You have heard many eloquent arguments in favour of disarmament, but the deliberations of this Assembly have served to show the watching world that in 1982 we are still where we were in 1978—facing the same stark choice of survival or annihilation.

Modern weapons have the deadly capacity not merely to wipe out cities, industries, and even entire populations, but also to destroy the life-giving systems on which we all depend. I am convinced that the need to preserve our shared environment provides the most persuasive argument for nations to stop this dangerously escalating spiral of the arms race.

However one chooses to accommodate public concerns about siting of power-plants, it does seem that public participation is essential for effective environmental assessment. This is because the ultimate questions about environmental consequences of economic development are: who cares and why? Technical assessors can measure changes in biogeophysical terms, and economists can monetize these effects. The social sciences are often not capable of delivering (with adequate certainty) information that is dependant on subjective human reactions and cultural values. Serious mistakes in power-plant siting can result, if decision-makers do not communicate with affected individuals and groups.

The chances for mistakes increase if the nation concerned does not have a market economy where consumers have free choice, or a political process that regularly and effectively incorporates public values and opinions. As all nations are less effective than could be desired in these two classic means of citizen expression, it is incumbent on governments to foster public participation as an integral third channel.