“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html
Stated this way, the precautionary principle is an aphorism. It's the application of this principle that leads to disputes. Some argue that the consequences of catastrophic climate change are so great that we should take all precautionary measures possible, even if the risk of climate change is small, and even if the link between CO2 and other anthropogenic causes is not well established. The mere possibility that any given human activity could lead to catastrophe requires us to curtain that human activity.
It seems self-evident that this application of the precautionary principle could lead to irrational decisionmaking. So how do we limit, or constrain, or apply reason to the precautionary principle?
One approach is applying a cost/benefit analysis. Bjorn Lomborg and others have advocated this approach. http://www.lomborg.com/ Essentially, this is an empirical approach. It means evaluating the science and recognizing that, by separating out emotional appeals, the most rational policy options are to promote technological and economic development, improve human standards of living, and generate sufficient wealth (which can be termed "excess" wealth) to improve the environment and mitigate the problems caused by human activity. The worst approach would be allocating massive resources in a futile attempt to prevent global warming and thereby impede scientific and economic progress.
Professor Sutter at Troy University has a nice explanation of the cost/benefit approach here: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/climate-consensus-do-little-for-now#axzz2GC2dfLk0
The graphic I used is from this site: http://www.climatereview.net/movie_screenshots.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment