Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - IOWA-TOPICS Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

IOWA-TOPICS Archives

March 2004, Week 2

IOWA-TOPICS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
IOWA-TOPICS Home IOWA-TOPICS Home
IOWA-TOPICS March 2004, Week 2

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
interesting book review
From:
laura belin <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
Date:
Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:32:04 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (87 lines)
The discussion touches on a range of environmental
issues, and generally on whether regulation should be
based on a "precautionary principle" or a strict
cost-benefit analysis.

I've pasted just the first passage below. To read the
whole review, by the highly-regarded legal theorist
Cass Sunstein, go to this web link:

http://www.powells.com/review/2004_03_11

Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the
Value of Nothing
by  Frank Ackerman

Your Money or Your Life
A Review by Cass R. Sunstein

 In protecting the environment, how do America and
Europe differ? The standard account is this:


Europe follows the precautionary principle; America
follows cost-benefit analysis.



According to the precautionary principle, it is better
to be safe than sorry. Aggressive regulation is


justified even in the face of scientific uncertainty
-- even if it is not yet clear that environmental
risks


are serious. According to cost-benefit analysis,
regulation should be undertaken not on the basis of


speculation, but only if it is justified by a careful
quantitative assessment of both the costs and the


benefits of regulatory action. The two approaches lead
in radically different directions. What should


national governments do about the genetic modification
of food? Many Europeans argue that the


consequences of genetic modification are uncertain and
that real harm is possible -- and hence that


stringent regulation is readily justified. Many
Americans respond that the likely benefits of genetic


modification are far greater than the likely harms --
and that stringent regulation is unsupportable. Or


consider global warming. Many European leaders have
argued in favor of precautions, even


extremely expensive ones, simply to reduce the risk of
catastrophe. But under President Bush,


American officials have called for continuing research
on the costs and the benefits of higher


temperatures.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV