But is all this change really necessary? What if dangers to the environment are overstated? Bast et al. (1994), in their provocative book Eco-Sanity, argue that many ecological crises are not founded on scientific evidence but are instead scare tactics used by environmental organizations. They cite such examples as global warming, ozone depletion and pesticides. In the first two cases, scientific evidence does not support increasing temperatures or decreasing ozone--nor does it rule them out.
The question is, what do you do when evidence is ambiguous, at best? Do you, to paraphrase Pascal, wager that there will be a greenhouse effect and take action--or that there won't, and risk the consequences (Freeman, 1997). A cost-benefit analysis might suggest it is worth risking the consequences. An RP perspective might counter that we want to consider the rights of future generations and take measures to prevent any possible harms. One Wall Street Journal columnists put it this way: "Even if the doomsayers of environmentalism are overly pessimistic, we obviously can't consume the finite forever. Only business can create a renewable future, and only by following nature's own example" (Petzinger, 1997, p. B1).
Regarding pesticides, the reduced risk is largely due to the work of Rachel Carson and others. Not all pesticides are harmful, and some have had an important role in controlling insect populations that lead to diseases. Robert B. Shapiro, the CEO of Monsanto, argues that as much as 90% of the chemicals sprayed on crops are wasted and end up in the soil. In his opinon, it is much less wasteful to put the information on the plant, using biotechnology (Magenta, 1997).
How is one going to persuade other CEOs besides Shapiro to reduce pollution and think more about sustainability? Instead of changing the tax-code, as Hawken and McDonough advocate, or adding more environmental regulations, Bast et al. would rely on the legal system:
The manner in which the common law system discovers the appropriate size of awards for damages makes the common law approach a promising tool in the battle against pollution. The judicial process is essentially an adversarial one in which the alleged victims of pollution present the strongest possible case for their victimhood, while the alleged polluters put forth the strongest case denying their guilt. The final decisions of guilt or innocence and the size of the awards, if any, are made by independent judges and juries. This process measures, more accurately than any political process could, the true extent of injuries and the value society places on such injuries (Bast, Hill, & Rue, 1994, p. 221).
But the legal system does not guarantee the victory of science over superstition, as the next section shows.
This page was last edited: Wednesday, July 14, 1999