Hmmm! This is a typical politician's statement, full of sound and fury
but signifying nothing.

Just to take one example: ozone depletion. At the time that the Montreal
Protocol was signed, there was no scientific proof that halocarbons were
responsible for ozone depletion, just Molina's theory, partially
confirmed by a few lab experiments that did not prove that chain
reactions would occur in the stratosphere, plus Farman's observations in
the Antarctic which were totally misunderstood. The scientists said
openly, at that time, there was no proof, only a strong supposition (in
fact a lot weaker than today's knowledge about climate change), but
that, if we did nothing, then the consequences may be very severe.
Fortunately, the "responsible politics" (including the USA, which stood
most to lose) listened and took action, without a "cost-benefit
analysis". One US company, manufacturing CFCs, started a virulent
campaign against the Protocol, stating that the consequences would be
catastrophic for the US economy, while secretly developing substitutes
for CFCs. Because of the Protocol, resources were funnelled towards the
science and, just one year later, in 1988, the scientific proof started
to accumulate - and the scientists deemed the Protocol measures were
largely insufficient. Without the Protocol, there would be widespread
famine today as whole food chains would be at least partially destroyed.
As it is, it is unlikely we shall reach 1980 ozone levels before the
middle of this century and pre-1950 levels before the end of the
century: it will take 3 centuries to reach pre-1935 levels. Even so, 20
years after the signature of the Protocol, we are remaining vigilant as
to the effects of halocarbons that are still produced in much-reduced
quantities, e.g., for feedstock etc. The battle is still not one.

So, Mr Klaus says, in effect, that we should not have signed the
Montreal Protocol. Thank God, the politicians had more sense than to
listen to the naysayers of the time - and there were many and
politically powerful ones at that.

This is summarised by a quotation from Robert Watson, Co-chair of the
Scientific Assessment Panel of the Protocol and former Chairman of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the world's most
renowned atmospheric scientists:
'Although scientific evidence that human activities were causing
stratospheric ozone depletion was quite robust in the late 1980s, there
were a number of sceptics who said, "wait for perfect knowledge; there
is uncertainty in the ozone models." Unfortunately, the sceptics were
absolutely right. The models were inaccurate. They underestimated the
impact of human activities on stratospheric ozone. This means that with
the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments, society will
have to live with stratospheric ozone depletion not only over
Antarctica, but over all of the globe, except for tropics and
subtropics, for at least another 50 years. Some of the same sceptics are
now saying that not enough is known about climate change.'

Whether Mr. Klaus' statement is applicable to lead in solder is neither
here nor there; the Precautionary Principle will not always be right,
any more than it will always be wrong: don't throw out the baby with the
bath water. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the lead-in-solder
issue was scientifically known to be seriously flawed before the EC and
EP approved the RoHS directive, but political brownie points were to be
gained, probably by politicians like Mr Klaus, in spite of the known
science. Sorry, Mr Klaus, please leave science to the scientists and
don't try to mix it with politics.

Brian


Harvey Miller wrote:
> "I warn against adopting regulations based on the so-called precautionary
> principle which the environmentalists use to justify their
> recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove."
> Klaus added, "Responsible politics should take into account the
> opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the
> wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other
> policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people
> all over the world. Each policy measure must be based on a cost-benefit
> analysis."
> 
> .....a current quote
>