Taking sides. Clashing views on controversial environmental issues / selected, edited, and with introductions by Thomas A. Easton.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Is the precautionary principle a sound basis for international policy? -- Is sustainable development compatible with human welfare? -- Should a price be put on the goods and services provided by the world's ecosystems? -- Is biodiversity overprotected? -- Should environmental policy attempt to cure environmental racism? -- Can pollution rights trading effectively control environmental problems? -- Do environments overstate their case? -- Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be open to oil drilling? -- Should society act now to forestall global warming? -- Will hydrogen end our fossil-fuel addiction? -- Should existing power plants be required to install state-of-the-art pollution controls? -- Is it time to revive nuclear power? -- Is limiting population growth a key factor in protecting the global environment? -- Is genetic engineering an environmentally sound way to increase food production? -- Are marine reserves needed to protect global fisheries? -- Should DDT be banned worldwide? -- Do environmental hormone mimics pose a potentially serious health threat? -- Is the Superfund program successfully protecting the environment from hazardous wastes? -- Should the United States continue to focus plans for permanent nuclear waste disposal exclusively at Yucca Mountain?

[This] is a debate-style reader designed to introduce students to controversies in environmental policy and science. The readings, which represent the arguments of leading environmentalists, scientists, and policymakers, reflect a variety of viewpoints and have been selected for their liveliness and substance and because of their value in a debate framework. For each issue, the editors provide a concise introduction and postscript summary. The introduction sets the stage for the debate as it is argued in the "yes" and "no" readings, and the postscript briefly reviews the opposing views and suggests additional readings on the controversial issue under discussion.-Back cover.