I'm not sure about the point of Roger Cohen's op-ed (Herald, Jan. 4). If global warming is not happening, as Cohen has offered to wager, then why write this at all? In any case, he is right about the solution to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas.
It will take all types of innovation to bring the rise of heat-absorbing gas in the atmosphere to a halt. It will probably take a good deal of "conservation" among the masses to bring about a reduction of those gases. Should the mainstream of the scientific community be correct and the effects of global warming become more evident to those of us who don't live closer the Arctic, the need may rise abruptly.
It is interesting that Cohen proffers massive carbon sequestration as a possible solution. I wonder where he stands with regard to the proposed coal-burning power plant upwind of Durango. The developers of that plant will build it without state-of-the-art carbon- sequestering technologies. Nor will the plant be "clean" in other respects, such as lead and sulfur emissions.
It appears that no matter which technologies are to be used to clean up our air and reduce the possibility of extreme environmental change, the cost will be huge. Personally, I much prefer the preventative methods such as wind, solar and even nuclear which stop pollution at the source. It seems to me a much cleaner and more assured method than continuing down the same old carbon-coated road. Placing a great deal of reliance on the unproved ability of future scientific developments to clean up after our conventionally generated energy pollution may just be putting the cost off onto yet another generation. Not a good idea.
Bob Winners, Pagosa Springs