[Editor’s note: Cécile Philippe is an economist and Director-General of the Molinari Economic Institute.]
In France, a glyphosate ban for personal usage is planned from 1 January 2019 and the government may decide to ban it for all uses.
Like nuclear, is it possible and above all reasonable to remove glyphosate in such a short period of time?
…[Environment Minister] Nicolas Hulot announced at the beginning of November that the objective of reducing the share of nuclear energy to 50% of electricity production would be postponed.
Undoubtedly, taking on the role of Minister forced Nicolas Hulot to take into account broader considerations.
Considerations like the absence of substitutes in the short term, the continued innovation and advancements in nuclear safety, and the impossibility of finding the perfect energy source.
It seems sensible to me that he adopts this same principle of realism when it comes to glyphosate. Because the questions that arise for glyphosate are the same as those that arise for nuclear, or for any other complex technology:
What advantages does the product in question provide and at what price? Can we do without it? Are there substitutes? Do they offer superior comparative advantages?
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Glyphosate or nuclear: What to do beyond scaring