Description: PART 1. Philosophy and PoliticsISSUE 1. Should a Price Be Put on the Goods and Services Provided by the World's Ecosystems?YES: Janet N. Abramovitz, from "Putting a Value on Nature's 'Free' Services," World Watch (January/February 1998)NO: Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo, from "Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story," BioScience (April 2000)Janet N. Abramovitz, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, argues that if we fail to attach economic value to supposedly freeservices provided by nature, we are more likely to misuse and destroy the ecosystems that provide those services. Professors of applied ecology Marino Gatto and Giulio A. De Leo contend that the pricing approach to valuing nature's services is misleadingbecause it falsely implies that only economic values matter.ISSUE 2. Is Biodiversity Overprotected?YES: David N. Laband, from "Regulating Biodiversity: Tragedy in the Political Commons," Ideas on Liberty (September 2001)NO: E. O. Wilson, from "Why Biodiversity Matters," interview by Kris Christen, OECD Observer (Summer 2001)Professor of economics David N. Laband argues that the public demands excessive amounts of biodiversity largely because decision makers andvoters do not have to bear the costs of producing it. 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 loss of species reduces the productivity and stability of natural ecosystems andthat with each species lost, potential drugs and other valuable resources are also lost.ISSUE 3. Are Environmental Regulations Too Restrictive?YES: Peter W. Huber, from "Saving the Environment From the Environmentalists," Commentary (April 1998)NO: Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, from "Brownlash: The New Environmental Anti-Science," The Humanist (November/December 1996)Peter W. Huber, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, argues that the environment is best protected by traditional conservation, whichputs human concerns first. Environmental scientists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich argue that many objections to environmental protections are self-serving andbased in bad or misused science.ISSUE 4. Should Environmental Policy Attempt to Cure Environmental Racism?YES: Robert D. Bullard, from "Dismantling Environmental Racism in the USA," Local Environment (vol. 4, no. 1, 1999)NO: David Friedman, from "The 'Environmental Racism' Hoax," The American Enterprise (November/December 1998)Professor of sociology Robert D. Bullard argues that environmental racism is a genuine phenomenon and that the government must live up toits mandate to protect all people. Writer and social analyst David Friedman denies the existence of environmental racism. He argues that the environmental justice movement isa government-sanctioned political ploy that will hurt urban minorities by driving away industrial jobs.ISSUE 5. Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Basis for International Policy?YES: Paul L. Stein, from "Are Decision-Makers Too Cautious With the Precautionary Principle?" Paper Delivered at the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Annual Conference (October 14 & 15, 1999)NO: Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, from "The Perils of Precaution," Policy Review (June & July 2001)Paul L. Stein, a justice of the New South Wales Court of Appeals, argues that the precautionary principle is now a cornerstone ofinternational environmental law and that the courts have a duty to implement the principle even beyond the requirements of legislation. Henry I. Miller, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and policy analyst Gregory Conko argue that theprecautionary principle leads "regulators to abandon the careful balancing of risks and benefits," blocks progress, limits the freedomof scientific researchers, and restricts consumer

Please Wait