Lately, when some environmental problem arises, scientists, experts, and the media quickly put people as the source. When it comes to the issue of the "deteriorating" environment, one can find an almost infinite amount of information stating that we are to blame for the hole in the ozone layer or we are to blame for global warming. The information may be persuading, but when one looks at the other side of the story, a whole new philosophy about the environment develops, one that deals with mother nature's influence on the environment.

When it comes to ozone depletion, there is much disagreement over what causes it. But recent information seems to lean toward an idea that humans are not at fault for the large hole over Antarctica. First, let's take a crash course on what ozone is. It is a molecule that is made up of three oxygen atoms bonded together, O3. Ozone is found in the upper layers of the atmosphere and blocks out a majority of the sun's ultraviolet rays. Ozone is also found in low concentrations in the lower atmosphere because it is emitted by automobile exhaust. It can be very harmful if inhaled. In worst case scenarios, a total depletion of ozone would cause in

One could hopefully conclude that the environment is not in danger. The ozone controversy can be summed up by simply stating that it is a natural cycle. The global warming argument is a much more complicated issue with much information for both sides. But one must realize that the earth's climate is never at a constant. It has always changed and it always will change no matter what humans due. If mankind had to choose between a warmer climate and a cooler climate, we would be better off with being warm.

"Is NASA Exaggerating the Threat of Ozone Depletion?" The Wall Street Journal 3 Apr. 1992, midwest ed.: B5.

When it comes to global warming, or the greenhouse effect, the general public has been even more frightened. Who can blame them when there are many outrageous and biased reports stating human fault at the warming. Many scientists are also exaggerating the full effect of a warmer climate.

Also, there is a large amount of evidence supporting the fact that a slightly warmer climate would be beneficial. First, warmer temperatures would enhance evaporation. This increased evaporation would cause more cloud cover (96). The cloudiness would moderate temperatures during the day, decreasing the likelihood of droughts. The clouds would also act as a blanket at night, which supports the theory mentioned earlier that the increase in average temperatures is caused by warmer nights. Warmer nights would reduce frosts, and increase the growing season.

Gribben, John. "Odds on Ozone." Popular Science Apr. 1995: 41-4.

In short, what would happen if the climate warmed up? Judging from past warm periods in history, Western Europe, the Sahara, Australia, and the American Southwest would receive more rainfall. Russia, Western Europe, and interior portions of Canada would see a warm up. It could dry up some what in the Great Plains and the Midwest (96). So we could see corn and soybeans being grown in New Mexico, Spain, and Canada, areas that are now too dry or too cool for such farming. Grasslands could develop in the Sahara and in Arizona, while a desert-like area could form in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Change IPCC, St Helens, Tallahassee Florida, Danger Lately, President Bush, O3 Ozone, Oklahoma Texas, Atmosphere Crisis, B5 Knowing, Ice Age, global warming, chlorine gas, carbon dioxide, warmer climate, increase average temperatures, st helens, 1400 world, increase average, mt st, significant increase carbon, atmosphere crisis, global warming update, hole antarctica, wall street journal, increase carbon dioxide,
Approximate Word count = 1819
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)