We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Environmental scientists are our early warning system of impending, possibly lethal, ecodisasters. Yet the number of false alarms has triggered scepticism in some quarters. Is it justified?

In this article, Stephen W. Pacala and others in the United States and Netherlands argue that far from being alarmist, environmental scientists are too conservative in issuing their warnings. The marginal benefits increase as responses to the alarms increase, and the benefits to human health dwarf the costs of cleaning up the mess.

The authors predict that unevenly distributed benefits and costs of cleaning up will mean a steady supply of special interests — and sceptics. But given that millions more lives can be saved by environmental warnings, science needs to stay alert to potential catastrophes.

Link to article in Science

Reference: Science, 301, 1187 (2003)