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

*But, there is a consensus and thus we can do policy based on traditional
risk assessment*

Rich, I think it's fair to say there is a consensus that warming is real and
has anthropogenic causes, and also that there is a consensus that the range
of possible future scenarios over the next 100 years runs from
serious-but-manageable to catastrophic. Thus, there is not a consensus that
the potential harm *necessarily* will be catastrophic. Given that, public
policy concerning warming has thus far relied at least implicitly on the
precautionary principle. Kyoto in particular is an example of this.
Your statement of how risk assessment works may be right, but I think it's
easy to see that it can't apply directly to the global warming problem,
because there is no way to assign a reasonable probability among any of the
various scenarios that are offered under the consensus models. Moroever,
even if a probability can be assigned, risk management doesn't suggest that
you necessarily take any and all steps to eliminate the risk, no matter what
the cost. In fact, for most catastrophic risks that have a relatively low
probability of occurrence, the rational strategy usually is to buy an amount
of insurance that helps mitigates the risk, not to halt the enterprise
altogether. The precautionary principle, in contrast, generally says that
the action should not be taken at all if the putative actor can't eliminate
or render negiligible the probability of a catstrophic event occurring. The
principle behind Kyoto isn't that some contingency measures should be in
place if the worst case is realized; it is that the risk should be removed
to the extent possible.

In the warming debate, I don't think the precautionary principle is being
used primarily as a rhetorical tool against charlatans and skeptics. One
could accept the consensus science and yet advocate a policy of limited
mitigation and some insurance against the worst case without advocating a
drastic present reduction in greenhouse emissions. I think the
precautionary principle is being used because other approaches, including a
more traditional risk-benefit analysis, don't yield the policy result of a
drastic present reduction in emissions. This is true, BTW, not only
concerning global warming, but in other areas of environmental and social
regulation as well. It might be the right, ethical approach -- but is it?

On 1/25/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One reason why the precautionary principle is invoked is because climate
> science is underfunded. If the cost of fixing the worst case is draconian
> extra effort needs to be done to bring the bounds in tighter to make sure
> the draconian "solution" is really necessary. Taking your Iraq war analogy,
> once it appeared that an invasion was warranted more effort should have been
> spent improving the quality of the intelligence product that had been proven
> ineffective by 9/11.
>
> That being said, it is superfluous to invoke the precautionary principle
> anymore. Let's take the wikipedia article here:
>
> The *precautionary principle* states that if an action or policy might
> cause severe or irreversible<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversibility>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. [emphasis
> mine]
>
> But, there is a consensus and thus we can do policy based on traditional
> risk assessment:
>
> *Risk assessment* is a step in the risk management<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management>process. Risk assessment is
> measuring <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement> two quantities of the
> risk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk> *R*, the magnitude of the
> potential loss *L*, and the probability *p* that the loss will occur.
>
> You measure the cost of both the climate change and the proposed fix, look
> at how likely the fix will work, how much it costs, and how much it costs if
> the fix isn't implemented. If the difference between the best case and worst
> case cost is great you spend extra effort on further scoping. Corporations
> do this kind of contingency planning all the time.
> The *real* reason the precautionary principle is invoked for climate
> change is not because it's needed but rather as a rear guard argument
> against the climate charlatans ^H^H^H^H skeptics. Even assuming the totally
> debunked assumptions of the skeptics, doing something is still warranted.
> The argument looks like:
>
> a => b
> ~a => b
>
> b with extreme prejudice
>
> On 1/25/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>

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