23 Understanding and accounting for the costs of inaction
eea.europa.eu
Quoted on this wiki
Every place a page here uses this source, in the order the words come in it.
Economists trying to estimate the costs of inaction will often ask whether there is 'scientific proof', but it must be acknowledged that there is usually not a simple answer to this question. Economic analysis should therefore consider the less certain levels of knowledge that make up scientific evidence in order to explore the magnitude and risks of potential impacts suggested through early warning signals. We sometimes tend to think of knowledge and lack of knowledge in a simplistic way, believing that research is a process that can transform lack of knowledge into indisputable proof. More realistically, our knowledge base is less clear-cut. It often has a focused nucleus of complete understanding, with a surrounding area where many linkages and relationships are not understood with the same rigour and underpinning. Early warning signals are often located in this blurred area where linkages are not fully understood. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which establishes the precautionary principle as one of the guiding principles of environmental policy, does not generally mandate a requirement for scientific proof. For instance, TFEU art. 114 no. 5 — the so-called environmental guarantee — allows a Member State to introduce unilaterally more stringent measures in areas where there is 'scientific evidence'. The precautionary perspective (TFEU art. 191) is really about acting in the absence of scientific proof (see Chapter 2 on the precautionary principle). Although Needleman's research was able to document a relationship between low doses of lead and IQ impacts on children, not all aspects of lead exposure were fully understood. Today we can take advantage of computerised environmental models to account for blood lead concentrations as a result of the lead accumulation over time in the various compartments of the human body. “Therefore, when it comes to substances for which the knowledge base is less developed, it will be necessary to explore the potential costs of inaction by relying on evidence from early warning signals.” Costs, justice and innovation | Understanding and accounting for the costs of inaction 567Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation Box 23�1 Costs of inaction on lead and mercury Why does lead matter? Lead is a potent and pervasive neurotoxicant that travels widely throughout the body once ingested or inhaled, and affects virtually every organ or system in the body (Meyer et al., 2008). Children and pregnant women have a higher absorption rate of lead due to constant bone remodelling, which arises from skeletal development (Barbosa et al., 2005). The impacts upon children are profound, because not only is lead more easily absorbed, it is also more damaging to the developing nervous system. Even extremely low Bloodstream Lead Levels (BLL) can have significant impacts on future academic achievement (Miranda et al., 2011), a fact that was a material consideration in the 2005 US Centre for Disease Control's recommendation that there is no safe BLL for children (ACCLPP, 2012). These changes in development are irreversible. Exposure to even low levels of lead during pregnancy will cause permanent and irreversible developmental harm, which manifests itself in lower educational achievement in later stages (Lourdes et al., 2006). The damages arising from lead have been described as nothing less than a 'catastrophe' for public health (Landrigan, 2002). Lead damages almost every biochemical process in the human body (Gidlow, 2004; Needleman, 2004). It damages fertility and neuropsychology, as well as distorting enzymes, structural proteins and mitochondrial cristae. It also pushes out calcium from natural neuron signalling processes (see Box 3.1 on children and lead in Chapter 3). Recognition of the problem Lead has been recognised as a health problem since Roman times (Reddy and Braun, 2010). But it was not until 100 years ago that an Australian doctor identified the critical vulnerability of children to lead (Taylor et al., 2010).