• YES: Marco Martuzzi and Roberto Bertollini, researchers with the World Health Organization (WHO), argue that although the Precautionary Priniciple, which demands preventative action in the face of credible threats of harm (even lacking full scientific certainty), may be difficult to apply, it can be valuable in the effort to protect human health and the environment. (from: The Precautionary Principle, Science and Human Health Protection, International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, January 2004).

• NO: Henry I. Miller, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and policy analyst Gregory Conko argue that the precautionary principle leads regulators to abandon the careful balancing of risks and benefits, blocks progress, limits the freedom of scientific researchers, and restricts consumer choice. (from: The Perils of Precaution, Policy Review, June and July 2001).

• YES: Professor of management Dinah M. Payne and professor of accounting Cecily A. Raiborn argue that environmental responsibility and sustainable development are essential parts of modern business ethics and that only through them can both business and humans thrive. (from: Sustainable Development: The Ethics Support the Economics, Journal of Business Ethics, July 2001).

• NO: Environmental journalist Ronald Bailey states that sustainable development results in economic stagnation and threatens both the environment and the world's poor. (from: Wilting Greens, Reason, December 2002).

• YES: Janet N. Abramovitz, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, argues that if we fail to attach economic value to supposedly free services provided by nature, we are more likely to misuse and destroy the ecosystems that provide those services. (from: Putting a Value on Nature's 'Free' Services, World Watch,January/February 1998).
  

• NO: Professors of applied ecology Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo contend that the pricing approach to valuing nature's services is misleading because it falsely implies that only economic values matter. (from: Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story, BioScience, April 2000).

• YES: Professor of sociobiology Robert D. Bullard argues that even though environmental racism has been recognized for a quarter of a century, it remains a problem, and Bush administration policies threaten to undo what progress has been achieved. (from: Environmental Justice for All, Crisis (The New), January/February 2003).

• NO: Writer and social analyst David Friedman denies the existence of environmental racism. He argues that the environmental justice movement is a government-sanctioned political ploy that will hurt urban minorities by driving away industrial jobs. (from: The 'Environmental Racism' Hoax, The American Enterprise, November/December 1998).

• YES: Environmental journalist Ronald Bailey argues that the natural environment is not in trouble, despite the arguments of many environmentalists that it is. He holds that the greatest danger facing the environment is not human activity but ideological environmentalism, with its hostility to economic growth and technological process. (from Debunking Green Myths, Reason, February 2002)

• NO: David Pimentel, a professor of insect ecology and agricultural sciences, argues that those who contend that the environment is not threatened are using data selectively and that the supply of basic resources to support human life is declining rapidly. (from Skeptical of the Skeptical Environmentalist, Skeptic, vol. 9, no. 2, 2002)

The current approach to environmental problems is reactive; when the environment is degraded, action is taken.  Another approach would be to assume that all human activity degrades the environment and therefore calls for precautionary policies to be issued. 

• YES:   The Rise of the Precautionary Principle:  A Social Movement Gathers Strength.  Nancy Myers

  From an ecological standpoint, prevention is better than reactionary measures because once something has changed the environment a noticable amount, it is very difficult or unlikely that the environment will regain what it has lost.  Scientific uncertainty of the future and of the actual causes that lead to effects both promote the idea of precautionary policy.  The properties of the planet and what it is able to tolerate are far better understood now and this information can be sucessfully applied to policy.  Politics are preventing such measures because of the empirical evidence politicians are demanding that science is not able to present to them. Quantitative risk assessment and the fact that future risks are more tangible to calculate and usually less expensive call for these regulations to be set into motion.  The longer society takes to act, the harder it will be to correct the actions that could have been prevented.

• NO:  The Perils of the Precautionary Principle:  Lessons from the American and European Experience.  John D. Graham

• YES:  The European Dream:  Building Sustainable Development in a Globally Connected World.   Jeremy Rifkin

• NO:   Wilting Greens.   Ronald Bailey

The major goals of preserving the environment, eradicating poverty and limiting economic growth are incompatible.Sustainable development can equate to economic stagnation.  Sustainable development will eventually harm the environment.

Issue Summary: 

• YES:  How much is clean water worth?.  Jim Morrison.

New York city alone costs NYC $13billion.The catskills ecosystem, habitat and wildlife, are economic generators for such things as trout fishing. Ecological economists believe ecosystems are capital assets that can allow a great inflow of money if managed well.  Economists place dollar values on nature for the pure fact of decision making.  Money bolsters decisions because it puts it into perspective.
• NO:  Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services:  The never-ending story  Marino Gato and Guilo A. de Leo
  

Contingent valuation is the only method that allows economists to put a price tag on existence, such as the continued existence of a species.  The outcome of cost-benefit analysis depends on the group of people evaluating it.  The value is also based on a market that does not exist.  Commensurability of different objectives and multicriteria analysis:  The methods of multicriteria analysis are useful in looking at alternatives:  looking at the value of something without placing a monetary value on it; a joint effort of a multidisciplinary team is involved; and, the objective elimination of inadequate alternatives can occur.  Environmental impact assessment and multiattribute decision-making:  Many countries use the environmental impact assessment legislation. Each situation depends on ethical, economic, political, historical, and other conditions to influence the final decision.  The assessment proposes alternatives to a proposed project.

• YES:  Where justice and sustainability meet.  Julian Agyeman
  

• NO:  The environmental racism hoax.  David Freldman

• YES:  The market for pollution. Charles Schmidt

• NO: Trading away the earth:  Pollution credits and the perils of free market environmentalism.  Brian Tokar

• YES:  Impact of military training on the environment.  Benedict Cohen
• The American people entrust the land into the care of all.  There are already regulations in place that the military is following.  The Department of Defense maintains environmental stewardship and is ready for battle just the same.
  
• NO:  Impact of military training on the environment.  Jamie Clark
• Exempting the Department of Defense from the Endangered Species Act among other regulations would be a mistake.  This would cripple the ability to save at-risk organisms and is not necessary for military preparedness.  This also ignores the DoD's assertion that they will uphold the law. 
  

• YES:  Fueling the future:  the road to the hydrogen economy.  David Bodde
• NO:  Warning: the hydrogen economy may be more distant than it appears. Michael Behar

• YES:  Testimony before the subcommittee on energy policy, natural resources and regulatory affairs.  Edward Markey argues that the risks-including those associated with terrorist attack-associated with LNG (liquified natural gas) tankers and terminals are so great that additional federal regulation is essential in order to protect the public. 
  
• NO:  Testimony before the subcommittee on energy policy, natural resources and regulatory affairs. Donald Santa, Jr. argues that meeting demand for energy requires public policies that do not unreasonably limit resource and infrastructure development.  The permitting process for LNG import facilities should be governed by existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission procedures without additional regulatory impediments.
  

• YES:  Nuclear power 2010 program. Michael Wallace argues that because the benefits of nuclear power include energy supply and price stability, air pollution control, and greenhouse gas reduction, new nuclear power plan construction- with federal support- is essential. 
• NO:  The big blackout and Amnesia in Congress:  Lawmakers turn a blind eye to the danger of nuclear power and the failure of electricity deregulation.  Editors of Public Citizen argue that nuclear power is too unreliable and risky to count on.  We must embrace safe, clean, sustainable energy sources. 
  

• YES:  Malaria, mosquitoes and DDT.  Ann Platt McGinn
• NO:  Statement before the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public works, hearing on the role of science in the environmental policy-making.  Donald Roberts

• YES:  The hazards of environmental estrogens.  Michele Trankina argues that a great many synthetic chemicals behave like estrogen, alter the reproductive functioning of wildlife, and may have serious health effects-including cancer-on humans. 
• NO:  Endocrine disrupters, politics, pesticides, the cost of food and health.  Michael Gough, a biologist and expert on risk assessment and environmental policy, argues that only junk science supports the hazards of environmental estrogens.
  

• YES:  Superfund matures gracefully. Robert Harris. Jay Vandeven, Mike Tilchin
• NO:  Superfund matures gracefully.  Margot Roosevelt

• YES:  Statement before the House committee on science, energy subcommittee, hearing on nuclear fuel reprocessing. Phillip Finck argues that by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, the US can enable nuclear power to expand its contribution to the nation's energy needs while reducing carbon emissions, nuclear waste, and the need for waste repositories such as Yucca Mountain. 
• NO:  The case against a near-term decision to reprocess nuclear fuel in the US. Matthew Bunn argues that there is no near-term need to embrace nuclear spent fuel reprocessing, costs are highly uncertain and there is a worrisome risk that the increased availability of bomb-grade nuclear materials will increase the risk of nuclear war or terrorism.

  
  

Wildfires can be both essential to natural ecosystems and dangerous to human life and property. During 2002, the government spent nearly $1 billion fighting forest fires that consumed almost seven million acres of U.S. federally managed forests, including 35,000 acres in New Mexico, 42,000 acres in Alaska, and 42,000 acres in Arizona. To prevent further wildfire destruction, the Bush administration proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative, which plans to prevent wildfire destruction by expediting forest-thinning and restoration projects. The plan proposes the immediate thinning of backcountry forests by easing regulatory restrictions and making it harder for environmentalists to stop or delay forest-thinning projects. Environmental groups believe that the Bush plan will only prevent the public from changing or appealing logging decisions. The worksheet includes the URL for the White House website.

As we release pollutants into our environment, trace chemicals are sometimes absorbed by small organisms.  As small organisms are consumed by larger organisms, the toxins can pass on and become more concentrated in the larger organisms.  As the chemicals move higher up the food chain, the chemicals magnify in intensity, a process known as biomagnification.  According to researchers, eating certain seafood may lead to an increased exposure to mercury.  Exposure to mercury can result in an increased risk of the following:  blurred vision, deafness, coma, heart attack, or even death.  Those primarily at risk are small children, nursing mothers, pregnant women, and grown men.  Some of the least risky seafood include most shellfish, salmon, halibut, catfish, and other small oceanic fish.  Fish that may be contaminated with mercury include fresh or frozen tuna, marlin, or red snapper.  Researchers recommend avoiding seafood, such as swordfish, shark, tilefish, and king mackerel.  The Food and Drug Administration recommends individuals consume 2–4 servings a week from a variety of fish species, which contribute to the cardiovascular benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.  The worksheet includes the URL to the Monterey Bay Aquarium website.