voice to the global public debate..."
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC)...has issued a series of reports [authored by Lawrence Kogan] arguing that precautionary action conflicts with countries' WTO duties. The centerpiece of the council's elaborate argumentation is this: The WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards Agreement (SPS Agreement covering food safety, animal and plant health standards) and Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT Agreement covering regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures) requires countries not to use standards more stringent than those established by international agencies. Countries may exceed these standards only in very rare circumstances, and based on risk assessments. Regulatory action in the face of uncertain evidence - the core of the Precautionary Principle - conflicts with these rules.
As it happens, the NFTC's [Lawrence Kogan's] arguments are good ones, at least in WTO terms...Thus, although the Precautionary Principle may be an idea whose time has come, there is nothing inevitable about its adoption, implementation and diffusion."
A commercially and politically independent organisation, the ITSSD is deeply supportive of traditional American imperial ideology, promoting unregulated and market-driven capitalist economics as the fundamental theory of this 'positive paradigm'. Lawrence Kogan (2008) in an ITSSD released article, attacks external ideological and political power over the USA through an "environment-centric paradigm of sustainable development". This website strongly encourages the anthropocentric capabilities of mankind, particularly Americans, in "developing scientific knowledge, new technologies and equipment." The ITSSD's 'positive paradigm' moves away from increasingly accepted environmental preservation, towards unanimous support for economic development (not just 'meeting the needs'), "without requiring the absolute preservation of specific natural resources".
The ITSSD provide a well-structured and easily navigated website, consistently informing the reader of this anthropocentric 'positive paradigm' and that sustainable development is an area of extreme importance, but that must be defined, academically and politically, with reference to the necessity of creative and forward thinking professionals. Kogan neatly concludes, "Do they not deem Americans worthy of the challenge?""
Lawrence Kogan has identified and proposed a solution to the one impediment which has stopped the Information Quality Act ("IQA") from realizing its full potential - judicial review of actions taken pursuant to the statute. In so doing, he has also highlighted the immense reach of the IQA's peer review guidelines. Mr. Kogan also dispels the myth that Congress passed the IQA with no hearings, by providing numerous citations to the public statements of Members and witnesses who appeared before the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Kogan's paper is encyclopedic and scholars may differ on some of the points made therein, but it should be noted that the endgame is to demonstrate that Congress enacted a statute which, when implemented in an enthusiastic manner, will ensure that federal agencies provide the American public with reliable and reproducible data. He also gives a detailed description of the plethora of judicial cases involving the IQA, which readily leads the reader to the conclusion that the reviewability of the IQA is unsettled. To this, Mr. Kogan makes an important seldom raised by others who have written on the IQA; namely 'that a court's 'hard-look' or 'arbitrary and capricious' review of federal agency action ... should include a review of the quality of data inputs' i.e., compliance with the IQA. The challenge is to put Mr. Kogan's recommendations into practice, many of which the United States Department of Justices opposes. Mr. Kogan identifies one candidate for potential legal challenge - EPA's Clean Air Act Endangerment Findings - which could fulfill that purpose. Another possible target of the type of IQA challenge he proposes would be against EPA's failure to conduct a peer review of 'highly influential scientific information' in its determination that carbon storage and sequestration is a viable technology - the central component of its proposed rule to control emissions from new gas-fired power plants. [...] This WORKING PAPER offers a roadmap for precedential action that would establish the IQA's reviewability, and at the same time ensure that costly agency initiatives are science-based [...]