Rachel's Precaution Reporter #180
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
From: Great Lakes Law ....................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 3, 2009
OBAMA AND EPA GET A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR REGULATING GREENHOUSE GASES
[Rachel's introduction: "I argue that we should stop thinking of responses to climate change in terms of the precautionary principle, which counsels action even in the absence of scientific consensus about a threat. We should speak instead in terms of a "post- cautionary" principle for a postcautionary world, in which some very bad effects of climate change are unavoidable and others are avoidable only if we take dramatic steps, and soon." -- Lisa Heinzerling]
By Noah Hall
The Obama administration and EPA get a strong advocate for regulating greenhouse gas pollution
It now appears official that Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling will be joining the EPA as a special advisor to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate change issues. I've known Lisa H. for several years (we are co-authoring the casebook Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society) and there is no better person for the job. Lisa is one of the most effective, intelligent, passionate, and knowledgeable environmental and regulatory law scholars in the country. She is also a wonderful person and a pleasure to work with and learn from.
Substantively, Lisa will be a strong and persuasive advocate for addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. She was the lead author of the brief in Massachusetts v. EPA that persuaded the Supreme Court that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act. She was justifiably critical of the Bush EPA's failure to use existing legal tools, even when obligated to do so. Her short essay, "A Climate Agenda for the New President" published last fall in the Michigan Law Review's online First Impressions, outlines four immediate regulatory steps the new administration (which now includes her) should take to address climate change:
1. The EPA administrator should formally find that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
2. With the endangerment finding in hand, the EPA should regulate new stationary sources (pollutant sources, like factories or power plants, that are fixed in place) under the Clean Air Act.
3. The EPA should reverse course and grant California permission -- a "waiver," in Clean Air Act parlance -- to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. [President Obama has already directed the EPA to do this.]
4. The United States Forest Service should do whatever it needs to do to revive the Clinton-era rule protecting almost sixty million acres of roadless areas in our national forests and then ensure that the rule remains in force.... [which] will help to address climate change, not through traditional pollution control, but through the preservation of carbon sinks that can absorb some of the carbon we discharge into the atmosphere.
In another recent essay, "Climate Change, Human Health, and the Post- Cautionary Principle" published in the Georgetown Law Journal, Lisa gives a clear statement on her legal and moral views regarding climate change:
I suggest two different but related ways of reframing the public discourse on climate change. First, I propose that we move further in the direction of characterizing climate change as a public health threat and not only as an environmental threat. Second, I argue that we should stop thinking of responses to climate change in terms of the precautionary principle, which counsels action even in the absence of scientific consensus about a threat. We should speak instead in terms of a "post-cautionary" principle for a postcautionary world, in which some very bad effects of climate change are unavoidable and others are avoidable only if we take dramatic steps, and soon. These points are related insofar as they together create a moral imperative both to adapt to the changes we cannot prevent and to mitigate those we can. Without these efforts, people will fall ill and many will die, and we know now that this will occur. No fancy moral theory is required to condemn, and to make every attempt to avert, this large-scale knowing killing.
Philosophically, morally, and legally, she is clearly a much needed change from the previous administration. Congratulations Lisa, glad to have you on the job.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: EcoWaste Coalition ..................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 4, 2009
DOH URGED TO PREVENT WOMEN'S EXPOSURE TO HORMONE DISRUPTORS
[Rachel's introduction: "We therefore urge Secretary Duque to initiate policy solutions, applying the precautionary principle, that will adequately safeguard our girls and women from early-life exposures to these harmful chemicals that can cause later-life health issues and even multi-generational harm,"]
Quezon City (Philippines) -- An environmental alliance working on chemical safety policy reforms today called on Health Secretary Duque to initiate measures that will prevent women's exposure to hormone- mimicking chemicals.
The EcoWaste Coalition aired this request for action as it releases the report "Girl, Disrupted: Hormone Disruptors and Women's Reproductive Health" published by the US-based Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE).
"Girl, Disrupted," based on cutting-edge research and reviewed by top scientists in the field, sheds light on what hormone disruptors are and how these chemicals harm women's reproductive systems, particularly at critical stages of development.
The new report says that manmade, hormone-like chemicals in the environment harm women's reproductive systems, particularly when exposure occurs during prenatal and early life development, stressing that more focused research is needed to fully understand how.
"I continue to be surprised by the number of doctors that come up to me at conferences and comment on what they are seeing in their patients that they have never seen before," said Dr. Tracey Woodruff, Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE) at the University of California, San Francisco, reviewer of the report.
"Girls entering puberty at extremely young ages, young women suffering from the inability to get pregnant and conditions normally associated with older ages such as very painful fibroids, endometriosis and breast cancer," she said.
In a letter faxed to the Department of Health, the EcoWaste Coalition expressed concern over the effects of industrial chemicals as cited in the report that have been linked to serious health problems for women such as early puberty, infertility, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, breast cancer and others.
"These industrial chemicals known as endocrine or hormone disruptors can disturb hormonal balances that are critical for the good health and development at all phases of a woman's life," Elsie Brandes-De Veyra of the EcoWaste Coalition's Steering Committee said.
"We therefore urge Secretary Duque to initiate policy solutions, applying the precautionary principle, that will adequately safeguard our girls and women from early- life exposures to these harmful chemicals that can cause later-life health issues and even multi- generational harm," De Veyra added.
Hormone disruptors, the "Girl, Disrupted" explains, can get into the human bodies when we breathe, eat, drink and have skin contact with these harmful chemicals that can be found in household products as well as in cigarette smoke, industrial pollutants and some pesticides.
Some of these hormone disruptors include bisphenol A, which is commonly used in baby feeding bottles, sports bottles and in the linings of infant formula and canned foods, and phthalates, which are used in children's products, cosmetics, medical devices and as plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride.
Other known hormone disruptors include chemicals in first and secondhand cigarette smoke, the dioxin byproducts from industrial and burning processes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in transformer oils and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) used as flame retardant in electrical appliances, textiles, plastic foams and other products.
Studies show that the health impacts of these chemicals to hormonal functions depend on the potency and dose of the chemical, the timing of the exposure and the individual's overall health, which can be shaped, among other factors, by the person's genetic makeup, diet, physical habits, sexually transmitted diseases and access to healthcare.
In calling for action versus hormone disruptors, the EcoWaste Coalition asked Secretary Duque to support local research on endocrine disrupting chemicals and their effects on women's health, and for him to support policies that will identify and phase out harmful chemicals in products and to require the use of safer substitutes.
The EcoWaste Coalition specifically asked the Department of Health, as the principal public health and safety agency, to lead the process of listing non-environmentally acceptable products and packaging to be targeted for phase out under Republic Act 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.
As for the consuming public, the EcoWaste Coalition encourages consumers to insist on toxics-free goods as a fundamental right, and to have access to chemical information, including a product's chemical ingredients, health effects and eco-disposal, to facilitate informed choices.
"Girl, Disrupted" is available for free download at CHE, a nonprofit, nonpartisan global network of more than 3,000 individuals and organizations focused on the science of environmental health:
============
EcoWaste Coalition Unit 320, Eagle Court Condominium, Matalino St. Quezon City, Philippines +63 2 9290376 ecowastecoalition@yahoo.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, Philippines) .....[This story printer-friendly]
February 2, 2009
A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
[Rachel's introduction: "Environmental laws and regulations must abide by the precautionary principle. This principle simply holds that uncertainty in the science should not be an obstacle or excuse to postpone mitigating action. It is a conservative principle which in the case of scientific uncertainty places the burden of proof on the polluter, not on the affected, i.e. the polluter has the responsibility to prove that what is being spewed into the environment is not harmful.]
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
A provision in the 1987 Constitution [of the Philippines], which once some saw as unnecessary, has been gradually gaining attention. Section 16 of Article II says: "The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." In tandem with it is Section 15, which says: "The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."
Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II in that, whereas almost all the other provisions in the Article are not self-executing but need implementing legislation to make them effective, Section 16 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as self-executing like the provisions in the Bill of Rights. As early as 1993 the Supreme Court already recognized it, in conjunction with the right to health, as anchoring the right of a group of minors to challenge logging practices in the country. The minors, speaking for themselves and for "generations yet unborn" under the concept of "inter-generational justice," asked the Court to order a stop to the harmful effects flowing from deforestation. The Court upheld their right to raise the challenge as flowing from their "right to a balanced and healthful ecology" and "the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment."
Not long after that the Court upheld the right of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to be responsible for the ecological protection of Laguna Lake against the claimed authority of the local governments around the lake. The Supreme Court linked Section 16 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978.
Along a similar vein, in 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of an ordinance of the City of Manila requiring the oil companies to close and transfer the Pandacan Terminals to another location within a specified period.
The latest on this subject came out only last December. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Residents of Manila Bay, the Supreme Court ordered various agencies of government to clean up Manila Bay.
All these have come about because of the desire of the state as enunciated in the Constitution to ensure for the people a healthy environment. This constitutional policy, even if already self- executing, has been injected with an element of urgency through various laws.
The latest development on the subject is an ordinance promulgated by the City of Davao ordering a stop to aerial spraying of fungicides in the plantations of Davao. I wrote about this last week saying that this is unfinished business. The ordinance was brought to court and one of the issues was whether conclusive evidence existed to prove that aerial spraying was the cause of ailments reported as affecting some people in the area. The Court of Appeals found no conclusive evidence and saw this as one of the reasons why the ordinance should be invalidated. (Another reason was the alleged impossibility and enormous cost of switching to a different method of speeding fungicides.)
About the issue of lack of evidence, Fr. Jett Villarin, S.J., president of Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro and a scientist whose area of expertise is environmental matters, made some interesting observations in a letter he sent me. He says:
"Environmental laws and regulations must abide by the precautionary principle. This principle simply holds that uncertainty in the science should not be an obstacle or excuse to postpone mitigating action. It is a conservative principle which in the case of scientific uncertainty places the burden of proof on the polluter, not on the affected, i.e. the polluter has the responsibility to prove that what is being spewed into the environment is not harmful. [The Court of Appeals had said that the planters had failed to do this.] Corollary, it is not the responsibility of the affected to prove that the effluent is poisonous. In view of scientific uncertainty, the presumption is that the chemical is harmful.
"Aerial spraying is better deployed in advanced countries where there is mechanized agriculture and land buffers are maintained. In the Philippines and other developing countries, communities live close to the plants and the land they till.
"The degree of harm depends on the lifetime, human exposure and concentration levels of the chemical. These will depend on the state of the atmosphere. Greater control of the dispersion of chemicals is possible in stable atmospheres. Tropical atmospheres are frequently unstable and less predictable. You only need to ask a fisherman who knows how locally unpredictable amihan can be these days.
"If I were a banana plant manager, I would seriously weigh the marginal cost of mitigating the impact of aerial spraying or the total cost of adopting another technology alongside the externality costs of possible medical, rehabilitation, and legal class action in the future. If three months are not enough to change systems, I would negotiate for a protracted withdrawal schedule. Time, like air, can dilute costs.
"If I were a banana farmer, I would try to convince my amo that people are better than planes. People can say thank you. Planes can only fly.
"As a priest, I hope that our judges and our agriculturists see that heaven might be an aerial place and that God's bottom line might be different from theirs."
Of course, the last two paragraphs are neither science nor law. But they can be of greater significance than either science or law, or bananas.
Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: San Francisco Bay Guardian ..........................[This story printer-friendly]
February 4, 2009
TAILPIPE TURNAROUND
[Rachel's introduction: "The real challenge for local governments is not in adapting their vehicles, but adapting policy to reflect progressive approaches like San Francisco's 'Precautionary Principle,' adopted in 2003. The policy puts the burden of proof on advocates of new technology to show it is safe."]
By Andrew W. Shaw
Word that automobile emissions standards may soon improve was good news, but Bay Area leaders and communities are demanding even more to offset the harm that comes from tailpipes.
President Barack Obama last month called for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow California and as many as 13 other states to employ their own emissions restrictions. "Our goal," said Obama at the White House, "is not to further burden an already struggling industry. It is to help America's automakers prepare for the future."
A review of the request is now underway and manufacturers were reassured they would have enough time to rework their 2011 lines. By then, cars and trucks should have improved efficiency and better mileage, outpacing three-year-old national standards that have been in place since the EPA refused to grant a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.
Locally, the city's Transportation Authority is reworking the local Climate Action Plan to emphasize emissions reductions. But the problem is expected to get worse before it gets better.
Researchers at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District expect greenhouse gas emissions from transportation to increase dramatically from 42.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year to 65.4 million in 2029 under "business as usual conditions."
That may be why Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed released a letter Jan. 23 opposing federal plans for an auto industry bailout unless there are more strings attached to the money and more progressive programs to develop low-emission vehicles regionally. The two mayors called for an auto bailout that would "not divert funds from innovative emerging transportation technologies."
Jan Lundberg, a former oil industry analyst turned activist and a former member of the San Francisco Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force, calls for even bolder steps: "The kinds of amelioration being talked about and offered are woefully inadequate. We should just get rid of car dependency. Most of the pollution involved -- into the air, from the car -- is not from the tailpipe. It's from the mining and the manufacturing associated with the car."
The real challenge for local governments is not in adapting their vehicles, but adapting policy to reflect progressive approaches like San Francisco's "Precautionary Principle," adopted in 2003. The policy puts the burden of proof on advocates of new technology to show it is safe. Debbie Raphael, the Green Building Program Manager with San Francisco's Department of the Environment, has been pushing for a change in how environmental codes are implemented. "Taxpayers have every right to know the risks," she said. "The burden then falls on industry to study possible negative consequences and to investigate safer alternatives."
Writer and activist Bill McKibben addressed the issue last fall when he spoke at Herbst Theatre, recognizing San Francisco as an environmental leader among cities. "This is clearly a community that is doing so many of the things right that need to be done. One community at a time is a very noble way to proceed. But in the end, it's only half the battle. We've got to get the political movement going that allows us to do this everywhere, not just in the places that already understand it."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: CBCPNews Online (Manila, Philippines) ...............[This story printer-friendly]
February 3, 2009
STRINGENT POLICIES ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS ON FOOD URGED
[Rachel's introduction: Participants adopted a "Citizens' Statement for the Protection of Consumers against Toxic Chemicals" outlining the basic principles that should guide the formulation of a holistic chemicals regulatory regime that will promote human and ecological health and safety. Foremost among these is the precautionary principle....]
Manila (Philippines) -- A waste and pollution watchdog pressed for stronger curbs on harmful chemicals to ensure the safety of consumers amid brewing concern over the presence of toxic substances in products that can damage human health and the environment.
The EcoWaste Coalition called for stringent policy and regulation of chemicals at the conclusion of their workshop on chemical safety held recently at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City.
"By calling for tighter rules on chemicals, we want to halt the unwanted intrusion of harmful chemicals into our bodies as we also seek to protect our vital life support systems from being poisoned. Chemical trespassing has to stop," Manny Calonzo of the EcoWaste Coalition and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives said.
The workshop gathered 150 public health and environmental advocates from Metro Manila and from other parts of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Included among the participants were two priests from Imus and Tandag dioceses and lay groups from Kalookan and Cabanatuan dioceses.
Participants adopted a "Citizens' Statement for the Protection of Consumers against Toxic Chemicals" outlining the basic principles that should guide the formulation of a holistic chemicals regulatory regime that will promote human and ecological health and safety.
Foremost among these is the precautionary principle, which refers to the application of preventive measures to minimize potential adverse effects to people's health and the environment of an activity even if cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
"We urge the government, particularly the health, environment and trade agencies, to act with urgency to stop chemical pollution that is already jeopardizing the health of our people, especially the pregnant women, developing fetus, infants, children, elderly, and the agricultural, industrial, healthcare and waste workers," Calonzo said.
The participants, mostly from grassroots communities, also expressed their commitment to contribute to the United Nation's goal of promoting chemical safety as detailed in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
SAICM seeks "the sound management of chemicals throughout their life- cycle so that, by 2020, chemicals are used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment."
The "Citizens' Statement" stressed the need of consumers to have access to vital chemical data, including information on their health effects and disposal, to facilitate informed choices on what to consume and what to reject.
Consumers, the Eco group said, should insist on their personal and collective "right to know" and demand that only safe and toxics-free products are sold in the market.
"By asserting our purchasing power and making the smart choice of not buying goods whose production, sale, use and disposal may damage our bodies and the ecosystems can hasten industry shifts to safer substitutes, including non-chemical alternatives," Calonzo said.
Towards a toxics-free future, the participants agreed to pursue Zero Waste that will cut not only the volume but also the toxicity of discards and pressed for a ban on toxic substances such as lead, mercury, phthalates and bisphenol A in toys, children's products, medical devices and other consumer items.
They likewise expressed their support for ongoing campaigns to ban the aerial spraying of pesticide, to enact picture-based health warnings on cigarette packs, and to defend breastmilk, "the first Zero Waste food," from industry attacks and chemical pollution.
Specific recommendations were also made to the Departments of Health, Environment and Natural Resources, and Trade and Industry as well as to the academe, church, industry and civil society.
Companies were particularly asked to embrace the principle of sustainability, design for the environment, and be liable for the whole cost of pollution and injury from the production, sale, use and disposal of toxic chemicals in their products.
CBCP News :: Official news agency of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Embodied Space .....................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 6, 2008
EARTH SURVIVES; CIVILIZATION COLLAPSES?
[Rachel's introduction: "Unless we forthrightly begin practicing in our public policies the precautionary principle, then we react too late to the changes. It WILL be interesting."]
By Lee Durham Stone
This is my jeremiad: The Earth itself will survive, of course, but in an altered state. The question then becomes what will happen to possibly billions of humans in coming decades, as the U.N. projects in its middle projection that the Earth will have 9.1 billion humans by 2050, an increase of 2.5 billion over today. For example, with global climate change, what will ensue -- what rapid human changes will need to made -- if the agricultural zones of the central Plains in the U.S. shift northward hundreds of miles toward and into Canada? How many trillions of dollars would be needed to make that adjustment, an adjustment to an area that is one of the principal breadbaskets of the world?
Yes, the world is always in flux and climate is no exception. Scientists believe we are in an interglacial period, but the overwhelming consensus is that the current rapid changes are anthropogenic (human-caused) in origin.
Not abusing the Earth? Mountaintop removal in the coalfields of Appalachia where I worked as a strip-mine inspector; the mass of plastic the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean; the great majority of rivers in China that are terribly polluted -- I'd say these are just a few examples of the human destruction of life-systems of Earth.
Sure, global climate change might benefit the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean, as it is now projected that the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free by 2070, and those countries could explore for what might be 25% of the world's reserves of oil and gas. At the same time, of course, the rise in the eustatic level (sea level) would also cause some massive readjustments along coastlines of the planet, where so many people (including me) now live.
One huge change looming just over the horizon is the approach of peak oil, when the production of petroleum that has for so long been increasing, reaches the point of decreasing production. Even though at that tipping point there would still be a great deal of oil in the pipeline, prices would begin a rapid spiral upwards. Sure, there would be lots of oil, but priced beyond what our economy could easily use. Again, massive changes would ensue, too fast to adjust to without gargantuan disruption to life as we are used to living it.
Yes, Earth will survive, but what is the fate of life as we know it? Jarred Diamond, a historical geographer at UCLA, writing in Collapse, his study of the causes of collapse of past civilizations, outlined several reasons for civilizational failure. They include civilizations who saw the collapse coming, but were not able to make necessary changes in time. I think this is where we are at this point: seeing, but not believing enough, or partly paralyzed into inaction. We'll see. Unless we forthrightly begin practicing in our public policies the precautionary principle, then we react too late to the changes. It WILL be interesting.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Living Hero .........................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 1, 2009
INTERVIEW WITH CAROLYN RAFFENSPERGER
[Rachel's introduction: The Living Hero Podcast proudly presents an interview with environmental lawyer and public health advocate, Carolyn Raffensperger. An environmental lawyer, she specializes in the fundamental changes in law and policy necessary for the protection and restoration of public health and the environment.]
Listen to this 45-minute interview at your convenience! Use this link to download this episode (right click and save).
The Living Hero Podcast proudly presents an interview with environmental lawyer and public health advocate, Carolyn Raffensperger. Carolyn is executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, where she has worked since 1994.
In 1982, Ms. Raffensperger left a career as an archaeologist in the desert Southwest to join the environmental movement. She first worked for the Sierra Club where she addressed an array of environmental issues, including forest management, river protection, pesticide pollutants, and the disposal of radioactive waste. As an environmental lawyer she specializes in the fundamental changes in law and policy necessary for the protection and restoration of public health and the environment.
We talked about:
** faulty assumptions underlying environmental decision making
** the precautionary principle and what it is
** a new report on health, aging and the environment
** reversing the burden of proof on the safety of industrial chemicals
** law, corporate structure, and your inalienable right to a clean and healthy environment
** Carolyn's legal work for the rights of future generations and the commonwealth
** the biggest obstacles and the greatest opportunities for reform o the essential nature of the arts and how they function in the process of change
** genetically altered seeds, the sex of plants, and the farmer- scientist breeding project
** turning the Titanic
** ecological medicine and the economics of aging
Carolyn is co-editor of Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy published by M.I.T. Press (2006) and Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, published by Island Press (1999). Together, these volumes provide the most comprehensive exploration to date of the history, theory, and implementation of the precautionary principle.
Carolyn Raffensperger is responsible for coining the term "ecological medicine" to encompass the broad notions that both health and healing are entwined with the natural world. She has served on editorial review boards for several environmental and sustainable agriculture journals, and on USEPA and National Research Council committees. Her bimonthly column for the Environmental Law Institute's journal Environmental Forum appeared from 1999 until 2008.
Our guest has also been featured in Gourmet magazine, the Utne Reader, Yes! Magazine, the Sun, Whole Earth, and Scientific American. Along with leading workshops and lecturing frequently on the Precautionary Principle, Carolyn is at the forefront of developing new models of government, which will depend on precaution and ecological integrity, and guardianship for future generations.
For more information, visit the websites of The Science and Environmental Health Network and of Guardians of the Future.
Enjoy the show and please add your comments! These interviews are presented in audio format only -- sorry no transcripts at this time! You may download the mp3 file, which will play in iTunes, RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and other media players. (The program is 45 minutes)
Listen at your convenience! Use this link to download this episode (right click and save).
Instructions for Windows Right click on the link that says "Download this episode (right click and save)". Click on "Save Target as". The file will start downloading. A window will pop up and the name of the file will be filled in, as well as the file format. Just choose to save it to your desktop in the left bar.Then you will have an mp3 file sitting on your desktop. Right click on that and choose Open with: iTunes (or your chosen player). Or, alternatively, open iTunes and just drag the mp3 into iTunes.
Instructions for Mac Control click or right click on the link that says "Download this episode (right click and save)". Either "Open with iTunes" to listen now or "Download link file as" and save to your desktop. Open with iTunes later or just drag the file into iTunes and play it whenever you like.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::