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

Quoting David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:

> 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).

First sentence from the Wiki David gives above: "The precautionary principle
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."

When I first read this sentence, I took it as the bludgeon used by economists
against environmental advocates. I.e. Action causing irreversible harm is to
burden industry & economy causing severe financial hardship. In absence of
consensus, environmentalists have burden to prove no harm would come from their
environmentally protective regulatory actions. But if this has been mostly on
the lips of environmentalists, then it is BAU "Business As Usual" that might
produce irreversible harm, and the burden of proof would fall on the opponents
of any regulatory action (even in the alleged absence of scientific consensus).
    So both sides can make use of this policy stance by claiming that the other
is "proposing the action".

As your next reference below points out, the Precationary principle can be a
paralyzing principle, to be sure. But to point to extremes of a principle
doesn't negate the potential good use of the principle itself. An extreme of
"carefulness" could well mean someone refuses to get out of bed or go anywhere
because they might get hit by a drunk driver. But such an untenable extreme
doesn't mean that all who choose to be careful (and yet risk getting up each
morning) are following a bad principle. Looking both ways before crossing the
street may be just the "right level" of care to be applied. So shouldn't it go
without saying that whoever applies the precautionary principle is doing so in
the real world weighing the options? If the principle itself is faulty, it is
so only in that it could be generally invoked in just about any direction.
(e.g. 'inaction' could really be considered 'action').

--merv

> 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.
Received on Thu Jan 25 17:50:45 2007