Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Precautionary Principle; Good or bad?
Topic Started: Jul 3 2006, 07:53 AM (102 Views)
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
precautionary principle

Quote:
 
"Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.


Basically the precautionary principle simply reverses the current burdens of proof when considering enviormental impact and advisability of human activity.

I posted this on another thread and it was apparently ignored. I would really like to know what others think about adopting such a principle with regards to decisions affecting the environment.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
In another thread, not the same one you refer to, for I missed this, I commented this is analogous to Pascal's Wager, for which I agree with the above author, the proponent bears burden of proof. I must be missing something because I don't see how the burden is reversed.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Explanation of the shift in the burden of proof.

It is often assumed that the burden of proof rests on the person or group who claims there will be a negative environmental impact. the precautionary principle shifts that burden to the person about to commit the act to prove that the act will not create a negative environmental impact. If applied to the production of pollutants that might lead to environmental warming, the burden would be on the industries to prove that such production would not create the negative impact of global warming. Arguments such as "we don't know for sure" would be evidence to stop the polluting activity rather than evidence that the activity should continue until proven harmful. I.e, Gore's contentions concerning Global Warming would be presumed to be correct until proven incorrect by others. (I hope that my example doesn't over simplify the concept of the precautionary principle.)
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
OK, thanks, good explanation. Still reject it on economical grounds. Burden of proof lies with the claimant, arguing religiously in circles and from unknowns doesn't make sense.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member
What if Gore decides to "claim" that:

1. Rural home septic systems (built according to local code) eventually pollutes generally and eventually is a contributor to global warming!

2. Rotting of unsold farmers crops and fecal matter from animal-for-food farms produce gases contributing significantly to global warming!

3. That effects of China and India's economic boom realizing their comparative lack of controls contributes significantly to global warming!


#1 & #2 are claims made by Gore (or anyone), and are based on what? To be proven by who based on a "claim."

#3 are claims by Gore (or anyone) and are just another example of an uncontrollable potential global warming cause on an uneven playing field. Who is going to "listen" and prove what? You may say that the U.S. pruduces X% of the worlds gaseous pollution. But, China and India are just warming up, not to mention any 3rd world country's (or South America) pollution potential. Expanding poor countries will have financial difficulty with pollution controls as they develop. So, will controls in North America and Europe be enough as these others develop or is it just another case of U.S. doing what is right while the rest of the world takes an exemption?

I guess my point is, does the claimant have to show some burden of proof that his claim holds any merit before the "actor" goes to any proof burden?
Banan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply