I'm not sure I understand the question. Pollution prevention is a separate principle from the precautionary principle, as I understand its application in CEPA, and I would treat them separately.
Earlier in my comments I made the point that if we were doing work in this area, we would ask ourselves to determine whether pollution prevention, as intended, is really occurring, i.e., the prevention of the generation of pollutants in the first place. The reason I raise it that way--and this has nothing to do with the new government—is because a game goes on out there; there are lots of labels as to what pollution prevention is. I can tell you some organizations will argue pollution control, “end of pipe” control, is a form of pollution prevention, but in my view it's a bit of a game, because the intent of pollution prevention is not to generate the stuff in the first place, and that's what we would want to pursue in an audit: to find out whether the pollution prevention plans, which are one of the CEPA instruments, are really achieving that.
That's separate I think from the precautionary principle, which has much more to do with the decision you take in the face of uncertainty.