While the short-term costs of reducing green house gases would be enormous, some economists argue that they would be nothing compared to the costs trying to fix long-term effects of global warming. Would it be cheaper to replace our main fuel sources with renewable energy now or try to mitigate the large amounts of flooding and other problems that global warming will likely cause? Preventative measures would likely be much less expensive than trying to fix the problems as they arrive.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC