Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
AFFIRMATIVE (JV & V Only)
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Precautionary Principle 1AC ..................................................................................................................... 4-19
GREEN DEMOCRACY ADVANTAGE (JV & V Only)
Green Democracy Advantage ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.-3
Answers to: You can’t change the government .............................................................................................. 4
Answers to: Democracy hurts the environment ............................................................................................ 21
Answers to: Scientific Debate Needed ......................................................................................................... 22
OCEANS ADVANTAGE
Answers to: Oceans are resilient ................................................................................................................... 24
Answers to: Land Based Problems ............................................................................................................... 26
Human/Nature Divide ................................................................................................................................... 27
DECISION MAKING ADVANTAGE
Answers to: Precautionary Principle is a bad ethic ....................................................................................... 28
Answers to: Precautionary Principle is not an Ethic ..................................................................................... 29
Answers to Perfect is the Enemy of the Good .............................................................................................. 31
SOLVENCY
Answers to: Policy Paralysis ......................................................................................................................... 32
Answers to: Regulatory Overload ................................................................................................................. 34
Answers to: Innovation ................................................................................................................................. 35
ANSWERS TO DISADVANTAGES
Answers to: The disadvantage is more important than the ocean ................................................................. 36
Answers to: Precautionary Principle prevents development ........................................................................ 37
Answers to Genetically Modified Crops prevent starvation ......................................................................... 38
Answers to: Food Security Impact ................................................................................................................ 39
Answers to: Poverty Impact .......................................................................................................................... 40
1
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Summary
This affirmative focuses on the question of HOW we decide if we should develop and explore the Earth’s
oceans before we decide WHAT we should develop or explore. The Precautionary Principle is a tool that
guides decision makers, especially when concerning issues involving the environment. It would basically
shift the burden of proof to the person wishing to take an action to prove that it would not be harmful to
the oceans or environment. Currently, people that want to stop an oil drilling project or other event must
prove that the project would be harmful. Think of making the old saying “Better safe than sorry” and
legal requirement.
Shifting this burden would create a system that defers to protecting the resources of the ocean. The
current system is tilted towards developers of the ocean. This case allows debaters to combine their case
with an ethical stance for environmental protection. This affirmative argues that adopting the
Precautionary Principle is necessary to change the way that decisions are made by government agencies
and other decision makers when it comes to the ocean and spilling over to other environmental issues.
For more experienced debaters, this case could easily be turned into a critical affirmative.
The biggest problem with this case is that no direct exploration or development occurs. As such, it has
serious topicality issues. Therefore, debaters need to prepare themselves to defend against such attacks.
(Note: remember that “no abuse - we have a closed circuit with a list of acceptable cases” can be a very
compelling response to topicality.)
The first advantage is protecting ocean life. Currently thinking is that the ocean is so large and so
complex, that humans can never have a negative effect on it. However, as scientists look around the
world, they see a number of manmade problems in the oceans. Oil spills, over fishing, destruction of
coral reefs and oceans full of plastic trash all result from human decisions to interact with the ocean.
Fixing this large variety of issues will require changing the way we think about interacting with the ocean
moving forward.
The second advantage is decision making. How decisions are made have important results.
Incorporating an ethical ideal into decisions about the ocean can change the policies we make moving
forward. It also helps shape how we assess risk for things like disadvantages. How much current
economic growth are we willing to sacrifice in order to make an ethical decision that protects future
generations?
2
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Glossary
“Dead Zones”- an area of the ocean that is depleted of oxygen so little or no life exists there, frequently due to
pollution.
Degradation- the process of reducing in amount, strength, intensity, etc.
Ecology- the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their
environment, including other organisms.
Estuaries- an arm or inlet of the sea at the lower end of a river.
Ethics- a series of principles dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and
wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Geochemical- the chemical changes in and the composition of the earth's crust.
Infinite- unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time
Precautionary Principle- the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects
are disputed or unknown should be resisted.
3
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (1/6)
Contention 1- Humans are destroying the earth’s oceans, based on an incorrect notion that the sea can be
used without end, which leads to human choices polluting our oceans every day.
Wilder, Tenger, and Dayton, Researcher at the Marine Science Institute, Research marine biologist, and
Professor of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 1999
(Robert, Mia and Paul, “Saving Marine Biodiversity”, Issues, 15:3, November 27, http://issues.org/15-3/wilder/)
A comprehensive national strategy is crucial for reversing the rapidly accelerating decline in marine life.
For centuries, humanity
has seen the sea as an infinite source of food, a boundless sink for pollutants, and a
tireless sustainer of coastal habitats. It isn’t. Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly accelerating
declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock, flounder, and scores of other fish species, as well as mollusks,
crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries,
and wetlands and the sinister expansion of vast “dead zones” of water where life has been choked away.
More and more, the harm to marine biodiversity can be traced not to natural events but to inadequate
policies.
The escalating loss of marine life is bad enough as an ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic
crisis as well. Marine biodiversity is crucial to sustaining commercial fisheries, and in recent years
several major U.S. fisheries have “collapsed”- experienced a population decline so sharp that fishing is no longer commercially
viable. One study indicates that 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual revenues have been lost because of
overly aggressive fishing practices alone. Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling,
and coastal development have caused further losses.
4
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (2/6)
Contention 2 - Healthy oceans filled with a diverse array of species are essential to supporting life on the
planet.
Craig, Associate Dean for Environmental Programs @ Florida State University, 2003
(Robin Kundis, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida
and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they
do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For
example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect
against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic
building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other
less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of
marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current
evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is
strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859
Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any
other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that
many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860
Thus, maintaining
and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and
restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
5
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (3/6)
In order to remedy these issues my partner and I offer the following plan to support this year’s
resolution.
The United States Federal Government should use the precautionary principle as the criteria for
formulating and implementing non-military development and/or exploration of the Earth’s oceans.
6
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (4/6)
Contention 3 is better decision making.
A. Modern technology has reversed humanity’s role with nature and created the power to destroy nature
and all of humanity. Adopting the Precautionary Principle is necessary to provide an ethical framework
to control this new found power and protect the Earth for future generations.
Ewald, Director of Reasarch and Strategy, Federation Francaise des Societes
d'Assurances., 2000
[Francois, “Risk in contemporary society”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6 Conn. Ins. L.J. 47, 1999/2000, Hein Online]
The powers of modern man confer upon him an infinite responsibility. His nature is revealed in fear, a feeling that
makes man aware of the power of his new capacities. On one hand temporality, within which is situated his action, dilates to encompass the whole
history of humanity, past and future, but it must be acknowledged that his powers are such that they threaten the
existence of life itself. Contemporary man is becoming aware of himself in the feeling of anguish before the possibilities of annihilation that
he bears in himself: for the first time, he is discovering in himself the power to commit suicide as a species.
Faced with this possibility, and in order to [*71] overcome his anguish, modern man is on a quest to find
the rules of a morality that will limit his powers: the ethics of responsibility. His enormous power needs
holding.
The ethics of responsibility contain the risk and uncertainty to the extent that modern man must take
account in his actions, both their long term consequences and their possibility of sweeping along with
them, at least in certain cases, the worst, the catastrophe. Instead of the categorical Kantian imperative, there should be
substituted an imperative adapted to the new type of human action: "Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with
the permanence of an authentically humane life on earth." 35 For while we have the right to risk our own
lives, we do not have the right to risk that of humanity. This imperative is the basis of the precautionary
principle: it invites us to measure each of our actions against the principle of the worst scenario. Morality
becomes a sort of negative morality: it is not so much turned towards the positive quest for the best as
towards the avoidance of the worst. The uncertainty of long term prognostics confers the nature of a wager on human action, which
leads to questions such as: do I have the right to endanger the interests of others in my wager?
7
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (5/6)
B. Using the Precautionary Principle to protect the oceans places the burden of proof on those planning
development or exploration of the ocean to prove they will do no harm.
Ocean Classrooms, online educational resource on oceans, 2013
(“Precautionary Principle“, Current Publishing Corporation, https://www.oceanclassrooms.com/ms101_u5_c2_sa_2)-
Considering the declining health of many of Earth's ecosystems and the extent to which humans are to
blame, a growing number of scientists advocate use of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to
decisions regarding the environment.
The Precautionary Principle:
When an activity is known to threaten human health or the environment, we need to take precautions
even if we don't understand all the cause-and-effect relationships scientifically. In this context, those who wish
to conduct the activity, not the public, should be the ones to prove that the activity in question will not
harm the environment. Applying this principle must be an open, informed, and impartial process that
includes all those who may experience effects of such action. The process must also consider all
reasonable choices, including the option of not allowing any activity to proceed.
In a nutshell, the Precautionary Principle says that even without all the information on a particular
matter, we should not hesitate to take action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the
environment. Many scientists believe that it's time to take this stance on environmental issues, especially
those pertaining to the ocean.
8
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (Short Version) (6/6)
C. The precautionary principle provides the platform to change societal and governmental attitudes that
privilege economic growth and cost benefit analysis to one that values and respects the long term health
of the planet and its communities.
Jordan and O’Riordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, East
Anglia University, 1999
(Andrew and Timothy, “THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN CONTEMPORARY
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND POLITICS", Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing The Precautionary
Principle. Ed. Raffensperger and Tickner, Island Press, Google Books)
The precautionary principle is vague enough to be acknowledged by all governments regardless of how well they protect the environment. But the
politics of precaution are also powerful and progressive, since they offer a profound critique of many of
the ways in which the environmental policy is currently determined. Wrapped up in the debate about precaution are forceful
new ideas which point the way to a more preventative, source-based, integrated and biocentric basis for policy. The point about the
precautionary principle is that it swims against the economic, scientific and democratic tides. It requires
'sacrifice' of anyone who cannot see the justification of taking careful avoidance. As we have repeatedly
stressed, the strength of the precautionary principle lies in beliefs about social or environmental
resilience, and in the capacity of social groups or political systems to respond to crises. Therefore those who
support the notion of resilience and accommodation/adaptation would require precautionary 'sacrifice' as a higher level of cost than those who are
more ecocentric on such matters.
The emphasis which governments continue to place on 'sound science' and careful cost-benefit analysis,
suggest a deep seated suspicion of the threat which it appears to hold to economic growth and 'rational'
policy making. Precaution will not explode on to the environmental stage, sweeping away all forms of risk
or cost benefit assessment, careful scientific analysis and existing legal norms relating to the relative
power of polluters and victims. Rather, it will seep through the pores of decision making institutions and
the political consciousness of humanity by stealth. It will do this when, and if, it has the tide of the times behind it.
9
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (1/10)
Contention 1- Humans are destroying the earth’s oceans, based on an incorrect notion that the sea can be
used without end, which leads to human choices polluting our oceans every day.
Wilder, Tenger, and Dayton, Researcher at the Marine Science Institute, Research marine biologist, and
Professor of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 1999
(Robert, Mia and Paul, “Saving Marine Biodiversity”, Issues, 15:3, November 27, http://issues.org/15-3/wilder/)
A comprehensive national strategy is crucial for reversing the rapidly accelerating decline in marine life.
For centuries, humanity
has seen the sea as an infinite source of food, a boundless sink for pollutants, and a
tireless sustainer of coastal habitats. It isn’t. Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly accelerating
declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock, flounder, and scores of other fish species, as well as mollusks,
crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries,
and wetlands and the sinister expansion of vast “dead zones” of water where life has been choked away.
More and more, the harm to marine biodiversity can be traced not to natural events but to inadequate
policies.
The escalating loss of marine life is bad enough as an ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic
crisis as well. Marine biodiversity is crucial to sustaining commercial fisheries, and in recent years
several major U.S. fisheries have “collapsed”- experienced a population decline so sharp that fishing is no longer commercially
viable. One study indicates that 300,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual revenues have been lost because of
overly aggressive fishing practices alone. Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling,
and coastal development have caused further losses.
10
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (2/10)
Contention 2 - Healthy oceans filled with a diverse array of species are essential to supporting life on the
planet.
Craig, Associate Dean for Environmental Programs @ Florida State University, 2003
(Robin Kundis, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida
and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they
do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For
example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect
against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic
building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other
less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of
marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current
evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is
strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859
Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any
other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that
many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860
Thus, maintaining
and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and
restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the
wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
11
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (3/10)
In order to remedy these issues my partner and I offer the following plan to support this year’s
resolution.
The United States Federal Government should use the precautionary principle as the criteria for
formulating and implementing non-military development and/or exploration of the Earth’s oceans.
12
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (4/10)
Contention 3 is better decision making.
A. Modern technology has reversed humanity’s role with nature and created the power to destroy nature
and all of humanity. Adopting the Precautionary Principle is necessary to provide an ethical framework
to control this new found power and protect the Earth for future generations.
Ewald, Director of Reasarch and Strategy, Federation Francaise des Societes
d'Assurances., 2000
[Francois, “Risk in contemporary society”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6 Conn. Ins. L.J. 47, 1999/2000, Hein Online]
The powers of modern man confer upon him an infinite responsibility. His nature is revealed in fear, a feeling that
makes man aware of the power of his new capacities. On one hand temporality, within which is situated his action, dilates to encompass the whole
history of humanity, past and future, but it must be acknowledged that his powers are such that they threaten the
existence of life itself. Contemporary man is becoming aware of himself in the feeling of anguish before the possibilities of annihilation that
he bears in himself: for the first time, he is discovering in himself the power to commit suicide as a species.
Faced with this possibility, and in order to [*71] overcome his anguish, modern man is on a quest to find
the rules of a morality that will limit his powers: the ethics of responsibility. His enormous power needs
holding.
The ethics of responsibility contain the risk and uncertainty to the extent that modern man must take
account in his actions, both their long term consequences and their possibility of sweeping along with
them, at least in certain cases, the worst, the catastrophe. Instead of the categorical Kantian imperative, there should be
substituted an imperative adapted to the new type of human action: "Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with
the permanence of an authentically humane life on earth." 35 For while we have the right to risk our own
lives, we do not have the right to risk that of humanity. This imperative is the basis of the precautionary
principle: it invites us to measure each of our actions against the principle of the worst scenario. Morality
becomes a sort of negative morality: it is not so much turned towards the positive quest for the best as
towards the avoidance of the worst. The uncertainty of long term prognostics confers the nature of a wager on human action, which
leads to questions such as: do I have the right to endanger the interests of others in my wager?
13
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (5/10)
B. Using the Precautionary Principle to protect the oceans places the burden of proof on those planning
development or exploration of the ocean to prove they will do no harm.
Ocean Classrooms, online educational resource on oceans, 2013
(“Precautionary Principle“, Current Publishing Corporation, https://www.oceanclassrooms.com/ms101_u5_c2_sa_2)-
Considering the declining health of many of Earth's ecosystems and the extent to which humans are to
blame, a growing number of scientists advocate use of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to
decisions regarding the environment.
The Precautionary Principle:
When an activity is known to threaten human health or the environment, we need to take precautions
even if we don't understand all the cause-and-effect relationships scientifically. In this context, those who wish
to conduct the activity, not the public, should be the ones to prove that the activity in question will not
harm the environment. Applying this principle must be an open, informed, and impartial process that
includes all those who may experience effects of such action. The process must also consider all
reasonable choices, including the option of not allowing any activity to proceed.
In a nutshell, the Precautionary Principle says that even without all the information on a particular
matter, we should not hesitate to take action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the
environment. Many scientists believe that it's time to take this stance on environmental issues, especially
those pertaining to the ocean.
14
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (6/10)
C. Putting the precautionary principle into law is necessary.
Eckersley, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
(Robyn, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, The MIT Press, p. 134-5)
In cases of scientific uncertainty and conflict between environment and development interests, the
democratic state cannot be neutral. It can either support the status quo, which favors property holders and risk generators, or create
new rights and new presumptions that turn the tables in favor of environmental victims. The requirements of environmental justice
that are embedded in the ambit claim for ecological democracy demand rights and decision rules that positively favor the
disadvantaged and communicatively incompetent over well-resourced and strategically oriented
economic actors in cases of uncertainty and political intractability.
One such mechanism for shifting the presumption in favor of potential environmental victims is the
precautionary principle. The Rio Declaration formulation of the precautionary principle provides that “Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (principle 15). Adding the words
“to present and future human and nonhuman communities” after the words “irreversible damage”
would head off narrow, anthropocentric interpretations of this decision rule, which provides a presumption
against decisions carrying serious or irreversible environmental risks (e.g., species extinction, climate
change, nuclear fallout, and so-called genetic pollution from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment). The
decision rule also serves as an evidentiary rule in placing the onus of proof on the proponent to prove the
absence of such risks for human and nonhuman communities, now and in the future.
Of course, the precautionary principle would need to be interpreted and applied discursively in particular cases. However, participants in the dialogue
should not be free to ignore it. One way of ensuring this is to constitutionally entrench the precautionary principle in the same way that basic
democratic rights are constitutionally entrenched. Such entrenchment would not place the precautionary principle beyond
the reach of democratic debate, since the appropriateness of its application to particular circumstances
would always need to be debated on a case by case basis. In any event, the justification for entrenchment is
itself a democratic one: to ensure that the interests of those at risk who cannot be present are nonetheless
systematically considered by those who are present. Mandating such consideration is not the same as
mandating particular outcomes.
15
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
1AC
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (7/10)
D. The precautionary principle provides the platform to change societal and governmental attitudes that
privilege economic growth and cost benefit analysis to one that values and respects the long term health
of the planet and its communities.
Jordan and O’Riordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, East
Anglia University, 1999
(Andrew and Timothy, “THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN CONTEMPORARY
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND POLITICS", Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing The Precautionary
Principle. Ed. Raffensperger and Tickner, Island Press, Google Books)
The precautionary principle is vague enough to be acknowledged by all governments regardless of how well they protect the environment. But the
politics of precaution are also powerful and progressive, since they offer a profound critique of many of
the ways in which the environmental policy is currently determined. Wrapped up in the debate about precaution are forceful
new ideas which point the way to a more preventative, source-based, integrated and biocentric basis for policy. The point about the
precautionary principle is that it swims against the economic, scientific and democratic tides. It requires
'sacrifice' of anyone who cannot see the justification of taking careful avoidance. As we have repeatedly
stressed, the strength of the precautionary principle lies in beliefs about social or environmental
resilience, and in the capacity of social groups or political systems to respond to crises. Therefore those who
support the notion of resilience and accommodation/adaptation would require precautionary 'sacrifice' as a higher level of cost than those who are
more ecocentric on such matters.
The emphasis which governments continue to place on 'sound science' and careful cost-benefit analysis,
suggest a deep seated suspicion of the threat which it appears to hold to economic growth and 'rational'
policy making. Precaution will not explode on to the environmental stage, sweeping away all forms of risk
or cost benefit assessment, careful scientific analysis and existing legal norms relating to the relative
power of polluters and victims. Rather, it will seep through the pores of decision making institutions and
the political consciousness of humanity by stealth. It will do this when, and if, it has the tide of the times behind it.
16
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (8/10)
Advantage 1: Green Democracy Advantage
A. Advocating for the precautionary principle grows environmental movements and injects values into
policy making. Our demand can change the way that environmental policy is formed.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 2002, 210219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
Activists’ and advocates’ responses to the principle and their explanations of why it has become important and useful to them vary. Almost
universally, however, they see it as an exercise in something beyond caution, or even precaution. It is not just a matter of
buying up gas masks, so to speak, or reinforcing cockpit doors. They nearly always describe it instead in positive terms. Activists who have
become discouraged by the Sisyphean task of trying to protect the Earth and the health of communities
in the face of out-of-control technologies and damage often say that the precautionary principle gives
them hope. They say it is something positive to work for and that it embodies common sense. Organizers and policy advocates
alike express gratitude for a unifying idea that makes sense of everything they are trying to work for and
that removes some important barriers to that work, at least in their own minds. Inevitably, values creep into these discussions.
A typical range of responses came from a group of ecosystem scientists and advocates assembled by SEHN in May 2001 in Leavenworth,
Washington, to discuss how the principle might apply to decisions related to ecosystems. After more than a day of discussion that went straight to the
principle’s practical implications, the group was asked, Is the precautionary principle indeed of use to you? Some of their answers had an equally
practical tone:
By using precaution you articulate uncertainties that are already there. It is better to think out
consequences. It is important science, but it is also an important public education tool. It helps people
understand what to do with uncertainty. It is an organizing principle in theory—it takes our ideas and
make sense of them—and in practice: it can galvanize a movement.
17
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (9/10)
B. Enacting the precautionary principle injects democracy into environmental decision making.
Raffensperger, Executive Director of Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(CAROLYN, 9/1, No. 9, Vol. 25; Pg. 26, MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, "PRECAUTIONARY
PRECEPTS")
The second mode of implementation is to reverse the burden of proof, especially for chemicals, and other emerging and novel technologies. For so
long, industry has received the benefit of the doubt; if regulation is going to threaten business, then regulation should be
But what that has meant is that we have sacrificed our children's brains, our women's breasts, our men's
prostates on that alter of economic development.
sacrificed.
The Precautionary Principle says, no, public health and the environment get the benefit of the doubt, not
the almighty dollar. And there are a lot of ways to do that. The Precautionary Principle asserts a responsibility on
the part of industry or the proponents of a technology or activity, to test that technology or activity. So for instance, the REACH program
proposed in Europe for chemicals says, if you don't test your chemicals, you can't market in Europe. What a good idea! That's reversing the burden
of proof. It says if you haven't even tested your chemical, don't try and sell it to us, and then, if we're injured, make us go to court and test the
chemical to show it is unsafe. The REACH program says to industry, you've got the obligation; this is your responsibility. This is a complete turn
around compared to what is typical in the United States.
The third element of the Precautionary Principle is looking for the
safest alternative. If you've set a goal to achieve some end, which
alternative gets you to the goal? This approach means you're going to find much better ways to do things; it drives
innovation. Pursuit of the safest alternative is creating whole new fields like green chemistry and green engineering. They are taking
the dirtiest chemicals, throwing them out and changing policy and industry in some really wonderful
ways. Choosing the safest alternative is in many ways the heart-beat of the Precautionary Principle.
The final element of the Precautionary Principle is democracy. If we're faced with scientific uncertainty,
we need to set goals, and choose the safest alternative to achieve these goals. These processes involve
values and ethics; it is not something that scientists or government bureaucrats can decide alone. We
need to bring affected parties to the table. This gives us a chance as a public to set the goals that we want
to drive toward; it helps get on the table a much wider array of options for solving problems and looking
for alternatives. So democracy is also an essential component of the Precautionary Principle.
18
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle 1AC (10/10)
C. Green Democracy produces better decision making by allowing all options to be considered.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 2002, 210219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
Democracy and transparency in the decisionmaking process also represent an ethical component: the
right to know, the right to be included in decisions that affect one, the duty to include all who are affected.
Including such ethical considerations is a statement of values. But this
kind of process also has a practical aspect. The more
information gathered from varied sources, the more satisfactory a decision is likely to be. So too is the
assessment of alternatives (O’Brien, 2000). It makes practical sense to look at alternatives, to seek better ways
of doing things, to be able to choose among different possible methods and outcomes rather than being
locked into the dictates of things as they are or some inevitable march of progress and technology. However, deciding what
is “better” depends on the values that guide the process.
The precautionary principle and the process of applying it by no means eliminate the value of economics
from the equation. Any “democratic and transparent” process must include economic considerations.
However, deliberately and consistently putting economics first leads to a different kind of precaution, a
kind that is routinely exercised at the expense of the life and health of humans and ecosystems. This is a
value judgment. It makes a difference which values guide a decision.
19
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Green Democ Adv Ext - Answers to: You can’t change the government
[___]
[___] Our appeal for a more democratic decision making process for environmental issues can make it a
reality. Our appeal generates environmental accountability.
Eckersley, Senior Lecturer - Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
[ROBYN, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, APRIL, p14-5]
The overall argument that I offer is that it is too hasty to assume that the social structures of international
anarchy, global capitalism, and the liberal democratic state are necessarily anti-ecological and mutually
reinforcing, or that they foreclose the possibility of any progressive
transformation of states as governance structures. The key to such transformation lies in deepening the
democratic accountability and responsiveness of states to their citizens’ environmental concerns while
also extending democratic accountability to the environmental concerns of transnational civil society,
intergovernmental organizations and the society of states in general. By these means, the anti-ecological
behavioral dynamics that are generated by the social structures of international anarchy, global capitalism and
administrative hierarchy can be reversed.
One does not have to search very far to find historical examples of how environmentally destructive
dynamics can be qualified, restrained, or otherwise moderated by state and nonstate agents “acting
back” upon social structures. Here I single out three mutually informing developments that have served to
moderate and, in some cases, transform the respective “logics” of international anarchy, capitalism, and
administrative hierarchy:
20
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Green Democ Adv Ext - Answers to: Democracy hurts the environment
[___]
[___] A green democracy is the only way to ensure government works to protect the environment.
ECKERSLEY, Senior Lecturer - Political Science at the University of Melbourne, 2004
[ROBYN, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, APRIL, 117-9]
In the terms of the double challenge of ecological democracy, then, deliberative democracy, prima facie,
appears promising. Not only is it likely to generate a risk-averse orientation, it is also likely to guard against
unfair displacement of risks onto innocent third parties. Such an orientation provides a welcome move away
from the utilitarian framework of trading-off (which permits the sacrifice of the interests of minorities, those
lacking preferences, and the discounted future in favor of
present majorities) toward a more inclusive orientation that at least strives to find ways of mutually
accommodating (rather than trading off) the needs of the present and the future, the human and the
nonhuman.
In short, a case can be made that deliberative democracy is especially suited to making collective decisions
about long-range, generalizable interests, such as environmental protection and sustainable development.
It thus provides a fair process that is likely to move societies toward more reflexive ecological modernization of
the kind discussed in chapter 3. Moreover, because it does not confine its moral horizons to the citizens and
territory of a particular polity, it may be understood as a transnational form of democracy that is able to cope
with fluid boundaries.10 It also has the capacity to accommodate the complexities and uncertainties
associated with ecological problems, include and evaluate both expert scientific and vernacular
understandings of ecological problems, and identify and evaluate risks in socially and ecologically
inclusive ways.
21
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Green Democ Adv Ext - Answers to: Scientific Debate Needed
[___]
[___] The Precautionary Principle is pro-science:
a) it encourages more research to minimize uncertainty
b) waiting for scientific certainty is a dangerous standard that uses the environment as a
laboratory
c) Risk assessment is a failed standard and must be replaced
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
1) Those who advocate precaution urge action on the basis of vague fears, regardless of whether there is
scientific evidence to support their fears.
Most statements of the Precautionary Principle say it applies when there is reason to believe serious or
irreversible harm may occur. Those reasons are based on scientific evidence of various kinds: studies,
observations, precedents, experience, professional judgment. They are based on what we know about how
processes work and might be affected by a technology.
However, precautionary decisions also take into account what we know we do not know. The more we
know, scientifically, the greater will be our ability to prevent disasters based on ignorance. But we must be
much more cautious than we have been in the past about moving forward in ignorance.
2) Taking action in advance of scientific certainty undermines science.
Scientific standards of certainty are high in experimental science or for accepting or refuting a hypothesis,
and well they should be. Waiting to take action before a substance or technology is proven harmful, or
even until plausible cause-and-effect relationships can be established, may mean allowing irreversible
harm to occur -- deaths, extinctions, poisoning, and the like. Humans and the environment become the
unwitting testing grounds for these technologies. This is no longer acceptable. Moreover, science should
serve society, not vice versa. Any decision to take action -- before or after scientific proof -- is a decision of
society, not science.
3) Quantitative risk assessment is more scientific than other kinds of evaluation.
Risk assessment is only one evaluation method and provides only partial answers. It does not take into
account many unknowns and seldom accounts for complex interactions -- nor does it raise our sights to
better alternatives.
22
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Green Democ Adv Ext - Answers to: Scientific Debate Needed
[___]
[___] Science must be understood within a system of values that society holds otherwise we cannot know
what actions to take with the information that science reveals to us. Form
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22,
No. 3, June 2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
What is the significance of this impulse to talk about values, and what does the precautionary principle have to
do with it? Talking openly about values is a relatively recent development in the established environmental
movement, which has long been accustomed to “leaving values at the door,” often under explicit
instruction from agency officials and industry representatives, and confining discussions to “the facts” or
“science” or “sound science.”
One of the scientists at the Leavenworth gathering said that although the precautionary principle is seen by
some as antiscience, in his view, it is not about science at all. “The judgments we make are value laden. It
gives us a framework in which to interpret science.” This response is similar to a refrain that has appeared in
some recent writing on science and advocacy: State your values up front, because decisions and
developments in science and technology are based first of all on values and only secondarily on scientific
and technological fact and process per se.
With regard to decisions about public issues, expertise in terms of skill, knowledge, or experience is often
less important than basic questions of values. Is abortion wrong? Is it moral to deny medical care to a child
whose parents have no health insurance? Should murderers be put to death? Is it acceptable to perform medical
experiments on human beings without their consent? There are no scientific answers to these questions, or
thousands more like them. They can only be answered by asking ourselves what we believe and what we value.
In addressing these questions, finding knowledgeable experts is actually less important than finding
experts who share our values. (Rampton & Stauber, 2001, p. 297-8)
23
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Oceans are resilient
[___]
[___] Oceans are uniquely vulnerable and human actions can result in horrible outcomes.
Coyne and Hoekstra, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at University of Chicago,
and Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard, 2007
(Jerry and Hopi, “The Greatest Dying”, The New Republic, September 24,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-energy/the-greatest-dying)
In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators,
while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse
from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so
does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe
is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral
reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreat
ional value: They provide
tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
24
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Oceans are resilient
[___]
[___] The end of an entire species cannot be taken lightly. We cannot know when a species disappearing
will be the tipping point for a larger collapse in an ecosystem so we must err towards precaution to
preserve species diversity.
Parenteau, Director, Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School, 1998
(Patrick, “Rearranging The Deck Chairs: Endangered Species Act Reforms in an Era of Mass Extinction,” ,
William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Spring 22 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev.
227, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=wmelpr)
To summarize Part I, the biodiversity crisis is real, and the stakes are high. Extinction estimates may vary
by a wide margin, but they all agree on the central point that the current rate is far beyond any definition
of "normal," and it is increasing. n127 Each extinction, no matter how inconsequential it may appear in
isolation, represents another strand removed from the fabric of life, another rivet popped from the wing
of the airplane. n128 Neo-classical economics tells us almost nothing about the dollar value of individual
species, let alone the cumulative value of the services that healthy ecosystems provide. n129 The emerging
field of ecological economics is beginning to get a handle on these values, and the numbers being generated,
though soft, are huge. n130 Yet in the end it is not what we know but what we do not know that may
provide the most cogent argument for exercising the "precautionary principle," for trying to save "every
cog and wheel," not just for ourselves but for the next seven generations to come. n131 All well and good,
you may be thinking, but isn't habitat loss and even extinction simply the inevitable, albeit unfortunate, price we
must pay for "progress?" A look at the roots of the biodiversity crisis might shed some light on this question.
25
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Land Based Problems
[___]
[___] Even if it cannot remove all harms to the ocean, establishing the precautionary principle for ocean
management would protect marine biodiversity by preventing the most damaging forms of development.
Wilder, Tenger, and Dayton, Researcher at the Marine Science Institute, Research marine biologist, and
Professor of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 1999
(Robert, Mia and Paul, “Saving Marine Biodiversity”, Issues, 15:3, November 27, http://issues.org/15-3/wilder/)
The precautionary principle
The United States needs a new policy that regards marine biodiversity as a resource worth saving. The
fundamental pillar of this policy must be the precautionary principle: conserving marine resources and
preventing damage before it occurs. The precautionary principle stands in sharp contrast to the
traditional marine policy framework: take as much as can be taken and pollute as much as can be
polluted until a problem arises. Rather than wait for the environment to cry for help, the precautionary
principle places the burden on fishermen, oil drillers, industry, farmers whose fields run to rivers or
shores, and whomever else would exploit the sea, intentionally or not, to avoid harming this precious
resource in the first place.
26
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Oceans Advantage
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Human/Nature Divide
[___] The precautionary principle is the single most powerful mechanism for challenging the separation
between human and non-human interests and prevent environmental destruction.
Jordan and O’Riordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, East
Anglia University ,1999
(Andrew and Timothy, “THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN CONTEMPORARY
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND POLITICS", Protecting Public Health and the Environment:
Implementing The Precautionary Principle. Ed. Raffensperger and Tickner, Island Press, Google Books)
Intrinsic value and legitimate status: The stronger formulations of the precautionary principle are
consistent with what philosophers term a 'bioethic'. This states that vulnerable, or critical natural
systems, namely those close to thresholds, or whose existence is vital for natural regeneration, should be
protected as a matter of moral right. This in turn places a strain both on the application of cost-benefit
analysis generally, including the proportionality rule, and the normal practice of considering all options as
comparators for decision making. Thus, precaution goes to the heart of the philosophical and political
debate on the proper relationship between humans and the non-human ('natural') world. In promoting a
more humble and less rapacious attitude to the environment, the precautionary principle presents a
profound challenge to some of the unstated assumptions of 'modern' (and particularly western) societies:
material growth, the power and efficacy of scientific reason and the pre-eminence of human interests
over those of other entities. The human race is a colonising species without an institutional or intellectual
capacity for equilibrium, and notions of 'care', 'precaution' and 'restraint' strike at the veryheart of its
common purpose (Jordan and O'Riordan, 1993). The precautionary principle lends strength to the notion that
natural systems have intrinsic rights and a non-instrumental value that should be accounted for in decision
making.
Unfortunately, the precautionary principle does not state how much environmental quality should be sacrificed
for material growth, nor does it determine how a 'non-instrumental' respect for nature should be incorporated
into decision making. However, it does offer a strong presumption in favour of high environmental
protection and a justification for treating certain environmental functions or features as inviolable. This
is a prospect that usually causes alarm amongst those who believe that such a concept is an excuse for deep
ecology to ride roughshod over 'sensible' forms of development or impose 'limits' to material growth. The US
lawyer Christopher Stone (1987) has sought to allay these fears by indicating that a creative partnership in
law can be established to allow nature rights of existence that are not absolute, but require careful
deliberation before being set aside.
27
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Precautionary Principle is a bad ethic
[___]
[___] The negative relies on a utilitarian decision making style that will trap the Earth in a system which
makes planetary destruction inevitable.
Plumwood, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, 2002
[Valerie, Environmental Culture: The ecological crisis of reason, PG. 150-51]
Singer's Minimalism is also a political position urging minimal departure from prevailing liberal,
Humanistic and Enlightenment assumptions and from the present system of economic rationality. 14 But surely
an ecological society will require more than minimal departures from these systems, none of which have
been innocent bystanders in the development of the rational machinery which is bringing the stripping of
the planet for the benefit of a small elite of humans to a high point of rational refinement. Singer's
Utilitarianism reproduces many elements of rationalism including the adoption of universal, abstract
mathematically-expressible formulae for decision, in the best universalist/ impersonalist tradition. Also in
the rationalist tradition is the content of the Utilitarian formula, with its maximisations (always damaging),
illusory precision, its intellectualist reduction of ethics to a matter of rational calculation and
quantification, and its corresponding reduction of the important dimensions of decision to aspects of life
supposedly susceptible to these rational manipulations. And as we have seen, awareness, the chief ground of
ethical consideration, is one, but only one, possible variation on reason or mind, although one that modernism
can tie to preferences and hence to agency and property ownership. The most serious objection to my mind
however is that any ecological or animal ethics based on Singer's Utilitarianism is committed to a massive
program of ranking, quantification and comparison between beings and species — a program which, as I
argue in the next chapter, is unworkable, ethically repugnant, and built on a problematic reading of equality.
Theoretically, ranking comparisons and tradeoffs between beings are insisted upon by Utilitarianism at
virtually every level his emphasis on ranking does not encourage the kind of thinking that aims for
mutual, negotiated outcomes, but rather ones that sanction a sacrificial order determined on the basis of
greater approximations to the human.
28
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Precautionary Principle is not an Ethic
[___]
[___] The Precautionary Principle provides representation for the environment in the legal system,
providing a voice for those that cannot be present.
Van Dyke, Professor of Law at University of Hawaii, 2004
[Jon M., "The Evolution and International Acceptance of the Precautionary Principle", in Bringing New Law to
Ocean Waters, http://www.mmc.govisound/internationalwrkshp/pdf/vandyke.pdf]
It is easy and commonplace for commentators to criticize the precautionary principle as an aspiration
without content, or as a feel-good “‘sound bite’ rather than a principle rooted in law.”123 But these
criticisms fail to recognize the important shift in perspective that the precautionary principle exemplifies.
It was not long ago that environmentalists were on the outside looking in, trying to warn governments
and international organizations of the dangers facing our fragile ecosystems. But now these warnings—
and the caution required to protect our depleted natural resources—are incorporated in international
and national
decisionmaking at the outset. How exactly these cautions translate into action varies with each problem, and
we are still experimenting with the assessments and evaluations needed to
ensure that changes are introduced with the required prudence. But it is still highly significant that in less than
two decades, the perspective of our global community has changed from allowing developments to proceed
automatically to requiring careful evaluation before the green light is given. At its core, the precautionary
principle means that decisionmakers “must take precautionary measures (or avoid certain conduct and projects)
when there is an expectation
that a relevant activity may create adverse environmental interference, even in
the absence of conclusive evidence displaying a relationship between cause and alleged effects.”124 It requires
“an anticipatory response . . . in situations of uncertainty
where a violation has not yet occurred and no harm has been done, but where a strong risk of such a violation
exists.”125 With time and experience, the details of the precautionary principle will come into clearer focus.
But already it has transformed the process of decisionmaking, by recognizing the validity of
environmental concerns and by requiring some level of clarity and certainty before risky activities are
begun.
29
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Precautionary Principle is not an Ethic
[___]
[___] The precautionary principle allows values to be injected into the decision making process. Without
making our values explicit the oceans will continue to be less important than short term economic gains.
Myers, Science and Environmental Health Network, 2002
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22,
No. 3, June 2002, 210-219, http://www.sehn.org/pdf/putvaluesfirst.pdf)
In the preface to Pandora’s Poison: Chlorine, Health, and a New Environmental Strategy, Joe Thornton (2000)
made this declaration: No analyst of policy can be truly objective, because the process of weighing options
for social action always filters the findings of science through a set of political and ethical assumptions
and values. With that in mind, I have tried to do two things: to make explicit the ethical and political views that
undergird my own evaluation of the science and to be as fair as possible in my presentation of the scientific
evidence.
I cover what I believe to be the most important information relevant to the case I am making and evaluate its
strengths and weaknesses, but I do not claim balance or objectivity, because these are neither appropriate nor
possible in this kind of effort. (p. ix) Hugo Alroe and Erik Kristensen (in press) described the need for scientists
to recognize the value system within which they work and to observe and describe it as objectively as, and
alongside, the research itself:
An overall distinction between the system and its environment needs to be made— the system has to be
identified as an object of observation. This first movement also involves the determination, or at least
presumption, of certain goals and values upon which the choices and delimitations that need to be made in
planning and initiating research, can be made. The ensuing observations are thus based on these value-laden
choices. The precautionary principle has many practical uses and applications. But both its instinctive appeal
and the sharp criticism it evokes have less to do with practicalities and more to do with the fact that it brings
values to the forefront of discussion. Invoking the precautionary principle is an acknowledgement that
policy choices are value laden, and it is an explicit endorsement of certain values. The precautionary
principle embodies certain values; it exposes the contradictory values that currently govern decisionmaking processes; it can be effective only if certain values are allowed to enter into the decision-making
process. Moreover, the principle may be most effective if specific values, in the form of goals, are allowed
30
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to Perfect is the Enemy of the Good
[___]
[___] The principle is the best framework for decision-making- balancing interests of growth and the
environment ensures the best outcome.
Van Dyke, Professor of Law at University of Hawaii, 2004
[Jon M., "The Evolution and International Acceptance of the Precautionary Principle", in Bringing New Law to
Ocean Waters, http://www.mmc.govisound/internationalwrkshp/pdf/vandyke.pdf]
V. Is the Precautionary Principle a Rejection of the Scientific Method and a Formula for Doing Nothing?
No . The precautionary principle does not reject science, but it does rest on the recognition that the
physical sciences do not always provide all the answers, that social sciences and even the humanities are
also valid sources of information and decisionmaking, and that concerns based on common fears are also
relevant. Proportionality is always relevant, but grave harm—“the worst-case scenario”—must be
considered, even if the likelihood of its occurrence seems relatively remote. Adherence to the
precautionary principle does, in a sense, bias decisionmaking against innovation by slowing down the
process of introducing new technologies, but this go-slow approach is justified by the realization that new
development does not always deliver all that it promises and that change is frequently irreversible. If new
technologies and new activities will, in fact, offer benefits, they can be introduced after meeting the
burdens of proof required by the precautionary principle.
Utilization of the precautionary principle will alter the “factual trigger” that requires precautions to be taken.121
Without this principle, those challenging a food additive, for instance, would have to prove that it is toxic, those
challenging a new fishing activity would have to prove that it would have a negative impact on a species or
ecosystem, and those challenging a shipment of a hazardous cargo or the construction of a nuclear power plant
would have to prove that it is likely to cause actual pollution to the environment. But when the precautionary
principle is utilized, the fears that affected human populations have about such activities become
sufficient to induce caution and to require those wishing to undertake these initiatives to establish that
the activities are safe, or, in appropriate cases, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Science is not ignored,
but its role has changed, and the burden of persuasion is shifted.122 In fact, the precautionary principle
promotes more science, because it requires continuous monitoring as well as research into less-polluting
alternatives. Some have said that the precautionary principle masks irrational fears of technology. But if
the fears are irrational, then good science disseminated by those who are developing the technology can
calm those fears and persuade the public that the project is sound.
31
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Policy Paralysis
[____]
[____] The Precautionary Principle allows decisions to be made in the context of uncertainty and the
inability to know. This creates a new way of looking at the world that allows for the acceptance of doubt
and fear, but does not paralyze us with inaction.
Ewald, Director of Research and Strategy, Federation Francaise des Societes
d'Assurances., 2000
(Francois, “Risk in contemporary society”, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6 Conn. Ins. L.J. 47,
1999/2000, Hein Online)
Precaution starts when the decision (necessary) must be made by reason of and in the context of a
scientific uncertainty. Decisions are therefore made not in a context of certainty, nor even of available
knowledge, but of doubt, suspicion, premonition, foreboding, defiance, mistrust, fear, and anxiety. There
is to some extent a risk beyond risk, of which we do not have, nor cannot have, the knowledge or the
measure. The hypothesis of the risk of development is found within the limit of this new figure of
prudence. We have seen, in fact, that, once we are aware of the existence of the risk of development, we
can no longer plead for the industry to put in circulation a product offering total quality, since, by hypothesis,
the notion affirms that this is not possible. Precaution finds its condition of possibility in a sort of hiatus and
time-shift between the requirements of action and the certainty of knowledge. It enters into a new
modality of the relationship between knowledge and power. The age of precaution is an age which
reformulates the Cartesian demand for the necessity of a methodical doubt. Precaution results from an ethic
of the necessary decision in a context of uncertainty. The appearance of the precautionary principle is
one of the signs of the profound philosophical and sociological transformations which characterize this end
of century.
32
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Policy Paralysis
[___]
[___] Implementing the precautionary principle just changes the risk calculation for making a decision.
The principle allows for choices that minimize risk, eliminating risk is not neccesary.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"Precaution calls for zero risk, which is impossible to achieve."
Response: Any debate over the possibility of "zero risk" is pointless. Our real goal must be to impose far
less risk and harm on the environment and on human health than we have in the past. We must harness
human ingenuity to reduce the harmful effects of our activities.
The real question is who or what gets the benefit of the doubt. The Precautionary Principle is based on the
assumption that people have the right to know as much as possible about risks they are taking on, in
exchange for what benefits, and to make choices accordingly. With food and other products, such choices
are often played out in the marketplace. Increasingly, manufacturers are choosing to reduce risk themselves by
substituting safer alternatives in response to consumer uneasiness, the threat of liability and market pressures.
A key to making those choices is transparency -- about what products contain, and about the testing and
monitoring of those ingredients. Another is support, by government and industry, for the exploration of -and rigorous research on -- alternatives.
Market and voluntary action is not enough, especially on issues that go beyond individual and corporate
choice. It is the responsibility of communities, governments, and international bodies to make farreaching decisions that greatly reduce the risks we now impose on the earth and all its inhabitants.
33
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Regulatory Overload
[___]
[___] Departments face overload now, working against each other and overlapping on jurisdiction. Only
creating a unified national ocean policy under the precautionary principle can resolve these issues and
create enforceable environmental regulations.
Wilder, Tenger, and Dayton, Researcher at the Marine Science Institute, Research marine biologist, and
Professor of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 1999
(Robert, Mia and Paul, “Saving Marine Biodiversity”, Issues, 15:3, November 27, http://issues.org/15-3/wilder/)
This myth is accompanied by another: that policymakers can do little to safeguard the sea. Actually, a variety
of governmental agencies provide opportunities for action. State fish and game commissions typically
have jurisdiction from shorelines to 3 miles offshore. The Commerce Department regulates commerce in
and through waters from 3 to 12 miles offshore and has authority over resources from there to the 200mile line that delineates this country’s exclusive economic zone. The Interior Department oversees oil
drilling; the Navy presides over waters hosting submarines; and the states, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Coast Guard regulate pollution. The problem is that these entities do little to protect
marine biodiversity and they rarely work together.
At fault is the decades-old framework that the state and federal powers use to regulate the sea. It consists
of fragmented, isolated policies that operate at confused cross-purposes. The United States must develop
a new integrated framework-a comprehensive strategy-for protecting marine biodiversity. The
framework should embrace all categories of ecosystems, species, human uses, and threats; link land and
sea; and apply the “precautionary principle” of first seeking to prevent harm to the oceans rather than
attempting to repair harm after it has been done. Once we have defined the framework, we can then
enact specific initiatives that effectively solve problems.
34
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Innovation
[___]
[___] The precautionary principle will trigger innovations for cleaner technology.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"If precaution applies to everything, it would stop all technology in its tracks."
Response: Precautionary action usually means adopting safer alternatives. A broad precautionary
approach will encourage the development of better technologies. Using this approach, society will say
"yes" to some technologies while it says "no" to others. Making uncertainty explicit, considering
alternatives, and increasing transparency and the responsibility of proponents and manufacturers to
demonstrate safety should lead to cleaner products and production methods. It can also mean imposing a
moratorium while further research is conducted, calling for monitoring of technologies and products already in
use, and so forth.
[___] Research funded by efforts to comply with the precautionary principle will lead to many new
innovations.
Myers, communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network, 2004
(Nancy, “The Precautionary Principle: Answering the Critics”, Multinational Monitor, September 4,
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.html)
"Precaution itself is risky: it will prevent us from adopting technologies that are actually safer."
Response: This is not true. Precaution suggests two approaches to new technology:
Greater vigilance about possible harmful side effects of all innovations. Alternatives to harmful
technologies (such as genetic modification to reduce pesticide use) must be scrutinized as carefully as the
technologies they replace. It does not make sense to replace one set of harms with another. Brand-new
technologies must receive much greater scrutiny than they have in the past.
Redirection of research and ingenuity toward inherently safer, more harmonious, more sustainable
technologies, products, and processes.
35
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: The disadvantage is more important than the ocean
[___]
[___] The disadvantage asks you to put off the problems of the ocean for another day and focus on more
immediate issues. However, this is the poor decision making model that allowed us to bring the oceans to
the brink of destruction in the first place. Only employing the precautionary principle can allow us to
prioritize the health of the oceans and preserve it for the future.
Craig and Hughes, Associate Dean for Environmental Programs, Florida State University College of Law
and Professor at Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, 2012
(Robin K. and Terry, Marine Protected Areas, Marine Spatial Planning, and the Resilience of Marine
Ecosystems (August 16, 2012). RESILIENCE AND THE LAW, Forthcoming; FSU College of Law, Public
Law Research Paper No. 550. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1917696)
The oceans, therefore, maintain world-spanning, interconnected physical, chemical and
biological processes that seem far too large and complex for mere humans to damage. Indeed, in terms of
both effective governance and scientific research, “marine systems have been relatively neglected because
they are ‘out of sight, out of mind’ to most people, including most scientists” (Ray & Grassle 1991: 453).
Until recently, a “paradigm of inexhaustibility” prevailed, a mindset that human managers did not need to
worry about ocean health because marine ecosystems would always be resilient enough to absorb and
recover from the multiple and interactive stresses—overfishing, pollution and now climate change—that
humans impose on them (Craig 2005; Ogden 2001; Connor 1999).
Unfortunately, we now know that marine ecosystems often cannot in fact absorb the multitude of
anthropogenic stressors imposed upon them, even before the accelerating impacts of climate change become
more severe and add to existing drivers of change such as overfishing (Agardy 2010; Laffoley et al. 2008).
Many marine ecosystems have lost their resilience to recurrent natural and man-made disturbances, and
have undergone long-term shifts to new, degraded regimes (Hughes et al. 2005). In coastal regions in
particular, fishing has substantially altered marine ecosystems for centuries (Jackson et al. 2001). For
example, many coral reefs have undergone regime-shift to macro-algae following the over-exploitation of
herbivores and the addition of land-based nutrients. A study published in Science in 2008 concluded that no
area of the world’s oceans is completed unaffected by human impacts, and 41 percent of the oceans are strongly
affected by multiple human impacts (Halpern et al. 2008). In the face of additional climate change-induced
stresses, marine governance systems and marine managers need to find mechanisms for increasing the
resilience of ocean ecosystems. This chapter explores one set of those mechanisms—place-based marine
management, especially marine protected areas (MPAs)—and the various legal regimes that encourage use of
these tools in pursuit of increased marine ecosystem resilience.
36
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Precautionary Principle prevents development
[___]
[___] Employing the precautionary principle does not sacrifice developing countries- it’s a false choice
driven by faulty cost-benefit analysis.
White, assistant professor of Sociology at James Madison University, 2004
(Damian, "Environmental Sociology and Its Futures", Sociology, April 1, No. 2, Vol. 38)
It is the underlying assumptions, then, of positivism, neoclassical economics and technological
determinism/optimism which ultimately provide the interpretive framework for this study. This is most
striking when cost-benefit analysis is used in concluding chapters as an 'objective' and 'non-political' means of
demonstrating that our environmental concerns are misdirected. Thus we are warned of the danger of
environmentalists convincing us to spend more public money on environmental policy rather than on
'hospitals, child care etc.' and later Third World development. Once again, we are drawn back to the
question of 'facts' and how facts are framed. Are our options really so fixed as to merely amount to a
choicebetween clean air or kindergartens? Is the low priority presently given to development aid by
OECD nations plausibly explained by their excessive and rampant spending on the environment? In this
neatly constructed (and of course nonpolitical) series of choices that Lomborg offers, no mention is made
of OECD or US military spending, corporate subsidies, tax breaks for the wealthy and so on. Rather odd
omissions for a self-declared 'old left wing Greenpeace member' (p. xix).
37
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to Genetically Modified Crops prevent starvation
[___]
[___] Genetically modified plants are worse for crop productivity and provides diminishing returns --yields have been unproven in practice
Lean, Environment Editor, The Independent, 2008
(Geoffrey, “Exposed: the great GM crops myth”, The Independent, 4-20http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth812179.html?service=Print)
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows,
undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing
world food crisis. The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US
grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent,
contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields. Professor Barney Gordon, of
the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops –
because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as
expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get
as high a yield as I used to?'" He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in
the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from
the non-GM one. The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only
when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the
essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the
conventional one, rather than surpassing it. The new study confirms earlier research at the University of
Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional
relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available. The Nebraska study suggested that two
factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones
are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which
has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields. But the fact that GM crops did worse than
their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very
process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it
is happening.
38
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Food Security Impact
[___]
[___] Starvation is caused by poor distribution of food, not lack of production.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM , HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 2006
(10 Reasons to Rethink 'Overpopulation', popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf)
Global food production has consistently kept pace with population growth, and today world agriculture
produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago . There is enough food for every man,
woman and child to have more than the recommended daily calorie intake. People go hungry because
they do not have the land on which to grow food or the money with which to buy it. In Brazil, one percent
of the land owners control almost half of the country's arable land, and more land is owned by multinational
corporations than all the peasants combined. Globally, more than 1.2 billion people earn less than $1 per day,
making it difficult to afford enough food to feed a family. Many governments have failed to make food
security a priority. In 2002, when at least 320 million people in India were suffering from hunger, the
government tripled its rice and wheat exports. The U.S. is the largest food producer in the world, yet more
than one in ten American households are either experiencing hunger or are at the risk of it.
39
Precautionary Principle Affirmative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Disadvantages
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Poverty Impact
[___]
[___] Poverty is created by corrupt economic and political systems not the number of people who need to
be fed.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM , HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 2006
(10 Reasons to Rethink 'Overpopulation', popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf)
A narrow focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to
perpetuate poverty and inequality . It places the blame on the people with the least amount of resources
and power rather than on corrupt governments and economic and political elites. It ignores the legacy of
colonialism and the continuing unequal relationship between rich and poor countries , including
unfavorable terms of trade and the debt burden. It says nothing about the concentration of much wealth in a few
hands. In the late 1990s, the 225 people who comprise the 'ultra-rich' had a combined wealth of over US $1
trillion, equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world's people.
40