Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions.
How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response. But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer. That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out “no regrets” measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon “sinks” (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reach¬ing the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both. The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion’s share of reduc¬tions should come from “real” emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow un¬worthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmo¬sphere is reduced. Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better. The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world. The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions.
How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response. But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer. That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out “no regrets” measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon “sinks” (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reach¬ing the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both. The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion’s share of reduc¬tions should come from “real” emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow un¬worthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmo¬sphere is reduced. Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better. The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world. The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response. But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer. That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out “no regrets” measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon “sinks” (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reach¬ing the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both. The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion’s share of reduc¬tions should come from “real” emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow un¬worthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmo¬sphere is reduced. Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better. The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world. The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response. But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer. That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out “no regrets” measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon “sinks” (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reach¬ing the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both. The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion’s share of reduc¬tions should come from “real” emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow un¬worthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmo¬sphere is reduced. Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better. The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world. The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. How should reasonable people react to the hype and controversy over global warming? Judging by recent headlines, you might think we are already doomed. Newspapers have been quick to link extreme weather events, ranging from floods in Britain and Mozambique to hurricanes in Central America, directly to global warming. Greens say that worse will ensue if governments do not act. Many politicians have duly jumped on the bandwagon, citing recent disasters as a reason for speeding up action on the Kyoto treaty on climate change that commits rich countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, hotheaded attempts to link specific weather disasters to the greenhouse effect are scientific bunk. The correct approach is to coolly assess the science of climate change before taking action. Unfortunately, climate modeling is still in its infancy, and for most of the past decade it has raised as many questions as it has answered. Now, however, the picture is getting clearer. There will never be consensus, but the balance of the evidence suggests that global warming is indeed happening; that much of it has recently been man-made; and that there is a risk of potentially disastrous consequences. Even the normally stolid insurance industry is getting excited. Insurers reckon that weather disasters have cost roughly $400 billion over the past decade and that the damage is likely only to increase. The time has come to accept that global warming is a credible enough threat to require a public-policy response. But what, exactly? At first blush, the Kyoto treaty seems to offer a good way forward. It is a global treaty: it would be foolish to deal with this most global of problems in any other way. It sets a long-term framework that requires frequent updating and revision, rather like the post-war process of trade liberalization. That is sensible because climate change will be at least a 100-year problem, and so will require a treaty with institutions and mechanisms that endure. The big question over Kyoto remains its cost. How much insurance is worth buying now against an uncertain, but possibly devastating, future threat? And the answer lies in a clear-headed assessment of benefits and costs. The case for doing something has increased during the three years since Kyoto was signed. Yet it also remains true that all answers will be easier if economic growth is meanwhile sustained: stopping the world while the problem is dealt with is not a sensible option, given that resources to deal with it would then become steadily scarcer. That points to two general conclusions about how to implement Kyoto. The simplest is that countries should search out “no regrets” measures that are beneficial in their own right as well as reducing emissions -- such as scrapping coal subsidies, liberalizing energy markets and cutting farm support. The second is that implementation should use market-friendly measures that minimize the costs and risks of slowing economic growth.

The arguments center on this second point, and in particular on the use of emissions trading and carbon “sinks” (such as forests) that could lower the cost of reach¬ing the Kyoto targets. The Americans want unrestricted trading and generous definitions of what constitutes a sink, despite scientific uncertainties about this point. The Europeans want strict curbs on both. The common thread to these issues is that the Europeans are taking a moralistic stance that the lion’s share of reduc¬tions should come from “real” emissions cuts at home. The implication is that cuts made via market mechanisms such as trading, or the clever use of carbon sinks, are somehow un¬worthy. Yet the planet is impervious to where or how cuts are made, so long as the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmo¬sphere is reduced. Not that the American stance is beyond reproach. Though negotiators try to paint themselves as principled, market minded folk, the real explanation for their position is pragmatic. They know there is no chance that America will meet its target through cuts in domestic emissions. That is why they see sinks and trading as saviors. And, though they are on firm ground in insisting on unrestricted trading, they should agree to conservative definitions of sinks until scientists understand them better. The proper aim of the negotiations should thus be to turn Kyoto into a treaty that bites, but with full flexibility over how countries should reach the targets that they have signed up to. And the guiding principle must be to err on the side of flexibility. A rigid deal that imposes heavy costs on economies would not only be undesirable in its own right; it would risk scuppering the Kyoto process altogether, leaving the atmosphere far worse off. Onerous short-term targets that force expensive adaptation will come at the expense of jobs, wages and other public goods, including measures to improve the environment. The pain could be particularly acute in the developing world. The best Kyoto deal would harness the engine of economic growth and the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not bet against them. Not only would that ensure that the treaty was implemented at minimum cost. It would also help to create new markets and provide incentives for businesses to innovate.