Jaycee - thanks for that link. I look forward to listening to it in its entirey. That is the kind of rational debate we need on this issue, not accusations that one side or the other is engaged in hoaxes or religion.
What seems prudent to some may seem like scare tactics to others. Were the arguments in support of invading Iraq scare tactics by those seeking increase their power and profits or a defensible case for risk mitigation? You can have a pretty animated debate on that point.
It is informative to me to look at how companies are responding to this issue. Holcim and Lafarge are two of the largest cement manufacturers in the world, and cement manufacturing is one largest industrial sources of carbon dioxide. These companies are spending many millions of dollars to reduce their direct and indirect carbon emissions, and they are doing so not because they have bought into some religion. Their institutional shareholders would not tolerate those kind expenditures without a defensible business reason to do so.
50+ years ago, it was common practice to land-dispose industrial wastes. There was no scientific basis to confirm whether these wastes would come into contact with the groundwater and if it did what would happen to people drinking the contaminated groundwater. Ultimately, we ended up with Superfund and whole new industries - environmental engineering and toxicology - had to created to deal with the problem. It has been a monsterously inefficient cleanup process, and will cost taxpayers and shareholders hundreds of billions of dollars before it is completed. God save us all if we end up taking a similar approach to human carbon emissions. If we do, tell your grandchildren to become environmental attorneys, because there is going to be a whole lot of litigating going on for a long time!
