Click for next page ( 193


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 192
Technology and Environment 1989. Pp. 192 204. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. The Paradox of Technological Development PAUL E. GRAY Technological development has had profound and permanent effects the way we live and the way we think about the future-what is possible, what is probable, what is to be feared, and what is to be hoped for. It also provides an appropriate introduction to my principal theme, which is a paradox of our time: the mixed blessing of almost every technological development. Technological developments come about as people seek solutions to specific problems and needs, and they often open the way to other innovations and applications that were unimaginable at the outset. Because we have not been able to predict all of their consequences, nearly all such developments carry with them the potential for misuse, and many consequences are rightly regarded as not only unfortunate but also malign in their impact. The new ideas and technologies resulting from the efforts of engineers are, in some respects, like the Golem of the Rabbi of Prague. An artificial creature, created to serve, the Golem exhibited a mind of its own, acting in mischievous ways unanticipated by its maker. New technology will be applied in ways that transcend the intentions and the purposes of its creators, and new technology will reveal consequences that were not anticipated. Consider, for example, the "green revolution." Developments in agri- culture have improved food production around the world. Countries such as India, which for decades was unable) to feed its people, have become net exporters of food. At the same time, growing reliance on insecticides and fertilizers has contributed to widespread chemical pollution of rivers, lakes, 192

OCR for page 192
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 193 and seas, threatening the food chain itself. Other examples abound: the au- tomobile, mass communications, energy production. All have changed our lives for the better, and all have consequences that threaten our well-being as individuals and as a global society. What is it about technological development today that makes it such a mixed blessing and leads to such widespread wariness on the part of the public? How can this double-edged quality of technological development be understood in ways that will help us avoid some of the pitfalls of the past? What can we do about engineering education, engineering practice, and public policy to help resolve the paradox and reduce the chances of creating new problems in the future? SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Let me begin with some of the characteristics of technological devel- opment that have caused us problems in the past both in practice and in perception. First, major new technological developments produce changes that deeply affect societr and do so in ways that make it impossible to con- template turning the clock back by rejecting the development. The very power and perceived permanence of new technology surely contribute to the wariness with which it is regarded by many; the green revolution is a good example. Although new technologies can be adapted to address some of the unfortunate consequences of modern agricultural methods, a wholesale abandonment of those methods is now unthinkable; it would lead to malnutrition and starvation on a scale unknown in human history. Second, more recent technological developments are, in many cases, incremental in their intended beneficial consequences. This may have been less frequently the case in the earlier stages of development when the benefits of a new technology, such as electrical energy distn~ution sys- tems, were dramatic in their effect. Increasingly, the positive consequences of a development are, or are understood as, incremental or marginal in character. As a result, the natural human tendency to avoid change, the un- known, and risk becomes more dominant in considering new technological developments. A third characteristic of technological development relates to our steadily improving ability to quantifier very small amounts of potentially hazardous materials in our environment, as well as our continually changing assessment of hazards and degree of risk For example, when DOT was developed a half~entu~y ago, it led to dramatic reductions in the incidence of malaria and was hailed as a great benefit to humankind. Since then, our growing ability to identifier and measure vety small concentrations of this

OCR for page 192
194 PAUL E. GRAY and other synthetic pesticides has enabled us to recognize the harm they do to our environment as welt Even with our growing capabilities to identify and measure hazards, when it comes to questions of probability, uncertainty, and long-term consequences, scientists disagree among themselves about the bases of risk assessment. Policymakers do the best they can, but when they get many different opinions from experts, it becomes just that much more difficult to know what to do. This certainly does not help public understanding and debate on such issues. Fourth, because we now live on a crowded planet, the consequences of technological development have a more immediate and far-reaching impact and are more readily apparent than in earlier times. For most of human history, the impacts of development were masked and diluted because that development was orders of magnitude away from stretching the capacity of our environment to absorb pollution and other burdens. Our heritage in this respect has roots that go a long way back. The slash- and-burn agriculture of prehistoric humankind required new land every few years, but this was surely never seen as an obstacle or consideration because land was available without apparent limits and the people were so few. Air pollution in industrial England had severe local effects, as in the killing smogs of London, but these problems seemed not to have significant global consequences and were, in any case, largely dealt with locally. The impact of technological development on our environment as reflected in degraded air and water qualibr, warnings of possible global warming and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and the hazards of tone waste is, in large measure, a consequence of the fact that there are many more of us on this planet. Consequences that were unimportant~ven practically undetectable when the earth sustained 1 billion or 2 billion humans become dangerous, or even intolerable, when there are 5 billion, rapidly heading toward 10 billion. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY In addition to these characteristics of technology itself, the paradox of technological development is compounded by public perceptions about risk and by the fact that we lack an effective system for developing public policies to help guide technological develoDment. Darticularlv as we face these issues as a global society. -rim --7 I- --A The public perception of risk is sometimes unpredictable and incon- sistent with quantitative risk assessment data. For example, the public tolerates approximately 50,000 deaths a year on our nation's highways with no great outcry, yet there is widespread public concern each time a plane crashes. Although statistics show that air travel is much safer than auto

OCR for page 192
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 195 travel, the public perception is different. Both scientific literacy and com- munication about risk should be improved so that individuals are better educated and public perception is closer to the quantitative realities. At the same time, we must understand and be sensitive to public perceptions even if they do not appear to be consistent with quantitative evidence. We should also recognize that even a public educated in the most precise and sophisticated risk assessment techniques will distrust polio ymakers and scientists or engineers who dismiss its legitimate fears. As for the development of public policy, government and industry in this country have had a largely adversarial relationship when it comes to policies regarding environmental and economic consequences of technolog- ical development, with a reliance on regulation rather than on cooperation. This stems largely from the lack of clearly articulated and agreed upon standards for safety, cleanliness, or risk. Without such criteria, it is not sur- prising that continual conflict and misunderstanding persist between groups and individuals with differing concerns. This, together with the lack of technical and scientific knowledge at high levels of decision making in the legislative and executive branches of government and in the public itself, has meant that we do not have a consistent, well-thought-out, and clearly articulated set of policies in this domain. Nor do we have processes that allow us to resolve disputes in a reasonable fashion. We are caught in a gridlock of adversarial relations among various special interest groups, a position that exacerbates the problem rather than helps resolve it. Creators of new technological developments and poli~nakers thus have a particular responsibility to explore, as thoroughly and aggressively as possible, the multiple consequences of new developments to make those considerations an integral part of the process of technological development. They need to develop guidelines and policies for sustainable development that reflect concern for the long-term, global implications of large-scale technologies and that support the innovation of less intrusive, more adapt- able technologies at all levels. A CASE IN POINT: THE GREENHOUSE Ells A dramatic and current example of the double-edged quality of techno- logical development and of a problem that will require the most concerted technological, political, economic, and social collaboration on an inter- national basis is the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect an environmental issue that suddenly moved toward the head of the list of public concerns following the unusual weather conditions in the United States during the summer of 1988. The average temperature of the earth manifests a balance between the heating effects of solar radiation and the cooling associated with infrared

OCR for page 192
196 PAUL E. GRAY thermal radiation from the earth. The atmosphere's transparency and, therefore, the average global temperature depend on the atmosphere's absorption characteristics and concentrations of carbon dioxide and certain trace gases. Some of these gases are produced by natural processes and have been present in our atmosphere for eons. Because of their presence, the earth is about 30C warmer than it otherwise would be; this is the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. These gases are also produced by industrial processes, particularly (for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) by the burning of wood and fossil fuels, and there is now clear evidence that the concentrations of these greenhouse gases are steadily increasing. As a result, the average temperature of the earth must increase to maintain the heat balance between solar input and infrared output. The growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere due to industrial, agricultural, and other human activities are, in a sense, directly driven by population and by the increasing intensity of development in its present form. The earth has experienced an increase in atmospheric carbon dionde of about 20 percent in less than two centuries. The present rate of increase suggests that the concentration of this greenhouse gas will increase another 10 percent by early in the next century and will double by the second half of the twenty-first century (Bolin et al., 1986; ~abalka, 1985~. Changes in the atmosphere during the past century should, according to theoretical models, have produced about 0.5C of warming. Whereas the average global temperature has increased by about this amount, the natural variations in temperature are of about the same order of magnitude. Consequently, direct confirmation of the global warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases is not yet in hand, although the observed temperature increases are consistent with theoretical expectations. These theoretical models predict an additional 0.5C warming in the next 20 years and 2-5C warming by the middle of the twenty-first century if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase as energy use increases and as deforestation continues. The warming is buffered and delayed by the oceans, which absorb both carbon dioxide and heat. As a consequence of this, even if production of greenhouse gases could be stopped dead today, global temperatures would continue to increase for several decades. These temperature increases will persist because most of the greenhouse gases have very long lifetimes. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by two processes: net photosynthesis in plants and absorption in the oceans, with eventual de- position at the ocean bottom as limestone. The second process is both dominant and extremely slow, with time constants on the order of 1,000 years. . .

OCR for page 192
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DE~:LOPMENT 197 Although direct evidence of global warming attributable to green- house gases has not yet been obtained, our present understanding of the mechanisms and our direct observation of increasing greenhouse gas con- centrations make eventual significant warming a virtual certainty. It is likely that the earth will, by the end of this century, be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years. Unless we change course, global temperatures are likely to be higher by the latter half of the twenty-first century than they have been in 2-10 million years. The effects of global warming on climate and thus on the activities of humankind are much harder to predict. Increases in sea level are inescapable as the warming oceans expand and as mountain glaciers and ice caps release water. Patterns of precipitation are likely to change, thus bringing less rainfall in the middle latitudes where much of the world's grain production now occurs; the viability and reproductive capacities of plants of all kinds, particularly unmanaged forests, could diminish. Those extreme natural events, which cause much human misery~rought, heat waves, coastal Booding are likely to become much more frequent. ADDRESSING GLOBAL WARMING AS A GLOBAL PROBLEM What should be done about this? The problem of global warming calls for both human adaptation and the limitation of pollutants. Each requires technological support and engineering development, and both require cooperation not only among those in the engineering profession, industry, and government but also among nations. Adaptation in anticipation of a warmer earth is necessary because the most drastic course of limitation of pollutants will not offset the momentum of past contamination; a significant degree of warming is now unavoidable. Adaptation will require attention to agriculture, including the development of new strains of grain, to water resources, and to protection of low-lying coastal regions where flooding will occure Limitation is essential if we, as a global population, are to avoid even more extreme conditions far into the future. Further, limitation of greenhouse gases can slow the rate of warming, which eases somewhat the task of adaptation. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization recently recommended the following actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the face of growing populations and increased economic activity (eager, 1988~: Reduce fossil fuel use by increasing end-use energy efficiency. The experience of the past 15 years in response to the increase in oil prices induced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

OCR for page 192
198 PAUL E. GRAY Countries provides us with an example of the power of conser- vation. The UN study foresees a potential reduction in energy consumption in the industrialized nations of 50 percent with extant technology. Many efficiency improvements can be achieved with net economic savings, and conservation efforts can be undertaken right now, without delay. Shift the fossil fuel mix from high carbon dioxide-emitting fuels to those that produce less carbon dioxide per unit of energy. Natural gas is better than oil, which is better than coat Reverse current trends toward deforestation and encourage refor- estation. Develop the technology to remove carbon dioxide from stack gases of large, stationary fossil fuel-burning energy converters, such as electric power generating plants, and dispose of it in the deep ocean. Although such an approach would at least double the cost of electricity, these costs are about the same magnitude as those associated with the most stringent pollution control requirements now in place in some nations. Replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources such as so- lar energy, wind and tidal power, ocean thermal conversion, and nuclear power. This is, to my mind, the only viable long-term ap- proach to offset the forces of continued population and economic growth. It is clear that we are not talking simply about technological solutions. Global warming is, obviously, a global problem; any effort to limit future emissions of greenhouse gases must be global in character if it Is to be effective. The degree of cooperation required is without precedent because it must encompass both the highly industrialized nations, where present energy use is most intensive, and the less developed nations, where hopes for a better future appear to require greater intensity of energy use. For example, what response should the West expect from China if we, who have contributed most of the present carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, suggest that the Chinese, in the interest of a less degraded environment a century from now, should forgo the exploitation of their enormous reserves of coal? Our traditional political processes tend to deal with near-term issues and immediate problems. We must develop political processes capable of producing sensible responses to problems where the time constants are on the order of a century.

OCR for page 192
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT ONE COURSE OF ACTION: NUCLEAR ENERGY 199 Whereas economic, political, and social forces must be brought to bear on this problem, it seems self-evident that amelioration of this problem requires new engineering creativity and technical developments aimed at the several courses of action described in the UN study. Although this is not the place for a careful exploration of possible future developments and directions, I would lee to comment briefly on one aspect of amelioration, which seems to me to be compelling: the greater use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. It has become a commonplace to assert that the nuclear industry in the United States is now dead, that its death was probably suicide, and that the public is both passionate and unified in its determination to see that it stays buried. The present state of affairs needs no explication. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cannot be expunged from our collective consciousness. Seabrook and Shoreham are real-time examples of the depth of the conviction held by our political leaders, perhaps even by a majority of the public, about the risks and benefits of nuclear power. Certainly, mistakes have been made in the past, both in technology and in the ways public concerns about nuclear energy have been addressed. We must be willing to learn from these mistakes, to explore different approaches to the design of nuclear energy plants, and to improve public awareness and understanding of these issues if nuclear energy Is to play a role in our future. Let me speak first about reactor design. Light-water reactors (LWRs), which are used in nearly all of the plants in operation or under construction in the United States, place heavy demands on the builders and operators of these plants. The principal safety hazard is a loss-of-cooling accident, which could lead to the melting of fuel elements and subsequent release of radioactivity o prevent such an occurrence, the design and operation of an LWR must provide an absolute guarantee of the presence of adequate quantities of cooling water, and the guarantee must reflect the worst possible scenarios, including rupture of pipes, pump failures, failure of outside electrical power, and operator errors. ~ reduce the probability of loss of coolant to acceptably small levels, LWRs rely on multiple redundant backup systems or "defense in depth." It is the nature of these complex and tremendously costly protective systems that their effectiveness under all accident conditions cannot be demonstrated experimentally. Consequently, questions about modes of failure can be answered, at best, only in analytical and probabilistic terms, which is a major reason for much of the public skepticism about nuclear power in its present form. It is possible to design and build reactors that can survive the failure of components without the possibility of fuel damage or the release of

OCR for page 192
200 PAUL E. GRAY radioactivity. This can be accomplished by employing forms of fuel able to withstand very high temperatures, by limiting the power density in the core, and by arranging for sufficient heat removal by natural processes to prevent fuel damage. Such "passively safe" reactors can be designed to suffer simultaneous failure of all control and cooling systems without endangering the public (Agnew, 1981; Faltermayer, 1988; Lidsky, 1988~. Reactors designed in this manner produce less power output than light- water reactors: 10~150 megawatts of electrical power output compared with 1,00~1,500 megawatts. A number of individual power-producing modules will be combined on each site to produce the required amount of power. These small, identical modules can be factory built instead of being custom made on-site, as is the case for the much larger, much more complex LWRs. The economy of serial production will replace the economy of large scale. Because the individual reactor modules are identical and centrally built, licensing can be standardized and can be based on full-scale testing of an actual device rather than on detailed review and inspection of the defense in depth required for LWRs. This is an enormous advantage because it permits actual demonstration of the response of the reactor to the most severe and demanding hazards. Reactors of this kind present a vanishingly small operating risk to the public a risk much smaller than that associated with most everyday activities. Coal-fired electric power plants produce and release more low-level radioactivity (carried in fly ash) than do nuclear reactors (Hurley, 1982~. Public attitudes about the acceptability of nuclear power are based as well on concerns about high-level nuclear waste handling and disposal. Decades of temporizing and indecision in the United States have aggravated this problem. What is required here is not simply technical innovation, but political creativity as well, to address the dilemmas posed by the "not in my baclyard" concerns. Several nations in Western Europe have shown that solutions to this problem do indeed exist I am convinced that several undertakings are essential if nuclear power is to have any role in the U.S. energy future: 1. We must make an earnest and sustained effort to educate the public about the risks and benefits of nuclear power in terms that permit quantitative comparison with other energy sources. 2. We must achieve technically, politically, and environmentally ac- ceptable solutions to the problem of nuclear waste handling and disposal- solutions that take into account the associated concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation. 3. We must develop, build, and test radically different reactor designs that pose negligible risks of the accidental release of radioactive materials

OCR for page 192
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 201 as a result of overheating. Several possibilities exist, including new water- cooled and liquid-metal~ooled designs as well as gas-cooled designs. These designs hold the promise of passively safe operation. Nevertheless, it is clear that none of these designs will be acceptable until such reactors are built at scale and thoroughly tested under the most extreme conditions Murphy's Law can produce. Absolutely risk-free operation cannot, like absolutely anything else, be guaranteed: one can postulate a meteor falling on the reactor, after ale Nevertheless, the degree of risk to the environment and to human life can be driven down below the levels of corresponding risk inherent in the present alternative of fossil fuels. ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACI1CE: WHAT NEXT? Richard de Neufville, chairman of the Technology and Polipy Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has suggested that many people who seek solutions to complex, important issues, such as toxic waste, nuclear power, or global warming, tend to resect one of two perspectives: some assert that every problem has a technical "fix"; others, that each of these same problems has a moral fix. Unfortunately, neither perspective admits to the complexities and to the social, technical, and moral implications of most important, real prob- lems. Silver bullets exist only in myths, and responsible solutions are developed only by knitting together the technical and moral perspectives. Those of us who develop, promote, and apply technological innovation have the moral responsibility to explore arid consider, to the greatest ex- tent possible in the light of our best effort, the full consequences of any innovation. It is both professionally and morally irresponsible to define the problem so narrowly as to leave these considerations to others. What can be done in engineering education and practice, and in the domain of public policy, to recognize this conflict between the potential and the problems of technological development, to deal realistically with public apprehension about the risks attendant on change, and to minimize the degree to which future developments are burdened with unforeseen negative consequences? with regard to engineering education, a number of things could be done: 1. Instruction in the humanities, arts, and social sciences should be structured and undertaken to require the engineering student to gain some understanding of societies and cultures, of the complex relationships between society and technology, and of human values and relationships. ..

OCR for page 192
202 PAUL E. GRAY Engineering is, obviously, a socially derived and culturally influenced ac- tivity, and engineers cannot function effectively without being steeped in those contexts. This is not the only reason for studying the humanities, arts, and social sciences to make better engineers. However, an engineer who has cultivated an interest in one or more of these fields is, I believe, more likely to bring to his or her practice a sensitivity to the social context of engineering and attention to all the consequences of new technology. 2. Although all engineers should have an appreciation for and sensi- tivity to the social environment in which they operate, some engineers who might be called interface engineers will work directly on issues of appli- cation, impact, and implementation in a broader context. They need direct engagement with these issues in their education. These students should tackle subjects and engage in research on topics that directly address the political, economic, and social considerations integral to scientific and tech- nological developments. 3. Engineering design courses, particularly at the upper level, should move beyond requiring significant individual effort to requiring collabora- tion among teams of students formed to work on problems that are not artificially isolated from their social context. A part of that team effort should bear on the exploration of social consequences and the problems that arise when technology is used for different purposes. Although such projects are inevitably constrained, it is important that engineering students begin to work as engineers in ways that reflect to some degree the way actual engineering work should be done. 4. Finally, students should be prepared for active leadership in the definition and resolution of issues that arise at the intersection of technology and society. Neither we nor they can afford to sit back and expect other professions to imagine, create, and implement the kinds of solutions that are both socially responsible and firmly grounded in technical realities. Engineers do not hold the sole responsibility here, but the profession must consciously prepare and train itself to do its part: effective leadership must be learned. Now this speaks as well to the role of the engineer. Engineering prac- tice must, in the work of the engineer, reflect a broadened role and more comprehensive concerns. The engineer should bring to his or her work not only sound technical knowledge, disciplined technique, and a focused search for creative solutions to novel problems but also a concern for the ecology of technology. Not all consequences of technological development can be anticipated; not all unfortunate extensions can be anticipated. Nev- ertheless, the imperative to understand the implications of a development in its broadest and most encompassing terms is a professional responsibility of the engineer, which must be incorporated into the task from the outset.

OCR for page 192
IKE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 203 On the other hand, I am not suggesting that this responsibility rests with me engineer alone. The engineering profession should not only incorporate social and economic considerations into its work but also work together win government, industry, and the public to develop long-term, global strategies for addressing these issues. COOPERATION FOR THE FUTURE The issues raised by the paradox of technological development are profound and difficult. Nonetheless, I am optimistic that, in this era of global interdependence, responsible people will recognize that appropriate public policies to ensure sustainable development can and must be devel- oped from an iIlternationa1 perspective. We should begin now to lay a firm foundation for the future. In particular, the following challenges should be considered: . to educate engineers to consider the far-reaching implications of their work for the social and physical environment, and also to educate those in the humanistic disciplines to fully appreciate the nature of science and engineering; to develop technology for sustainable development, appropriate allocation of resources, and risk management; to advance the art of policymaking at all levels, which includes realistically reflecting the implications of technological innovations in both the substance of decisions and the process of decision making; and to recognize the need for communication, firm resolve, and mutual respect among policymakers, engineers, industrialists, and the public, who will ultimately be responsible for our common future in the democracies. Most important, we should not let the need for adequate preparation be an excuse for inaction. Just as long lines at the gas pumps in the winter of 197~1974 triggered public awareness of the need for conservation and alternative energy sources, the hot, dry summer of 1988 may inspire the search for technologies and public policies that respect the limitations of the environment and allow for economic growth. CONCLUSION Engineers have changed the world we live in. Engineers with vision can provide the means to realize strategies for a viable future in our economically, culturally, and ecologically intertwined world.

OCR for page 192
204 PAUL E. GRAY The great hope and the great challenge before us are to bring engi- neering education and practice, industrial priorities, and public policy into alignment in ways that eliminate the paradox of technological develop- ment. We have an opportunity now to turn that paradox around and forge a new concept of how the engineer works and views the world. Furthering technological and economic development in a socially and environmentally responsible manner is not only feasible, it is the great challenge we face as engineers, as engineering institutions, and as a society. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the following persons for discussions that were helpful in the preparation of these remarks: Hermann Hans, Lawrence Iidsky, Kathy Lombardy Richard de Neufirille, Ronald Prinn, Daniel Roos, Walter Rosenblith, Peter Stone, Neil lddreas, Leon Hilling, Robert White, and Gerald Wilson. REFERENCES Agnew, H. M. 1981. Gas cooled nuclear power reactors. Scientific American 244:55 63. Bolin, B., B. R Doos, J. Jager, and R. A. Warrick. 1986. The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley ~ Sons. Faltermayer, E. 1988. Taking fear out of nuclear power. Fortune 118~1 August):10~118. Hurley, P. M. 1982. Living with Nuclear Radiation. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. Jager, J. 1988. Developing Policies for Responding to Climatic Change. WCIP-1, WMO/ID- No. 225, April. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program. Lidsky, Lo M. January 10, 198~3. A safe atomic plant for the future? Washington Post C3. I~balka, J. R. 1985. Atmosphenc Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Cycle. DOE/ER- 0239. Washington, 13.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.