Poiesis & Praxis

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 73–78 | Cite as

Legitimacy of tolerating limited environmental pollution? The case for natural attenuation

Forum
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Degradations of environmental quality often pose severe harms or at least adverse effects to individuals and societies. Perceiving any environmental pollution thus appears to be connected with an implicit claim for its prompt and complete removal. For example, the oil-spill from the "Prestige" accident at the western Spanish shoreline is surely still in everyone's mind, where—in a somewhat Sysiphos-effort—a lot of helpers tried to remove the huge masses of oil mud, washed repeatedly ashore. However, alternative rehabilitation conceptions are also conceivable for certain pollution problems, which may be less unhealthy and possibly more efficient. Among them, taking advantage of natural occurring processes, which are grouped in this context as "natural attenuation" (NA), is an emerging and challenging but possibly also a questionable approach. NA as remediation strategy is, therefore, often discussed controversially among experts and actors as well as in the public (Teutsch/Rügner 2000). This is partly due to still open scientific or technical questions but also due tolegitimacy problems of natural attenuation on ethical and juridical levels (Steffens et al. 2002; Heinz 2002). Therefore, a balanced view on adequate natural attenuation seems to be necessary. The following analysis will review NA as rehabilitation means from the normative perspective, giving some general statements—and thus orientation—for public policy making as well as for the administrative level.

References

  1. Dobson AP, Bradshaw AD, Baker AJM (1997) Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. EC (2002) Proposed framework structure of the Directive establishing strategies to prevent and control pollution of groundwater (GWD). Discussion paper (draft 2.0). European Commission (ENV.B1), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Gethmann CF, Kamp G (2000) Gradierung und Diskontierung von Verbindlichkeiten bei der Langzeitverpflichtung. In: Mittelstraß J (ed) Die Zukunft des Wissens. XVIII Deuttscher Kongress fur Philosophie (Konstanz 4–8 October 1999), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Heinz K (2002) MNA- und ENA-Programme als Sanierungsoption zur Revitalisierung von kontaminierten Flächen. TerraTech 5/2002:17–21Google Scholar
  5. Ott K (1999) Ethik und Naturschutz. In: Konold W, Böcker R, Hampike U (eds) Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Ecomed, LandsbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Steffens K, Keller B, Michels J, Kusenbach H (2002) "... and the adventure continues"—covering the economical risks of failure of natural attenuation. Abstracts of the European Conference on Natural Attenuation, Heidelberg 15–17 October 2002. DECHEMAGoogle Scholar
  7. Teutsch G, Rügner H (2000) Natural attenuation as a remediation approach. In: Arendt F et al (eds) Contaminated soil 2000. Thomas Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Europäische Akademie zur Erforschung von Folgen wissenschaftlich-technischer Entwicklungen Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler GmbHBad Neuenahr-AhrweilerGermany

Personalised recommendations