In his letter, “Bad science,” Eddie Shurtleff very harshly criticized worries about carbon dioxide emissions (Dec. 2).

Contrary to Mr. Shurtleff’s contention, carbon dioxide is an immediate and direct byproduct of the incomplete combustion of most fossil fuels. Increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in recent decades has been harmful to the environment and to humans, and is becoming dramatically more so.

A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide interferes with Earth’s ability to radiate heat into space, much like ground-based greenhouses. Resultant average increases in the earth’s temperature have already had negative effects, including even now more rivers overflowing their banks in third world countries; and, according to several news reports, ski resorts already face less snow and lessened snowfall is predicted on mountainsides in general.

According to a recent United Nations study, it is projected that the health-related costs of global warming and water management projects may have a U.S. price tag of $30 billion per year by 2050. Globally, the loss of residential or agricultural land and water supplies will cost as much as $304.2 billion per year. Further, the increasing disparity between rainfall haves and have-nots will increasingly threaten hopes for global peace.

Mr. Shurtleff gravely misunderstands the sixth-grade source he mentions as the origin of his information. Excessive carbon dioxide functions as a serious pollutant.

Fossil fuel combustion also produces heat, water and often other pollutants, such as nitrous oxides, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, a constituent of acid rain.

James M. Cogan, Auburn

Copy the Story Link