• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Be Very Cautious of the Precautionary Principle.
J. Richard WakefieldJan 29, 2008 jrwakefield@mcswiz.com
 Those who adhere to the global warming theory are using the Precautionary Principle as areason to act. Their claims are that even if the science is not guaranteed as to the causeand effect of our emissions of CO2 that the Precautionary Principle dictates that we act toreduce our emissions. Thus it’s a default fallback position. That is, if AGW theory has apotential to be wrong, because we cannot have 100% certainty as to the effects of ouremissions of CO2, then we must act anyway because the Precautionary Principle (PP)applies.However, the definition of the Precautionary Principle is required in order to see if thisfall back default position is justified. Surprisingly there is no specific definition of PP.Wikipedia has this:“
The
precautionary principle
is a moral and political principle which states thatif an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in theabsence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of prooffalls on those who would advocate taking the action
.”It also notes that there are other defintions, and even four sub-definitions aimed atspecific realms of society:
1. Scientific uncertainty should not automatically preclude regulation ofactivities that pose a potential risk of significant harm (Non-PreclusionPP).2. Regulatory controls should incorporate a margin of safety; activities shouldbe limited below the level at which no adverse effect has been observedor predicted (Margin of Safety PP).3. Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should besubject to best technology available requirements to minimize the risk ofharm unless the proponent of the activity shows that they present noappreciable risk of harm (BAT PP).
4.
Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should beprohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents noappreciable risk of harm (Prohibitory PP).
In layman’s terms it is often touted as “better safe than sorry”.It is likely that the spirit of the PP, “better safe than sorry”, has been around since thedawn of civilization, but it seems to have been formally defined, according to Wiki, in
 
1930’s Germany. It is quite likely then that the PP was used in that period for theatrocities that occurred under Nazi Germany’s rise to power.Certainly this is not likely to have been the first abuse of the term, but the spirit of the PPcertainly has been abused throughout history to justify just about anything authority inpower needed to further their goals. Thus the use of the PP must be scrutinized. Aboveall, the PP itself requires that the PP be justified in its use.“
In fact, prevention is only better than cure, if the probability of the particularproblem you have in mind occurring is rather high, and if the proposedpreventative measures are largely accurate or effective. But in the majority ofdebates about risk that we encounter today, neither of these cases are actuallymet. Probabilities, on the whole, are pretty low - otherwise, society would divertlarge amounts of resources and concern towards dealing with them. And there islittle evidence that the precautionary measures taken actually work
.
http://www.durodie.net/pdf/PrecautionaryPrincipleKillingInnovation.pdf
”Thus, if the PP were a
de facto
principle of action for any threat to people or society,then, for example, people would not live along active tectonic or volcanic zones. Butsince people do live in places where there is a potential of harm and destruction of property, then those people are playing the odds. That is, the degree of threat is what isimportant, not the absoluteness of the PP.So this begs the question. What is the probability of the threat that will force one toinvoke the PP? Obviously that is highly subjective. Those who are risk takers are oftentouted as throwing caution to the wind. Though many have succumbed to theconsequences of their actions with such an approach, many have succeeded and over allbenefited society.Taken to the extreme, people would not venture out of their homes on the possibility thatsomething may happen to them. Thus the use of the PP often is tagged to the degree of paranoia of either the individual or group. The use of the PP most definitely can betagged to the political agenda of those who advocate its use.There are critics of the PP, such ashttp://www.durodie.net/pdf/PrecautionaryPrincipleKillingInnovation.pdf who states“
There is no agreed definition of the precautionary principle. One of the moreauthoritative versions comes from the 1992 Rio 'Earth' Summit. It contains arather cumbersome triple negative, to the effect that not having evidence is not a justification for not taking action.If we undo a couple of the knots, then as two negatives make a positive, we areleft with 'action without evidence is justified'. That's it, in a nutshell. Theprecautionary principle is, above all else, an invitation to those without evidence,expertise or authority, to shape and influence political debates. It achieves that,
 
by introducing supposedly ethical elements into the process of scientific,corporate and governmental decision making.
”As to the thrust of this paper, is the use of the PP as a reason for acting to change climatechange justified? What are the motives of those who advocate invoking the PP as areason to act? Thus one must scrutinize to see if the PP is justified in this case.The definition in Wiki has two important aspects of the PP. Morals and politics. Both of these are highly abused and twisted depending upon the political bent of the peoplewheedling the PP sword. This is most definitely the case of AGW as one only has tolook at the political affiliation of those who side on action to stop climate change –generally far left “romantic” environmentalists. One only has to read their documents tosee the ultimate goal of these groups – bring down democracy and/or capitalism andbuilding a new world order in its place.Putting those individuals aside in their rightful place, on the whole does the PP require usto act to stop climate change? I would argue no. There are two simple reasons for this.First, does invoking action actually change the coarse of climate change? According toWiki “burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” Thus thosewho advocate taking action to curb climate change need to show us that taking action willactually achieve the desired goal. It’s not like some potential new drug coming to themarket where the company needs to show that it is safe. There is no action on the part of the advocates of caution there as they just prevent the drug from coming on to market.What the advocates of PP on climate change want is for positive actions to take place.This includes spending billions on things like the carbon trade system and billions moreon carbon sequestering. Thus the burdon of proof then falls on them to show that theseactions they propose will actually work, and not do more harm than good.But will the reduction in our emissions of CO2 actually happen if we have a carbontrading system and carbon sequestering? Evidence will show that the answer to thisquestion is no, and a very large no at that. With non-signatories China and Indiadramatically increasing their economies and energy consumption with it (China buildingcoal fired plants as fast as they can) then any reductions in CO2 from the “developed”world will be swamped (within 10 years China’s energy consumption will be greater thanthe U.S.’s). Thus CO2 emissions will continue to rise, and not even the rate of emissionscan be curtailed. Thus, realistically speaking, there is no way, short of society collapse,that CO2 emissions will slow let alone be reduced. (I even had one person tell me thateven if the current changes in climate are natural, we should take action to “fix” itanyway!)Second, what is the cost of the proposed actions? Does the cost of action out trump the“costs” of inaction? This is a comon sidestep by those who advocate action by saying thecost of inaction will be much more. Really? They can actually show evidence of that?The economy is so complex, so interdependant, that there is no way that such evidence
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...