Momentum is growing to improve the haphazard way in which America's environmental priorities are determined. Influential members of Congress and federal officials, among others, are asking whether regulators actually devote their greatest attention to problems presenting the greatest ecological and health risks. Priority-setting that is more rational and dispassionate, the argument goes, would provide the way out of the "ready, fire, aim" syndrome that characterizes a crisis-of-the-month approach. Increasingly, the technique of comparative risk assessment is advanced as the key to more efficient and sensible planning. Despite its growing popularity, however, serious doubts exist about the adequacy of risk assessment for setting priorities. "Worst Things First" explores the controversy over selecting an approach to set the nation's environmental priorities. Even though broad agreement exists that change is necessary, some critics feel the scientific data-collecting procedures of risk assessment constitute an intolerable delay for addressing more obvious and urgent problems; others fear its widespread use in regulatory agencies would move Congress from the centre of the advocacy process, replacing public participation with expert elitism. Additional major concerns are uncertainty (do we know a "bigger" risk when we see it?), commensurability (how can we compare cancers and whales?), and "asking the wrong questions" (is ranking problems an intellectual exercise when "solutions" are what the country really needs?). Resources for the Future convened a major conference in November 1992 to present a forum where EPA could describe its current and future plans for pursuing risk-based planning and hear suggestions for improving its methods, process and implementation. Advocates of paradigms that give risk assessment little or no role were also able to present their best argument. "Worst Things First?" contains the papers of that important three-day meeting. As the papers reveal, participants generally agreed that several different, legitimate ways exist to target the nation's resources for environmental protection. Conferees clashed over whether these different approaches are complementary or at odds. Broad acknowledgment emerged that, despite EPA's emphasis on one particular paradigm to date, the nation is not yet ready to agree on how to set environmental priorities, let alone on what the priorities themselves should be.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Adam M. Finkel is a fellow and Dominic Golding a former fellow in the Center for Risk Management at Resources for the Future.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
Seller: 2Vbooks, Derwood, MD, U.S.A.
Hard cover. Condition: Fine in fine dust jacket. Glued binding. Contains: Illustrations. Audience: General/trade. No previous owner's name. Clean, tight pages. No bent corners HC 315. Seller Inventory # Alibris.0041978
Seller: Mountain Books, Kent, CT, U.S.A.
Hardcover. Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good. First Edition. Scarce title. Came from the library at Brookhaven. Has some normal stickers. Still very good hardcover and dust jacket. We ship fast. Seller Inventory # 016475
Seller: BookResQ., West Valley City, UT, U.S.A.
hardcover. Condition: Good. No dust jacket. Ex-library book with typical stickers and stampings. Priority Mail is available on this item. No international shipping. Seller Inventory # B260426ahmug174808
Seller: Mispah books, Redhill, SURRE, United Kingdom
hardcover. Condition: Good. Good. Dust Jacket NOT present. CD WILL BE MISSING. . SHIPS FROM MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. book. Seller Inventory # ERICA82909157077486
Quantity: 1 available