Jim:
> > In May, we were talking about environmental education and the
> > precautionary
> > principle. If you dare have the audacity to suggest that the
> > precautionary
> > principle may not *always* be the appropriate principle by which to
> > guide
> > environmental policies, then you are labeled an "anti-environmentalist"
I tend to agree with this statement. So what principle do you propose instead?
Give us one example where precautions should not be taken in terms of
environmental impacts. I agree that if some practice or technology is
demonstrated to be benign, then it still needs to be assessed. Without or
with the PP. We need to know.
No one accused you Jim of being an 'anti-environmentalist'. If you can show
me in the archives where any one said you were an 'anti-environmentalist',
then show it to me.
Even Monsanto is asking that the Principle of Precaution be taken. What do
you have against a principle?
What principle would you like to apply in place of the PP?
You have not answered with a remedy that would be better, or best? Simply
attacking a principle is fruitless on it's own.
john
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|