Some who adhere to the global warming theory use the Precautionary Principle (PP) as a reason to act. Their claims are that even if the science is not guaranteed as to the cause and effect of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that the PP dictates that we act to reduce our emissions. That is, if Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory has a potential to be wrong, because we cannot have 100% certainty as to the effects of our emissions of CO2, then we must act anyway because the PP applies.
Surprisingly there is no specific definition of the Precautionary Principle.**
Wikipedia has this: “The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.”
According to Bill Durodie in ‘An Apology for Capitalism’, “One of the more authoritative [definitions] versions comes from the 1992 Rio 'Earth' Summit. It contains a rather 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 are left with 'action without evidence is justified'. That's it, in a nutshell. The precautionary 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.”
Is the use of the PP as a reason for acting to change climate change justified? The Wikipedia definition has two important aspects: morals and politics. Both of these are highly abused and twisted depending upon the political bent of the people wheedling the PP sword.
Does the PP require us to act to stop climate change? I would argue no. There are two simple reasons for this.
First, does invoking action actually change the course of climate change? According to Wiki “burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” Thus those who advocate taking action to curb climate change need to show us that taking action will actually achieve the desired goal. It’s not like some potential new drug coming to the market 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 more on carbon sequestering. Thus the burden of proof falls on them to show that these actions they propose will actually work, and not do more harm than good.
Second, what is the cost of the proposed actions? Does the cost of action out trump the “costs” of inaction? This is a common sidestep by those who advocate action by saying the cost of inaction will be much more. But the economy is so complex, so interdependent, that there is no way that such evidence can be shown. Furthermore, economic models are notorious for being grossly wrong, worse than climate models.
In conclusion, we should forcefully challenge any claim that the PP be used as a reason to act against climate change. We must demand that they show that the use of the PP, and their actions, can be justified.
Richard Wakefield
London, Ontario, Canada
-----------
** Gary Marchant and Kenneth Mossman explain in their book ‘Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts’, (International Policy Press, 2005) that the more than sixty European Union judicial opinions mentioning the PP, with perhaps a single exemption, do not attempt to define the PP and that the European Union Courts are well aware that the PP is not defined in European Union legislation, in specific regulatory enactments, or by the EU courts themselves (pg.31).
This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. I strive for tolerance and respect. I don't always agree with what I publish, but I believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard. I take no responsibility for comments and hyperlinks that follow each blog post and some content may be considered offensive by some people.
Grendel
How about being a little more precise in your replies - like writing down the name of person you are replying to.
But you seem not to understand science much - the Russians used dowsing to locate targets which they then confimed by drilling etc.
It is the scientific method in action.
Dismissing it as mysticism is disengenuous - it means you don't understand the physics behind it, presumably because of ignorance.
But you then accept the mysticism of AGW?
Arjay Your 107 is very close to the total of 244 GT of carbon since the beginning however only 29.22 GT remains or 12.5 ppm the rest is either in the land, ocean or has been sequestered already. The atomic mass has very little to do with GW it is the resonant absorbtion frequencies of each molecule that counts. CO2 absorbs in the ranges 2.3, 4, and 14 micrometers water absorbes in the frequencies 0.7; 2 to 3 ;4 to 5; and 15 plus so it is much more dominant as a GG. The bigest contributor to GW are aerosols which absorb all frequencies in the IR spectrum and reradiate them. Above 50 meters of atmosphere all the specific resonant frequencies mentioned above are removed from the spectrum thus there is no energy left to activate individual molecules that is why increasing the CO2 content has no effect. There is a small amount of absorbtion from the energy radiated from the aerosols above 50 meters but this is just an internal transfer of energy within the atmosphere so there is no net gain or loss thus no temperature effect. In actual fact the impact of CO2 on GW is less than 10% water 30% and aerosols 60%. In the case of water and CO2 it is only the first 100ppm which contributes to GW after that the saturation effect takes over and additional gasses have no effect. The AGW people only look at half the picture they consider the energy transferred to the CO2 by aerosol radiation but they do not consider that the aerosol temperature drops when it loses energy thus there is no change when this type of transfer takes place.
I think you want to forget that Monash sea level junk.
As recently as 4,000 years ago sea level around Australia was at least 1.5metres higher than today, it's an established fact that can be found anywhere on the net.
This Monash software is just junk and should be thrown in the bin.
See a catalyst program about 3 months ago referring to the death of an aboriginal in the north Sydney area.
His skeleton was unearthed near a bustop with the spear tip still embedded in bone.
Anyway reference is made to the much higher sea levels 4,000 years ago of at least 1.5 metres.
Patrick I am talking worldwide and I believe that is an underestimate as I have a letter from the U.S. state department that claim they are spending $2.3 Billion a year on this research. By the time you add up the cost of the NASA contribution NOAA and HADLEY alone believe me you are getting up there.