To the editor:

We have certainly initiated a heated mini-debate about global warming as a result of Mr. Gurley’s article. Let us accept for a moment the argument that we are the cause of that warming and that we must do something or a “tipping point” will be reached within a decade. It would appear from available analysis that the beginning of the warming period of concern is around 1950. Since then, the concentration of carbon (a major contributor to that warming) has increased sixfold.

Exactly how much we would need to reduce that amount in order to reverse the warming trend is unclear but if we must return to the level existent before warming was identified it would require us to reduce our global carbon emissions by more than 80 percent. To do so, given a world of increasing population and rapid industrial advancement (China is adding a coal-fueled power plant each week), looks like a formidable challenge that will not be met by the relatively limited proposals generally discussed.

Where is the comprehensive global plan to define a politically acceptable and scientifically meaningful new approach to meet the challenge? Kyoto is at best a flawed and limited first step. The planet just may not be able to sustain 6 billion of us at a reasonable standard of living. Must we resort to limiting births and longevity? Who will be the first to volunteer?

George Lippencott,

Lawrence