all.? 1? 11 ?nary-lu- II- I

Evidently, the value of developing the nonfossil sources of energy
is at least as great as it would have been under a regime of fossil-
fuel restriction andIr if anything. more valuable.

Are there long lead-time projects or policies that need now to be
adapted to the prospects of changing climates? Water resources and
related technology may have lead times of half a century; water is
therefore a candidate for planning in a contest of potential climate
change. As forecasts for climate change become clearer. there may be
strong indications for research and development related to agriculture.
fisheries. and pests. Military planning will probably be alert to
changes on land and sea. Certainly coastal planning should be affected
by forecasts of rising sea levels. But nothing urgent is foreseeable
yet.

The foreseeable consequences of climate change are no cause for
alarm on a global scale but could prove to be exceedingly bad news for
particular parts of the world. Generally. the more well?to?do coun-
tries can take in stride what may prove to be a reduction {probably ?at
noticeable as such} by a few percent in living standards that will
likely be greater per capita by more than 100% over today's. But one
has to question whether this relatively calm assessment can he applied
to a country, say Bangladesh; where food production is already at the
margin of subsistence and coastal flooding is already serious. Is it
an especial hardship for the people of Bangladesh that the nations on
whom would depend any permanent regime for globally rationing the use 
of fossil fuels in the interest of stable climate are unable to take a
long economic view and to reconcile intense political differences?