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 >