[asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

Let's assume that the present consensus is right: global warming is a real
problem that is substantially caused by human activity; and the possible
scenarios concerning future consequences of the problem range from
relatively moderate -- mostly regional disruption -- all the way to
catastrophic economic and social breakdown. What is the appropriate ethical
stance for formulating public policy to address the problem?

Most environmental advocates will invoke the precautionary principle. It
seems to me that the precautionary principle underlies much of the moral
tone of the "Inconvenient Truth" film. (A good Wiki describing the
precautionary principle is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle). Personally --
probably no surprise -- I'm skeptical of the precautionary principle as a
basis for regulatory action or non-action. Let me offer an essay by legal
scholar Cass Sunstein that offers reasons from a law-and-economics and
law-and-social-norms perspective why the precautionary principle doesn't
work: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=307098

In many ways, I think this question is more important for the ASA than the
question of authority Randy raised. Even those who might want to poke some
holes in the professional consensus on global warming need to acknowledge
that, although the professional climate scientists may not be completely
certain and right about all of their conclusions, it is also extremely
unlikely that they are completely wrong. Is the precautionary principle the
right ethical response? If not, what is?

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.