🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------D1A2BF217A8306D4F3F02B1D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

FULL TEXT OF STUDY AT WWW.REASON.ORG/KYOTO.HTML


Los Angeles, CA--While a summer of record-breaking heat has revived
global warming advocates� push to implement the Kyoto Protocol on
climate change, new research shows that full implementation of the
controversial treaty will drain resources from other, more effective,
risk-reduction activities.  A policy brief released today by Reason
Public Policy Institute (RPPI) reports that the costs of full
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change may result in as
many as 22,000 lost lives per year due to this shift of risk-reduction
resources.

According to Dr. Kenneth Green, who heads RPPI�s environmental program,
these countervailing impacts and opportunity costs of Kyoto compliance
must be part of any credible analysis of the proposed treaty. Green
argues that the Kyoto treaty employs a �damn the torpedoes� view of
public policy that neither recognizes the uncertainty in climate change
science nor accurately evaluates the costs and benefits of proposed
policies.

�Just as airbags pose dangers to some people while saving others, no
risk-reduction activity has totally pure effects. While the climate
change debate has centered on a crisis view of global warming, the
activities called for in the Kyoto treaty have immediate consequences
that we must also consider if it is our goal to reduce environmental
risk,� stated Dr. Green. �But we've jumped the gun on those
considerations, and instead, we find ourselves debating what this single
hot summer or year means.�

In the report, Evaluating the Kyoto Approach to Climate Change, Green
explains why, for any environmental risk reduction effort to truly
succeed, there must be a full accounting of all of the pros and cons
associated with it.  According to Green, this has not occurred in the
case of climate change. Instead, worst-case projections and simplistic
observations about month-to-month temperatures are driving the debate.
Green noted in the study that the advocates of the Kyoto treaty admit
there is a great deal of uncertainty in their projections.

�The most advocates of Kyoto can say is IF the earth is warming and IF
the measures advocated in Kyoto can have the desired impact, the
benefits MIGHT be significant.  Unfortunately, empirical evidence simply
isn't there to justify such a gamble, even in the often thumped (but
rarely read) bible of climate change, the landmark 1995 report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.�

 The debate over the meaning of satellite temperature data, which has
recently been called into question, typifies the uncertainty of climate
change science.  The data show a general cooling trend in temperatures
but have recently been challenged as inaccurate. While many critics of
climate change argued that these data were proof that global warming was
not occurring, climate change advocates point to the potential flaws in
the data as proof that the opponents are wrong.  Green notes, however,
that this latest revelation underscores the need for more research and
is but another example of quibbling over data sets of debatable meaning.

 �If you took a person's pulse for two minutes and tried to calculate
trends in their lifetime heart rate, you would see the same long-term
relevance that our short series of temperature records has over the
history of the earth.  Since we can't even be sure how well we measure
the earth's temperature, a better approach is to continue down the path
of scientific research and reduce risk in those areas we have some
certainty about,� noted Green.

In addition to placing the state of climate change science in
perspective, Green urges policy makers to take a big-picture view of
risk reduction, recognizing that resources are limited and allocating
them accordingly.  Rather than spending billions on the speculation that
climate change is occurring and that we can have any impact on that
process, cheaper risk-reduction strategies should be viewed as higher
priorities. This, Green asserts, is a far better approach to
environmental health.

�In the long run, we should focus on reducing risks as effectively as
possible, not just in those areas that make great headlines,� concluded
Green.
_______________________

Copies of Evaluating the Kyoto Approach to Climate Change are available
for $5.00 by calling RPPI at 310-391-2245 or online at
http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html.


--------------D1A2BF217A8306D4F3F02B1D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<HTML>
<B><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT COLOR="#006600"><A HREF="http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html">FULL
TEXT OF STUDY AT WWW.REASON.ORG/KYOTO.HTML</A></FONT></FONT></B>
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>Los Angeles, CA--While a summer of record-breaking heat has revived
global warming advocates� push to implement the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change, new research shows that full implementation of the controversial
treaty will drain resources from other, more effective, risk-reduction
activities.&nbsp; A policy brief released today by <A HREF="http://www.rppi.org">Reason
Public Policy Institute (RPPI)</A> reports that the costs of full implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change may result in as many as 22,000
lost lives per year due to this shift of risk-reduction resources.

<P>According to <A HREF="mailto:keng@reason.org">Dr. Kenneth Green</A>,
who heads RPPI�s environmental program, these countervailing impacts and
opportunity costs of Kyoto compliance must be part of any credible analysis
of the proposed treaty. Green argues that the Kyoto treaty employs a �damn
the torpedoes� view of public policy that neither recognizes the uncertainty
in climate change science nor accurately evaluates the costs and benefits
of proposed policies.

<P>�Just as airbags pose dangers to some people while saving others, no
risk-reduction activity has totally pure effects. While the climate change
debate has centered on a crisis view of global warming, the activities
called for in the Kyoto treaty have immediate consequences that we must
also consider if it is our goal to reduce environmental risk,� stated Dr.
Green. �But we've jumped the gun on those considerations, and instead,
we find ourselves debating what this single hot summer or year means.�

<P>In the report, <A HREF="http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html">Evaluating
the Kyoto Approach to Climate Change</A>, Green explains why, for any environmental
risk reduction effort to truly succeed, there must be a full accounting
of all of the pros and cons associated with it.&nbsp; According to Green,
this has not occurred in the case of climate change. Instead, worst-case
projections and simplistic observations about month-to-month temperatures
are driving the debate.&nbsp; Green noted in the study that the advocates
of the Kyoto treaty admit there is a great deal of uncertainty in their
projections.

<P>�The most advocates of Kyoto can say is IF the earth is warming and
IF the measures advocated in Kyoto can have the desired impact, the benefits
MIGHT be significant.&nbsp; Unfortunately, empirical evidence simply isn't
there to justify such a gamble, even in the often thumped (but rarely read)
bible of climate change, the landmark 1995 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.�

<P>&nbsp;The debate over the meaning of satellite temperature data, which
has recently been called into question, typifies the uncertainty of climate
change science.&nbsp; The data show a general cooling trend in temperatures
but have recently been challenged as inaccurate. While many critics of
climate change argued that these data were proof that global warming was
not occurring, climate change advocates point to the potential flaws in
the data as proof that the opponents are wrong.&nbsp; Green notes, however,
that this latest revelation underscores the need for more research and
is but another example of quibbling over data sets of debatable meaning.

<P>&nbsp;�If you took a person's pulse for two minutes and tried to calculate
trends in their lifetime heart rate, you would see the same long-term relevance
that our short series of temperature records has over the history of the
earth.&nbsp; Since we can't even be sure how well we measure the earth's
temperature, a better approach is to continue down the path of scientific
research and reduce risk in those areas we have some certainty about,�
noted Green.

<P>In addition to placing the state of climate change science in perspective,
Green urges policy makers to take a big-picture view of risk reduction,
recognizing that resources are limited and allocating them accordingly.&nbsp;
Rather than spending billions on the speculation that climate change is
occurring and that we can have any impact on that process, cheaper risk-reduction
strategies should be viewed as higher priorities. This, Green asserts,
is a far better approach to environmental health.

<P>�In the long run, we should focus on reducing risks as effectively as
possible, not just in those areas that make great headlines,� concluded
Green.
<BR>_______________________

<P>Copies of Evaluating the Kyoto Approach to Climate Change are available
for $5.00 by calling RPPI at 310-391-2245 or online at <A HREF="http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html">http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html</A>.
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

--------------D1A2BF217A8306D4F3F02B1D--