Taking Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues

PART 1. Philosophy and Politics ISSUE 1. Should a Price Be Put on the Goods and Services Providedby the World''s Ecosystems? YES: Janet N. Abramovitz, from "Putting a Value on Nature''s 'Free''Services", World Watch NO: Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo, from "PricingBiodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story", BioScience Janet N. Abramovitz, a senior researcher at the WorldwatchInstitute, argues that if we fail to attach economic value tosupposedly free services provided by nature, we are more likely tomisuse and destroy the ecosystems that provide those services.Professors of applied ecology Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leocontend that the pricing approach to valuing nature''s services ismisleading because it falsely implies that only economic valuesmatter. ISSUE 2. Is Biodiversity Overprotected? YES: David N. Laband, from "Regulating Biodiversity: Tragedyin the Political Commons", Ideas on Liberty NO: E. O. Wilson, from "Why Biodiversity Matters", interviewby Kris Christen, OECD Observer Professor of economics David N. Laband argues that thepublic demands excessive amounts of biodiversity largely becausedecision makers and voters do not have to bear the costs of producingit. In an interview with science writer Kris Christen, biologist E. O.Wilson argues that biodiversity is crucial to human survival and thatefforts need to be increased to protect it. He maintains that the lossof species reduces the productivity and stability of naturalecosystems and that with each species lost, potential drugs and othervaluable resources are also lost. ISSUE 3. Are Environmental Regulations Too Restrictive? YES: Peter W. Huber, from "Saving the Environment From theEnvironmentalists", Commentary NO: Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, from "Brownlash: TheNew Environmental Anti-Science", The Humanist Peter W. Huber, a senior fellow at the ManhattanInstitute, argues that the environment is best protected bytraditional conservation, which puts human concerns first.Environmental scientists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich arguethat many objections to environmental protections are self-servingand based in bad or misused science. ISSUE 4. Should Environmental Policy Attempt to Cure EnvironmentalRacism? YES: Robert D. Bullard, from "Dismantling EnvironmentalRacism in the USA", Local Environment NO: David Friedman, from "The 'Environmental Racism'' Hoax", The American Enterprise Professor of sociology Robert D. Bullard argues thatenvironmental racism is a genuine phenomenon and that the governmentmust live up to its mandate to protect all people. Writer and socialanalyst David Friedman denies the existence of environmental racism.He argues that the environmental justice movement is agovernment-sanctioned political ploy that will hurt urban minoritiesby driving away industrial jobs. ISSUE 5. Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Basis forInternational Policy? YES: Paul L. Stein, from "Are Decision-Makers Too CautiousWith the Precautionary Principle?" Paper Delivered at the Land andEnvironment Court of New South Wales Annual Conference NO: Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, from "The Perils ofPrecaution", Policy Review Paul L. Stein, a justice of the New South Wales Court ofAppeals, argues that the precautionary principle is now a cornerstoneof international environmental law and that the courts have a duty toimplement the principle even beyond the requirements of legislation.Henry I. Miller, a research fellow at Stanford University''s HooverInstitution, and policy analyst Gregory Conko argue that theprecautionary principle leads "regulators to abandon the carefulbalancing of risks and benefits", blocks progress, limits thefreedom of scientific researchers, and restricts consumerchoice. ISSUE 6. Do Environmentalists Overstate Their Case? YES: Ronald Bailey, from "Debunking Green Myths", Reason NO: David Pimentel, from "Skeptical of the SkepticalEnvironmentalist", Skeptic Environmental journalist Ronald Bailey argues that thenatural environment is not in trouble, despite the arguments of manyenvironmentalists that it is. He holds that the greatest danger facingthe environment is not human activity but "ideologicalenvironmentalism, with its hostility to economic growth andtechnological progress". David Pimentel, a professor of insect ecologyand agricultural sciences, argues that those who contend that theenvironment is not threatened are using data selectively and that thesupply of basic resources to support human life is decliningrapidly. PART 2. Environmental Impacts ISSUE 7. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Openedto Oil Drilling? YES: Dwight R. Lee, from "To Drill or Not to Drill: Let theEnvironmentalists Decide", The Independent Review NO: Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, from "Fool''s Goldin Alaska", Foreign Affairs Professor of economics Dwight R. Lee argues that theeconomic and other benefits of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)oil are so great that even environmentalists should agree to permitdrilling--and they probably would if they stood to benefit directly.Physicist Amory B. Lovins and lawyer L. Hunter Lovins assert thatrecovering ANWR oil is too costly and too vulnerable to disruption.They hold that alternatives such as developing greater fuel efficiencyare wiser choices for meeting future energy needs. ISSUE 8. Should DDT Be Banned Worldwide? YES: Anne Platt McGinn, from "Malaria, Mosquitoes, and DDT", World Watch NO: Roger Bate, from "A Case of the DDTs", NationalReview Anne Platt McGinn, a senior researcher at the WorldwatchInstitute, argues that although DDT is still used to fight malaria,there are other, more effective and less environmentally harmfulmethods. She maintains that DDT should be banned or reserved foremergency use. Roger Bate, director of Africa Fighting Malaria,asserts that DDT is the cheapest and most effective way to combatmalaria and that it should remain available for use. ISSUE 9. Is Genetic Engineering an Environmentally Sound Way toIncrease Food Production? YES: Royal Society of London et al., from "Transgenic Plantsand World Agriculture", A Report Prepared Under the Auspices of theRoyal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, theBrazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, theIndian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, andthe Third World Academy of Sciences NO: Brian Halweil, from "The Emperor''s New Crops", WorldWatch The national academies of science of the United Kingdom,the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the Third Worldargue that genetically modified crops hold the potential to feed theworld during the twenty-first century while also protecting theenvironment. Brian Halweil, a researcher at the Worldwatch Institute,argues that the genetic modification of crops threatens to producepesticide-resistant insect pests and herbicide-resistant weeds, willvictimize poor farmers, and is unlikely to feed theworld. ISSUE 10. Do Environmental Hormone Mimics Pose a PotentiallySerious Health Threat? YES: Sheldon Krimsky, from "Hormone Disruptors: A Clue toUnderstanding the Environmental Causes of Disease", Environment NO: Stephen H. Safe, from "Environmental and Dietary Estrogens andHuman Health: Is There a Problem?"Easton, Thomas A. is the author of 'Taking Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues', published 2002 under ISBN 9780072855319 and ISBN 0072855312.