Market doesn’t internalize externalities back to need of regulation in economics Go’s 7) Collective Risk Borne by many people; society is risk-averse, more so to collective than individual risk 8) Latency Environmental risks have extended delay between start and effects 9) Irreversibility Risk may be effectively impossible to reverse is 24,000 years Plutonium’s half life Mutagens effecting generations of people Criticisms To Risk Assessment: 1) Lack of Information Unreliable data, and difficult to quantify risk Too much assuming in data, and makes #’s meaningless Science is Uncertain, and assess risk correctly can’t Getting Reliable data, from industry would delay action because they have every incentive to delay to paralyze regulation 2) Evidence does not support idea that resources are misallocated 3) Environmental Justice Problems Like that in Cost Benefit Analysis, distribution of the risks assessed may be difficult if they are concentrated harms 4) Depending on Who is assessing makes big difference: Everyone has different perceptions Experts Look at expected annual mortality Deaths/10,000 Public looks at more subjective things Outrage Factors Public looks at voluntarily assuming risk versus involuntary risk Common/Difuse among population is seen as less serious than an exotic/concentrated one Dread of ailment Everyone hates cancer Public Versus Expert Because both disagree on what to assess, they will disagree as to what is dangerous This was evident in an 1987 EPA Study of what perceptions were Experts Said Radon Gas was Horrible, Public Had never heard of it Public Hated hazardous waste disposal site, but EPA experts said it was not bad Should We Listen to Public? They have expert knowledge to evaluate and technical nature of CRA discourages don’t it No Process/Procedure to idea hear everyone’s Perhaps, in more local harm, get more democratic view? Perhaps democracy is represented by voting for who you want, who then chooses EPA people who will make decision Policy of Scientific Risk Assessment and Management Scientific Uncertainty is occurring, so in assessing and managing, do we want to err on side of caution, or on side of conserving finances False Positive: Precautionary Principle Spending resources on when they turn out not to be benign things, thinking they’re bad, Better safe then sorry
Market doesn’t internalize externalities Go’s back to need of regulation in economics 7) Collective Risk Borne by many people; society is risk-averse, more so to collective than individual risk 8) Latency Environmental risks have extended delay between start and effects 9) Irreversibility Risk may be effectively impossible to reverse Plutonium’s half life is 24,000 years Mutagens effecting generations of people Criticisms To Risk Assessment: 1) Lack of Information Unreliable data, and difficult to quantify risk Too much assuming in data, and makes #’s meaningless Science is Uncertain, and can’t assess risk correctly Getting Reliable data, from industry would delay action because they have every incentive to delay to paralyze regulation 2) Evidence does not support idea that resources are misallocated 3) Environmental Justice Problems Like that in Cost Benefit Analysis, distribution of the risks assessed may be difficult if they are concentrated harms 4) Depending on Who is assessing makes big difference: Everyone has different perceptions Experts Look at expected annual mortality Deaths/10,000 Public looks at more subjective things Outrage Factors Public looks at voluntarily assuming risk versus involuntary risk Common/Difuse among population is seen as less serious than an exotic/concentrated one Dread of ailment Everyone hates cancer Public Versus Expert Because both disagree on what to assess, they will disagree as to what is dangerous This was evident in an 1987 EPA Study of what perceptions were Experts Said Radon Gas was Horrible, Public Had never heard of it Public Hated hazardous waste disposal site, but EPA experts said it was not bad Should We Listen to Public? They don’t have expert knowledge to evaluate and technical nature of CRA discourages it No Process/Procedure to hear everyone’s idea Perhaps, in more local harm, get more democratic view? Perhaps democracy is represented by voting for who you want, who then chooses EPA people who will make decision Policy of Scientific Risk Assessment and Management Scientific Uncertainty is occurring, so in assessing and managing, do we want to err on side of caution, or on side of conserving finances False Positive: Precautionary Principle Spending resources on benign things, thinking they’re bad, when they turn out not to be Better safe then sorry
Environmental%20Law%20Outline%20-%20Glicksman%20-%20Fall%202010.docx