Bill Stonebarger's Blog

Nov. 28, 2011

Is the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going to destroy polar bears? Is climate change going to be an unmitigated catastrophe for our civilization and our planet? Are people who disagree flat-earthers, anti-science cranks and evolution-deniers?

No. No. And no.

I realize many people believe the “scientific community” is near unanimous in disagreeing with my three no’s.

Many people are wrong.

Richard Lindzen, a world-class climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a member of the United Nations panel on climate change (IPCC), pointed out, “The American Society of Agronomy, The American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance … have no expertise whatever in climate.”

These scientific groups are typical of the “overwhelming” scientific opinion that some news media refer to on climate change. Scientists, like the rest of us, are not immune to “motivated reasoning” —to jumping on bandwagons. Freeman Dyson, a Nobel Prize winning physicist from Princeton, says this about the computer models that are used to analyze data and predict climate change:

“The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in.”

In a book review Dyson speculated on the appeal of the overwhelming agreement.

“The books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible.”

Dyson is not alone. Another Nobel Prize physicist, Ivan Glaever, recently resigned from the American Physical Society (APS), because an official bulletin put out by APS claimed there was “incontrovertible” evidence that human activity is causing the temperature to rise to dangerous levels. Incontrovertible sounds more like a Papal Bull than a scientific society. Dr. Glaever sent this email to the APS:

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Many other prominent scientists, including world-respected climatologists like Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer also believe the climate change scare is more religious than scientific. In 2007 here is how Dr. Lindzen, the MIT expert, put it in a Larry King interview:

“We’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios—of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

All that said, an impressive majority of professional climatologists today (not of meteorologists interestingly enough) do think the evidence for global warming is compelling. Not as many claim it to be incontrovertible. A few, like NASA’s James Hansen, are so committed to the extremist claims that when asked what would happen if President Obama approved the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada, he replied, “Essentially, it’s game over for the planet.”

Contrarians are not as dogmatic. They agree there has been some warming over the past century. They agree that the carbon dioxide percentage in the air has risen. They don’t think global warming is a hoax. Some even agree we should have a carbon tax to provide incentives for renewable alternatives. And no one denies the greenhouse effect—without it the earth would be too cold for life.

The debate is not about the data, but about what will happen in the future. Bad mouthing contrarians as anti-science cranks, evolution deniers or flat-earth know-nothings is not helpful.

When scientists make predictions about the future they are often no better than Ouija board seers. The astronomer Carl Sagan predicted a nuclear winter would result from the 1991 burning of 700 oil wells in Kuwait; the biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted “sixty-five million Americans would die of starvation by 1990”; in 1979 a major climate-change proponent, the late Stephen Schneider, “projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years … sufficient to trigger an ice age”; scientists making up the Club of Rome and the Global 2000 Report to the President (which included physicist John Holdren, present science advisor to President Obama) predicted we would run out of just about everything before the 20^th century ended.

What can we say for certain about future climate change? Is it going to get warmer? Is it going to get colder? Will there be more violent storms? Will there be fewer violent storms?

Take your pick. If it gets warmer Canada, Siberia and the Arctic and Antarctic regions will be winners. If it gets colder … who knows? No matter what happens there will be problems. So what else is new? If the past two hundred years are any guide humans will solve the problems and somehow muddle through. On the whole people will create solutions and end up better off than they would be if there had been no climate change.

One thing we can be sure of is that it is the height of folly to bet substantial portions of the present world’s wealth and prosperity (which have brought unprecedented progress to the environment and the people) on any projection, whether it is based on science, religion, or throwing the dice.

Eight of the world’s most prominent economists, including four Nobel winners, met in Denmark a few years ago at the Copenhagen Consensus. They were challenged to put together an imaginary budget of fifty billion dollars in ways that would be of most benefit to the world’s people. They were presented with a list of fifteen global problems and asked to rank them in order and specify how much of the fifty billion each should receive. To the chagrin of climate change activists, climate change (global warming) came out last, fifteenth. It would get the least money. In their considered opinion, more than half the money should go to AIDS research and prevention. The number two priority would be to provide micronutrients such as iron, iodine and Vitamin A to the billions of people who suffer from stunted growth, lower IQ or blindness because they are not getting them. Number three would be free trade (which would bring the most benefits for the least money). After that malaria protection, clean water supplies, new agricultural techniques, etc. would all be, in their opinion, of greater potential benefit to more people in the world than wealth sacrificed now to prevent possible global climate change in the future.

What do you think?

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P.S. My recent DVD program, Resources, Populations and Climate Change gives more details on this subject. You can read and download the complete script, which includes material on global warming at no charge. See also my new book, TWILIGHT OR DAWN? a Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy. (Chapter 19.)

Nov. 21, 2011

The second claim of the sustainability ethic is that our present industrial system is polluting the earth and making it increasingly deadly to living things, especially to people. Some zealots claim the increase in carbon dioxide will destroy our civilization.

Like the previous claim about declining resources these claims are false. Not only false, but hurtfully false.

No one denies the need for reasonable legislation to control pollution. No one denies the moral responsibility of individuals, companies and government to clean up your mess after you make it. No one denies what I call light green, that is, promoting greater efficiency in all of our economic activities, is a desirable goal. The dark green lobby goes further and often demands actions that make things worse instead of better.

They have successfully urged the government to subsidize bio-fuel, presumably to protect the environment and provide more energy supplies. Thousands of acres of corn are now devoted to making gasoline instead of food. The predictable result—the price of food and gasoline has risen. Corn, like oil, is a fungible commodity. When the largest producer of corn sharply cuts back its supply by diverting corn to biofuel, the price of corn rises everywhere. (Gas also gets less efficient and more expensive.) The corn price rise may not be a serious problem for U.S. consumers. For people in the poorer countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia it is a catastrophe. It pushes millions to borderline starvation.

Many other current subsidies to “green power” serve mainly to enrich crony capitalists, increase the deficit, balloon the national debt and raise the cost of energy to consumers. Since energy is needed for any activity, these subsidies also raise the cost of all products and services. They make little if any contribution to controlling carbon dioxide. Far better for our economy and for our environment would be permitting work to continue on the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas; encouraging drilling in coastal waters and Alaska; and speeding, not slowing, the development of the huge natural gas reservoirs recently discovered in the U.S. These would all be win-win projects that do not require subsidies, would increase efficiency, create productive jobs, lower gas prices and help wean us from dependence on imports from countries that are dedicated to destroying us. Developing the natural gas reservoirs would help reduce our carbon footprint as well.

Rachel Carson’s influential book Silent Spring launched the modern environmental movement. The good news is the book alerted us to the dangers of careless use of pesticides and herbicides and saved the lives of some eagles and peregrine falcons. The bad news is it launched a mindless chemophopia among large and influential segments of the American public, including the mainstream media. The result today is that a majority is suspicious of anything with the “chemical” label.

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) won a Nobel Prize for a Swiss chemist in 1948 for its efficacy in saving the lives of millions of American soldiers and other world citizens that would have been lost to malaria and typhus before and during WW2. The EPA’s own science panel voted against a ban, but in deference to the public outrage after Rachel Carson’s book, the EPA banned DDT in 1972.  Since then malaria-carrying mosquitoes have made a comeback and millions of people in the underdeveloped world, especially children, have died.

It is the same story with other chemical pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. These useful chemicals have played key roles in providing food for expanding populations worldwide in the 20^th century with little, if any, scientifically demonstrated harm. Modern chemical drugs have alleviated pain and saved millions of lives worldwide, including that of my wife Jane.

Chemists themselves have innocently contributed to chemophobia by finding ways to identify infinitesimal amounts of a chemical. When people read of the next scary chemical found in drinking water they don’t stop to consider that “the poison is in the dose.”

Pure distilled H₂O can be toxic if taken in large enough quantities. When it is reported that some 500 tongue-twisting-name chemicals are found in tap water or in the bloodstream of a newborn baby, people are horrified. They want the government to spend whatever it takes to get rid of the last nanogram, not realizing that a concentration of a nanogram per liter is equivalent to five grains of salt in Lake Tahoe, or a penny in the sand surrounding Lake Michigan. They fall for every marketer’s slogan that the product is “natural,” “organic,” with “no chemicals added,” apparently unaware that all food, in fact all material objects including their own bodies and brains, are constructed of hundreds of thousands of tongue-twisting-name chemicals.

This excessive fear of chemicals easily carries over to excessive fear of radiation. When it comes to the radiation emitted by nuclear waste or a nuclear accident people panic. Three-mile Island, the worst nuclear accident in this country, caused about the same amount of radiation damage to nearby homes and people as one flight across the country would cause to passengers.

This chemophobia and radiationphobia causes real damage. Paradoxically it has all but destroyed the one technology we already have that could be of significant help with climate change, nuclear power. It raises the costs of producing food and drugs. It threatens millions in the poorer countries with disease, malnutrition and starvation. In combination with class-action suits widely advertised on television by unscrupulous lawyers it brings astronomically higher costs to modern health care and life-saving drugs in the U.S.

What about the extremist claim that growing pollution in industrial countries is so bad it threatens to destroy our planet?

Nonsense, according to the most respected world expert on pollution, chemist Bruce Ames at the University of California-Berkeley, the inventor of the most widely accepted test for carcinogens and mutagens. “All of whatever I have been learning is telling me that pollution [in this country and the industrialized western world] is pretty much irrelevant to public health. A little problem here and there … And the whole country seems to be thinking that pollution is very important.”

A little reading in history will show that in past ages there were indeed horrendous pollution problems. Mostly caused by horrendous sanitation problems. People used to throw their (organic) garbage in the street. (Organic) horses and pigs, along with tons of their daily (organic) excrement, decorated all the unpaved streets of major and minor cities everywhere in the world. Aristocrats used the staircases at Versailles for latrines. As a result epidemics of plague, cholera, typhoid fever and tuberculosis regularly killed millions of people on all earth’s continents.

Closer to today, when I was a young man most people heated their homes with soft coal. I walked the streets of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New York and Chicago. They were so thick with coal soot and thousands of invisible chemicals (we didn’t have the technology then to identify them) that on a winter’s day it was difficult to see across the street when the sun was shining. Rivers and streams were regularly used as waste dumps. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire not once, but five times —1868, 1912, 1936, 1952 and 1969.

To the credit of early environmentalists and engineers the air, the water, and the soil in the U.S. and other western countries are much cleaner and much safer than they were fifty years or even ten years ago. Despite this progress, the common opinion among educated people is still strongly influenced by chemophobia.

Have all our environmental problems been solved? Of course not. We need the EPA but we also need to strike a reasonable balance between cost and protection, and get over our irrational chemophobia.

That still leaves what many consider the crucial issue today—the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that many think will bring catastrophic climate change. This is such an important issue that I plan to postpone the consideration of overpopulation and devote my next week’s blog to climate change.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P.S. If you want to peek, see my recent DVD program, Resources, Populations and Climate Change. You can read and use the complete script, which includes material on global warming, free of charge by visiting our web site: www.hawkhill.com.

Nov. 14, 2011

A new reader, Stan Myers, retired industrial engineer from Philadelphia and old college friend from Antioch, responded to last week’s blog, “You have set yourself a difficult challenge to explain why the concept of ‘space ship earth’ having limited human carrying capacity is false.   I think it would be easier to refute the laws of gravity.  I look forward to the blog that will explain your position.”

Stan probably represents the majority opinion among educated people today.

Here goes.

The cartoonist Sydney Harris has a cave man’s family about to bed down for the night and the father is saying, “We have to get a good night’s sleep. Tomorrow is the Dawn of History.”

For more than a hundred thousand years the “limited human carrying capacity” of our spaceship earth was low. In hunting/gathering societies humans were like wolves, apes, and other carnivores and omnivores—they had territories. Since the territories on earth were limited, earth could only accommodate a few million people. And the accommodations were only marginally better than their fellow omnivores enjoyed.

Once agriculture and animal husbandry came along in the dawn of recorded history, the carrying capacity of earth increased. This Agricultural Age lasted ten thousand years. Many diverse civilizations rose and fell. This same earth, now aided by a new technology, could support a hundred times as many people. Not in very appealing accommodations to be sure, and 99% of them had to live short, labor-intensive lives as slaves, serfs or peasants.

The next big change came about the time the United States was born in the late 18^th century. A little over two hundred years ago we in the Western World entered the scientific-industrial-democratic age. Available resources increased spectacularly and now the same spaceship could “carry” a few billion people. As of last week, seven billion. The earth had not changed. Now a majority of people on the spaceship could have longer healthier lives, with less labor-intensive work, and in relatively luxurious accommodations.

As to the future, it’s hard to predict. Judging from the past, the earth’s resources are not as limited as many believe. Instead, they seem to be expandable on demand.

I renamed my new book, TWILIGHT OR DAWN? a Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy, to report on the comparatively short time humans have had to experiment with this new world of increased carrying power and relative abundance. Many pundits think it is the twilight of the modern age. I think it is closer to the dawn. I wrote a book to explain our growing pains.

The reputed founders of modern ecology, Eugene and Howard Odum, based the limited-capacity concept and the sustainability ethic on their work with coral reef and fresh water ponds ecosystems. They were correct that energy-in and matter-in had to equal energy-out and matter-out. The reefs and the ponds are zero-sum systems. To a more limited extent this was also true of past hunting/gathering and agricultural age societies. When the Odums (and their “limits to growth” followers today) extrapolate the biological findings to the whole earth they conclude that the earth cannot sustainably support more than a billion people. They forget to factor in a crucial wild card—the accelerating power of human creativity.

There is a Chinese proverb; “a peasant must stand on a hillside with his mouth open for a long time before a roast duck flies in.”

That’s the way it is with resources. If you wait for them to fly ready-cooked into your open mouth, resources are few. If you search, work and create, resources can be surprisingly abundant. That’s because the most important ingredients are not energy or matter, but the ultimate resource—the human mind.

Energy and matter do count of course.

In hunting/gathering days, energy was fire and human muscle power fed by the sun-stored energy of plants and animals.

In the Agricultural Ages it was still fire and muscle power, but multiplied now by a new technology of farming and animal husbandry. In later agricultural times renewable energy in the form of sailing ships, windmills and water wheels added to the supply.

When science and technology, free-market capitalism and liberal democracy began to blossom two hundred years ago the resource supply for human activities increased again dramatically. Fossil fuels, steam and internal combustion engines, along with electricity to transport energy, increased the carrying capacity of our spaceship by multiple powers of ten.

I can hear critics saying, “Yes, but what about when we run out of fossil fuels? And what about the environment and climate change? Aren’t we destroying our planet?”

I will leave the environment, climate change and destruction for next week.

As for “running out?” Maybe. I doubt it. Recent discoveries in the U.S. and around the world, along with new technology to extract natural gas and oil, point to supplies of fossil fuels lasting a few hundred years, probably longer. In this country the only thing holding back increased production and use is political will. If and when the fossil fuels run out (or are slowed by political will), human ingenuity will find new sources of energy as well as new ways to operate our machines more efficiently. We already have nuclear power. Fusion power is on the horizon. And perhaps we will make a breakthrough in new renewable sources. The iPhone of today (4.8 ounces and $199.) is superior in power to the ENIAC computer (30 tons and 6 million dollars) a few decades ago. And it uses less energy.

The carrying capacity of any spaceship depends not only on energy, but also on materials, especially food.

People are reluctant to believe it, but we have roughly the same forest resources now that we had two hundred years ago. Not as much virgin forest, but as much if not more harvestable lumber. Metal ores are still abundant though political will to permit mining is in short supply. Chemists tell us that seawater has enough metallic and non-metallic atoms that once we figure out more efficient ways to concentrate and harvest them, they could supply the world with matterial resources for millennia to come. Seawater is also a prime source of a hydrogen isotope that will be a likely future energy source. In the more distant future may be able to harvest energy and matter from the moon and asteroid belts.

It is the same story with food. Two hundred years ago the average farmer could feed the family and half a person more. Today the average farmer can feed the family and 128 people more. Tomorrow we may even be able to make food in factories, feed it to turkeys and have a Thanksgiving dinner that doesn’t require any farmland. Well, okay, for those who still demand “natural” food, we could add organically grown fruits and vegetables to the menu, grown on a tiny fraction of the land needed for present wheat, corn, rice and soybean crops.

A last point:

Natural resources are not the same as wealth. The Netherlands, Taiwan and Switzerland have few natural resources and are very rich. The Congo, Afghanistan and North Korea have abundant natural resources and are very poor.

Oil is a natural resource, energy is wealth. Forests are a natural resource, lumber is wealth. Sand and metal ores are a natural resource, computers are wealth. Soil, water and sun are natural resources, food is wealth. A newborn baby is a natural resource, an educated adult is wealth.

Natural resources are needed, but to turn them into wealth takes creativity and work. We will not run out of natural resources. If we play our cards right we need not run out of creative work.

Finally, I haven’t forgotten my friend Stan’s other remark, “What is the impact on the natural environment as population increases? My view is that we need to … seek some optimum balance.” I agree.

You will have to wait until next week to see my suggestions for the balance.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P.S. If you want to peek, see my recent DVD program, Resources, Populations and Climate Change. You can read and use the complete script free of charge.

Nov. 7, 2011

Fifteen years ago my wife and I interviewed the two brothers often given credit for founding the modern science of ecology, the late Eugene and Howard Odum.

Eugene was the author of the first standard textbook in ecology, Fundamentals of Ecology. He and his brother were pioneers in a new “holistic” approach for looking at the earth’s ecosystems. They published groundbreaking studies of energy pathways in Pacific coral reefs and in a fresh water pond in Silver Springs, Florida. They were not shy about extrapolating their data and applying it to larger ecosystems, like the earth.

The Odums were generous in their praise of local economies but denounced free trade—better to keep resources at home rather than trade them to other countries. They were strongly opposed to Ronald Reagan’s efforts to “grow” the economy. Growth, they claimed, was a 19^th century idea. In the Western world today we are in a climax forest stage and sustainability should be the goal, not growth. In fact, “a growing economy means a shrinking ecosystem.”

The Odums were strong supporters of Paul Ehrlich and his population views. They were convinced that the population of the world would have to shrink dramatically if we are to have any hope of a decent standard of living. I asked Howard how many people the earth’s resources could support and he said, “about a billion.” Since the world then had six billion people (just last week it was seven billion), that means most of our friends and family will have to go. I asked him about this. “We have to come down,” he repeated, and then added, “We don’t have to do it right away. We have a couple of generations to do it.”

These views of the Odums have gone mainstream today. Millions of scientists, educators, politicians, corporation CEOs, public relations departments and ordinary citizens in developed countries agree that we have to find more “sustainable” ways to live.

If that means finding new ways to get energy and more efficient ways to use materials and deliver services, it is a fine idea. It is what I call the “light green” agenda. It is what free-market capitalism is very good at.

As commonly interpreted it also means cutting back. Using fewer resources and less energy; buying local; living in smaller houses; planning for urban density instead of suburban sprawl; traveling less by auto and plane; eschewing fast-foods; promoting vegetarian and organic—in general moving to a more modest standard of living. As another of the sustainable leaders, Jeremy Rifkin, put it in an interview with Jane and me, “we have going to have to learn to use our fair share of resources and no more.”

Most of the people who believe in this “dark green” ethic do so with reservations. Many accept and enjoy recycling, composting, gardening and buying organic.  But most have little hesitation about buying a new car if they can afford it (preferably a Prius); a new mansion if they can afford it (like Gore’s luxury spread on the California coast); travelling far and wide on “green” vacations (Galapagos Islands cruises, Rainforest sight-sees, African Safaris) or to give lectures in Europe and Asia (especially popular with academics); patronizing Wal Mart or Target (for made-in-China bargains); building a second-home in the woods (like the writer Stephanie Mills who wrote in Roger Rosenblatt’s consumer-bashing book, Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture and the Pursuit of Happiness, that she decided to buy an extra 30 acres adjoining her land because “I didn’t want to see the smoke from my neighbor’s cabin.”). These well-to-do upper-middle-class people are the core of the sustainable environmental movement.

It’s true that a very few take the dark green part of the sustainable ethic seriously and try to live that way. A friend I know went “off the grid,” retreated to a barebones cabin, gave up electricity, central heating, air-conditioning, plastic bags and paper towels. He devoted himself to recycling his dental floss and everything else he could think of. He did become healthier by walking and riding his bike more, and driving or flying on airliners less. Actually for a while he gave up the car altogether and for long-distance travel took the bus. I respect his efforts (but don’t want to follow his example) to honestly and sincerely live the pure life free of the industrial world.

Then there are the Earth First! folks, who burn minivans, spike trees and take out an occasional Starbucks or McDonalds to advance their sustainable Earth-first ethos. I don’t respect them. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, went further. He wrote anti-industrial manifestoes from his cabin in the woods, and sent mail pipe-bombs that killed three and injured 23 scientists and business leaders who presumably were supporters of the hated industrial-government complex that was fast destroying our earth. He deserved what he got, a lifetime in prison.

Nowadays sustainability gets support from a very broad base—heck, even from Exxon-Mobil, General Electric and Ford if you can judge by their TV, newspaper and magazine ads. I can’t help noticing their sustainability ads are often surrounded by ads for multi-million dollar houses and apartments, expensive watches and “wealth management” banks. These ads, I guess, help keep the New Yorker Magazine and The New York Times sustainable.

What exactly does sustainable mean? Does a growing economy have to mean a shrinking ecosystem? How sustainable is sustainable?

The sustainable movement is built on three assertions.

(1) The earth has only a finite amount of natural resources to support human activities. Sometimes phrased as “limits to growth” or the carrying power of our “spaceship.”

(2) Our present industrial system is polluting the earth and making it increasingly harmful to living things, including people. Especially as it leads to climate change.

(3) The world is dangerously overpopulated now and growing more so each day.

In league with latter-day socialists, government union supporters, multicultural educators and assorted Occupy Wall Street anarchists these three assertions are often joined by a fourth.

(4) The good guys efforts to create a new system that will manage to solve problems in a more sustainable way are being sabotaged by the bad guys—multinational corporations, Wall Street bankers and globalization.

All four of these claims are false. They are hurtful. “Sustainability” is being used as an excuse for giving the government (or crony capitalists) more power and taking power away from private wealth creators. In promoting equality it is demoting freedom and is leading to poverty not growth. This trend is otherwise known as socialism. And socialism never has been sustainable and still isn’t.

The questions here are deadly serious and they deserve careful answers. I recognize I may be in the minority. So be it. My contrarian answers and the evidence for them are explained in more detail in my new book, TWILIGHT OR DAWN? a Traveler’s Guide to Free-Market Liberal Democracy. As an abbreviated preview I plan to devote the next four blogs to summarizing my case that the four assertions above are false and hurtful. Next week look for number one, Resources.

Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill

P.S. See also my most recent DVD program, Resources, Populations and Climate Change. You can read and use the complete script free of charge by visiting our web site: www.hawkhill.com.