(NAPSA)-—Detailed analysis by a number of scientists argues against the claim that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was recently informed. A therough exarnination of the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveais that the overwhelming weight of sclentific evidence does not support the proposition that carbon dioxide can be “reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse effects on public health, welfare, or the environment” the scientists say. In fact, they contend, the balance of evidence is supportive of the opposite notion: Carbon dioxide increases will con- fer a net benefit on society far sev- eral reasons. Many experts believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the direct effect of carbon dioxide on food production is highly positive. It will enhance the growth of all kinds of crop plants while protecting them from pollutants, oxidants, moisture stress and low light levels. Carbon dioxide, according to one study, has increased agricultural production by about ten percent. Meanwhile, the scientists point out, even the most sephisticated climate model cannot adequately simulate today’s climate. For example, the planet has warmed several times less than the predic- What some people fear is an increase in pollution, many scientists see as an improvement in our atmosphere. tiens indicated, based upon medels that served as the background for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ternperature variability is decreasing. You can learn more about CO, and what it may mean to Earth’s future from the experts at the Greening Earth Society, a not-for- profit, grass rocts organization of people who believe humans are a part of nature, not apart from nature. It can be found online at www.greeningearthsociety.org or you can call 800-629-4508.
