Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE NEGATIVE
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
ANSWSERS TO OCEANS ADVANTAGE
Oceans are resilient ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Oceans are resilient - Extensions .................................................................................................................... 5
Land based problems ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Answers to: Human/Nature Divide ................................................................................................................. 7
ANSWERS TO DECISION MAKING ADVANTAGE
Precautionary Principle is a bad way to make decisions ................................................................................ 8
Precautionary Principle is not a decision making system .......................................................................... 9-10
Perfection is the Enemy of the Good ............................................................................................................ 11
Perfection is the Enemy of the Good – Extensions....................................................................................... 12
Policy Paralysis ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Policy Paralysis- Extensions ......................................................................................................................... 14
Regulatory Overload ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Precautionary Principle hurts innovation ...................................................................................................... 16
Precautionary Principle Hurts Innovation- Extensions ................................................................................. 17
ANSWERS TO GREEN DEMOCRACY ADVANTAGE (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green democracy leads to better decision ............................................................................... 18
You can’t change the government ................................................................................................................ 19
Democracy hurts the environment ................................................................................................................ 20
Scientific Debate Needed for Democracy..................................................................................................... 21
Scientific Debate- Extensions ....................................................................................................................... 22
OFF CASE
Social Services Tradeoff Link ...................................................................................................................... 23
Develoment Disadvantage 1NC ............................................................................................................... 24-25
Brink- Africa on the verge of agricultural revolution ................................................................................... 26
Link—Precautionary Principle prevents development ................................................................................. 27
Link—Precautionary Principle expansion .................................................................................................... 28
Internal Link- Food Production .................................................................................................................... 29
Impact – Value current deaths over future .................................................................................................... 30
Answers to: The Precautionary Principle changes how decisions are made ................................................ 31
1
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Summary
The negative case against the Precautionary Principle is based around the danger of using absolute standards to
do the work of managing in the real world. Every decision has a cost and the Precautionary Principle asks
decision makers to look at those costs in a very specific way. The negative will argue that maintaining rigid
rules creates a number of problems.
Development Disadvantage- the first unseen consequence of widespread adoption of the precautionary
principle is for the world’s poor. Expansive use of the precautionary principle will slow innovation or ban use
of technologies necessary to continue to feed the world as populations increase. The effort to preserve the
oceans for future generations has very harsh effects on the poor and hungry especially in developing nations
who need to employ new technologies to catch up to the developed world. This disadvantage calls into question
the affirmatives ethical decision making framework by asking who should a decisions maker be responsible to,
people currently living in poverty or future generations who will need to utilize ocean resources.
Oceans Advantage Answers- These arguments downplay the threat of humans on the oceans. Such large and
complicated systems have a way of balancing themselves out. Humans would have to work very hard to
fundamentally alter a system that covers 70% of the earth’s surface. In addition, since the plan only effects the
ocean it does not stop pollutants from entering the ocean from land based sources like fertilizer run off.
Decision Making Answers- Arguments here question the use of the precautionary principle as a decision
making, or ethical, system. The principle can be easily manipulated by extreme voices and challenages the
logic of decision makers to prove a negative that a potential policy will not do harm. Finally, the “Perfect is the
Enemy of the Good” argues that the principle prevents pragmatic short term solutions and efforts from being
implemented because they may have some unforeseen consequence. In the long run this will hurt the health of
the oceans.
Solvency Answers- How will the Precautionary Principle be implemented? History from other government
agencies suggests three major problems can occur. First, policy paralysis, the decision makers will continue to
not take actions since they cannot know for certain that a negative result is not possible. This prevents any
policies from being implemented, even ones that are overall positive for the ocean or coastal communities.
Second, regulatory overload, agencies will be so busy studying all of the potential effects of a development or
exploration that they will not have the time or resources to enforce current laws and regulations. This tradeoff
creates a loss of protection for the ocean. Finally, innovation, the new regulations and government oversight of
development efforts will prevent new ideas from making it to the ocean. These can both be ideas that grow the
economy or help sustainably develop the ocean.
2
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
SLUDL / NAUDL 2013-14
Glossary
Agriculture- practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the
rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products
Developing country- a poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically
and socially.
Hierarchy- a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according
to status or authority.
Genetically Modified Organism- an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic
engineering techniques.
Paralysis- inability to act or function
Precautionary Principle- the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate
effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted
Resilient- the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.
3
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Oceans are resilient
Climate change proves oceans and marine biodiversity are resilient. Their alarmist predictions have not
come true.
Taylor, senior fellow of The Heartland Institute, 2010
(James M. is a and managing editor of Environment & Climate News., “Ocean Acidification Scare Pushed at
Copenhagen,” Feb 10 http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/
article/26815/Ocean_Acidification_Scare_Pushed_at_Copenhagen.html]
With global temperatures continuing their decade-long decline and United Nations-sponsored global warming
talks falling apart in Copenhagen, alarmists at the U.N. talks spent considerable time claiming carbon
dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic ocean acidification, regardless of whether temperatures rise.
The latest scientific data, however, show no such catastrophe is likely to occur. Food Supply Risk Claimed
The United Kingdom’s environment secretary, Hilary Benn, initiated the Copenhagen ocean scare with a highprofile speech and numerous media interviews claiming ocean acidification threatens the world’s food supply.
“The fact is our seas absorb CO2. They absorb about a quarter of the total that we produce, but it is making
our seas more acidic,” said Benn in his speech. “If this continues as a problem, then it can affect the one billion
people who depend on fish as their principle source of protein, and we have to feed another 2½ to 3 billion
people over the next 40 to 50 years.” Benn’s claim of oceans becoming “more acidic” is misleading, however.
Water with a pH of 7.0 is considered neutral. pH values lower than 7.0 are considered acidic, while those higher
than 7.0 are considered alkaline. The world’s oceans have a pH of 8.1, making them alkaline, not acidic.
Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations would make the oceans less alkaline but not acidic. Since human
industrial activity first began emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a little more than 200 years ago, the
pH of the oceans has fallen merely 0.1, from 8.2 to 8.1. Following Benn’s December 14 speech and public
relations efforts, most of the world’s major media outlets produced stories claiming ocean acidification is
threatening the world’s marine life. An Associated Press headline, for example, went so far as to call ocean
acidification the “evil twin” of climate change. Studies Show CO2 Benefits Numerous recent scientific studies
show higher carbon dioxide levels in the world’s oceans have the same beneficial effect on marine life as
higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have on terrestrial plant life. In a 2005 study published in the
Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists examined trends in chlorophyll concentrations, critical
building blocks in the oceanic food chain. The French and American scientists reported “an overall increase of
the world ocean average chlorophyll concentration by about 22 percent” during the prior two decades of
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. In a 2006 study published in Global Change Biology, scientists
observed higher CO2 levels are correlated with better growth conditions for oceanic life. The highest CO2
concentrations produced “higher growth rates and biomass yields” than the lower CO2 conditions.
Higher CO2 levels may well fuel “subsequent primary production, phytoplankton blooms, and sustaining
oceanic food-webs,” the study concluded.
4
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Oceans are resilient - Extensions
[___]
[___] Human damage to oceans limited by new regulations on fishing and other negative activities.
Sustainable ocean management is coming soon.
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011
(" The Road to End Overfishing: 35 Years of Magnuson Act,"
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2011/20110411roadendoverfishing.htm,)
I want to acknowledge and highlight the 35th anniversary of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Simply called “the Magnuson Act”, this law, its regional framework and goal of
sustainability, has proven to be a visionary force in natural resource management - both domestically and
internationally. The Magnuson Act is, and will continue to be a key driver for NOAA as we deliver on our
nation’s commitment to ocean stewardship, sustainable fisheries, and healthy marine ecosystems.
Because of the Magnuson Act, the U.S. is on track to end overfishing in federally-managed fisheries, rebuild
stocks, and ensure conservation and sustainable use of our ocean resources. Fisheries harvested in the
United States are scientifically monitored, regionally managed and legally enforced under 10 strict
national standards of sustainability. This anniversary year marks a critical turning point in the Act’s history.
By the end of 2011, we are on track to have an annual catch limit and accountability measures in place for all
528 federally-managed fish stocks and complexes. The dynamic, science-based management process envisioned
by Congress is now in place, the rebuilding of our fisheries is underway, and we are beginning to see real
benefits for fishermen, fishing communities and our commercial and recreational fishing industries.
5
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Land based problems
An ocean only approach will fail to protect marine life. Most harm comes from land based pollutants
and practices.
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 lack of cogent jurisdiction is perhaps most problematic with regard to management of water
pollution. Water quality from the coastline to far out at sea is degraded by a host of inland sources. Landbased nutrients and pollutants wash down into the sea in rivers, groundwater, and over land. The sources
are numerous and diffuse, including industrial effluents, farm fertilizers, lawn pesticides, sediment, street
oils, and road salts. The pollutants kill fish and microorganisms that support the ocean food web.
Excessive sediment blankets and smothers coral reefs.
Nutrients such as fertilizers can cause plant life in the sea to thrive excessively, ultimately consuming all
the oxygen in the water. This chokes off animal life and eventually the plant life too, creating enormous
dead zones that stretch for thousands of square miles. Studies show that the size of the dead zone in the Gulf
of Mexico off Louisiana has doubled over the past six years and is now the largest in the Western Hemisphere.
It is leaving a vast graveyard of fish and shellfish and causing serious damage to one of the richest U.S.
fishing regions, worth $3 billion annually by some estimates.
Rectifying these problems is not a technologically difficult proposition. The thorniest matter is gathering the
needed political willpower. Because pollutants cross so many political boundaries of the regulatory system,
the action needed now must be a sharp break from the past.
6
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Oceans Advantage
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Human/Nature Divide
[___]
[___] Maintaining the divide between human and nonhuman communities is needed for the survival of
all species—only humans have the mental ability to make moral decisions to preserve their environment.
Younkins, Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University, 2004
(Edward, The Flawed Doctrine of Nature's Intrinsic Value, http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/041015-17.htm)
¶ Man’s survival and flourishing depend upon the study of nature that includes all things, even man himself.
Human beings are the highest level of nature in the known universe. Men are a distinct natural
phenomenon as are fish, birds, rocks, etc. Their proper place in the hierarchical order of nature needs to
be recognized. Unlike plants and animals, human beings have a conceptual faculty, free will, and a moral
nature. Because morality involves the ability to choose, it follows that moral worth is related to human
choice and action and that the agents of moral worth can also be said to have moral value. By rationally
using his conceptual faculty, man can create values as judged by the standard of enhancing human life.
The highest priority must be assigned to actions that enhance the lives of individual human beings. It is
therefore morally fitting to make use of nature. ¶ Man’s environment includes all of his surroundings. When
he creatively arranges his external material conditions, he is improving his environment to make it more useful
to himself. Neither fixed nor finite, resources are, in essence, a product of the human mind through the
application of science and technology. Our resources have been expanding over time as a result of our
ever-increasing knowledge. ¶
Unlike plants and animals, human beings do much more than simply respond to environmental stimuli.
Humans are free from nature’s determinism and thus are capable of choosing. Whereas plants and animals
survive by adapting to nature, men sustain their lives by employing reason to adapt nature to them.
People make valuations and judgments. Of all the created order, only the human person is capable of
developing other resources, thereby enriching creation. The earth is a dynamic and developing system that we
are not obliged to preserve forever as we have found it. Human inventiveness, a natural dimension of the
world, has enabled us to do more with less.
¶ Those who proclaim the intrinsic value of nature view man as a destroyer of the intrinsically good. Because it
is man’s rationality in the form of science and technology that permits him to transform nature, he is
despised for his ability to reason that is portrayed as a corrupting influence. The power of reason offends
radical environmentalists because it leads to abstract knowledge, science, technology, wealth, and
capitalism. This antipathy for human achievements and aspirations involves the negation of human
values and betrays an underlying nihilism of the environmental movement.
7
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Decision Making
NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle is a bad way to make decisions
The Precautionary Principle goes too far, the alternative of sustainability can allow for human and nonhuman interests to be balanced and sensible environmental protections to be enacted.
Flournoy, Professor at University of Florida School of Law, 2003
(Alyson C. “Building an Environmental Ethic from the Ground Up” Environments, Vol. 27, p. 53, L/N)
Finally, there is one practical advantage sustainability has: accessibility. Sustainability may be a
particularly strong starting point from which to reach people who are interested in the environment
because it comports with people's current ethical intuitions. Results of a recent survey showed that the top
justification people gave for caring about environmental protection was the current generation's responsibility to
future generations. n60 The reason selected most [*78] frequently as being a "very important reason" to protect
biodiversity was biodiversity's value in providing natural services to humans. n61 Thus sustainability shows
promise as a stepping stone from current ethics and values held by the public. It builds both on the
utilitarian justification most people identify as foremost among their reasons for caring about the
environment, and on their concern for future generations. In addition, sustainability seems compatible
with views that are grounded in a sense of religious duty. If the public is broadly committed to protecting
the environment for future generations and for spiritual reasons, as surveys suggest, n62 the concept of
sustainability will help citizens to evaluate whether certain policies and decisions are consistent or
inconsistent with widely shared values.
8
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Decision Making
NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle is not a decision making system
Precautionary principle is a rhetorical weapon manipulated by extremists – not a basis for decision
making.
Lewis-Staff Director House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, 2000
(Marlo, “Precautionary Foolishness”, excerpts from speech to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/12/01/precautionary-foolishness)
Now, I am not for a moment suggesting that the Precautionary Principle would be beneficial were it applied
evenhandedly, to bureaucrats and businessmen alike. Inflating "Safety First!" from a mere rule of thumb
into a categorical imperative -- an absolute overriding duty -- is a recipe for paralysis and stagnation,
perhaps the riskiest conditions of all. My point, rather, is that the Precautionary Principle is not a precept
of science or ethics. It is a rhetorical weapon. Its purpose is to exaggerate the risks associated with
economic endeavor and conceal the risks arising from the exercise of political power.
9
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Decision Making
NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle is not a decision making system
[___]
[___] The precautionary principle is ideology not a rational way to evaluate choices.
Lewis-Staff Director House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, 2000
(Marlo, “Precautionary Foolishness”, excerpts from speech to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/12/01/precautionary-foolishness)
Whelan at the ACSH agreed.
"I have real problems with consistency and where you draw the line," she said. "Proponents of the principle
seem to only focus on things like the levels of synthetic chemicals in food. But all food is made up of
chemicals. A potato contains 150 naturally occurring chemicals. Do we stop growing potatoes because they
contain trace amounts of naturally occurring arsenic?"
Whelan argues that the precautionary principle wrongly errs on "the side of getting rid of things. It always
assumes a worst-case scenario. If there's any perceived risk, it says throw it out. But what about the risks
of doing that? What if getting rid of a drug or program or food actually results in different, bigger
problems."
She cites as examples current objections to genetically modified foods and stem cell research, both of
which promise dramatic social benefits, according to advocates.
Miller, a former regulator with the Food and Drug Administration, complains that precautionary
principle advocates want "science to prove a negative, which isn't possible. We should not mistake such
advocacy as a good faith effort to protect the environment or public health. It is merely political ideology
looking for a new weapon."
10
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Decision Making
NAUDL 2013-14
Perfection is the Enemy of the Good
The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good-The Precautionary Principles obsession with zero-risk undermines
widespread environmental protection.
Cross, Professor of Business Regulation at University of Texas-Austin, 1996
(Frank B. “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle”, 53 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 851,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=wlulr
The precautionary principle creates a second form of political research misallocation because its quixotic
quest for the best defeats our ability to achieve the good. By its nature, the precautionary principle aims
for virtually absolutist goals, eliminating any hint of risk from a substance subject to government
regulation. This approach fails to account for the inevitable trade-off between the "depth" and the
"breadth" of government action. Regulating any one substance more strictly or deeply requires
additional resources that will unintentionally preclude more widespread regulation of a greater number
of risks.
John Mendeloff's study of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) demonstrated
the dichotomy between the depth and breadth of regulatory action. n313 He referred to the trade-off as
one of overregulation and underregulation. The overregulation of any one substance as compelled by the
precautionary principle would lead to the underregulation of other substances never attended by the
agency. Mendeloff noted that OSHA began by adopting the four hundred occupational health standards already
set by a private group, the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). OSHA thereby
was able to hit the ground running with standards in place, and the agency was to revisit and modify the ACGIH
standards as appropriate and set additional standards for theretofore unregulated substances. From its 1970
inception until 1986, OSHA reconsidered and lowered the ACGIH standards for only ten chemicals; during the
same time period, ACGIH had lowered its standards for nearly one hundred chemicals and adopted
recommended exposure limits for an additional two hundred chemicals. n314 Mendeloff found that ACGIH
could regulate many more chemicals because its response to any given chemical was less strict -- the ACGIH
exposure reductions were about fifty percent, while OSHA's typical reduction was [*913] around ninety
percent. n315 While the ACGIH reductions for any one chemical under consideration were less, ACGIH
addressed so many more substances that its reductions promised to save several hundred more lives than did the
OSHA actions. n316
11
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Decision Making
NAUDL 2013-14
Perfection is the Enemy of the Good – Extensions
[___]
[___] Quests to eliminate all risks and negative impacts will crush any attempted environmental
regulations. Their process creates a world of more harm to the oceans, not less.
Cross, Professor of Business Regulation at University of Texas-Austin, 1996
(Frank B. “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle”, 53 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 851,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=wlulr
Stephen Breyer has characterized this problem as the counterproductive effort to eliminate the "last ten
percent" of risk from a substance or activity. He declares that strategy unwise because it involves "high
cost, devotion of considerable agency resources, large legal fees, and endless [*914] argument" with only
limited payoff. n322 Such stringent rules are also more likely to be challenged in court and overturned
on judicial review. n323 Even when such rules are adopted successfully, the effort to eliminate the last ten
percent wastes considerable resources. Breyer quotes an EPA administrator as observing that "about 95 percent
of the toxic material could be removed from [Superfund] waste sites in a few months, but years are spent trying
to remove the last little bit." n324 Draconian standards under Superfund have undermined effective cleanup
and health protection measures. n325 The precautionary principle's insistent demand for ever higher safety
margins in each regulation perversely serves to reduce the overall amount of effective public health regulation.
n326
A regulatory program that focused upon the greatest risks to public health and the environment would
produce greater benefit, yet the precautionary principle eschews such risk comparisons. In addition to
addressing the greatest risks, the government should also consider the remediability of environmental
problems. n327 It makes little sense to dwell extensively upon even a great problem that cannot feasibly
be solved. The precautionary principle does not take remediability into account, however. The principle
presses for zero risk, regardless of formal realizability. Thus, the precautionary principle obstructs
consideration of two key factors -- priorities and capabilities -- in maximizing the protection of public
health and the environment.
12
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Solvency
NAUDL 2013-14
Policy Paralysis
Precautionary principle causes policy paralysis since anything could be linked to a negative consequence
to a human or non-human community.
Barnhizer, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University. 2006
(David, Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream": The Decisionmaking Realities of Business and
Government, 18 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 595, Lexis)
A critical element of the sustainability movement has been the effort to have business and governmental
systems operate according to what is called the precautionary principle. This represents the idea that we identify
the bad things that might result from a proposed action and not move ahead with that action if harm may occur.
It is a strong position on the need to internalize nearly all factors that might be affected and all costs that might
be incurred by the action.
The very concept of ecological connectedness that underlies the precautionary principle in which a
seemingly trivial event can lead to the collapse of an entire system is not useful in the context of actual
human behavior. n116 Nor does it have any relationship to the self-regarding way in which businesses
make decisions. While it is analytically true that everything may be connected in some way to everything
else, the links, possibilities, and probabilities are often so vague and disparate that it is impossible to
know anything with certainty. n117 Attempting to master the intricacies and to avoid taking any action
without a full understanding of all potential consequences would result in decisional paralysis. This is
because every event could be linked to potential catastrophe or at least to some harmful consequences to
some one or some thing. This is why the precautionary principle articulated at the 1972 Stockholm Conference
has never been integrated into economic decisionmaking and has therefore been an ineffective component of the
approach taken by voluntary codes and sustainability systems intended, at least in theory, to implement the
concept of sustainability and precautionary decisionmaking. n118
13
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Solvency
NAUDL 2013-14
Policy Paralysis- Extensions
[___]
[___] Worst case predictions cause worst case policy making – causes policy paralysis, supports power
hierarchies, and creates bad forms of thinking and education.
Schneier, Fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, 2010
(Bruce, Worst Case Thinking, 3/10/10, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html)
I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep
talking about their nightmare scenarios."
There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary
principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It
substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters
powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects
of terrorism.
Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the
cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about
what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses
only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes.
Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must
prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible.
Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could
melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we
allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive
in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the
nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence
and death.
Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case
thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand
and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at
all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is
amenable to worst-case thinking.
Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it
focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine.
14
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Solvency
NAUDL 2013-14
Regulatory Overload
Turn-Precautionary Principle causes agency overload trading off with more important environmental
and health protections.
Cross, Professor of Business Regulation at University of Texas-Austin, 1996
(Frank B. “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle”, 53 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 851,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=wlulr
In practice, the precautionary principle suffers from tunnel vision. Advocates focus on an apparent public
health problem, demand that it be [*909]addressed out of precaution, and further demand that regulation be
particularly strict to avoid any risk of adverse effects. The debate unfortunately dwells on the merits of the
particular problem under consideration, without any attention to opportunity costs. In reality, there are a
myriad of potential public health and environmental issues to address and a limit to the time, effort, and
money available. Consequently, the precautionary principle is not precautionary in overall effect.
Focusing great precaution upon the instant problem must reduce precaution upon other problems, which
may prove greater and more serious. n298 In this sense, the precautionary principle gives fealty not to
precaution, but to whatever issue happens to alight atop the agenda for attention. n299
A current movement both within and without the government is known as comparative risk. n300 This
approach contends that the government should compare the magnitude of various environmental risks to public
health and should focus its regulatory attention upon the greatest of these risks. The agencies have a limited
budget and number of employees, although drafting a regulation may take considerable time and
investigation. n301 Moreover, society has limited financial resources and limited [*910] "worry beads"
with which it may concentrate its concern. Historically, even with precautionary concern, a federal
agency has been unable to issue more than two or three major public health regulations of chemicals in a
year. n302 Given such limits, precautionary attention to one problem inevitably draws responsive
efforts from other problems. n303
Insofar as the precautionary principle diverts action from problem A to problem B, the principle is
counterproductive whenever the risk from A is greater in magnitude than that from B. Yet, by its very
terms, the precautionary principle ignores this loss in its single-minded focus on eliminating any risk of a
risk from the problem under attention. n304 Even the Supreme Court noted that if government agencies
must respond to public fears of risk, the "available resources may be spread so thin that agencies are
unable adequately to pursue protection of the physical environment and natural resources." n305
Stephen Breyer was not on the Court at the time of that decision, but he has written that dollars spent
unnecessarily on precaution mean that the "money is not, or will not be, there to spend, at least if we
want to address more serious environmental or social problems -- the need for better prenatal care,
vaccinations, and cancer diagnosis, not to mention daycare, housing and education." n306
15
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Solvency
NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle hurts innovation
Precautionary Principle distorts risk assessment stifling innovation and undermining public safety.
Miller and Conko, fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at the Hoover Insitute and Executive
Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2001
(Henry I. and Gregory, The Perils of Precaution
http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/precaution-without-principle-conko-and-miller-nature-biotechnology Policy
Review 2k1
In both the United States and Europe, public health and environmental regulations usually require a risk
assessment to determine the extent of potential hazards and of exposure to them, followed by judgments about
how to regulate. The precautionary principle can distort this process by introducing a systematic bias into
decision making. Regulators face an asymmetrical incentive structure in which they are compelled to
address the potential harms from new products, but are free to discount the hidden risk-reducing
properties of unused or underused ones. The result is a lopsided process that is inherently biased against
change and therefore against innovation.
16
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Solvency
NAUDL 2013-14
Precautionary Principle Hurts Innovation- Extensions
[___]
[___] The principle asks the makers of new technologies to prove a negative, that is logically impossible.
Burnett, Ph.D and lead analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2009
(H. Sterling, UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN
WELFARE, Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26 . Issue 02 July , pp 378-410 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1017/S0265052509090281)
Elsewhere I have argued that while the PP may sound reasonable in theory, it threatens greater harms than it
prevents when embodied in law.44 The PP requires one to do the impossible: prove a negative. As Henk van
den Belt and Bart Gremmen put it, “The application of the Precautionary Principle . . . tends to impose an
impossible burden of proof on proponents of new technologies. In the name of absolute safety they are
asked nothing less than to demonstrate conclusively that the new technologies they advocate offer no
possible harm. This is a formidable, perhaps even logically impossible task.”
[___] History of the precautionary principle’s use at the FDA and Congressional oversight prove our
argument that it stifles innovation.
Miller and Conko, fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at the Hoover Insitute and Executive
Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2001
(Henry I. and Gregory, The Perils of Precaution, http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/precaution-without-principleconko-and-miller-nature-biotechnology Policy Review 2k1)
In all our FDA history, we are unable to find a single instance where a Congressional committee
investigated the failure of FDA to approve a new drug. But, the times when hearings have been held to
criticize our approval of a new drug have been so frequent that we have not been able to count them. The
message to FDA staff could not be clearer. Whenever a controversy over a new drug is resolved by
approval of the
drug, the agency and the individuals involved likely will be investigated. Whenever such a drug is
disapproved, no inquiry will be made. The Congressional pressure for negative action is, therefore,
intense. And it seems to be ever increasing.
17
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green Democracy Advantage
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Green democracy leads to better decision
[___]
[___] Having more information available will not lead to better decisions. It’s not possible to fully
understand the interacting systems of the ocean to make decisions based on the precautionary principle.
Barnhizer, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University. 2006
(David, Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream": The Decisionmaking Realities of Business and
Government, 18 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 595, Lexis)
Because our systems of knowledge and technical function have been segregated into increasingly
specialized compartments, many of the connections between systems and their potential consequences are
not understood by anyone. Our knowledge systems and methods are specialized and fragmented to a
degree that virtually no one has the ability to fully understand the connections between [*647]
interacting subsystems. n122 This renders grossly inadequate our ability to take account of the array of
factors sufficient to satisfy the terms of the precautionary principle. There is also a strong tendency to shift
the burdens of proof to those who oppose a potentially harmful chemical or proposed course of action rather
than placing the responsibility on the manufacturers to prove the substance or action is harmless.
[___] Actually, the precautionary principle hurts the environment by preventing any action from being
taken.
Adler, professor and director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve,
2011
(Jonathan, “The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle”, The American, March 23,
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/may/the-problems-with-precaution-a-principle-without-principle)
The real teeth of the principle, as articulated in the Wingspread Statement, come from shifting the burden of
proof to “the proponent of an activity.” Here, “better safe than sorry” means that no activity which “raises
threats of harm to human health or the environment” should proceed until proven “safe.” Interpreted this way,
the principle erects a potential barrier to any activity that could alter the status quo. Applied literally to
all activities, it would be a recommendation for not doing anything of consequence, as all manner of
activities “raise threats of harm to human health or the environment.” As Sunstein observes, “Read for
all its worth, it leads in no direction at all. The principle threatens to be paralyzing, forbidding
regulation, inaction, and every step in between.”12
18
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green Democracy Advantage
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
You can’t change the government
Environmental movements fail to change government actions because they fail to convince ordinary
citizens of their cause.
Devinny, Professor of Strategy at University of Technology, Sydney, 2012
(Timothy, “Why the global environmental movement is failing”, June 22, http://theconversation.com/why-theglobal-environmental-movement-is-failing-7819)
But the real issue that the environmental movement’s leaders have failed to grasp is that the reason there
is such a lack of corporate and governmental action is that the consumers and general population do not
believe and act like activists. While environmental activists ramp up the rhetoric to a war footing,
ordinary individuals get on with their lives. Unfortunately, it is this ordinary individual to whom the “evil”
corporate and “neutered” political representatives are beholden. The environmental movement has, in a way,
declared war on everyone and its representatives.
For example, it is argued that pension funds are a key target of environmental activists because “it was simply
unacceptable that pension funds invested money in activities that the owners of the money would not find
acceptable”. But my colleagues and I recently finished a series of experimental studies on pension fund
allocation by individuals in the US and Australia (with over 1,500 investors). What we discovered was rather
disheartening. When given the chance, individual (ordinary mom and pop) investors actually underallocated their funds to social responsible investment alternatives.
In other words, when faced with investment alternatives with identical risk-and-return characteristics, the
non-social alternative was preferred to the social alternative (mainly because people did not believe that the
investment returns could be sustained). Overall, the social alternative received 20% less investment than its
non-social counterpart.
19
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green Democracy Advantage
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Democracy hurts the environment
Democratizing risk management undermines environmental protection.
Miller and Conko, fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at the Hoover Institute and Executive
Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2001
(Henry I. and Gregory, The Perils of Precaution
http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/precaution-without-principle-conko-and-miller-nature-biotechnology Policy
Review 2k1
Several subjective factors can cloud thinking about risks and influence how nonexperts view them.
Studies of risk perception have shown that people tend to overestimate risks that are unfamiliar, hard to
understand, invisible, involuntary, and/or potentially catastrophic — and vice versa. Thus, they
overestimate invisible “threats” such as electromagnetic radiation and trace amounts of pesticides in
foods, which inspire uncertainty and fear sometimes verging on superstition. Conversely, they tend to
underestimate risks the nature of which they consider to be clear and comprehensible, such as using a
chain saw or riding a motorcycle.
These distorted perceptions complicate the regulation of risk, for if democracy must eventually take
public opinion into account, good government must also discount heuristic errors or prejudices. Edmund
Burke emphasized government’s pivotal role in making such judgments: “Your Representative owes you,
not only his industry, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
opinion.” Government leaders should lead; or putting it another way, government officials should make
decisions that are rational and in the public interest even if they are unpopular at the time. This is especially true
if, as is the case for most federal and state regulators, they are granted what amounts to lifetime job tenure in
order to shield them from political manipulation or retaliation. Yet in too many cases, the precautionary
principle has led regulators to abandon the careful balancing of risks and benefits — that is, to make
decisions, in the name of precaution, that cost real lives due to forgone benefits
20
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green Democracy Advantage
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Scientific Debate Needed for Democracy
The precautionary principle ignores scientific evidence that is needed for rational debate and true
democratic participation.
Kuhn, 2003
(Robert Lawrence Kuhn September/October 2003 –
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25691)
Just as advanced science and technology have begun to flourish in almost every corner
Just as advanced science and technology have begun to flourish in almost every corner of the world,
antiscience currents are flowing faster, too—fed by a curious confluence of individual alienation,
religious fundamentalism, extreme environmentalism and even elements of postmodern scholarship, with
its tendency to view scientific research as affected by cultural bias. One sees close ties between the
absence of scientific appreciation and the presence of demagogic intolerance—but even so, this is still
correlation, not cause.
Critical Thinking and Democracy
How might science engender democracy? I'd like to suggest two mechanisms: first, by changing the way
people think; second, by altering the interaction among those who make up the community. The more
scientifically literate people become, the more they will expect, even demand to participate in the political
process, and the more effective they will be at it. Such social evolution may be slow, nonlinear and
chaotic, and periodically may even reverse course, but it is probably also inexorable, as the recent history
of the former Soviet Union and other Communist countries in Europe shows.
A key to changing the way people think is "critical thinking," the ability to draw logical conclusions, or
(more often, in the messy world of social issues) the reverse—to discern gaps in logic, to detect broken
conceptual links in the causative chain of, say, campaign promises. Science amplifies our power of
discernment; the scientific way of thinking enables us to assess whether facts fit theories, or, in the
political arena, whether actual circumstances support proffered positions. Critical thinking is the essence of the
scientific method. Knowing the difference between assumption and deduction, and between presumption
and proof, can alter one's outlook and transform an electorate. The cognitive skill to distinguish among
hope, faith, possibility, probability and certitude are potent weapons in anyone's political survival kit and
can be applied in all areas of life and society.
21
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Answers to: Green Democracy Advantage
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Scientific Debate- Extensions
[___]
[___] Science and rationality are the underpinning of democracies worldwide.
Kuhn,
Robert Lawrence Kuhn September/October 2003 –
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25691
The usual rationale for spending public monies on scientific projects large and small is that they have the
potential to make our lives longer, healthier, safer, happier, more productive, more pleasant. That science, even
"pure" science, can strengthen democracy and promote public participation in the political process, both
in the United States and throughout the world, is hardly ever mentioned. It should be. Scientific literacy
energizes democracy, I suggest, and this is an important ancillary benefit of the promotion of science. Can this
proposition be defended? I'd like to try.
I'll start with an observation. In general, countries that have stronger sciences have stronger democracies.
And in countries where science has little strength and scientific ways of thinking have no apparent
impact, governments tend to range from undemocratic to totalitarian. This is quite obviously correlation,
not cause—and even if cause, the direction of the causation arrow is unclear. A democratic country might foster
science, perhaps as a second-order effect of the prosperity and high literacy conventionally coincident with
democracy, just as logically as a scientific country might foster democracy.
22
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Social Services Tradeoff Link
[___] The realities of policy mean that enforcement of the precautionary principle will tradeoff with
budgets for other issues.
Cross, Professor of Business Regulation at University of Texas-Austin, 1996
(Frank B. “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle”, 53 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 851,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=wlulr
[*911] The trade-off between these objectives is concededly imperfect. Government resources are not
perfectly fungible nor are they always efficiently allocated. n307 Less money for toxic chemical regulation
does not necessarily translate into more money for childhood vaccinations. n308 Yet, the imperfection of
the trade-off does not deny its existence, and the tradeoffs are most likely to occur within agencies, which
have some flexibility in whether to allocate their attention to, say, the ambient ozone standard or the
ambient standard for airborne particulates. n309 When the federal courts required the EPA to expedite
its regulation of radionuclides in the air, "the agency had to take personnel from development of new
source performance standards, which probably would have provided more overall health protection."
n310 Likewise, the FDA's felt need to focus on minimal risks from pesticides in foods has diverted its attention
from the much greater hazards of microbial contamination. n311 The health risks from misprioritization caused
by the precautionary principle may be substantial. Research at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis finds that
improved [*912] prioritization could save an additional 60,000 lives each year. n312 This figure assumes a
redistributive efficiency beyond realistic achievement. Yet, the study demonstrates that even a marginal ten
percent redirection of resources could save thousands of lives. Unfortunately, the precautionary principle takes
no account of these indirect effects of regulation and thereby ignores the readily available benefit from a
prioritization based upon the best scientific evidence.
23
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Develoment Disadvantage 1NC
A) Uniqueness- World food supply is increasing now but must continue to keep up with population
growth.
GRID-Arendal, environmental think centre collaborating with the United Nations Environment
Programme, 2014
(Rapid Response Assessments: The Environmental Food Crises,
http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/page/3562.aspx)
The world
food production has increased substantially in the past century, as has calorie intake per capita.
spite of a decrease in the proportion of undernourished people, the absolute number has in fact
increased during the current food crisis, to over 963 million. By 2050, population growth by an estimated 3
billion more people will increase food demand.
However, in
Increased fertilizer application and more water usage through irrigation have been responsible for over
70% of the crop yield increase in the past. Yields, however, have nearly stabilized for cereals, partly as a
result of low and declining investments in agriculture. In addition, fisheries landings have declined in the past decade mainly
as a result of overfishing and unsustainable fishing methods.
B. Link—Widespread application of the precautionary principle would ban genetically modified crops
and other agricultural techniques necessary to feed the world.
Burnett, Ph.D and lead analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2009
(H. Sterling, UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN WELFARE, Social
Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26 . Issue 02 July , pp 378-410 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1017/S0265052509090281)
While it is not clear that the principles out of which the current regulatory regime have developed (or the resulting regulations themselves) are
inadequate to protect public health when compared to the PP, there are indications that the PP, as it is incorporated into public
policies and international laws, does pose a threat to public health. To the extent that proponents of the
PP, and nations or multinational organizations, are effective at restricting or limiting the use of existing
GM crops or the creation and dissemination of new biotech foods, untold harm is likely to result. Indeed,
harms driven by the precautionary principle may already be occurring. Marchant provides the example
of Zambia, which cited the PP as its reason for rejecting food aid from the United States that contained
GM corn, even though the corn has not proven harmful and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization concluded
that the decision would leave 2.9 million citizens at risk of starvation.
24
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Develoment Disadvantage 1NC
C. Impact- Food insecurity and poverty kill millions each year.
Burnett, Ph.D and lead analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2009
(H. Sterling, UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN WELFARE, Social
Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26 . Issue 02 July , pp 378-410 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1017/S0265052509090281)
Annually, hunger and malnutrition kill over six million children worldwide. 82 Preventing and reducing
the future toll of hunger and malnutrition in the face of increasing global population requires enhancing
the quantity and nutritional quality of food. The faster this occurs, the fewer the casualties. In addition, no
other human activity has a greater impact on the environment than agriculture. Agriculture accounts for 38 percent of global land use, 66 percent of
the world’s water withdrawals, and 85 percent of consumptive use worldwide.83 Landscapes, ecosystems, waterways, and watersheds have been
entirely reshaped, with profound effects on biodiversity, as lands have been brought under the plow.
25
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Brink Ext - Africa on the verge of agricultural revolution
[___] Africa is on the brink of an economic and development revolution but mechanized agriculture will
be key to the transition.
Shanghai Daily, 2014
(Christine Lagat, “Agricultural transformation to fuel Africa's growth”,
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=226100)
The theme of this year's summit, "Agriculture Transformation and Food Security," aligns with the
continent's development aspirations.
Dlamini-Zuma said reform of agricultural policies in Africa and reorganization of the entire value chain had
changed the fortunes of small holders.
"Agriculture transformation and food security are central to the realization of a post-2015 development agenda.
We need to prioritize farming systems that address the needs of current and future generations,"
Dlamini-Zuma said.
African countries must move from subsistence to mechanized agriculture in order to catalyze industrial
progress.
Experts said countries that had achieved rapid economic growth had a robust agriculture sector.
Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa Carlos Lopes said poverty and marginalization
were pronounced in countries that had given lip service to agricultural transformation.
"It is well observed that countries with low agricultural productivity tend to be less industrialized. The simple
reason is that agriculture is one of the main sources of raw materials needed for early industrialization," Lopes
said, adding African nations should draw lessons from China's model of agricultural transformation.
Lopes said China's industrial take-off was made possible through the adoption of new farming systems.
"The transition out of poverty in China witnessed the development of a policy environment supportive of
an industrialized and commercialized agriculture, which increased food production, income and jobs,"
Lopes told the ministers.
He underscored the potential of agro-business to expand farmer's revenue base alongside job
opportunities for the youth.
26
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Link Ext—Precautionary Principle prevents development
[___]
[___] Poverty is the world’s leading killer implementing the precautionary principle makes it impossible
for developing nations to escape this condition.
Social Issues Research Centre, independent research organization, 2002
(“Beware the Precautionary Principle”, http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html)
In reality, the precautionary principle presents a serious hazard to our health which extends way beyond
the generation of unnecessary neuroses. The biggest correlate of our health and well being is our
standard of living, as measured in conventional economic and physical terms. People in technologically
advanced societies suffer fewer diseases and live longer than those in less developed nations. The biggest
killer in the world is not genetically modified soya, pesticide residues or even tobacco. It is something
which is given the code Z59.5 in the International Classification of Disease Handbook and accounts for more
deaths world-wide than any other single factor. It is defined as 'Extreme Poverty'.
The narrow philosophy which surrounds the precautionary principle is fundamentally conservative in both
political and literal senses. It offers little prospect for those who are disadvantaged in our societies - those
who have far more real concerns in their daily lives than to be worried about whether the beef that they
cannot afford has a remote chance of being contaminated with BSE. By seeking to dismantle the
industrialised-based processes which generate wealth and health, the eco-activists can only make their
plight much more profound.
In one sense, though, the precautionary principle might have some utility. If we apply the precautionary
principle to itself - ask what are the possible dangers of using this principle - we would be forced to
abandon it very quickly.
27
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Link Ext—Precautionary Principle expansion
[___]
[___] Their demand that we implement the precautionary principle in all instances results in negative
consequences for the world’s poorest people who are at the most risk.
Miller, fellow at the Hoover Institute, 2003
(Henry I, “Death By Public Policy”, http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2003/03/death-by-publicpolicy.html
In much of the developing world, poverty has made life, as Thomas Hobbes put it, nasty, brutish and short.
In southern Africa, 40 million people subsist on one meal a day, and 14 million are on the verge of
starvation -- 2.5 million in Zambia alone. Their malnourished state also makes them more susceptible to
epidemics that should have become obsolete – serial killers like measles, gastroenteritis and respiratory
ailments caused by toxic smoke from indoor cooking fires. Worldwide, 230 million children suffer from
vitamin A deficiency, 500,000 of whom go blind each year, and all of whom are made even more susceptible to
infections and disease.
Staple food crops also are at high risk: Uganda’s vital banana crop is being decimated by nematodes and
black fungus, and Kenya’s dietary staple, the sweet potato, is being destroyed by feathery mottle virus. All over
the developing world, pests and diseases threaten whatever crops survive the periodic droughts.
Technology offers hope, however. Using the gene-splicing techniques of the new biotechnology, scientists
have developed “golden rice” and other crops rich in vitamin A that could prevent blindness and greatly
reduce childhood deaths. They have crafted new genetic varieties of banana and sweet potato that are resistant
to the fungus and virus, respectively, and have made great strides in solving the nematode problem. Other
innovations include plants that have shorter growing seasons and higher yields, and that are resistant to
drought, salt, and insect pests.
[___] Either the precautionary principle is limited to the oceans and doesn’t protect the environment as a
whole or the precautionary Principle is adopted in all situations and results in a ban on practices needed
to solve poverty and hunger worldwide.
Miller, fellow at the Hoover Institute, 2003
(Henry I, “Death By Public Policy”, http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2003/03/death-by-publicpolicy.html
If the new biotechnology is killed in the cradle by precautionary regulation and by the cupidity and
stupidity of environmental activists and politicians – often abetted by industrial leaders complacent or worse
– poor farmers and consumers in the tropics will be the big losers. As Wellesley College political scientist
Robert Paarlberg has observed, “If today’s rich nations decide to stop or turn back the clock, they will still
be rich. But if we stop the clock for developing countries, they will still be poor and hungry.” And many
of their inhabitants will be dead.
28
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Internal Link Ext- Food Production
[___]
[___] World food output must triple to keep up with population growth, impossible without modern
farming techniques. In addition, the resulting low tech farmland needed would destroy natural
environments and biodiversity across the world.
Burnett, Ph.D and lead analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2009
(H. Sterling, UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN
WELFARE, Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26 . Issue 02 July , pp 378-410 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1017/S0265052509090281)
With approximately six million square miles under cultivation—an amount of land equal in size to the United
States and Europe—the world currently produces more than enough food to feed the earth’s six billion
people.56 Avery argues that populations in most countries are beginning to demand and actively strive for
standards of living similar to what they see in the West. However, he calculates that feeding nine billion
people (and their pets) diets similar to those currently enjoyed by people in industrialized countries will
require the production of approximately three times more food by 2050. Avery further calculates that if
all of the world’s farmers adopted the best modern farming practices with high inputs of fertilizers and
pesticides, it might be possible to double current crop yields on the same amount of land—but we need to
triple yields to feed the coming generations.
Alternatively, according to Avery, if we went totally “organic,” eschewing the use of artificial fertilizers,
pesticides, and biotechnologies, we would have to double the amount of land under active cultivation.
This would be disastrous for wildlife and native plants, as the lands most likely to be converted to
agriculture are forests, rangelands, and other wildlands. Massive biodiversity losses from land conversion for
organic food production are especially likely since the relatively undeveloped tropics, the most biodiverse
region on Earth, is also where population growth is occurring and where hunger and malnutrition are
most prominent.58
29
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Impact Ext – Value current deaths over future
[___]
[___] The precautionary principle should be applied to prevent the real impacts confronting the billions
of people living in poverty not the improbable impacts on ocean life.
Driessen, senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of
Free Enterprise, 2004
(Paul K, “The Day After The Day After Tomorrow”, http://www.eco-imperialism.com/the-day-after-the-dayafter-tomorrow/, )
Most of all, we mustn’t let climate alarmism justify denying electrical power and economic development
to our Earth’s poorest people -- two billion of whom still do not have electricity, and must burn cow dung
or wood for cooking and heating. Four million infants, children and mothers die every year from lung
infections caused by breathing the toxic smoke. Millions more succumb to diseases caused by tainted
water and spoiled food – because there is no electricity to purify water, refrigerate food or operate clinics.
These people need a precautionary principle that safeguards them from these very real, immediate, lifethreatening dangers – not one that “protects” them (and us) from theoretical, exaggerated or imaginary
climate change cataclysms.
“We must put humanity back into the environmental debate,” says Niger Innis, national spokesman for
the Congress of Racial Equality. “We all want to protect our planet. But we must stop trying to protect it
from minor or illusory threats – and doing it on the backs, and the graves, of the world’s most powerless
and impoverished people.”
30
Precautionary Principle Negative (JV & V Only)
Off Case
SLUDL & NAUDL 2013-14
Dev DA Ext Ans to: Precautionary Principle changes how decisions are made
[___]
[___] The precautionary principle requires looking at the negative consequences of decisions as well.
Burnett, Ph.D and lead analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2009
(H. Sterling, UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN
WELFARE, Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26 . Issue 02 July , pp 378-410 DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1017/S0265052509090281)
Yet a strong theoretical response to Pascal’s wager has been known for years and is just as telling against
arguments for the PP: the “many gods” objection. Suppose that in addition to (or instead of ) Pascal’s God,
there is another god, say Odin, and he is also jealous and willing to punish those who don’t believe in him. In
that case, one would have equal reason not to believe in Pascal’s God, since one would risk incurring Odin’s
wrath and thus paying an infinite price for one’s transgression.
How this applies to the catastrophe argument for the PP should be clear. Proponents of the PP only focus on
the potential harm to be prevented by using the PP, but they ignore the fact that any particular action or
inaction has benefits as well as costs. It’s not just, as many critics of the precautionary principle claim,
that the benefits of a new e-activity (to borrow Manson’s phrase) outweigh the costs, or even that the harms
prevented by the proposed e-activity would be greater than any harms that might result from it. Rather,
one cannot ignore the possibility that banning a particular e-activity could result in catastrophe as well.
\
31