🚀 go-pugleaf

Risk reduction should be viewed in a holistic fashion.  Any number of strategies
have proven higher rates of success in eliminating risk, whether they include
child immunization, brownfield cleanup, or improved transportation safety.

If societies goal is to reduce risk, we should seek out those opportunities where
we can reduce the most risk with a limited pool of risk-reduction resources, not
simply chase after those risks that make good headlines despite the confessed
uncertainty in the science.  A fuller discussion of this concept is available at
http://www.reason.org/kyoto.html

As for our funding, RPPI is a national nonprofit research organization that
conducts academic, peer-reviewed research and derives our funding solely from
publication sales, sales of our magazine, and charitable contributions.  We do not
seek nor accept any government funding. For more information, check out our
website at http://www.reason.org

George Passantino


Richard Vialls wrote:

> In article <361278AE.77C4FD03@reason.org>, George Passantino
> <gpassantino@reason.org> writes
>
> < long article snipped >
>
> >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.
>
> So what are these cheaper risk-reduction strategies?
>
> Oh, and who are the Reason Public Policy Institute and how are they
> funded?
>
> Richard Vialls              (please replace nospam with demon for email & WWW)
> Black Cat Electronics - contract electronics design
> Bodrwyn, Cerrigceinwen, Bodorgan,                     Phone: +44(0)1407 720717
> Anglesey, LL62 5EF, UK.                    Email: rvialls@blakcat.nospam.co.uk
>                                           Web: http://www.blakcat.nospam.co.uk