emissions trading both domestically and internationally is a bad idea and needs to be thrown out of the plan all together. A possible market-based replacement could be marketing technologies in all areas to improve the quality of life globally. This would also help to improve efficiency worldwide and could correspond with Clinton's Joint Implementation Proposal. A carbon tax, if utilized properly, would also reduce pollution. It would force the development of alternative energies and encourage the use of efficiency devices. Across the board, it makes a lot more sense than emissions trading. Educational programs that teach people how to use energy more efficiently and how to reduce pollution and waste products need to be designed and utilized. Education is the key to understanding and knowledge, without these people can not make logical choices. I think it would also reduce the amount of public panic driven crusades, which are currently based on fear of the unknowns. These programs need to be made available to all walks of life, school-aged children, industry employees and management, etc. Media driven misinformation and scare tactics, which either start or fuel these public panics, must also be stopped. News people should be held responsible and liable for what they report. Regulations and guidelines to insure the accuracy of their reports need to be designed as well as a way of checking out their sources to determine validity. Consequences for failure to comply or reduce pollution needs to be added to Clinton's Plan. There must be penalties imposed after a reasonable time period has elapsed. Unless major industries are faced with possible fines or penalties, I feel as if they will continue with "business as usual" practices. This needs to be carried out in phases, with reasonable expectations, followed by an evaluation. Those who do not meet the expectations should have to pay nonrefundable fines or penalties. Those who do comply should be rewarded with tax credits and incentives. Reforestation needs to be implemented worldwide. Natural wildlands need more protection then they have now. Human impacts must be limited in these areas as well. Slash and burn deforestation needs to be stopped immediately. Forests that have been harvested need to be replanted or not harvested. Natural habitats of endangered plant and animal species worldwide need protecting. Poaching of endangered species such as tigers or rhinos need stiffer penalties and more aggressive efforts to be stopped. Sanctuaries and endangered animal refuges need to be protected by the federal government, and not left up to local communities as to whether they will be allowed to stay or be shut down.

CONCLUSIONS

Global Warming is a concern; however, the bottom line issue is pollution. Attempts in the past have been made to reduce pollution by our government; unfortunately, the majority of those attempts have failed. People are still in denial and do not want to believe the proven negative aspects that pollution has on our environment. Because reducing pollution is an inconvenience, many people just don't want to "deal with it", or do anything about it. We live in a throwaway society, and many of us are self-centered and don't want to be inconvenienced; I believe these are the two main factors that contributed to the failure of past pollution reduction strategies. Today, I feel as if the threat of global warming and its catastrophic impacts is a scare tactic designed to panic people into reducing pollution. I am not saying that global warming is not a possible threat, because it is. What I am saying is that I don't believe that the effects will be as catastrophic as the predictions are claiming, nor do I believe that humans are the sole cause of the rise in global temperature. Until there is more scientific evidence found we do not know how big of a role man plays in changing the global climate temperature. Pollution is a serious problem and if it is not reduced it will devastate our planet. It is already having a serious, negative effect on humans and nature worldwide. Man is the sole cause of this devastating, life threatening problem. If we do continue to pollute at the rate we are now, our species along with many others, will die out. We have very little useable, clean water left on earth at this time; water is essential to life, if we continue on this destructive path it will run out; along with it many of our other valuable resources that will run out with it. It is imperative that we act now to start reducing pollution and to restore our planet. It is crucial that we take positive actions to clean up our mess. The time to act is now, before it is too late to reverse the damage we have caused. Pollution is a global problem that needs to be addressed and solved on a worldwide basis. Pollution is a bigger, separate issue from global warming and needs to be addressed on its own merits. If in the process of pollution reduction we find that it does play a major role in global warming nothing is lost. In fact, it would be an added bonus. I guess if scare tactics are the only way of getting people to take action against pollution, then the threat of global warming is necessary. It's a shame that people can't realize the truth, and act on those truths without the use of extreme scare tactics. In conclusion, I feel as if global warming is definitely an issue, but that pollution is an even bigger issue. That Clinton's plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be made clearer and more precise before it will work.

REFERENCES

INTERVIEWS

JD Obermiller, Agricultural Research Analyst North Carolina State University Mountain Horticulture Crops Research and Extension Center 2016 Fanning Bridge Road Fletcher, North Carolina 28732 (828) 684-3562

Shannon Morris, Agricultural Extension Agent North Carolina State University Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service Burke County Center 700 East Parker Road; Room 105 Morganton, North Carolina 28655 (704) 439-4460

Charles E. Anderson, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Botany North Carolina State University And Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Cass Ballenger, Congressman Congress of the United States House of Representatives PO Box 1830 361-10th Avenue Drive, NE Hickory, North Carolina 28603 (704) 327-6100

REFERENCE BOOKS AND MATERIALS

Microsoft ® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. List of articles used: Slash-and-Burn Deforestation; Air Pollution; Nuclear Weapons; Diesel Engine; Sun; Clouds; Hydrocarbons; Methane; Climate; Pollution; Ozone Layer; Atmosphere; Troposphere; Carbon Cycle (ecology); Environment; Global Warming; Cloud; Computer Science; Simulation; Automata Theory; any others I can't remember.

WCB McGraw-Hill ; ISBN-0-697-28671-1; ©1997 (text book)

The Challenge of Global Warming; Edited by, Dean Edwin Abrahamson -© 1989 Island Press

Earth in the Balance Ecology and the Human Spirit; by, Senator Al Gore - ©1992,1993 by, Senator Al Gore; published by PLUME

Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming; Synthesis Panel - National Academy Press © 1991, by, the National Academy of Sciences

Opposing Viewpoints Pamphlets - Global Warming Chapter 1 - Does global warming pose a serious threat? (P322) Chapter 2 - What causes global warming? (P321) Chapter 3 - What will be the effects of global warming? (P320) Chapter 4 - Should measures be taken to combat global warming? (P319) Chapter 5 - How can the rain forests be preserved? (P318) © 1997 by Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Proceedings Global Climate Change Symposium College of Agriculture and Life Sciences April 9, 1990; North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University; Raleigh, North Carolina Bulletin 479 April 1990

Various newspaper and magazine articles that I can not locate to document at this time; I read them in January and February; and can not remember their titles.

ELECTRONIC SOURCES

President Clinton's Climate Change Proposal (October 22, 1997) : http://www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/Climate/images/proposal.html

CRS Issue Brief for Congress 97057: Global Climate Change: Market-Based Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gases; updated March 9, 1998 Obtained from Congressman Ballenger

CRS Issue Brief for Congress 89005: Global Climate Change; updated March 31, 1998; Also received from Congressman Ballenger

Remarks By The President on Global Climate Change http://kabir.cbl.umces.edu/EPAcourse/Clinton.html

IPCC Results 1995; obtained off the web, however the web address has been misplaced and cannot be cited at this time.

Sandra'z Home Page

Sandra'z Environment

This is my home page it has a wide variety of Environmental links and resources!