The precautionary principle is the concept that someone wishing to take a
certain kind of action should prove that the action does not cause serious or
irreversible harm to the public if there is no scientific consensus about the
outcome of the action. In slightly simpler wording, it means that if we are
not certain what the results of a change in our behaviour will be, the people
wanting this change should prove that it will not be harmful.
The precautionary principle is often applied to situations involving the
environment, our health, food and medicine. These are aspects that concern
all of us and therefore need to be dealt with carefully. An application of the
precautionary principle can be seen in legalisation of new medication; the
producer needs to prove that the medicine will do what it promises and that
it has no serious and/or lasting side effects. The same is applied to food
additives; they are not allowed unless they have been proven safe.
In many other situations, the proof needs to be given by the person who is
resisting the change. They will then need to prove that the change will cause
harm. Sometimes this is difficult to prove and putting the responsibility for
proof with the other party (who needs to prove it will do NO harm) makes it
less likely that the change will be approved
Both the European Union and the United Nations have adopted the
precautionary principle as a foundation for some of their policies. Examples
are the Montreal Protocol (1987) and the Rio Declaration (1992) of the UN
and the Maastricht Treaty (1993) of the EU.
Not everyone agrees with the precautionary principle as a basis for
environmental policies. The principle is sometimes summed up as "do no
harm". However, in environmental policies, this alternative does not always
exist. Those opposing the principle also claim that the principle includes
assumptions of consequences that have not been proven and that the
principle is more concerned with the degree of seriousness of possible
consequences than with the chance of them actually occurring. Most people
do not plan their life for the event of winning a multi-million lottery. If they
win, the consequence is likely to be a significant change in their life. Yet,
this is not really considered when buying the ticket since the chance of this
event occurring is so small. Another criticism of the precautionary principle
is that it is sometimes only applied to new technology and not to the
technology it would replace. We do not know exactly what the effects of
large scale construction of wind turbines will be. They are likely to include
noise pollution, visual pollution of the landscape and the death of birds who
collide with the wings. The precautionary principle would suggest that we
do not include wind energy in our plans for the future. However, if that
means we will continue to generate electricity, using coal, oil or other fossil
fuels, without applying the precautionary principle, we might not have taken
the best decision.
A third criticism of the precautionary principle is that it is often used to scare
people with doomsday scenarios because "fear is funding". This would
benefit those involved in the research but not necessarily the rest of the
population.
TOK
The precautionary principle
The legal presumption of innocence that is central to the operation of
most societies has long been extended to natural science, that is, it is
assumed that human actions are not detrimental to the environment
unless proven otherwise. The precautionary principle is the reverse of
this approach, i.e. that a proposal may proceed unless proven to be
detrimental. It does not presume that all human impacts on the
environment innocent. As humans, we often forget that we are unique
in our far-reaching ability to change the natural world.
The precautionary principle is now applied to many activities in
developed countries where governments increasingly insist that
development of natural resources is conditional upon assurances that
the environment will not be harmed and that fragile habitats or
species will not be threatened.
The full impact of unchecked human activity upon the biosphere is
now becoming obvious. Climate change and the degradation of fresh
water supplies could be seen as a consequence of the precautionary
principle not being applied as humans have developed the natural
world over the last two decades. The application of the precautionary
principle now is argued as essential by many in the scientific
community in the areas of issues affecting climate change and fresh
water. These are global issues that reach far beyond the borders of
politics, culture and language. To take action in these areas requires
a substantial economic cost. Should this cost be borne by developed
countries that have had decades or centuries of economic benefit
from their environmentally costly actions or should t be shared by all
societies? Should economically developed countries assist the poor
in developing countries who have been affected by the consequences
of climate change?
The solution to these issues lies in international coo operation
founded on the desire to protect the biosphere for all of its
inhabitants, current and future, regardless of their species.
0