This article provides a theoretical policy-making model of chemical sunset that gradually substitutes green alternatives for persistent toxic substances within a finite timeframe. The technological inflexibility of these substances is a tough obstacle to a chemical sunset, because a chemical sunset seeks to ultimately stop, within a short period of time, the risky businesses of these substances that are highly entrenched into our society. In wrestling with this obstacle, the intelligent precautionary “polluter pays” principle integrates three policy tools: a “precautionary `polluter pays' principle,” “intelligent trial and error,” and democratic “regulatory negotiation.” It is designed to promote technological pluralism and strong democracy, as well as to create either trust or mutual adjustment among relevant groups.
Barrett, K., and C. Raffensperger .1999. Precautionary science. In Protecting public health and environment: Implementing the precautionary principle, edited by C. Raffensperger and J. A. Tickner, 106-22. Washington, DC : Island Press.
2.
Bijker, W. E.,T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, eds. 1999. The social construction of technological systems . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Bijker, W. E., and J. Law, eds. 1997. Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
4.
Boyd, J.2001. Show me the money: Environmental regulation demands more, not less, financial assurance. Resources144: 20-23.
5.
Callon, M.1995. Technological conception and adoption network: Lessons for the CTA practitioner. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, edited by A. Rip, T. J. Misa , and J. Schot, 307-30. London and New York: Pinter.
6.
Costanza, R., and L. Cornwell.1992. The 4p approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment34 (9): 12.
7.
Costanza, R., J.H. Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard.1997. An introduction to ecological economics . Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press .
8.
Dryzek, J.S.1994. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Eastern Research Group Inc.2000. The peer review of the draft dioxin reassessment documents. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
10.
Feenberg, A.1999. Questioning technology. London and New York: Routledge.
11.
Fiorino, D.1995. Regulatory negotiation as a form of public participation . In Fairness and competence in citizen participation, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 223-38. London and Boston: Kluwer.
12.
Fischer, F.1995. Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
13.
---. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
14.
Gibbs, L.1995. Dying from dioxin. Boston: South End Press.
15.
Green, M.D.1992. Expert witnesses and sufficiency of evidence in toxic-substances litigation- The legacy of agent-orange and Bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review86 (3): 643-99.
International Joint Commission.1992. Sixth biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/6bre.html (accessed October 19, 2007)
18.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Scientific advisors as policy makers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Lindblom, C.E., and E.J. Woodhouse.1993. The policy-making process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Mackenzie, D., and J. Wajcman , eds. 1999. The social shaping of technology. Buckingham, UK, andPhiladelphia: Open University Press.
21.
Morone, J.G., and E.J. Woodhouse.1986. Averting catastrophe: Strategies for regulating risky technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
Morris, J., ed. 2000. Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
23.
National Research Council.1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
Raffensperger, C., and J. A. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting public health and environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
25.
Rip, A.,T. J. Misa , and J. Schot, eds. 1995. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London and New York: Pinter.
26.
Rohde, M.2001. Behind closed doors. Falls Church, VA: Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
27.
Schot, J.W.1992. Constructive technology-assessment and technology dynamics-The case of clean technologies. Science Technology & Human Values17 (1): 36-56.
28.
Science and Environmental Health Network.2000. Applying the precautionary principle to agricultural biotechnology . http://www.sehn.org (accessed October 19, 2007).
29.
Sclove, R.1995. Democracy and technology. New York : Guilford.
30.
Smith, M.R., and L. Marx.1994. Does technology drive history?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Thornton, J.2000. Pandora's poison: Chlorine, health, and a new environmental strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
32.
Tickner, J.A.1999. A map toward precautionary decision making. In Protecting public health and environment: Implementing the precautionary principle , edited by C. Raffensperger and J. A. Tickner, 162-86. Washington, DC: Island Press.
33.
Wildavsky, A.2000. Trial and error versus trial without error. In Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle, edited by J. Morris, 22-45. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
34.
Winner, L.1992. Citizen virtue in a technological order. In Humanistic perspectives on technology, development, and environment. TMV report series no. 3, edited by F. Sejersted and I. Moser, 121-48. Oslo, Norway: Centre for Technology and Culture, University of Oslo.
35.
---. 1993. Upon opening the black-box and finding it empty-Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science Technology & Human Values18 (3): 362-78.
36.
---. 1999. Do artifacts have politics? In The social shaping of technology, edited by D. Mackenzie and J. Wajcmanpg s. Buckingham, UK, and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
37.
Woodhouse, E.J.1988. Sophisticated trial and error in decision making about risk. In Technology and politics, edited by M. E. Kraft and N. J. Vig, 208-23. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
---. 1996. When expertise goes awry, and when it proves helpful. Paper presented at Technical Expertise and Public Decisions: 1996 International Symposium on Technology and Society, (June 21-22), Princeton, NJ.
39.
Woolgar, S.1991. The Turn To Technology In Social-Studies Of Science. Science Technology & Human Values16 (1):20-50.
40.
Woolgar, S., and G. Cooper.1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science29 (3): 433-49.
41.
Wynne, B.1987. Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibility. Berlin: Springer.
