TAKING SIDES: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, 13/e EXPANDED presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor’s manual with testing material is available for each volume. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by a book website. Visit www.mhcls.com.

Table of Contents:
Table of Contents TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues Thirteenth Edition, Expanded Unit 1 Environmental Philosophy Issue 1. Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Approach to Risk Analysis? YES: Nancy Myers, from “The Rise of the Precautionary Principle: A Social Movement Gathers Strength,” Multinational Monitor (September 2004) NO: Bernard D. Goldstein, from “The Precautionary Principle: Is It a Threat to Toxicological Science?” International Journal of Toxicology (January/February 2006) Nancy Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, argues that because the precautionary principle “makes sense of uncertainty,” it has gained broad international recognition as being crucial to environmental policy. Bernard D. Goldstein, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Pittsburgh, argues that although the precautionary principle is potentially valuable, it poses a risk that scientific (particularly toxicological) risk assessment will be displaced to the detriment of public health, social justice, and the field of toxicology itself. Issue 2. Is Sustainable Development Compatible with Human Welfare? YES: Jeremy Rifkin, from “The European Dream: Building Sustainable Development in a Globally Connected World,” E Magazine (March/April 2005) NO: Ronald Bailey, from “Wilting Greens,” Reason (December 2002) Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, argues that Europeans pride themselves on their quality of life, and their emphasis on sustainable development promises to maintain that quality of life into the future. Environmental journalist Ronald Bailey states that sustainable development results in economic stagnation and threatens both the environment and the world’s poor. Issue 3. Should a Price Be Put on the Goods and Services Provided by the World’s Ecosystems? YES: John E. Losey and Mace Vaughan, from “The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects,” BioScience (April 2006) NO: Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo, from “Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story,” BioScience (April 2000) John E. Losey and Mace Vaughan argue that even conservative estimates of the value of the services provided by wild insects are enough to justify increased conservation efforts. They say that “everyone would benefit from the facilitation of the vital services these insects provide.” Professors of applied ecology Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo contend that the pricing approach to valuing nature’s services is misleading because it falsely implies that only economic values matter. Unit 2 Principles Versus Politics Issue 4. Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened? YES: John Kostyack, from “Testimony before the Oversight Hearing on the Endangered Species Act,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (May 19, 2005) NO: Monita Fontaine, from “Testimony before the Oversight Hearing on the Endangered Species Act,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (May 19, 2005) Representing the National Wildlife Foundation, John Kostyack argues that the Endangered Species Act has been so successful that it should not be weakened but strengthened. Speaking for the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, a group that represents those affected by the Endangered Species Act, Monita Fontaine argues that federal regulation under the ESA should be replaced by a system that relies more on voluntary and state species conservation efforts. Issue 5. Should the EPA Be Doing More to Fight Environmental Injustice? YES: Robert D. Bullard, from “Environmental Justice Programs,” Statement before the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (July 25, 2007) NO: Granta Y. Nakayama, from “Environmental Justice Programs,” Statement before the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (July 25, 2007) Professor Robert D. Bullard argues that despite a 1994 Executive Order directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that minority and poor communities not bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and other environmental ills, environmental justice still eludes many people. Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance, argues that the EPA is a “trailblazer” in the government’s effort to achieve environmental justice and is planning to review its programs. Issue 6. Can Pollution Rights Trading Effectively Control Environmental Problems? YES: James Allen and Anthony White, from “Carbon Trading,” Electric Perspectives (September/October 2005) NO: Brian Tokar, from “Trading Away the Earth: Pollution Credits and the Perils of ‘Free Market Environmentalism,’” Dollars & Sense (March/April 1996) James Allen and Anthony White describe the European Union’s Green-house Gas Emissions Trading Scheme and argue that it encourages investment in carbon-abatement technologies and depends on govern-mental commitments to reducing emissions despite possible adverse economic effects. Author, college teacher, and environmental activist Brian Tokar maintains that pollution credits and other market-oriented environ-mental protection policies do nothing to reduce pollution while transferring the power to protect the environment from the public to large corporate polluters. Unit 3 Energy Issues Issue 7. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling? YES: Dwight R. Lee, from “To Drill or Not to Drill,” The Independent Review (Fall 2001) NO: Jeff Bingaman et al., from Senate Energy Committee (October 24, 2005) Professor of economics Dwight R. Lee argues that the economic and other benefits of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil are so great that even environmentalists should agree to permit drilling—and they probably would if they stood to benefit directly. The Minority Members of the Senate Energy Committee objected when the Committee approved a bill that would authorize oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They argued that though the bill contained serious legal and environmental flaws, the greatest flaw lay in its choice of priorities: Wilderness is to be preserved, not exploited. Issue 8. Is Global Warming Skepticism Just Smoke and Mirrors? YES: Seth Schulman et al., from “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science,” Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2007) NO: Ivan Osorio, Iain Murray, and Myron Ebell, from “Liberal ‘Scientists’ Lead Jihad against Global-Warming Skeptics,” Human Events (May 8, 2007) The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that opposition to the idea that global warming is real, is due to human activities, and is a threat to human well-being has been orchestrated by ExxonMobil in a disinformation campaign very similar to the tobacco industry’s efforts to convince the public that tobacco was not bad for health. Ivan Osorio, Iain Murray, and Myron Ebell, all of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a liberal-funded partisan organization that distorts facts and attempts to discredit opponents with innuendo. Issue 9. Is Wind Power Green? YES: Charles Komanoff, from “Whither Wind?” Orion (September/October 2006) NO: Jon Boone, from “The Wayward Wind?,” speech given in the township of Perry, near Silver Lake, Wyoming County, New York (June 19, 2006) Charles Komanoff argues that the energy needs of civilization can be met without adding to global warming if we both conserve energy and deploy large numbers of wind turbines. Jon Boone argues that wind power is better for corporate tax avoidance than for providing environmentally friendly energy. It is at best a placebo for our energy dilemma. Issue 10 . Should Cars Be More Efficient? YES: David Friedman, from “CAFE Standards,” Testimony before Committee on Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation (March 6, 2007) NO: Charli E. Coon, from “Why the Government’s CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, Not Increased,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (July 11, 2001) David Friedman, Research Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argues that the technology exists to improve the fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks and requiring improved efficiency can cut oil imports, save money, create jobs, and help with global warming. Charli E. Coon, Senior Policy Analyst with The Heritage Foundation, argues that the 1975 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program failed to meet its goals of reducing oil imports and gasoline consumption and has endangered human lives. It needs to be abolished and replaced with market-based solutions. Issue 11. Do Biofuels Enhance Energy Security? YES: Bob Dinneen, from “Testimony before Committee on Senate Energy and Natural Resources” (April 12, 2007) NO: Mark Anslow, from “Biofuels—Facts and Fiction,” The Ecologist (March 2007) Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the national trade association representing the U.S. ethanol industry, argues that government support of the renewable fuels industry has created jobs, saved consumers money, and reduced oil imports. The industry’s potential is great, and continued support will contribute to ensuring America’s future energy security. Journalist Mark Anslow argues that producing biofuels consumes more energy than it makes available for use, will take too long to make a contribution large enough to help fight global warming, generates dangerous quantities of waste, and because of government subsidies fails to make economic sense. Issue 12. Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power? YES: Michael J. Wallace, from “Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, Hearing on the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program” (April 26, 2005) NO: Karen Charman, from “Brave Nuclear World, Part II” World Watch (July/August 2006) Michael J. Wallace argues that because the benefits of nuclear power include energy supply and price stability, air pollution control, and greenhouse gas reduction, new nuclear power plant construction—with federal support—is essential. Karen Charman argues that nuclear power’s drawbacks and the promise of clean, lower-cost, less dangerous alternatives greatly weaken the case for nuclear power. Unit 4 Food and Population Issue 13. Do Falling Birthrates Pose a Threat to Human Welfare? YES: Michael Meyer, from “Birth Dearth,” Newsweek (September 27, 2004) NO: David Nicholson-Lord, from “The Fewer the Better,” New Statesman (November 8, 2004) Michael Meyer argues that when world population begins to decline after about 2050, economies will no longer continue to grow, government benefits will decline, young people will have to support ever more elders, and despite some environmental benefits, quality of life will suffer. David Nicholson-Lord argues that the economic problems of population decline all have straightforward solutions. A less crowded world will not suffer from the environmental ills attendant on overcrowding and will, overall, be a roomier, gentler, less materialistic place to live, with cleaner air and water. Issue 14. Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger? YES: Gerald D. Coleman, from “Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?” America (February 21, 2005) NO: Sean McDonagh, from “Genetic Engineering Is Not the Answer,” America (May 2, 2005) Gerald D. Coleman argues that genetically engineered crops are useful, healthful, and nonharmful, and although caution may be justified, such crops can help satisfy the moral obligation to feed the hungry. Sean McDonagh argues that those who wish to feed the hungry would do better to address land reform, social inequality, lack of credit, and other social issues. Issue 15. Is a Large-Scale Shift to Organic Farming the Best Way to Increase World Food Supply? YES: Brian Halweil, from “Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?” World Watch (May/June 2006) NO: John J. Miller, from “The Organic Myth: A Food Movement Makes a Pest of Itself,” National Review (February 9, 2004) Brian Halweil, senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, argues that organic agriculture is potentially so productive that it could sustainably increase world food supply, although the future may be more likely to see a mix of organic and nonorganic techniques. John J. Miller argues that organic farming is not productive enough to feed today’s population, much less larger future populations, it is prone to dangerous biological contamination, and it is not sustainable. Unit 5 Toxic Chemicals Issue 16. Should DDT Be Banned Worldwide? YES: Anne Platt McGinn, from “Malaria, Mosquitoes, and DDT,” World Watch (May/June 2002) NO: Donald R. Roberts, from “Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Hearing on the Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making” (September 28, 2005) Anne Platt McGinn, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, argues that although DDT is still used to fight malaria, there are other, more effective and less environmentally harmful methods. She maintains that DDT should be banned or reserved for emergency use. Donald R. Roberts argues that the scientific evidence regarding the environmental hazards of DDT has been seriously misrepresented by anti-pesticide activists. The hazards of malaria are much greater and, properly used, DDT can prevent them and save lives. Issue 17. Do Environmental Hormone Mimics Pose a Potentially Serious Health Threat? YES: Michele L. Trankina, from “The Hazards of Environmental Estrogens,” The World & I (October 2001) NO: Michael Gough, from “Endocrine Disrupters, Politics, Pesticides, the Cost of Food and Health,” Daily Commentary (December 15, 1997) Professor of biological sciences Michele L. Trankina argues that a great many synthetic chemicals behave like estrogen, alter the reproductive functioning of wildlife, and may have serious health effects—including cancer—on humans. Michael Gough, a biologist and expert on risk assessment and environmental policy, argues that only “junk science” supports the hazards of environmental estrogens. Issue 18. Is the Superfund Program Successfully Protecting Human Health from Hazardous Materials? YES: Robert H. Harris, Jay Vandeven, and Mike Tilchin, from “Superfund Matures Gracefully,” Issues in Science & Technology (Summer 2003) NO: Randall Patterson, from “Not in Their Backyard,” Mother Jones (May/June 2007) Environmental consultants Robert H. Harris, Jay Vandeven, and Mike Tilchin argue that though the Superfund program still has room for improvement, it has made great progress in risk assessment and treatment technologies. Journalist Randall Patterson argues that the Superfund Program is not applied to some appropriate situations, largely because people resist its application. Issue 19. Should the United States Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel? YES: Phillip J. Finck, from “Statement before the House Committee on Science, Energy Subcommittee, Hearing on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing,” United States Senate (June 16, 2005) NO: Matthew Bunn, from “The Case against a Near-Term Decision to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States,” United States Senate (June 16, 2005) Phillip J. Finck argues that by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, the United States can enable nuclear power to expand its contribution to the nation’s energy needs while reducing carbon emissions, nuclear waste, and the need for waste repositories such as Yucca Mountain. Matthew Bunn argues that there is no near-term need to embrace nuclear spent fuel reprocessing, costs are highly uncertain, and there is a worrisome risk that the increased availability of bomb-grade nuclear materials will increase the risk of nuclear war and terrorism. Issue 20. Is Carbon Capture Technology Ready to Limit Carbon Emissions? YES: David G. Hawkins, from “Carbon Capture and Sequestration,” Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (March 6, 2007) NO: Charles W. Schmidt, from “Carbon Capture & Stora ge: Blue-Sky Technology or Just Blowing Smoke?” Environmental Health Perspectives (November 2007) David G. Hawkins, director of the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that we know enough to implement large-scale carbon capture and sequestration for new coal plants. The technology is ready to do so safely and effectively. Charles W. Schmidt argues that the technology is not yet technically and financially feasible, research is stuck in low gear, and the political commitment to reducing carbon emissions is lacking. Issue 21. Should North America’s Landscape Be Restored to Its Pre-Human State? YES: C. Josh Donlan, from “Restoring America’s Big, Wild Animals,” Scientific American (June 2007) NO: Dustin R. Rubenstein, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Paul W. Sherman, and Thomas A. Gavin, from “Pleistocene Park: Does Re-Wilding North America Represent Sound Conservation for the 21st Century?” Biological Conservation (vol. 132, 2006) C. Josh Donlan proposes that because the arrival of humans in the Americas some 13,000 years ago led to the extinction of numerous large animals (including camels, lions, and mammoths) with major effects on local ecosystems, restoring these animals (or their near-relatives from elsewhere in the world) holds the potential to restore health to these ecosystems. There would also be economic and cultural benefits. Dustin R. Rubenstein, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Paul W. Sherman, and Thomas A. Gavin argue that bringing African and Asian megafauna to North America is unlikely to restore pre-human ecosystem function and may threaten present species and ecosystems. It would be better to focus resources on restoring species where they were only recently extinguished.