Weidenbaum Center at Washington U. in St. Louis最新文献

{"title":"Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming","authors":"I. Goklany","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.250380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.250380","url":null,"abstract":"The precautionary principle has been invoked to justify a policy of aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controls that would go beyond \"no regrets\" actions to reduce global warming. However, this justification is based upon selectively applying the principle to the potential public health and environmental consequences of global warming but not to the adverse consequences of such a policy. This report attempts to rectify this one-sided application of the precautionary principle. It finds that such a policy, despite its claim to be precautionary, would, in fact, be incautious in many areas because it has a high likelihood of increasing overall risks to public health and the environment. Specifically, GHG emission reduction requirements that go beyond secular improvements in technology and elimination of unjustified energy subsidies could retard economic development, leading to greater hunger, poorer health, and higher mortality, especially in developing countries. Moreover, higher oil and gas prices would reduce food availability and would also retard switching from solid fuels to more environmentally benign fuels for heating and cooking in households of the developing world. Indoor air pollution resulting from current heating and cooking practices in these nations is a major source of premature deaths. A truly precautionary principle argues, instead, for focusing on solving current problems that may be aggravated by climate change, and on increasing society's adaptability and decreasing its vulnerability to environmental problems in general and climate change in particular. These could be achieved by bolstering the mutually-reinforcing forces of technological change, economic growth, and trade. Moreover, enhancing adaptability and reducing vulnerability will raise the thresholds at which greenhouse gas concentrations could become \"dangerous.\"","PeriodicalId":348929,"journal":{"name":"Weidenbaum Center at Washington U. in St. Louis","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127808714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Four Suggestions for Improving Environmental Health Policy","authors":"Kenneth W. Chilton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.246437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.246437","url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on four questions that affect the utilization of environmental health science and research for policy making and regulatory decision making. These questions are meant to be thought provoking though some may appear a bit rhetorical. The four questions (or issues) examined are: 1) When analyzing an environmental health risk from a particular contaminant, shouldn't the complete picture of risks and benefits of the agent be considered? 2) How important is it to have all elements of an environmental health risk assessment grounded in solid science? 3) Does the environmental health sciences community have a responsibility to foster accurate communication of risks, responding to high profile statements that are incomplete or inaccurate? 4) When communicating environmental health risks, should these risks be placed in the context of more commonly experienced risks?","PeriodicalId":348929,"journal":{"name":"Weidenbaum Center at Washington U. in St. Louis","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121634674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Applying the Precautionary Principle to Genetically Modified Crops","authors":"I. Goklany","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.246530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.246530","url":null,"abstract":"The precautionary principle has often been invoked to justify a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops. However, this justification is based upon a selective application of the principle to the potential public health and environmental benefits of such a ban, while ignoring a ban's potential downside. This is due principally to the fact that the precautionary principle itself provides no guidance on its application in situations where actions (such as a ban on GM crops) could simultaneously lead to uncertain benefits and uncertain costs to public health and the environment. Accordingly, a framework for applying the principle in cases where the final outcome is ambiguous because both costs and benefits are uncertain is developed. Then, based on a brief survey of the public health and environmental costs and benefits of GM crops, this framework is applied to the broad range of consequences of a ban on GM crops. This application of the framework indicates that by comparison with conventional crops, GM crops would increase the quantity and nutritional quality of food supplies. Accordingly, GM crops ensure that-despite the expected increases in human population-the world's progress in improving public health, reducing mortality rates, and increasing life expectancies during the twentieth century should be sustained into the twenty-first. Plant and animal genes have always been part and parcel of the human diet, and consumption of these genes has not modified human DNA. The public health benefits from GM crops, therefore, are likely to be larger in magnitude and more certain than the adverse public health effects from the ingestion of any genes that may be transferred from various organisms into GM crops. With respect to environmental effects, cultivation of GM, rather than conventional, crops would be more protective of biological diversity and nature. By increasing productivity, GM crops reduce the amount of land and water that would otherwise have to be converted to mankind's needs. Reductions in land conversion to agriculture would reduce soil erosion, conserve carbon stores and sinks, and improve water quality. GM crops also could help limit environmental damage by reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and increasing no-till cultivation, which would further reduce soil erosion, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. A comprehensive application of the precautionary principle indicates that a GM crop ban, contrary to the claims of its advocates, would increase overall risks to public health and to the environment. Thus it would be more prudent to research, develop, and commercialize GM crops than to ban such crops, provided reasonable caution is exercised.","PeriodicalId":348929,"journal":{"name":"Weidenbaum Center at Washington U. in St. Louis","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126344905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}