Students packed the Eisenhower Auditorium last night to watch the second annual debate between environmental concerns and economic interests.

The economics department and the Economics Association hosted the event.

Paul Graf and Mark McLeod, both economics lecturers, took different stances for the purpose of the debate. Graf argued on behalf of business, while McLeod defended the environment.

Graf began by explaining the problem of unlimited wants versus the scarcity of resources. He asked the audience members if they would be willing to give up things such as cars and computers for the sake of saving energy.

"Is it worth some pollution? I believe so," Graf said.

McLeod started his argument by saying that many do not consider the public costs of their actions.

"When people decide to drive their cars, they pay the private cost, but they are not made to pay the cost of the pollution they're causing," McLeod said.

McLeod added that many of the facts some scientists use to disprove global warming are wrong.

"I'm going to review those facts and cast doubt on the studies that show we don't have anything to fear," he said.

He then presented examples to show that global warming was real, such as increased hurricane activity and shrinking glaciers.

Graf said, "I don't believe anyone is going to deny global warming. The issue is what's causing it."

He said that he doubted it was man-made and that only 30 years ago scientists were saying the world was cooling, not warming.

Graf also stressed the economic impact of higher gas prices.

He suggested drilling in Alaska to reduce foreign dependency on oil, saying it would only affect 2,000 acres out of 19 million, or 0.01 percent. In turn, more than 10 billion barrels of oil would be produced.

Graf also emphasized the importance of letting the free market run its course.

"It all comes down to markets," he said. "Let the people choose."

He suggested the idea of a credit system where companies could pollute up to a certain point, and if they produce more pollution than the credits allowed, they could purchase more from less polluting groups. He added that the pollution limit would eventually decrease, since unused credits would eventually expire.

McLeod said he agreed with the credit system but questioned what the pollution limit would be.

"But there's one question. What level of pollution are we going to allow?" he said.

McLeod said the cost of pollution would be seen in productivity, as people often suffer sickness and miss work due to an unhealthy environment.

He said that rising gas prices would be a good thing, since it could spur economic development as alternative fuels are explored.

"If we increase the price of oil, we're going to increase the incentives to explore alternative fuels," McLeod said.

Graf ended his part of the debate by emphasizing the importance of personal choice and the role of markets.

McLeod took a different approach as he ended his argument by playing guitar and singing a song about the dangers of pollution and the future problems it could cause.

Beth Harvie (freshman-biology) came to the debate for a class and said before the debate that she wasn't sure what side she would take, but would listen to both debaters.

Cody Halbleib (sophomore-information sciences and technology) said he had taken a side.

"I thought Mark won. It was the song," he said.