For example, those who argue for allowing the risk
of serious environmental damage in order to produce more energy contend that this course of action will produce sufficient supplies to ensure energy for the poor.
I believe it is true that there has been
very serious environmental damage due to rare earth mining in China, but wind turbines are by no means the only use for rare earth minerals; they have become very widely used in the modern world.
Thus, a special interest group can simply posit serious consequences from this or that human activity, and bureaucrats, based on the Precautionary Principle, can then pass measures to protect us all from the unlikely possibility that the activity will result in
serious environmental damage.
If the environment is being destroyed, and
serious environmental damage is well documented, then why does it matter WHO is exposing this.