Abstract
Critics within environmental economics argue that the mainstream paradigm is not sufficiently cautious to support sound decision making about the long-run future of environmental resources. Rather than basing choices on benefits and costs, these upstarts, beginning with Ciriacy-Wantrup* (1968), argue that decision-makers should consider imposing a safe minimum standard of conservation (hereafter the SMS). The SMS has intuitive appeal. Where loss or degradation of environmental resources could have large adverse economic consequences, safety-first makes common sense. The SMS continues to be discussed in the professional literature3 and has found its way into some textbook^.^ However, the SMS has not achieved wide acceptance among environmental economists.