Energy and the
Global Economy
Gordon J. Aubrecht, II
author of Energy: Physical, Environmental, and Social Impact (Prentice Hall, 2006)
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0130932221,00.html
Physics Education Research Group
Ohio State University Marion Campus
Talk presented at Great Decisions, 6 March 2009
Abstract:
The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC was released in
2007 and dealt with the scientific basis for climate change,
consequences of emissions, and mitigation and adaptation. The
cost of oil (in constant dollars), and the gasoline made from
it, was higher through the first half of 2008 than at any time
in history before declining with the global economic
downturn. In response, for the first time in decades,
Americans drove less. For the first time, a majority of
Americans polled understand that global warming will lead
to significant change in climate. How will these changes
affect future actions of citizens of North America and the
world? What can be done to protect the future of our children
and grandchildren? This talk will focus on human effects on
Earth and their import for the future of the global economy.
All of us live on this precious jewel of a planet.
How many of us have not been moved to see the
photographs of Earth from space?
But now there are more than 6.5 billion of us here, and
nearly half must live on under $2 a day.
The poorest people live in a world shaped by the rich
countries.
In yesterday’s Delaware Gazette, there was a letter to the
editor from Mr. Rob Kessler entititled “‘Smart’ drivers are
fooling themselves.”
Among other things he said was “What a bunch of hogwash! I
am so tired of hearing about man’s effect on so-called global
warming and climate change. We couldn’t alter the climate
even if we tried. The truth is, Mother Nature does more to
harm the environment and climate than Man could ever
possibly do. Do you actually know how much garbage is
spewed into the air when a volcano erupts or how much
methane gas is emitted because of cow flatulence? What utter
hubris it is to think that man has the ability to alter the
awesome forces of nature!”
Actually, yes, Mr. Kessler. Humanity does have the ability to
alter the environment. It seems likely that humans have been
affecting the environment for over five thousand years.
Let’s take the statement about cow flatulence, indeed a big
source of methane emissions. Why is this a problem? Well,
there are now about 1.5 billion cows in the world.
How many cow ancestors were there prior to domestication
some 5 to 10 thousand years ago? Clearly, not that many!
Who is responsible, Mr. Kessler, for this large a number? We
are. And cows release almost one-fifth of the world’s
greenhouse gases, mostly through belching (but also through
flatulence). Total methane emission is 53.9 Mte/yr.
How many were there before humans domesticated cattle?
We can’t know, but in sub-Saharan Africa, there are roughly
100,000 hippos. Because there was probably about five to
ten times as much land suitable for grazing herbivores in the
world, we can guess that the ancestral cattle population was
perhaps 500,000 to 1 million. That’s one-fifteen-hundredths
of the number of cattle today. Humans have made a pretty
big difference.
If we add sheep, goats, pigs, and other domesticated
animals, the amount of methane generated per year by
animal husbandry increases to about 80 Mte.
Humans in large numbers are fishing the oceans barren.
Anyone who looks at the data can see that 6.5
billion
humans do indeed affect Mother Nature.
Even humans in small numbers do have effects on climate.
Ruddiman has shown that the difference between this
interglacial and the preceding three (all driven by the same
Milankovich parameters) began around 7500 years ago.
This is the time when domestication was taking place, when
trees were being felled for arable land, when rice (a
prodigious methane emitter) was being domesticated.
Volcanic emissions certainly
affect Earth. No one doubts that.
Mt. Pinatubo lowered the world’s
temperature by 0.5 °C in 1992
by virtue of the 25-30 million
tonnes of SO2 it put into the
atmosphere, the most massive
sulfate aerosol cloud since the
Krakatoa eruption of 1883 (which
put over 20 km3 of dust into the
stratosphere). This sulfate aerosol
and stratospheric dust cools
Earth.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
USGS
Volcanic emissions include CO2. Volcanic activity releases
about 130 to 230 Mte/yr of CO2, a large amount of course.
However, Mr. Kessler, humans currently release over
8 Gte/yr —over 35 times as much.
So, I’m going to show you why humans are implicated in
global warming in addition to talking about energy and the
economy.
The best source of material is the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), run by the UN and the WMO (World
Meterological Organisation).
Many of you have heard of the IPCC. For those of
you who have not, it is run by the UN and the WMO
and is made up of scientific experts who comb
through what is known in the scientific literature and
summarize the findings. Diversity of views is
solicited. About one-third of the scientists in the first
assessment participated in the second, about one-third
who were in the second participated in the third, and
so on.
Governments (180 members) vote line by line on the
Summaries for Policymakers.
(You may have heard of the resistance of the US and China to
these reports in 2007, which reports do reflect their objections.)
Here is an extremely condensed summary of the results of the four
assessments to date:
1990 First Assessment Report
“The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from
observations is not likely for a decade or more.”
1995 Second Assessment Report
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on
global climate.”
2001 Third Assessment Report
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
2007 Fourth Assessment Report
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Terminology used by IPCC
Likelihood of the occurrence / outcome
Virtually certain
>99% probability
Very likely
90 to 99% probability
Likely
66 to 90% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely
10 to 33% probability
Very unlikely
1 to 10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely <1% probability
Let me repeat the last statement from the 2007 Fourth
Assessment Report, which may not have looked very
impressive when you saw it:
“Most of the observed increase in globally
averaged temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations.”
Very likely means a 90 to 99% probability!
IPCC was not kidding around about this.
The IPCC report actually comes
from amalgamation of results from
three separate Working Groups:
the scientific basis (WG1);
impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability (WG2); and
mitigation of climate change (WG3).
Why CO2 is
implicated …
Humans began to affect the world when people
began to clear land and grow crops around 8000
years ago.
Then the industrial revolution involved fossil fuel
burning on an unprecedented scale.
How human CO2 is
implicated (US
emissions)
How human CO2 is
implicated (US energy)
How human CO2 is
implicated
How human CO2 is
implicated
Photosynthesis — on land or in the
sea — always takes more of the
lower-mass carbon (carbon-12) from
the mix of available CO2. So carbon
fixed by plants will always have a
13C value less than that of the source
CO2.
Electricity & transportation
emissions are growing fastest.
“Defining what is dangerous
anthropogenic interference
with the climate system and,
consequently, the limits to be
set for policy purposes are complex
tasks that can only be
partially based on science, as such
definitions inherently
involve normative judgments.”
—IPCC Working Group 3
Table 1. A simple typology of uncertainties
Type
Unpredictability
Indicative examples of sources
Projections of human behaviour not easily amenable to prediction (e.g., evolution of
political systems).
Chaotic components of complex systems.
Typical approaches or considerations
Use of scenarios spanning a plausible range, clearly stating assumptions, limits
considered, and subjective judgments.
Ranges from ensembles of model runs.
Table 1. A simple typology of uncertainties
Type
Structural uncertainty
Indicative examples of sources
Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack
of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions,
significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.
Typical approaches or considerations
Specify assumptions and system definitions clearly, compare models with
observations for a range of conditions, assess maturity of the underlying science
and degree to which understanding is based on fundamental concepts tested in
other areas.
Table 1. A simple typology of uncertainties
Type
Value uncertainty
Indicative examples of sources
Missing, inaccurate or non-representative data, inappropriate spatial or temporal
resolution, poorly known or changing model parameters.
Typical approaches or considerations
Analysis of statistical properties of sets of values (observations, model ensemble
results, etc); bootstrap and hierarchical statistical tests; comparison of models with
observations.
This Tony Auth cartoon (published in The
Philadelphia Inquirer on April 10, 2007)
gives a slightly scary view of the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report
IPCC Working Group 1 says:
The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a preindustrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth rate has
been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third of all nitrous
oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to agriculture.
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of
increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented
in more than 10,000 years.
IPCC Working Group 1 says:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
IPCC Working Group 1 says:
“At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes
in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures
and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind
patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.”
“Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the
last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the
polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period
(about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea
level rise.”
IPCC Working Group 1 says:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since
the TAR’s conclusion that ‘most of the observed warming over the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations’. Discernible human influences now extend to other
aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average
temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.”
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 °C per decade is
projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the
concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 °C per
decade would be expected.”
“There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and
other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns,
precipitation and some aspects of extremes and of ice.”
Note the
blue. It
shows the
effect of
natural
emissions.
The IPCC
does NOT
ignore
natural
causes as
Mr.
Kessler
and others
suggest.
Observed
temporal changes in
animals and plants with
changes over the same time
periods in observed
temperatures as well as
modeled temperatures
using (i) only
natural climate forcing; (ii)
only anthropogenic climate
forcing; and (iii) both
forcings combined.
Neither works well by
itself—both are needed.
IPCC Working Group 1 says:
“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will
continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a
millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from
the atmosphere.”
If T ~ 1.5 °C - 2.5 °C, 20% to 30% of plants and animals at high
risk of extinction.
IPCC Working Group 2 says:
Temperature changes in 5°
by 5° cells that cover the
globe, 2001-2006. The
expected random result is in
gray (curve). Blue shows
cooling. Red shows
warming.
What’s happening to Earth’s
temperature? (IPCC, to 2006)
QuickTime™ and a
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
United States annual
temperature--the 25
warmest years (°C)
Note that 9 of the warmest
25 years are from the past
decade (red). The missing
year is 2008, which was the
39th warmest in the 114
years of US temperature
history at 11.68 °C (ahead
of, for example, 1997 at
40th).
One would expect that
smaller landmasses would
exhibit more variation than
the globe.
1
1998
12.82
2
2006
12.80
3
1934
12.68
4
1999
12.60
5
1921
12.52
6
2001
12.45
7
2007
12.43
8
2005
12.42
9
1990
12.38
10
1931
12.38
11
1953
12.31
12
1987
12.28
13
1954
12.28
14
1986
12.27
15
2003
12.23
16
1939
12.23
17
2000
12.22
18
2002
12.19
19
1938
12.19
20
1991
12.17
21
1981
12.17
22
2004
12.13
23
1933
12.08
24
1946
12.07
25
1994
12.03
Let’s look at
the global
temperature.
What is the
chance that
so many of
the last 25
warmest
years (in
red) were
among the
last 25
years?
Not very
large!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GISS
Year
Annual Mean
Temperature
2005
2007
1998
2002
2003
2006
2004
2001
2008
1990
1995
1999
1991
1988
2000
1997
1981
1996
1987
1983
1994
1980
1989
1986
1993
14.76
14.74
14.72
14.69
14.67
14.66
14.6
14.57
14.54
14.48
14.46
14.46
14.44
14.42
14.42
14.41
14.4
14.39
14.35
14.34
14.32
14.28
14.28
14.19
14.19
NOAA Annual Mean Temperatures (°C)
Year
Land
Water
2007
2005
2002
2006
1998
2008
2003
2001
2004
1999
1995
1997
1990
2000
1988
1991
1981
1994
1983
1987
1989
1938
1944
1993
1996
9.52
9.48
9.36
9.34
9.34
9.30
9.28
9.26
9.23
9.20
9.16
9.07
9.06
9.03
8.93
8.92
8.90
8.87
8.87
8.78
8.74
8.74
8.74
8.73
8.72
1998
2003
2005
2004
2006
2002
1997
2001
2007
2008
1995
2000
1990
1991
1987
1999
1996
1994
1988
1983
1993
1992
1980
1944
1989
16.58
16.58
16.57
16.56
16.55
16.55
16.53
16.50
16.48
16.47
16.41
16.41
16.41
16.39
16.39
16.39
16.37
16.35
16.34
16.34
16.32
16.31
16.30
16.30
16.30
2005
1998
2002
2003
2006
2007
2004
2001
2008
1997
1995
1999
1990
2000
1991
1988
1987
1994
1983
1996
1981
1993
1944
1989
1992
Combined
14.51
14.48
14.46
14.46
14.46
14.45
14.44
14.40
14.39
14.36
14.30
14.30
14.27
14.27
14.22
14.19
14.19
14.18
14.17
14.16
14.13
14.12
14.11
14.11
14.09
Hurricanes
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
IPCC Working Group 3 says:
Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have grown since pre-industrial
times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. (high agreement,
much evidence
With current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable
development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over
the next few decades. (high agreement, much evidence).
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is substantial
economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the
coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global
emissions or reduce emissions below current levels. (high agreement, much
evidence)
IPCC Working Group 3 says:
Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could
considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit. Many
barriers exist against tapping this potential, but there are also large
co-benefits. (high agreement, much evidence).
The economic potential in the industrial sector is predominantly
located in energy intensive industries. Full use of available mitigation
options is not being made in either industrialized or developing
nations. (high agreement, much evidence)
Agricultural practices collectively can make a significant contribution
at low cost to increasing soil carbon sinks, to GHG emission
reductions, and by contributing biomass feedstocks for energy use.
(medium agreement, medium evidence)
IPCC Working Group 3 says:
Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2
directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material
into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven,
and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for
these options have not been published. (medium agreement, limited
evidence)
Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create
incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in lowGHG products, technologies and processes. Such policies could include
economic instruments, government funding and regulation. (high
agreement, much evidence)
How can emissions be reduced? (IPCC)
Sector (Selected)
Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially
available.
Buildings
Efficient lighting; efficient appliances and air conditioning; improved
insulation ; solar heating and cooling; alternatives for fluorinated gases in
insulation and appliances
Transport
More fuel efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; biofuels; modal shifts from road
transport to rail and public transport systems; cycling, walking; land-use
planning
Energy Supply
efficiency; fuel switching; nuclear power; renewable (hydropower, solar, wind,
geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of CO2
capture and storage
Waste
Landfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery;
composting; recycling and waste minimization
Forests
Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; use of
forestry products for bioenergy
Agriculture
Land management to increase soil carbon storage; restoration of degraded lands;
improved rice cultivation techniques; improved nitrogen fertilizer application;
dedicated energy crops
Industry
More efficient electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; material recycling;
control of non-CO2 gas emissions
Wave energy possibilities.
Obviously, any mitigation and/or pushback on emissions that
humanity undertakes will have an enormous effect on the world
economy.
However, it is clear that many of the costs of reducing CO2
emissions are actually negative!
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Yes, it will cost a lot to deal with climate change after we skim the
low-hanging fruit. The IPCC estimates that getting into netpositive-cost territory will end up taking about 3% of world GDP.
Of course, our economy depends on oil. In fact, even President
Bush admitted that the US was “addicted to oil.”
But even oil isn’t our whole problem. Coal fires up our
electricity. Coal produces 2.5 times as much CO2 per unit of
energy released.
Pres. Bush’s idea of using alternative fuels to solve
North America’s addiction to oil …
What has happened to the price of oil?
You’ve heard about the price of a barrel going over
$140 last summer, then dropping due to the global
economic collapse:
160
Nominal World Oil Price (Dollars)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
03020131Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Dec99
29Dec00
28Dec01
27Dec02
Date
26Dec03
24Dec04
23Dec05
22Dec06
21Dec07
19Dec08
Inflation-adjusted oil price (2000 $):
It’s returned to 2005 levels now.
$120.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
1/3/09
1/3/08
1/3/07
1/3/06
1/3/05
1/3/04
1/3/03
1/3/02
1/3/01
1/3/00
1/3/99
1/3/98
$0.00
1/3/97
World Oil Price (2000 Dollars)
$100.00
Hmm …
Per capita energy consumption
Canada and the US are far out front.
Who uses petroleum?
Chinese traffic jam (Xiamen, south China)
Per capita auto ownership
You can see that transportation is a big emitter of CO2. What’s
happening there in the various countries?
The US has 250,851,833 registered vehicles. About 8 M are
sold each year.
Canada has 27,577,524 registered vehicles. About 1.7 M are
sold each year.
Europe has about 170 million vehicles. About 3 M are sold each
year.
China has about 120 million private vehicles. It had just 2.9
million in 1996. About 11 M are now being sold every year.
India has about 10 million vehicles. About 1 M are now being
sold each year.
Biggest petroleum increases since
1960, 2000
Table 11.10, 2007 Annual Energy Review
factor inc.
since 1960
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Mexico
South Korea
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
Total OECD
Brazil
China
India
Russia
Total Non- OECD
World
1.69
2.50
3.22
2.93
6.82
5.67
216.00
14.90
0.95
1.11
2.13
7.22
41.35
15.06
5.35
2.97
factor inc.
since 2000
0.11
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.06
-0.02
0.01
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.50
0.21
0.09
0.23
0.10
Per capita oil consumption
Canada and the US lead the pack
Who uses natural gas?
Clearly, the per capita results are skewed differently from the
net consumption. Canada and the US are again among the
greatest users per capita.
Electricity is responsible for CO2 as well.
Electricity
What do we see here?
The Unites States is a “big
gorilla,” but China and India are
growing rapidly in energy use,
including petroleum. Canada has
an outsize effect as well.
Where will the most growth take place (after the economic
crisis abates)?
In those very regions where the use currently is lowest.
Consumers over 5 MWh/person/yr
Consumers under 5 MWh/person/yr
The average Canadian
now uses 37% more
electricity than the
average American.
We can see that an average
American uses over ten times as
much electricity as an average
Chinese.
What will happen when the average
Chinese electricity use reaches that of the
average American?
What will happen when the average
Chinese family has as many cars as the
average American family?
We can also see that the average
American uses over 25 times as much
electricity as the average Indian.
What will happen when the average
Indian electricity use reaches that of
the average American?
What will happen when the average
Indian family has as many cars as the
average American family?
This is a serious problem … The US currently “consumes” a
whopping 99.54 EJ/yr.
Let’s see how much energy China would “consume” at the US
per capita rate:
99.54 EJ/yr x 1,321,851,888/304,601,492
= 414 EJ (currently, 64 EJ, an increase of 350 EJ—5.5 times
as much as now).
Now, do the same for India:
99.54 EJ/yr x 1,129,866,154/304,601,492
= 354 EJ (currently, 15 EJ, an increase of 340 EJ—about 23
times as much).
More electricity probably means more coal
generating plants. More coal means more coal
mining.
Which of the following countries
has more than a thousand coal mine
fires currently burning?
a.
b.
c.
d.
China
India
Indonesia
The United States
The real answer (not listed):
All of the above.
China, India, and the US probably have about 6000 fires
apiece burning. Indonesia probably has only about 3000.
Bringing just these two countries to the US
standard would involve generating seven
times as much energy as the US does
currently. Given that these countries are
mainly burning coal for electricity, that
means that these two countries alone would
emit something like seven times as much
greenhouse gas as the US currently does, or
worse.
In 2006, the US emitted about 6 Gt of CO2. China emitted 5.3
Gt; India emitted 1.2 Gt. Last year, China surpassed the US as
the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitter.
Let’s do some simple arithmetic …
If China gets to US standards with current technology, it will
emit 5.5 times as much greenhouse gas as now every year--or
~ 29 Gt. India will emit 22.7 times as much greenhouse gas as
now each year--or ~ 27 Gt. The increase from these two is an
additional
24 Gt + 26 Gt
= 50 Gt of CO2.
Carbon dioxide emissions
Carbon dioxide emissions
So, in these immortal words (of
James Lovell, for those of you
old enough to remember Apollo
13, or to have seen the film):
“Houston, we have a problem.”
After 1973 we
had a national 55
mi/h speed limit.
We also had lines
at gas stations,
and stations ran
out of gas.
Business as usual is unacceptable.
I haven’t even mentioned peak oil
in this talk, which will (when it is
recognized to have happened) have
a profound impact on everyone.
The importance of a “price of carbon”
Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create
incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG
products, technologies and processes.
Such policies could include economic instruments, government funding
and regulation
For stabilisation at around 550 ppm CO2eq carbon prices should reach 2080 US$/tCO2eq by 2030 (5-65 if “induced technological change” happens)
At these carbon prices large shifts of investments into low carbon
technologies can be expected
We need to advance renewable
energy development, reduce
power plant and automotive
emissions substantially, and
develop energy technology.
It’s for our children’s sake.
The importance of technology policies
Deployment of low-GHG emission technologies and RD&D would be
required for achieving stabilization targets and cost reduction.
The lower the stabilization levels, especially those of 550 ppm CO2-eq or
lower, the greater the need for more efficient RD&D efforts and investment
in new technologies during the next few decades.
Government support through financial contributions, tax credits, standard
setting and market creation is important for effective technology
development, innovation and deployment.
Government funding for most energy research programs has been flat or
declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force);
now about half of 1980 level.
“We are at war with the Earth and
as in a blitzkrieg, events proceed
faster than we can respond.” —
James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia
idea (that the planet behaves as an
organism), in a lecture to the Royal
Society, 30 October 2007
Change is coming ...
Can we ameliorate or adapt?
In his Royal Society speech, Lovelock also said:
“We are not merely a disease; we are through our
intelligence and communication the planetary
equivalent of a nervous system. We should be the
heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady.”
What sort of future do we want for
our children?
It’s up to us. We can pay the price
needed to continue to live on our
wonderful planet, or we can bury
our collective heads in the sand
(like Mr. Kessler).
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.